Skip to main content

Nu Skin Inventory Red Flags Remain Even After $50 Million Impairment Charge

On July 22, 2014, I warned investors that Utah-based multi-level marketing company Nu Skin Enterprises' (NYSE: NUS) surging inventory levels might lead it "to recognize a material impairment charge against inventory in a future period." On August 4, 2014, in a follow-up blog post co-authored with Zac Prensky, we warned investors about a massive inventory pile up in Mainland China. On August 6, 2014, Nu Skin reported its second quarter 2014 financial results and recorded "a $50 million write-down of Mainland China inventory." However, even after the $50 million inventory impairment charge, the pile of remaining unimpaired inventory is equal to enough merchandise to fulfill 335 days of sales versus only 146 days of sales in the comparable second quarter of the previous year. Therefore, there is a high risk that Nu Skin may have to reduce gross margins to clear out excessive inventories and there remains a high risk that it may have to report another material inventory impairment charge.


Days-Sales-in-Inventory (DSI) measures the number of days it takes for a company to turn its inventory into sales. DSI is computed as follows: (Ending inventory/Cost of goods sold during the period) X number of days in the period. If the DSI number grows over time it indicates that a company's inventory turnover is decreasing because it is taking longer periods of time for a company to turn its inventory into sales. A continuously growing DSI can indicate one or more of the following: inventory mismanagement, potential inventory impairment, OR an overstatement of inventories to inflate profits

Second quarter financial results

In the second quarter of 2014, Nu Skin reported $650.0 million of revenues compared to $671.3 million in the second quarter of 2013. Its revenues were $50 million below the $700 million of guidance it gave investors on May 6, 2014. During the second quarter earnings call, CFO Ritch N. Wood said:

So while we reported gross margin for the quarter 76% without this $50 million inventory charge, gross margin would have been a solid 83.7% that's compared to 83.4% in the prior year.

Ritch Wood was quick to offer up pro forma numbers purporting that Nu Skin's gross profit margins would have been higher excluding the $50 million inventory impairment charge. However, he did not offer the flipside of those same pro forma numbers showing that gross inventory levels continued to grow larger excluding the same impairment charge. Without the impairment charge, inventories would have increased to a record $439.7 million in second quarter of 2014 compared to $410.7 million in the previous first quarter. More significantly, days-sales-in-inventory (DSI) would have grown 158% higher to a record 377 days in the second quarter of 2014 versus 146 days in the comparable second quarter of 2013.

Even if we take into account the $50 million inventory impairment, at the end of the second quarter of 2014 Nu Skin carried enough unimpaired inventories to fulfill 335 days of sales versus only 146 days in the comparable second quarter of 2013. Its days-sales-in-inventory was 129% higher in 2014 compared to 2013.

Note: Days-sales-in-inventory (DSI) excluding the effect of the inventory impairment is calculated as follows: [Ending inventory/ (cost of goods sold - impairment charge)] X 91 days. Cost of goods sold - impairment charge = cost of goods sold for unimpaired inventory. Ending inventory reported by Nu Skin is the same as the carrying value of unimpaired inventory.

Risk of reduced gross margins and another material inventory impairment charge

After inventory is impaired, it still physically exists until it is disposed of by the company. It is merely carried on a company's books at its market value. Initially, a company records its inventory at cost. When the value of inventory declines below cost, the company makes the following entries on its books: (1) increase cost of goods sold and (2) increase inventory reserve account. The inventory reserve account is a "contra-asset account" and it reduces the gross value of inventory reported on a company's balance sheet. The inventory value reported on a company's balance sheet is the net of its gross inventory (at cost) less its inventory reserve account (impairment).

In the second quarter 2014, 10-Q report page 14, Nu Skin disclosed "adjustments" to its inventory "carrying value" but did not make it clear whether the impaired inventory was still on hand for future sale (albeit to recover costs) or was actually discarded (trashed as unsaleable):

During the second quarter of 2014, the Company made a determination to adjust its inventory carrying value. Heightened media and regulatory scrutiny in Mainland China in the first part of 2014, and the voluntary actions the Company took in response to such scrutiny, had a negative impact on the size of the Company's limited-time offer in June, which significantly reduced its expectations for plans to sell TR90 in a limited-time offer later in 2014 or the beginning of 2015. This resulted in a $50 million write-down of estimated surplus inventory in Mainland China. Total adjustments to the Company's inventory carrying value as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 were $58.0 million and $5.9 million, respectively. [Emphasis added.]

If Nu Skin still intends to sell its impaired inventory to recover costs, the age of its other unimpaired inventory will invariably grow longer. Even if we assume that Nu Skin trashed $50 million of impaired inventory as unsaleable, the days-sales-in-inventory on its remaining unimpaired inventories will likely continue to grow since it is carrying an excessive level of merchandise while it is projecting significant declines in second half revenues.

Nu Skin projected third quarter 2014 revenues in the range of $620 million to $640 million compared to $908.3 million revenues in same quarter of 2013. It projected fourth quarter 2014 revenues in the range of $650 million to $675 million compared to $1.056 billion in the same quarter of 2013. Its revenue guidance amounts to a decline in second half 2014 revenues of 33% to 35%. At the beginning of the second half of 2014, Nu Skin carried $389.7 million of inventories compared to $178.2 million at the beginning of the second half of 2013. It carried 118.7% more inventories going into the second half 2014. Therefore, it appears that Nu Skin is excessively overstocked at a time when its revenues are expected to significantly decline. That's a significant red flag.

Written by:

Sam E. Antar


I am a convicted felon and a former CPA. As the CFO of Crazy Eddie, I helped mastermind one of the largest securities frauds uncovered during the 1980's. Today, I advise federal and state law enforcement agencies about white-collar crime and train them to identify and catch the crooks. Often, I refer cases to them as an independent whistleblower. I teach about white-collar crime for government entities, businesses, professional organizations, and colleges and universities. I perform forensic accounting services for law firms and other clients.

I do not own any Nu Skin securities long or short.

Popular Posts

Did a Clever SEC Bait Goldman Sachs into Compounding Its Legal Problems With the "Kiss of Death" Message?

Updated: At 3:48 AM ET 04/20/2010 on bottom

The Kiss of Death

In filing its lawsuit against Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) on a Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission sent what I call the "kiss of death" message to the embattled company. In other words, the SEC wanted to stick it to Goldman Sachs and Fabrice Tourre, the Executive Director of Goldman Sachs International, who is also a defendant in the complaint. While the SEC as a practice does inform target companies and individuals of an impending enforcement action, it does not always tell them exactly when such an action will be filed.

Apparently, the SEC filed its lawsuit without giving Goldman Sachs the heads up that it was planning to file it that day. Business Insider observed that Goldman Sachs was clearly unprepared to respond to the complaint as news of the lawsuit dominated the headlines all day. Goldman issued a short denial around noon and issued an extensive denial late in the afternoon, after most people had … CEO Patrick Byrne Sleeps With a Gun

In numerous blog posts in the past, and in widespread media coverage, evidence has accumulated for years that CEO (NASDAQ: OSTK) Patrick Byrne has shown signs of being mentally unbalanced and paranoid.

Byrne has blamed his company's financial woes on an unnamed "Sith Lord." He hired paid goons to stalk his real and imagined adversaries and to write lengthy conspiracy theories on the Internet. Byrne has close ties with Bo Gritz. The Anti-Defamation League lists Bo Gritz as a far-right extremist with “extensive connections to both white supremacists and anti-government groups and leaders.”

Patrick Byrne's infamous temper tantrums when he doesn’t get want he wants are well documented too. He made obscene and misogynistic comments to a female reporter. He suggested that she gave “blowjobs” to Goldman Sachs traders. He suggested that a male reporter “Sucks It Likes He’s Paying the Rent.” An independent research analyst was told that “You deserve to be whippe…

Nature's Sunshine Products, Willbros Group, Cal Dive International, and BSQUARE Violate S.E.C. Rules on Calculating EBITDA

Nature’s Sunshine Products (NASDAQ: NATR), Willbros Group (NYSE: WG), Cal Dive International (NYSE: DVR), and BSQUARE (NASDAQ: BSQR) have recently issued earnings reports which include a calculation of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) that apparently does not comply with Securities and Exchange Commission interpretations for Regulation G governing such non-GAAP financial measures. In each case, their erroneous EBITDA calculations have enabled them to significantly distort their financial performance by erroneously reporting a positive EBITDA, when they should have reported a negative EBITDA in the latest quarter.

How EBITDA is supposed to be calculated under Regulation G

According to the S.E.C. Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations, EBITDA is defined under Regulation G as net income (not operating income) before net interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. See below:

Question 103.01Question: Exchange Act Release No. 47226 describes E…

InterOil, John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz: Anatomy of a Stock Market Manipulation Scheme

In this blog post, I will provide evidence of what I believe is a stock market manipulation scheme involving InterOil (NYSE: IOC), John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz AG. I believe that InterOil with the assistance of Clarion Finanz concealed John Thomas Financial’s involvement in helping it raise $95 million through a private placement of convertible debt securities.

Clarion Finanz acted as a buffer between InterOil and John Thomas Financial to help InterOil hide John Thomas Financial's role in raising funds. Afterwards, InterOil filed false and misleading reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission in an effort to conceal John Thomas Financial’s role in helping the company raise $95 million in convertible debt.

Carl Caserta, who in 1991 was barred by the Securities and Exchange Commission from “association with any broker, dealer, or investment advisor” played a role in helping InterOil use John Thomas Financial to obtain funds from investors. InterOil, John Thoma…

Class Action Complaint against Amedisys uses Sarbanes-Oxley Act Corporate Governance Provisions to Battle Alleged Corporate Malfeasance

Updated at bottom of article

Last week, Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Amedisys (NASDAQ: AMED) charging the company, its CEO William F. Borne and its CFO Dale E. Redman with securities fraud.  In the next few days, Bernstein Liebhard LLP and Finkelstein Thompson LLP filed similar class action lawsuits against the company. The lawsuits allege that Amedisys abused Medicare's reimbursement system for at-home therapy care based on a compelling analysis of company revenues in an April 27 Wall Street Journal article.

In addition, the lawsuits innovatively utilize a provision under Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 which provides a back-door way for investors to force ethical corporate governance and sue public companies for malfeasance. That provision requires Senior Financial Officers, such as the CEO and CFO of public companies, to abide by a strict code of ethics which broadly defines corporate malfeasance and effectively makes…