Servotronics, Inc. – Currently Listed as ‘SVT’ on the American Stock Exchange

Free

Company Overview

Servotronics, Inc. (“SVT”) as was initially incorporated in New York in 1959, but in 1972 through a strategic merger had its state of incorporation changed from New York to Delaware. As it stands today the Corporation is organized under the following two business segments which it reports according to:

  • The Advanced Technology Group (ATG): Under this segment, SVT designs, manufactures and markets several servo-control components which convert an electrical current into a mechanical force or movement (and other related products). These components include electromagnetic actuators, torque motors, hydraulic and pneumatic valves, plus similar devices; with the end customers being principally concentrated in the commercial aerospace, aircraft and government related industries, as well as the medical and industrial markets.
  • The Consumer Products Group (CPG): Under this segment SVT designs, manufactures and sells a variety of edged products, tools and specialty consumer products. These products include knives for usage in households, restaurants and institutions; as well as machetes, axes, strap cutters and other tools designed primarily for military and rescue/first-responder use. This segment is also responsible for original equipment manufacturers (OEM)/white-label manufacturing services provided to regional customers.

This Security Issue came to our attention at the price of approximately 10.71 at around late-October 2022, with drafting of this Piece beginning soon after. At the time it initially piqued our interest for several reasons, including:

  • The Company’s low P/BV ratio
  • The Company’s ‘P/E * P/BV’ figure being less than 22.5
  • The Company’s current ratio
  • The Company’s previous earnings consistency and stability

Our Suspected Valuation at First Glance: Possibly ‘Silver’

 

Company Financials

All of the discussions below are based on the data presented in the Company’s SEC filings [3 – 23].

Table 2 – 1 below shows the Company’s annual net income and diluted earnings per share, alongside their three-year averages:

Table 2 – 2 below shows data extracted from SVT’s most recently published SEC filing (10-Q) [3] regarding their balance sheet:

Using the information presented in the table above (Table 2 – 2) we have constructed a new table below (Table 2 – 3), consisting of the discernible tangibles which we here find more useful. We have included the values of these assets as stated on the balance sheet, alongside three liquidation values i.e., their ‘realizable value’ as presented in ‘Security Analysis’ (pg. 560) [1]:

Table 2 – 4 below shows how many of the Company’s relative assets and liabilities (as presented in Table 2 – 3) are attributable to each of the Company’s common shares:

 

Initial Discussions Regarding the Company’s Financials

The Issue’s current ratio is 5.78 in accordance with Table 2 – 3, and Table 2 – 4 above. The best, average and worst-case scenarios are 4.80, 4.37 and 3.75 respectively, all of which are above the minimum recommended figure of 1.5. The Issue also passes the acid test in all four instances.

The long-term debt value does not exceed 110% of the net current asset value in any of the four scenarios.

The Company has demonstrated one loss over the last decade, and it is our opinion that the earnings have been a bit unpredictable. We do not believe the five- and 10-year averages can be taken as a reliable indication of the Issue’s previous earning power and are more the by-product(s) of a random assortment of numbers.

The Company currently has not paid any cash dividends to Shareholders since 2019.

The Company’s most recent annual earnings were smaller than those of six years prior; and looking at the three-year averages of our diluted EPS (beginning 2013) we can see that over the latest fiscal decade, the EPS have increase by approximately 281%.

The discernible tangible equity per share is 12.03 in accordance with Table 2 – 4 above; and we calculate the best, average, and worst-case scenarios to be 7.99, 5.69 and 3.79, respectively. The current price of 11.63 is greater than 120% of the latter three values.

 

The following points are for the more-involved investor(s)/shareholder(s); those who view common stock holdings as part-ownerships in an enterprise, irrespective of the short term public valuations, and not merely a tradable certificate “which can be sold in a matter of minutes” [2]. All of the points presented below have been factored into our valuation of this Security Issue here discussed.

Further Discussions Regarding the Company’s Financials

There were four main points we felt warranted further discussion or highlighting here as opposed to a single bullet point under the ‘Additional Observations Regarding the Company’s Filings’ subsection. Here we shall remind the reader that it is up to them and anyone else to whom it may concern, to come to their own conclusions after carefully considering the information they encounter during their own investigative works. We felt that the following four points were to be highlighted but of course some of you may naturally disagree and in your perhaps more, or even less informed opinion may have a different take on the information presented.

Director and EO Share Ownership

Like many of the Issues we have covered recently (ACU, NHC, SGC, DIT), the Directors and Executive Officers as a collective own a considerable percentage of the common shares outstanding with one person in particular being at the forefront of this. Please review Table 4 – 1 below:

The ownership percentages of both this group and the highlighted individual have not increased with the former decreasing on average, albeit a bit haphazardly. On account of both a lack of ‘controlled’ status and the lack of increase(s) in the ownership percentages, we do not have any particular issue or cause for concern but do think prospective investors should be aware of the facts arguably most importantly because voting matters are under significant influence if this collective decides to operate as a single unit.

Whilst on the subject of Management there are a few things we would like to highlight:

  1. Every year there are related party transactions including services provided by a law firm that is owned by a member of the Company’s Board of Directors, and patents that are used by the Company with Kenneth D. Trbovich’s (the co-inventor) consent.
  2. A relatively higher percentage of the Directors are not independent compared to other Issues we have covered.
  3. For most of the DEF 14A filings the Company has referenced a ‘Harvey Houtkin’ who owned a considerable number of shares whilst also stating the following – “The Company does not have information with respect to the reporting compliance of Mr. Houtkin or on his behalf” [4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24].
  4. It does not appear to be a definitive way in which the Company determines Management’s fiscal awards i.e., “The Company also makes cash awards to the Executive Officers and other employees that are not part of any pre-established, performance-based criteria. Awards of this type are completely discretionary and subjectively determined by the Compensation Committee at the time they are awarded…the Compensation Committee may grant equity awards, the vesting of which may be based on the passage of time, achievement of performance conditions or vesting conditions otherwise determined by the Compensation Committee. No equity awards were granted in 2021” [4].
  5. There does not appear to be an upper age limit imposed on the Directors.
  6. There was some C.V overlap with several Directors/EOs. The shared places include ‘University of Notre Dame’, ‘Moog Inc’, ‘State University of New York at Buffalo’ and ‘Wax Asset’.
  7. 2022’s DEF 14A said “at the annual meeting of shareholders on April 26, 2019, 77.5% of the votes cast on the frequency of future advisory say-on-pay votes were voted in favor of a frequency every three years” [4].

Recent Earnings

It is no doubt notable that the fiscal 2020’s results took a relative “nosedive” if we compare the standalone results to that of fiscal 2019 through to 2015. This is no doubt natural, considering business and economic cycles occur globally and everywhen. The issue is 2020’s results compounded with the underpinning explanation of 2021’s net income level, something which on the surface presents to many as a return to profitability. If one is to review the Company’s 10-K filing it’s clear that the ‘operating income’ was in fact an ‘operating loss’ and the Company’s income was owed to two non-recurring events. Please review Table 4 – 2 below which was recreated from SVT’s 2021 10-K filing:

If we look at the consolidated results across the Business (we will look at the segment(ed) results later) the operating income was atypically negative if you review the Company’s history. The income was owed to both the ERC and the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), and an offered explanation of the first item is as follows:

The employee retention credit (“ERC”), a refundable tax credit against certain employment taxes, was established by the CARES Act and amended by the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020 (the “Relief Act”) and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARPA”). A company needed a more than 50% decline in gross receipts in 2020, compared to the same quarter in 2019, in order to use the gross receipts test to be eligible for the credit. The Company determined it did not qualify for the ERC for 2020 as it did not satisfy the gross receipts test for any quarter in 2020. [5]

Then the reason for the recorded gain on the income statement was provided:

As previously discussed, the Company evaluated its eligibility for the employee retention credit.  It was determined that the Company qualified for the ERC for all quarters allowed under the Federal Government programs.  As a result, the Company recognized approximately $5,622,000 on a consolidated basis, for the period ended December 31, 2021. [5]

Clearly this alone trumped the Company’s operating loss but there is also the PPP loan, something SVT elucidates on in the proceeding manner:

On April 21, 2020, the Company executed a promissory note (the “Note”) in the amount of $4,000,000 as part of the Paycheck Protection Program (the “PPP” Loan) administered by the Small Business Administration (the “SBA”) and authorized under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). The PPP Loan was being made through Bank of America, NA (the “Lender”). The term of the PPP Loan was two years with an annual interest rate of 1.00%. Payments on the unforgiven amount of prinicipal, if any, and interest on the PPP Loan were deferred until the date on which the loan forgiveness was detemined.

The Company used approximately 60% of the PPP Loan proceeds to pay for payroll costs and the balance on other eligible qualifying expenses consistent with the terms of the PPP and submitted its forgiveness application to the Lender during the third quarter of 2021. During the third quarter, the entire loan in the amount of $4,000,000 and the accrued interest of $57,000 was forgiven by the SBA and a gain of $4,057,000 was recorded in “Other income/(expense)” in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations. [5]

Clearly if the ERC and PPP items were not here the Company would have recorded a net loss, something which following in from the previous year’s net income paints an ‘earning power reduction’ image, at least in the short term. We would say it is perhaps a bit early to say this collectively cultivates into decadence of the Business’ profitability, however time will tell. We will say though, that extracts like the following are likely not elating to possible investors:

There was a significant decline of 30.0% in shipments to Customer B for the Boeing 737 MAX and a 38% decline in total shipments to Customer B in 2020 as compared to 2019. There was an additional decline of 42% in shipments to Customer B for the Boeing 737 MAX and a 38% decline in total shipments to Customer B in 2021 as compared to the same period in 2020.

The ATG revenue decreased approximately $9,105,000 in 2021 as compared to 2020. Customer A revenue increased approximately $258,000 or less than 2% in 2021 as compared to 2020. Customer B revenue decreased approximately $3,334,000 or (30)% in 2021 as compared to 2020. Customer B revenue drop was 37% of total ATG drop in revenue in 2021 as compared to 2020. [5]

Segment Results

As we said earlier this Company has two business segments, and as we also said earlier we would be looking at the segment profitability. We’ve compiled this in Table 4 – 3 below:

The commentary on this will be minimal from us. For nine out of 10 years the ATG segment returned a profit, and for 10 out of the 10 years, the CPG segment did not. If a segment repeatedly costs a company money it seems like a reasonable conclusion to dispose of it. However, we’ll leave this a consideration for the prospective investors and Management alike.

Material Weakness

Every sampled 10-K filing said that the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm did not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. 2021’s 10-K filing then had the following announcement:

The Company’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f)). Under the supervision and with the participation of management, including the PEO and CFO, the Company, conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in 2013.    The Company’s management noted the following control deficiencies that, individually and in the aggregate, constitute a material weakness in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021:

      • A failure to complete the design and implement effective internal controls related to certain information technology (IT) general controls including: establishing written IT policies, performing a formal IT risk assessment, establishing offsite backup, and monitoring logical access and change management;
      • Management’s assessment of entity-level controls and certain control activities was not sufficiently performed and documented to support their conclusions, and;
      • As a result of the above items, we also concluded that management’s oversight of internal controls was not operating effectively. [5]

Perhaps they should have expressed an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. On a related note, we also came across the following extract which we did find most interesting:

2. Immaterial Correction of an Error in Prior Periods

Under ASC 715-60 Defined Benefit Plans-Other Postretirement the Company’s policy was to record actuarial gains and losses as a component of comprehensive income as they arise and to record the minimum amortization of net actuarial gain or loss as a component of net periodic benefit cost. Beginning in 2014, without making an accounting policy election, the Company incorrectly expensed substantially all of the actuarial loss related to its postretirement health and life insurance benefit plan as opposed to following its prior established policy. In accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification 250, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections, we evaluated the materiality of the errors from quantitative and qualitative perspectives, and concluded that the errors were immaterial to the Company’s prior period interim and annual consolidated financial statements. Since these revisions were not material to any prior period interim or annual financial statements, no amendments to previously filed interim or annual periodic reports are required. Consequently, the Company has adjusted for these errors by revising its historical financial statements presented herein. The Company has recorded a cumulative effect of the error to the opening equity as of December 31, 2018 to increase retained earnings and accumulated other comprehensive loss by $881,000. [7]

Yet another unfortunate oversight. Both aren’t consternation deserving, but the two errors highlighted in this subsection are noteworthy and indicative of a trend, irrespective of how “immaterial” a mishap may be branded.

Additional Observations Regarding the Company’s Filings

Points we feel may be considered neither positive nor negative

  1. The Business may be in the trough of a business cycle.
  2. The Company is fairly conservatively capitalized so may not make for an interesting speculative purchase in this regard.
  3. The Company does not frequently provide any type of predictions for us to comment on the eventual accuracy of.
  4. The Company has repeatedly said “the consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Servotronics, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries (the “Company”)” [5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25], i.e., all of the subsidiaries are wholly-owned.
  5. Depreciation is included in ‘cost of goods sold’ and regarding the methodology SVT has said “depreciation is provided on the basis of estimated useful lives of depreciable properties, primarily by the straight-line method for financial statement purposes and by accelerated methods for tax purposes” [5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27]. The estimated useful lifetimes of the assets are listed as follows: i) 5-40 years for ‘buildings and improvements’; ii) 5-20 years for ‘machinery and equipment’; and iii) 3-5 years for ‘tooling’. There have been some changes over the last decade or so. From the 2011 to 2012 annual report the estimated useful lives of ‘machinery and equipment’ changed from 5-15 years, to 5-20 years; and then from the 2012 to the 2013 annual report, the estimated useful lives of ‘buildings and improvements’ changed from 5-39 years to 5-40 years.
  6. There appears to be a somewhat active share repurchase plan in place, with shares last being repurchased in 2019.
  7. There are treasury stock listed on the balance sheet, the intention of which we are unsure of.
  8. There is no mention of the Black-Scholes model or any other type of model to determine stock option valuations.
  9. Historically the net income and comprehensive income have approximated to the same value but in recent years it has changed, with ‘actuarial losses’ and ‘retirement benefits adjustment, net of income taxes’ being responsible for the bulk of the difference.
  10. There have been an equal number of year-over-year increases in cash and cash equivalents as there have been decreases over the latest fiscal decade.
  11. Regarding inventory valuation, “inventories are stated at the lower of cost or net realizable value” [5, 7, 9, 11, 13], and prior to that they were stated at the “lower of standard cost or net realizable value” [15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27]. It changed because of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issuing ASU 2015-11.
  12. It does not appear that the remaining portion of the long-term debt is secured by the Company’s assets.
  13. We have not noted any large or concerning payments due in a year or so.
  14. We noted no concerning recent decline in asset values, current assets in particular.
  15. The Company is both a “non-accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act, the former of which it began identifying from the 2018 10-K filing onwards.
  16. Inventories have been a critical audit matter in the last two 10-K filings.
  17. There was a change in the reported net income for fiscal 2019 from the 2019 to the 2020 annual report.

Points we feel may be considered negative

  1. There is customer concentration risk, as highlighted in the Company – “In both 2021 and 2020 we had a concentration of sales to Customer A and Customer B representing approximately 52.6% and 49.0% of our consolidated sales, respectively” [5].
  2. This is a relatively small company in terms of consolidated financials.
  3. We noted five previous stock splits [28].
  4. The effective tax rates in many instances deviate from the official statutory rates rather considerably. As of the latest 10-K filing date, there are also tax credit carryforwards outstanding.
  5. The Company does have a tendency to get involved in litigation matters, although the matters do not appear that relatively serious. A recent example ended with SVT agreeing to pay a $1,800,000 cash settlement.
  6. The Company has not paid Shareholders any dividends since 2019.
  7. Over the last say 12 years’ worth of 10-K filings there have been several 10-K amendments and a notification of inability to make the relevant deadline.

Points we feel may be considered positive

  1. We would say the operations of the Company are easy for the layman to understand.
  2. The Business has been around for a number of decades, thus has stood the test of time.
  3. The Business profited during the last recession [27].
  4. We do not suspect any corporate pyramiding.
  5. We did not note any non-recurring or unusual charges persisting for a long period of time.
  6. There was no noted growth by take-overs etc. in particular of unrelated companies or involving debt issuance or equity dilution.
  7. There is a very low institutional ownership percentage of the common shares outstanding (11.92%) [29].
  8. The current asset value exceeds that of all liabilities.

Possible Questions for SVT’s Approximate 276 Stockholders to Consider, Investigate and/or Raise with Management

  1. Considering the constant losses from the CPG segment does the Company not think it should perhaps be liquidated?
  2. Has the Company investigated expansion into international markets?
  3. 2021’s 10-K filing said the following – “In both 2021 and 2020 we had a concentration of sales to Customer A and Customer B representing approximately 52.6% and 49.0% of our consolidated sales, respectively” [5]. What are the identities of these two customers?
  4. From the 2019 to the 2020 annual report there was a change in the reported consolidated net income for fiscal 2019. Why did this change occur?
  5. The 2019 annual report mentioned a business venture being terminated when addressing notes receivable. Can more details on this be provided?
  6. Is the Company’s remaining portion of the long-term debt secured by any of the Company’s assets and if so, which one(s)?
  7. What are the “other current assets” and “other non-current assets” listed on the latest 10-Q filing and going forward can a full breakdown of these be provided in all 10-Q and 10-K filings?
  8. Can exact estimated useful lives of the Company be provided as opposed to ranges?
  9. From the 2011 to 2012 annual report the estimated useful lives of ‘machinery and equipment’ changed from 5-15 years, to 5-20 years; and then from the 2012 to the 2013 annual report, the estimated useful lives of ‘buildings and improvements’ changed from 5-39 years to 5-40 years. Why were these changes made?
  10. What are the Company’s intentions with the treasury stock?
  11. Over the last decade there has been a notable decrease in the number of reported Shareholders of the Company’s common stock. Why does the Company think this is?
  12. There is no mention of the Black-Scholes model or any other type of model to determine stock option valuations. How does the Company go about valuing these?
  13. Who is ‘Harvey Houtkin’ and why is it that for over 10 years the Company did not have information with respect to the reporting compliance of Mr. Houtkin or on his behalf as it pertained to delinquent Section 16(a) Reports?
  14. Are any current Directors or EOs founders or co-founders of the Company (or descendants of such)?
  15. Is there an age limit on which anybody can serve the Company in any capacity? Including the Board of Directors?
  16. Can the Company establish pre-established, performance-based criteria for the fiscal awards of EOs and Directors?
  17. Why did Management push for the frequency of future advisory say-on-pay votes to be every three years as opposed to annually?
  18. Are both ‘Dr. Nicholas D. Trbovich’ and ‘Kenneth D. Trbovich’ reported in the DEF 14As the same person?

 

Valuations

The price of this Security Issue at the time of this Piece’s publication is 11.63. Using our most recent three-year average of the diluted EPS (0.81) as opposed to the most recent EPS figure (1.50) increased the P/E ratio from 7.75 to 14.29; and using our discernible tangible equity value per share (12.03) as opposed to the stated book value per share (12.95, in accordance with Table 2 – 2) has increased the P/BV ratio from 0.90 to 0.97. With that in mind and considering current federal interest rates (4% at the time of writing), the current price does not appear to offer a sufficient margin of safety as per Benjamin Graham’s concept i.e., “over a ten-year period the typical excess of stock earning power over bond interest may aggregate 50% of the price paid” [2]. We should now also remind the reader of some of Graham’s other thoughts regarding the ‘margin of safety’ principle, viz.:

Diversification is an established tenet of conservative investment. By accepting it so universally, investors are really demonstrating their acceptance of the margin-of-safety principle, to which diversification is the companion…It is our argument that a sufficiently low price can turn a security of mediocre quality into a sound investment opportunity provided that the buyer is informed and experienced and that he practices adequate diversification. [2]

Taking our most recent three-year average value of 0.81 for diluted EPS and our stated discernible tangible equity value per share of 12.03, and multiplying the corresponding P/E and P/BV ratios of 14.29 and 0.97 respectively, we get a figure of 13.82, which is below Graham’s recommended upper-limit of 22.5 (which in this instance would corroborate with a share price of approximately 14.84).

Finally, we can make the following conclusions regarding the original points that initially piqued our interest in the Issue, considering our adjustments:

  • The Company’s low P/BV ratio – still valid
  • The Company’s ‘P/E * P/BV’ figure being less than 22.5 – still valid
  • The Company’s current ratio – still valid
  • The Company’s previous earnings consistency and stability – no longer valid

Whether the current price is reflective of the Company’s future, present and past, in the reader’s opinion is for the reader to decide based upon their own research, however in our opinion this Security Issue appears currently undervalued on account of its current and previous quantitative showing. However, this is one of those instances where we feel our findings trump the quantitative figures hinting towards an undervalued Security Issue, and demonstrates the flaws in only using numerical metrics and ratios when search for suitable investments, especially from 3rd party screeners.

Our Valuation: Lead–

This Company did not go great in our ‘Initial Discussions Regarding the Company’s Financials’ section. In totality, as it currently stands there is no pricing point at which we would value this Issue ‘Gold’ or higher.

 

At this point in time and all matters here considered, this is not stock pick we would likely follow nor likely add to a stock portfolio even at a seemingly reasonable price.

 

References

  1. Graham, B., Dodd, D.L., Security Analysis, (6th edition), (Warren, B.E., Klarman, S.A., Grant, J., Laderman, J.M., Lowenstein, R., Marks, H.S., Merkin, J.E., Berkowitz, B., Greenberg, G.H., Greenwald, B., Abrams, D), McGraw-Hill Education, 2008 – {ISBN 10: 0071592539/ISBN 13: 9780071592536 & ISBN-13: 978-0071592536/ISBN-10: 0071592539}
  2. Graham, B., The Intelligent Investor, (Revised Subsequent Edition), (Warren, B.E., Zweig, J), Harper Business, 2006 – {ISBN-10: 9780060555665 / ISBN-13: 978-0060555665}
  3. SVT’s 2nd 2022 quarterly fiscal report (10-Q) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000141057822002569/svt-20220630x10q.htm
  4. SVT’s 2022 proxy statement (DEF 14A) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000110465922061375/tm223676-4_def14a.htm
  5. SVT’s 2021 fiscal annual report (10-K) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000141057822000760/svt-20211231x10k.htm
  6. SVT’s 2021 proxy statement (DEF 14A) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000110465921050261/tm2112949d2_def14a.htm
  7. SVT’s 2020 fiscal annual report (10-K) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000110465921047154/tm214078d1_10k.htm
  8. SVT’s 2020 proxy statement (DEF 14A) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000110465920047718/tm2016161d1_def14a.htm
  9. SVT’s 2019 fiscal annual report (10-K) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000110465920040339/tm205406d1_10k.htm
  10. SVT’s 2019 proxy statement (DEF 14A) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000114420419016955/tv517508_def14a.htm
  11. SVT’s 2018 fiscal annual report (10-K) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000114420419014021/tv515922_10k.htm
  12. SVT’s 2018 proxy statement (DEF 14A) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000114420418021777/tv491265_def14a.htm
  13. SVT’s 2017 fiscal annual report (10-K) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000114420418016698/tv488916_10k.htm
  14. SVT’s 2017 proxy statement (DEF 14A) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000157104917003196/t1700190_def14a.htm
  15. SVT’s 2016 fiscal annual report (10-K) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000157104917002449/t1700166_10k.htm
  16. SVT’s 2016 proxy statement (DEF 14A) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000157104916014372/t1600244_def14a.htm
  17. SVT’s 2015 fiscal annual report (10-K) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000157104916013245/t1600141_10k.htm
  18. SVT’s 2015 proxy statement (DEF 14A) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000157104915003345/t82170_def14a.htm
  19. SVT’s 2014 fiscal annual report (10-K) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000157104915002130/t81756_10k.htm
  20. SVT’s 2014 proxy statement (DEF 14A) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000118811214000973/t78861_def14a.htm
  21. SVT’s 2013 fiscal annual report (10-K) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000118811214000753/t78623_10k.htm
  22. SVT’s 2013 proxy statement (DEF 14A) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000118811213001320/t76313_def14a.htm
  23. SVT’s 2012 fiscal annual report (10-K) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000118811213000741/t75865_10k.htm
  24. SVT’s 2012 proxy statement (DEF 14A) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000118811212001882/t73713_def14a.htm
  25. SVT’s 2011 fiscal annual report (10-K) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000118811212000866/t72861_10k.htm
  26. SVT’s 2010 fiscal annual report (10-K) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000111055011000007/tenk.htm
  27. SVT’s 2009 fiscal annual report (10-K) – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89140/000111055010000016/tenktenten.htm
  28. https://www.stocksplithistory.com/?symbol=svt
  29. https://www.gurufocus.com/stock/SVT/ownership

 

Throughout this Piece, any mention of a given year’s annual report refers to the 10-K filing/annual report which represents the financial year ended that same year, typically in the calendar month of December, i.e., any mention of the ‘2019 10-K filing’ or ‘2019 annual report’ etc. refers to the 10-K filing representing the fiscal year ended December 2019. The filings are usually published a few months later, the following calendar year.

Throughout this Piece, any mention of a given year’s proxy statement refers to the DEF 14A filing/proxy statement which accompanied the most recent 10-K filing, i.e., any mention of the ‘2020 proxy statement’ refers to the DEF 14A form which accompanied the 2019 10-K filing; usually published not too soon after the 10-K filing (typically the same calendar year relative to the 10-K filing’s filing date).

 

Disclaimers and Disclosures – https://wp.me/PcbS4Q-V