Thymen Corporation Q4 2025 Earnings Call - Monterrey Plant Issues Drive $8 Million EBITDA Hit but Recovery On Track
Summary
Thymen Corporation's Q4 2025 earnings call highlights a $8 million negative EBITDA impact from operational challenges at the Monterrey plant, exceeding earlier $5 million estimates due to increased labor and expedited freight costs. The company implemented a 24/7 operational schedule to accelerate backlog clearance with promising early results, expecting the issue's drag to diminish to zero after Q1 2026. The outlook for 2026 envisions flat revenue with volume stability offset by pricing, while EBITDA should benefit from reduced Mexico costs and synergy realization, tempered by inflation-driven SG&A increases. Management emphasizes disciplined pricing aligned with inflation, cautious optimism on tariff-related opportunities in North America, and ongoing efforts to capture $15-$45 million in acquisition synergies. Noteworthy is the strategic focus on balancing debt reduction with opportunistic share repurchases amid depressed stock prices, and proactive root cause analysis ensuring Monterrey issues are isolated without broader operational risk. The company also reports stabilization of input costs with some inflationary pressures persisting in oil-based products, with a mixed demand outlook where repair and remodel may lead any recovery ahead of new construction.
Key Takeaways
- Monterrey plant challenges caused an $8 million EBITDA drag in Q4, exceeding initial $5 million estimates due to 24/7 operations and higher logistics costs.
- The company expects a $3 million EBITDA impact in Q1 2026 with recovery to zero impact thereafter, aided by aggressive operational adjustments.
- 2026 revenue outlook is flat with stable volumes and pricing; EBITDA anticipates benefits from lower costs in Mexico and synergies, offset by higher SG&A from inflation and bonuses.
- SG&A expenses are increasing due to merit raises, inflation, and accruals of bonuses at target levels compared to previous year’s lower spend and one-time benefits.
- The company is focused on achieving additional $5-$10 million in synergies in 2026, depending on volumes, progressing toward a $45 million total synergy target.
- Pricing strategy remains disciplined, strictly passing through inflation-driven costs without predatory increments to maintain customer relationships.
- Tariff uncertainties may create upside in the Custom Solutions group, particularly wood components, via potential reshoring opportunities.
- No irrational pricing competition detected amidst challenging demand, reflecting customers' desire to manage supply chain risks over price alone.
- Thymen’s post-acquisition resegmentation efforts have yielded early operational improvements and sharing of best practices, especially in extrusion processes.
- The Monterrey issue was swiftly identified and remediated; comprehensive audits across all plants found no similar risks, reinforcing operational controls.
- The company prioritized debt reduction over aggressive share repurchases in 2025 driven by investor focus on leverage, with a balanced approach expected as cash flows fluctuate seasonally.
- Cost of goods is mostly stable with some inflationary pressure in oil-based materials; tariff impacts have softened but remain a factor to monitor.
- Demand remains weak and roughly equal in both repair/remodel and new construction, with a slight preference for repair/remodel given customer mix and market dynamics.
- Cash flow in Q1 might be slightly negative but incentive payouts are expected to be lower as 2025 performance fell short of targets, somewhat cushioning outflows.
Full Transcript
Conference Operator: First question from client. I’m Julio Romero from Sidoti. Your line is open.
Julio Romero, Analyst, Sidoti: Thanks. Hey, good morning, George and Scott.
Scott, CFO: Morning.
George Wilson, CEO: Morning.
Julio Romero, Analyst, Sidoti: Scott, did I hear you correctly that the negative EBITDA impact in the fourth quarter from the Monterrey challenges was $8 million, and if so, your EBITDA margins for the Hardware Solutions segment would have been in the 16% range in the quarter?
Scott, CFO: Yeah, so if you recall, on the last quarterly call, we talked about Monterrey being about a $5 million negative impact in Q3. We estimated at the time that 4Q impact would be about the same at $5 million. But the reality was, since we went to a 24/7 operation and higher labor costs, higher expedited freight costs, that ended up being around $8 million. And then we alluded to about a $3 million hit we expect in the first quarter. But to your point, yes, it would have been better, but we also had a favorable cost roll impact in the fourth quarter that impacted or helped the Hardware Solutions segment.
Julio Romero, Analyst, Sidoti: Understood. And the $3 million drag expected in the first quarter, does your current kind of informal outlook assume that goes to zero beyond the first quarter?
Scott, CFO: Yeah, that’s our expectation.
George Wilson, CEO: Yeah. Our decision to add the 24/7 and do some different things in the plant to speed up that recovery plan, that was really the intent to drive the backorder levels down faster than we anticipated, and we’re having some very good success at making progress towards that goal.
Julio Romero, Analyst, Sidoti: Sounds prudent that you’re able to get your arms around it, for sure. Maybe thinking about the informal outlook, does your current informal outlook assume what does that assume from a market volume perspective in terms of the volume you’ll get in the first half and the amount of procurement synergies you’ll be able to realize as a result?
Scott, CFO: Yeah. The way I would, I mean, obviously, somewhat premature until we come out with official guidance. But the way we’re looking at it right now for next year, from a revenue standpoint, if we say flattish, maybe flattened down volumes with flat up pricing is how I would look at that. But then on the EBITDA side, the positives would be obviously less Mexico costs next year, plus some additional synergies offset by higher SG&A due to inflation, higher benefits, and then bonus accrued at target. That’s how I would look at it.
Julio Romero, Analyst, Sidoti: Understood. Last one for me is you were able to pay down debt pretty aggressively here in the fiscal year. You also repurchased roughly $3 million in stock here in the fourth quarter. But the shares have been pretty depressed here. Can you just talk about if you were limited by the open repurchase window timing at all during the fourth quarter? And then also if you could comment on whether you’ve been active on the buyback kind of post-quarter end.
Scott, CFO: Yeah. So we were active somewhat in 4Q. I think we made a conscious decision in the second half of last year to really focus more on paying down debt because pretty much every investor call we had since last two quarters, there was a real focus on net leverage. Even though our balance sheet’s in good shape, we think it’s very healthy, there’s this sentiment out there amongst investors that anything above two times net leverage is a concern. So with that in mind, we chose to pay down debt, even though our shares, we still feel, are very cheap. Looking ahead, going forward, clearly we will be opportunistic. We don’t have big windows in between quarters in which we can be in the market. So keep that in mind as well.
The other thing to think about is the first quarter and really the second quarter are our low watermarks for the year. So we’re trying to balance cash flow generation, stock repurchases, with also debt paydown. We’ve typically been a net borrow in the first quarter in the past. So we just try to balance all of that. Hope that helps.
Julio Romero, Analyst, Sidoti: Thanks for the call, guys. I appreciate it.
Scott, CFO: Yep.
George Wilson, CEO: Thank you.
Conference Operator: Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question will come from Steven Ramsey from Thompson Research Group. Your line is open.
Steven Ramsey, Analyst, Thompson Research Group: Hi, good morning.
George Wilson, CEO: Morning.
Steven Ramsey, Analyst, Thompson Research Group: I wanted to think about for 2026, with the persistently challenging demand backdrop more recently and looking forward, are you seeing any irrational competitive response in certain geographies or certain product categories?
George Wilson, CEO: Steven, we really haven’t seen a lot of what I would call irrational pricing where people are going to the market to try to fill up volume. We just haven’t seen that. And I think there’s still a mentality in the marketplace that supply chain risk for all people is of great priority and importance. So I think our customers evaluate those type of pricing decisions and have to balance, is it the right move to just move to another supplier based on price? There’s much more involved in those types of decisions right now. And I would say that that’s the truth globally. So things like being able to supply facilities from multiple ship to points, in a lot of cases, offset price.
Now, with that being said, I think as commodity prices stabilize or come down, I think we will see pricing pressure, but we’re really not seeing anything that I would call irrational at this point.
Steven Ramsey, Analyst, Thompson Research Group: Okay. That’s great to hear. And then also looking at 2026 and the various product components within each segment, are there any certain products that you expect to be better than the flattish level for the year?
George Wilson, CEO: I think the one area that is being potentially impacted by tariffs and everything that’s going on in the macro drop would be the wood components part of our business that falls under the.
Steven Ramsey, Analyst, Thompson Research Group: Custom solutions.
George Wilson, CEO: Yeah, the Custom Solutions group. As those tariffs continue to hang out there and be uncertain, I think that there’s an unknown. But if the tariffs stick at a higher level, there could be some opportunity to insource that demand back into the U.S. to mitigate tariff risk around the globe. So that could be an area of upside. Everything else, I think right now, it’s a wait and see. But that’s the one area where there could be some potential opportunity.
Steven Ramsey, Analyst, Thompson Research Group: Okay. And then on the benefits of the resegmentation, this was a talking point from the investor day. You mentioned it. Again, are there any early positive takeaways and results with the resegmentation so far? Is there any benefits embedded in the 2026 EBITDA outlook? And then maybe any of the nuances by segment on the sales or margin side with this resegmentation?
George Wilson, CEO: Yeah. It’s still a little early. We’re only now two quarters into this. But what I would tell you, I think we’re already seeing operational improvements by the sharing of best practices, for example, in the extruded solutions group where you had silicone extrusion, butyl extrusion, and then you layer in the Schlegel piece of the business that we acquired from Tyman that has a completely different type of material that they extrude, but it’s an extrusion process. And so the sharing of best practices in that division is already paying some operational dividends. I think we’re starting to see and put together a plan on what our global footprint will look like. That’s long-term in nature.
But I think we’ve got a really good feel and good opportunities for what I would say are mid- and longer-term opportunities to continue to grow to better serve our customers, provide new products and new services. And so my biggest excitement right now relies around the process improvements as well as some of the innovation that’s being driven through that. So we’ve probably exceeded my expectations from those points already.
Steven Ramsey, Analyst, Thompson Research Group: That’s good to hear. Thank you.
Conference Operator: Our next question. Our next question will come from line of Reuben Garner from Benchmark. Your line is open.
Reuben Garner, Analyst, Benchmark: Thank you. Good morning, everybody.
George Wilson, CEO: Good morning.
Reuben Garner, Analyst, Benchmark: So the Mexico issue seems to be on track, cleared up faster than you expected, which is great to hear. George, just curious, it’s been a few months since that came about. Can you go into a little detail about the efforts you guys have made internally to make sure that there weren’t risk of similar or other issues at different facilities from Thymen?
George Wilson, CEO: Yeah. So obviously, being a manufacturing company, things happen in plants. And we identified the issue fairly quick. And when we did, we put a plan in to remediate. And as you mentioned, I’m very happy and pleased with the efforts to get to there. I think we did a great job of mitigating the issue in a relatively quick period of time. Obviously, as a part of that, and I wouldn’t just frame it around the Tyman acquisition, but we looked at every one of our facilities and said, "Do these types of scenarios exist anywhere?" So we did a deep dive on that. That’s part of what we deem our 8D problem-solving philosophy, where we go in and we try to identify any like situations. And we have not found that anywhere.
And we spent an enormous amount of time and effort making sure that the issues that we identified were not going to be replicated or have the risk of being replicated at any other facility. So I feel pretty good about the controls we have to place that we won’t see it anywhere else. And I feel really good about the issues to fix the situation in a relatively short period of time to eliminate this on a go-forward basis in Monterrey.
Reuben Garner, Analyst, Benchmark: Great. And then a clarification on the comments for Q1. Scott, did you say SG&A of $73 million? And if so, maybe I’ve got it wrong in my model, but that’s a big change from where it was a year ago, I think $20 million almost higher on a similar revenue number and also higher than what you just did in the third and fourth quarter. So can you just talk about what’s going on there? Is there anything one-time? Is that a good run rate for the full year on a quarterly basis?
Scott, CFO: Yeah, I think that’s a pretty decent run rate on a full year. I mean, when you compare it to the later part of last year, one of the main things that sticks out is accruing at target now this year versus last year when we knew halfway through the year we weren’t going to hit those targets. So SG&A came down. There was a couple of one-time benefits last year, first quarter, just related to some issues from the legacy Tyman business. And then clearly, when you go into a new year, you budget for higher benefit costs, higher inflationary measures, merit increases, things of that nature that just increase SG&A. Now, clearly, with that in mind, our job, though, as managers, is to the extent we can operationally become more efficient to offset increased costs as we move through the year.
Reuben Garner, Analyst, Benchmark: Great. And then I’m going to sneak one more in. You talked about potentially a little bit of price. I assume some of that is carryover from actions throughout this year, maybe related to tariffs and that sort of thing. What are you seeing on the cost side in terms of cost of goods? Is that pretty stable? I guess ultimately, what does price cost look like in your outlook for 2026?
George Wilson, CEO: Yeah, I’ll take this one, Reuben. Really, from a cost basis, things have, I would say, generally stabilized. There’s a couple of areas across the different product lines, especially around oil-type-based products, anything that’s going through a cracked chemical type of process. I think we anticipate we’ll see continued inflationary pressure there, but overall, I think materials have stabilized and the supply of those materials have stabilized, so to be determined. Tariffs do have a big impact right now, but that seems to have softened a little bit, or at least not changing on a daily basis.
Reuben Garner, Analyst, Benchmark: Great. Thank you, guys. Happy holidays, Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year.
George Wilson, CEO: Thank you.
Reuben Garner, Analyst, Benchmark: Don’t talk to you.
George Wilson, CEO: You as well.
Scott, CFO: Appreciate it.
Conference Operator: Thank you. Once again, that’s star 11 for questions. One moment for our next question. Next question will come from line of Kevin Gainey from Thompson Davis & Co. Your line is open.
Kevin Gainey, Analyst, Thompson Davis & Co: Good morning, George and Scott. Congrats on the quarter.
Scott, CFO: Thanks.
George Wilson, CEO: Thanks.
Kevin Gainey, Analyst, Thompson Davis & Co: Maybe we could talk about the synergies to start first and how you guys are thinking how quickly you might be able to achieve the $15 million to get to the ultimate $45 million and then maybe if you could break down how you’re approaching those synergies from a cost procurement footprint perspective.
Scott, CFO: Yeah. I think to get at the remaining, really, it’s a little less than 15 because we did realize some in fourth quarter of 2024, but the way we’re looking at fiscal 2026, and I mentioned it earlier about we do expect some additional synergies probably in the $5 million-$10 million range, and the range is really because of volumes. If volumes are better, then we could be towards the higher end of that range because of procurement synergies. If volumes are worse, it could be on the lower end, so there’s a range there, and then going into 2027, there’s still some more synergies that we could get at. Outside of that, there are some specific timing of when synergies may hit in 2026, really more on the SG&A side, and I’ll leave it at that.
Kevin Gainey, Analyst, Thompson Davis & Co: Sounds good. And then as you guys think about the pricing gains that you got in 2025, how much of that was really inflation-linked versus kind of structurally? And do you think you have any concerns around give-backs in 2026?
George Wilson, CEO: As I look at pricing, I think we’ve been very focused on how to best serve our customers. I think that’s always been our sales philosophy. Our price increases that we pass on in the market really do revolve around inflationary pressures. Our job and our philosophy with our customers is any sort of margin improvement on our part shouldn’t come at the detriment of our customers. Our job is to pass along costs as true costs. For us to improve our margins, that’s all driven by operational performance. That’s our philosophy and how to be a good supplier. We are not predatory in any way, shape, or form in terms of how we price to our customers.
So in that respect, I think our ability to hold on to price should be pretty strong because I don’t think we’re out there and we have all the data in the world to support the inflationary costs that we’re passing along. I think we’re proud of the fact that that is the approach we take to pricing because I think long-term, that’s what builds relationships with our customers and will continue to do that on a go-forward basis. So again, long answer to your question, but I think the ability to hold on to price should be pretty strong because it’s supported by what we’ve eaten in terms of cost increases.
Kevin Gainey, Analyst, Thompson Davis & Co: Might be a long answer, but I think it was a great answer. Maybe if you guys could talk about demand as well from kind of parsed between new residential versus repair and remodel and whether one feels stronger than the other and how you’re thinking about it for 2026.
George Wilson, CEO: Yeah. I think for us, our products are fairly agnostic to either of the markets. So we determine that really by our customer mix. I think right now we’re seeing really similar type of impacts on both R&R and new construction. I do believe that the R&R piece will be the we see that leads, at least for us, because we’re weighted more to R&R. I think as we see new construction start to improve, the interesting metric that we’ll keep our eye on is the size of homes and multifamily versus single family and what does that mix look like. The number of window openings in a house impacts the volume impact of new construction for us.
So I think R&R will be the leader on any sort of recovery and that the new construction will be, again, more driven by interest rates and the movements of the Fed as well as availability and affordability of the new housing market. So they’re both impacted pretty equal, though, right now from what we see.
Kevin Gainey, Analyst, Thompson Davis & Co: Appreciate the color. And then one final one just on cash flow. You guys typically burn cash in the January quarter. Is there any reason to expect you wouldn’t have slightly negative free cash flow in Q1?
Scott, CFO: Yeah. I mean, it’s possible. I think it just depends on how December and January play out. I mean, as we sit here today, November came in pretty much as expected. So no surprises yet.
George Wilson, CEO: The one thing on cash flow that, again, a lot of it will depend on volume.
Scott, CFO: The timing of CapEx.
George Wilson, CEO: Yeah, CapEx. The other thing that happened this year, I mean, it wasn’t a banner 2025. So as we’ve stated, incentive payouts to the executive team and the organization wasn’t as high as it typically would be. So it was pretty much under target. So the cash flow outlay to any sort of incentive payment is going to be lower in Q1 than we’ve typically seen. So this is one of the lower incentive payouts that we’ve seen in the past future. So that should help cash flow in Q1.
Kevin Gainey, Analyst, Thompson Davis & Co: Sounds good, guys. I appreciate it.
Scott, CFO: Yep. Thanks.
Conference Operator: In the queue, I would like to turn it back over to George Wilson for any closing remarks.
George Wilson, CEO: I’d like to thank everyone for joining. I want to take a moment to wish everyone a very safe and happy holiday, and we look forward to providing the next update to everyone in March. Thank you.
Conference Operator: Thank you for your participation in today’s conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.
