Tag Archives: applicationtime

AusNet Should Not Be Bought By Conservative Investors

Summary AusNet has been a steady dividend payer but it actually cannot afford the dividend as in the past two financial years it had to borrow cash to cover the dividend. Despite considering half of the capex as ‘growth’ capex, there won’t be a clear revenue increase further down the road. I consider my investment profile to be a bit too conservative to invest in AusNet right now as it isn’t self-funding the dividend (if you include growth capex). Introduction AusNet Services ( OTCPK:SAUNF ) operates a gas and electricity distribution network in Melbourne and Victoria (Australia) as well as high voltage power lines supplying Victoria. The company is known for its relatively generous dividend payments, but in this article I will discuss whether or not these dividends are sustainable. AusNet is an Australian company and you should trade in AusNet shares on the Australian Stock Exchange for liquidity reasons as the average daily dollar volume is almost $4M. The stock’s ticker symbol in Australia is AST . Is AusNet spending too much cash on dividends? In order to answer this question, we obviously need to have a closer look at the company’s financial situation, so we will focus on the results of its financial year 2015 (the most recent numbers available to the general public). Source: press release At first sight, AusNet had a pretty decent year as its revenue increased by 1.9%, resulting in a 2.9% increase in its EBITDA to just over A$1B. You immediately notice the strong EBITDA conversion as in FY 2015, no less than 57% of the company’s revenue was converted into EBITDA, which is pretty strong! However, this trend was discontinued at the bottom line as AusNet’s (adjusted) net profit decreased by approximately 2.5%. But of course, net profits and net losses don’t have any importance when you’re trying to find out whether or not a company can afford its dividend policy and that’s why I will switch to the company’s cash flow statements. AusNet generated an operating cash flow of A$768M (a very nice increase compared to the A$730M last year), but unfortunately the company had to spend A$800M in capital expenditures resulting in a negative free cash flow of almost A$40M (US$30M). So there wasn’t any free cash flow, but AusNet decided to spend A$180M (US$135M) in dividend distributions anyway. That’s not a good sign. Source: financial statements But okay, maybe this was a one-time bump in the road, so let’s pull the 2014 numbers as well. In the previous financial year, AusNet generated A$730M in operating cash flow but spent A$925M on capital expenditures, so AusNet hasn’t had a positive free cash flow in two financial years, but nevertheless decided to reward its stakeholders by paying out cash dividends to the tune of US$330M (keep in mind this does NOT include the additional dilution caused by shareholders accepting their dividend in new shares. If everybody would have elected a cash payment, the cash outflow would even be $100M higher!). This cash shortfall was compensated by issuing more debt. Why I’m not interested in buying AusNet at the current valuation I’m obviously not narrow-minded nor short-sighted (at least, I try not to be), and it does look like AusNet’s future will improve a bit as its capital expenditures are coming down. This should be the last year of heavy capex investments (estimated at A$900M), but from FY 2017 on the capital expenditures should be reduced to A$725M per year. Taking an expanding operating cash flow into consideration, this means I would expect AusNet to generate a positive free cash flow but his will be insufficient to cover the current 6% dividend yield. There’s an additional reason why I’m not very keen on adding AusNet to my portfolio. It’s quite common for utilities companies to have a lot of debt on its balance sheet and AusNet isn’t any different. As of at the end of March it had A$5.8B in net debt. That shouldn’t be a huge problem given the strong operating cash flows and EBITDA (and as said, it’s very normal for a company in this segment to have an above-average net debt). However, if you’d look at the cost of this debt, you’d be surprised at how this leverage could kill this company. AusNet paid A$326M in finance costs, so let’s now assume its average interest rate it has to pay is approximately 5%. If the average cost of debt would increase by 1%, AusNet’s bill would increase by A$50M and this will have a further negative impact on its ability to generate a positive free cash flow. But I don’t want to be too negative I always get a little bit nervous when I see a company telling its shareholders ‘the dividend is fully backed by the operating cash flow’. Whilst this is essentially true, I prefer to look at the free cash flow/dividend ratio. Whilst this is ratio is negative in AusNet’s case, there is also something working in its favor. (click to enlarge) Source: company presentation Of the A$800M it spent on capex in FY 2015, only A$380M was maintenance capex whilst the remaining A$420M capex was spent on projects to ensure further growth. However, looking at the average analyst estimates , there’s no clearly visible increase in the revenue expected within the next few years so even though A$420M is being spent on ‘growth’, I’m cautious until I indeed see a revenue increase. Investment thesis AusNet is paying a handsome dividend – which it promises to increase once again this year – but it’s only able to afford the dividend by raising additional cash through issuing more debt and that’s a dangerous game to play. I’m fine with AusNet spending A$420M on ‘growth’, but it’s a bit disappointing the company hasn’t released updated revenue growth targets for the next few years so it’s difficult to check if the ‘growth capex’ is really paying off. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying AusNet is a bad company, not at all. But I personally wouldn’t feel comfortable with a continuously increasing net debt profile which has the potential to erode the majority of the future free cash flow should the interest rates increase (which isn’t really unlikely). Editor’s Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Bill Gross: It Never Rains In California

Ted Cruz recently suggested praying for rain in Texas, and apparently someone did a few weeks ago, producing a deluge resembling a modern day Noah’s Ark of sorts. California’s Governor Brown on the other hand, has taken a more secular approach. He believes that Mammon, not God, bears responsibility for the Golden State’s record drought and that I, we, all of us simple folk should cut back water usage by a minimum of 25%. Well it’s hard to argue with Governor Moonbeam especially when it comes to the environment, although if you ask me, his other idea of hundreds of miles of high speed rail at a minimum cost of $25 billion is off the rails and on the governor’s private moon. But I will do my part. As a free citizen though, I have choices: replace the lawn with artificial grass, take fewer showers, jerry-rig the toilet bowl, or perhaps eat fewer almonds. I will choose a diet of fewer almonds. Growing almonds it seems, consumes 10% of all the annual residential water supplied to 40 million thirsty folks in California, and 60% of that production is exported, so I suggest we fight the drought “there” as opposed to “here”, if you get my drift. To that same point, an article in the impeccably objective Wall Street Journal claims that the water consumption for one pound of almonds is equivalent to 50 five minute showers, so I’m not giving up my shower for a bag of almonds. It’s here, though, where I have to do a little bragging. Some people will talk about having the world’s greatest dog or their newborn baby who slept through the night during the first week. But Sue and I have something very different. We have the world’s greatest shower. To be quite candid, it’s not the water, the temperature, the simple knobs, or even the shower head that makes it the best; nor is it the combination of all four. The key to our shower in fact, is not the actual experience of hot water on a 98.6° body at all. It’s the view; our shower has the world’s greatest view. The scenery from it is so gorgeous that when we sell our home, we may list the shower separately and see if it attracts an offer higher that the rest of the house. If not, we’ll just sell the house with a shower “easement” and continue to come in and out from the street every morning at 6:00 a.m. Back to the view. That it has one in the first place is, I suppose, outrageous in and of itself. But here Sue and I were in 1990, constructing our house on a Laguna Beach cliff overhanging more white water than you could shake a kayak at. The sailboats were drifting by, the surfers were hanging ten and it seemed like every minute of every waking day should be focused on that gorgeous piece of the Pacific that comes to rest 60 feet below our bathroom. So we built a shower with a window – not a picture window – but one big enough for a view. As is customary with a new home, I carried Sue over the threshold on the first day we moved in. But once the workers had cleared out, we headed straight for the shower. “Champagne?” she asked. “Nah”, I said romantically. “Just wanna look at the view.” When it comes to retirement, I don’t think we’ll need our 401Ks. We’ll just sell tickets to our shower, and use the proceeds to pay for some of Governor Moonbeam’s almonds. Speaking of liquidity, whether it be in surplus in a Laguna Beach shower, or an extreme deficit in the State of California, current concerns in the financial markets center around the absence of liquidity and the effect it might have on future market prices. In 2008/2009, markets experienced not only a Minsky moment but a liquidity implosion, as levered investors were forced to delever. Ultimately the purge threatened even the safest and most liquid of investments. Several money market funds appeared to “break the buck” which in turn threatened the $4 trillion overnight repo market – the center core of our current finance-based economy. Responding to this weakness, the Fed and other central banks imposed emergency liquidity provisions of their own – in effect they became the buyers of last resort. Recently however, Congressional legislation concerning “too big to fail” and Federal court rulings in favor of AIG regarding the expropriation of shareholders’ capital, have cast doubts as to whether central banks and their governments can exercise similar “puts” in the future to stabilize asset prices. As a result, regulators are proceeding with “better safe than sorry” mandates – tightening bank capital standards, curtailing the size of the potentially volatile repo market from $4 to $2 trillion, and pursuing inquiries as to which financial institutions are “strategically important” – code for “big enough to threaten asset market stability”. Not only major banks but several insurance companies and asset managers including PIMCO – just one block down the street – are being scrutinized. These individual companies which include Prudential, MET, BlackRock, and at least several others have responded as you might expect. “No problem” sums it up – markets are a little less liquid they claim, but recent experience would show that for PIMCO at least, there were no “fire sales” or “forced selling” after my recent departure, as stated by CEO Doug Hodge in a friendly WSJ article. Ah, now I’ve caught your interest. Well first of all let me state that the PIMCO example is not a good one to use to prove the current liquidity of mutual funds, ETFs, and even index funds. Hodge himself admitted to internal proprietary “liquidity” provisions, adding that it used derivatives for exposures “to support cash buffers and inflows” (sic). The fact is that derivatives on a systemic basis represent increased leverage and therefore increased risk – presenting possible exit and liquidity problems in future months and years. Mutual funds, hedge funds, and ETFs, are part of the “shadow banking system” where these modern “banks” are not required to maintain reserves or even emergency levels of cash. Since they in effect now are the market, a rush for liquidity on the part of the investing public, whether they be individuals in 401Ks or institutional pension funds and insurance companies, would find the “market” selling to itself with the Federal Reserve severely limited in its ability to provide assistance. While Dodd Frank legislation has made actual banks less risky, their risks have really just been transferred to somewhere else in the system. With trading turnover having declined by 35% in the investment grade bond market as shown in Exhibit 1, and 55% in the High Yield market since 2005, financial regulators have ample cause to wonder if the phrase “run on the bank” could apply to modern day investment structures that are lightly regulated and less liquid than traditional banks. Thus, current discussions involving “SIFI” designation – “Strategically Important Financial Institutions” are being hotly contested by those that may be just that. Not “too big to fail” but “too important to neglect” could be the market’s future mantra. Down the street from PIMCO, I must openly acknowledge that helping to turn Janus into one of these “too important” companies is one of my objectives, as it is for CEO Dick Weil. But that day lies ahead of us. For now, regulators and thus large institutional asset managers are at least contemplating an inability to respond to potential outflows. Just last week Goldman Sachs’ Gary Cohn cleverly suggested that liquidity is always available at “a price”. True enough in most cases, except perhaps for 1987 when stock markets declined 25% in one day as the vaunted portfolio insurance scheme met its maker due to sellers all rushing to the exit at the same time. Aside from the obvious drop in trading volumes shown above, the obvious risk – perhaps better labeled the “liquidity illusion” – is that all investors cannot fit through a narrow exit at the same time. But shadow banking structures – unlike cash securities – require counterparty relationships that require more and more margin if prices should decline. That is why PIMCO’s safe haven claim of their use of derivatives is so counterintuitive. While private equity and hedge funds have built-in “gates” to prevent an overnight exit, mutual funds and ETFs do not. That an ETF can satisfy redemption with underlying bonds or shares, only raises the nightmare possibility of a disillusioned and uninformed public throwing in the towel once again after they receive thousands of individual odd lot pieces under such circumstances. But even in milder “left tail scenarios” it is price that makes the difference to mutual fund and ETF holders alike, and when liquidity is scarce, prices usually go down not up, given a Minsky moment. Long used to the inevitability of capital gains, investors and markets have not been tested during a stretch of time when prices go down and policymakers’ hands are tied to perform their historical function of buyer of last resort. It’s then that liquidity will be tested. And what might precipitate such a “run on the shadow banks”? A central bank mistake leading to lower bond prices and a stronger dollar. Greece, and if so, the inevitable aftermath of default/restructuring leading to additional concerns for Eurozone peripherals. China – “a riddle wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”. It is the “mystery meat” of economic sandwiches – you never know what’s in there. Credit has expanded more rapidly in recent years than any major economy in history, a sure warning sign. Emerging market crisis – dollar denominated debt/overinvestment/commodity orientation – take your pick of potential culprits. Geopolitical risks – too numerous to mention and too sensitive to print. A butterfly’s wing – chaos theory suggests that a small change in “non-linear systems” could result in large changes elsewhere. Call this kooky, but in a levered financial system, small changes can upset the status quo. Keep that butterfly net handy. Should that moment occur, a cold rather than a hot shower may be an investor’s reward and the view will be something less that “gorgeous”. So what to do? Hold an appropriate amount of cash so that panic selling for you is off the table. A wise investor from nearly a century ago – Bernard Baruch – counseled to “sell to the sleeping point”. Mimic Mr. Baruch and have a good night.

Will UNG Resume Its Descent?

The price of UNG is up for the month on account of stronger demand in the power sector. Despite warmer weather, the cooling degree days are expected to reach normal levels this week. The normal cooling degree days could suggest the demand for natural gas in the power sector will cool down. The recent natural gas report showed the injection to storage was 75 Bcf, which was slightly lower than market expectations. Moreover, the latest buildup was below the 5-year average and last year’s injection. This news has provided a short-term boost for the shares of the United States Natural Gas ETF (NYSEARCA: UNG ) during last week. The price of UNG is slightly up for the month, but it will require a stronger demand for natural gas to bring UNG further up. For now, this scenario doesn’t seem likely. Before reviewing the latest developments in the natural gas market, shares of UNG continue to underperform natural gas prices: The impact of the roll decay on the price of UNG is demonstrated in the chart below (the prices are normalized to the end of last month). As you can see, the price of UNG rose by only 3.5% during June, while the Henry Hub by nearly 5%, i.e. a 1.5 percentage point difference. (click to enlarge) Source of data taken from EIA and Google finance According to the weekly EIA report , this week’s injection was the first time for this season to be below the 5-year average buildup. As of last week, the storage was 38% higher than the level recorded last year and 1.4% above the 5-year average. (click to enlarge) Source of data taken from EIA From the supply side, production picked up – it rose by 1%, week over week. And it’s up by 5.5% compared to last year. Based on the latest update by Baker Hughes , the number of gas rigs slightly rose by 5 to 228 rigs. Nonetheless, U.S. consumption also grew by 2.4% last week and was up by 8.5% for the year. Most of the growth in demand came in the power sector – 6.1%. This gain was partly offset by lower consumption in the industrial and residential/commercial sectors. Looking forward towards the next two weeks, the weather is expected to heat up mostly in the coastal line, including West, Northeast and South Atlantic, but the temperatures are projected to be lower than normal for this time of the year in parts of the Midwest. Despite the expected higher than normal temperatures in parts of the U.S., the cooling degree days are estimated to be only slightly higher than normal – this could suggest the rise in consumption in the power sector will slowdown. This could explain why the markets estimate this week’s injection will be close to the 5-year average buildup of 75 Bcf. The natural gas market slightly heated up in the past few weeks, but over the short run the power sector isn’t expected to heat up. Thus, the demand isn’t likely to pressure up the price of natural gas. For UNG, this could mean another pullback in its price. For more see: On the Contango in Natural Gas Market Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.