Tag Archives: brazilian

The AES’ (AES) CEO Andres Gluski on Q3 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

The AES Corporation (NYSE: AES ) Q3 2015 Earnings Conference Call November 05, 2015 09:00 AM ET Executives Ahmed Pasha – Vice President-Investor Relations Andres Gluski – President and Chief Executive Officer Tom OFlynn – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Analysts Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Ali Agha – SunTrust Keith Stanley – Wolfe Research Stephen Byrd – Morgan Stanley Gregg Orrill – Barclays Chris Turnure – JP Morgan Brian Chin – Merrill Lynch Operator Good morning. My name is Lori and I will be a conference operator today. At this time I would like to welcome everyone to the AES Corporation Q3 2015 Financial Review Call. [Operator instructions] Ahmed Pasha, you may begin your conference. Ahmed Pasha Thank you, Lori. Good morning and welcome to our third quarter 2015 earnings call. Our earnings release presentation and related financial information are available on our website at aes.com. Today we will be making forward-looking statements during the call. There are many factors that may cause future results to differ materially from these statements. Please refer to our SEC filings for a discussion of these factors. Joining me this morning are Andres Gluski, our President and Chief Executive Officer; Tom O’Flynn, our Chief Financial Officer; and other senior members of our management team. With that I will now turn the call over to Andres. Andres Gluski Good morning everyone and thank you for joining our third quarter 2015 earnings call. Since our last call, the global macroeconomic environment has continued to weaken, and we have seen a further drop in foreign exchange rates, commodity prices and economic growth in some of our markets. As you may have seen in our press release, these conditions are reducing our earnings outlook. Despite these challenges, we are taking measures to reduce their impact and will continue to generate strong and growing free cash flow, which we will use to maximize risk-adjusted shareholder returns. Today I will discuss the impact of these macroeconomic factors on our outlook, our mitigation plan and our capital allocation strategy. Then Tom will provide our third quarter results, an update on our 2015 guidance and our capital allocation plans for 2015 and 2016. Beginning with macroeconomic factors I just mentioned, the majority of the decline in our earnings forecast is related to currencies and commodities moving against us as well as the deteriorating economic outlook in Brazil. As you may know, some of our businesses, particularly in Brazil, Colombia and Europe, have been impacted by devaluations of up to 35% in their local currencies. Furthermore, lower oil and electricity prices have a direct impact on our businesses in the Dominican Republic, DP&L and Kilroot. To mitigate the impact of these factors we are launching a $150 million cost reduction and a revenue enhancement initiative. This initiative will include overhead reductions, procurement efficiencies and operational improvements. We expect to achieve a least $50 million in savings in 2016, ramping up to $150 million including modest revenue enhancements in 2018. These bottom line improvements are on top of the $200 million of overhead cost reductions and the $170 million of productivity enhancements we have initiated since 2012. I will discuss these drivers in more detail in a few minutes. Turning to Slide 4. And our expectations for cash flow growth through 2018. Despite being affected by the macroeconomic pressures that I just discussed, our free cash flow remains strong. We are expecting average annual growth in proportional and parent free cash flow of at least 10%. Specifically, in 2016, we expect to generate roughly $1.3 billion of proportional free cash flow which translates to $0.90 per share. We also expect to generate about $625 million in parent free cash flow in 2016, which is 20% higher than our 2015 guidance. Our focus on approving sustainable cash to the parent through more efficient use of cash at our subsidiaries has helped us reduce the impact of macroeconomic headwinds on our parent free cash flow. As you may recall, parent free cash flow is the basis for dividend and capital allocation decisions. Turning to Slide 5, we believe proportional free cash flow is the most important valuation metric for AES as it represents the cash generated at our businesses that can be distributed to the parent or utilized locally to delever or fund growth. Proportional free cash flow is essentially operating cash flow minus maintenance CapEx adjusted for our ownership. In 2016, we expect to generate $1.3 billion in proportional free cash flow. Of this approximately 40% or $500 million is expected to be used to pay down nonrecourse debt at our subsidiaries, which generates equity volume and roughly 15% or $175 million may be retained by our subsidiaries due to timing or other reasons. That leaves us with $625 million of parent free cash flow, which is available for discretionary uses at Corp. Turning now to Slide 6, as a reminder, the projected growth in our cash flow is driven by our projects currently under construction which remain on budget and are expected to come online through 2018. All but $160 million of our $1.1 billion in equity requirements for these projects has already been funded. And we continue to expect average cash returns of around 15%. Turning now to our adjusted EPS guidance beginning on slide 7. In 2016, the impact from microeconomic factors is roughly $0.25. The most significant drivers of our revised guidance are first, the deterioration in the forward curves for commodities and currencies from December 2014 to October 2015 accounts for more than half of the impact, or $0.15, in line with the sensitivities that we provided. Second, we are seeing another $0.05 from more demand in higher interest rates in Brazil, primarily at our utility in Rio Grande do Sul, which has also experienced catastrophic flooding in October. Previously we had been expecting demand growth of 2.5% for Brazil, but we have seen a 5% drop in demand in 2015, and expect no recovery in 2016. Third, there is an additional $0.04 impact from regulatory changes at El Nino. The regulatory changes affect capacity prices in the United Kingdom and ancillary services in the Dominican Republic. Although hydrology, in Latin America has improved, we are still expecting El Nino to have a slight negative impact on our businesses in Brazil and Panama. And finally, we expect offset $0.05 of these headwinds through our new cost savings initiatives. Taking all these factors into account, our 2016 adjusted EPS guidance range is $0.05 to $0.15. Turning now to slide 8, which show our updated outlook for adjusted EPS growth through 2018. Although the net impact on our 2016 adjusted EPS guidance is approximately $0.20, our cost savings and other initiatives will reduce the net decrease to about $0.06 per share by 2018, which keeps us within the low end of our previous 2018 expectations. Now on to capital allocations beginning on Slide 9. When we laid out our strategy four years ago, we identified specific levers to improve total shareholder returns, reduce risk and simplify the portfolio. By completing timely exits from 10 countries and netting $3 billion from our asset sales, our portfolio is in a much stronger position today than it was four years ago. Over this period, we have allocated 80% of our $5 billion in discretionary cash to debt pay down and return to shareholders. This has resulted in a 23% reduction in parent debt and a 14% reduction in share count. In fact, as you can see on slide 10, since 2012, we have turned $2 billion to shareholders through share repurchases and dividends including $700 million or 9% of our current market cap in 2015. Turning to Slide 11, going forward, after debt pay down at our subsidiaries, we expect to have a total of $2.6 billion in discretionary cash available through 2018, which is roughly one-third of our current market cap. After shareholder dividends and investments in projects under construction, we will have $1.3 billion available for other discretionary uses. These include targeting 10% annual dividend growth, continuing to deliver in order to improve our credit metrics and reduce cash and earnings volatility and opportunistically utilizing our new Ford authorization for $400 million in share repurchases. And finally, while we are still seeing a number of attractive growth opportunities, mainly in brownfield projects across the portfolio, the benchmarks for new investments has been raised. We are focused on completing those projects under construction as well as the South Line repowering and LNG-related facilities in Panama. We will continue to compete any potential investments against the other capital allocation alternatives I just discussed. I would also like to point out that the $1.3 billion in discretionary cash I outlined does not include up to $1 billion in potential asset sale proceeds through 2018. As we allocate capital among these alternatives, we will look to further reduce risk and enhance returns as we continue to fine-tune our portfolio. We expect to strengthen our credit profile over time as we pay down debt, complete our construction projects and grow our cash flow. These actions will improve the stability of our cash flow and earnings. The bottom line is our portfolio generates strong and growing free cash flow, which we will use to maximize risk-adjusted returns for our shareholders. With that, I will turn the call over to Tom to discuss our third-quarter and year-to-date results and full-year 2015 guidance. Tom OFlynn Thanks Andres, good morning everyone. Today, I’ll review our third quarter results, including proportional free cash flow by Strategic Business Unit or SBU, adjusted EPS, adjusted pretax contribution or PTC by SBU. Then, I will cover our 2015 guidance as well as our 2015 and 2016 capital allocation plans. Turning to Slide 13, third quarter adjusted EPS of $0.39 is $0.02 higher than third quarter 2014. At a high level, we benefited from a reduction in share count of 6% or $43 million shares and lowered parent interest expense as well as higher equity earnings as a result of a restructuring of one of our businesses in Chile, which we discussed on our Q1 call. These positive contributions were partially offset by lower operating results at some of our businesses such as DPL and in the Dominican Republic, which were negative year-over-year but not material versus our full-year expectations. Through roughly 35% to the valuation in foreign currencies, particularly the Brazilian real and Colombian peso. Turning to Slide 14, overall, we generated $621 million proportional free cash flow, an increase of $194 million from last year and we earned $322 million in adjusted PTC during the quarter, a decrease of $32 million. Now we will cover our SBUs in more detail on the next six slides beginning on slide 15. In the U.S., our results were largely impacted by lower contributions from DTL, primarily due to the expected transition to market prices for our regulated load and lower margin volumes and prices. Proportional free cash flow was further impacted by lower collections and the timing of working capital at IPL. In Andes, our results improved primarily due to the gain on restructuring at Guacolda in Chile and higher energy prices at Chivor in Colombia, partially offset by the devaluation of the Colombian peso. Proportional free cash flow also benefited from increased VAT refunds related to the construction of Cochrane in Chile. In Brazil, we benefited from lower spot purchases due the seasonality and shaping of our contract requirement a Tiete, partially offset by a weaker Brazilian real. Proportional free cash flow was negatively impacted by increased working capital as a result of higher recoverable energy purchases at Eletropaulo. In MCAC our results were largely impacted by lower spot sales, financially service revenue in the Dominican Republic, partially offset by improved hydrology in Panama. Proportional free cash flow had very strong increase in the timing of collection of outstanding receivables in the Dominican Republic. In Europe, we were negatively impacted mainly due to a weaker euro and the timing of planned outages at Maritza in Bulgaria as well as the sale of the Abute in 2014. Proportional free cash flow improved largely driven by higher collections at Kavarna in Bulgaria. Finally, in Asia, we benefited from improved availability at Masinloc in the Philippines and the commencement of operations along at Mong Duong in Vietnam. Turning now to 2015 guidance, on Slide 21, based on year-to-date performance and outlook for the year, we are already at about 95% of the low end of our proportional free cash flow guidance and are confident that we will be in the range. One key variable that would put us toward the high end of the range is the receipt of the $330 million in outstanding receivables at Maritza in Bulgaria as part of the previously announced capacity price reduction agreement. Government-owned utility NEK and their holding company BEH are in the process of raising capital to pay these receivables. The remaining issue is the extent of government guarantee from bridge financing prior to the issuance of a long-term bond. While we expect to close later this year, payment could slip into early next year. Turning to adjusted EPS, as we have discussed in our prior calls, we have been facing significant headwinds of about $0.20 from currencies, commodities, hydrology and declining economic conditions in Brazil. We have offset the majority of these impacts with cost savings, hedging and capital allocation. Unfortunately, these same pressures have continued in the third quarter and we face an additional $0.07 impact. We have also faced a $0.02 impact from outages at DPL and AES Hawaii. We have been working to implement additional opportunities, but now believe they will be difficult to capture. We therefore are lowering our guidance range to a $0.18 to $0.25 per share, which is roughly $0.08 lower than the midpoint of our prior guidance of $0.25 to $0.35. Now to Slide 22, and our parent capital allocation plan for 2015. The sources on the left hand side reflect total available discretionary cash or roughly $0.5 billion. As a reminder, we previously announced asset sale proceeds from the sale of a portion of interest in Ipalco and Jordan as the sales of the Armenian mountain wind farm and our solar assets in Spain. Today we are also announcing the closing of the sale of our solar assets in Italy for $42 million, bringing our total asset sales proceeds this year to $401 million. We are also expecting an additional $27 million return of capital which, with our parent free cash flow, provides us with roughly $550 million available for dividend payments and growth incremental share repurchases, debt reduction and potential investments. Turning to uses on the right hand side, we plan to invest $140 million in our subsidiaries, which does not include direct investments by CDPQ into IPL. We have invested $345 million in prepayment and refinancing parent debt, leaving us with only $180 million in parent debt maturities through 2018. In addition to dividend, we have invested $423 million of our shares. This brings total cash returned to shareholders through buybacks and dividends to $700 million for the year. Finally, we expect to have unallocated discretionary cash of about $225 million for the rest of the year. Turning now to 2016, parent capital allocation on Slide 23, source on the left hand side reflect $1.2 billion of total available discretionary cash for 2016. This includes asset sale proceeds of approximately, $200 million, the majority of which is coming from one transaction that we expect to announce shortly. Discretionary cash also includes our parent free cash flow of $625 million, which is approximately 20% higher than the midpoint of this year’s expectation. Strong cash flow, the strong growth in our parent free cash flow demonstrates our increasing focus to upstream sustainable and growing cash from our businesses to further improved returns to our shareholders. In fact, parent free cash flow is the largest contributor to the expected $2.6 billion in discretionary cash available through 2018 that Andres just covered. We’re also expecting $70 million in returned capital from operating businesses. Additional potential asset sale proceeds could further increase our discretionary cash by up to $1billion through 2018. Turning to uses on the right-hand some of the slide. As Andres mentioned, we’ll be investing in our projects under construction as well as already announced expansion projects at Southland, California and in Panama. After considering these investments in our subs, our current dividend and debt prepayment, we’re left with roughly $400 million of discretionary cash to be allocated. Consistent with our capital allocation framework, we will invest this cash in dividend growth, further debt reduction, to continue to improve our debt profile and increase the stability of equity cash flows, and share repurchases. Regarding new growth investments, we will continue to compete any new projects against share repurchases. All in all, our 2016 parent free cash flow and proportional free cash flow are growing significantly over 2015. We expect this trend to continue through 2018 and beyond. With that now, I will now turn it back to Andres. Andres Gluski Thanks, Tom. In summary, we’re pulling all levers from cost reductions, to capital allocation to respond to the challenges presented by a generally weaker global economy. As a reminder, our 6 gigawatts of projects under construction are largely funded and are the driver of at least 10% average annual growth in proportional and parent free cash flow over the next three years. Looking forward, we do not believe that our strong and growing cash flow is fully reflected in our valuation. Over the next three years we will generate $2.6 billion in discretionary cash, an amount equal to one-third of our current market cap. As our track record demonstrates we will invest in dividend growth, debt paydown and share repurchases. In fact, in 2015 alone, we have returned $700 million or roughly 9% of our current market cap to our shareholders. With that I would now like to open up the call for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions] Your first question is from Julien Dumoulin-Smith of UBS. Your line is open. Julien Dumoulin-Smith Hi, good morning, can you hear me? Andres Gluski Yes. Good morning Julien, we can hear you fine. Julien Dumoulin-Smith Excellent. So perhaps just following up on the guidance instruction here. I just want be very clear. When you’re making the assumptions for 12% to 16% growth off this lower 2016 number, what exactly are you embedding by the time you get to 2018 in terms of FX and commodities? I just want to be abundantly clear about that. Andres Gluski Basically what we are using is those commodities and currencies that we have with a relatively liquid market, we’re using basically forward curves two years out. And then more or less a purchasing power parity thereafter. So we have considerable devaluations embedded into these forecasts. Julien Dumoulin-Smith And so then can you help articulate a little bit further the offsets? I know you just did a little bit just now, but can you elaborate a bit further exactly how you’re able to drive these potential mitigating factors? Andres Gluski So we’re talking about the $150 million initiative. We have already done a $200 million initiative which we started in 2012. Recalling a little bit, we had set out a $100 million program and we managed to get twice that number in savings. What we have in front of us for next year is $50 million and that will be 100% cost reductions. And these are things that we have identified in terms of becoming a more efficient company, streamlining our structure, streamlining processes and really making sure that every single dollar that we are spending is going towards meeting our objectives. So, for example, we have to make sure that we are not spending any money on any business development, for example, in deals that we’re not going to do over the next couple of years. I think we have this very well identified for 2016. When we think of 2017 and we start getting into some of the initiatives that we’ve had in the past the we’ve started and we’re well underway. We have churn of accounts now, we are really looking at our procurement efficiencies. We are starting to really achieve significant efficiencies on our new construction projects. So by standardization and by more global deals. We really think that we have to get this more into our global procurement as well. There will be continued streamlining of the company as well and this continues into 2018. The only thing in 2018, we see a small number, maybe 10% of this, 15% of this in terms of revenue enhancements, these are several things that we have identified. But one of them which we don’t have in our forecast is really having a channel partner to sell some of our advancing product. We think by then it’s reasonable to think that we’d have some income from this. So we feel very confident about hitting this $150 million. And, if you go back to our earnings call, we have always hit our cost savings and revenue enhancement numbers. Julien Dumoulin Got it. And then just following up on the impact from El Nino, you kind of alluded to it but can you define that a little bit more specifically across your portfolio. What exactly are you? Andres Gluski Well, not all El Ninos are the same. This is a particularly strong El Nino. So that, normally El Nino would be favorable to, us but in the very case of the very strong El Ninos, it tends to be a bit drier in Panama than a normal El Nino. And, if you look at Southern Brazil you tend to get more rains in the extreme Southeast and somewhat less rains in the Central South. So were taken those into perspective. Normally in Colombia it’s somewhat better but with a very strong El Nino it is a little bit more volatile. So that’s the net that we think it’s a little bit negative from these factors. One thing that hasn’t been perhaps highlighted is that we have had really torrential rains in Sewall, in Rio Grande do Sul. We’ve had the worst rains since 1940. We have had storms that just recently knocked out 14 transmission towers and left half of the 1 million customers without power. And so that’s one of the things, for example, that’s affecting our 2015 guidance. So it’s basically these factors. It is a little bit Brazil, a little bit Panama and we are not expecting because it’s a strong El Nino to have the full offset in the case of Chivor in Colombia. Julien Dumoulin Great. I’ll leave it there, thank you. Andres Gluski Thanks, Julien. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Ali Agha of SunTrust. And as a reminder please mute your computer speakers. Your line is open. Ali Agha Thank you, good morning. Andres Gluski Good morning. Tom OFlynn Good morning, Ali. Ali Agha Andres, first question, beyond the FX profile that you’re looking at through 2018. Can you remind us what are you assuming for Hydro levels, for example, in Brazil? Are you assuming back to normal in 2016, 2017 and 2018. Or what is your assumption on Hydro? Andres Gluski Yes, Ali. We are assuming normal hydrology in Brazil for 2017 and 2018. That is correct. We’re assuming an El Nino through the first half of 2016. Ali Agha Okay. Secondly, can you also remind us why is there this huge disconnect between your earnings profile that continues to come down and your cash flow profile that remains 10% or higher with a proportional parent level? Why is the cash flow not being more impacted by these macro impacts on your earnings? Andres Gluski Yes. One of it is arithmetic. It’s a bigger number, so if you have an x amount of decrease, say $100 million, it is going to impact the smaller number more. But I think to be frank, we had a little bit more margin in our cash flow. And realize that our cash flow, as we have always been saying, is going to be growing faster than our earnings. And the primary driver is we have $3.5 of NOLs, we have higher depreciation that we have maintenance CapEx. And we also have some of the accounting for lease accounting and HLBV et cetera tends to spread this out. So I think, those are the primary reasons. They have not changed. And we been saying for some time that the fundamental strength of this company is its cash flow. And, I think that we have seen that even with these negative external factors, we’re delivering on what we had laid out. Tom OFlynn I’ll just add on one point that Andres just mentioned on the differential between proportional depreciation and proportional maintenance on environmental CapEx. We do continue to bring our maintenance environmental CapEx down, but that differential this year is about $300 million. The differential widens as new plants come on, that differential widens by about $75 million a year, so call it $0.78, that’s keeping earnings down, but growing cash. Ali Agha Got it, got it. And then thirdly, a more bigger picture. You’re doing a great job of trying to come up with internal offsets to these macro headwinds. Have you stepped back and taken a look at this entire portfolio? I mean, is this model working? That the AES global model and does it have to make sense for you to perhaps relook at the fact that the sum of the bars may be greater than the whole in terms of maximizing shareholder value? Andres Gluski We always look at that. I mean, we have an open mind. We know that we’re working for our shareholders. We will look at anything that we think increases shareholder value. Having said that, in terms of our portfolio, we think we have the global scale that really allows us to reach economies and synergies. So, for example, if you look at recent bids recent bids, whether it be California or the gas plant in IPL, which had to basically complete with alternatives or the gas plant and regassification terminal in Panama, we’re winning bids against the best in the business. And we’re able to do that because of this global scale and reach that we have. I think we’ve also shown that the portfolio, in this case, is offsetting. It’s doing well in one place; it’s not doing well on the other. And we think we have good combination of rapidly growing markets in Asia. And Latin America is going through a downturn in the cycle but realize that, other than Brazil, these markets are growing whereas, for example, in the U.S. it is a market where energy demand is not growing. Having said that, we have further fine-tuning to do. We have to sell down those areas where we have particular risks that have been affecting us. We are growing in those areas. If you look at where our growth is, 80% is U.S., or it’s Chile or even if you include Panama, it’s dollar-denominated. So we’re decreasing our currency and hydro risk over time. So we will continue to do what we’ve done in terms of fine-tuning this portfolio, taking advantage of our synergies, making it more efficient, cutting costs, standardizing to become the good operator. We keep an open mind. I think that we have – when, for example were people discussing Yoto in the past, we said we would look at it. We didn’t see it really a fit for us and we also felt that that would commit us to growth in situations where the markets may not be good. So, having said that, we will keep an open mind, but I think we have shown a lot of prudence in terms of going forward. We continue to look hard at our portfolio, what makes sense as a whole. And, we think we are on the right track. We have been hit with some pretty hard exogenous factors. But as we fine-tune this portfolio, we’ll be less susceptible to them over time. Ali Agha Understood. And lastly, did I hear you right, you think you’ll have another $1 billion in sale proceeds potentially between now and 2018? Andres Gluski Yes, we said up to. We said up to and this involves not only selling out of some places, but it could also mean selling down on specific businesses where we think we have too much of some risk or that we can churn that cash and put it to better use somewhere else for our shareholders. Ali Agha Thank you. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Keith Stanley of Wolfe Research. As a reminder please mute your computer speakers. Your line is open. Keith Stanley Hi, good morning. Could I just go back to the previous question on the cash flow outlook versus the earnings outlook? There is such a disparity there. Earnings, I guess come down a couple times now, but you guys continue to be able to maintain the cash flow outlook. So first of all, is the Bulgaria, the receipt of the Bulgaria receivables, is that now in your 2016 proportional free cash flow number? Andres Gluski No, it is not. As Tom laid out, we still hit our range without it in 2015, but we’re not including it in 2016. Keith Stanley So it would be upside to 2016 when you receive that cash? Andres Gluski That is correct. Keith Stanley Okay. And then, can you just talk a little more about what is – I know you identified some of the things that are driving cash flow to be stronger. How much should we assume is coming from opportunities within the subsidiaries to pull cash out? For example, you had that U.S. hold sell this year; you pulled about $200 million out. Are there a lot of opportunities to work within capital structures of subs that is helping to find incoming cash flow? Andres Gluski I’m going to ask Tom to answer this. I think the one thing to realize is that we’re focusing more on cash and getting cash back to the parent and that’s really what we’re maximizing. Sometimes there will be lumpiness in this, but not always from the same place. And we are also – but this is sustainable, because they really represent earnings from those companies that have been over time. So while there may be some lumpiness and when you get a back, it is not like a one-time shot. These things are sustainable over time and they will get bigger. Realize that we have about $1.1 billion in construction projects. We have our equity in construction projects. We have to put in $160 million more. We have a lot of money that is not yet producing results. So, Tom, if you’d like to clarify his question. Tom OFlynn Keith, I just on proportional free cash flow, maintenance and environmental CapEx is coming down. Just a general sense, it was close to $600 million this year. Over the next couple years, it’s going to be closer to $500 million. Part of that is working hard with efficiencies, but also we did finish an enviro retrofit program at Chile that is basically finished at the end of 2015, so that helps us. And you then you contrast that with growing depreciation from new assets, so it’s the differential between maintenance and environmental CapEx versus earnings. It is about $300 million today, and that differential grows about $75 million a year. We’ve always said, we do have NOLs that hit EPS, don’t hit cash. And then just sometimes when you bring a new business on, especially a new project, the earnings can be leaner at the early years, but cash continues to be strong. On parent free cash flow, it is an increasing focus of the business and a has been for a couple years. But we continue to find ways to drive efficient use of cash through the business. It may come through inventories, they’ll be down about 15% year-over-year. Our unrestricted cash on the balance sheet will be down about $100 million a year and it is down about $300 million from a couple years ago So we continue to look for efficient ways to run the business. I will say that, when we talk about parent free cash flow, all that is earnings. It’s either earnings from this year or it’s retained earnings from a prior year. When we call it parent free cash flow, it has to be earnings, either this year’s or last year’s or whatever. When we do something like the Jennco financing, if it’s a reflection of prior retained earnings, then we will call it parent free cash flow. If it’s a reflection of cash beyond retained earnings, then we will call it returning capital, and that’s why we make that distinction. To the shareholder, it’s really all money. We make that distinction which is really accounting driven. But we do think there are continued opportunities. A lot of that is growing cash in the businesses. It’s a function of proportional free cash flow, but then there are also opportunities to get businesses that may have delevered over time; we can re-lever them periodically. Obviously you don’t do that every year; you do that every few years. And of the ways to look to up freeing cash, that is a big focus. I will just say on the comment of, we do pay down a fair amount of subsidiary debt. $450 million, $500 million a year of subsidiary debt, and a lot of that we give value for, but we get it, let’s say, in loss. We will get it because we’ll refi something at one point in time that allows to have a chunk of your dividend that year. We may get it from the opportunity to build something where we have created equity value in a business and you build something, basically all debt because your equity all is already embedded in the business. Were doing that right now in the DR. And then also, obviously, the extent that we delever a business, like DPL we’re delevering. So on an aggregate-value business, equity is a bigger part of ag value. Andres Gluski Just to serve some high numbers, we’re paying about a 4% dividend. We have about a 9% parent free cash flow yield and about a 17% proportional free cash flow yield. I think it is very important what Tom said about the net debt that we pay down at the subs. The vast majority of this in businesses that are ongoing businesses, whether it be, for example, DPL utility. The money we feel that we’re paying down there, we’re creating value. I do agree that if that which would be going for an out of the money older coal plant, that would not be necessarily creating future equity value. But that is very small of that total number. So most of it is going for ongoing businesses. And realize that, because we are in markets that are growing, those plants that we have that we’re paying down nonrecourse debt are likely to even be recontracted at the same or higher prices in many cases. We are in markets that are growing at 10%. This is a very dynamic than in the states where we basically have flat demand. Keith Stanley That’s all very helpful. Two quick follow-ups. Can you give an update on the Brazil GSF cap and any progress there? Tom, I think you talked about at Maritza, sort of the issue is the government guarantee of the bridge financing. Is there a material risk there in Maritza or are you still feeling very confident on getting this done? Tom OFlynn Yes, let me get those one at a time. There are discussions going on down in Brazil about compensation to the generators for the meaningful reduction in output GSF beyond listing their nameplate. This year it is going to be about 83% to 85% of GSF. Those discussions are ongoing. I think there are some offsets, some exchanges that have to be made to get some of that. And we are cautious, I would say about whether that will be really a value to us. We’re not baking any of that into our numbers is the important thing. The team is working hard. They are working with other folks down there in similar positions, but at this point we are cautious. And we are not baking any value, cash, earnings or anything else, into our outlook at this point in time. In Maritza, we continue to be positive about it. As you know, we do have a large receivable now of $330 million. Everyone is on board in terms of the banks. The issue, NEK is owned by a holding company called BEH. BEH does have public debt out there. I believe it trades around 5%, 5.5%, but they’ve gone out for proposals from some bank groups. There’s two or three large groups. The primary issue is whether the banks would do a bridge before public take-out that would basically be a parry passive with the current BEH outstanding. Whether the banks would get a sovereign guarantee for all or part of that net, that is the major discussion. Our team is obviously in the middle of this. There may be some other ways to work our way through it. We think ultimately this will be resolved. We do think given its – time is marching on here for 2015; it may be in 2016. That’s not a material issue for us at this point. As you asked Keith, we will be in the range for proportional free cash flow if Maritza’s resolution doesn’t happen this year. All be it, it will be in the lower end of the range. But we expect it to happen next year. And obviously, we would have a very large number for next year. The discount that would accrue, which is about $2 million or $3 million a month, does not kick in until we get paid. Keith Stanley Right. Andres Gluski I think one of the important things to mention is that the Bulgarian government is in the process of enacting the regulatory reforms and terra pro forms that will make NEK cash sustainable over the time. There are two parts, one we want to catch up as soon as possible. But equally important is to have the enactment of these reforms which will solve the problem on an ongoing basis. Keith Stanley Thank you. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Stephen Byrd of Morgan Stanley. [Operator Instructions] Your line is open. Stephen Byrd Hi, Good morning. Andres Gluski Good morning, Step. Stephen Byrd I wanted to follow up on the point about deleveraging down at the subsidiary level. As you look out at the different subsidiaries, is there a potential for releveraging increasing financing there such that over 2016 or beyond you could increase the cash flow to the parent beyond your expectations? Is there a meaningful potential for that as you look at over the next couple of years? Andres Gluski What I would say is we do have a number of under-levered assets in different markets. We’ve talked a lot about Chiete, over time, how to relever Chiete. I would say that it’s really going to depend on the development in those markets and what rates we can relever these businesses. One of these issues we’ve had in Brazil at Sul, is that the interest rates on that particular business, which was hit by the drought and the lag in tariff increases and therefore needed more cash as the interest rates on loans in Brazil are 18% to 19%. So we will be cautious about that. Realize that 95% plus of our subsidiary debt is in the functional currency of that business. So that means means, in places like Brazil, you have to go with floating rates to accomplish that. So we don’t have a currency mismatch. But, to answer your question, we do have those opportunities. Tom and the team have taken advantage of it. In many cases it’s to put that money to work on what we think are very attractive adjacency sort of Brownfield type projects. There are opportunities there, but we don’t feel at this time to put anything into our guidance. It’s an opportunity we have to see how some of these markets develop. Tom OFlynn Yes. Steve, I just said, I mean we do have. It’s a great point. We are continuing to work at that that. Parent free cash flow will be up next year about 20%. That is why we have lost margin in the businesses for the currencies and other things that we talk about. Part of that is a reflection of trying to do exactly as you say. Stephen Byrd Understood. I wanted to shift over to growth. You’ve been able to develop a number of hybrid term projects. When you look out at potential further growth out there in your targeted market, do you think it’s a fairly target rich environment or do you think you are more likely to move towards greater amounts of share buyback given where the stock is? Generally, how do you see the context for even further growth in the future? Andres Gluski Obviously, where our stock is trading at is a factor. That really raises the bar in terms of what the projects have to return. As you pointed out, we have had very attractive returns on our projects. A key factor of that is partners. By bringing in partners who pay us a management fee or a promote or buy into a project, that really raises return on our capital. In terms of a target-rich environment, we are going ahead with those that we see are extremely profitable short-term platform additions. Desal in Chile, as an example. We are going to complete our projects in Panama and Southland. But we are narrowing our scope because of the drop in our share price also, quite frankly, because of the decrease of cash flow of some of our subsidiaries, as a result of XF and commodities. I think we will continue to do what we’ve been doing. We will continue to strengthen our credit over time. We have allocated some paydown of debt in 2016 as we did in 2015 and as we have done before. And that will continue to make us more stable in terms of earnings and cash flow at the parent. So that’s the focus that we have. So in summary, we continue to see good opportunities, but the bar has been raised. We will continue to use partnerships extensively to take advantage of it and we will continue to try to get the optimal portfolio. Taking Ali’s question, we want to get to a portfolio which has the growth, but has less of certain risks be it hydrology are specific markets. Stephen Byrd That’s very helpful. Thank you very much. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Gregg Orrill from Barclays. As a reminder, please mute your computer speakers. Your line is open. Gregg Orrill Yes, thank you. I had two questions. First on DPL. Can you talk a little bit more about how you expect the credit to be trending and maybe on an FFO to debt basis over the next number of years. And then on Brazil. How much of the 2016 earnings impact was related to Brazil, and how are you thinking about managing that position in general? Thank you. Andres Gluski Okay. Yes, I’ll ask Tom to talk about the credit improvement for us at DP&L and then we’ll come back to the Brazil question. Tom OFlynn We continue to pay down debt. I haven’t got the FFO projections offhand, but the next maturity which is with at the DPL parent, not DP&L, the utility is $130 million next fall and we expect to be able to pay that off with internal cash flow that was contemplated when we left some of it outstanding with the refi we did a year or so ago. So we continue to see debt paydown. We will be transitioning the DP&L integrated utility from a fully integrated. We will be creating a Jennco, basically a sister to the utility that will involve some refinancing at the DP&L level, and that we’ll be over the next couple of years, within the next couple of years. We can follow up with the FFO specifically at DPL and DP&L. Gregg Orrill Okay. Andres Gluski When you’re asking about Brazil, are you asking versus 2015 or versus our prior 2016 guidance? Gregg Orrill Prior 2016. How much of the $0.20, roughly $0.20, impact is Brazil? Andres Gluski It’s approximately $0.05 that is coming from Brazil from the different things that are happening in Brazil. Again, going back, we had a 5% decrease in demand, which is very strong, this year. It’s reflecting a weakening economy. The economy in Brazil is actually contracting between 2.5% and 3% this year. In addition, you had increase in tariffs and you’ve had these terrible weather conditions in Sul. That’s a part of the things that are affecting demand in Brazil and then you have the effect on the currencies. Gregg Orrill Thank you. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Chris Turnure of JP Morgan. And as a reminder please mute your computer speakers. Your line is open. Chris Turnure Good morning. I just wanted to touch a little bit more on growth opportunities both organically and via asset purchases outside the Company. You guys have kind of already given color on this, but mentioned that there’s a higher bar now due to your lower share price and the alternative there of repurchasing shares. Are there any particular markets via purchases or organic growth that are that much more attractive today versus a year ago that the investment opportunities with the leverage with the JV partners might make you more interested in certain areas versus others or certain risk profiles versus others? Andres Gluski I think we would have to really look at the distribution of our portfolio. And really where we have synergies. We’re not going to do any deals, we’ve always said, that would just bring money. There really has to be synergies or something special to it. Right now we’re really focused on completing our projects and those that we mentioned are Southland and Panama, a little desal in Chile. And some energy storage projects which we think have a great potential not only for the projects themselves, but also to help us with third-party channel sales of our technology. I would say Mexico is a market that looks attractive given the partner that we have, but we’re going to be very disciplined. We’re going to be disciplined going forward, because, obviously, we have to react to the change of circumstances. We think that we have a lot of embedded growth in what we have already done. We do not want to be in a situation where we are spending on things that therefore we cannot finance or we have better opportunity to use that money somewhere else. Now having said that, if we give guidance out to 2018, but obviously 2019 is going to be even stronger. And then in 2020, you have Southland coming on. So we also want to have the opportunity for of these brownfield additions in the 1920s space, but we’re not going to be spending a lot of money chasing them at this stage. But if there are opportunities that we can keep at a low cost on the back burner, we will be looking at those. Chris Turnure Okay great. And then just could you give us some high-level thoughts on Brazil right here? You touched on hydrology for next year and that you think load growth is probably going to be around flat versus it being down so much this year. Could you talk more to the medium and longer term picture there? Andres Gluski Sure, I think there are two things in Brazil. One is that they are in a recession now. It is a going to take a little time for them to work their way out of it, in my opinion. There’s obviously a lot of political confusion, which doesn’t help. But, having said that, in the case of Brazil, this is an economy which has a population in the optimal level. It is still growing. There is still a lot of opportunities in Brazil, especially they do have structural reforms. So I think everybody, if you look at a medium to longer term outlook for Brazil, in the energy sector, will be far more positive than the outlook today, because you’re really looking at it. I think what is important to realize about Brazil, it is not just commodities that’s affecting them. It has really been internal politics and internal decisions. So, their ability to recover is much greater. So that’s it. We don’t expect great recovery in Brazil in 2016, and maybe even 2017. But thereafter, the fundamentals as the market look pretty sound. Chris Turnure Great. Thanks Andres. Operator And your final question comes from the line of Brian Chin of Merrill Lynch. And please mute your computer speakers. Your line is open. Brian Chin Hi, good morning. Tom OFlynn Good morning, Brian. Brian Chin Just a clarification on the guidance. You mentioned that there had been share repurchases of 400 million that were newly authorized by the Board. Does the guidance consider those share repurchases, or no? Tom OFlynn In terms of the longer-term guidance, we have some modest share repurchases in there. I would point out that I’ve always said in the past, we do always get the authorizations that we need. But we have said that we would do this opportunistically. So we will be very, again, disciplined in our execution of this. In terms of cash, we have some debt pay down as well into these forecast to make sure that we are credit neutral or improving our credit overtime. Brian Chin So then, just to be clear, the longer-term guidance considers some portion of 400 million share repurchases? The near-term numbers we should assume do not incorporate any; is that right? Tom OFlynn Yes, Brian. We look at a balance of share repurchase and debt repayment. It takes time, there’s opportunities to complete those. We’ll look at those, but we don’t put hypotheticals into our numbers. It’s an allocation of discretionary cash beyond our CapEx as to find between share repurchase and debt payment. Brian Chin Okay, understood. I realize that I’m perhaps delving in a little too nitty-gritty on what is assumed in there or not. But one more question on this front. We’re talking about still pursuing $1 billion in asset sales proceeds. That is not considered in the guidance? Or is it? Tom OFlynn It’s really a good question. First I want to clarify. This is up to $1 billion. So we don’t have a targeted $1 billion in sales. So this is up to $1 billion. It will depend on the opportunities and the use that we have for that cash. I want to make that perfectly clear. In terms of our guidance, we do have continued fine- tuning of our portfolio. We have some consideration for some modest dilution from some of the sales. Because that may not pan out in the sense it depends what we sell, the timing of what we sell. But we are being prudent in here that if we sell so. We will update that in terms of some of these asset sell downs materialize. And of course and it will vary very much the net effect. Whether it’s exactly what we have embedded or not, will depend on the use of that cash, whether it’s debt paydown or share buybacks or it’s another project and what’s the gestation period of that project. Brian Chin Understood. And last question, the $150 million cost-cutting initiative that was launched, can you give us a sense of what is mechanically are you looking at? You’ve had a number of cost-cutting initiatives over the last few year, many of which have been successful. Just a little more color on what you’re envisioning with this one and can you give us an SBU or at least geographic breakdown of where most of the cost initiatives you think –? Tom OFlynn I’m going to pass this one to Bernard. We’re not going to give a breakdown by SBU. But Bernard can give you a little color about some of the things. He’s looking at the SBU level, but this is everyone. This is finance; this is IT; this is absolutely everything is being look at in the Company. Bernerd Da Santos When you look at what we have done since 2012, we have seen more opportunity for seeds we moved actively for the SBU. So we’re taking advantage for economies of scales, some process, some monetization. I’m trying to give you a flavor of four pockets that we’re looking more into that quarter. The first one is intensified our progress in subsidiaries and economies of scale that is very focused on sourcing, cold, scarce inventory and long-term service agreements. The second part that we have here is centralized our global G&A. We continue to focus on that. We have roughly about $480 million is the global G&A ownership-adjusted. So we have financiers, we have service centers already lower across locations where we operate. So we’re going to lever up those. We want to continue to have more G&A transactional process, or back-office activity done in those lower cost locations. The other one is done that is estimatization and relegation of what our AES programs, that is actually to improve our profitability for our 35 gigawatts fleet. That is also including cheap grade and lower our outage or efforts that we have in our fleet. And the last pocket is really streamline our organization as we rebalance the portfolio. As we sell down some of our business, as we sell some of our assets, we also were looking for what are the new operations that are coming in for our construction. We’re streamlining our organization in order to be more centralized and more focused on more efficient base on the portfolio that we have. Brian Chin Great. Thank you very much. Andres Gluski Well, we thank everybody for joining us on today’s call. We look forward to seeing you at EAI. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to call our team. Thank you and have a nice day. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s conference call. You may now disconnect.

Duke Energy’s (DUK) Lynn Good on Q3 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Duke Energy Corporation (NYSE: DUK ) Q3 2015 Earnings Conference Call November 05, 2015 10:00 AM ET Executives Bill Currens – VP, IR Lynn Good – President and CEO Steve Young – EVP and CFO Analysts Shar Pourreza – Guggenheim Partners Dan Eggers – Credit Suisse Jonathan Arnold – Deutsche Bank Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs Brian Chin – Bank of America/Merrill Lynch Jim Von Riesemann – Mizuho Securities Ali Agha – SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Paul Ridzon – KeyBanc Capital Markets Operator Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Duke Energy Third Quarter Earnings Review and Business Update. At this time, all lines have been placed on a listen-only mode and the floor will be open for questions following the presentation. [Operator Instructions] It is now pleasure to introduce your host Bill Currens, Vice President of Investor Relations. Sir you may begin. Bill Currens Thank you, Jeff. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Duke Energy’s third quarter 2015 earnings review and business update. Leading our call is Lynn Good, President and CEO, along with Steve Young, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Today’s discussion will include forward-looking information and the use of non-GAAP financial measures. Slide 2 presents the Safe Harbor statement, which accompanies our presentation materials. A reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures can be found on our Web site at duke-energy.com and in today’s materials. Please note that the appendix to today’s presentation includes supplemental information and additional disclosures to help you analyze the Company’s performance. As summarized on Slide 3, Lynn will cover our third quarter highlights and provide summary of our recent strategic and growth initiatives. Then Steve will provide an overview of our third quarter financial results and an update on our economic activities within our service territories, as well as an overview of our earnings growth prospects as we move into 2016 in the future. With that, I’ll turn the call over to Lynn. Lynn Good Good morning, and thanks for joining us. This morning reported third quarter 2015 adjusted EPS of $1.47 per share above the $1.40 per share in 2014, as favorable weather and growth in the regulating utilities supported our results. Our regulated businesses have performed well throughout 2015 delivering solid financial results. As we look to the fourth quarter, we are narrowing our guidance range to $4.55 to $4.65 per share. This range reflects mild October weather, as well as storm expenses, unfavorable foreign currency trends and the potential for extending bonus depreciation. The extension of bonus will modestly increase our effective tax for the year. Earlier this year, we increase the growth rate of the dividend to approximately 4%, reflecting our confidence in the strength of our core businesses. The growing dividend supports our commitment to deliver attractive long-term returns for shareholders. Our financial results are made possible by the efforts of our people who work every day to keep our plant safe, efficient and reliable, providing our customers with valuable services. Our regulated generation fleet continued to deliver for customers during the critical summer months. Our nuclear fleet achieved a 97% capacity factor during the quarter and our growing regulated gas fleet continued to deliver value for our customers, taking advantage of the low natural gas prices. In fact our utilities have burned more natural gas in the first nine months of 2015 than they did in either of the two prior full years. The Edwardsport IGCC plant continues to operate well, achieving a third quarter gasifier availability factor of around 80%, massing the first quarter’s record. Additionally in July, the facility achieved a record month of net generation. In early October, we experienced heavy rains and flooding in the Carolinas and 500,000 customer outages. We were well prepared and mobilized our crudes in advance, speeding the restoration of service. Like others in the industry we are making progress towards a safe, cost effective closure of our Ash Basins in the Carolinas. Basin closure is underway at six sites and we are working through the approval of closure plans at our remaining basins. I’m proud of the way the Duke team has responded to this important industry issue with excellence and leadership. We are systematically and strategically increasing our regulated business mix through a series of acquisitions and divestitures as highlighted on Slide 5. As well as the portfolio of investments I will discuss in a moment. Last week, we were very excited to announce the plan to acquire Piedmont Natural Gas, which will add a well established natural gas business and platforms in the Duke portfolio. From a strategic perspective, we see this acquisition as the foundation for establishing a broader gas infrastructure platform within Duke, building upon our recent gas pipeline investments and complementing our existing gas LBT business in the Midwest. We plan to leverage the scale Duke with Piedmont’s well regarded management team and excellent operational capabilities. Piedmont has long been recognized as a premier operator of low risk regulated gas infrastructure. We have partnered with them over many years, as they have built and operated the critical gas infrastructure that serves natural gas generation in this region. Piedmont is experiencing robust customer growth and is investing in projects that have constructive regulatory mechanisms providing a strong base to organic growth. These investments are expected to grow their rate base, by an average of around 9% over the coming years. This acquisition is expected to close by the end of 2016 and be accretive to our earnings in the first full year after close. This will increase our total regulated business mix to over 90%, firmly supporting our earnings and dividend growth objectives. We will keep you updated, as we progress through the approval process. Turning to Slide 6. We are also focused on creating long-term growth and value for our customers and shareholders, with investments that will modernize our system, both our generation and our growth for the benefit of our customers. We continue to introduce more diversity to our fleet through low cost natural gas. Construction has begun on a combined cycle natural gas plant at the lease site in South Carolina, while preconstruction activities will commence on the Citrus County combined-cycle plant later this year. Both projects represent a total of over 2 billion in investments and remain on-time and on-budget. Our Western Carolina modernization project also remains on track. You may recall that we decided to retire our coal unit in Asheville and replaced it with a combined-cycle gas plant and a new transmission line, to improve reliability and support growth in the Asheville area. After working through a comprehensive stakeholder engagement process over the course for the summer, we announced yesterday a modified set of resources to support this project, eliminating the need for a new transmission line. Rather than the 650 megawatt gas plant, we will build two 280 megawatt combined-cycle natural gas units with the option for 190 megawatt simple cycle unit by 2023. A total estimated investment of just over $1 billion. This modification allows us to maintain our 2024 retirement schedule, while reflecting important input from our customers and communities. Further, earlier this year we acquired the NCEMPA asset, a project that is a win-win for our customers in the Eastern region of North Carolina. Our two gas pipeline infrastructure project Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Sabal Trail will provide critical access to additional low cost natural gas in the Southeast, helping to meet growing demand for the fuel from our generation portfolio, as well as to serve our customers’ needs. These projects continue to move through the regulatory approval and siting processes. The formal FERC application for ACT was filed in September and we expect FERC approval in 2016. Once FERC approval is obtained, the project can begin construction activities with an expected COD in late 2018. At Sabal Trial FERC approval is expected in early 2015 with the pipeline operational in 2017. In Indiana, we are revising our grid modernization plan under state legislation and we plan to re-file our plan by the end of this year. We’re also making meaningful progress growing our renewable investments both in our regulated footprint and in the commercial business. On the regulated side, we’re on track to complete construction of 128 megawatts of utility scaled solar in North Carolina by the end of this year and our moving forward with investments in both South Carolina and Florida. Our commercial renewables portfolio also continues to grow with demand for wind and solar projects throughout the U.S. is supported by renewable portfolio standards and growing customer demand. We have a number of commercial wind and solar projects slated to come online later this year, which will increase this portfolio to over 2,700 megawatts of capacity. Overall, these growth investments total $20 billion through 2019 and provide the foundation for growth in the coming years. Steve will provide additional perspective on 2016 and beyond in his remarks. In conclusion, we continue to execute very well, providing safe, reliable and affordable power to our customers. Our growth prospects remain strong as we deploy significant capital and critical energy infrastructure investments. This establishes the foundation to provide clean modern energy to our customers and our communities for decades to come. Let me turn it over to Steve. Steve Young Thanks Lynn. Today, I’ll review our third quarter financial results and provide a brief look into 2016. I would also discuss the economic drivers in our regulated service territories and the low growth experienced in the third quarter. I’ll ramp up with the discussion of our financial objectives. Let’s start with the quarterly results as highlighted on Slide 7. For more detailed information on segment variances versus last year, please refer to the supporting materials that accompanied today’s press release. We achieved third quarter adjusted diluted earnings per share of $1.47, compared to $1.40 in last year’s third quarter. On a reported basis, 2015 third quarter earnings per share were $1.35, compared to $1.80 last year. As a reminder last year’s third quarter results included a $0.43 favorable adjustment for a change in the estimated value of the Mid-West generation business. A reconciliation of reported results to adjusted results is included in the supplemental materials to today’s presentation. Regulated utilities quarterly adjusted results increased by $0.07 per share, driven largely by warmer weather and strong margins in our wholesale business, including the new NCEMPA contract. As we expected, these positive drivers were partially offset by higher O&M related to the timing of outages, increased cost related to NCEMPA and higher storm costs. International’s quarterly earnings declined $0.02 over last year. Continued weakness in foreign exchange rates in Brazil and lower margins at National Methanol were partially offset by lower purchase power costs in Brazil. Additionally, we recognized an asset impairment in Ecuador during the quarter. Our commercial portfolio incurred $0.08 of lower adjusted earnings as a result of the absence of prior year Mid-West generation results due to lower wind resources this year earnings from our commercial renewable business are expected to be around 75 million for the full year versus our original expectation of 100 million. Commercial’s results will be favorable impacted in the fourth quarter by tax credits related to over 300 megawatts of wind in solar generation scheduled to come online. And finally other was up $0.06 due to favorable tax adjustments in the timing of tax levelization as a reminder due to income tax levelization other reflects projected benefits related to renewable tax credits ratably during the year. Once the projects become operational these benefits are reallocated to the commercial portfolio. Lastly our quarterly results benefited $0.04 from the accelerated stock repurchase completed earlier in the year. Moving on to Slide 8, I’ll now discuss our retail customer volume trends. Across our jurisdictions weather-normalized retail load growth has increased by 0.3%, over the rolling 12 months. Within the residential sector we are seeing some positive trends. We continue to add new customers at an annual rate of approximately 1.3%. And we’ve now experienced two consecutive quarters of relatively flat usage per customer. We also continue to see favorable key indicators for the residential sector including employment, personal incomes and spending, as well as household formations. The commercial sector continues to grow modestly benefiting from declining office vacancy rates and expansion in the restaurant and real estate sub-sectors. This growth was partially offset by lower governmental and retail store sales during the quarter. The industrial sector while strong for most of the year has recently slowed, we are continuing to see transportation and building materials gain momentum. In particular, residential construction activities remain strong in the Southeast. During the quarter, we began to experience some weakness in the metals and chemicals subsectors. This slowdown is due to a pause in industrial activity, driven by a deceleration of consumer, business and government spending, a reduction in inventories and the strong dollar which has reduced global demand for U.S. products. Our economic development teams remain active successfully helping to track new business investments into our service territories. So far this year these activities have led to the announcement of $2.4 billion in capital investments, which is expected to result in nearly 7,200 new jobs across our six states. With rolling 12 month weather-normalized load growth of 0.3% we expect to thin towards the low-end of our original 2015 expectation of 0.5% to 1%. Moving to Slide 9, let me layout our key earnings drivers, as we begin thinking about 2016. As has been our normal practice we will provide our 2016 guidance range and updated financial plans in February. For our regulated businesses, we plan for normal weather. We expect growth from rider recovery and AFUDC on major capital investments, along with a full year impact of the NCEMPA transaction and modest growth in retail load. With respect to our cost structure, we continue to build upon the success of our recent merger integration activities. Cost management is an ongoing effort. And we are finding ways to reduce O&M below current levels to match modest sales growth. We expect growth in the commercial portfolio, as we continue to add contracted renewable generation and expect the return of normal wind patterns. The loss of Midwest generation’s earnings contribution is a headwind but it is partially offset by the accelerated soft repurchase. We expect internationals’ earnings have stabilized in 2015 and have the opportunity for modest growth in 2016, largely driven by an expectation for improved high growth dispatch, over the past several months we begun to see higher water inflows and lower market power crises. Further, meteorologists are forecasting a strong Alminio weather pattern through early 2016, which could lead to increased rainfall in Southeastern Brazil. Currency exchange rates are expected to remain volatile but the inflationary provisions in our contracts in Brazil can help to mitigate some of the currency devaluation. We also expect Brent crude oil prices will stabilize in 2016. Now moving to Slide 10, I want to step back and discuss our overall earnings growth objectives. Since 2013, our regulated and commercial segments representing 90% of Duke Energy have delivered 5% earnings growth. As we look at 2016 and beyond. These segments are expected to continue to grow within our 4% to 6% growth objective as we deploy significant capital and critical gas and electric infrastructure investments, including the acquisition of Piedmont, as well as renewable investments in our commercial business. We will also see the potential for rate cases in the Carolinas in the coming years to provide timely cash recovery of these important investments. The remaining portion of the company, the international business has experienced a decline, contributing earnings of $0.67 per share in 2013 and 2014 to about half that in 2015. About half of this decline is due to the three year drought in Brazil while unfavorable exchange rates and lower crude oil prices comprise the remaining half. From this point forward we will believe that internationals’ earnings have stabilized and are positioned for modest growth, consistent with our past practice, we will provide more specific financial guidance in February. We plan to reset our base to 4% to 6% long-term earnings growth off of 2016. This reflects continued strong growth in our core businesses, as well as a more realistic based year for growth in our international business from 2016 forward. Moving on Slide 11 outlines our financial objectives for 2015 and beyond. For the reasons Lynn mentioned earlier, we are narrowing our guidance range for 2015, from $4.55 to $4.75 per share to $4.55 to $4.65 per share. We have made significant progress in advancing our strategic growth initiatives, both in our regulated and commercial businesses providing strong support for our long-term earnings growth objective. Our objective is to grow the dividend annually at a rate consistent with our long-term’s earnings growth objectives. In near-term, our payout ratio will trend slightly above 70%. We are comfortable with that higher range based on the strong growth in our core regulated and commercial businesses. And the cash flows we are repatriating from international. Our strong investment grade credit ratings are important to us, as they help us finance our growth in an efficient manner. I am pleased with our results for 2015. We have successfully executed on a number of key strategic initiatives and delivered strong financial and operating results. Helping to offset the weakness in international, we remain focused on finishing the year well. With that, let’s open the line for your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. The floor is now open for questions. [Operator Instructions] Our first question is coming from Shar Pourreza of Guggenheim Partners. Shar Pourreza So this morning, you reiterated your 4% to 6% growth, but also higher yet to be determined 2016 base year and you did drop that footnote you had in the second quarter around DEI potentially being a swing factor in your outlook. Steve is this sort of like what you meant when you mentioned that Piedmont deal would enhance growth trajectory is it less concerns around DEI or sort of what’s driving this increased confidence? Steve Young Well, I think what I would refer you to Shar is the slide we discussed 10. Where we looked at our core businesses, when you isolate international with our core businesses they have grown consistently at 5% from 2013 through ’15 and we would expect that to continue. The international business has involved which moved from a $0.60 per year business to $0.30. And that’s been the challenge we’ve had to deal with in 2015, that’s difficult to overcome. So we billion rebasing in ’16 makes sense in light of what international has done. Shar Pourreza And it included Piedmont right? Lynn Good We expect to close Piedmont Shar towards the end of ’16 into ’17, you may recall from our announcement a week ago that we laid out a calendar. We will work as aggressively as we can to close it but I think a year is a good planning assumption. Shar Pourreza Okay, got it. And then just one last question on international, it’s good to see the currencies becoming a little bit less of an issue the hydrology is improving. We haven’t heard much on this lately. Is there any sort of incremental datapoints around the Brazilian government potentially looking at providing some sort of a retrieve to the hydro generators or is this sort of a kind of a dead movement? Steve Young There has been a lot of activity in this area Shar, recently there was a technical note that was issued by an arm of the government and that’s really just a document that summarizes discussions to-date, a number of discussions are occurring. The government is targeting issuing effectively an executive order this calendar it remains uncertain exactly when, but that’s their target. And what that order might say is not certain at this point either. So there is more work to be done here. I would say that in general the views of people and the government and the regulators have been constructive with regard to generators in our position. So there is more to come there in the meantime, the injunctions are still in effect and that has provided some relief to us. Operator Thank you. Our next question is coming from Dan Eggers of Credit Suisse. Dan Eggers Hi just taking up on the Slide 11, when you guys, you made the comment about the dividend trending higher than target payout ratio, but also you are wanting to keep with the long-term EPS growth rate. Can you just maybe translate what you’re trying to signal in those comments which seem to be a little bit in conflict? Lynn Good Dan, I would go back to the Steve’s comments on Slide 10 with the intent to rebase off of 2016 and move to 4% to 6% from that point forward. We see the dividend trending slightly above 70% in the very near-term. And so if I look at the strength of the dividend, the dividend is really driven by the underlying core business, which is growing quite well and given the investments we have put in place, we believe that it will continue. And so we have confidence in growing it at that rate and allowing payout ratio trend out modestly in the short-term we think it’s a smart decision. Dan Eggers Okay. And then on O&Ms you guys have done a good job as far as bringing down costs since the Progress acquisition. What kind of reductions do you see from here as you are a part of that ’16 drivers the idea of bringing cost out, is it a substantial reduction ’16 versus ’15 or is more just absorbing inflation at this point? Lynn Good We are still at work Dan on our plans and we’re targeting to absorb inflation plus and we think that’s going to be a combination of a number of things that we build a strong foundation on but we are going after productivity and efficiency and the company as you said has demonstrated a great ability to control cost and we see even more potential in to ’16. Dan Eggers Okay. And then I guess maybe the last one just on you kind of just calibrated the commercial business and not to get too far ahead on ’16 but commercial is now coming in below where you guys thought the normal baseline would be, do you still feel comfortable with $100 million as your run rate from residual commercial? Lynn Good This year we’ve been impacted by wind resources Dan and I think that’s a theme that you have seen with others that have significant renewable exposure. So we expect our restoration of that to more normal levels as part of our planning for ’16 and then we do intend to continue to deploy capital in a way that meets our return expectations, so we would expect to see some growth. I think over the long-term the cash spreads and other things will have to be evaluated, but we see ongoing momentum around renewables. Steve Young And we have committed projects for 2016 lined up as well to keep the growth going there and also in our commercial portfolio as you move forward we will start to see earnings from our pipeline investments kick in as well. Dan Eggers Okay. So just one last one on the load growth trends, you may have had a — you are below, at the bottom end or a little bit below where you thought you’d be even the customer growth seemed pretty good this year, are you having to reconsider kind of what that long-term growth rate is, is it 0% to 0.5% or do you think there is some discrete usage trends maybe around multi-family housing or something like that that is explaining why usage has been that much of a drag relative to customer growth? Lynn Good Dan, I think we’ve been working with a 0.5% to 1% for some time and I think a 0.5% seems to be the range that we’re in. And I think it’s all the things you talked about it is synergy efficiency, it is housing patterns and even volatility in industrial. We had strong industrial growth when you dial back in this quarter. So what we are focused on as we kind of link this discussion to our cost structure, is planning to cost structure that can absorb that variability and also be positioned for modest very low load growth if that’s the direction things continue to head. Operator Thank you. Our next question is from Jonathan Arnold of Deutsche Bank. Jonathan Arnold I just would like to understand a little better when you are talking about this rebase on 2016 and Steve, I’m not quite sure whether I have you right, are you saying you anticipate growing at the 4% to 6% through 2016 and then also off of 2016 or implicit within this concept to the rebase seems to be the idea that maybe you weren’t or you want to reposition the range a little bit, I just want to understand what you are saying on ’16, when you made that statement? Steve Young What we are looking at Jonathan is we will set a base year or anchor year off of 2016 and then you would see 4% to 6% growth from there. And we think we’ve got to do that given the changes in international we think it’s stabilized and it’s moved from again a $0.60 business to a $0.30ish business going forward. So where we base with ’16 as the anchor we see a 4% to 6% growth there, underlined by the strong core business growth in the track history that it shows and some potential modest growth in international from that new lower level. Lynn Good And so what I would add to that Jonathan, if you could look at the Slide 10, you see the regulated and commercial portfolio, the blue bar that’s the bar that’s growing at 4% to 6% and then you have an international business, which is about $0.30 in ’15 so it would add to that and grow modestly. So that’s the direction that we are trying to provide here with expectations for ’16 and then we think from that base, we are in a position to grow at 4% to 6% going forward. Jonathan Arnold Okay. Understood. Thank you. Could you maybe just — do you have an expectation currently on what — how pension will look as a driver for next year just specifically or is it a little early to tell? Steve Young It’s a little early to tell on pension you got to take a look at the discount rate right at year-end, and who knows where that will go, if the Fed raises rates or something that could have an impact on it, I don’t think it would be any huge change that we’re looking at in pension expense, at this point but again with it being so sensitive to the discount rate, we would — it’s a little early to say precisely. Operator Thank you. Our next question is coming from Steve Fleishman of Wolfe Research. Steve Fleishman So a couple of questions, I just, these international pressures are not new and in the past you talked about trying to work on a plan and things to offset the international pressures. It just sounds to me like, it just not — you just kind of changed to, they just are what they are, we’re just resetting the base and then growing off there, because these are just — became too much. Is that fair to say what happened? Lynn Good Steve I would say slightly differently. And in 2015, I think the team has done an extraordinary job of offsetting. What is happened in international, we started the year with an expectation, they would deliver 345 and they’re delivering just north of 200 million. And that’s an execution on strategic initiatives more timely and that’s been running the business slow and taking advantage of good weather and other things that have developed. As we look forward, we did not have an expectation earlier in the year of weather international with rebound, the depth of the currency issues, were difficult to forecast at that time, the economic implications. And so as we sit here, closing the year we see a rebound on water conditions in hydrology, but we continue to see headwinds on currency and economic growth. And so we think it’s appropriate in light of what we see today to establish a baseline of about $0.30 for ’15 on international. And then we do believe it’s stabilized and we see an opportunity for modest growth from there. I think what is important is that the 90% of the business regulated in core has demonstrated strong growth over the period of ’13 to ’15 and we think that will keep going. As a result of all the investments we have put in place and our ability to execute. Steve Fleishman And the updated guidance for the international you are now — are you using kind of current forwards for currency in oil and the like or? Lynn Good Yes. Steve Young Yes. Steve Fleishman And essentially are you — okay, great. And then just thinking about Piedmont and the context for the 4% to 6% of this 2016 base now just would that — you talked on the deal announcement of that enhancing the 4% to 6% so if there was no Piedmont, would you still be 4% to 6% or not. Could you just kind of clarify now that you have this new base? Lynn Good Yes. So the growth rate is not dependent on Piedmont. We believe the base business itself, the investments that we’ve outlined, the way the business is executing is capable of growing 4 to 6. So we see Piedmont as incremental to the growth rate. And… Steve Fleishman But still in the 4 to 6? Lynn Good Yes. Steve Fleishman Okay. And then just on the dividend growth and earnings growth comment. Because you’re saying, we’re going to grow the dividend in line with earnings but then we’re above the payout ratio. So kind of by definition you just switch to end up saying about the payout ratio. If that is what you actually do? So could you just kind of clarify your communication there? Steve Young Our dividend is growing about 4% now. I believe that we’ll move above the 70% target level for a while. But as we grow we believe we’ll return back to our target level. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from Michael Lapides of Goldman Sachs & Company. Michael Lapides Real quick question, just when you think about the renewable business. You have had the earnings benefit in the last year or so. Can you quantify and Steve you touched on it, I want to make sure I understand it. Can you quantify the total EPS benefit of the tax credits? And then how you think about replacing that if solar development slows post 2016 and tax credit roll off or PTCs don’t actually get extended? Steve Young Michael right now, a lot of the net income bottom-line benefit from the renewables, the commercial renewables business comes from the tax benefits. There is some profitability on the non-tax side in the ongoing margin, but the bulk of the earnings comes from the tax benefits. So your question is when these tax benefits when and if they expire what happens there. I think based on what we have seen and heard now there will still be a market for renewable power as no states are backing off RPF standards and that’s a basis for a lot of the growth here is responding to RFPs to meet these requirements. The PPAs in the contracts may have to change with the absence of the tax benefits. And the pricing may have to change, but we will still structure this business to provide profitability here. I would also add that the cost for the renewables is going down and will help offset some of the tax benefits that exists. Michael Lapides Got it. And just how much were for those tax benefits as part of your 2015 guidance. Is that the full piece of commercial that $75 million or just some portion of it? Steve Young It’s the majority of the 75 million. Michael Lapides Got it, okay. The other thing can the O&M cost savings offset the $0.17 impact of positive weather this year? Lynn Good Michael, we are not getting that specific on how each of these drivers impact, so what I would direct you to is think about our O&M spend and we are at work to not only offset inflationary impact to drive those costs lower in ’16. So I think about weather and we always start by planning normal weather and then we’re building up with investment earnings as well as cost control. Operator Thank you. Our next question is from Bryan Chen of Bank of America/Merrill Lynch. Bryan Chen Hi my questions have been answered guys. Operator Our next question is coming from Jim Von Riesemann of Mizuho Securities. Jim Von Riesemann I got to put my dead head on for a second here. Can you just a talk little bit about how much cash flow is upstream from the regulated utilities to the parent level every year on an annualized basis? Lynn Good I think we will probably take that question offline. Jim, I’m not sure we’ve got a cash flow statement sitting in front of us here. Steve Young Right, I don’t have that with me, we’ll have to work on that a bit Jim. Operator Thank you. Our next question is coming from Ali Agha. Ali Agha Lynn and Steve just listening to your comments, just so that I’m clear, with normalized weather next year international being modest, some cost savings and then the rebasing, just directionally it appears that ’16 it is pretty much flat to maybe modestly down from ’15 and then so is that fair? Lynn Good I think we’ve given you the drivers, if you look at the slide, on Slide 10 to grow the base business at 4% to 6% add to it international with modest growth and so I think we’ve given you a pretty good sense of where we think it will be and of course we’ll give you more detail in February, as we finalize our business plans so that you can understand more specifically how much of it is coming from O&M and how much is coming from each of the business segments. Ali Agha Okay. And more near-term in 2015, when you locked of $0.10 from the higher end of the range, is that all because of commercial, is it international being worse, can you just kind of elaborate the change in ’15 guidance? Lynn Good So Ali, we have really been working throughout ’15 to offset weakness in international and have been successful in doing that through a variety of things including favorable weather, as well as early closings on the Eastern Power Agency and the stock buyback. As we look to the fourth quarter though we always plan for normal weather, we started out with October being mild, we have storm expense sitting in October, we have a slighter, weaker currency as a result of some of the movements that occurred in September and then we also talked about the extension of bonus depreciation. We don’t know for sure, but it feels to us like that will likely get extended and if it does, because of our cash position, it results in a modestly higher effective tax rate for the company. So all of those things considered, we think $4.55 to $4.65 is an appropriate range at this point. Ali Agha Steve and on the bonus depreciation front Lynn, I mean the talk is that if it gets extended, it’s a two year extension, I’m just curious of that’s how you guys are seeing it and if so can you just quantify, just a bonus depreciation and extension impact for Duke? Steve Young We’ve heard various guesses that how long it will be extended, we think there is a good likelihood of at least one year, two years is possible as well, and the impacts for 2015, for one year extension is in the range of $0.04 for us if you go beyond into a two year extension, it could be a similar number just depends on our overall tax positioning the issue for us is we’re toggling in and out of an NOL position and which makes us perhaps unique in the industry, if you are deeply within an NOL or outside of an NOL position. This extension doesn’t have an impact and it depends a bit on when we come out of that NOL position, which depends on other factors. So it’s a little hard to predict beyond ’15. Lynn Good And of course all the cash flow. Cash flow is positively impacted, if it is extended, so let see if this is giving you as earnings for certain. Ali Agha Absolutely. Last question Lynn, so on the international operations is the mind set now look, sort of hunker down and sort of work with the portfolio flat to modest growth, is that sort of the planning now and not really being more proactive and saying, hey does this really fit in the portfolio? Lynn Good Our focus has certainly been this year, Ali trying to run the business as efficiently as we can, we focused on cost, I think the international team has done an extraordinary job in a difficult market, we think it stabilized and hopefully, we’ll see a slightly better picture in ’16. I think the portfolio is always under review. The fact that we added Piedmont is consistent with our view that we wanted more natural gas in the portfolio. So that’s an ongoing review, in the meantime we’re also taking advantage of the international cash as you know. Operator [Operator Instructions] Our next question is comes from Paul Ridzon of KeyBanc Capital Markets. Paul Ridzon In your release you indicate that for the quarter weather was a $0.09 pick-up at the utility and then when I look at Slide 19 in the deck. I see that last year it was $0.06 below norm, but this year is basically short of normal. Just trying to reconcile that? Steve Young Yes. I think that your statements are correct there is some rounding in some of these schedules I believe is the difference in your sense. But we’ve returned to normal weather this quarter last year, it was mild weather. Lynn Good And Paul the other thing I would know the share count is going to have a difference between ’14 and ’15, because of the share buyback. Paul Ridzon Okay. And then kind of given the pending Piedmont acquisition, what’s going to happen to proceeds from securitization, should that just sit on the balance sheet when you use that cash when you close the deal? Lynn Good Yes. So we would expect securitization to move through the process in ’16 Paul. So we don’t come into the cash flow as a company and be used for investments or 4 billion debt in the short-term. But we do see at as the cash flow item that over a long-term basis could be used for long-term investments Piedmont being one of them. Paul Ridzon When do you expect that cash? Steve Young We would expect to be able to close the securitization in the first to second quarter of 2016. Paul Ridzon And then just lastly your latest thoughts around filing rate cases in your regulatory jurisdictions? Steve Young We’re looking at filing in I would say in the late teens it depends upon investment plans and other factors there that we’d look at jurisdiction by jurisdiction. But generally we’re looking at rate cases in the Carolinas in the late teens. Paul Ridzon And then lastly just a clarification on the payout ratio discussion, if you were to look at your ’15 payout ratio what would you use as the numerator and denominator. I guess 460 would be denominator? Steve Young I’m sorry, ask that again, I’m sorry I am not. [Multiple Speakers] Paul Ridzon I just want to make sure, how are you thinking about the payout ratio? What — is it the indicated dividend at year-end or is it the dividend paid during the year? Steve Young It’s the dividend paid during the year as it grows over the annual earnings. Paul Ridzon So it’s kind of a mix a blend of two years of dividends, because change at mid-year? Lynn Good So there is nothing fancy about this Paul. Whether you use an annualized number or whether you use what is paid out I think it’s all a matter of small rounding. I would calculate the payout ratio the way you typically do for every other utility. Operator Thank you. There appear to be no further questions in the queue at this time. I’d like to turn the call back to Lynn Good for any closing or final remarks. Lynn Good So thank you everyone for joining us today for your interest and investment in Duke Energy. Our fourth quarter earnings call which will also include our updated financial forecast will be held in February and we look forward to seeing many of you in the coming months and at the EEI Conference next week. Thank you. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Duke Energy we’d like to thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect and have a wonderful day.

What Should ‘Risk On’ Mean For You?

Summary Evidence suggests that in many quarters, a “risk on” phase of investing sentiment is afoot. The kinds of risks being taken suggest to me that we are in the later stages of a favorable stock market environment. Nevertheless, the U.S. economy seems to me to be basically sound, which makes a negative market event in the near future relatively unlikely. Still, there are enough ways that a negative market event could be triggered that a level of caution – rather than throwing oneself into the risk-on fever – is advisable. On November 2, 2015, The Wall Street Journal brought us flashing signs that the markets have entered a new “risk on” phase. Cam Hui predicted this a few of weeks ago, and now the mainstream press is confirming the trend. Here is one of Cam’s excellent slides focusing on the markets in 2011 and how fear and greed come and go: (click to enlarge) Cam’s slide shows sentiment in the market yees and yaws has little relation to fundamentals. The Wall Street Journal shows risk on The WSJ’s November 2 risk on coverage included these three Page One articles (Note: The headlines here are from The Journal ‘s print edition): In my opinion, these all are signs that financial markets are taking on increased risks. And usually they would be signs that trouble is ahead. Of course trouble always is ahead-somewhere, some time. To say that trouble is ahead helps very little. The problem for investors is whether the time is proximate and the place is wherever they are invested. But before we get to the ‘when and where” hard part, let’s be sure we understand how risk builds up and how certain kinds of institutions react to the forces that impel risk-taking. The role of international funds flows External debt almost always is involved in the build-up of asset values that crash. Robert Aliber, Chicago Booth School professor emeritus, explains how this works in the sixth and seventh editions of Charles Kindelberger’s classic Manias, Crashes and Panics , of which he is the author. Even if you have read Kindelberger’s earlier editions, Professor Aliber’s opening chapters are worth your time. We can trace external buying of debt, often in currencies that are different from the currency of the country whose entities are incurring the debt, as important parts of the crises in, for example, Latin American debt in the 1980s, the Mexican peso crisis of 1994, the Asian contagion crises of 1997, and the U.S., Ireland, Iceland, Spain and Greece problems beginning in 2007. I ascribe this phenomenon in part due to foreigners’ unfamiliarity with local markets. The foreign money is dumb money, I say. And it goes abroad when it is seeking better yields (and is unable to evaluate the risks properly) or simply has too much cash that it cannot invest at home (Eurodollar recycling by U.S. banks in the late 1970s, for example). I have not convinced Professor Aliber that my “dumb foreign money” theory is correct. He thinks macroeconomic forces are more likely the origin of the international capital flows. Maybe both forces are at work. Whichever (or whatever) the origins, the historical record suggests that we should be wary when we see large international capital flows, especially when the borrower cannot print and does not naturally trade in the currency borrowed. Foreign adventures by domestic players We also know that when certain kinds of institutions that have little international experience open offices and make investments in unfamiliar nations, the jig soon will be up. Within about three years, the flaws in their strategy will begin to appear. The German Landesbanks are perfect subjects for this test because they were established by the state and are owned by the state to serve purposes that became unnecessary decades ago. (I explained this in my book Debt Spiral .) Therefore they are always looking for new ways to make money. The Landesbanks were prominent victims of that tendency in the 2007-2009 market events. They were, if you recall, among the first banks to get into trouble in August 2007 because of their Ireland-based, U.S.-invested SIVs. Punters’ success lauded When the financial press starts lauding the successes that risk-takers are having, such as those that buy out-of-the-money Brazilian and Russian bonds, that is anther sign of trouble ahead because people will emulate the apparent successes at precisely the wrong times. Such games work if you can get out fast enough. But the door is not large, and it closes swiftly. Nevertheless, the WSJ reports that “fund managers are trying to manage those risks by staying nimble, rather than holding positions for an extended period which could be hurt by sudden market downturns.” Good luck. Record bond issuance but not much actual investment The WSJ touts the healthy corporate bond market as a sign of a strong U.S. economy. I do not think the economy is weak, but I do not think the strong bond market is such a good sign. What is the money being used for? It is being used largely for stock buybacks and acquisitions. Using debt for those purposes weakens the U.S. economy over the long term because it makes more companies fragile in downturns. And it tends to support stock market prices at levels that naturally decline when the flood of acquisitions and stock buybacks eases. Debt for productive investment can be a positive, but debt that mostly reduces the float of common stock serves no beneficial purposes that I can see, other than those of management and shorter-term stockholders. It is not something to celebrate as indicative of a strong economy. It is indicative of low interest rates, the reach for yield, and the temptation to replace equity with debt. Deal volume Another sign of a long-in-the-tooth market is deal volume. The deal volume in this case goes hand-in-hand with debt issuance. The deals mostly are designed to reduce competition, which may be good for corporate profits but is bad for the economy as a whole. And it indicates that companies do not see organic growth in their futures, which is not a sign of strength. Most companies do not sell out or pay up to acquire when they see bright futures for their independent selves. But don’t get carried away, please Don’t listen to scare-mongering, however. The FT had a particularly egregious article on November 2, in which the writers explored the possibility of a market meltdown caused by investors fleeing balanced mutual funds because the bond market was going down. That is preposterous stuff foisted by the big banks that want lower capital and the right to trade freely for their own accounts. The FT writers are particularly susceptible to this bilge; I do not know why. Balanced open-end funds are safer than houses, so long as they are not leveraged. The U.S. economy is OK I think the U.S. economy, despite all the negatives that I have listed for the future of capital markets, is OK. Neil Irwin had an interesting piece on The New York Times Upshot site last week in which he said he was undecided about whether the U.S. economy was OK or not. As I read the article, he really came out that the economy, despite all the negative signs, is OK. (If you haven’t read it, it is worth a look.) And that is where I come out. At the end of 2012, I wrote on seekingalpha that I was optimistic about the U.S. economy through 2015. Here we are almost at the end of 2015, and without going into detail here, I remain optimistic for the near future. Continued slow growth seems likely. We seem likely to have neither the great strides in productivity nor the large working population increase that might lead to faster growth. And I do not expect the government to begin any historic spending sprees. But the downside negatives almost all emanate from abroad, and the U.S. economy has been dealing with foreign negatives for the entire time it has slowly recovered since 2009. When, where, how? So much for the easy stuff. When, where, how will a negative market event occur? “Why” is not for us to know. “When where, and how” is hard enough. If I really knew when, where, and how, I would be a very rich man. Since I am not a very rich man, we must presume that I do not know. But thinking about such things concentrates the mind. And if you think about this question along with me, I think you will clarify your own views. The relative status quo could go on for quite a long time. And I do not expect the downside stimulus to come from China in the near future. Even though I think China is in for some rocky times, I think the Chinese government and economy will be able to handle them. I have written about that at nexchange.com, where I publish short pieces weekly. But weak credits have attracted too much money and stock markets are priced high largely because of low interest rates. Both those factors would be quite vulnerable to a material increase in interest rates. But I do not think the Fed is going increase rates significantly. There is no reason to do so. A discursion on monetary policy I do not regard myself as an expert on monetary policy, but so many commentators talk about it without meeting that requirement, why shouldn’t I? I do a lot of reading and even correspond with some macroeconomists. It seems to me that for the Fed to raise rates in order to have room to lower them again when a recession occurs lacks logic. The U.S. economy is in slow-growth mode. If it could stay there for an extended period of time without a recession, that would be a good thing. Therefore monetary policy should encourage continued growth, if possible without encouraging credit bubbles. I take that to suggest a monetary policy that is neutral, by which I mean a policy that permits the market to set rates to the extent possible. If the “natural” rate of interest is about zero, then policy should permit rates to remain near zero. And there is considerable evidence that the natural rate (economists call it the Wicksellian rate) is near (or even below) zero. Why raise the rate artificially, which may cause a recession, merely to have the “firepower” to lower it again? On this subject, let me share an interesting graph from Bill Longbrake’s monthly letter that is published by my friends at the Barnett, Sivon & Natter law firm: (click to enlarge) The chart is hard to read, but the data are important. What they show is that the Fed and some other major forecasters (the BofA and Goldman Sachs forecasters that Bill follows every month) are expecting a Fed Funds rate of 3% or more by 2018. If that is going to happen, then I think bad things are going to happen to the U.S. economy and to the U.S. stock market by 2017. Fortunately, Bill Longbrake disagrees. He forecasts close to a zero Fed funds rate still in 2018, and Bill has a better forecasting record than the Fed. I am sticking with Bill on this, but please recognize that we seem to be in the minority and that our being wrong could have significant negative consequences. What might cause a negative market event? Regardless of what the Fed does, I think we will see is some of the risky bets not paying off, the weak credits being unable to refinance, as well as a rise in bankruptcies and delinquencies that already have been occurring over the last year in the energy sector. Many parts of the global economy have depended on the energy sector to buy their products. They are likely also to experience problems, and it is likely that they, like the energy companies, borrowed heavily to expand their capacity quickly and that their creditors also will suffer. U.S. housing remains expensive. Here is a graph of real house prices through August 2015 from Calculated Risk. (click to enlarge) As you can see, house prices are almost back where they were at the top of the boom in 2005-6, with middle class incomes having barely budged since 1999. As I wrote in a lengthy article back in February 2012, housing cannot lead the economy until house prices are affordable for the middle class. In that article, I saw 1997 as a benchmark year when house prices were still affordable in terms of incomes. But house prices now are even more above the 1997 level than they were in 2012, with barely any progress in middle class incomes. Houses are more affordable than they otherwise would be because interest rates are low and heating oil costs have declined. But house prices remain a problem, and household formation and the healthy consumer expenditures that follow that are deterred by the high prices of houses, as well as by student loan balances, a lower marriage rate, and several other economic and social forces. Some respected forecasters say household formation is picking up. So far, I do not see it. A decline in house prices therefore would be a mixed event. It might stir household formation, but it also might cause another round of foreclosures, particularly on properties that have little equity (which means just about everything financed by the FHA), and it might have a negative “wealth effect”. A big change from my thinking a couple of years ago is that whereas in February 2013 I saw rising capital flows propelling global stock prices higher, I now think global capital flows are reversing. That means liquidity most likely will not continue its upward thrust. These various cautions suggest that the U.S. stock market will not produce large returns over the next year or two. But will something cause a major disruption in the next year or two? I am starting to think that is not likely. I have no better crystal ball than anyone else, but I do not see a catalyst on the horizon. The major suspects would be politically or geopolitically unsettling. For example, both parties in the U.S. have enough dumb ideas that, if adopted, one of them could have negative economic consequences sufficient to cause a recession. Or a trigger-happy president could find reasons to do foolish things. Or the Fed could raise rates at a pace that would knock the value foundation out from under the stock market. I am hopeful that American public officials will see the difficulties and not score an “own goal”. A few days ago, I published A Portfolio for the Next Market Crash-Revisited . In that article, I discussed my February 2013 prediction that a negative market event likely would occur in the next five years and that we are now half way through that period. I concluded that I had not changed my investment strategy as a result of events over the last two and a half years. Even though I am suggesting today that I do not think a market event is likely in the next two years, I remain convinced that, at least for investors over, say, age 50, prudent portfolio management indicates being somewhat protective even while maintaining an optimistic outlook. “Risk-on” may be fine for traders. For longer-term investors, it is best not to be tempted at this point in the cycle. Of course, if you’ve really gotta have that new Porsche Panamera, and you only have a spare $40,000…