Tag Archives: environment

Value And Momentum: A Beautiful Combination

Asset allocation should be a dynamic process. Value-based asset allocation can serve as a long-term investment guide. Momentum can potentially add value by allowing tactical shifts. In our most recent articles, Diversification Is Not Sufficient and Value Based Asset Allocation , we documented two simple strategies for asset allocation. The strategies are based on two seemingly opposed factors, value and momentum. We illustrated in each article the historical results of following each strategy. Empirically, each demonstrated superior results to a static allocation approach. This article illustrates the benefits of combining the two strategies. The value-based asset allocation system (Value Allocator) is a robust enough system on its own to help you navigate the uncertain markets and avoid getting caught in the next crash. The problem is that the system is most likely behaviorally impossible to apply. Using momentum to complement the strategy is an important enhancement that provides participation in further growth and protection in the down markets. The momentum strategy appears to deliver the best results historically. However, we did not examine the impact of transaction costs (most likely negligible) and taxes (significant). We have no way to estimate the tax ramifications of any system as it is obviously only successfully analyzed at the individual level. The momentum-based strategy, because of the short-term gains, is most likely the least tax efficient. Momentum strategies are also difficult to follow year in and year out. Momentum trading does not always resemble the overall stock market. In fact, these types of strategies often look much different from the traditional stock indices like the Dow Jones Industrial or the S&P 500. Since the bottom in 2009, the Barclays CTA Index (a common benchmark for trend following) has been down in every year except for 2010 and 2014. The stock market has not had a negative year since 2008. Again, momentum strategies in isolation are extremely difficult to follow over a long period. In efforts to remain pragmatic, we have combined the value based strategy and a simple momentum strategy to provide a comprehensive asset-allocation system. From this point forward, we will reference the Value Allocator as the strategic component of our asset allocation, and the momentum strategy as our tactical overlay. The combination of the two strategies keeps an investor from moving the entire policy portfolio tactically and keeps a portion in a passive, strategic posture. The strategic component is based on the assumption that markets revert to the average. The problem is that mean reversion occurs over a period of seven to ten years. Valuations tell us very little about what is going to happen over the subsequent one to three years. Our strategic asset allocation process is based on long-term value and contrarian positioning. Tactical asset allocation is the process of taking positions in various investments based on short to intermediate term opportunities. Our tactical overlay is therefore based on reacting to the trend. This is an interesting relationship as the two strategies can offer up diametrically opposed recommendations. For instance, when the US stock market is overvalued, the Value Allocator would recommend rotating to a more conservative portfolio. At the same time, if the trend was positive but the market still overvalued, the tactical overlay would recommend overweighting. You can see the conflicts that can arise, and we assure you they have surfaced in the past. The Value Allocator-as illustrated in Value Based Asset Allocation -can rotate between 30 percent stocks and 70 percent bonds and 70 percent stocks and 30 percent bonds. The tactical portfolio is either 100 percent in stocks or 100 percent in the US 10-year Treasury bonds. The following matrix embodies all possible allocations when the two strategies are combined in equal proportions: Undervalued Market Overvalued Market Positive Trend 85% stocks /15% bonds 65% stocks/35% bonds Negative Trend 35% stocks /65% bonds 15% stocks /85% bonds The investor can have as little as 15 percent in stocks and as much as 85 percent. The wide range allows the investor to adapt to all market conditions, protecting when the odds are poor and growing when the odds favor return enhancement. Instead of fixing the allocation on a static portfolio, investors are allowed the flexibility to adapt their risk tolerance to the current environment. For instance, if the current market environment is undervalued, and the trend is positive, the environment is favorable for stocks. Thus, the investor would be positioned heavily in that asset class. (click to enlarge) The combination of the Value Allocator and momentum strategy outpaced the S&P 500 and fifty-fifty (stocks-bonds) benchmarks by a large degree. The advantage of the combination of these two strategies is quite clear. The worst loss the combination strategy experienced from 1972 to 2014 was 9 percent in 1974 when the market was down almost 26 percent. The Value Allocator, when analyzed in isolation, was down almost 18 percent during that same year. The momentum system added an extra layer of protection when the Value Allocator arrived early to the party. In addition to providing an extra layer of protection, the combination strategy provided growth that would have otherwise been missed during the late 1990s and from 2003 to 2007. The market stayed overvalued from 1990 until the beginning of 2009. If you had followed the Value Allocator during this period, you would have been disappointed. The combination strategy would have minimized the underperformance to the benchmark by keeping you at a higher equity position throughout the 1990s. In the chart depicted below, you can see the market outperform the combination strategy over this period. (click to enlarge) The market outperformance was only temporary, however, as the 50 percent decline from the peak in 2000 was largely avoided. In addition, instead of keeping the allocation conservative from 2003 to 2007, tactical positioning kept investors engaged in the markets. Following the Value Allocator alone from 2003 to 2007 would have had the investors conservatively positioned in 30 percent stocks and 70 percent bonds-largely missing the rebound from the tech wreck. The tactical component of the portfolio would have allowed investors to maintain 65 percent in stocks when the trend was positive, despite the overvalued conditions of the market. Astute investors would most likely diversify their strategic asset allocation with tactical positions. Value and momentum are two of the strongest factors of market returns, and their significance remains rather stable over time. Combining both value and momentum strategies in a disciplined fashion can create desirable investment results. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Additional disclosure: HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS HAVE MANY INHERENT LIMITATIONS. NO REPRESENTATION IS BEING MADE THAT ANY ACCOUNT WILL OR IS LIKELY TO ACHIEVE PROFITS OR LOSSES SIMILAR TO THOSE SHOWN. IN FACT, THERE ARE FREQUENTLY SHARP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND THE ACTUAL RESULTS SUBSEQUENTLY ACHIEVED BY ANY PARTICULAR TRADING PROGRAM. PAST RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE RETURNS. HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY.

DIA Compared To FEZ: Europe May Offer A Buffer For Domestic Weakness

Summary European turnaround is being reflected through strong numbers for both manufacturing and consumer strength, setting up a post crisis rally similar to those seen after the previous two Greek bailouts. U.S. Markets have shown significant fear and weakness recently, wiping out massive gains from many of America’s largest companies, reflected by the significant losses sustained in most the Dow Jones. Goldman Sachs recently issued a report upgrading Europe to a Buy, and predicting European equities would outperform U.S. equities, which thus far has proven the case year to date. Comparing the DIA and FEZ, investors can clearly see the DIA’s chart is testing dangerous technical levels (potential death cross), while the FEZ is quietly rebounding toward the upside. With a strong dollar, weak Euro, low commodity prices, and zero rates, European QE should be enough to fuel economic growth, making FEZ’s additional yield and upside an attractive alternative. Introduction & Thesis Europe has faded into the shadows this summer, putting the American economy back into focus for investors right in time for what has thus far turned out to be a volatile and bearish earnings season, wiping out 100’s of Billions of dollars off some of America’s largest companies market caps. With Europe starting out the year strong on expectations of a long awaited turnaround fueled by a perfect storm of accommodative macro factors (QE, Low Euro, Low rates etc.), the trade lost much of its momentum quickly as another chapter in the Greek saga unfolded over the first 6 months of the year. As U.S. markets continue to struggle, it may be time to reconsider Europe (specifically the Euro Zone), and use it as a defensive position that also offers great yield, and forward looking growth. With that being said, those investors who utilize ETFs for passive or index based strategies, as well as yield hungry income focused investors looking to diversify their holdings, should consider trimming exposure to the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Composite ETF (NYSEARCA: DIA ), any similar ETF product representing the U.S. Dow Jones Industrial Average, or domestic large cap multinationals in general, and allocate that portion to the SPDR Euro Stoxx 50 ETF (NYSEARCA: FEZ ), or at the very least selected names from the group. FEZ tracks the Euro Stoxx 50 Index on a market cap weighted, cost efficient basis that offers investors a cheap, and well diversified piece of exposure into the Euro zone’s largest and most stable companies. Keep in mind this fund does NOT include countries outside of the currency union such as the United Kingdom, Norway, or Switzerland. Instead, this move is a pure 3 part play on the continued recovery of the European Monetary Union’s various economies, a weaker and more turbulent U.S. equity market, and a successful outcome to Mr. Draghi’s long over due version of a Quantitative Easing program, “EU QE”. Countries such as the U.K., outside the Euro Zone nations, have had stronger recoveries that look more in line with the U.S. (A more detailed list of the fundamental drivers are listed later in the analysis, a long with suggestions on how to trade this theme). With some of this year’s largest gainers in the Dow like Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL ) & Disney (NYSE: DIS ) taking 12% and 10% hits respectively from their recent record highs, a long with the Dow dropping 4% into negative YTD territory, all in just a matter of days, investors are worried these may be signs of a long awaited broad market correction. The fears of a prolonged fairly uninterrupted 7 year bull market, slowing growth, in China, in addition to speculation over the Fed’s first rate hike since 2006, gives investors plenty of issues to worry about. Weak forward guidance across most industries, especially large domestic multi national companies with exposure to a strong dollar, and a trigger happy investor who’s loaded with profit bullets, in combination has pushed this over extended period of market consolidation into negative territory. We have already seen the spillage into the semiconductor space, as well as other high beta sectors across the S&P 500 starting to weaken, investors are now left with difficult decisions to make, in the event the floor falls through, and prices tank. These are signs that investors are taking gains from their best winners, and playing defense until the outlook and climate is more clear. With bond yields flattening, investors have few safe havens to seek. The analysis below will show just why the growth, yield, and risk / reward profile of FEZ is a great way to rebalance some risk over the pond, and at the same time earn above average streams of continued income from FEZ’s impressive yield. The analysis is meant to provide a way to mitigate looming risks in domestic markets, capture the growing opportunity in Europe, and provide a solid alternative that can be held for a range of time, while providing diversity, growth, and most of all income in the face of turbulence and uncertainty. If the U.S. downtrend doesn’t pivot, and Europe continues to strengthen, this capital rotation will add significant risk adjusted returns to your overall portfolio, both in the medium and long term. Valuation Comparison: Risk, Fundamentals, & Distributions Before we delve into the various reasons why I feel Europe offers a certain level of safety over the U.S., lets take a look at the numbers between the two ETFs. Below we will examine both the Risk and Fundamental metrics between the two funds. Side by Side Comparison of Metrics (source: Ycharts) RISK INFO FEZ DIA Beta 1.562 0.9254 Max Drawdown ((All)) 66.12% 53.77% Historical Sharpe (10y) 0.2463 0.5848 30-Day Rolling Volatility 26.52% 11.92% Daily Value at Risk (VAR)1% 5.51% 3.28% Monthly Value at Risk 1% 18.97% 13.08% (for any terms above unfamiliar to you, you can access simple definitions at www.investopedia.com ) The first items above are some of the statistical risk metrics related to each fund’s volatility and momentum. We see significant differences between the two, reflected in FEZ’s higher beta, volatility, and variances, relative to the DIA. With that being said, one must keep in mind the DIA has enjoyed a multi year, liquidity driven bull market, on the back of many years of cheap liquidity from the Federal Reserve’s QE program, which also brought stability to a crippled economy. While Europe on the other hand has seen essentially the opposite, making them more volatile. On the other side of the pond, we have seen Europe struggle since the 2008 global recession. There have been periods of hope (such as 2013- mid 2014), where a turnaround seemed in place, only to be reversed by a continued struggle with the EU’s weakest nations, and their struggles with extreme austerity and stagnant growth (mainly Greece). Never the less, this beta and volatility provides investors with upside potential, mitigated by a 3.1% dividend yield (compared to the DIA’s 1.78%). The next section really begins to highlight the upside opportunity. (source: Ycharts) FUNDAMENTALS FEZ DIA Dividend Yield TTM (8-6-15) 3.10% 1.78% Weighted Average PE Ratio 19.46 15.68 Weighted Average Price to Sales Ratio 1.043 1.74 Weighted Average Price to Book Ratio 1.541 3.071 Weighted Median ROE 12.08% 28.48% Weighted Median ROA 3.80% 8.87% Forecasted Dividend Yield 3.31% 2.59% Forecasted PE Ratio 15.65 16.5 Forecasted Price to Sales Ratio 0.8187 1.666 Forecasted Price to Book Ratio 1.562 2.768 As U.S. markets continue to slide, investors looking for protection through diversity, growth, and yield will be looking for new opportunities to park their cash, especially outside the U.S. where the sun is quickly fading away. While the DIA has significantly outperformed on an ROE & ROA basis, they lack a strong dividend stream, and further upside potential after years of robust price appreciation and growth. After a multi year run, investors see how quickly the market has reversed, especially after struggling all year to barely stay in the black (record setting consolidation period), and fear is creeping in slowly. With EU QE in full swing, the road is wide open for Europe to speed up, especially now that it seems the U.S. is quickly stalling. When we examine the two based on forecasted P/E, P/S, & Price to book, we see that on a forward basis, Europe’s assets are trading at significantly discounted multiples in comparison, reflecting the difference in performance post crisis. Keeping in mind these are estimates based on a group of stocks, so spending time on estimating 51 different future earnings, we will maintain a broad view, such as the impressive overall yield, and the large spread between FEZ’s 3.10% with DIA’s 1.78%. When we examine performance over a variety of periods, we see the additional yield over long periods of time creates an immense amount of additional gains (assuming reinvestment of dividends). Distribution Schedule (source: Fidelity) Date Price at Distribution Distribution Amount Yield % of Yearly Distribution 6/19/2015 $38.18 $0.78 2.05% ** TBD 3/20/2015 $39.23 $0.04 0.11% ** TBD 12/19/2014 $37.56 $0.29 0.78% 21.14% 9/19/2014 $41.08 $0.08 0.20% 6.02% 6/20/2014 $43.81 $0.92 2.10% 65.91% 3/21/2014 $41.71 $0.10 0.23% 6.92% 12/20/2013 $40.75 $0.19 0.46% 16.37% 9/20/2013 $38.64 $0.09 0.24% 8.11% 6/21/2013 $32.73 $0.80 2.44% 69.40% 3/15/2013 $34.84 $0.07 0.20% 6.12% Total 2014 $1.39 100.00% Total 2013 $1.15 100.00% Here we see the last two years of distributions, which are paid quarterly. The issue, or opportunity depending on timing, is the uneven nature of the distribution schedule, which goes in line with the dividend payout schedules of the underlying companies (some pay semi annual, or annual). We clearly see the June payment is by far the largest payment, with the December payment following, as those two months include most the population of the underlying companies. It is important for investors to take into account the above distribution schedule when considering their risk reward calculations and trading strategy for the FEZ. Top 5 ETF Components for Each Fund The next area of analysis involves looking a bit into the top holdings of each fund, while distinguishing differences in the structure and construction of the portfolio. We will examine briefly the individual names, and their performance YTD. We also will look at a few other differences, including sector exposure and potential future performance. (Source: ETF.com ) FEZ TOP 5 HOLDINGS WEIGHT% DIA TOP 5 HOLDINGS WEIGHT% Sanofi (NYSE: SNY ) 4.80 Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS ) 7.89 Bayer AG (OTCPK: BAYZF ) 4.77 IBM (NYSE: IBM ) 6.18 Total SA (NYSE: TOT ) 4.73 3M (NYSE: MMM ) 5.85 Banco Santander (NYSE: SAN ) 4.12 Boeing (NYSE: BA ) 5.29 Anheuser-Busch (NYSE: BUD ) 3.82 Apple Inc ( AAPL ) 4.76 Total % 22.24 % Total % 29.97 % There are a variety of differences between the two funds in terms of construction, sector exposure, and diversification. The first and biggest difference among the two is construction. FEZ is a MARKET CAP weighted fund, while DIA is PRICE weighted. The second difference is the DIA is only made up of 31 stocks, while the FEZ has 51 components to the pie. This makes the DIA more susceptible to single stock risk, as we see the largest holding has nearly a 65% spread between the DIA and FEZ. Next we examine each component, looking at their YTD performance, and brief outlook and description providing an idea of future growth. (Notice from June 1, to about July 10, the markets traded in almost perfect correlation, due to crisis in Greece.) FEZ – Outlook of Top 5 Components Sanofi and Bayer are both healthcare related companies, and have done extremely well (22.16% & 9.93% respectively) YTD. Going forward, both companies offer great products & pipelines, strong distribution channels globally, strong earnings potential, and will most likely continue to outperform the general benchmarks both in Europe and in their respective sectors. Total SA & Banco Santander are the two weak performers of the bunch. Even though Total is showing a flat total return for the year, this is following a nearly 30% decline due to the price of oil in the prior year. On the other hand, one of the most underappreciated banks with a large global presence, Banco Santander, struggles to get the price of its stock to reflect what has been a tremendous run of continued growth and execution across all fronts of the business. My first article in June provides a very detailed write up, and is well worth the time to read, as SAN’s performance highlights many of the same catalyst driving this thesis. Finally Anheuser-Busch InBev, famously known for beers like Budweiser, continues to sell millions of “cold ones” around the world, and shows no sign, or any reason why investors should expect otherwise. With two healthcare companies, an energy company, global retail banking, and consumer discretionary exposure, the top five holdings for FEZ are not only well diversified, but are overweight the very industries poised to benefit from lower rates and a strong dollar. Energy companies will have their day in court again some day. However, on our side of the pond, these same catalyst have been exponentially resulting in negative results on the top and bottom lines of companies across most sectors, as well as forward guidance, leaving investors struggling to find direction, or a safe haven. China may be one of the only mutually negative catalyst the two share. Its easy to see that U.S. Equity Markets find themselves in a dangerous limbo, where things can go either way, as we see through out our analysis, and below. DIA – Outlook of Top 5 Components Goldman Sachs is the world’s most well known, and arguably respected investment banks. Performance has been strong, and out of the 5, stands to gain a benefit from a rising rate environment the U.S. will face when the Federal Reserve raises rates. Boeing is one of the world’s top two aviation aircraft manufacturers, among other things such as aerospace defense. Performance and execution has remained strong, and issues with labor unions and stalled contracts have not returned. With a healthy backlog and a strong airlines sector continuing to order planes, Boeing’s outlook is bright. IBM and 3M represent the classic and decades old nature of the Dow. Both companies have struggled in their own ways to keep reinventing themselves to grow top line figures in a meaningful way. With tougher economic conditions, both companies have taken significant hits over the last month, exposing their weak investor sentiment, and buyback fueled anemic growth that has trended downwards for multiple quarters. Lastly Apple is the world’s most successful OEM, and doesn’t need an introduction. The main issue lately with Apple has been the massive loss in market cap over the course of days, following what was in my opinion a strong earnings report. Due to fears in Chinese demand, and a lack of vision provided into a more diversified revenue stream, Apple is in correction territory, and has brought the entire ecosystem of suppliers down with them. The charts and mixed sentiments indicate a difficult few months until the launch of the next iPhone this fall, or some kind of evidence easing China related fears can put a floor in the stock. In my humble opinion, this is the one Dow component worth buying, but market troubles indicate patience should be exhibited. This indication for the world’s largest company by a wide margin, shows an overall distrust in the future strength of the global consumer. The Dow has a completely different make up in terms of sectors in their top 5, and worse of all, the industries with the weakest performance make up a significant portion of the overall pie (examples: Industrials 27%). FEZ’s largest sector is healthcare, which is more recession proof and benefits from many positive catalyst, as well as stable demand, which will make a difference when the waters are choppy, and global growth remains anemic. Historic Performance The purpose of looking at the next set of graphs is to examine FEZ’s growth pre and post recession relative to the DIA. We will clearly see that Europe pre crisis was growing leaps and bounds over the U.S., but on the other end, has yet to fully recover due to the drastically different economies that make up the multi nation currency union. With very bearish market signals in the U.S., and Europe still way below pre-crisis highs, rebalancing capital over the pond currently offers both the drastically different (and much needed) yield both for income and protection, as well as upside potential. We will examine each point in time separately below. (2002 – Present) – Overview Look Above we see the two main catalyst that makes this trade attractive in broad view. The main catalyst that makes FEZ an attractive option for DGI investors, especially investors either restricted to ETFs, or prefer the embedded diversity they offer, is the 3% yield. As we can see, over time, that yield has made a significant difference. In fact, over the roughly 13 year period we are examining above, the spread between price and total return (assuming reinvested dividends), is roughly 86% (139%-56%), a 130% (86/56) difference between price and total return for FEZ. Compare that to the DIA, where the spread is 75% (184%-109%), but is only a 65% (75/109) difference in return. We clearly see the additional yield makes up for the additional risk incurred both from the inherent issues the Euro Zone nations face, as well as the beta and variances associated with FEZ. Below we will examine the above results, on a pre and post crisis basis, which will reveal the potential upside, and reversal in trend that may occur very soon (if not already occurring). Keep in mind Europe has significant room to the upside, to just break even with pre crisis levels. After 7 years, even if those levels were overvalued, by now, the fair value of the continent’s strongest companies are undervalued based on even the most conservative estimates and growth rates (this was reflected in the valuation multiples examined in the Fundamentals section). Pre Crisis (2002- Jan 1 2008) FEZ Total Return Price data by YCharts Before the world had experienced the consequences of careless credit practices, Europe was leveraging their way to growth at a much faster pace than the U.S. as we see above in the chart. In fact, on a total return basis, over just half a decade, the FEZ returned over 1.1xs that of the DIA, on a total return basis (again, you have to love that yield). Fueled by historically weaker nations leveraging consumption (to this day we see the unfortunate aftermath), Europe was caught skinny dipping in broad daylight when the tide receded. That is evident by the results below, post crash, and the extended credit crisis still half resolved half a decade later. There is no question below that Europe has significant ground to make up, 40% for FEZ from the top roughly, which even at a 5% growth rate a year, by now should have been exceeded. Economic value, and political or structural issues affecting the prices of their capital markets has been acted as a poison pill to accessing success. With many of the lose ends getting tied (as seen through empirical evidence in the latest economic reports), the upside, and the spread closing below, is an attractive bargain for investors looking to flee the up coming volatility here in the U.S . That reversal in strength can occur quickly of both economies remain on the same path. Europe’s upside may finally be realized. Post Crisis (Jan 1 2008- Present) From what we see above, if one were to look at just the last few months on the chart, we can already see that divergence in full swing. The chart ends looking like the FEZ has made somewhat of a bottom with an upward trend beginning, and the DIA looks like it topped, and is hanging off a cliff deciding which direction its going to take, and most likely travel in a hurry. The evidence behind catching this macro level shift may lie in the next section.. This is Where We Get to the Point Summary of Investment Thesis & Related Items After a long analysis of a variety of factors above, it would seem prudent to review the basic fundamentals underlying this macro economically driven investment thesis. We conducted an extensive review of both continent’s economies, and described briefly their rise pre crisis, as well as recoveries post crisis, to develop an idea of the bigger picture, and highlight the potential upside and downside going forward. The construction of each ETF, associated risks and fundamentals, as well as historic performance, allowed us to see take a look inside each product, ensuring both quality and functionality would translate into the capabilities we need to make this a successful trade. With that said, we will go ahead and review the main factors driving this thesis: U.S. markets have shown great weakness in the face of multiple headwinds coming from every direction. Headwinds such as extreme weakness from China and a strong dollar will most likely continue to push investors hands toward the sell button, especially based on the chart’s bearish technical signals such as a death cross forming in the DIA. With a raging multi year bull market backed by the Federal Reserve’s massive QE program, a looming rate hike will add to further market pressure, while delaying past September may only give markets a temporary cushion, but reverting back to weakness on seriously declining market fundamentals (U.S. issues have been discussed through out article). With Europe historically rallying after both Greek bailouts were finalized (2010, 2012), the economic stars have aligned under strong fundamentals, and quantitative results provided in the Markit link to most recent PMI results. The European trade will continue to gain long lost momentum, as U.S. institutional investors flee a long feared and somewhat expected downturn, for economic opportunity that reflects more in line with the environment that lead to the U.S. market’s immense bull run and recovery. With 40% upside left from all time highs, FEZ offers investors both exposure to the largest companies of Europe, who best withstand the volatile nature of that economy, and have diverse demographic exposure with respect to revenue (strong global presences). The 3% yield, and rather defined trading range with identifiable downside risk and upside opportunity, as well as historic evidence of breakout capabilities exhibited both in 2010, and 2013, following the 1st and 2nd bailouts of Greece, make the trade attractive for a variety of investor needs. Often investors may not have the capabilities to invest in foreign markets in a cost efficient manner, FEZ removes the cost while giving investors exposure to the market with the most growth opportunity, while experiencing the benefit of a long list of Macro opportunities from a Low Euro, rates, oil, and the ECB pouring 80B in liquidity each month. The above are just off hand some of the obvious benefits that would be derived from the added exposure of FEZ. It may seem like I have a very bearish outlook on U.S. markets, but I clearly want to state that is not the case. U.S. equity markets still remain the best place for an investor to generate wealth over the long run, but investors tend to forget, Europe offers tremendous opportunity as well. The issues I keep covering and repeating are issues that may cause the markets to temporarily dysfunction, and with such a long run lacking any type of correction, common logic in the face of all the evidence says that decreasing long U.S. exposure, and increasing EZ exposure presents a well calculated trade exposing the upside potential yet to be realized in Europe, and defend against any gain an impressive yield to protect against weakness at home. Below we take a look at the two from 3 different time periods, with a technical perspective supporting the qualitative issues discussed here today. These charts are meant to display clearly how the movement of the markets support this thesis, both from a YTD and a long term perspective. YTD Performance Performance YTD for Europe has been stronger as was expected, despite the ups and downs, as well as the highly publicized Greek Crisis, which on a chart, clearly shows where Europe is weakest (significant drop after missed June 30 deadline). The next chart will compare the DIA to the FEZ, with technical indicators being the 50 and 200 day moving averages. First we will look at the chart from Jan 1 2010 (which includes both the Greek bailouts as well as the years where the “PIGS”, were an every day acronym used to describe the crippling issues plaguing Europe and their sovereign debt markets, while the U.S. was seeing record gains across the board. 5 Year & YTD Technical Chart – DIA in Danger, FEZ Breaking out Jan 1 2010 – Present As we can clearly see above, Europe’s struggle to maintain an adequate rally based on what was a roaring U.S. market, and an unstable as well as unproven European turnaround. With sign of weakness (especially the infamous Greek bailouts), the selling was almost immediate, and drastic. The graph represents the real upside opportunity Europe offers over the U.S. at the present moment. The SPDR STOXX Europe 50 ETF (NYSEARCA: FEU ) represents the same territories, but in addition includes every nation in the European Union (such as the U.K. and Switzerland), which has been included for additional comparison. As we can see, there is almost a direct correlation between FEU and FEZ, incase anyone was wondering why one over the other. I would like investors to compare each downturn (which were all related to issues similar to the Greek Crisis we witnessed this year), and examine the corresponding periods after agreements/bailouts were granted. Each period (2010 & 2012) were followed by SIGNIFICANT rallies. This is because investors have been anxiously waiting for Europe to catch up to the U.S. The fundamental difference was the absence of key economic drivers such as; 0 rates, a historically weak Euro/Dollar, and commodity prices such as oil, at recession level lows, and so on. The combination of those factors, with the disruption of a recovery that was well in place from 2013 until mid 2014 (one that included Greece as well), before talks of anti austerity politics and elections came to surface, presents near term future upside opportunity across the Euro Zone. With the noise level down in Europe, and a 3rd bailout essentially a matter of crossing Ts and dotting Is, the setup looks perfect for another breakout rally. The numbers and factors we will discuss in the last section provide the necessary quantitative proof on top of the aforementioned patterns described above, that this trend has a high probability of producing value both in the long and short term horizon. On the opposite end here in the States, we have enjoyed 7 years of relatively smooth sailing upwards, feeling like we are reaching the end of the road as the Fed gets ready to raise rates for the first time in nearly a decade. The DIA chart at the end looks like a cliff hanger, as we will see below. YTD Chart – Here comes the Death Cross As we see above, on just price performance, YTD FEZ has outperformed by over (8%, over 9% including dividends). Furthermore, the technicals are pointing to a death cross about to occur, something unseen in the Dow since 2011 (also the last real correction for U.S. Markets), as we will further discuss in the conclusion section. Here we will focus on the very short term picture (especially the last 45 days). With traders on edge, I expect the 50 day to actually cross with the 200 day (could be as soon as mid month), and experience an extended selloff with lower lows, lower highs continuing as a trend It could be very possible to see the Dow below 17K, which will force the hand of money managers into defensive mode. Hedge Funds do not have the luxury of holding cash (or at least do not move to cash positions for very long), and will need to find both safety and growth for their client’s wealth. With a 3rd straight year of under performance as a group, I expect institutional investors to chase opportunity across the pond, and avoid what seems to be a setup for a messy back half of the year. With Europe still not having shown enough proof to investors on a long term basis, that rotation will most likely go into large cap stable names, which is exactly what the FEZ represents. As we just saw it bounce off its own 50 & 200 Day averages, I expect it to continue to trend upwards, as more capital will have no choice (since bond aren’t a viable option), to fly to Europe for safety. If we do see any weakness out of Europe, I would take it as a buying opportunity. The catalyst and figures are pointing to exact opposite directions for the U.S. and Europe, and below we will quickly review those items, before we conclude our analysis. Goldman Report & Catalyst for Both Continents Goldman Sachs recently issued a note stating that European Equities should be purchased at the expense of domestic equities on the back of the same fundamental catalyst described here in the article. Below we will outline some key bullet points both for the U.S. and EZ. PMI data comes directly from Markit Ltd (NASDAQ: MRKT ). I suggest investors click here, and go through each county’s as well as the group’s latest figures to gain a firm understanding of the current economic state of Euro Zone (considering most investors at least know the domestic figures). For the sake of simplicity, I will summarize bullet points for both Europe and the U.S., taking into account current state of economies, quantitative figures, and qualitative factors that will impact the short and medium term outlooks of the two continents. I also have provided a link here to Markit’s latest economic outlook for the Eurozone nations. United States PMI Results : Manufacturing PMI: Sharpest rise in 3 months at 53.8, but is still maintaining a trend of declining activity, due to input cost inflation, slowing economic growth, and a strong dollar affecting exports. Manufacturing hiring has also slowed, pointing to a cautious outlook. Services PMI – Another bounce back month, in the area of majority for U.S. GDP, clocked in 57.7, ending a down trend that saw 5 month low in June. There was still little to be excited about as this was measured as the slowest rate of expansion since January, but never the less, was a pick up in activity. The outlook again was cautiously optimistic, citing the same concerns the article highlights for U.S. economic activity. The one item this will certainly affect is the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy decisions. Europe Manufacturing PMI – Manufacturing PMI for the Eurozone nations came in at 52.3, but not without their share of improvement and failures. Germany continues to suffer from China’s slowing growth, as manufacturing stands at a halt, not ticking either direction with any vigor. On the other hand, the Netherlands (another strong industrial economy) showed the best growth, a long side Italy who hit a 52 month high, followed by Spain who also came in with stronger numbers. Spanish recovery is key to the overall Eurozone recovery, as they and Italy are must win battles against peripheral weakness from Greece. As of now, that weakness remains contained to the Greek nation. Retail PMI – Here is where investors should pay close attention to the results. PMI for retail grew from 50.4 to 54.2, showing the trickle down effect from EU QE was finally positively impacting citizens. On the inverse from manufacturing data, German citizens recorded a retail PMI figure of 57.7, showing the strength of low unemployment and strong consumer strength. While manufacturing isn’t growing, Germans were still spending heavily on themselves. On the other hand, peripheral nations like Italy are feeling the recovery on the first side of the equation, economic growth (strong manufacturing, increased lending, reversal in unemployment), which should lead to further economic growth and return the consumer to his old glory. After years of austerity, tight budget cuts, and other measures that beat the European consumer into the ground, the resurgence has followed the trend that results from banks such as SAN have indicated; people are starting to borrow, buy, and contribute again to the economic cycle, and stock prices have yet to reflect this very real change in direction. Conclusion: Final Thoughts and Trading Strategy Final Thoughts – DIA Dangers even worse at closer look Focusing all your energy on attempting to call bottoms, or predicting the next bear market crash, is about as useful of a strategy as closing your eyes, and blindly picking stock tickers. Even professionals rarely make these calls, as the amount of moving parts and complexity make it impossible in today’s markets to see things coming clearly. We are really sailing uncharted waters, as the permanent bears have learned the hard way. Every time you will find yourself losing more in opportunity costs, and time, than anything else, instead of being positioned to withstand the rainy days as the come to surface. With that said, their is a significant difference between waiting and searching for crashes and bear markets, and playing a solid and smart defense in times of uncertainty, while also leaving room in case things turn again in a positive direction. This thesis is exactly the essence of that philosophy, smart defense with participation in the upside as well. As we saw in the chart comparisons between the DIA, and FEZ, the DIA is testing extremely dangerous waters essentially forming a death cross (50 Day crossing under 200 Day), while the FEZ seems to be exhibiting resilience. The last time in 2011 when this occurred, we saw significant market losses. The one saving grace, is that we have traded a historically tight range from January until now, leaving the averages time to close in on each other, which makes a breakout in either direction inevitable based on the extreme amount of uncertainty. Below we see just how long it has been since we have had such delicate technical indicators. In August 2011, following the last death cross witnessed, we saw a huge correction, that lasted till about year end 2011. Now again in August (a historically weak month for stocks), 4 years later, we are exactly at the same intersection. If history repeats itself, which there is certainly plenty of reason to believe it could occur, investors will have to wait until Q1 2016 for a turnaround. These next 2 weeks will determine if this trend really holds, and will most likely shift the market one direction or the other in a meaningful way. (click to enlarge) Since 2012, we have had nothing but a straight shot up, pulling back periodically, and bouncing off to new highs each time. If the death cross does occurs and holds, (one of the most reliable and bearish technical signals) there really isn’t much support due to such a prolonged period of consolidation this year. It would be anyone’s guess where the pressure could send the index in the notoriously low volume, bearish month of August. Even if the fed comes in and says September is out of the question, there still may not be enough steam to keep the train going. That is actually the only viable possibility for a quick reversal. I brought this chart and topic back to focus in the conclusion to remind investors that bull markets do end, and they do not send you a letter in the mail warning you that the party may be over for now. In my humble opinion, I just believe this weakness is par for the course, and will work its way out slowly, but not without its share of pain, confusion, fear, and anxiety riddling investors out of some of their profitable positions. I believe diversifying your risk to a growth area of the world poised to make up for many years of lost ground, makes the soundest alternative to keeping all your chips on the table staring danger straight in the face. Europe as a stand alone trade in its own right is wise, a mixture of exposure is responsibly diversifying your risk, and the FEZ does it with tremendous yield, and a predictable trading range. Trading Strategy- A variety of choices I wouldn’t find it reasonable after such a thorough analysis to leave the reader without at least a couple trading ideas to ponder. To be clear, when referring to the floor, I am using the lowest support level I can clearly find, which is about 35, for this year. The ceiling on the chart is about 42, so we have a pretty defined range, and can use a variety of methods to maximize our gains. The support and resistance levels happen to also be the 52 week highs and lows, as the FEZ too has traded rather range bound for the year. FEZ options aren’t very active, but never the less do trade, and have decent open interest. Trimming Large cap or DIA exposure is up to the individual investor’s strategy, so the suggestions focus on where to rotate whatever capital you decide to allocate depending on your investor profile. No Options – One can simply swap positions proportionately, and expect modest growth, having missed the best buying opportunity created by the introduction of capital controls in Greece. After a week of fear driven headlines and entertaining politics, Greece raised the white flag, and FEZ rebounded back up to its rather tight 45 day trading range of 37-38. With the 52 week low of 34.76 and the 52 week high of 41.80, investors must decide the time length in order to estimate the upside potential. If you choose to just buy and hold the ETF, I suggest to monitor carefully, and attempt to buy on weakness, below 38 if possible. This strategy would be best for a long term holder, especially if you plan on exploiting the yield, which is highest in Dec and June. Options and Equity- ( 4-6 months)- If my thesis is correct, we should test 52 week highs rather easily in the back half of the year, especially in Q1 2016. Currently the Feb option contracts look very attractive, but don’t have large trading volumes. The Feb 38 put has a quote of about 2.05, and the 41 call is trading at about 1.28, with open interest of 125 and 268 respectively. The bid/ask spreads are reasonable. Lastly the Feb 35 put (has had trading volume past 2 days), is trading at about 1.27, which provides us with two different options for the short put leg of this strategy. Maximum income trade: A strangle is where you buy or sell a put and a call option on the SAME underlier, with the same expiration, but at different strikes. 1- This trade is meant to take advantage of the defined 52 week range, and maximize income while we wait for those distributions, as well as providing protection on both sides of the trade. In order to minimize the risk of being naked on the call side, make sure you also simultaneously buy the ETF. If you sell the Feb 38 put, you stand a better chance of the contract forcing you to buy, with the premium giving you a cost basis under 36 a share. Then sell the Feb 41 call, which gets you out if we break the 52 week high, and go past 42. Total premium collected is (2.05+1.27) 3.57 or 357 dollars per strangle. 2 – Another way to trade the same short strangle is to sell the Feb 35 put for 1.27 and sell the Feb 41 call for 1.28, essentially adding (1.27+1.28) 2.55 or 255 dollars of premium against an entry point of about 38.50. This is essentially selling both sides of the 1 year trading range. Both strategies work, depending on that day’s trading volume which is relatively thin. You can always enter the equity trade first. The premiums have a lot of time decay left, so they won’t fluctuate too much as the ETF itself has been relatively range bound. The first option provides more premium, but gives you a higher cost basis and a higher probability of getting put. The second one essentially gives you 1 dollar less in premium, but has a small likelihood of getting put, so you would buy the ETF and hope it stays within the range through FEB, so you can collect both dividends, and keep the premium. 3 – If the above seems complicated (and also difficult), you can simply just buy covered calls at a 2:1 ratio, adding the 1.27 to your yield, and hoping for a breakout above the 52 week high. After you are called you are left with half your original position, and have collected twice the amount in distributions. This is another way to hold this position while gaining extra premium, protection, and time to collect that fat payment in June. The main idea behind all the above trades is to protect yourself from losing by buying in at the higher end of the range, but also exploit the rather flat trading range that offers option traders ways to collect premium for extra yield. I personally will be looking to hold this position for over a year, so not only will I examine the options, but I will also anticipate a full year’s worth of distributions. Overall, the above are all trading IDEAS, and are subject to the conditions of the market at the exact time of attempted execution. Since this thesis really appeals to dividend investors for the 3.17% yield FEZ currently pays, the options are a way to significantly add yield and more protection for the position. Its a win win, especially if you intend on owning the ETF for simple and cheap exposure, getting put either way just gives you a better entry price. To wrap it up, it all depends on your level of trading skills, your broker (how well they can execute a trade), market conditions, fees, time length, purpose, and many other factors that ultimately decide how you can achieve the maximum risk reward and income at the same time, while being protected not only in your FEZ position, but in your portfolio in general from the Dow’s recent demise. In Conclusion to this rather lengthy but detailed comparison, I firmly believe, based on the past, present, and future opportunities, results, and catalysts, that a reallocation of capital from U.S. large cap exposure, over to European large cap exposure through the FEZ, presents the best risk/reward relationship in the face of grave danger and uncertainty here in the states. Editor’s Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, but may initiate a long position in FEZ over the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Additional disclosure: We are also long Banco Santander (SAN) This article contains information related to trading equity options. Please be advised on the additional risks involved. Never make a decision without doing your own research.

Capstone Infrastructure (MCQPF) CEO Mike Bernstein on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Executives Mike Bernstein – Chief Executive Officer Mike Smerdon – Chief Financial Officer Aaron Boles – Senior Vice President, Communications & Investor Relations Analysts Sean Steuart – TD Securities Rupert Merer – National Bank Eric Tang – BMO Capital Markets Bill Cabel – Desjardins Securities Capstone Infrastructure Corporation ( OTCPK:MCQPF ) Q2 2015 Earnings Conference Call August 11, 2015 8:30 AM ET Operator Welcome to the Capstone Infrastructure Second Quarter 2015 Conference Call and Webcast. As a reminder, all participants are in a listen-only mode and the conference is being recorded. After the presentation there will be an opportunity to ask questions. [Operator Instructions]. At this time, I’d like to turn the conference over to Aaron Boles, Senior Vice President, Communications and Investor Relations. Please go ahead sir. Aaron Boles Thank you. Good morning everyone. Thank you for joining us to discuss Capstone Infrastructure Corporation’s financial results for the second quarter of 2015 ended June 30. Today’s call will be hosted by Michael Bernstein, Chief Executive Officer. Also on the call is Michael Smerdon, Chief Financial Officer. Our News Release was issued after market closed yesterday and is available on our website at www.capstoneinfrastructure.com . Today’s conference call is being webcast live with accompanying slides and will be archived on our website along with a transcript of this event. Following management’s remarks we will hold a Q&A session. During that session I’d like to ask that you limit your questions to two before re-entering the queue, so that we can ensure everyone has a chance to participate. And before we begin, I’d like to remind everyone that during the course of this conference call we may make various forward-looking statements that involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially. For information about these risks and uncertainties, I refer you to the MD&A and our Quarterly Report and to our most recent annual information form dated March 24, 2015. And with that, I’ll turn the call over to Mike Bernstein. Mike Bernstein Right, thank you Aaron. Good morning everyone and welcome to Capstone’s quarterly conference call. The second quarter of 2015 was challenging financially, but saw Capstone advance its corporate strategy on three major fronts: growth, operation and Bristol Water’s regulatory review. On this morning’s call we’ll go through each of these areas and our CFO, Mike Smerdon will provide a financial update on the quarter, while lower than normal natural conditions affected output at our wind, hydro and solar assets. We’ll also take your questions later on the call. On the growth side we commissioned the 25-megawatt Goulais wind facility in Ontario in May, which was the third project to achieve COD within 9 months, joining Skyway 8, Saint-Philemon. This facility was build in partnership with the Batchewana First Nation of Ojibways which holds a 49% in the asset. Having strong relationships with Canada’s Aboriginal groups has become increasingly important for successful power development in this country. Organic growth is a central part of our strategy to create long term value for shareholders. As we and others have noted, valuations for operating core assets have escalated in recent years, driving down the potential return for an acquisition. In this environment Capstone is focusing on development. In the second quarter this year we received the final two renewable energy approvals for our five Ontario based wind projects. One of those projects is wholly owned by Capstone, while the others were being developed with the contemplation of partnering. At this point we anticipate having an increased ownership stake of 75%, which could be as much as 100%. This would add between 12 and 24 megawatts of incremental new generating capacity for a total 64 net megawatts. Our team is already fully engaged in developing these projects, so this would simplify the process and enable us to benefit from a larger investment and attractive projects. We anticipate construction on the interior projects to begin in the third quarter of 2015. In addition, our pipeline includes a 10 megawatt Riverhurst site in Saskatchewan, which we expect to commission in 2017. In terms of operations, Cardinal completed major refurbishment and life extension project on schedule in the second quarter. The plant is now a fully functioning cycling facility and was first dispatched to supply power to the Ontario grid in June. Since then Cardinal has been dispatched several more times in response to peak demand periods, usually triggered by hot summer weather. Turning to regulatory matters, the most active period of the UK competition market facility review of Bristol Water’s AMP6 business plan occurred during the second quarter. Subsequent to quarter end, on July 10 the CMA released its provisional findings. Bristol Water responded to those finding and written submissions on July 27 and had hearings on August 4. We were encouraged by the CMAs report in certain areas. On the issue of operating expenses Bristol Water was provisionally allotted an addition 28 million pounds to run the business, which we view as a more appropriate number that the regulator Ofwat had grated. In terms of enhancement capital expenditure, the CMA provisionally reduced the number by $8 million, while simultaneously removing projects that Bristol Water believed would have cost around 25 million pounds. Essentially Bristol Water has less to do and more money to do it with. The net results of the changes to OpEx enhancement CapEx is a gain of about $45 million, which represents half of the difference between Bristol Water’s proposed business plan and Ofwat’s final determination if the Cheddar 2 reservoir is omitted. On that subject, the CMA provisionally determined that a new reservoir isn’t required at this time, which is unfortunate but not unreasonable. The timing for a new reservoir would be necessary is contingent on a potential new power plant, population growth and the effects of climate change. It’s a consensus view that a new reservoir will eventually be built and could be mandated as soon as the subsequent seven regulatory periods. For cost of capital the CMA largely agreed with Bristol Water’s position and provisionally have grown a small company premium, embedded debt cost and removed an unusual customer benefit test. The cost of capital was provisionally raised to 3.65%, which was in the middle of the range established to the CMAs analysis and reflects current interest rates. We believe the numbers should be at the higher end of the range that the CMA considered and there maybe some room for movement on that issue. Finally, on the pay-as-you-go ratio which significantly affects the rates Bristol Water collects, we were disappointed in provisional findings and believe the current rates are still too low; however, the CMA noted in its report that it didn’t focus on this area for the preliminary findings. Bristol Water has since highlighted pay-as-you-go as a central issue, both in its submissions and during the hearings and response to the provisional findings. The CMA has been encouraged to take a much closer look at this area. The final evaluation is expected by September 3. The CMA can seek an expansion if necessary to complete its review. We remain optimistic that the supplementary testimony delivered at the August 4 hearing, coupled with written submissions will result in an improved outcome that will best serve the needs of customers, protect the integrity of the system and place Bristol Water on a more equal footing to its peers in the UK. It bears repeating that even with the provisional findings as they are initially presented, Bristol Water represents an investment in long term value and one that has grown in value since we acquired the business in 2011. Before I turn things over to Mike Smerdon to discuss Capstone’s financial performance, I’ll note that our results year-to-date have trended to plan. Quarterly results were somewhat lower than expected and were affected by a set of specific factors as Mike will cover. This was an unusual combination of circumstances that should not be viewed as the new normal. We expect cash flows to improve in the quarters ahead. I’ll now turn it over to Mike. Mike Smerdon Thanks Mike and good morning everyone. As Mike mentioned, a distinct set of dynamics influenced Capstone’s key financial metrics in the second quarter. Revenue of $81.4 million for the second quarter was 24% lower in the same period in 2014. This was the result of several factors, including the economics of the new Cardinal contract which was expected when we signed the new agreement in March of 2014. Bristol Water operating under Ofwat’s final determination that is now contesting resulting in a 14% real reduction in rates which took effect in the quarter. This was somewhat offset by favorable foreign currency translation. Weather conductions also had a negative year-over-year impact. Poor wind conditions reduced production in most of our wind facilities, persistent dry conditions on the west coast has lowered production at the seashell hydro facility and cloud cover in the spring, effected output at Amherstburg Solar Park. These natural elements compounded what is traditionally a lower production quarter for our company. In addition recalibered how powerful prices led to reduced revenue at Whitecourt. These revenue declines were partially mitigated by the new capacity added since Q2 of 2014, which includes Skyway 8 and Saint-Philémon and Goulais. Total expenses in the businesses fell 22% in the quarter compared to 2014 to $43.7 million. The drivers of this result were reduced operating expenses largely as a result of lower power production at Cardinal. This was partially offset by higher project development costs in the quarter as we continue to make progress on our wind projects. Adjusted EBITDA came in 27% lower than in the same period last year at $28.8 million, reflecting the lower revenue figures. Turning to adjusted funds from operation, this is an area that must be put into context and merits an explanation. AFFO in the quarter was $900,000 in what is typically one of our weakest quarters due to seasonal factors. The results this year were lower than the second quarter of 2014, primarily because of Cardinal’s new contact, but also because of some issues that we do not expect to reoccur. First, Capstone and our two broker partners agreed with the Bristol Water Board to differ declaring a dividend while the CMA review is in process. Of course the amount of dividends available from Bristol Water is contingent on the CMA outcome. However, based on the previous three years we would normally receive a $2 million dividend from Bristol Water during this period. Second, while two wind projects were commissioned in the first half of 2015 and have generated revenue and accumulated cash, this has not yet been distributed out of the projects, so it is not in our reported AFFO. We expect funds from Saint-Philémon to start flowing to Capstone this quarter and from Goulai in the fourth quarter. On our run rate basis we would approximately $1.5 million per quarter in dividends combined from these projects. Third, as we’ve already mentioned, production across our solar, wind and hydro assets was 9% below historical norms because of poor resources. Even though Q2 is traditionally one of our slower quarters, these unusual weather conditions had a further downward impact on AFFO of about $1.4 million. In total, these specific factors created a drag of approximately $5 million on the quarterly AFFO and in Capstone’s corresponding dividend payout ratio. Nevertheless, on a year-to-date basis, AFFO is slightly ahead of internal expectations and our ability to fund Capstone’s dividend is based on our annual planning and our forecast numbers. Therefore we are still tracking to our plan for 2015. Looking at our financial position, Capstone had unrestricted cash and cash equivalence of $51.2 million at the end of the second quarter, which includes $38.5 million from the power segment and $6.8 million from Bristol Water. Cash and equivalents available for general corporate purposes stood at $22.6 million along with an additional $24.2 million in undrawn corporate credit capacity. At the midpoint of 2015 we affirm our outlook of adjusted EBITDA of between $115 million and $125 million for the year. We have planned responsibly to insure Capstone has the resources and financial flexibility necessary to fund its current growth opportunities, operations and the dividend. The company’s long term debt at quarter end was $926 million, including debt at corporate and our proportion of share of consolidated debt of the power assets, as well as Bristol Water. This represents a debt to capitalization ratio of approximately 74%. As has consistently been the case, Capstone’s outstanding debt is predominately fixed rate on length to inflation. It is largely secured at the operating business level; it fully amortizes over the PPA terms and is non-recourse to corporate. On that front we recently completed the refinancing of Amherstburg Solar Park on attractive terms subsequent to quarter end. The new long term loan carries a fixed interest rate of 3.49% and it fully amortizes over the remainder of the Amherstburg PTA, which expires in 2031. This refinancing will have a positive impact on Capstone’s dividend payout ratio, because we will gain higher annual after debt service cash flows from the asset. It also serves as a reminder that Capstone has a high quarter portfolio of well managed, contracted power facilities in Canada. It’s these assets along with the build out of our wind projects and our return to normal dividends from Bristol Water which form the basis of our operations and we will provide the necessary cash flows to return our payout ratio to our 70% to 80% target. I will now hand things back to Mike. Mike Bernstein All right, thanks Mike. Bristol Water commanded a fair amount of attention from Capstone’s management team in the second quarter as we worked with Bristol’s team to put the best case forward before the CMA makes its final determination. However, while the regulatory review of Bristol Water has proceeded, we’ve been active in perusing organic growth. In addition to the sixth contracted wind projects mentioned earlier, we are participating in the Ontario Large Renewable Procurement. Last December Capstone was announced as a qualified application under the LRP and can bid for up to 38 megawatts of solar and up to 130 megawatts of wind. The LRP is now in the RFP stage and proposals must be submitted by September 1. Our development team has recently helped public meetings to gauge community support for possible expansion of our Erie Shores Wind Farm and meeting regarding a potential solar park near St. Thomas, Ontario. Capstone has also recently submitted a proposal for energy storage technology under Ontario’s Energy Storage Procurement. We appreciate that the protracted regulatory processes of Bristol Water has created a period of uncertainty for Capstone and our shareholders. They CMA will soon issue its filed determination and will have a clear picture of how the next 4.5 years will unfold and how this asset fits into the larger picture for Capstone. Regardless of the CMA outcome, all of our scenarios indicate that there’s still a fundamental disconnect between the value of our assets and Capstone share price. We look forward to updating the market once we have that determination in hand. At the end of the second quarter Capstone is tracking to plan for 2015. Our organic development projects are being completed, our operating portfolio is performing well, but still subject to the natural elements and we look forward to moving ahead with our growth strategy with more certainty for our company very soon. Thank you for your continued support and we will be now happy to take your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you [Operator Instructions]. First question today comes from Sean Steuart of TD Securities. Please go ahead. Sean Steuart Thanks, good morning guys. A couple of questions. I guess worst case scenario; if you assume no change from the CMA provisional findings, can you give us your perspective on what dividends if any you will be able to pull out of Bristol Water over this regulatory period. Mike Smerdon It’s a little too early to say Sean. I mean we would expect dividends out of Bristol Water in the later years in the AMP, although, I mean there is still a lot of variables in play in terms of what will the final outcome of the CMA be, what will the financing structure of Bristol Water be for the current AMP. So as you can appreciate, all of those things will have an impact on the dividends that end up getting paid out. So it’s still too early to say and our focus right now is on making sure that the CMA have all of the information they need in order to come to the right answer for Bristol Water. Sean Steuart And is there an ongoing dialog? I know you had I guess the formal rebuttal in early August. I gather you are continuing to submit written documentation. Are they just in decision making mode or is the dialog ongoing? Mike Bernstein What’s happened since the 10 th of July is that there was a fairly robust response. I think it was totally 200 pages sent on July 27. We then had all testimony on the force and that was a full day session for both ourselves and Ofwat and then last Friday we provided supplementary responses to questions that came up to during the all hearing, as well as any additional responses that came up through the transcript and from Ofwat’s proposal. So there is if you will, nothing official between now and the end, although there is always the opportunity which we expect for clarifying questions that may come from the CMA or additional information if they require it. So there maybe some more information, but right now it is us responding to the CMA. We’ve handed over if you will all of the information that we think they need to come to as Mike described, the right decision for Bristol. Sean Steuart Okay, and then last question from me; you touched on potentially I guess some refinancing initiatives at Bristol. Can you speak to any other levers you can pull across the rest of the operating platform for refinancing initiatives to bolster liquidity a little bit? Mike Smerdon I mean there are a few financing activities that sort of we have in mind that we previously discussed, that Cardinal is an unlevered asset and we view that as a sort of untapped reserve of capital for redeployment into growth opportunities, so that is something that could come up. It’s still an attractive market for financing long dated, contracted, power assets, particularly here in Canada. There are also some – a couple of the wind projects, the smaller wind projects which have near term debt maturities. It is small, so I’m not concerned about the refinancing risk with that. It’s more of a refinancing opportunity to extend out the term, extend out the amortization, store it in the PPA periods and get a lower interest rate. Those are the SkyGen and the Skyway 8 assets. In addition, we do have some financing activity coming up on the wind development projects which we’re currently pursuing and we expect to get those financed on attractive terms as we’ve done in the past. Sean Steuart Okay, that’s all I had, thanks guys. Operator The next question comes from Rupert Merer of National Bank. Please go ahead. Rupert Merer Good morning everyone. Can you give us a little more color on your Rim project developments or the next steps for those five projects for the REAs and what’s the timing expected before you will move to construction and look at COD? Mike Smerdon Well, we’re expecting the ERTs for again Alaska and [Indiscernible]. I’m looking at Mike to make sure he corrects me if I get my five projects wrong; that we expect in August. So we’re planning and ready to start construction on those two in September. Then there’ll be a – the last three should be coming on in the fall and I think the last one will probably be Q1, 2016 to the ERT. So then really just want to continue to roll out over the next 12 plus months to have things completed through 2016. Mike Smerdon So in terms of what needs to be done, we have the turbine equipment locked up and scheduled delivery dates all coordinated. The balance of plant tendering is nearing conclusion, so we’ll have our contractor lined up very soon. Again, its six delivery dates and six payments and then the last thing to conclude will be the project financing, which we’ve started and so far so good. These are projects that are progressing with the same level of confidence that the first three did. Rupert Merer Okay. So they are meeting your expectations for cost and potential returns on those projects? Mike Bernstein Yes. I mean right now we’ll have to see, but the interest rates are still tracking below what we originally anticipated. Rupert Merer Okay, great. And secondly, can you give us an update on your claim against the OEFC and what is the expected timing for the next word that we’ll hear on that. Mike Bernstein I’m trying to remember all the details, but the group I think will put in a submission by the end of the month I believe in response to the OEFCs request for their preliminary information and then we expect that probably we’ll drag out if you will, our final decision would be in Q2 or Q3 of 2016. Rupert Merer Okay, that’s all. Thanks very much. Sorry. Mike Smerdon Starting in August we will start to earn the higher level of revenue on the hydro assets, which were part of that claim as well. So there’s two components to the claim. There’s actually reparations for under collected revenue in the past and then there is there higher rates that should apply going forward and the hydro assets will start getting the benefit of those higher rates starting in August. [Cross Talk] Mike Smerdon That one we expect will be probably about $800,000 or so of incremental revenue which really feels like the bottom line annually, so starting in August. Now obviously the OEFC is contesting that, but because the ruling has come down they do have to adhere to the ruling, so we’ll start getting the – there would be higher revenue for starting this month. Rupert Merer Okay, excellent. Thanks for the color. Mike Bernstein You’re welcome. Operator The next question is from Eric Tang of BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Eric Tang Good morning. This is Eric filling in for Ben. Just a modeling question. On those that are for Ontario projects, what’s the CapEx on those? Mike Bernstein On the Ontario projects, the four that we called wind works and the total CapEx is around $170 million and then there’s the fifth one, Grey Clean which was another approximately $60 million. Eric Tang Okay. So would you need equity to finance those projects or…? Mike Bernstein No, we will project finance at the asset level and in the norm these types of projects, the market standard is 80% project debt, 20% equity and some of our equity has already gone in as we’ve continue to develop those projects, so there is still some left to go in, but we have that covered through internal capacity. Eric Tang Okay, thanks. Those are all my questions. Mike Bernstein Thank you, Eric. Operator [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from [Indiscernible] of RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Unidentified Analyst Hey guys, good morning. Just a couple of quick questions. First of all, sort of assuming that the CMA finalizes the review early next month or whatever, how soon do you think distributions could resume? Mike Bernstein Our plan is that we’d go back to our expected dividends shortly thereafter, so there is – I guess we have the board meetings quarterly, so probably in Q4 we’d love to resume our quarterly and obviously we’d have to work with the board, but hopefully that includes the catch up as well, but that’s what we’re hoping for. Unidentified Analyst Okay, perfect. And regarding your Cardinal facility, so the EBITDA in the Q2, that’s sort of reflective of a run rate or do you expect a different profile during the winter and summer periods? Mike Smerdon It’s a little bit low for a run rate. It should be higher in the summer months when power prices are higher and there’s opportunity to earn market revenue. As Mike mentioned we were dispatched recently. There is not much dispatch activity in our Q2 results. So looking at Q2 it’s a bit low for a run rate, but we still expect EBITDA for Cardinal to be in that sort of $8 million to $10 million per year. Unidentified Analyst Okay, thank you. That will be it. Mike Smerdon Thank you. Operator The next question comes from Bill Cabel of Desjardins Securities. Please go ahead. Bill Cabel Hey guys, just a little confused here. I heard you just say that you expect the Bristol Water distribution up to the corporate level could be back on or you hope to have that back flowing in Q4. So I mean it sounds like no distribution for Q3, but you could have a catch-up. But then when I kind of think back to Sean’s question, maybe I misheard it, but was there not some element of a potential for there not being distributions at the early stage of this AMP period. I’m sorry, I’m just a little confused as to… Mike Bernstein Sean’s question was if there is no change to the provisional findings from the CMA. It’s a sort of hypothetical. I think the way – the second question on Bristol water dividends was based on what we expect, so we do expect that the CMA will come back with revisions. As we’ve said before, in their provisional findings they didn’t put a lot of time into the pay-as-you-go ratio. It was naturally one of the last things that you looked at, so it’s understandable they didn’t spend a lot of time looking at pay-as-you-go since they were still provisional on the top tax, which is the sort of the big item that we first have to figure out before you can turn your mind to pay-as-you-go. So now the discussion is turning to pay-as-you-go. We are hopeful of an improved result on the pay-as-you-go, which obviously changes the current cash flows at Bristol Water. Mike Smerdon And then to give a bit of more color, this TMA provisional findings with the keeping the pay-as-you-go at exactly the same level that Ofwat had last December, which is essentially the same level that we had in our business plan when we were proposing 540 million pounds, which included Cheddar. They are aware that their current business plan at 429 is a very different revenue mix profile or project profile, a lot less capital type projects, so they are aware of that, that the current business plan has changed significantly from last December, which is what the pay-as-you-go ratio was based on. Bill Cabel But can you help me understand what that risk is, because that’s – I mean in my model that’s about a third of your distributable cash. Not quiet, but… Mike Bernstein Maybe if you can just rephrase your question so we can understand exactly… Bill Cabel Like how confident are you that the regulatory body will change the pay-as-you-go ratio enough that you can continue to receive distributions from Bristol? Mike Bernstein The way we look at it, there is a right payout ratio for Bristol Water. The right payout for Bristol Water is above what was used by Ofwat and what was used for deployment in findings. The way we look at it, the right payout ratio you can triangulate in a bunch of different ways, by looking at how much the mix of operating cost to maintenance CapEx is part of top tax. You can look at it based on industry average; you can look at it based on how bills can pay our peers. Based on all of those different ways of looking at it, the right payout ratio for Bristol Water is in the 60%, north of 60% range. Mike Smerdon And that would allow us to pay the dividend that we’re expecting and I will tell a fourth one, which is if you look at regulatory president and how they look at pay-as-you – well they want to call that pay-as-you-go, but if they would have looked at that type of metric in the past, all of those as Mike say triangulate to a number that would provide us the dividend that we’re expecting and presumably the ones that’s consistent with your model. So right now we have significant amount of rate based growth, which is quite high, but that’s not the right balance. So the overall question is, how confident are we that they will adjust the pay-as-you-go ratio? We are very confident, because there’s four different ways of looking at it. They should increase it by a reasonable amount. Bill Cabel Okay, perhaps we’ll follow up after the call. Thanks. Mike Smerdon Okay, thanks. Operator There’s a follow up question from [Indiscernible] of RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Unidentified Analyst Hey guys, yes just another quick question about the facilities you guys are building on. I saw you guys are putting in bids for 38 and 130 megawatts of wind. Can you give us a little bit of flavor on these access locations, competitive advantage, sort of like an expansion of an existing facility or is it going to be net new facilities, that kind of stuff. Mike Bernstein So the quick clarification is we’re allowed to bid up to those amounts. So we’re just finalizing the size. In the case of the wind it would be Erie Shore. I think one of our advantages is that we’re very accepted by the community and that’s worth a lot of points and therefore it’s not just about price. The Ontario LRP includes points for aboriginal involvement, as well as community support, so we are working as we mentioned with an aboriginal group to participate and we do have strong local support for Erie Shore. So if you will that would be adjacent to the existing facility and therefore there are benefits there. Projects size would be significantly less than the 130, but we haven’t decided what the final amount would be where we are optimizing based on the wind and the land leases. In the case of the solar project we are proposing to build it at the Ford facility, which was closed down at St. Thomas Ontario. So we are in front of council, I think next week or so, where we have a community outreach program, so to respond to community questions. So we are not quite there yet in having the community to support, but hopefully they will view us as a good neighbor and contributor to the economic benefits for the region. So from an advantage perspective it’s a good site. It’s close to transmission and again, we are looking to partner with an Aboriginal group. Unidentified Analyst Okay, perfect. Thanks so much. Mike Bernstein You’re welcome. Operator There are no further questions at this time. I will now pass the call back over to the presenters for closing comments. Mike Bernstein Okay, well thank you everyone. I wish all of you a good end of the summer and we look forward to updating you when we hear back from the CMA and provide that clarity that everyone is looking for. Thank you. Operator This concludes today’s conference call. You may now disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating and have a pleasant day.