Tag Archives: exercise

DCF Myth 2: A DCF Is An Exercise In Modeling And Number Crunching!

Most people don’t trust DCF valuations, and with good reason. Analysts find ways to hide their bias in their inputs and use complexity to intimidate those who not as well versed in the valuation game. This may surprise you, but I understand and share that mistrust, especially since I know how easy it is to manipulate numbers to yield almost any value that you want, and to delude yourself, in the process. It is for this reason that I have argued that the test of a valuation is not in the inputs or in the modeling, but in the story underlying the numbers and how well that story holds up to scrutiny. Left brain, meet right brain! This fall, as I have twice a year, for almost 30 years, I will be teaching a valuation class at the Stern School of Business at New York University. When the 300 registered students walk into my classroom, I know that they will come in with preconceptions about what the class will cover. Many will bring in their laptops, with the latest version of Microsoft Excel installed, eagerly anticipating session after session on modeling, hoping to become Excel Ninjas, by the time the class is done. They expect it to be a class about numbers, more numbers and still more numbers, with Greek alphabets (alphas and betas) thrown in. I begin the class by asking students to tell me whether each of them is more comfortable with numbers or with stories, and not surprisingly, the class draws disproportionately large numbers of the former, but there are more than a handful of the latter. (There are a number of tests online, like this one , that you can take to make this judgment for yourself, but most of us have a sense without tests.). I then explain my vision of valuation, as a bridge between the two groups, a way of connecting narratives to numbers. While this picture is only an abstraction in that first class, the rest of the class is really my attempt to flesh out the picture and make the bridge real. I don’t always succeed, but my vision of a successful class is that my number crunchers walk out with a little more imagination and that my storytellers acquire a bit more discipline along the way. Connecting Stories to Numbers: The Process The process by which you connect stories to numbers is neither obvious nor intuitive, but it can be learned. In an earlier post on the topic , I laid out five steps in this process, not intended to be either exhaustive or sequential. To illustrate, consider Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN ), a high profile company where the world is divided into those that believe that it is an extraordinary company with a plan to conquer the world and those that use it as an example of how you can fool a lot of people for a really long time. In a post in October 2014 , I valued Amazon and arrived at a value of $175 per share. (click to enlarge) Rather than get stuck into the details, it is worth laying bare the narrative that I have for Amazon that is determining its value. In my story, Amazon will continue on its path of delivering high revenue growth (with revenues growing to $249 billion by year 10), generally by selling products or offering services at or below cost for the near future (note that margins stay close to zero for the next 5 years), but will eventually start to use its market power to deliver profits, but this market power will be checked by the entry of new players into the retail business, leaving the target margin at a number (7.36%) that reflects the overall retail business in 2014. To see where the optimists in the spectrum come up with higher value, consider an alternative narrative, where Amazon’s market power is unchecked allowing it to expand into more extensively in the media market (with revenues of $329 billion in year 10) and earn an operating margin of 12.84% (the 75th percentile of retail/media firms). Those changes increase the value per share to $468/share. (click to enlarge) To complete the process, consider the pessimistic narrative. In their story, they see Amazon as a company with a charismatic CEO (Jeff Bezos) who is less interested in creating a profitable business than he is in changing the retail world. In that story, Amazon will continue to grow revenues with little attention paid to margins, with the end game being world domination (at least of the retail business). In the valuation, that translates into higher revenue growth and paper-thin operating margins (2.85%, the 25th percentile of large US retail/media firms), even in steady state, the value per share drops to $32/share. (click to enlarge) I followed up my post on narratives and numbers with one on how a change, shift or break in the narrative can translate into a significant change in value , and why the conventional view that intrinsic value, if done right, is timeless is nonsense. Using earnings reports as the vehicles that deliver news about narratives, I looked at my narratives for Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL ), Twitter (NYSE: TWTR ) and Facebook (NASDAQ: FB ) in August 2014, and valued them. Since the last few weeks have brought new earnings reports from all three companies, I will be doing an updated version of that post in the next few days. If you are a number cruncher, this process may seem too free form and subjective to you, and if you are a storyteller, the numbers will seem made up. To me, though, it is the essence of valuation and if you are interested in my extended discussion of this process of connecting narratives to numbers, you may want to take a look at this keynote talk that I gave at the CFA Institute Conference last year. I have to warn you that the length of the webcast (almost 3 hours) could lead you to seek the protection of the Geneva Conventions. Tie to the life cycle: The Investor Angle While narrative and numbers are tied together in every company’s valuation, the importance of each in driving value will shift over a company’s life cycle, as it evolves from a start up to a mature firm to one in decline. Very early in the life cycle, when numbers on the company are either scarce or uninformative, it is almost entirely narrative that drives value. In addition, that narrative can also have a much wider range of possibilities and end values, depending on the path that you map out for the company. In December 2014, I let readers pick their narrative for Uber and mapped out widely divergent values (ranging from less than $1 billion to in excess of $90 billion) for the company, based on the narrative path picked. As companies mature, the numbers start to get weighted more, as it becomes more difficult for companies to not only break away from the past, but the pathways narrow. If you are valuing Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO ), for instance, it is more difficult to visualize explosive breakaways (either up or down in the narrative), though not impossible. If you are an investor uninterested in valuing companies, there are still lessons that you can draw from the link between where a company is in its life cycle and the importance of narrative/numbers. Value Differences: If you get big differences in the perceived value of a young company, they come from fundamentally different narratives about the company, not disagreements about the numbers. Thus, if your assessment of Etsy’s (NASDAQ: ETSY ) value is very different from mine, it is not because we disagree about revenue growth next year but because we have fundamentally different narratives about the company. Value focus: Early in the life cycle, large value changes have to come from large narrative shifts (resulting in large changes in value). Consequently, the focus when you scrutinize earnings reports and other news announcements should be on whether they change your narrative, not on whether the company met or beat some metric (earnings per share, revenues, number of users). To illustrate, much as I have taken issue with the market pricing of Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA ), I think it seems to me an overreaction, to knock off 15% of its price because it sold 50,000 cars instead of 55,000 , since I see little change in the narrative for Tesla, as a consequence. In contrast, I do think that Tesla’s announcement of a $5 billion investment in a battery factory is cause for a big narrative change (though I am still trying to figure out in which direction), as it may shift your view of the company for an auto manufacturer to an energy producer. (I know… I know… It is time for another look at Tesla as well, and I will…) Value mistakes: If the essence of investing is finding misvalued companies, it seems to me that the odds of doing so are greater early in a company’s life cycle, where narratives can get mangled or when investors overreact to incremental reports. As the investment world gets flatter (in terms of everyone having access to past numbers), the most successful investors of the next millennium will be those are skilled at creating and fine tuning narratives for young companies or those in transition. Tie to the Life Cycle: Implications for managers The link between narratives and value has implications for those who run businesses and for what defines success for a top manager as companies move through the life cycle. Narrative control: If it is narrative that drives value early in the process, it should come as no surprise that the most successful entrepreneurs are the ones who are best at establishing narratives that are compelling, plausible and potentially profitable. Thus, Tesla is lucky to have Elon Musk as a CEO, and Uber has been fortunate with Travis Kalanick at its helm. Both men have their faults (who does not?), but they are enormously gifted storytellers, who (for the most part) have the discipline to stick with their narratives, even in the face of distractions. Narrative consistency: One characteristic that sets apart top managers at those young growth companies that have succeeded is that they have (a) not changed their narratives substantively and (b) have acted consistently with their narratives. The stand out example for this is Jeff Bezos, who has stuck with his narrative of “revenues now, profits later” story for Amazon, sometimes to the chagrin of analysts, and everything that the company has done and continues to do advances that narrative. Mark Zuckerberg has been almost as impressive in his focus on turning Facebook’s immense user base into profits, albeit over a shorter period, but one reason for Twitter’s travails is that there seems to be no coherent narrative emerging about how the company ultimately plans to make money. Bar Mitzvah Moments: In keeping with the theme of this post, which is that narratives have to be tied to numbers, it is worth emphasizing that even the most compelling and consistent narrative will ultimately fail, if the company cannot deliver the numbers to back it up. It is true that this “day of reckoning”, which I labeled a “bar mitzvah” moment , may come later for some companies than for others, but when it does come, you need a management team that recognizes that the market has shifted its focus from narrative to numbers, and behaves accordingly. I have tried to capture the change in balance between narrative and numbers, with the management qualities that are most needed at each stage in the picture below: (click to enlarge) As a company makes it move from young start-up to growth company to mature business, the characteristics that make up a good CEO will change as well. One argument for a strong board of directors and shareholder power even at a well-managed young company is that there may well come a time when the top management has to change with the times or be changed. Work on your weak side There is no one path to valuation nirvana, but I think that you need to find a balance between your storytelling and your number crunching skills, for your valuations to have heft. This balance may come easier to you than it did to me, since my natural instincts are to go with the numbers, and building my storytelling side has been slow going, at times. With each valuation that I do, I still have to force myself to be explicit about the narrative that I am building my valuation around, even when it seems obvious, and each time I do it, it gets a little easier. If you are a natural storyteller, you will probably find yourself resisting just as strongly to working with numbers, but I believe that you too will find a way to strengthen your weak side. I would like to think that a valuation that is the result of both sides of my brain working together is better than one that emerges out of only my left side, but even if it is not, it is a lot more fun getting there. Blog Posts Narrative and Numbers: Modeling, Story Telling and Investing (June 2014) If you build it (revenues), they (profits) will come: Amazon’s Field of Dreams (October 2014) Reacting to Earnings Reports: Narrative Adjustments and Value Effects (August 2014) Up, up and away: A Crowd Valuation of Uber (December 2014) Twitter’s Bar Mitzvah: Is social media coming of age? (November 17, 2014) Reacting to Earnings Reports II: Apple, Twitter and Facebook revisited (August 2015) (Still to come) Valuations Amazon Valuation (October 2014) Uber Valuation (December 2014) Other My keynote talk at the CFA Conference in November 2014 DCF Myth Posts Introductory Post: DCF Valuations: Academic Exercise, Sales Pitch or Investor Tool If you have a D(discount rate) and a CF (cash flow), you have a DCF. A DCF is an exercise in modeling & number crunching. You cannot do a DCF when there is too much uncertainty. The most critical input in a DCF is the discount rate and if you don’t believe in modern portfolio theory (or beta), you cannot use a DCF. If most of your value in a DCF comes from the terminal value, there is something wrong with your DCF. A DCF requires too many assumptions and can be manipulated to yield any value you want. A DCF cannot value brand name or other intangibles. A DCF yields a conservative estimate of value. If your DCF value changes significantly over time, there is either something wrong with your valuation. A DCF is an academic exercise.

U.S. Geothermal’s (HTM) Management Discusses on Q4 2014 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

U.S. Geothermal Inc. (NYSEMKT: HTM ) Q4 2014 Earnings Conference Call March 17, 2015 11:00 AM ET Executives Douglas J. Glaspey – President and Chief Operating Officer Kerry D. Hawkley – Chief Financial Officer Jonathan Zurkoff – Treasurer and Executive Vice President of Finance Analysts James P. McIlree – Chardan Capital Markets, LLC Operator Greetings, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the U.S. Geothermal’s 2014 Year-End Earnings Results Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now pleasure to introduce your host Mr. Doug Glaspey. Thank you, sir. You may begin. Douglas J. Glaspey Thank you, operator, and good morning, everybody. Thank you all for joining us on today’s call and for your continuing interest in U.S. Geothermal. My name is Doug Glaspey, I am the President and Chief Operating Officer. Dennis Gilles, our CEO is not able to join us today, he is recovering from recent surgery, we do expect to have him back in the office next week. Joining me on today’s call will be Kerry Hawkley, our Chief Financial Officer and Jonathan Zurkoff, our Executive Vice President of Finance. Jonathan will be presenting Dennis’s prepared comments summarizing the highlights of the year. Before we go any further I would like to make a note that on our March 4, news release regarding earnings call there was a typo some people have noticed that, its was a 100 megawatts production for our growth strategy to 2020, our plan has not changed it is 200 megawatts of growth by 2020. So I just want to make sure everybody understood that we hadn’t changed our strategy. The Company’s performance in 2014 was strong with our operating revenue up 13% compared to 2013. Adjusted EBITDA was up 12% over 2013 and net income up approximately 263% over 2013. Our plans continue to outperform industry standards for operational availability and we are focused on brining the next phase of growth to our shareholders. Kerry Hawkley will now provide you with a summary of our financial results for 2014. Kerry? Kerry D. Hawkley Thank you, Doug. And good morning to our listeners on this call. Before beginning, we would like to remind you that the information provided during this call may contain forward-looking statements relating to current expectations, estimates, forecast and projections about future events that are forward-looking as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements generally relate to the Company’s plans, objectives and expectations for future operations, and are based on management’s current estimates and projections of future results or trends. Actual future results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties. During the call we will present non-GAAP financial measures such as EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA, and adjusted net income, reconciliation to the most directly comparable GAAP measures and management’s reasons for presenting such information is set forth in the press release that was issued last night. Because these measures are not calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP, it should not be considered in isolation from our financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP. I’ll now discuss the financial statements of U.S. Geothermal for the year ended December 31, 2014. On our balance sheet, total assets are at $232.9 million. Our total liabilities are $102.0 million. Non-controlling interests are at $46.4 million, and our net stockholders equity is now at $84.5 million. On our statement of operations our 12-month net income of $11.6 million in 2014 is comparable to the $1.9 million for the same period last year. And adjusted net income for 2014 eliminating the deferred tax asset gain in the impairment loss for Granite Creek is $1.8 million. For the year revenues were up $3.6 million or 13% over 2013. Energy production was up 29,401 megawatt hours or 9.5%. Plant production expenses were up $1.8 million, primarily insurance and maintenance costs. Drilling costs in 2014 that were capitalized were at El Ceibillo, San Emidio Phase II and Crescent Valley. The interest expense at San Emidio $319,000 over last year, primarily because a portion of the interest in 2013 was capitalized. This will have a direct impact to the net income attributable to U.S. Geothermal since San Emidio 100% owned by U.S. Geothermal. Our stock-based compensation is up $583,000 due to options in shares granted to our employees, executives, and directors in April of 2014. These costs are non-cash and align the interest of our employees, officers and directors with shareholders. We incurred exploration drilling costs during the year of $449,000 at our Gerlach Project. We’ve recognized a loss of $452,000 on an impairment associated with our decision to abandon the development of our Granite Creek Project. We also recognized a gain of 10.3 million on a deferred tax assets that we have recorded based on our more likely than not criteria. Adjusted EBITDA for 2014 was $17.2 million, versus $15.3 million in 2013. Our statement of cash flow, cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the year were $28.7 million. 12 months, cash generated by operations were $12.8 million. Notes payments reduced our total debt by $4.6 million. Payment to our non-controlling interest partner Enbridge were $15 million. We acquired the WGP Geysers project for $6.8 million, inclusive of legal cost. We capitalized drilling at San Emidio, El Ceibillo and Crescent Valley this year and that totaled $3.7 million in. Through the exercise of warrants and options we received $1.6 million in cash, so at the end of the year our cash and cash equivalents were $13.0 million. Please note that our exploration development budget for 2015 requires approximately $5.5 million in cash from U.S. Geothermal, which can be funded internally by cash flows from operations. On our statement of changes in stockholders equity, we’ve added the net income of $11.6 million during the year should be noted that the accumulated deposit is now reflected net of tax or $19.3 million. Shares of common stock issued upon exercise of stock purchases warrants were $2.6 million, shares of common stock issued upon exercise of stock options were $1.1 million. We granted 559,000 shares of common stock to our employees, executives, and directors in Q2 that had a one-year restriction. We just have cash of $15 million that was distributed to Enbridge, we issued 693,000 shares in Q4 to acquire 100% of the shares of Earth Power Resources. So at the end of the year 12/31/2014 are issued an outstanding shares in our totals of 107.0 million shares. Now as we mentioned briefly in the third quarter earnings call regarding our provision for income tax we have now met to more likely to not criteria set for recording the deferred tax asset on the balance sheet. During the fourth quarter, the company discontinued the 100% valuation allowance on our deferred tax asset. The impact to the financial statements net of tax on the income in 2014 was $10.3 million. In other words, we have been profitable now for over two years and we anticipate being profitable going forward as our projects are reliable and the revenues are predictable. Our deferred tax assets will offset future taxes and same as cash. Also in response to the apparent confusion noted during the last earnings call we have added additional disclosure on Page 85 in the MD&A regarding the net income attributable to the non-controlling interest and the net income attributable to U.S. Geothermal and its shareholders, which we hope provide you the clarity thought. The table on Page 85 shows the contribution our three operating projects provides the net income attributable to U.S. Geothermal and it also shows the cost associated with our exploration activities, corporate costs, the deferred tax asset gain and the impairment loss. You will see that Neal Hot Springs contributed $5.9 million, San Emidio contributed $0.5 million, Raft River contributed 300,000 for a total contributed to U.S. Geothermal of $6.7 million from these three projects. From that exploration activities and corporate overhead cost $4.9 million if you exclude the deferred tax and impairment adjustments. This last category includes the Company’s cost of existence including the listed on two stock exchanges legal accounting and professional fees, filings with government agencies, stock-based compensation in the costs of evaluating and developing new projects. These costs are almost 100% U.S. Geothermal costs and reduce the net income attributable to U.S. Geothermal. However as we grow the company by adding income generating projects in the future, this category will not increased significantly from current levels. Allowing the net income from the new projects to increase the bottom line almost dollar per dollar, we believe that company as well-positioned to take advantage of many future opportunities. Thank you for your continued interest in U.S. Geothermal and I will turn the call back over to Doug. Douglas J. Glaspey Thank you, Kerry. I will now provide the highlights of our operations performance for this fourth quarter and for the full-year 2014 as well as the summary of our current development activities. Generation for the fourth quarter from all three plants was 96,831 megawatt hours, and that’s compares 96,508 megawatt hours in the fourth quarter of 2013. Generation for the year 2014 totaled 339,086 megawatt hours, compared to 309,687 megawatt hours for 2013, which represents a 9.5% increase in generation year-over-year. The fourth quarter is typically one of our best generation quarters of the year as you all know, due to the cooler winter temperatures. But I will note, that while the East has had a very cold winter, the West is actually had a relatively mild winter. At Neal Hot Springs, generation for the quarter was 54,472 megawatt hours with average hourly generation of 25.08 net megawatts hours for hour of operation. The facility operated at 98.3% availability for the fourth quarter and 98.5% availability for the year, excluding scheduled maintenance hours. Generation for 2014 at Neal was 183,394 megawatt hours, compared to 155,428 megawatt hours in 2013 an 18% increase year-over-year at Neal Hot Springs. We’re proud to say that the geothermal reservoir at Neal continues to outperform our reservoir model, with over two years of stable temperature and flow rate. At San Emidio, our generation for the quarter was 21,745 megawatt hours with average hourly generation of 9.93 net megawatt hours per hour. Operating availability was 99.2% for the fourth quarter and 98.5% for the year, again excluding scheduled maintenance and hours. Generation for the year was 76,894 megawatt hours compared to generation of 76,697 megawatt hours in 2013. You can see that San Emidio has reached its plateau on this particular case, we think we will see a little bit better generation this year because of the addition of Well 6121 that was added in September and it increased the brand temperature feeding the plant by 3.3 degrees. San Emidio plant of course continues to run very smoothly, we’re very pleased with the plant and the reservoir remains within its projected parameters. At Raft River generation was 20,614 megawatt hours for the quarter with an average hourly generation of 9.59 net megawatts. Raft River operated at 97.3% availability during the fourth quarter and 99.5% for the year. Generation for 2014 was 78,798 megawatt hours compared to generation of 77,561 megawatt hours in 2013. Raft River which is our oldest facility continues to operate at consistent, high availability, with stable generation. I will note that Raft River will have an extended maintenance outage of 14 days in the second quarter of 2015 and it will be undergoing its first turbine overhaul since the plant started in 2008. We are very pleased with the performance of all three plants during the fourth quarter and for all of 2014. Our operations team has produced outstanding operation availability at all of the facilities which equates to our high level of power generation. On the development front, at San Emidio Phase II, the project continues to be dependent upon successful drilling and expansion of the currently known geothermal resource. Before we make the decision to move forward with building the second power plant we have to be successful with drilling additional production and injection wells that will support that second plant. We drilled two new wells in the South Zone during 2014 and expanded the high temperature anomaly farther South from the current well field. We did not plan commercial permeability in either one of those wells, we did find increasing temperature and it’s an important indicator of an active geothermal system. This temperature data is in effect an arrow pointing toward a potential source of the geothermal flow path farther South and we are going follow up on it. The South Zone area is held by federal leases and it takes anextraordinary amount of time to permit drilling activities on these lands. We are currently in the process of permitting a series of temperature gradient wells to extent our information on the area. And if the temperature gradient wells outline an attractive targets, we’ll follow up with observation wells or slim holes as they are known, to explore for the source of the high temperature fluid. This is an iterative process and it takes time, but after finding fluid temperatures of over 321 degrees in the South Zone it’s well worth following up. During the year we also constructed cross tie pipeline between the Phase I plant and the Phase II project area that was built in the third quarter and began producing fluid from well 61-21 early in the fourth quarter. This was all part of a long-term flow test for the South Zone. This well remains in production as we collect reservoir data and the plus side is it also increased our generation from the Phase I plan. Through the year we continued on with the interconnection studies with the Phase II plants and received the first phase study called the System Impact Study back from NV Energy on December 24. We might recall we’ve already have 16 megawatts of reserve transmission of San Emidio and we are requesting an additional 3.9 megawatts in order to accommodate a second full-size plan. The System Impact Study indicated that the additional 3.9 megawatt of transmission can be added to the NVE transmission system with a cost of approximately $270,000. A second phase study called the Facilities Study was started by NV Energy in January 2015. Now this series of studies for transmission happens at all of our projects it’s a FERC mandated process and all of the utilities have to go through it, we have to pay for everyone of these studies. So it just one of the areas in power generation that we have to go through. NV Energy issued a request for proposal on October 1, for 100 megawatts of renewable energy that would be contracted in 2015 for consumption in Southern Nevada. We responded to the RFP with a proposal for San Emidio Phase II on November 12. In early December NV Energy asked the Nevada Public Utilities Commission to allow them to combine the 2014 and 2015 renewable RFPs for a total of 200 megawatts under request. This request was approved and subsequent to the end of the year, we resubmitted our proposal for the Phase II plant and were notified on March 3 that our bid was advanced to the initial shortlist for Geothermal projects. NV Energy schedule indicates that the anticipate selecting the final shortlist projects before the end of April. At El Ceibillo and Guatemala, early this year we completed nine temperature gradient wells at El Ceibillo. The wells were shallow from 650 to 1,300 feet deep and we found temperatures ranging from a 176 to 413 degrees Fahrenheit, extraordinarily high for this shallow of a well. Results, from these wells effectively moves a high temperature resource target area approximately half a kilometer Northwest of our initial target zone. This change in our target location required us to acquire additional service leases before we could enter into our next phase of drilling. Keep in mind that while we have a concession to exploit the Geothermal resource from the Guatemalan government, we also need to have leases for surface access from private individuals. After extensive negotiations we were able to finalize a lease on an additional 80 acres of land that covers us new target area on October 15. Once the lease was signed, we prepare to drill pads for our planned well EC2, which will be a car hole design exactly like the EC1 well we drilled in 2013. The planned depth for EC2 is 2,330 feet deep, at 600 to 1000 meters based on our temperature gradient wells we do have a target in mind as far as depth also for temperatures, so we are anxious to get started on this next well. Our next hurdle, however before we resume drilling is to secure approval from the Guatemalan government to modify our development schedule under the terms of the concession. Based on the new schedule and the subsequent delays for approval you might recall we’ve been seeking this approval for over a year. Our online data’s moved out from the second quarter of 2018. Again this schedule is contingent on the drilling, finding the commercial resource on the project, which we are optimistic about but given the results obtained from our recently completed temperature gradient drilling program. Also at El Ceibillo our memorandum of understanding for a PPA that was held by the project was based on our original development schedule for the project. We met with the purchaser through the year who is one of the largest power brokers in Central America. But due to the delays and approval of the modified development schedule with the Guatemalan Ministry of Energy the purchaser declined to extend the agreement. We are continuing discussions with them and are approaching other power consumers in Guatemala and Central America. Central America still has a growing demand for power especially base load type resources. So we believe there is a very good market in the area. At our WGP Geysers Project, we are continuing to pursue two paths for development of the project. To secure a new power purchase agreement for the sale of electricity and if we’re successful in doing so, we will construct a new power plant and sell energy or to produce steam for sale to one of the other power plant operators in the Geysers. We keep the project ready for either development path; a 12 month extension for the Sonoma County Conditional Use Permit to construct the power plant was applied for and approved in June. We are currently preparing to file a new Conditional Use Permit application in 2015 to maintain our readiness. We also filed a new transmission interconnection request to the California independent system operator so that the project can be placed in the transmission queue. Again, we have to go through these transmission studies to make sure our power plant built on the site can be interconnected into the transmission system, so we can deliver our power to a purchaser. Since the four production wells were drilled in 2008 and 2009 the previous owner did not conduct long enough flow tests for bankable reservoir model. An Air Quality Permit was obtained for extended flow test Sonoma County Air Quality Board and we have scheduled a flow test of the existing wells during the second quarter of 2015 that time is coming up very rapidly. Additionally, we’ve been doing engineering optimization studies of the power plant design, the new reservoir model will reflect the hybrid plant design and includes both water cooling in the summer and air cooling in the winter. Hybrid cooling will provide a significant increase from a traditional 20% increase into 65% in the volume of water available for injection back into the reservoir providing longer term stable steam production. This kind of optimization is critical to maximize the power generation from the property. Three California base requests for proposals for renewable energy PPAs were used at late 2014 and early 2015, submitted the WGP Geysers all three. We were not short listed on the first two and are waiting the results of the third. Direct bilateral discussions are also being held with both power purchasers and steam sale purchasers. The results of the flow test we have scheduled for this spring and the bankable reservoir model will play a key role in making the best decision on how the project is developed. Moving to the exploration front, at Crescent Valley in Nevada which is one of the properties we acquired in the Earth Power Resources acquisition, in late November we conducted a gravity survey in the area with Hot Springs and strong faulting with intense solidification that already had a number of temperature gradient wells drilled that exhibited high results. We located and permitted a well on private property an initiated drilling in December starting construction to qualifying the project for the 30% investment tax credit. The well is currently at just over 900 feet deep and we expect to complete it within this next month. Additional program of deep 1000 foot temperature gradient wells over much larger area are also planned for 2015. So we’re just starting to explore Crescent Valley it’s a great looking prospect. At Gerlach we completed well 1810A to a depth of 2889 feet that was completed in November. This well was a follow up on a historic well that was reported to have encountered a significant loss circulation zone at depth but had no temperature information. Gerlach is some of the largest Hot Springs in Nevada and geothermometer temperatures of 338 to 352 degrees Fahrenheit which made it an excellent exploration target. The well founds some modest production mid-depth but no permeability deep in the well and the maximum temperature found in the well was 275 degrees Fahrenheit. We are reviewing the results of further work at Gerlach but it will be dependent on additional funding from the joint venture. I will now turn the meeting over to Jonathan Zurkoff to provide Dennis’s remarks. Jonathan? Jonathan Zurkoff Thank you, Doug. I will summarize our notable highlights for 2014. First on our consolidated financial performance revenues were up 13% coming in for the year at $31 million, compared to $27.4 million for the 2013 period. Adjusted EBITDA of 12% for the year at $17.2 million compared to $15.3 million in 2013. EBITDA was up for the year yielding $14.9 million, compared to $14.5 million for 2013. Net income up 263% with the total for the year at $14.9 million compared to $4.1 million in 2013. Cash flow from operations was $12.8 million for the year compared to $10.6 million for 2013, an increase of approximately 21% and long-term debt reduced by $4.8 million. Looking at the financial performance attributable to U.S. Geothermal that is after eliminating minority interest which represents our partner share Neal Hot Springs and Raft River. Our net income for the year was up 497% with the total for the year of $11.6 million compared to $1.9 million for 2013. Adjusted net income for the year was $1.8 million versus $1.9 million in 2013, adjustments include both the one-time gain from the recognition of the deferred tax assets and a one-time impairment for the write-off of the development cost associated with our Granite Creek project. We ended the fourth quarter with cash and cash equivalents of $13 million a $2.3 million increase over the prior quarter, relative to operating performance generation for the year was up 9.5% over the last year, mostly resulting from the higher unit availabilities. Our fleet-wide average operating availability for the year was an impressive 98.7% on equally impressive 96.2% with planned maintenance outages included. On the growth side, at our El Ceibillo project and Guatemala we continue to work with the Ministry of Energy and Mines and are very pleased to report that we now have lowered movements on our request to modify the construction schedule and there are Geothermal concessions. We are ready to drill our next well after we obtain final approval of our new schedule from the Energy Minister. Our team in Guatemala is also holding discussions with our former as well as potentially new off-takers for the energy and we are examining, other new prospects in the country. The acquisition of Earth Power Resources was completed on December 12, bringing three additional high quality geothermal prospects into our development pipeline. We began work immediately on the Crescent Valley project by starting the drilling of a production well before year-end, qualifying this project for a 30% investment tax credit which became available with the federal tax extender legislation that was past late last year. At San Emidio II we completed well 6121 installed the production pipeline and continue to produce well 6121 in the South Zone to the Phase I plan. We are also permitting an underground it drilling in the South Zone to verify and expanded resource. Further we have interconnection studies continuing with NV Energy we have submitted two proposals to NV Energy for the 2014 and 2015 request for proposals for 200 megawatts of renewable energy, and we’ve been notified that our proposal have been short listed. At WGP Geysers, we are approaching potential off-takers for the power from the proposed power plant, we’ve responded to request for a proposal as well as started bi-lateral discussions with interested parties and continued discussions for an alternative possible steam sell . A flow tested existing wells is planned for this spring, which will provide valuable information on this resource as it’s needed to optimize the design of either a power plant or pipeline to deliver steam. Capital and operating costs for both potential operating scenarios are being refined and budgetary bids have been received. We have also reapplied for a transmission interconnection agreement. We continue evaluating a number of other potential acquisitions that could drive our growth both in the near-term and now to our long-term portfolio. Regarding our development budget for 2015, expense activities for our early stage exploration projects are budgeted at $1.5 million. Capital expenditures on our more advanced development projects have been budgeted for up to $3.9 million. These budgets are based on our current portfolio and maybe altered depending on the results of early stage work or new opportunities. On the legislative front in late 2014, Congress passed a tax extender result that will allow us to potentially use a 30% investment tax credit on our projects and start a construction prior to the end of 2014, we believe our Geysers project, our San Emidio II and our Crescent Valley projects are currently qualifying. There are also indications that congress will take up an energy bill in 2015. In California which is the largest geothermal market in the United States, Governor Brown announced a new goal of 50% renewable energy by 2030. The California PUC will also be implementing newly passed AB 2363 which requires the establishment of rules for inclusion of integration cost for renewable. Intermittent technologies such as wind and solar will likely have to include the permitting cost for these resources. Moving on to guidance, our guidance for 2015 is based solely on our existing operations and does not include any impact that may be provided by acquisitions we are currently evaluating. These figures are forecast only and considered forward looking statements. Our guidance for 2015 is as follows. Our revenues $28 million to $33 million, Adjusted EBITDA $15 million to $19 million, EBITDA $12 million to $16 million and net income of $1.9 million to $5.9 million. So Doug, I’ll turn it back to you. Douglas J. Glaspey Thank you Jonathan. In summary with our strong cash flow from operations, we continue to have adequate cash on hand to support both our ongoing operations and early stage developments efforts and we continue to add cash to our balance sheet in preparation for our next construction project or acquisition. We also believe we are appropriately prepared to be responsive to many of the additional growth opportunities that we are currently evaluating. In closing, we have now had nine consecutive quarters of positive EBITDA and cash flow. Our fleet of power plants continues to perform well. We are pleased with the performance of our resources, we are pleased with the new growth opportunities recently added to our portfolio and optimistic regarding the other growth opportunities we are currently evaluating. We thank you for your continuing support and operator, I would now like to open the call for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. [Operator Instructions] We have a question from the line of [indiscernible] Private Investor. Please proceed with your question. Unidentified Analyst Yes, hello. Douglas J. Glaspey Yes, Steven we can hear you. Unidentified Analyst On Neal Hot Springs you are talking about adding a hybrid system there, adding water. What kind of megawatt improvement would that make? Douglas J. Glaspey Steven you are exactly right we are going to be evaluating the possibility of using the wet cooling in the summer months. I think everybody understands that Neal Hot Springs is an air cooled facility, and in the hot summer hours can dip as low as seven to eight megawatts. We think we can double that with water cooling, so it would be similar to other projects in the summer time. I don’t have a number for you for a total impact of megawatt hours for the year. But we think it’s substantial and, of course it’s something we can do on the surface that doesn’t take drilling. So we should be drilling a water well early this hopefully within the next month or so to see if we can find a suitable water resource that would supply that cooling system, and then we are going to test several different possibilities conventional water cooling towers and mist cooling are the two we are going to looking at and hopefully by the end of this season we’ll have an idea of if we can add that water cooling. But thank you for the question its one of the ways we can increase generation without spending a lot of capital. Unidentified Analyst I had another question on the Geysers and the flow test, or fewer on your on your presentation where you make whatthe 38 megawatts. If you did that, would you be able to be more competitive on your megawatt price and the bidding for PPA with a bigger plan? Douglas J. Glaspey Yes, thank you Steven the of course of the size of the plan has an impact typically on capital cost per megawatt hour that 38 megawatt size is the growth generation from the currently permitted plant. So that’s one of the things that flow test is going to tell us this spring – exactly what size plant we can build and operate over the long-term we don’t just look at what the short-term generation is of course. We are going to be looking at time periods of 20 years to 25 years and that’s the number we are seeking from the flow test this year. Unidentified Analyst Okay and then on your net income guidance that’s just U.S. Geothermal that’s excludes the non-consulting interest right? Kerry D. Hawkley That is correct. Unidentified Analyst Okay. All right well thanks a lot and everything looks good. Keep up the good work. Douglas J. Glaspey Thank you. Kerry D. Hawkley Thank you, Steven. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jim McIlree with Chardan Capital. Please proceed with your question. James P. McIlree Yes, thanks and good morning. Douglas J. Glaspey Good morning. James P. McIlree When do you think that you would arrive at a decision on Geysers, which direction you would go either the electricity or the steam? Douglas J. Glaspey Good morning Jim. My expectation is certainly before the end of this year and I would like to have that decision somewhere around mid-year. James P. McIlree And so if it were – let’s take year-end instead. So if it were year-end decision what does that imply in terms of when it comes online starts generating revenue? Douglas J. Glaspey If it was a year-end decision we would have at least two years of construction. Kerry D. Hawkley If it was a power plant. Douglas J. Glaspey If it’s a power plant. If it’s a steam sell it could potential be as short as nine to 12 months. James P. McIlree And similar question for the Crescent Valley and Gerlach efforts. A timeframe as to when those could be online if all goes well. Douglas J. Glaspey Little bit longer timeframe, we still have to define resources of those projects and lets say we’re successful this year, so by the end of the year we have resource defined, we have a PPA in hand and you are looking at, at least two years of construction, before you would be online and generating electricity. James P. McIlree And is there any additional information you can provide as to why the Guatemala power buyer side is not renewed at contracts for the MOU. Kerry D. Hawkley Well I think there is probably several reasons Jim, the power situation in the country has changed a little bit and it’s a little uncertain right now, there was a large coal fired power plant that was supposed to be built in Guatemala that is only partially been built now, they have had a lot of trouble with their hydro facilities, actually they are having a bit of a drought down there as well so hydro has not turned out to be as consistent as they would like. So I think its really more uncertainty than anything else. You might recall too that that MOU covered flat priced PPA, so one of the things we’re looking at with them is shaping that PPA price overtime putting an escalator in it which it didn’t have before. So I think there is a number of issues that I guess I can’t tell you exactly why, but those are my feelings. James P. McIlree Okay, great. That’s very helpful. Thank you. Kerry D. Hawkley Thanks Jim. End of Q&A Operator [Operator Instructions] It seems there are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn it back to management for closing comments. Douglas J. Glaspey Great, I would like to thank everybody again for being on the call. We’re looking forward to a very exciting 2015, we’ve got a lot of things that we’re evaluating and as far as new projects are concerned we have a lot of work to do on our existing development and exploration projects. So keep a close eye on us and we look forward to talking to you next quarter. Thank you very much. Operator Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today’s teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.

11 Stocks Plus Cash Saw $24,000 Grow To Over $1 Million

Summary Start in 1985 with a $2,000 investment in cash. Make one $2,000 investment at the end of the year from 1986 through 1996. Investments are assumed to be made in an IRA to shelter from taxes. The first $2,000 was invested in cash to pay for commissions and other fees. The average investor can save a tidy sum for retirement. It takes some luck, perseverance, and a buy and hold approach. The portfolio constructed would generate $22,400 in dividends for 2015. The portfolio was constructed by entering stock symbols into a spreadsheet in random order. The model assumed a $2,000 a year investment from 1985 through 1996 or 12 years. The first – year investment of $2,000 was invested in cash to account for commissions and other fees. The results are not actual results, but hypothetical results. Dividends that would have been earned on investments have been ignored or assumed to have been invested in stocks that blew up and went to zero ($0.00). The results generated most likely are influenced by a survivor basis. Nevertheless, the exercise proved useful. Data was obtained from company websites and or Yahoo Finance. The performance results are handicapped by not accounting for dividends paid since purchase nor assuming they are reinvested. The portfolio results presented are conservative to consider a worst case rather than an unrealistic best case. This is part one. The second part will cover the years 1998 through 2014. The model portfolio is shown below. (click to enlarge) Chart of the stock performance since inclusion into the model portfolio is shown below. Kellogg (NYSE: K ) K data by YCharts Archer Daniels Midland (NYSE: ADM ) ADM data by YCharts Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX ) SBUX data by YCharts The Home Depot (NYSE: HD ) HD data by YCharts Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM ) XOM data by YCharts Stryker (NYSE: SYK ) SYK data by YCharts Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT ) CAT data by YCharts Charles Schwab (NYSE: SCHW ) SCHW data by YCharts JPMorgan (NYSE: JPM ) JPM data by YCharts Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT ) WMT data by YCharts Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT ) MSFT data by YCharts Bottom line: With a little luck and experience, it is possible for a modest investment to grow into a nice nest egg. What do you think? Disclosure: The author is long ADM, SYK, SCHW, JPM, MSFT. (More…) The author wrote this article themselves, and it expresses their own opinions. The author is not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). The author has no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Are you Bullish or Bearish on ? Bullish Bearish Neutral Results for ( ) Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Submit & View Results Skip to results » Share this article with a colleague