Tag Archives: governor

SJW’s (SJW) CEO Richard Roth on Q4 2014 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

SJW Corp. (NYSE: SJW ) Q4 2014 Results Earnings Conference Call February 20, 2015 1:00 PM ET Executives Suzy Papazian – General Counsel Richard Roth – Chairman, President and CEO James Lynch – Chief Financial Officer Palle Jensen – Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, San Jose Water Company Analysts Operator Good day, ladies and gentlemen. And welcome to the Fourth Quarter 2014 SJW Corp. Earnings Conference Call. My name is Lisa, and I will be your operator for today. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded for replay purposes. I would now like to turn the conference over to your host for today, Ms. Suzy Papazian, General Counsel. Please proceed. Suzy Papazian Okay. Welcome to the full year and fourth quarter 2014 financial results conference call for SJW Corp. Presenting today are Richard Roth, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer; and James Lynch, Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin today’s presentation, I would like to remind you that yesterday’s press release and this presentation may contain forward-looking statements. These statements are only projections and actual results may differ materially. For a description of factors that could cause actual results to be different from statements in the release and in this presentation, we refer you to the press release and to our most recent Form 10-K and 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. All forward-looking statements are made as of today, and SJW Corp. disclaims any duty to update or revise such statements. You will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of the presentation. As a reminder, this webcast will be available until April 27, 2015. You can access the release and the webcast at the corporate website, www.sjwcorp.com. I will now turn the call over to Rich. Richard Roth Thank you, Suzy. Welcome, everyone, and thank you for joining us. I am Rich Roth, Chairman and CEO of SJW Corp. On the call with me today are Jim Lynch, Chief Financial Officer of SJW Corp.; and Palle Jensen, Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs of San Jose Water Company. As Jim will discuss in further detail, SJW delivered solid results for the year, despite continuing water supply challenges in both of our utility service areas. Further, looking back at 2014, SJW made substantial progress that I believe will lead to a better and stronger company at every level. San Jose Water Company, our flagship utility received its long overdue but constructive General Rate Case decision for the three years 2013 through 2015. The decision provided much-deserved earnings relief and validated the company strong sensible and systematic investments in infrastructure. Accordingly, nearly $90 million was invested in utility plant during 2014, upgrading critical infrastructure, improving service levels and increasing gross utility plant and service to more than $1.3 billion. These investments directly correlate to an increase in rate base which in turn could contribute to earnings for many years to come. SJWTX, Inc., our Texas water and wastewater utility has experienced growing demand for new services. SJWTX’s growth and earnings potential continues to mature owning to our efficient regional business model, economical business processes and a strong acquisition program. Customer count and gross utility plan have increased by nearly 60% and 300%, respectively, since we acquired the business in 2006. With our diverse portfolio of water supplies, a growing wastewater business and continued additions to customer base both through organic growth and acquisitions. We continue to be optimistic about the prospects of expanding our Texas operations. I will now turn the call over to Jim who will review our financial results. After Jim’s remarks, I will address regulatory matters and provide additional perspective on key operational and business issues. Jim? James Lynch Thank you, Rich. Net income for the quarter was $6 million or $0.28 per diluted share, compared to $5 million or $0.23 per diluted share for the fourth quarter of 2013. Year-to-date net income was $52 million or $2.54 per diluted share compared to $22 million or $1.12 per diluted share for 2013. Quarter and year-to-date results reflect the impact of our California General Rate Case decision, the ongoing California drought and newly elected tangible property tax regulations. As previously noted in August, we received a final decision from California Public Utilities Commission or the CPUC on our 2012 general rate case application. The decision authorized a 9.8% revenue increase for 2013 that became effective in August 2014 and a 5.2% revenue increase for 2014 that became effective at the end of September. The decision also authorized a surcharge adjustment for the retroactive application of a newly adopted rate to January 1, 2013, the day interim rates initially went into effect. The surcharge totaled $47 million, of which approximately $25 million related to 2013 and $22 million to 2014. We recognized a surcharge revenue in the third quarter, offset by approximately $3 million in balancing and memorandum accounts, included in the decisions that were previously recognized. For 2015, the third and final year covered by the decision, we received authorization to implement a 2.9% rate increase that went into effect, January 1st. Rich will provide more color on our rate case application for 2016 through 2018 in a few moments. The end of 2014 marks our third consecutive year under historic drought conditions in California and our first year of operating under a targeted 20% reduction in water use set by the State Water Resources Control Board and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Water consumption for the quarter was down 19% compared to the same quarter in 2013. Year-over-year consumption was down 10% and when compared to authorized annual usage, consumption was down 8%. Recall that the company established memorandum accounts with the CPUC in March 2014 to track the financial impact of conservation for future recovery. The memorandum account balances will be recognized by the company once profitability recovery can determined, and finally collection is assured. In 2014, we also established our method of complying with capitalization elections in the tangible property regulations issued last September by the IRS. As a result, we changed our policy for capitalizing certain asset improvement cost. This resulted in the $16 million reduction in federal income taxes payable for the year with the commensurate increase in federal deferred income tax liabilities. For state income tax purposes, the adoption resulted in a $5 million reduction in state income taxes payable and a commensurate state income tax benefit. The reduction in federal and state income taxes payable included $13 million and $4 million, respectively related to 2013 and prior years. Fourth quarter revenue was $69 million, an increase of 3% over the fourth quarter of 2013. Year-to-date revenue was $320 million, an increase of 15% compared to the same period in 2013. The increases were primarily due to the new rates provided in California General Rate Case decision and for the year the general rate case true-up and higher rates related to pass-through water cost increases from the Santa Clara Valley Water District of approximately 9%. These increases were partially offset by lower customer usage and the impact of certain balancing and memorandum accounts. Water production expense for the quarter was $27 million, a decrease of $3 million over the fourth quarter of 2013. The decrease was attributable to a $5 million decline in usage, partially offset by higher cost for purchase water and groundwater extraction charges and essentially no available service water supply. For the year, water production expense was $123 million, an increase of $2 million over 2013. The increase was due to higher cost of purchase and groundwater of $8 million and $5 million due to a decrease in available service water supply, partially offset by an $11 million decrease in customer usage. Operating expenses excluding production costs were $27 million in the fourth quarter, an increase of $720,000, when compared to the fourth quarter of 2013. Higher depreciation and maintenance expenses during the quarter were offset by lower general and administrative expenses due primarily to lower pension costs. Year-to-date, 2014 non-production operating expenses were essentially flat compared to 2013, due to the same factors. Non-operating income and expenses for the quarter were also essentially flat, when compared to fourth quarter of 2013. Year-over-year, non-operating income and expenses included a $2 million gain on the sale of California Water Service Group stock and gains on the sale of real estate investments in Texas and California, totaling $600,000. The effective tax rate for the quarter and year was 50% and 33%, respectively, compared to 32% and 39% for the same two periods in 2013. Fourth quarter 2014 income tax expense includes a reduction in the state income tax benefit related to the adoption of the IRS tangible property regulations to true-up the previous tax estimate and an increase in income tax expense related to fixed assets. In addition for the year, income tax expense includes the credit of $880,000 related to California enterprise zone sales and use tax credits. Turning to our capital expenditure program, we added approximately $22 million in utility plant during the fourth quarter, bringing our total additions for the year to more than $91 million. In 2014, we completed essentially all of our planned capital expenditure programs. In addition, for the fourth quarter, we added $3 million in developer funded capital projects, bringing our total for the year to $10 million. By the end of 2014, utility plant investments in California and Texas increased to $1.3 billion and $97 million, respectively. With that, I will stop and turn the call back over to Rick. Richard Roth Thanks, Jim. The California drought, now going on its fourth year continues to be an issue of concern for us, for our customers and state regulators. On December’s record rainfall and recent storm a very good start, it may take many years above average precipitation for our water supplies to normalize. As Jim mentioned, rules limiting certain outdoor water usage were adopted in July 2014 by the State Water Resources Control Board. The Santa Clara Valley Water District are also a water supplier has also asked all of its retailers to continue to curtail water use to ensure adequate supplies are available in 2015 and beyond. While the lack of precipitation is challenging, we anticipate San Jose Water Company’s water supplies to be adequate this year, owing to our diverse portfolio, which in addition to treated imported water includes groundwater and drought-tolerant recycled water. Customers in California have clearly done a remarkable job of conserving and helping stretch our precious water supplies in response to calls for conservation. However, lower water sales ultimately result in higher rates for all water customers, a rates conservation nexus that continues to perplex and frustrate. To maintain the high service and reliability levels, our customers have come to expect. We continue to conduct in-depth operational modeling and planning to balance the availability in cost of both existing and new water supplies. It is clearly evident that new water supplies will be needed. In light of the big area and California’s continued growth, environmental restrictions and other stressors on California’s aging and inadequate water delivery systems. The quality of life for our customers and the economic vitality of Silicon Valley are inextricably linked to a reliable, high-quality and sustainable water supply. Rapidly increasing water supply costs will impact rates but at less than a penny per gallon, water service remains a great value. The time is right to advance local water supply solutions that ensure sustained reliability for our customers and the residence of Santa Clara County. To that end, we have sought permission from the California Public Utilities Commission to expand our recycled water system distribution network. Recycled water has been and will continue to be a critical water resource for the region. San Jose Water Company also continues to evaluate solutions and partnership opportunities that can fast track the expanded use of recycled water. Turning our attention to regulatory affairs, SJW received final decisions on key regulatory filings in both Texas and California in 2014. Almost three years after filing San Jose Water Company’s 2012 General Rate Case application seeking new rates for the years 2013 to 2015, the California Public Utilities Commission issued its final decision on August 14, 2014. Importantly, it approved new rates that reflect lower customer usage, higher water supply costs and the infrastructure investments we have made. Importantly, the decision also allowed San Jose Water Company to implement new rates retroactive to January 1, 2015. Since the decision was nearly two years late, San Jose Water Company has already filed its next General Rate Case with the commission for the three years 2016 through 2018. The filing sees rate increases of $34.9 million or 12.2% in 2016, $10 million or 3.1% in 2017 and $17.6 million or about 5.4% in 2018, respectively. It also requests the commission approval for capital budgets of $106 million, $114 million and $116 million for the years 2015 through 2017, respectively. Inclusive of the approved Montevina Water Treatment Plant improvements, the total capital investment for 2015 is anticipated to be approximately $130 million. These investments are critical to ensuring our customers continue to receive high quality and reliable water service. This is all the more important in the light of the water supply challenges now facing the region. We’re hopeful that our current filing will be processed on a timely basis for the benefit of customers and shareholders alike. The commission also improves San Jose Water Company’s request to delay its cost of capital filing until March 31, 2016. This cost of capital filing for San Jose Water Company is one part of the larger group of filings for all the other publicly traded water utilities, including California Water Service Company, Golden State Water Company and the California American Water Company. Since a change from currently adopted interest rates is unlikely due to the current economic environment, the one-year delay allows the utilities and the commission to defer potentially significant processing expenses. Also in 2014, the Public Utility Commission of Texas issued a decision on SJWTX’s 2013 general rate case application. The final decision settles all issues with the Coalition for Equitable Water Rates, the commission and the Office of Public Utility Counsel. The decision authorized the requested average system wide rate increase to be phased in annually, beginning January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2018 and provided that no refunds or credits will be owed to customers for rates that affect between December 2, 2013 and December 31, 2014. The New Year saw several changes at the California Public Utility Commission. Liane Randolph was appointed to the commission on December 23, 2014 and replaced outgoing Commissioner and President Michael Peevey. The Governor also named Commissioner, Michael Picker the commission’s new President. We welcome Ms. Randolph to the commission and President Picker to his new post and look forward to working with them, their collogues and commission staff to resolve the many water related issues facing California’s regulated water utilities. Finally in January 2015, the SJW’s Board authorized a 4% increase in SJW’s annual dividend to $0.78 per share. The dividend increase demonstrates a strong commitment to our shareholders and evidences the Board’s confidence in the company’s business plan. In summary, increasing cost for new water supplies, accelerated infrastructure needs and a rigorous regulatory and compliance environment will continue to present challenges to SJW and require us to refine and diligently execute our business strategy. The need to reorganize, reinvent and innovate in all aspects of our business has never been greater. SJW is committed to these principles and to working with stakeholders to deliver cost-effective solutions and safe and reliable water service. With that, I’d like to turn the call back to the operator for questions.

Hold GLD In The Tug Of War Over Financial Stability In 2015

Summary Refuted the recent market doubt of FOMC liftoff in 2015 introduced by Warren Buffett with 3 sources. They are opinions of FOMC voter, San Francisco Fed’s John Williams, strong January 2015 labor data, and influential centrist James Bullard from St. Louis Fed. Current low interest rate environment is put into perspective, and rate hikes will contribute to financial stability in the U.S. Currently, there is a tug of war for financial stability with the U.S. contributing to financial stability and Europe contributing to financial instability. Investors should continue to hold on to GLD even as financial stability has the upper hand this month as the global situation remains fluid and uncertain. Buffett’s Doubt About FOMC Liftoff Famed billionaire investor Warren Buffett has thrown into doubt the feasibility of the first Fed rate liftoff in mid-2015 in a recent interview with CNBC . Buffett makes the point that with the world in trouble, the higher U.S. rates will pull funds into the U.S. and somehow destabilize the global economy. Given the status of Warren Buffett, it is likely that a significant size of the market will be influenced by his opinion. In this article, I am going to look at the possibility of a rate hike in mid-2015, which is the wide market consensus, through 3 different sources. The first source would be the interview which San Francisco Federal Reserve President John Williams had with Steve Liesman of CNBC. John Williams is a voting member of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) this year and has greater influence on monetary policy. It is to be noted that FOMC Chair Janet Yellen was the President of the San Francisco Fed before her ascendancy to FOMC Governor and her current position as Chair of the Fed and FOMC. The second source would be the latest labor market conditions released by the Department of Labor last Friday on 06 February, 2015, for January 2015. This has a high impact on the decision of the Fed to raise rates as part of its employment mandate. The third source would be St. Louis Fed President James Bullard’s essay for the Regional Economist last month. While Bullard is not a voting member of the FOMC this year, he is an influential member of the FOMC and has held his current position from March 2011. Research by Macroeconomic Advisers has showed that Bullard has the most impact on the bond market among all Fed policymakers in 2013. He even outshines the then Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke on an overall basis, but Ben has more influence on a per speech basis. This is due to his position as a policy centrist and his ability to move the FOMC as seen in this Boston Journal article. Hence, his views are an integral part in the analysis of the timeline of the possible rate liftoff. San Francisco Fed’s View of Rate Liftoff San Francisco Fed President John Williams had the CNBC interview recently on 30 January, 2015. Steve Liesman asked the question that is on everyone’s mind, and I reproduce it below (exactly as it appears on the site) for your reference: “LIESMAN: SO DOES ALL THAT KEEP YOU ON TRACK FOR WHAT YOU HAD SAID EARLIER, WHICH IS A MID-2015 FIRST RAKE HIKE, OR LIFT-OFF OF THE FED? WILLIAMS: SO MY CURRENT VIEW AND THIS IS, OF COURSE, MY VIEW. I’M NOT SPEAKING FOR MY COLLEAGUES. IT’S THAT AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THIS YEAR IS THE TIME THAT I THINK IN MY VIEW THAT WE’LL BE GETTING CLOSER TO THE SHOULD WE RAISE RATES NOW OR SHOULD WE WAIT A LITTLE LONGER, COLLECT SOME MORE DATA, GET MORE CONFIDENCE IN THE FORECAST? MY VIEWS ARE BASICALLY THE SAME AS THEY HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST FEW MONTHS. THE ROUND MIDYEAR IS A GOOD GUESS. FOR WHEN WE REALLY ARE GETTING CLOSE TO THAT POINT, THAT RAISING RATES WILL BE APPROPRIATE. I’M NOT PREDICTING THAT IT WILL BE JUNE OR ANY PARTICULAR MEETING. BUT I THINK WE’RE GETTING CLOSER TO THAT POINT.” Williams had made it clear that he would expect the FOMC to lift rates in mid-2015. Liesman did quite a comprehensive interview with Williams and talked about the issues of employment (which we will revisit again later with the latest report) and inflation. The short story is that Williams has repeated the standard FOMC view that this period of low energy prices is transitory and the Fed has to see past that. His view is that after the end of 2016, this transitory period would have passed and inflation will return to the 2% inflation target. Strong January 2015 Labor Data As for the employment data, Williams predicted a strong economy growing at 3% this year, along with a tight labor market. For 2014, Williams mentioned that the U.S. added, on average, 250,000 jobs per month, and this is strong growth. He would not expect such a strong employment growth this year. If so, he will be pleasantly surprised by the latest January 2015 labor data last week. The Department of Labor reported that the U.S. added 257,000 jobs last month over market consensus of 236,000. This is good news even if it came in lesser than the revised 329,000 for December 2014. In a sign of tight labor market, the average hourly pay rose 0.5% with significant job gains in the retail trade, construction, healthcare, financial services and manufacturing sectors of the economy. The slight increase in unemployment rate was due to 2 factors. The first is a technical readjustment due to new census data collected last year. The second reason is more encouraging because the strong economy has encouraged 155,000 discouraged workers to reapply for jobs. This expanded the labor pool in the U.S., and this is why this is good news despite the slightly higher unemployment rate. Taken together, recent data would encourage the Fed to raise rates at an earlier date. One point to note is that there are some who see the headline growth of 2.6% for the fourth quarter as a disappointment because it is a sharp difference from the 5% figure of the third quarter. However, one should note that the Bureau of Economic Analysis report shows that there was strong growth in consumption, which is 70% of U.S. GDP. It is greater consumption of foreign goods which pushed down net export that caused the relative weakness in the last quarter’s GDP growth. St. Louis Fed’s Support for Liftoff Lastly, I put in Bullard’s view into my analysis of the possible rate liftoff. Bullard penned the following essay titled ” Liftoff: A Comparison of Two Normalization Cycles ” for The Regional Economist last month. He compared the liftoff from September 1992 to February 1993 with rates at 6% to the later liftoff from June 2004 to June 2006 with rates at 5.25%. He described the first liftoff as disorderly and data dependent and the second liftoff as orderly but not market dependent. The disorderly first liftoff with a mixture of 25, 50 and 75 basis point rate hike resulted in a strong and robust economy at the cost of turmoil in the bond markets. The second liftoff was orderly at 25 basis points throughout with consideration for the economic data, but it weakened the economy as low interest rates resulted in a housing bubble, along with lax oversight which burst in 2007. There are 2 things to note in the Bullard’s essay. First, he makes no mention over possible reasons for the Fed not to raise rates this year. In fact, the question is not if the Fed will raise rates, this is a given. The question is how should the Fed raise rates in the most effective way for good economic growth. The second point is more subtle but relevant. Bullard has made the point indirectly that for the sake of financial stability in the U.S., the U.S. should be prepared to take the pain of higher interest rates. It was low interest rates that led to the 2005 housing bubble in the first place, and when it burst, it resulted in a world of pain not only for the U.S., but also the whole world when Lehman Brothers collapsed along with it. There is this central contention that higher interest rates will lead to higher and quality economic growth, and the best way to do so is to raise rates with clear communications to the market. This is the lesson learnt in the 2 rates normalization exercises since 1992. Putting it into Perspective This point of financial stability brings me back to the original point made by Warren Buffett and eventually gold. My opinion is that it is true that the higher interest rates in the U.S. will attract funds to the U.S., and troubled places like Europe, Japan and emerging markets might be adversely affected. There is this view that if the world doesn’t do well, the U.S. will not do well either. However, this is a rather moot point because the funds will want to leave troubled economies in one way or another. The bright spot of the U.S. economy will give these funds a clear destination instead of it being channeled into other asset classes and cause unintended consequences such as a housing bubble. To keep current U.S. interest rate environment in perspective, I quote Williams again (exactly as it appears on the site) from the interview: “LIESMAN: BUT IF INFLATION IS NOT MOVING TOWARDS YOUR 2% TARGET, IF WAGES AREN’T MOVING UP OR ANYTHING CLOSE TO THAT 3% OR 3.5% TARGET, WHY WOULD YOU BE RAISING INTEREST RATES AT THAT TIME? WILLIAMS: WELL I THINK TWO POINTS I WOULD LIKE TO GET ACROSS. FIRST OF ALL, WE ARE GETTING PRETTY CLOSE ALREADY BY THE MIDDLE OF THIS YEAR IN MY VIEW TO FULL EMPLOYMENT. IN OUR EMPLOYMENT MANDATE, I THINK WE’LL BE CLOSER TO ACHIEVING THAT. THE SECOND IS WE HAVE TO REMEMBER WE’RE STARTING FROM A POSITION WITH EXTRAORDINARY MONETARY ACCOMMODATION. WE HAVE ZERO INTEREST RATES, WHICH MEANS NEGATIVE INFLATION ADJUSTED INTEREST RATES. AND OVER A $4 TRILLION BALANCE SHEET. I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT NORMALIZING MONETARY POLICY OR EVEN TIGHTENING POLICY IN A WAY. I’M TALKING ABOUT STARTING TO PROCESS WHERE WE TRIM BACK SOME OF THE EXTRAORDINARY ACCOMMODATION WE HAVE IN PLACE.” I have taken the liberty to underline the most important point in the quote and the rest is to put some context into the quote. This shows that from the Fed’s perspective, this is merely about trimming back the extraordinary monetary accommodation that is long overdue, and this is not as drastic as the market would make it out to be. It should also be noted that the FOMC statement has considered international developments when it issued the bullish statement last month which anchors the mid-2015 rate lift-off expectations. Financial Stability Tug of War Of course, there is the more valid point that it is the opinion of the FOMC voting member that will count in the end result of the actual rate liftoff. After going through these 3 sources, investors should be convinced that rate hikes are likely to be anchored in mid-2015. This is likely to contribute to the financial stability in the U.S. While the current Greek debt drama in Europe is a drag on financial stability, the intention of the FOMC to lift rates is a strong anchor to financial stability. My view is that inflation has a lesser influence on gold prices when compared to the issue of financial stability. The actions of the FOMC will put a floor to the price of gold due to the stability it provides, and funds leaving Europe will find safe harbor in the deep US market. This tug of war between forces of instability in Europe and stability in U.S. is now being pulled in the direction of the U.S. Simply put, the market has priced in the Greek drama last month which saw the sharp gains in gold. This month, the game of brinkmanship is being played out between Greece and the Troika in full public display, but it is unlikely to move the markets much despite the amount of drama generated in the process. This is because the Eurozone is much more prepared to handle the mess of a Grexit with its various backstop mechanisms. Right now, the market assumption is that even if the negotiations fail and Greece has to leave, these backstop mechanisms will be sufficient to absorb the impact. Of course, these assumptions can change as this is a fluid and dynamic situation which will affect other bigger debtor countries like Portugal and Italy. The fallout for these countries is harder to contain. GLD as a Hedge Against Financial Instability (click to enlarge) There are many ways to gain exposure to gold, but my recommendation would be to use the SPDR Gold Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: GLD ) as it is the most liquid Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) for gold exposure with a market capitalization of $30.70 billion and transaction volume of 13 million. We can see from the GLD chart above, the appreciation of GLD from $112 to $126 in January 2015. This 12.5% rise is the market pricing in the European instability, and the subsequent decline from $126 to $118 now reflects the strong economic growth of the U.S., especially the strong labor market data last Friday as mentioned earlier. This has increased the possibility of an earlier rate liftoff by the Fed, which will contribute to greater financial stability in the world. The big question is whether GLD can hold the resistance at $117. Given the instability in Europe, my view is that the $117 resistance level will be a difficult level to cross. However, it is clear that financial stability will have the upper hand this month as the deadline for the Greek debt negotiation is until 28 February, 2015, even if there are pressures to push forward that deadline. As long as both sides are still talking, we can assume that things will be contained at least for this month no matter how drastic the media will make it out to be. In any case, investors should continue to hold GLD in their portfolio and withstand the inevitable volatility in this tug of war over financial stability. Over a longer-time horizon, it is unclear which side will prevail. Hence, it would be a wise decision to hold on to GLD until the situation clarifies itself. Disclosure: The author has no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (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.