Tag Archives: investing

Best And Worst Q2’16: Energy ETFs, Mutual Funds And Key Holdings

The Energy sector ranks last out of the ten sectors as detailed in our Q2’16 Sector Ratings for ETFs and Mutual Funds report. Last quarter , the Energy sector ranked ninth. It gets our Very Dangerous rating, which is based on aggregation of ratings of 22 ETFs and 100 mutual funds in the Energy sector. See a recap of our Q1’16 Sector Ratings here . Figures 1 and 2 show the five best and worst rated ETFs and mutual funds in the sector. Not all Energy sector ETFs and mutual funds are created the same. The number of holdings varies widely (from 25 to 144). This variation creates drastically different investment implications and, therefore, ratings. Investors should not buy any Energy ETFs or mutual funds because none get an Attractive-or-better rating. If you must have exposure to this sector, you should buy a basket of Attractive-or-better rated stocks and avoid paying undeserved fund fees. Active management has a long history of not paying off. Figure 1: ETFs with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 Click to enlarge * Best ETFs exclude ETFs with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Four ETFs are excluded from Figure 1 because their total net assets are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums. Figure 2: Mutual Funds with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 Click to enlarge * Best mutual funds exclude funds with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Rydex Series Energy Service Portfolio (MUTF: RYVIX ) is excluded from Figure 2 because its total net assets are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums. Market Vectors Oil Services ETF (NYSEARCA: OIH ) is the top-rated Energy ETF and MainStay Cushing Renaissance Advantage Fund (MUTF: CRZZX ) is the top-rated Energy mutual fund. Both earn a Neutral rating. iShares US Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (NYSEARCA: IEO ) is the worst rated Energy ETF and Saratoga Advantage Energy and Basic Materials Portfolio (MUTF: SBMBX ) is the worst rated Energy mutual fund. Both earn a Very Dangerous rating. 178 stocks of the 3000+ we cover are classified as Energy stocks. LyondellBasell Industries (NYSE: LYB ) is one of our favorite stocks held by CRZZX and earns a Very Attractive rating. Over the past five years, LYB has grown after-tax profit ( NOPAT ) by 10% compounded annually. Over the same time period, Lyondell’s return on invested capital ( ROIC ) has improved from 17% to a top-quintile 22%. Additionally, over the past four years, LYB has generated a cumulative $14.8 billion in free cash flow . Despite the strength of the business, LYB is undervalued. At its current price of $88/share, LYB has a price-to-economic book value ( PEBV ) ratio of 0.8. This ratio means that the market expects LYB’s NOPAT to permanently decline by 20% from current levels. If LYB can grow NOPAT by just 4% compounded annually for the next decade , the stock is worth $139/share today – a 58% upside. Hess Corporation (NYSE: HES ) is one of our least favorite stocks held by IEO and earns a Dangerous rating. Contrary to GAAP net income, which has fluctuated wildly over the past decade, Hess’ NOPAT has only worsened by declining from $1.7 billion in 2005 to -$859 million in 2015. Over the same time period, Hess’ ROIC has fallen from 11% to -2%. In a large disconnect from reality, HES has risen over 50% over the past three months, which has made shares more overvalued. In order to justify its current price of $57/share, Hess must immediately achieve positive pre-tax margins (from -22% in 2015) and grow revenue by 20% compounded annually for the next 20 years . In this scenario, 20 years from now Hess would be generating $254 billion in revenue, which would nearly equal oil giant Exxon’s 2015 revenue. The expectations already embedded in HES are unrealistically high. Figures 3 and 4 show the rating landscape of all Energy ETFs and mutual funds. Figure 3: Separating the Best ETFs From the Worst ETFs Click to enlarge Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 4: Separating the Best Mutual Funds From the Worst Mutual Funds Click to enlarge Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings D isclosure: David Trainer and Kyle Guske II receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, sector or theme. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. 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.

WGL Holdings’ (WGL) CEO Terry McCallister on Q2 2016 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

WGL Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: WGL ) Q2 2016 Earnings Conference Call May 5, 2016 10:30 ET Executives Doug Bonawitz – Investor Relations Terry McCallister – Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Vince Ammann – Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Adrian Chapman – President and Chief Operating Officer Gautam Chandra – Senior Vice President, Strategy, Business Development and Nonutility Operations Analysts Mark Levin – BB&T Sarah Akers – Wells Fargo Operator Good morning and welcome to the WGL Holdings’ Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2016 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, I would like to inform you that this conference is being recorded and that all participants are in a listen-only-mode. [Operator Instructions] The call will be available for rebroadcast today at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time running through May 12, 2016. You may access the replay by dialing 1-855-859-2056 and entering PIN number 97338125. I will now turn the conference over to Doug Bonawitz. Please go ahead. Doug Bonawitz Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining our call. Before we begin, I would like to point out that this conference call will include forward-looking statements under the federal securities laws. Forward-looking statements inherently involve risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those predicted in such forward-looking statements. Statements made on this conference call should be considered together with cautionary statements and other information contained in our most recent annual report on Form 10-K and other documents we have filed with or furnished to the SEC. Forward-looking statements speak only as of today and we assume no duty to update them. This morning’s comments will reference a slide presentation. Our earnings release and earnings presentation are available on our website. To access these materials, please visit wglholdings.com. The slide presentation highlights the results for our second quarter of fiscal year 2016 and the drivers of those results. On today’s call, we will make reference to certain non-GAAP financial measures, including operating earnings of WGL Holdings on a consolidated basis and adjusted EBIT of our operating segments. A reconciliation of these financial measures to the nearest comparable measures reported in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, is provided as an attachment to our press release and is available in the quarterly results section of our website. This morning, Terry McCallister, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer will provide some opening comments. Following that, Vince Ammann, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer will review the second quarter results. Adrian Chapman, President and Chief Operating Officer will discuss key issues affecting our business and the status of some of our principal initiatives. And in addition, Gautam Chandra, Senior Vice President, Strategy, Business Development and Nonutility Operations is also with us this morning to answer your questions. And with that, I would like to turn the call over to Terry McCallister. Terry McCallister Thank you, Doug and good morning everyone. Our non-GAAP operating earnings for the second quarter is shown on Slide 3 in our presentation were $89.5 million or $1.78 per share compared to $101 million or $2.02 per share in the second quarter of 2015. On a non-GAAP basis, consolidated operating earnings for the first six months were $148.7 million or $2.96 per share. This compares to $159 million in the prior year or $3.18 per share. The decrease in operating earnings in the second quarter primarily driven by lower results on retail energy marketing and midstream operating segments partially offset by higher results at our regulated utility and commercial energy systems operating segments. At the utility, earnings were higher year-over-year primarily due to strong customer growth and rate recovery related to our accelerated pipeline replacement program. We added approximately 11,300 active average utility customer meters year-over-year, which represent an annual growth rate of approximately 1%. We also remain on track to equal last year’s record spend on accelerated replacement program of $113 million. These investments immediately impact earnings and have been a driver of improved results in the utility since the start of these programs in 2011. On the utility regulatory front, Washington Gas filed an application with Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia in February to increase base rates. Filing addresses rate relief necessary for the utility to recover its cost and earn its allowed rate of return. We also continue to anticipate the filing of a rate case in Virginia in the near future and Adrian will talk more about these developments shortly. On the non-utility side of business, as previously mentioned, our commercial energy systems business delivered improved results. We continue to seek earnings growth driven by the distributed generation assets that we own across the country. We remain on track to invest a record $200 million in this area in fiscal 2016. We have also seen more activity locally in our energy efficiency contracting business. Retail energy marketing segment delivered lower results compared to second quarter of 2015. This was expected given the unusually high asset optimization results in 2015 and our expectation of more normal levels in 2016. Midstream energy services also realized lower earnings in 2015 partially due to the effects of warmer weather on current market prices. Given our results in the first six months and our earnings outlook for the remainder of the year, we are affirming our consolidated non-GAAP earnings guidance in the range of $3 to $3.20 per share for fiscal year 2016. I am now going to turn the call over to Vince who will review our second quarter results by segments. Vince Ammann Thank you, Terry. Turning first to our Utility segment, adjusted EBIT for the second quarter of fiscal year 2016 was $153.9 million, an increase of $1.5 million compared to the same period last year. The drivers of this change are detailed on Slide 5. We continued to add new meters. The addition of 11,300 average active customer meters improved adjusted EBIT by $2.3 million. Higher revenues from our accelerated pipe replacement programs also added $3.1 million in adjusted EBIT. Lower operations and maintenance expense improved adjusted EBIT by $4.4 million. Offsetting these items, lower margins associated with our asset optimization program reduced adjusted EBIT by $2.7 million. The unfavorable effect of changes in natural gas consumption patterns in the District of Columbia reduced adjusted EBIT by $2.6 million. Reduced revenues related to the recovery of gas inventory carrying costs due to lower gas prices decreasing the value of our storage gas balances reduced adjusted EBIT by $600,000. Other miscellaneous items reduced adjusted EBIT by $2.4 million. Turning to the retail energy marketing segment, adjusted EBIT for the second quarter of fiscal year 2016 was $8.4 million, a decrease of $18.7 million compared to the same period last year. On Slide 6, you will see the primary driver of the decrease was lower natural gas gross margins. In the natural gas business, gross margins were $15.7 million lower driven by a decrease in portfolio optimization activity that returned to more historical levels during the quarter. The same quarter in the prior fiscal year showed outsized gains in this area that were not expected to recur in the current year. Electric margins decreased $1.1 million driven by higher capacity charges from the regional power grid operator, PJM that impacted the timing of margin recognition. These costs will decline in the latter half of the year. As stated previously, our retail energy marketing business has increased its focus on large commercial and government account relationships in both the electric and natural gas markets. As a result, the overall number of electric and natural gas accounts both declined this quarter 10% and 7% respectively compared to the prior year. However, indicative of our revised focus, electric volumes increased 7% versus the prior year and natural gas volumes were slightly higher versus the prior year. The increase in commercial load in both electric and natural gas continues to help offset the decline in mass-market customers on a volumetric basis. Operating expenses increased by $1.9 million primarily due to higher commercial broker fees. Next, I will move to the commercial energy systems segment. Adjusted EBIT for the second quarter of fiscal year 2016 was $2.3 million, an increase of $700,000 compared to the same period last year. The increase reflects growth in distributed generation assets in service, including higher income from state rebate programs and solar renewable energy credit sales as well as improved margins from the energy efficiency contracting business. We also saw improved results in our investment in solar businesses related to changes in the recognition of earnings from our solar partnership. These improvements were partially offset by higher operating and depreciation expenses due to additional in-service distributed generation assets and a $3 million impairment related to our investment in thermal solar project recorded during the three-month period. During the second quarter, our commercial distributed generation assets generated over 43,500 megawatt hours of electricity, which is sold to customers through power purchase agreements. This represents a 57% increase in megawatt hours compared to the second quarter of last year. As of March 31, the commercial energy systems segment has invested $449 million in distributed generation assets. Our alternative energy investments, which include ASP, Nextility, and SunEdison represent an additional $128 million of capital investments since inception. We now have approximately $577 million invested in total in this segment. Next, I will move to the midstream energy services segment. Results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2016 reflect an adjusted EBIT loss of $8.4 million compared to a loss of $3.1 million for the same quarter of the prior fiscal year. The decrease is primarily related to the recognition of losses associated with current market pricing. We anticipate these losses will reverse by fiscal year end as we realized the value of economic hedging transactions to be executed during the first two quarters and as certain contractual procedures approach resolution. Results for our other non-utility activities reflect an adjusted EBIT loss of $1.5 million compared to a loss of $800,000 for the same period for the prior fiscal year. Interest expense, primarily driven by long-term debt, was essentially unchanged at $13 million during the second quarter compared to $13.3 million in the prior period. As Terry stated earlier, we are affirming our consolidated non-GAAP operating earnings guidance in the range of $3 to $3.20 per share. This guidance does not include any potential impacts related to the decision in April by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation to deny the Section 401 certification for the Constitution Pipeline, except for the reduction in forecasted AFUDC related to the project. Our expectations for the regulated utility are modestly lower driven by higher O&M costs for system integration work and project expenses related to a new customer service system. On the non-utility side, we anticipate better than expected results in the midstream segment related to the impact of favorable spreads on storage earnings. These will be somewhat offset by lower results in the energy marketing segment as customer growth is expected to be lower than planned for the year. Please note that this earnings guidance includes dilution from the planned issuance of equity in fiscal year 2016. In November, WGL filed a registration statement and launched a program to sell common stock with aggregate proceeds of up to $150 million through an at-the-market or ATM program. WGL first sold shares under this program in February. During the second quarter, WGL issued approximately 466,000 shares of common stock under this ATM program for net proceeds of $31.5 million. I will now turn the call over to Adrian for his comments. Adrian Chapman Thank you, Vince and good morning everyone. I am pleased to provide you with an update on our utility operations and regulatory initiatives. In the District of Columbia, Washington Gas filed an application on February 26 with the Public Service Commission to increase its base rates for natural gas service, which would generate $17.4 million in additional annual revenue. The revenue increase includes $4.5 million associated with accelerated pipeline replacements previously approved by the commission and currently paid by customers through monthly surcharges. On April 27, the commission issued an order approving Washington Gas special contract with the U.S. Architect of the Capitol. This contract for natural gas service will generate annual firm revenues of $2.6 million and results in a reduction of the revenue deficiency in the pending rate case from $17.4 million to $14.8 million. As part of this rate case filing, we requested approval of the revenue normalization adjustment, or RNA. The District of Columbia is currently the only jurisdiction where we do not have revenue decoupling in place. In addition, the filing includes a new combined heat and power rate schedule, which sets forth the framework for the delivery of natural gas for CHP systems to provide flexibility for negotiated rates to better meet customer needs. Finally, in line with our initiatives in other jurisdictions, the filing also proposes new multifamily development incentives to help bring the benefits of natural gas to more residents in the District of Columbia. The application request authority to earn an 8.23% overall rate of return, including a return on equity of 10.25%. A procedural schedule was issued on April 26 by the PSC. Hearings are currently scheduled for October 2016 with the projected issuance of the commission final order in March 2017, which is consistent with their goal of issuing an order 90 days after the close of the evidentiary record. As a reminder, the last rate increase in the District of Columbia was approved in May 2013. In Virginia, we planned to file a new rate case with the Virginia State Corporation Commission on or before July 31. The filing seeks to allow us to rebalance our revenues, expenses and utility investment in the Commonwealth of Virginia and include in base rates the accelerated pipe replacement expenditures whose plant-related costs are currently being recovered in a surcharge. The anticipated filing would transfer approximately $19 million in accelerated pipeline replacement revenues from our current surcharge into base rates. Virginia has a 150-day suspension period, therefore placing new rates into effect for the winter of 2016-2017 subject to refund. Our last rate increase in Virginia was affected in October 2011. Also in Virginia, Virginia allows local distribution companies to recover a return of and return on investments in physical gas reserves that benefit customers by reducing cost, price volatility, or supply risk. Washington Gas entered into an agreement with the producer in May of last year to acquire natural gas reserves in Pennsylvania. However, the SCC of Virginia issued an order denying our gas reserve application. We are continuing our pursuit of a long-term reserve investment opportunity that will benefit our customers and address the issues that were raised by the SCC of Virginia in our previous filing. Once Washington Gas finalizes a new agreement with the producer, we will file a new application with the SCC of Virginia. I would like to now turn the call back to Terry for his closing comments. Terry McCallister Thanks, Adrian. I would now like to highlight a few recent developments and provide an update on the status of our midstream and our distributed generation investments. First, an update on WGL’s investment in the Constitution Pipeline project. On April 22, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation denied the necessary water quality certification for the New York portion of the Constitution Pipeline. While we are disappointed, the partnership remains absolutely committed to the project and intends to challenge the legality and appropriateness of the New York decision. In light of the denial of the water certification and the anticipated action to challenge the decision, target in-service date has been revised to the second half of 2018, which assumes that the legal challenge is satisfactorily and promptly included. We are still evaluating any potential impacts to our financial forecast. As of March 31, WGL Midstream had an equity investment of approximately $40 million in the Constitution Pipeline project. Next, I will turn to our investment in the Central Penn line. Central Penn line is greenfield pipeline segment of Transco’s Atlantic Sunrise project. This project is on track and development activities are proceeding as expected. Central Penn line has projected in-service date to the second half of calendar 2017. WGL Midstream will invest approximately $411 million in the project. And as of March 31, WGL Midstream has invested approximately $51 million. Our third pipeline investment involves Mountain Valley pipeline project. The Mountain Valley pipeline is a proposed 300-mile transmission line through West Virginia and Virginia is designed to help meet the increasing demand for natural gas in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast markets. Project is on track and development activities are proceeding as expected. Projected in-service date is December 2018. WGL Midstream plans to invest $228 million in the project. And as of March 31, WGL Midstream has invested approximately $13 million. In February of this year, WGL Midstream exercised an option for an $89 million equity investment in the Stonewall Gas Gathering system, representing a 35% ownership stake. WGL Midstream’s ownership interest is expected to decrease to 30% during fiscal year 2016, as certain other participants are expected to exercise the rights to invest in the project. The Stonewall system connects with Columbia Gas Transmission, an extensive interstate transmission line that reaches markets across the Mid Atlantic region. M3 Midstream serves as the majority owner and operates the Stonewall Gas Gathering system. The system initiated operations in November of 2015 and is currently gathering 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily from the Marcellus production region in West Virginia. Turning to our commercial energy systems business, our portfolio of distributed generation assets continued to grow this quarter. And as of March 31, we had over 134 megawatts of capacity in-service with an additional 63-megawatt contracted or under construction. WGL Energy recently received approval to build and operate over 15 megawatts of community solar gardens in Minnesota as part of the utility program mandates in that space. WGL Energy has secured subscribers for all of these community solar gardens under a – that are under contract and the target operational date is later in the fall of this year. This investment highlights WGL Energy’s continued strategy of growing its distributed generation assets portfolio by taking advantage of favorable legislation in states like Minnesota. Finally, we look forward to seeing many of you at the AGA Financial Forum in a couple weeks. And that concludes our prepared remarks and we will now be happy to answer your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. The question-and-answer session will begin now. [Operator Instructions] We will take our first question from Mark Levin, BB&T. Please go ahead. Mark Levin Thank you, gentlemen. First question, as it relates to Constitution and maybe how to think about it, as it relates to your long-term guidance and what’s embedded in it, I realize you guys don’t want to quantify it quite yet, but maybe giving us some of the parameters at least to think about? Vince Ammann Yes. Mark, this is Vince. As it relates to our long-term guidance, we – at this point, wouldn’t expect to change that because we think the project is good and it’s worth going forward. So that’s the way we view it from a long-term perspective. What we have done in the short-term is, we have suspended the accrual of AFUDC and that’s just a prudent thing to do, as we are waiting to get this issue resolved. Mark Levin Got it, fair enough. And in your options with regard or the options with regard to Constitution and maybe the timeline as to how to think about how that would proceed? Terry McCallister Yes. This is Terry. I think it’s probably a little premature for us to know that. I think all the partners are looking at that and saying, what are the options, how would we go forward on that. And so I think we are probably just a little – you are probably just a little ahead of the curve for us to know exactly what that looks like, yes. Mark Levin Got it, fair enough. And then finally, just with regard to the gas reserve opportunity, is it reasonable to assume that you guys would be able to strike an agreement sometime this fiscal year. And then the second part to that would be, maybe some of the lessons that you learned from the first attempt? Adrian Chapman Mark, this is Adrian. I think as we have mentioned last quarter, where our target is still to get a filing out before the end of our third fiscal quarter. So I think we are still working towards that as an end result. And I think certainly the commission’s focus was looking at probably the length of the term of the reserve agreement. The 20-year term was a concern of theirs and just uncertainty about pricing in the future. They were – expressed some concern about the different perspectives on the reserves and the volumes in the reserves and what the depletion rates were. So there was some differences of opinion in the hearings about that and I think we just need to be able to give them some greater certainty as to what deliverability would look like, because for a given fixed investment, lower volumes would mean a higher price per dekatherm. So that was the primary concern that they had. So we are working to try to fill those issues, fill those gaps and give the commission comfort with some greater balance of risk associated with an investment. Mark Levin Got it, great. Thanks guys. I appreciate it. Operator And your next question comes from the line of Sarah Akers with Wells Fargo. Your line is open. Sarah Akers Thanks. Good morning. Terry McCallister Hi Sarah. Sarah Akers Can you go over again the reasons for the lower utility outlook this year and any sense of the magnitude of the change in expectations there? Vince Ammann I will take a stab at that Sarah, this is Vince. We haven’t – traditionally, throughout the quarter, we haven’t provided specific guidance for the operating segments by – as we go from quarter-to-quarter, just started giving out, as you know consolidated guidance. But the only issue that we are addressing here on the – and what we have discussed is a couple of factors. We continued to see some higher operating expenses in the field as it relates to just leak repairs and system integrity type works that we have been doing that was a little ahead of what we have planned for the current year. We also have seen some higher project expenses. We launched a new e-service portal this year and that’s sort of in advance of going live with our new billing system next year and we had some difficulties when we first launched that and we have spent some dollars to bring that system back to good working condition. So, those are some of the issues that we see that were pretty temporary just for this quarter. And as it relates to the initial guidance and where we saw things last quarter. So, those particular items shouldn’t continue significantly for the rest of the balance of the year. So it’s pretty much a second quarter phenomena that then just caused us to re-think where we were going to be for the rest of the year. So those are the items on the utility side. That’s all I can think of Adrian that is of significance. If you have anything else you want to add, I think. Adrian Chapman No, I think you covered it. Sarah Akers Great. Thank you. And then just one on the midstream, so it sounds like there is some unexpected strength there, do you view that more as one-time opportunistic margins or should that uplift sustain into future years? Gautam Chandra Sarah, this is Gautam. I would say that the up-tick that we saw in midstream is based on the market conditions that we saw in midstream this year that we were able to capitalize on. Now as we have mentioned before, our storage portfolio is a low cost portfolio. So we expected to have good returns in the long-term, but there are some up-ticks and downticks depending on the exact storage spreads in any given year. Vince Ammann Yes. I would only add Sarah, that as we have said – we saw in recent years, we certainly know we can make money on that storage portfolio when the weather is extremely cold and we have the opportunity to pull gas out of storage at real high margins. But what we saw this year is confirming our expectation, which is when the weather is warmer than normal. There is also opportunities to see the seasonal spreads get very significant. So we came out of this winter heating season with a significant amount of gas. As an industry, it’s still in storage and the production levels were still high. So essentially, we saw the front end of the curve come down quite substantially and then yet the pricing for next winter stayed pretty firm. So we saw some good spread opportunities, which is what we would expect when you have warmer than normal sort of winter. So yes, I think as the supply balances out with our country storage, we do see that this is a – the storage play continues to be a low-risk opportunity to create some margins from the value added by storage. Adrian Chapman Sarah, this Adrian. We also hedge forward to some level. When we see that opportunity, we will hedge forward. It’s kind of how big the opportunity, but a lot of it or some of it just lock in a fair amount of value and so when prices fell this last quarter and the forward value didn’t fall, we locked in some of that value. So that’s why we are projecting that pick up during the second half. Sarah Akers Okay, great. Thank you. Operator Again, I would like to remind everyone that you can listen to a rebroadcast of this conference call at 1 p.m. Eastern Time today running through May 12, 2016. You may access the replay by dialing 1-855-859-2056 and entering PIN number 97338125. There are no further questions at this time. And I will turn the call back to Mr. Bonawitz for any additional or closing remarks. Doug Bonawitz Well, thank you all for joining us this morning. And if you do have further questions, please don’t hesitate to call me at 202-624-6129. Thanks and have a great day. Operator This concludes our conference call for today. Thank you for participating. All parties may disconnect now. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!

NRG Yield’s (NYLD) CEO Mauricio Gutierrez on Q1 2016 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

NRG Yield, Inc. (NYSE: NYLD ) Q1 2016 Earnings Conference Call May 5, 2016 10:30 AM ET Executives Kevin Cole – Senior Vice President-Investor Relations Mauricio Gutierrez – Interim President and Chief Executive Officer Christopher Sotos – Head of Strategy and Mergers & Acquisitions, Director of NRG Yield Kirkland Andrews – Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Director Analysts Grier Buchanan – KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc. Angie Storozynski – Macquarie Group Shahriar Pourreza – Guggenheim Partners Michael Morosi – Avondale Partners Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research Operator Good day, ladies and gentlemen. And welcome to the First Quarter 2016 NRG Yield Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the meeting over to Kevin Cole, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Kevin Cole Thank you, Karen. Good morning and welcome to NRG Yield’s first quarter 2016 earnings call. This morning’s call is being broadcasted live over the phone and via the webcast, which can be located on our website at www.nrgyield.com, under Presentations & Webcasts. As this is the earnings call for NRG Yield, any statements made on this call that may pertain to NRG Energy will be from the perspective of NRG Yield. Please note, that today’s discussion may contain forward-looking statements, which are based on assumptions that we believe to be reasonable as of this date. Actual results may vary differently. We urge everyone to review the Safe Harbor in today’s presentation as well as Risk Factors in our SEC filings. We undertake no obligation to update these statements as a result of future events, except as required by law. In addition, we’ll refer to both GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures. For information regarding our non-GAAP financial measures and the reconciliation to the most directly comparable GAAP measures, please refer to today’s presentation and press release. Now, with that, I’ll turn the call over to Mauricio Gutierrez, NRG Yield’s Interim President and Chief Executive Officer. Mauricio Gutierrez Thank you, Kevin, and good morning, everyone. Joining me and also providing remarks this morning are Chris Sotos, the incoming CEO; and Kirk Andrews, NRG Yield’s Chief Financial Officer. I am very excited about today’s call. We are reporting strong result for the first quarter announcing the transition of the CEO position and moving forward with our growth objectives. I’m sure many of you have participated in NRG’s first quarter earnings call, given the relationship between NRG and NRG Yield. But let me just repeat what I said on that call. NRG Yield remains a critical part of the overall NRG Energy strategic platform and NRG is committed to certainty and visibility in both conventional and renewable development to reinvigorate the virtuous cycle between the two companies. In my last quarterly call, I discussed my goal for 2016, deliver on our financial commitment to grow our dividend by over 15% in 2016, enhance our growth pipeline through access to NRG’s development efforts, ensure confidence in governance and management structure of NRG Yield, and to evaluate alternative financial solutions to facilitate growth during this period of equity market dislocation. I’m glad to report that we have or are on track to achieve many of these goals. Turning to Slide 3 for the business updates, NRG Yield continues to validate its value-proposition through offering a steady high-performing source of dividend growth to our shareholders. During the first quarter of 2016 the company achieved $188 million of adjusted EBITDA and $43 million of cash available for distribution. Additionally, I am pleased to say we are also increasing our quarterly dividend for the 10th consecutive time, and are reaffirming our full year guidance including our target dividend growth of 15% annualized. Next, I am pleased to say that we continue to push forward on our growth plans in concert with NRG. In addition to executing across our distributed generation, which now stands at $141 million invested through the first quarter, NRG has announced its intention to offer its remaining 51% interest in the 250 megawatt California Valley Solar Ranch project. You should expect an update on this transaction during the second quarter earnings call. As interim CEO, I evaluated with the NRG Yield Board of Directors what we believe is the optimal management structure, and today announced that Chris Sotos, NRG Energy’s current Head of Strategy and Mergers & Acquisitions and current Director of NYLD, will be the dedicated CEO for NRG Yield, employed solely by NRG Yield. While over the next several weeks we will be conducting an outreach with investors to introduce Chris. He has had a long and successful career in the power sector with over 20 years of experience, 12 of which at NRG Energy. Chris has managed the team that created NRG Yield, been part of the board since its IPO, and was responsible for identifying, evaluating and executing on many of the acquisitions that make up Yield today and its ROFO portfolio. Chris will assume the CEO role effective from May 6 and be able to focus entirely on the company strategy, capital structure and path forward by the end of the second quarter. Representative of the strong strategic alignment between two companies, I will assume the role of Chairman of the NRG Yield board. John Chlebowski will return to his role as the Lead Independent Director. And the board appointed John Chillemi, NRG’s Head of Business Development to fill the existing vacancy on the board. Of course, I and the board will ensure a seamless transition of the CEO position. Chris is the first fulltime employee of NRG Yield, and he will continue to evaluate the optimal management structure and perhaps field out additional few dedicated roles. I appreciate our investors have been through a lot in the past year. And as you all know well, the top priority of mine and the NRG family is to offer investors a simpler and more visible story with consistent and regular interactions with the investment community. As so, in this vein, Chris, I ask that he will be able share a few words to share our visibility and strategy to shareholders, of this intention to lead Yield with the same dividend growth-oriented principals set forth at our IPO. Chris? Christopher Sotos Thank you, Mauricio, and good morning. It gives me great pleasure to address you as not only the incoming CEO, but as the dedicated CEO to NRG Yield. Mauricio has given you a good look at my background and fit for the role, so I won’t repeat his comments. Instead, I’ll keep my remarks brief, but I did want to reassure the investor community that you should expect the continuation of the core fundamental drivers and objectives behind the value proposition of NRG Yield that have made it successful. As Mauricio highlighted earlier, I played a key role in the creation and execution of NRG Yield’s goals and objectives. And we should expect this strategy to remain consistent, although I will explore the possibility of expanding its dedicated team to ensure that NRG Yield is always focused on consistent value creation for our shareholders, to take advantage of opportunities throughout all parts of the cycle. Now, let me turn the call back over to Mauricio. But again, I want to thank you for the time today. I look forward to meeting and interacting with you over the weeks and months ahead. Mauricio Gutierrez Thank you, Chris. And with that, let me turn it over to Kirk, for a more detailed discussion on our financial result. Kirkland Andrews Thank you, Mauricio. Beginning with the left slide on Slide 5 of the presentation, during the first quarter NRG Yield delivered favorable financial results with adjusted EBITDA of $188 million and CAFD of $43 million. Our performance in the first quarter was positive across all of our settlement. And NRG Yield continues to benefit from the diversification of this platform, where approximately 45% of our adjusted EBITDA comes from the conventional and thermal segment, and 55% from renewable. Specifically, in the renewable segment, first quarter results benefitted from strong production across both our solar and wind fleet. This especially indicates that also wind during the quarter, where production about 17% above our median expectation. The wind resources also continues to exhibit significant volatility however, and while the first quarter was quite strong, production during the month of April was peak relative to our expectation. Today, NRG Yield is also reaffirming full-year guidance, including adjusted EBITDA of $805 million and CAFD of $265 million. Finally, consistent with our commitments to investors to reach $1 of annualized dividend per share by the fourth quarter of 2016, NRG Yield paid dividends of $0.225 per share in the first quarter. We are pleased to announce the 10th consecutive quarterly increase to $0.23 per share in the second quarter of 2015, placing us on a trajectory to meet that goal by the fourth quarter. Moving to the right on Slide 5, NRG Yield also continued to execute on commitments to its business renewable and residential solar partnerships with NRG Energy. In the first quarter, NRG Yield invested in incremental $40 million and $11 million into those two partnerships respectively. As you can see, we have now cumulatively deployed approximately $115 million of capital into those partnerships. Resulting in joint ownership of nearly 1,000 megawatt of long-tenure, fully contracted, strong credit quality, geographically diversified, and most importantly, strong cash flow producing disturbed solar assets. NRG Yield maintains an additional $135 million of capital commitment to these partnerships, including $53 million for residential solar. However, given NRG’s pivot with respect to the residential solar business, as was discussed on the NRG earnings call earlier. NRG Yield now expects to invest only around $20 million more in the residential partnership. Importantly, this change does not affect NRG Yield’s perspective on residential solar as an investable asset class nor does it affects our 2016 financial guidance or impacts our ability to meet our objectives of 15% annualized dividend growth through 2018. As a result of our reduced expectation for capital deployment for the residential solar partnership near-term liquidity will be enhanced providing flexibility to invest across other areas of the business. Now turning to Slide 6, I want to take a moment to emphasize an aspect of NRG Yield’s capital structure that is often underappreciated, which is the natural deleveraging effect which results from the fact that a majority of our balance sheet debt was with amortizing non-recourse project financing. As many of you know this project debt is sized relative to the tenure and cash flows of the long-term contracts of our projects, which are with investment-grade counterparties, all while committing project distributions that underlie the dividends we then pay to our shareholders. This benefit is not reflected in our cash available for distribution metric, which represents cash available after debt service and that is both principle and interest. As shown on the chart over the next five years alone, based on the current portfolio NRG Yield will repay approximately $1.5 billion out of this project debt across its existing portfolio, an amount that is over 50% of today’s equity market capitalization, to put this in perspective. Second, this natural deleveraging also increases NRG Yield’s long-term flexibility on growing the platform, as it provides increase in capacity, finance, future accretive growth, especially at times when the equity markets may not be as accommodating. With that, I’ll turn it back to Mauricio for closing remarks or Q&A. Mauricio Gutierrez Thank you, Kirk. And before we turn to Q&A, let me provide some closing thoughts. I hope my excitement for Chris becoming the new dedicated CEO is coming through on today’s call. I have known and worked closely with Chris over my entire career at NRG. And I know he’s the right person at the right time for NRG Yield. As I move to Chairman of the Board I am in a unique position of being able to say that from the perspective of both companies that fundamental drivers behind the value proposition of NRG Yield have not changed, nor would I expect them to change with the naming of Chris Sotos as a CEO. Chris will not be available during Q&A, but I can assure you he is eager to engage with you in the days and weeks to come. So with that, operator, we’re ready to open the line for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. [Operator Instructions] our first question comes from the line of Matt Tucker from KeyBanc. Grier Buchanan Hey, guys. This is Grier Buchanan on for Matt. Nice quarter and thanks for the question. Just a couple of follow-ups on home solar restructuring, one, on the monetization of those assets, could you just share your thoughts from the NRG perspective on why third-parties and Sunrun and Spruce rather than NRG Yield. And then, two, any chance you could quantify the expected unit economics on those residential system sales? Thanks. Kirkland Andrews Sure. It’s Kirk. I will address the first part of that question. Certainly, we are mindful of the opportunity around residential solar energy NRG Yield is concerned. But with respect to the partnerships, I think they achieved two objectives. One of which I’ll make reference to in the remarks that were made by NRG on the earnings call earlier today. And that is that it comports a lot more closely with the financial metrics that NRG’s investors are familiar with and value, and that is EBITDA. As you probably know, in the dropdown context, NRG is still consolidating to all of that. And so the long-term lease revenues and expenses associated with that will continue over the course of the remaining life of the lease, rather than in the monetizing open area. The other important thing is from a financial complexity standpoint, it is simpler. And that is certainly a benefit for NRG Yield. The partnerships that was announced this morning does not include any ongoing relationship or importantly taxed equity. It is simply a monetize and hold. And because we see a more robust opportunity going forward, especially through the distributed generation of what NRG calls business renewable, as I said in my remarks this is an opportunity to free up capital as we expand and diversify the portfolio, not only to take advantage of the growing portfolio that we see from NRG on the renewable side, business renewables and utility scale, but also expanding the opportunities across the asset class. So I think this arrangement and certainly in the near-term works for both parts of the production. Grier Buchanan That makes sense, and certainly consistent with the announcement back in February. Along those lines, could you just clarify – I’m looking at Slide 5, the remaining capital of $135 million in that partnership. There is $53 million earmarked for residential solar, but you disclosed that only expect to invest another $20 million. So will that $33 million, I think you mentioned that could be – that’s liquidity that could be used for other purposes, will that be allocated to business renewables or should we just think about that as TBD. Kirkland Andrews Yes. When I talked about that – when I referred to enhancing liquidity, obviously, liquidity is both the function of where it currently stands and prospectively from a financial planning standpoint. On the previous trajectory, as we would, given the magnitude of the capital remaining under that program that $135 million, our financial forecast in the use of about liquidity as we roll forward reflects the anticipation of utilizing that. We revised that anticipation that all but about $30 million, if you just do the math there, it’d be more than $35 million we’re now going to use, that gives us incremental financial flexibility as move forward because we are not deploying that $30 million. And so it’s certainly the use of proceeds, but it’s less likely we see the complete, the remainder, under the business renewables, because that’s already part of our financial. And that’s $82 million that’s referred to in the [page that you referred] [ph]. It’s more likely to be used for other opportunities. As NRG has announced its intention and has made that intention known to NRG Yield in the second quarter. CVSR certainly can be used to fund that, but importantly relative to the path we were on board that does turn out to be the case. That’s $30 million of incremental capital for existing, example, CVSR. That would not further tapped into, if you will, the liquidity reserve relative to the path we are on there. So on that first $30 million, it’s neutral to the plan and yet expands the portfolio. Grier Buchanan Got it. Thanks for the time. Mauricio Gutierrez Thank you. Kirkland Andrews You bet. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Angie Storozynski from Macquarie. Angie Storozynski Thank you. So I have two questions, one is you mentioned a potential alternative finance inclusion, so I wanted to know, what they are? And, secondly, would you consider teaming up with some developer or, I don’t know, an infrastructure investor to provide NYLD with more of a visibility into long-term growth? Thank you. Mauricio Gutierrez Hi… Kirkland Andrews Sure, Angie. Go ahead. Mauricio Gutierrez Hi, Angie. So I will say that to your latter part of that question, the answer is, yes. We are exploring opportunities to potentially partner with infrastructure funds or additional developers that can enhance the growth and the – for the pipeline that we have. But, clearly, going forward, that will be Chris’ priority. For the first part of the question, Kirk? Kirkland Andrews What I’ll say in the near-term and I’m going to talk about this in the context of CVSR. And I think, I mentioned this on the last call, in our fourth quarter earning call. CVSR is among the assets currently, although I referenced in my prepared remarks the fact that we have a natural deleveraging portfolio. Where CVSR currently stands today, the level of debt there, which I believe a little less than $800 million, and that’s across the entirety of CVSR. Relative to the overall cash flow there is incremental debt capacity there as it is today. And that is probably the best example in terms of alternative uses of capital to help finance dropdowns or free up capital as we move forward. But we are certainly leaving no stone unturned, but I think in terms of near-term execution opportunities, it’s reasonable to expect that that is probably most likely among them and that is taking advantage of that excess debt capacity of CVSR. Angie Storozynski So there’s no project-level debt, but doesn’t it eat into cash flows, because that set amortizes? Kirkland Andrews Yes, it certainly would be lower than the existing cash flows today. But we’d only do so if it was ultimately accretive, so the way to think about it is, there is an existing level of CAFD at CVSR today. Some portion of that would be used for debt service. The remainder, you can think about as equity in cash flow on the dropdown. And, of course, what that means is, the remaining portion of the purchase price not funded by debt is also lower. So we’re obviously very focused on making sure that we can see a path clear on CVSR as well as future dropdowns or acquisitions that we can enhance the CAFD. So that the CAFD along the equity cash flow on the excess capital above and beyond that project financing is accretive relative to the current CAFD. That’s deal is probably the highest level of importance for us. Angie Storozynski Okay. Thank you. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Shahriar Pourreza from Guggenheim. Kirkland Andrews Good morning, Shahriar. Shahriar Pourreza Hi, everyone. How are you? Just real quick, just one question, on the delevering slide that you have on slide 6, so when you think about sort of the residential reduction and then solar spend plus the natural delevering you’re seeing at the business through amortization of the debt, you’re kind of making comments around CVSR and being able to have some additional capacity at the project level. Is it fair to say that given sort of where this amortization is heading and the delevering is heading, can you fund the growth beyond 2018, without hitting the equity markets, for tapping the equity markets? Kirkland Andrews I would say, we could certainly use that as supplement. But I would not over the long run in terms of really funding substantial amount of growth using loans [ph] for example on the 15%. I think that is certainly necessary and helpful, but is not sufficient to really continue that as meaningfully beyond anything. Shahriar Pourreza Any room to back-lever? Kirkland Andrews Yes, it’s something – I mean, that’s something, so that’s the best way I’m trying to think about that, that’s a variation of it I think can get also true. But if you think about back-levering at our corporate level, very importantly, that is not something that we would do today, because we are very focused on maintaining adherence to our balance sheet principles and the metrics that we laid out there. But that’s certainly an opportunity, but we’d have to do so without tapping into corporate debt at the current CAFD level. Shahriar Pourreza And then just, Kirk, one last thing on the equity market, is it still sort of remaining closed? Kirkland Andrews Well, I think closed is a function of two things. One, in terms of the efficiency, I mean, obviously we haven’t seen a whole lot of Yield paper coming out in the last year. And it’s certainly – our concern is sort of the file to offer spread in terms of the discount. We want to have confidence if that’s manageable, because we’re very focused on raising equity we can deploy creatively. And the other component is just the overall cost in capital that’s implied by the current share pricing. I said in the past, and I continue to feel that based on where we’re trailing are today we’re not in a hurry to issue at these prices. But our equity issuance is both the function of an absolute and a relative. Absolute, I just spoke to. Relative means that the equity we issue at whatever price, the use of proceeds have to represent clear accretion both from a CAFD standpoint and on total return standpoint. Shahriar Pourreza Excellent. Thanks guys. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Michael Morosi from Avondale Partners. Michael Morosi Hi, guys. Thank you for taking the question. Should I interpret the commitment to growth or the renewed commitment to dividend growth as saying that, NRG Yield is kind of stepping away from the notion of the Yield co. as asset manager or that NRG yield is willing to kind of trade around its portfolio and basically view its existing asset base as a potential source of funds? Kirkland Andrews Sorry, Mike, I am not completely clear on your question, with respect to NRG Yield. Can you clarify? Michael Morosi Yes, I mean, basically doing your – basically being a buyer and seller of assets, as a way to manage shareholder return? Kirkland Andrews Yes. So with real state overall, although we have no current intentions to monetize an asset if that’s what you’re thinking about. But the best way to think about it is the principle or the philosophy behind that is, we are not wed to assets. We are wed to growing CAFD per share. And so, if there is an opportunity to monetize an asset at value, we are certainly agnostic in terms of the portfolio. But we are not indifferent as to be effect of that transaction or any. It has to be accretive to grow that CAFD per share. Michael Morosi That’s fair. Thanks. And then, as it relates to other potential equity offerings. We’re hearing more and more about companies looking at ATM-type offerings. Is that something that you consider? Kirkland Andrews We have, yes. I certainly think that’s a tool in the tool-chest. But, obviously, in terms of order of magnitude it’s helpful. But I don’t think at this juncture it’s something that that we’re in a massive hurry to put in place. I think as we can – hopefully, we need to see their trajectory in terms of the appreciation in the share price. And that is certainly a lever that we would pull, but it doesn’t substantially move the needle in the near-term in terms of building dry powder for a significant acquisition, but it is certainly helpful. Michael Morosi Very good. Thanks a lot, guys. Operator Thank you. And we are approaching the end of the call. We have time for one more question. Our final question for today comes from the line of Steve Fleishman from Wolfe Research. Steve Fleishman Hi, good morning. Mauricio Gutierrez Hi, Steve. Steve Fleishman Kirk, just on the slide with the debt pay-down, and the like, project debt pay-down, I don’t know if there is a way to give a sense. But obviously you – because the PTAs don’t last forever, you really need the debt on the projects to be paid down over the life. So it’s hard to kind of judge, how much, if any, extra debt capacity is really created by that versus the debt reduction that you actually need. Is there a way to kind of think of a sense of that? Kirkland Andrews Yes, I think that’s a fair question, Steve. So I’ll answer it in two ways. One, certainly I gave the example of CVSR today. And that is something that I continue expect to see us if we’re able to quantify by action. But let me think back on a way that we can give you some sense of what that capacity is. That said the other part of that equation, which I’ve been very mindful of and was at the time that we came out the IPO and continue to be, in addition to that debt capacity piece, the natural delevering nature of those particular assets means that we remove the debt service. Basically, it’s the same point as the contract rolls off, which gives us a tremendous amount of flexibility on a re-contracting basis as we move forward. Obviously, they continue, that’s CAFD. And if it has to be on a non-levered basis, they will be it, but there is a lot of cushion with the removal of that debt burden on an asset-by-asset basis. And the other thing I’d say is that, I think you’ll find in that – although we didn’t go through in the specific part of the – the first part of your question, behind that Page 6, which we included, I think the pro-rata share of the equity method part of the portfolio, CVSR currently among them, but I think we gave you an asset-by-asset table in the appendix, back on I think Page 13. So that at least gives you more granularity behind that. But let me think on a way that we can give you a little bit better sense of that debt capacity on what I’ve alluded to on CVSR. Steve Fleishman That’s helpful. Maybe I’d ask the question in a more simplistic way, which is that, based on your view of the portfolio, you would say that there is room for excess – for additional project debt overall. Kirkland Andrews Yes. Steve Fleishman And that’s part of it, so what the exact number is, fine. But you believe there is room to kind of add project add. Kirkland Andrews Yes. Steve Fleishman Okay. Kirkland Andrews And I would be willing to add to that that I think that CVSR is probably the most substantial example of that right now. Steve Fleishman Okay. Okay. Thank you. Kirkland Andrews You bet. Mauricio Gutierrez Thank you. Operator Thank you and that concludes our question-and-answer session for today. I would like to turn the conference back over to management for any closing comments. Mauricio Gutierrez No, I think that’s it. Thank you for your time. Christopher Sotos Thank you. Operator Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your participation in today’s conference. This does conclude the program. And you may now disconnect. Everyone have a good day. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!