Tag Archives: manager

Algonquin Power & Utilities’ (AQUNF) CEO Ian Robertson on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Executives Alison Holditch – Manager of Investor Relations Ian Robertson – Chief Executive Officer David Bronicheski – Chief Financial Officer Analysts Rupert Merer – National Bank Paul Lechem – CIBC Nelson Ng – RBC Capital Markets Matthew Akman – Scotiabank Ben Pham – BMO Sean Steuart – TD Securities Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp ( OTCPK:AQUNF ) Q2 2015 Results Earnings Conference August 13, 2015 10:00 AM ET Operator Good day and welcome to the Alqonquin Power & Utilities Corp Q2 2015 Analyst and Investor Call Conference Call. Today’s conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Alison Holditch, Manager Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Alison Holditch Thank you. Good morning everyone. Thanks for joining us on our 2015 Second Quarter Conference Call. My name is Alison Holditch, Manager of our Investor Relations function. Joining me on the call today are Ian Robertson, our Chief Executive Officer and David Bronicheski, our Chief Financial Officer. For your reference, additional information on the results is available for download from our web site at AlgonquinPowerandUtilities.com. I would like to note that on this call, we will provide information that relates to future events and expected financial position that should be considered forward-looking. We will provide additional details at the end of the call and I direct you to review our full disclosure on forward-looking information and non-GAAP financial measures in our results published yesterday which are available on the quarterly results page of the investor center on our web site. This morning, Ian will discuss the highlights for the quarter, David will follow with a review of the financial results and then we will open the lines for questions. I would ask that you restrict your questions to two and then requeue if you have any additional questions to allow others the opportunity to participate. Now I would like to turn things to Ian to review the quarter’s results. Ian Robertson Thanks Allison and thanks to everyone for joining us for our Q2 results call from [indiscernible] I would point out that it rained last night but it is sunny and windy today which is kind of the tri-sector for an organization which is in the hydro, solar and wind power business. So anyway, in summary for the second quarter, we were pleased to see the continuation of increased year-over-year financial results. During the second quarter, we realized a 22% increase in our adjusted EBITDA with $81.1 million generated versus the $66.4 million we reported at the same period a year ago. This growth is the result of incremental contribution from both our generation and distribution business groups and it is highlighted in the second quarter with two renewable energy facilities having achieved commercial operations is favorable rate case settlements in our regulated utilities. Within the generation business group, the company’s eighth generating facility, the 23 megawatt Morse Project in Saskatchewan and the company’s second solar facility, the 20 megawatt Bakersfield I Solar Project located in California. Both achieved commercial operations in April, these facilities operate under 20 year power purchase agreements with large investment grade electric utilities effectively extending our average power purchase agreement. While the resource levels of wind, solar and hydro naturally fluctuate from quarter-to-quarter, we were pleased that the diversification strategies on which our portfolio is constructed were to effectively to mitigate the lower than average resources experienced in the Generation Business Group. As a note, regarding further reductions in our already competitive cost of capital in their reaffirmation of the General Business Group DBRS changed their outlook commentary to positive obviously such trend will change is consistent with our view of the credit positive activities within this business group. Moving on, the Distribution Business group had a good quarter with a 9% overall increase in net utility sales and a 27% increase in operating profit. Growth in net utilities sales is driven primarily by successful rate case outcomes specifically the EnergyNorth asset and received final order on its spending rate case request approving a US$12.4 million revenue increase. And lastly, APUC’s Transmission Business group announced last November that its participation in the joint development of Kinder Morgan’s NorthEast energy direct natural gas pipeline transmission project in the North East US. We were pleased that in July that Kinder Morgan Board of Director approved proceeding with the project development, this opportunity now adds more than US$300 million to our growth pipeline. Before I turn things over to David, I like to provide a quick update on our continuing strong relationship with our larger shareholder in Emera. By way of background, open in Emera entered into a strategic investment agreement or SIAS we call it five years ago, which crafted a collaborative commercial relationship between our respective organizations. Without a doubt our [indiscernible] enjoyed benefit from our close relationship with the Emera through their endorsement of our growth strategies, their continuing financial commitments would just help drive down our comp to capital and last but not least the continuing contributions of Chris Huskilson, Emera‘s CEO as a member of our Board. Over the intervening five years, Algonquin has undergone profound growth and evaluation to put that in perspective in 2010, Algonquin was $980 million organization focused primarily on independent power development. In pretty start contrast today’s Algonquin is a $4.5 billion organization competing across the entire generation distribution and transmission utility value spectrum serving over 0.5 million electric natural gas utility customers owning over 1,100 megawatts of electric generation and driving growth through our $2.6 billion pipeline of identified opportunities. It might be important to note that is just Emera or Algonquin who is just growing and changing in addition to Algonquin’s broadening strategic interest over the past five year Emera has also continued to evolve it’s business focus with a recently stated interest in natural gas utilities. In recognition of these natural evaluations in our respective organizations over the past five years, Emera and ourselves jointly concluded that our strategic investment agreement or SIA would benefit from an update to its terms. And therefore, we’re now in the process of updating this agreement to serve us better for the next five years while the final document is an active work in progress. There are three main areas of which the changes are focused. First, we are seeking to reflect the pursuit of larger transactions by Algonquin giving the reduced size differential between our respective companies. Second, the amended SIA needs to acknowledge the evolving sectorial and geographic areas of interest of both organizations. And lastly, we will remove the existing share ownership restrictions, which would potentially allow Emera to increase its interest in Algonquin beyond the current 25%. In summary, we believe and I’d hope that Emera would also agree that the relationship embodied in the SIA has served us well for the past five years, delivering significant benefits to both of us and we look forward to continuing to create mutual value with Emera for the years to come. With that, I’ll turn things over to David to speak to the Q2 results, David? David Bronicheski Thanks, Ian. And good morning, everyone. We’re pleased to be reporting yet another solid quarter of earnings. The benefits of the diversification of our portfolio are evident in our results, as well as the benefits from having 80% of our operations in the US given the recent strength of the US dollar. As an example should the current exchange rate of a US$1.30 hold to the end of the year, we would expect this contribute over and above everything else we are doing, and additional $0.40 per share relative to the $1.10 exchange rate that we experienced in 2014. Adjusted EBITDA in the second quarter totaled $81.1 million, a 22% increase over the amount reported a year ago, which was primarily due to rate case settlements of full three months of production that are Morse and Bakersfield solar facilities and of course, as I mentioned a stronger US dollar. Adjusted EBITDA for the six months came in at $195.6 million, a 19% increase over what was reported in the first six months of 2014. Taking that close to look at some of the numbers are just a net earnings came in at $22.2 million compared to $16.6 million a year ago for the quarter and on a six-month basis, our adjusted net earnings were $64.6 million compared to $53.6 million last year. So now I let’s move into a little bit more detail about our operating subsidiaries beginning with the generation group. For the first six months of 2015, the Generation Groups renewable energy division generated electricity equal to 88% of long-term average resources compared to a 100% during the first six months of 2014. For the second quarter of this year, the combined operating profit of the Generation Group that will $45.9 million as compared to the $43.3 million during the same period in 2014. Moving on to our distribution group in the second quarter of 2015, the distribution group reported an operating profit of $35.4 million compared to the $27.9 million reported in the same quarter a year ago. The increase in the operating profit is primarily due to the impact of rate case settlements. In the first six months of 2015, the distribution group reported an operating profit of $98.3 million compared to $86.1 million for the six months of last year. And a little bit more detail, the electricity division within the distribution group had net utility, electricity sales totaling $17.4 million compared to $18.1 million last year. For the first six months of 2015 net utility electricity sales totaled $36.1 million which adjusting for the retroactive recognition of $2.5 million for new revenues granted under the granted state electric system rate case implemented in the first quarter of last year or consistent basically year-over-year. Moving on to the natural gas division. In the second quarter of 2015 net utility natural gas sales and distribution revenue was $34.7 million compared to the $29.9 million for the same period a year ago. We have been quite successful in our rate cases and that accounts for most of that increase. Moving on to the water division in the second quarter of 2015 revenue from water distribution and waste water treatment totaled $15.6 million compared to $15.1 million during the same period in 2014. Again, rate increases and our successful prosecution there up was a main contributing factor as was the acquisition of White Hall Water System. Now I want to update on recent financing activities at April 30, 2015 the distribution group completed a private placement of the U.S. issuing $160 million of senior unsecured 30 year notes bearing the coupon of 4.13% this was the first time the utility group issued 30 year notes and we were very pleased with the offering. The proceeds of the financing would be used to partially financing our pending part water system acquisition, which is expected to occur later this year and some of that for general corporate purposes. This offering a very attractive rates and long tender clearly demonstrates the strong currencies that are elaborating utilities on platform has in the U.S. private placement market. I’m also pleased to report as Ian had mentioned DBRS is also changed the rating trend to positive on a generation business, which we view as a quite positive and reflective of the strengthening credit of our generation business. I’ll now hand things back to over Ian. Ian Robertson Thanks, David. Before we open the line up for question as usual, I would like to provide a quick update on our growth initiatives. Within the generation business group construction work at our 200 megawatt, Odell Wind project in Minnesota commenced in May of this quarter and I can report that all of the access rows and foundation [indiscernible] has now been completed. We’re started on the collection and introduction facilities for approximately three quarters of transmission line haven’t been installed. With the California Bakersfiled, one solar facility now completed. The generation business groups team has begin work on the adjacent 10-megawatt Bakersfiled 2 expansion project. During the quarter, the final permit complaints binders were submitted to the county, engineering designer facility as well underway in procurement of long lead-time electrical equipment in solar panels has begin. Within the distribution business group applications now have been filed seeking a total of $26.2 million in revenue increases collectively for the CalPeco electric system in California, the Black Mountain Sewer system in Arizona, Dracut system in Massachusetts and the Missouri natural gas system final decisions on all for rate proceedings are expected within the next 12 months. Regarding the acquisition of the Park Water company, which David spoke, approval from both the California Public Utilities Commission and the Montana Public Service Commissions are required. An approval application was filed in November 2014 with the CPUC seeking approval to acquire the two water utilities, which are located in California. In this regard, a joint settlement agreement has now been executed with the office at the ratepayer advocate and a joint motion to approve settlement was filed with the CPUC in May. The settlement agreement is currently before the administrative law judge and the decision is expected in the fourth quarter of this year. In Montana, an approval application was filed in December last year with the Montana Public Service Commission seeking approval to acquire the Montana Utility Mountain Water Company. I would say notwithstanding the ongoing twist and turns in the condemnation proceeding with the city in Missoula are regulated – a regulatory hearing with the State of Montana is now scheduled for October 19 of this year with the decision on the Montana application expected before the end of the year. Within the transmission business group permitting work on the Northeast Energy Direct continued with the Environmental Review being filed with the FERC in June and the filing of the formal FERC certificate application planned for October of this year. Construction is currently forecast to begin in January 2017 with the commercial operation targeted for late 2018. In closing, we trust the shareholders were pleased with the dividend increase that we announced early in Q2. I will point out that this represents the fifth consecutive year of dividend increases bringing our current five-year dividend CAGR in Canadian dollars to over 15%. APAC has confirmed its expectations for double-digit earnings in cash flow growth to support future targeted dividend increases. And lastly, before we go to questions, I would like to offer the commentary that we believe that our current dividend yield is not fully reflected of the fundamental value of our business. In particular, we speculate that perhaps it’s not fully appreciated that the material growth in our annualized dividend is more than $0.48 Canadian per share to our normal course increases together with appreciation of the U.S. dollar is actually supported by increased Canadian equivalent earnings coming from 80% of our operations, which are located in the U.S. We’re confident that as we continue to communicate their hedging and deliver on the promised earnings cash flow and dividend growth from our clearly identified $2.6 billion growth pipeline this will ultimately reflect in a continued rise in our share price for the balance of 2015. So with that, let’s open the line for the question-and-answer session. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Your first question will come from the line of Rupert Merer with National Bank. Please go ahead. Rupert Merer Good morning everyone. Ian Robertson Good morning, Rupert. David Bronicheski Good morning, Rupert. Rupert Merer So on growth and M&A with your updated agreement with [indiscernible] it sounds like you could cast your net a little wider for growth, can you talk about how your focus could change and then what are you seeing on transaction multiples recently, maybe a little color on how prices vary between asset types and what you could see in broader geographies? David Bronicheski Sure, I’m not so sure that in broader geographies we clearly obviously have been, I won’t say home bodies because we have a North American focus and I think of your question would we consider regulated utilities outside of North America and I don’t think it would be unreasonable for us to think that there is – there maybe opportunities for us in OECD countries obviously outside of our current focus. In terms of the multiples, I think it’s not – they remain strong and robust, the interest rates are continued to be low though I think we are cautiously optimistic that I think there is an interesting dynamic developing between Canada and the U.S. as you read every day in the newspaper with continued slide in the oil and gas prices, the prospect for increases in Canadian interest rates is somewhat muted whereas in the U.S. I think the prospect of interest rate increases is probably if not a foregone conclusion. It’s certainly a probability. I think that’s creating an interesting dynamic that would improve the competitiveness of Canadian organizations in the M&A space as we think about US. So perhaps think about it this way, improving PDEs in Canada versus falling PDEs in the US and so I think we are cautiously optimistic Rupert that our competitive advantage generated by the differential between the Canadian environment in the US market will create some very interesting opportunities over the next 12 to 18 months. Rupert Merer Great. And then a follow-up on growth talking about Kinder Morgan pipeline, it looks like our COD target November 2018, and I believe you mentioned potentially starting construction January 2017. Talk about what the milestones look like for that project leading up to construction what you are going to need to see to be sure you are moving forward that’s’ and what the returns look like compared to some of your other investment opportunities. Ian Robertson Sure. Well, I think we all in this business obtaining the FERC Certificate is a huge gaiting item right now but the first FERC is expected to be filed in October of this year so October 2015 I think a year worth of prosecution of that application is probably are reasonable so therefore October 2016 is a reasonable period to expect that FERC certificate. Our construction start of January 2017 really kind of falls on the expected receipt of that certificate late fall next year. I will say that, what is ongoing and I think Algonquin Liberty can play an important role in it is all of the outreach programs that are going on certainly across New Hampshire. We are thinking an active role in demonstrating the benefits that this pipeline can bring to the existing customers of liberty utilities, but also potential new customers that pipeline is going through a sections of the state which are underserved by natural gas as I sort of joke. They don’t call the Hampshire the granted state for non and that the installation of pipelines is quite expensive and so I think we are taking a lead role and trying to show the talent and communities that will now be within economic distance of the pipeline, the opportunity to participate in what is undeniably a convenient and cost effective field. So I think that the next year is going to be busy for us in terms of supporting Kinder’s prosecution of the FERC and our own continued outreach in New Hampshire. You asked the question about returns, I think we are confident that the returns of the Kinder Morgan pipeline are going to meet or exceed the returns that we see from our other utility investments and frankly depending how the capacity of the pipeline has increased to incremental compression to get at it, the returns could significantly exceed the regulated returns on our distribution utilities. I hope that’s helpful, Rupert. Rupert Merer Yes. That’s helpful. Thanks very much. Ian Robertson Thanks, David Bronicheski Thanks, Operator Your next question will come from Paul Lechem with CIBC. Please go ahead. Paul Lechem Thank you. Good morning. Ian Robertson Good morning, Paul. Paul Lechem Good morning. And just continuing the question on Northeast Energy Direct, you have an option to increase your ownership from 2.5% to 10% so I just wondering under what circumstances would you exercise that, are you looking, are you waiting out through the FERC process, for you do so, is that something else you are waiting for. Ian Robertson No our auction is continuing until the FERC certificates in hand and frankly when we negotiated it with Kinder, the fault was, where is the FERC certificates in hand, it’s pretty clear what the future is going to look like and so I’m not sure there is really practically any value in exercising the options since it’s at book value if you want to think of it that way before that date. So October 2016 will be called on to make a decision, it’s hard to frankly to imagine a circumstance as we look at the project today to say that you wouldn’t be exercising that option. I think the project is an attractive opportunity to commit as I said close to US$300 million to other opportunity, which will generate returns, which are kind of consistent with our expertise of our regulated utilities and so with the approval of Kinder Morgan’s board of directors of the project. I think from my perspective and you’d I have spoken and historically I have always characterized the Northeast energy direct opportunity really more I asked people to characterized it more as an additional of the entrepreneurial spirit alive and well within our [indiscernible] to be able to set out this kind of an opportunity but I think now with the approval in hand and the commitment from Kinder Morgan that we start to think about this being added to the do this rather than that perhaps the spec of that nature that might had before. Paul Lechem Okay, thanks and then back on the [indiscernible] agreement given your expanding geographic and scope of the acquisitions you’d look at how do you avoid complex between the two companies when you go after these new expanded opportunities access, of the areas where you still delineates which company will go after what’s or is that potential now for you both to start looking at similar kind of opportunities? Ian Robertson Well I think I’ll start by saying is that, is this has been an incredibly collaborative relationship over the past five years and well we certainly we evolved and Emera’s evolved and I’m highly confident that reasonable people can come to a reasonable understanding in terms of what’s best for both of us and I think that there is, there remains obviously a size differential I think they would probably agreed or the very, very focused on the North East, U.S. in terms of and Eastern, in terms of their focus and so I think there, I see way more opportunities for mutual support then for competition if you want to think of that way and but I think it is important if we just recognized that what was five years to go probably requires a update this and so we’re going into this, I don’t say positive and enthuse and you have to ask Chris but I would probably say the same from his perspective, it’s been a great run and we obviously wanted to continue. Paul Lechem Okay, thanks again. Ian Robertson Thanks Paul. Operator Your next question will come from Nelson Ng with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Nelson Ng Great, thanks good morning everyone. Ian Robertson Good morning Nelson. Nelson Ng Just two follow up on that Emera arrangements would there any projects where over the last year so we’re you actually wanted to pursue but based on your current arrangement with Emera you current per sale. Ian Robertson Yes, no, that I mean that it’s not about should have not being able to pursue and then just saying no or asked the say no clearly it’s a much more as I said collaborative relationship with that I think if you read the SIA that existed five years ago there were some sort of size though limits in there that probably don’t make as much sense any more we are clearly with the NED have got foot in the natural gas pipeline business which is with never contemplated before I think Chris acknowledged on his call that I think their interest per utility they’re spending to include natural gas a distribution utilities that was in contemplate. So I think we just need to. I think we just need to, I think it’s all about are just recognizing that the companies look different today but I think their remains the commitment to create mutual value as they said its worked really well and we’re filled with the relationship I don’t what more I can add because we’re obviously in the discussions for right now but we’re – we strive can kind of provide transparency in terms of these sort of ongoing relationships that’s kind what we are talking about it. Nelson Ng And could you just remind us when you expect to have that agreement revised or completed. Ian Robertson Its, discussions is going on right now, I think but there is couple of things that we’ve certainly have committed to and I kind of outline them in the agreement and one of them is obviously the agreement made reference to restrictions to – interest in Algonquin [indiscernible] totally appropriate any more given the size of Algonquin and so its underway right now, it’s in active working progress Nelson. Nelson Ng Okay. Got it. And then I guess somewhat related in terms of pursuing M&A or development opportunities, I guess there is a lot of activity in Mexico and I was just wondering whether you would look at doing transmission or pipeline or power opportunities there? Ian Robertson We actually have looked at some solar projects down in Mexico, obviously whatever other thing is a big step for us to be thinking about introducing country risk and potentially currency risk depending on how the PPA or is denominated but Mexico is not too far certain Dallas, Arizona utility and so I think there would definitely be a comfort there and I think what are the things that maybe just getting back to my prepared remarks is broadening its horizon on that one and as we look forward to the next five years, I think there are opportunities that we need be at least cognizant of that – that would be considered international as we think about U.S. and Canada today but I might provide reasonable growth and value opportunities for our shareholders. So I’ll give you, the short answer to your question Nelson is yes I mean I think we are interested in looking there. Nelson Ng Okay, got it. And then just one last question in terms of the Park Water acquisition on the Missoula condemnation process, I believe there was a ruling in favor of the city and can you provide us with an update on the process going forward, presuming you are appealing the decision and how long will that take and when do you think that will be final decision on that? Ian Robertson Sure. Well maybe the best way to quote the answer to your question is to quote the Montana Commission when they were petitioned by the City to dismiss our approval – transfer approval application in the commission basically said back to the City, when you are a long way away from actually owning this utility and some check is written, we are going to continue on, it’s a long road as you point out Nelson, we are in early innings that as you suggest the ruling on necessity which is only half of the process has been appealed by us the next part of the process is the valuation section of a condemnation and that is crafted to make sure that under the fifth amendment of the U.S. constitution we [indiscernible] just consideration. And I would point out that the value application, the valuation that is being submitted by Park Water in respect of that valuation process is close to $200 million and we’re just as I said this is a twist and turns kind of road, but we are looking for to completing the acquisition that we signed up for with Carlyle and we will continue to prosecute the condemnation part of this – the condemnation proceeding in the way we would do in any other of our jurisdictions and it’s certainly a process that we’ve been familiar with, you may recall we kind of bumped into this in Texas and so I see them as two completely independent and parallel processes now. So we’re looking forward to completing the acquisition of the whole [indiscernible] late this year. Nelson Ng Okay, great. Thanks for the clarification. Ian Robertson Thanks Phil, thank you. Operator Your next question will come from Matthew Akman with Scotiabank. Please go ahead. Matthew Akman Thank you. Good morning. Ian Robertson Good morning, Matthew. Matthew Akman My question is just follow up on the agreement with – one thing I’m not sure if you mentioned was whether you would consider doing development with [indiscernible] in line with possibly doing larger acquisitions? Ian Robertson That’s an interesting thought, until now historically as you’re aware – development has really kind of focused on development within the regulated utility footprint and joint ventures with other developers. And it is I guess I got to be frank and say that that is something that we would need to explore to see whether that is of interest with Emera I think one of the things I think this is where the heart of your question is that the development, I will call it again but the development process for power projects is becoming should have not again for Mom’s and Pop’s as you know Odell project is a third of US$1 billion. We’ve looked at other projects which are significantly larger and so there may well be an opportunity for a collaboration between Emera ourselves and some of these larger projects up to now we’ve been pretty comfortable with the things that we’ve been able to announce Emera has obliviously implicitly supported our initiatives by stepping up to the plate with continued commitments of equity capital and there has obviously been a history of us working together, you will recall the CalPeco acquisition was done in direct partnership with Emera and ultimately they rolled their direct interest into us to create an indirect one. So I think it’s a great thought and certainly something that will be on the table as we’re sort of continuing discussions over the coming weeks. Matthew Akman Okay. Thank you. And just one other question is with the Obama administration announcing that they will be putting in place more incentives for clean energy in the US, I’m wondering if you have started to give any thought to opportunities around your existing US footprints that might arise from that. Ian Robertson I think you are making reference to the whole rule, Section I 11D of that clean power plant. We think that’s a real shot in the arm for a positive shot in the arm for the renewable sector and so for sure I think as we contrast the activity that’s taking place in Canada versus the US, there is no doubt about it, our development teams are keeping their Canadian passports in good stead because there is tons of opportunity down there and frankly, to be frank we actually don’t bump into as many certainly in Canadian competitors who are comfortable with the US tax equity landscape and the US electricity markets and so for sure I think the recent announcements and you might continue, you might phrase it as Obama is continuing war on coal, I think is a really good things as positive implications for an organization with our focus. Matthew Akman Okay. Thank very much. Those are my questions. Ian Robertson Thank you. David Bronicheski Thanks, Matthew. Operator Your next question will come from Ben Pham with BMO. Please go ahead. Ben Pham Hi, thanks, good morning everybody. Ian Robertson Hi, Ben. Ben Pham I just wanted to go back and then maybe if you can quantify the size of the [indiscernible] opportunity for you in terms of acquisitions when you consider your EBTIDA mix and just where you want to go, geographically going forward. Ian Robertson Sure. I think in terms of our, I mean I will start with the question about EBITDA mix. Currently we are about 50-50, we are completely comfortable with 50-50 though I will say we are not wedded to 50-50 and acquisitions such as the Odell project, or Park Water, they tend to be lumpy, we don’t add our EBITDA $1 in time. So we acknowledge that, that split could temporarily move in one direction or the other. I think we are mindful of the fact that our credit rating is primmest on the organization as a whole, which is obviously reflect of significant portion of our earnings on regulated utilities and so we are mindful of that. In terms of our sweet spot for transaction, I think we were obviously comfortable with the Odell project, a third of a US$1 billion. And so arguably maybe our sweet spot has certainly increased as the organization is headed for $5 billion in total size but the good news is projects tend to be getting larger in size and the scale as well and so we are tending to find those larger projects. In terms of M&A, acquisitions, I don’t think it’s a reasonable rule of some to say that quite comfortably an organization could probably do M&A equal to about one-third of its size without creating huge [indiscernible] in the marketplace and so as we head for $5 billion we’re definitely north of $1.5 billion in terms of the acquisition that we can do on our own. But just a follow on, I know that was Matthew’s question but one of the benefits of the relationship of the Emera is allowing us to punch way above our weight in terms of that scale and scope of M&A activity I mentioned our California experience which Amherst took a direct interest in the utility, the allowing us to as definitely hunt in a size range that would be north of that $1.5 billion which would be our left or own devices kind of threshold and so I think it’s just been another example of how we benefited from that opportunity of the [indiscernible] relationship to be able to explore opportunities which have a very wide dynamic range Ben Pham And you mentioned about the CalPeco JV and years back when you first starting you guys thinking that’s one own with the utility side of things when you think about that doing from our side and thinking about the nears comments about the OTC gas, I remain are you having more discussions about bringing back that JV structure going forward with Amherst? Ian Robertson Well, I think it would, I think it’s obviously circumstantial dependent, we have, when do you we gone at on our own I think that the short answer is we’ve identified utility acquisitions and growth opportunities that obviously to seem to make sense to fit into our portfolio perk water in examples that’s hard to imagine how JV with the [indiscernible] on that would have been strategically aligned for them but obviously right on the fair away from our perspective but I think as we think about some of the larger opportunities and I think we’re thrilled that [indiscernible] has an interest in gas LDCs because now all the sudden there is a possibility to collaborate on some of the larger LDC sales where – would say yeah, we are interested in a direct opportunity up till now to be frank I think it would been reasonable to a thought that those JV opportunities would have been pretty much limited to electrical distribution company because that’s where [indiscernible] focus was so I think it actually just expand the potential scope for in terms of modality and in terms of geography for collaborating with – so I think it’s all good. Ben Pham Okay, got it. That’s all I have. David Bronicheski Thanks Ben. Operator Your next question will come from Sean Steuart with TD Securities. Please go ahead. Sean Steuart Thanks good morning guys. Ian Robertson Hi Sean. David Bronicheski Good morning. Sean Steuart Thanks for all the general commentary on I guess broader growth ambitions I just have a couple of projects specific questions. On Odell you guys have an option to take full ownership there, can you give us a little bit of context of you’re thinking on when that actually happens? Ian Robertson Sure and I think it’s important as we think about managing our balance sheet through the development cycle and those we think about all of the metrics by which we’re elevated that joint venture structure is a good way to address what is the very short term part of the overall life of a generating station and so when you think that once the generated station hit COD you’ll got 30, 40 years of life in front of you but the development pace is 12 months long. And so we were comfortable putting that development structure in place during the construction phase but would have to rethink whether we would prefer to own a 100% of that come to COD of the project and we’ve obviously crafted an option to do that and so I think may be so just to be so to be specific in responses to your question we would probably a evaluate whether we want to 100% of that project at the end of the development phase once we got through the COD and that’s where we probably be thinking about it. Sean Steuart Okay, understood and on Amherst you guys give a little bit of commentary in the MD&A about some recent progress there any inside on what we might be looking at for construction beginning and expected appeals from locals any general update on Amherst? Ian Robertson Sure and obviously we kind of give up, given specific dates for how we think this process will but broadly and that the which is the renewable energy approval and we’re thinking end of summer the appealed process which is you aware is called the Environmental Review Tribunal ERT at the six month process and so it sounds like as we have been managing our construction timing and contracting that next year we jumped heavily into that construction process at the end of the ERT which kind of sounds early 2016. Sean Steuart Okay. Thanks very much Ian. Ian Robertson All right. Thanks, Sean. End of Q&A Operator [Operator Instructions] There are no further questions at this time, please continue. Ian Robertson Well again, thanks everyone for joining us on our Q2 investor call and we appreciate all the questions and interest that you’ve demonstrated. So with, I would ask everyone to remain on the line for a review of our disclaimer. Alison. Alison Holditch Certain written and oral statements contained in this call are forward-looking within the meaning of certain securities laws and reflect the views of Algonquin Power & Utilities with respect to future events based upon assumptions relating to among others, the performance of the company’s assets and business financial and regulatory climates in which it operates. These forward-looking statements include among others statements with respect to the expected performance of the company, its future plans, and its dividends to shareholders. These forward-looking statements relate to future events and conditions by their very nature and require us to make assumptions and involvements here and uncertainties. We caution that although we believe our assumptions are reasonable in the circumstances, these risks and uncertainties give rise to the possibility that our actual results may differ materially from the expectations set out in the forward-looking statements. Material risk factors include those presented in the company’s most recent annual financial results, the annual information found in most recent quarterly management discussion and analysis. Given these risks, undue reliance should not be placed on any forward-looking statements. In addition, such statements are made based on information available and expectations as of the date of this call and such expectations may change after this date. APUCs reviews materials, forward-looking information that is presented not less frequently than on a quarterly basis. APUC is not obligated to nor does it intend to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future developments, or otherwise except as required by law. With respect to non-GAAP financial measures, the terms adjusted net earnings, adjusted earnings before interest tax and depreciation and amortization, or adjusted EBITDA, adjusted funds from operations, per share cash provided by adjusted funds from operations, per share cash provided by operating activities, net energy sales, and net utility sales collectively the financial measures are used on this call and throughout the company’s financial disclosures. The financial measures are not recognized measures under generally accepted accounting principles or GAAP. There is no standardized measure of these financial measures, consequently APUC’s method of calculating these measures may differ from methods used by other companies and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. Our calculation and analysis of the financial measures and a description of the use of non-GAAP financial measures can be found in the most recent and published management discussion and analysis available on the company’s website and cedar.com. Per share cash provided by operating activities is not a substitute measure of performance or earnings per share. Amounts represented by per share cash provided by operating activities do not represent amounts available for distribution to shareholders and should be considered in light of various charges and clearance against APUC. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude the conference call for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect your lines.

Alliant Energy’s (LNT) CEO Pat Kampling on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Alliant Energy Corporation (NYSE: LNT ) Q2 2015 Earnings Conference Call August 6, 2015, 10:00 am ET Executives Susan Gille – Manager, IR Pat Kampling – Chairman, President & CEO Tom Hanson – SVP & CFO Analysts Andrew Weisel – Macquarie Capital Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates Operator Thank you for holding, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Alliant Energy’s Second Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all lines are in a listen-only mode. Today’s conference call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to your host, Susan Gille, Manager of Investor Relations at Alliant Energy. Susan Gille Good morning. I would like to thank you on the call and the webcast for joining us today. We appreciate your participation. With me here today are Pat Kampling, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; Tom Hanson, Senior Vice President and CFO; and Robert Durian, Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller; as well as other members of the senior management team. Following prepared remarks by Pat and Tom, we will have time to take questions from the investment community. We issued a news release last night announcing Alliant Energy’s second quarter 2015 earnings and reaffirmed 2015 earnings guidance. This release as well as supplemental slides that will be referenced during today’s call are available on the Investors Page of our Website at www.alliantenergy.com. Before we begin, I need to remind you that the remarks we make on this call and our answers to your questions include forward looking statements. These forward looking statements are subject to risks that could cause actual results to be materially different. Those risks include, among others, matters discussed in Alliant Energy’s press release issued last night and in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We disclaim any obligation to update these forward looking statements. In addition, this presentation contains non-GAAP financial measures. A reconciliation between non-GAAP and GAAP measures are provided in the supplemental slides which are available on our website at www.alliantenergy.com. At this point, I will turn the call over to Pat. Pat Kampling Thanks, Sue. Good morning and thank you for joining us today. I am pleased to report that we had another solid quarter with second quarter 2015 earnings in line with our expectations. Tom will discuss the financial details of the quarter. I am pleased to let you know for the first time in years temperatures did not have a significant impact on earnings per share for the first seven months of 2015. Therefore our year end earnings guidance is trending toward the midpoint of our guidance issued in November 2014. Environmental regulations are in the news again and it is very important to step back for a moment and review the orderly transition of our generating fleet during the past six years. We have been planning for sweeping environmental rules that would impact our industry and developed a strategic plan that would position us and our customers well for that future. We completed many components of that plan, including installing of our 500 megawatts of wind, spending over $1 billion related [ph] emissions controls to our largest and most efficient generating stations and have decided to either close or convert to natural gas several older less efficient coal generating stations. To further diversify our generating fleet, we added natural gas fired generation with the purchase of the 675 megawatts Riverside Energy Center and have another 650 megawatts under construction in Marshalltown, Iowa. And in Wisconsin, we are proposing to build another 650 megawatt natural gas fired generating station. We’ve had a very deliberate plan that transformed our generating fleet to one that is diversified, flexible, has lower emissions but ensuring that we continue to deliver reliable affordable energy to our customers. 2015 is a significant year for our industry in how we utilize and dispatch our generating fleet. We experienced some remarkable performance at our Riverside and Emery combined-cycle natural gas generating stations. During the first half of the year, they achieved capacity factors averaging approximately 45% which is about doubled they experienced in the first half of 2014. Also, our wind generation has remained consistent with capacity factors for the first half of 2015 averaging over 35%. Lastly, our coal units have operated well with the recently installed environmental controls. We have a robust capital expenditure plan for 2015 which totals over $1 billion. Approximately 35% of this year’s capital budget is for improvement and expansion of our electric and gas distribution systems, including bringing natural gas to underserved communities. Approximately 30% of this year’s capital budget is to improve the efficiency and environmental profile of our generating units. Also, approximately 30% of this year’s capital budget is for the construction of the Marshalltown Generating Station. Now let me update you on our large construction projects. In Wisconsin, the installation of a scrubber and baghouse at Edgewater Unit 5 is approximately 65% complete. It’s expected to be in service in the second quarter of 2016. Capital expenditures forecasted for this project are approximately $300 million. At Columbia, comprehensive asset management program to improve the efficiency of the units started with the installation of two new cooling towers completed in 2014 and the remaining projects are expected to be completed by the end of 2017. WPL’s share of the total estimated capital expenditure for these projects is approximately $60 million. We also expect to start construction of the PSCW approved Columbia Unit 2 SCR during the first quarter of 2016. Our estimated capital expenditure for the SCR is approximately $70 million. In Iowa, the Lansing Generating Station dry scrubber has been placed in service at a capital expenditure of approximately $55. As we previously announced, in order to replace retiring facilities and further increase the amount of natural gas fired generation, we are constructing the Marshalltown Generating Station and have proposed the Riverside Energy Center expansion. In Iowa, site construction is well underway at IPL 650 megawatt combined cycle natural gas fired Marshalltown generating station as you can see on Slide 2. Lehmans [ph] delivered the first combustion turbine in June and we expect delivery of the second CT this month. We plan to complete the construction of the gas pipeline to the facility this month and the transmission upgrades are underway. The transition upgrades for Marshalltown are projected to cost less than $25 million. So we now expect the total project to come in over $100 million below the $920 million cost cap. The reduced cost for the transition upgrades will not have an impact on our capital expenditure or rate base forecast since ITC will be funding the transmission. Marshalltown is expected to be in service by the second quarter of 2017. In 2013, WPL announced that it would require several older coal facilities and natural gas peakers. The forecasted accredited capacity loss from this retirement is approximately 640 megawatts. As a consequence, WPL evaluated a wide range of alternatives to meet the long-term energy and capacity needs for its customers. In June 2014, WPL issued an RFP from market-based options. After evaluating all of our options, we concluded that expanding the Riverside Energy Center was in the best interest of our customers. The proposed Riverside Energy Center expansion located at our existing Riverside site near Beloit, Wisconsin is approximately 650 MW highly efficient natural gas generating facility at an estimated cost of $750 million, excluding AFUDC and transmission. This past April, WPL applied for a certificate of public convenience and necessity or CPCN with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin for the proposed expansion. During a recent prehearing conference, questions arose over Wisconsin Electric Power Company’s intervention and whether WEPCo will be allowed to propose for the first time a short-term PPA as an alternative to Riverside. Later this morning, the commission will decide WEPCo’s intervention request. Our competitive RFP and alternative analysis with diligence, and we believe Riverside is and will be found to be in the best long-term interest of our customers. The current procedural schedule for the CPCN is provided on Slide 3. The proposed Riverside Energy expansion includes an approximate 2 MW solar on the properties. We also have several other solar projects under development. We’re doing them for us to gain valuable experience on how to best integrate solar on a cost-effective manner into our electric system. We will own and operate the solar panels at the Indian Creek Nature Center in Iowa as well as our Madison Corporate Headquarters which are our two projects currently under development. These solar projects were part of the capital expenditure guidance we provided in November 2014. In July, IPL announced a settlement with EPA, the Sierra Club in the state of Iowa and Linn County in Iowa to resolve potential Clean Air Act claims and to avoid unnecessary delays and ongoing uncertainty associated with litigation. The terms negotiated in the settlement were consistent with our long-term plan for cleaner energy and most of the projects included in the settlement have already been completed or at plan. The EPA meetings earlier this week issued its final rule to reduce carbon emissions from electric utilities. This rule is widely referred to as the Clean Power Plan. We understand that this is just one more step on what will be a long process that includes legal challenges and the development of compliance plans. As we work with our state regulators to develop strategies to comply we will continue to take the approach of doing what was best for our customers. We are fortunate that we operate in states that have a long history of energy efficiency programs, environmental stewardship and support for renewable energy. How we spend our capital dollars and the pace of our capital spend is focused on ensuring we manage costs, use our resources responsibly while providing energy services and solutions to our customers. As we plan for future rate cases and work with stakeholders in developing the state clean power plants, these goals will be top of mind. Let me summarize the key messages for today. We had a solid first half of the year and are well-positioned to deliver on this year’s financial and operating objectives. Our plan continues to provide for a 5% to 7% annual earnings growth objective and a 60% to 70% common dividend payout target. Our targeted 2015 dividend increased by 8% over the 2014 dividends paid. And we continue to successfully execute on our capital plans, completing projects on time and at or below budget. We will continue to work with our regulators, consumer advocates, environmental groups and customers in a collaborative manner. We will continue to manage the company to strike a balance between capital investment, operational and financial discipline and cost impact to customers. And finally, I must acknowledge and give thanks again to our dedicated workforce which not only provides reliable energy to our customers but also delivers the financial results we are discussing today. At this time, I will turn the call over to Tom. Tom Hanson Good morning everyone. We released second-quarter earnings last evening with our adjusted earnings from continuing operations of $0.67 per share. Second-quarter 2015 adjusted earnings are $0.11 higher than second quarter 2014. Comparisons between second quarter 2015 and 2014 earnings-per-share are detailed on Slides 4, 5, and 6. The adjusted or non-GAAP second-quarter earnings from continuing operations exclude a charge of $0.06 per share from the sales of IPL, Minnesota electric and gas distribution assets. The premium over the property, plant and equipment book value was more than offset by the elimination of the applicable tax related regulatory assets resulting in the charge recorded in the second quarter. We estimate the second quarter 2015 temperature impact on sales when compared to normal temperatures resulted in lower earnings of $0.03 per share. This was $0.05 lower than second quarter 2014 temperature impact of a positive $0.02 per share. On a temperature normalized basis, Alliant energy’s residential electric sales were flat whereas commercial and industrial sales increased approximately 1% quarter over quarter. Taking into consideration the first half results, we are currently forecasting modest increase in temperature normalized sales of approximately 1% for IPL and WP&L when compared to 2014. The 2015 EPS guidance range factors in retail rate based settlements at IPL and WP&L. These settlements reflect rate-based increases at both utilities, offset by a reduction of energy efficiency cost recovery amortization at WPL and the elimination of the Duane Arnold Purchase Power capacity payments at IPL. IPL will credit customer bills by approximately $25 million ratably over 2015. By comparison, the billing credits in 2014 were approximately $70 million and occurred from May through December. Also included in WP&L’s rate settlement was an increase in transmission costs related primarily to the anticipated allocation of SSR costs. As a result of a FERC order issued after the settlement, the amount of the transmission costs billed to WP&L in 2015 will be lower than what was reflected in the settlement since the PSC approved escrow accounting treatment for transmission costs. The difference between the actual transmission costs billed to WP&L and those reflected in settlement will accumulate in a regulatory liability. We estimate that this regulatory liability will have a balance of approximately $40 million at the end of 2016. We view this regulatory reliability as another mechanism we can use to minimize future rate increases for our Wisconsin retail electric customers. During 2015 IPL will provide tax benefit rider billing credits to electric and gas customers of approximately $72 million compared to $82 million in 2014. As in prior years, the tax benefit riders have a quarterly timing impact but are not anticipated to impact full year 2015 results. The IUB has approved a second tax benefit rider. Like the first tax benefit rider, we will accumulate benefits from two accounting method changes and a regulatory reliability which will then be passed through to customers as billing credits. The total expected billing credits are approximately $75 million. These accounting method changes are still subject to final IRS approval. We propose a credit customer bills with the second tax benefit rider after 2016 which is when the regulatory reliability related to the first tax benefit rider is expected to be fully utilized, and when we expect to file our next electric rate case in Iowa. Drivers to the difference between the statutory tax rates for IPL, WP&L and AEC, and the 2014 actual and 2015 forecast effective tax rates are provided on Slide 7. The consolidated AEC effective tax rate for 2015 is forecasted to be 16%. Turning to our 2015 financing plan. Cash flows from operations are expected to be strong given the earnings generated by the business. We also expect to benefit from not making any material income tax payments in 2015 and 2016. These strong cash flows will be partially reduced by IPL tax benefit riders and customer billing credits. In our 2015 financing plan, we anticipated issuing approximately $150 million of new common equity. In March and April of this year, we issued approximately 2.2 million shares of new common equity with proceeds to $135 million through the at-the-market offering. We plan to issue the remaining approximately $15 million of new common equity through our shareowner direct plan throughout the remainder of the year. In June, IPL retired $150 million of long term debt. The 2015 financing plan assumes we are issuing up to $300 million of long-term debt at IPL. We may adjust our financing plan as deemed prudent, if market conditions warrant and as our debt and equity needs continue to be reassessed. We believe that with our strong cash flows and financing plans, we will maintain the appropriate targeted liquidity, capitalization ratios and credit metrics. The 2015 financing plan assumed the sales of our Minnesota electric and gas distribution assets which were completed last month with proceeds of approximately $145 million, including working capital adjustments and a $2 million promissory note. Turning now to the ROE complaint filed against MISO transmission owners. In December 2014, FERC ordered formal proceedings to begin. To-date, various parties have filed testimony with FERC. A final decision from FERC on the complaint is currently expected in 2016. Year-to-date impact of the anticipated reduction to APC’s authorized ROE has lowered earnings by $0.02 per share. We have summarized our planned regulatory dockets of notes on Slide 8. In Wisconsin, we anticipate receiving a decision on the 2016 fuel monitoring level in the fourth quarter of this year and we anticipate receiving a decision on the Riverside expansion CPCN in the second quarter next year. We very much appreciate your continued support of our company and look forward to meeting with you throughout the year. At this time I’ll turn the call back over to the operator to facilitate the question and answer session. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions] We’ll go first to Andrew Weisel of Macquarie Capital. Andrew Weisel Good morning guys. Couple questions on the generation fleet. First, I know the governor of Wisconsin is certainly making a claim against the EPA as part of his presidential bid. Any thoughts on how the CPP might impact your specific portfolio and CapEx plans? Pat Kampling Good morning, Andrew. This is Pat. The CPP rule is very different than the one that was originally proposed. So we’re still analyzing this and I can’t speak on behalf of our governor of course but we come from a state that has had always very good environmental rules, renewable and energy efficiency standards. So we will work with our states to make sure that we get implementation plans that work for us but right now we really need to spend the time understanding this new rule because it’s very different than the proposed rule. Andrew Weisel Then the second question is on coal to gas switching, I mean in the short term, not the long term, I understand your gas plants have been running very efficiently at very high capacity factors year to date. What kind of impact does that have in terms of the near term and longer term dispatch plans and financials? Pat Kampling No, it really doesn’t impact anything whatsoever. As you are aware, the transition on our smaller coal fleet to natural gas and keep in mind we actually had natural gas already located at those sites. It’s really a transition for us to get us through the next few years as we talked about. That’s not a long-term solution. The long-term solution is to add new combined cycle generating facility to our fleet. Andrew Weisel Then one other question on the load growth, I appreciate the high level of detail but maybe just an update on the trends in your local economies, especially the Wisconsin industrial side. Tom Hanson Andrew, this is Tom. If we kind of look at it more broad-based we continue to see a modest number of additional residential customers being added to our system but recognizing we are seeing residential use each go down. But we are seeing some expansion in the industrial sector of our business. So that gives you kind of a sense of where we’re at. So as I stated, we are anticipating about a 1% increase in sales year-over-year. Operator [Operator Instructions] We’ll go next to Paul Patterson of Paul Patterson of Glenrock Associates. Paul Patterson Just sort of circle back on Riverside. I guess what the question I sort of had is first of all, I mean this is more of a question for Wisconsin electric. But with the merger, it seems that they are saying that they are now coming up with a lot of extra capacity and that – as you indicated previously in the call, that they can replace Riverside. But I guess what my question is – what is it in Wisconsin that prevents utilities who were not merged from engaging this kind of what would seem to be a savings methodology, do you follow what I am saying? I mean this could have been done without a merger and I am wondering just in general how we should think about that. Pat Kampling Paul, we’ve been very deliberate in our process to make sure we have the lowest cost long-term solution for our customers. And I cannot speak on what WEnergy is thinking right now. And all we really know is what they filed at the Wisconsin Commission, believing that they have a short-term solution to offer to us which we have not seen, where they provided no details. So this is just a very new news and we’ve got to work through the process here and Wisconsin Commission is going to rule later this morning on if they’re allowed to be involved in the case with another proposal. Paul Patterson I mean I guess, basically get interviewed in the cases [ph] I wouldn’t – I mean is that fair to give a utility in the neighborhood – I mean how much of a gating factor should we look at that being in terms of what their proposal is. I don’t get it. I mean that means that their proposal is unlikely to – but I mean in general though, I mean assuming that they are giving it, how should we think about that? Pat Kampling Yes, and Paul, it’s common that other utilities get interviewed in the status in the cases, that’s just very common as you follow the cases. So that’s not unusual. The unusual thing here is that at the 11th hour they want to provide another proposal and they were not part of the RFP process, they did not reply to any — they did not provide any offers when we did the RFP. So this is a little unique. Paul Patterson Now you said that you’ve – just to clarify this. You did say that basically you looked at all these things and this is the cheapest cost. What about this idea of combining with the utilities I guess is what I am sort of wondering here now, like it seems kind of that Wisconsin with the merger with WPL was able to come up with some savings. I am just wondering, is there something that doesn’t allow utilities to cooperate in that manner without a merger? Pat Kampling Paul, just to be clear they merged with WPS. Paul Patterson I am sorry, WPS. I apologize. Pat Kampling That’s okay. No but they were – and again I prefer that you address this with WEnergy but we are not part of their IRP planning process. Paul Patterson But I am just wondering – generically, I am sorry to harp on this. I am just speaking generically. Is that something that you guys look at and when these plans are put forward, the idea of partnering with – Pat Kampling Now our IRP relates to our Wisconsin customers, Paul. We’ll talk to you later on this if you want to follow up. End of Q&A Operator Ms. Gille, there are no further questions at this time. Susan Gille With no more questions this concludes our call. A replay will be available through August 13, 2015 at 888-203-1112 for US and Canada, or 719-457-0820 for international. Callers should reference conference ID 8244179. In addition, an archive of the conference call and a script of the prepared remarks made on the call will be available on the Investors section of the company’s website later today. We thank you for your continued support of Alliant Energy. And feel free to contact me with any follow-up question. Thanks. 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!

CAF: Trading At 20%+ Discount To NAV Due To Supply/Demand Imbalance

Summary Wave of investor outflows has created a significant dislocation. This provides an opportunity for those constructive on the Chinese market to obtain cheap exposure. For the rest of us, it also presents some potential to capture alpha through pair trades. Background on Closed-End Funds For those new to the space, a closed-end fund is a publicly traded investment company that raises a fixed amount of capital, and is then structured, listed and traded like a stock on a stock exchange. Whereas conventional mutual funds and ETFs frequently redeem/issue new shares to ensure that the price per share remains in line with the net asset value of the underlying holdings in the funds, this is not the case for CEFs. Rather the share price of CEFs is driven by the market forces of supply and demand, and can at times trade at either large discounts or premiums to NAV of the funds’ actual holdings. The Morgan Stanley China A Share Fund (NYSE: CAF ) is currently trading at one of the widest discounts in the CEF universe, due to a classic supply/demand imbalance. In particular, the Western media has inundated investors recently with headlines concerning the risks of a Chinese economic slowdown coupled with a potential bubble in the local equity market nearing its peak. The result is that the supply of CAF shares flooding the market from investors rushing to sell has overwhelmed demand, causing this CEF to now trade for a whopping ~20% below its NAV. In other words, for every $1 of net assets in the fund, investors now only need to pay ~80 cents to buy shares. (click to enlarge) Source: CEF Connect Morgan Stanley China A Share Fund Overview CAF is a reasonably large/liquid fund, with ~$936 million of total net asset value. The fund’s mandate is to invest at least 80% of its assets in A-shares of Chinese companies listed on the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges. Morgan Stanley is a longstanding/reputable CEF manager and the 3 executive/managing directors overseeing the fund each have more than a decade of experience in the Chinese market. The fund has a moderate annual expense ratio of 1.8%, and is currently relatively concentrated as shown in the table below. Also, the cash balance is now quite elevated (representing ~16% of NAV), which I view as a meaningful positive – after all, it’s hard to argue that cash in the hands of a reputable manager deserves a big discount. Plus, it gives the manager ammunition to take steps like share buybacks in the future to reduce the discount. Top 10 Holdings as of 5/31/15 % Of Portfolio Cash 16.1 Tsingtao Brewery Co., Ltd. Class A 10.0 China Resources Sanjiu Medical & Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Class 9.6 Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd. Class A 8.7 Qingdao Haier Co., Ltd. Class A 5.2 China Pacific Insurance Group Co., Ltd. Class A 5.1 GoerTek, Inc. Class A 5.0 China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. Class A 4.9 Kweichow Moutai Co., Ltd. Class A 4.4 Zhongbai Holdings Group Co., Ltd. Class A 3.7 Total 72.7 Source: Morgan Stanley CAF’s investor base is reasonably concentrated, with institutions holding approximately 37% of shares outstanding. Notably, Lazard holds ~$117mm or ~16% of total shares outstanding. This is also something I like to see when considering investing in a CEF that trades at a discount to NAV, as institutions holding major stakes are more likely than small individual/retail holders to pressure management to take steps to narrow the discount if this does not occur naturally over time. Source: NASDAQ So, What’s the Trade? For investors that want exposure to the local Chinese equity market, this CEF appears to be an attractive vehicle that is likely to deliver alpha from the discount reverting to more normalized levels over time. For others that have a more cautious view on the Chinese market (myself being one), there are also some potential opportunities to capture this alpha through pairing a long position in CAF with a short position in a Chinese equity ETF. There are several possible shorts to consider, but I present a couple below. CSOP FTSE China A50 ETF (NYSEARCA: AFTY ): This is a relatively small ETF with approximately $135mm of net assets. However, trading volume is reasonable, with ~$2.6mm/day in shares trading on average over the past 3 months. It is also currently relatively easy to borrow, with a cost under 2% through some retail brokers. The fund typically invests at least 80% of its total assets in the securities included in the FTSE China A50 index. This index is comprised of A-shares issued by the 50 largest companies in the China A-shares market. Direxion Daily FTSE China Bull 3X Shares ETF (NYSEARCA: YINN ): This alternative has more basis risk, but could also have the potential to produce more alpha. The fund has ~$181mm of net assets, with average daily trading volume of ~$20mm. YINN is not overly difficult to borrow, with a cost under 5.5% through some retail brokers currently. YINN seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, of 300% of the performance of the FTSE China 50 Index. This index consists of 50 of the largest and most liquid Chinese stocks (H Shares, Red Chips and P Chips) listed and trading on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong, and is therefore a less tight match with CAF’s A share holdings. However, a potential benefit of shorting YINN is that one may benefit from the general tendency of levered ETFs to underperform over longer periods of time. There are several reasons for their underperformance including what is often referred to as a “leverage trap” (i.e., their tendency to decay in mean reverting markets from being forced to buy high/sell low), as well as elevated expenses that result from the higher trading activity needed to maintain these vehicles. The phenomenon is discussed in much more depth in academic literature (such as in this article ), as well as elsewhere on Seeking Alpha (such as here ). Risks/Considerations The main risk of this trade is that the timing of discount convergence is unclear, and if investors’ macro fears over China grow, there is a possibility that the discount could increase even further over the near term. The main mitigants are the facts that, as discussed above, the investor base is relatively concentrated with institutional investors, and the fund manager is reputable with dry powder in the form of excess cash to reduce the discount if it persists over time. Short selling of course also comes with added risks (e.g., possibility of force buy-ins, increasing borrow costs, etc.) and likely should not be attempted by those new to the market. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, but may initiate a long position in CAF over the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.