Monthly Archives: July 2010

Canadian mobile service market heats up

Posted on by
Reply

Rogers has just fired their own broadside with the introduction of another virtual mobile service, Chatr, which feeds off of their own phone network (very similar to Fido, another Rogers-owned company).

It is very obvious with their pricing structure, and the cities that they are in that they are strictly trying to wipe out Wind Mobile and/or Mobilicity off the face of the planet. What’s hilarious is that Wind Mobile has no spectrum license in Quebec (other than the Ottawa-Gatineau area), and Rogers/Chatr’s service offerings are identical to the locations offered by Wind Mobile – Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto and Ottawa. On Montreal, they stated:

“We’re working out some translation issues in Montreal, but it will very soon be our sixth market,” Chatr’s senior vice-president Garrick Tiplady said in an interview.

Translation issues indeed! More like “There’s no rush since our competition isn’t there!”

You can be sure as Wind Mobile expands to other cities and/or expands their coverage in their existing cities, that Chatr will come up with “service enhancements” to incorporate those areas into their own “home network” as well.

Their pricing plan is, for the most part, identical to Wind Mobile’s structure, with the most notable exception that on Rogers/Chatr’s $35 plan, they charge 25 cents to recover your voicemail, and they charge for incoming text messages.

Since the coverage areas between Chatr and Wind is nearly identical, I have no idea who would sign up to them.

As I stated in a previous post, the new entrants to the Canadian wireless market are not going to be making any money. The only reason why Rogers is doing any of this is to bankrupt Wind Mobile and Mobilicity – Rogers/Chatr’s offering adds absolutely no value whatsoever to the Canadian mobile marketplace other than wasting consumer’s time as they have yet another offering to review.

Superior Plus – why do they look cheap?

Posted on by
1

A company that has always stuck out like a sore thumb on my stock screens has been Superior Plus (TSE: SPB). It does this by virtue of its relatively high dividend yield ($1.62/share, $13.50/share = 12%). It converted from an income trust to a corporation and did not reduce its payout rate simply because it was able to engage in some financial engineering to give it a very, very significant tax shield ($800 million in pre-tax income = approximately $200M in tax) against future income taxes.

Putting a complicated tax story into simple terms, income trusts were able to engage in transactions with loss-bearing corporations to give themselves a shield against future income taxes, something corporations were unable to do because there are extensive CRA rules that explicitly define how you can and cannot do it. Superior Plus essentially bought out Ballard Power Systems, while the previous Ballard Power Systems formed a new corporation, transferred its assets to that corporation, and life went on as normal, except that they monetized $800 million in tax losses for approximately $50 million. The Canadian government was able to close this for future income trusts in the 2010 budget.

One reason why Superior Plus is able to maintain their high dividend rate is that they can avoid paying Canadian income taxes for the foreseeable future, assuming the CRA and/or tax courts will rule that such transactions were valid (i.e. they had some form of business substance opposed for just doing a transaction for tax reasons, which there are court precedents established). So their CFO gets high grades for pulling off that transaction, assuming it works!

The company itself is diversified into four segments – energy (propane, fixed-price energy contracts), specialty chemicals and construction products dealing with insulation, walls and ceilings. The businesses weighting, by gross profit as stated in the March 2010 quarterly financials, is roughly 60/20/20. The company traditionally has been profitable, with revenues around $2.2-$2.5 billion, and income around the $70M range in the last two full fiscal years. Cash generation has been significant, with about $200M generated in the last two years, and averaging about $100M in capital expenditures. Dividend payments are about $150M/year at the existing rate.

This is the area where an investor should stop and think – if your business is sending $250M out the door, but is only generating $200M in cash, how does that get bridged? Long term debt issuance. Indeed, debt from the end of 2007 to 2009 has gone up approximately $370M to pay for this and some acquisitions. About half their total debt load is in bank loans, and half of it is in debentures. Indeed, the market doesn’t seem to mind this – their debentures are all trading close to par value. Their balance sheet otherwise is unremarkable, with equity minus goodwill/intangibles at around negative $150M.

Unless if Superior Plus is able to either generate more cash, or reduce capital expenditures, their dividends currently are unsustainable and probably need to be chopped by about 25% or so for the health of the overall company. They would be smart to think about de-leveraging a little bit – they have about $240M of debentures due in December 2012 and one would consider that the after-tax cost of capital is higher when you have such a huge tax shield to work with.

This is likely the reason why Superior Plus is trading relatively “cheaply” – investors clearly have priced in the fact that their dividend distribution rate is too high given their cash flow and capital expenditure requirements. The company otherwise appears to be in good shape, but I won’t be investing in their equity at existing prices.

Fine-tuning my BP model

Posted on by
Reply

About two weeks ago I stated to exit “between $45 to $50/share”, but there have been a couple significant events between now and then and the price response I’ve judged – one is the departure of the CEO (which was to be expected for his very lackluster performance in this whole matter – he did not care, and won’t be caring after a massive severance package payout) and the accrual for the project (approximately $32 billion dollars) which was roughly what I had expected (my estimate was $40 billion). Note that this amount is not a cash amount, but rather it is an accrual expected to be paid out in the future. If the oil spill is less damaging than expected, they will reverse this in the future and take a gain.

Because of income tax provisioning, the after-tax cost to shareholders will be less than this.

Also you can be sure that other, less performing projects will be thrown under the bus – this is always something to be aware of when companies make massive charge-outs. Tech companies doing mergers back in the internet boom were infamous for doing this, and was a reason why such financial statements looked better – if you keep on taking “one time charges”, your continuing operations will look great!

Since predicting the price of BP has been much more of a political game than financial, I believe being able to compile both sectors into a blended decision is one of my competitive strengths in the marketplace. Upon retrospection, I believe my initial price estimate for BP was high, and will now lower my exit parameters to “$42 to $47″ per share. I would hazard a guess that it will get into this range by year’s end as the public consciousness fades onto other issues – such as the impending war in the Middle East (due before Obama’s exit in 2012) and how the US Congress will end up making themselves look like even bigger fools in a mis-guided attempt to save their collective skins in the November mid-term elections. The collateral damage that both events will leave should erase the BP oil spill from our short-term memories.

Since the price target is not materially above BP’s existing share price, the risk/reward ratio is not tremendously good. Obviously back a couple months ago when oil was still gushing in the Gulf, the risk was much higher. The “emotional” feel of this story is a fairly good lesson on the rule of the stock market – you don’t see low prices without risk. If you see what you think is a low price, but can’t see what the risk is, then chances are there is a hidden risk out there you are not aware of. Find out what it is before buying.

Finally, on the issue of collateral damage, Anadarko (NYSE: APC) and Transocean (NYSE: RIG) which had a 25% residual interest in the project and the drilling contractor, respectively, have both gotten killed in this crisis. They both look like better risk/reward ratios than BP is at the moment.

Income trust conversions and RRSPs

Posted on by
Reply

On January 1, 2011 there will be a slew of Canadian income trusts that will be converting to corporations. In addition to these, all other income trusts that are not related to real estate will have their distributions taxed. Either way, the dividends or distributions will be considered eligible dividend income for a Canadian investor.

This means that for those investors that have these instruments in an RRSP that what was previously given off as income will now be heavily favoured with respect to taxation, and will be relinquishing the tax benefit by keeping these securities. The obvious action would be to swap these securities with equivalent cash at the beginning of 2011. You can then populate the RRSP by purchasing the relevant income-bearing securities when the market timing is convenient.

A middle-income bracket investor in BC (between $41k and $72k) that is able to shift $1,000 of dividend income from the RRSP to a non-registered account, and swapping into the RRSP $1,000 of straight income will be saving approximately $284.10 at tax time.

It is worth thinking about this procedure throughout the second half of 2010 and see if one can purchase income-bearing instruments if/when the market conditions are appropriate. It is also a good time to think about portfolio balancing.

What is making life difficult for most income investors is that income investing (such as going for dividends or securities with larger-than-GIC yields such as preferred shares) is coming back in vogue with the retail investing arm. Such securities are being purchased without consideration of underlying value in the company’s ability to pay such income. An example would be the equity of Rio-Can, which is the largest Canadian REIT; although I believe their income payouts (6.88% on a $20.05 unit price at present) is stable, in terms of valuation, investors are purchasing something that appears to be more than fully valued and will likely not provide material upside on income payouts.

If/when the debt market seize up again, such securities will look significantly more attractive than they are today. Chasing yield when the going is good involves much more risk than chasing yields in the middle of a crisis.

Why RESPs are not a popular product

Posted on by
Reply

I extensively analyzed RESP’s in an earlier post, coming to the conclusion that a person is likely better to wait until the last moment that they are convinced their children will be heading to upper-level education before opening one.

The Globe and Mail is reporting how RESPs are having a rather lacking participation rate and goes into detail why this may be the case. I believe the explanation is simpler than this, and it boils down to two reasons:

1. People do not have disposable income to invest in an RESP, and are choosing to allocate it elsewhere for more immediate priorities;
2. Opening up an RESP leads to potential losses, and people would not want to lose money on their children’s education fund compared to their own investments – ergo, they will be sticking to extremely safe fixed-income products, and given the interest rates available, it is not really worth it at the moment.

There are plenty of scholarship funds out there that try to prey on people that fall under category #2; unfortunately for those that read the fine print, they will likely be throwing away their money on these conceived structured products that are designed to enrich the scholarship fund managers.

The government is trying to promote RESPs to lower income individuals by offering significant incentives to putting money in them. For example, if you earn less than $40,970 in a year, you will qualify for the Canada Learning Bond, which is a “free” $500 plus $100/year that your income is below that level into the RESP. If your income is less than $38,832/year, your contributions will be eligible for a 40% match by the government for the Canada Education Savings Grant, as opposed to the 30% or 20% brackets if you make more income.

Many lower income individuals are usually too busy working to pay attention to any of this and thus will not be taking advantage of money of these benefits. This is even assuming they are not falling under category #1, mainly that they do not have enough disposable income to be thinking about RESPs for their children.

Investment Vacation Mode

Posted on by
Reply

I have still been somewhat on investment vacation mode – I have not been making any portfolio alterations, and have been letting time pass by.

It is a very, very, very important concept in investing that decision be made with the fullest of convictions, after research. It is usually a good way to lose money to “force” trades, or to try to reduce the cash balance to zero. When you see cash earn a short-term return of 2% sitting in an account, it is frustrating to know that you could invest it, minimally, in some preferred shares that yield 6.5%, but what inevitably happens is that when you want to utilize this cash, you will take a capital loss selling your preferred shares.

I think a lot of retail investors out there are chasing yield and are shying away from non-income bearing equity. You will continue to see inflows in bond and income funds, while equity will be shunned. This is something I will be eyeing a little more closely in terms of taking advantage of the matter.

The one huge advantage of cash is that it retains its principal value and is completely liquid to do whatever you want with it when the opportunity arises. Right now I am just not finding much in the way of opportunity, and hence, I wait patiently and enjoy the Canadian summer, as short as it is. This makes for boring writing, but boring is better than the alternative – permanent loss of capital.

Choosing the right credit card will save some money

Posted on by
Reply

For personal expenditures, some shopping around for a credit card that is aligned with ones’ spending profile will result in some savings. It will not be a life-changing amount, but it will be a perk. Some people like to collect airline miles and some like to collect points in their favourite retailers. As long as you cash in the rewards in a timely fashion, it will typically result in a 1-2% payback compared to the amount of money you spent on the card. In other words if you spend $10,000 a year on a credit card, typically you should be receiving something worth $100-200 had you paid for it in cash.

In light of the fact that credit card processors generally charge merchants over 2% for the privilege of having people use credit cards, they are still profiting, but the price you pay at retail inevitably reflects this premium. Merchants and people are essentially locked into using credit cards given that there is currently no differential payment (i.e. reduced prices for cash purchasers). You have to choose carefully in order to claim back the implied increase costs at retail. If you are not using a credit card that has some sort of “rewards” feature, then you are typically missing on a slight reduction in expenses.

Currently MBNA is offering a credit card that gives you 3% cash back in groceries and gasoline (5% for the first 6 months), and 1% on everything else. They pay it in $50 increments when you have accumulated the necessary credit. I have found this card quite beneficial to my own spending profile, which tends to be concentrated with the gas and grocery types of expenditures. The couple hundred dollars a year savings is certainly better than choosing a method of payment that does not give you a small kickback.

What will be interesting to see is if merchants start offering 2% discounts for cash purchases. The Government of Canada recently enabled this ability for merchants in their Code of Conduct that was adopted earlier this year. Item 5 is the most relevant.

Canadian Tire is the only major retailer that I know of that has some form of this – they give 1% Canadian Tire money for cash purchases. One wonders if other retailers will give point-of-sale discounts for cash purchases.

Bank of Canada raises rates a quarter point

Posted on by
Reply

The Bank of Canada, to nobody’s surprise, raised interest rates by 0.25% today. Key parts of their statement:

Economic activity in Canada is unfolding largely as expected, led by government and consumer spending. Housing activity is declining markedly from high levels, consistent with the Bank’s view that policy stimulus resulted in household expenditures being brought forward into late 2009 and early 2010. While employment growth has resumed, business investment appears to be held back by global uncertainties and has yet to recover from its sharp contraction during the recession.

The Bank expects the economic recovery in Canada to be more gradual than it had projected in its April MPR, with growth of 3.5 per cent in 2010, 2.9 per cent in 2011, and 2.2 per cent in 2012. This revision reflects a slightly weaker profile for global economic growth and more modest consumption growth in Canada. The Bank anticipates that business investment and net exports will make a relatively larger contribution to growth.

…

Given the considerable uncertainty surrounding the outlook, any further reduction of monetary stimulus would have to be weighed carefully against domestic and global economic developments.

The take-home message is that growth projections have moderated to a “business as usual” type of economy after the 2008 calamity and the Bank of Canada is reserving all rights to not committing themselves to future rate increases. It is likely the global situation, rather than the domestic situation, will have significant influence over the decision to continue to raising rates.

As of today, the target rate is 0.75%, and I expect a rate of 1.00% by years’ end.

The only implication of this decision is that short-term corporate paper and inter-bank lending rates will correspondingly increase. People with variable rate mortgages will see interest increases, but this will not be affecting the longer-term fixed rate mortgage rates. The other subtle implication for most people is that financial institutions such as ING Direct might be willing to offer better rates on short-term savings and/or short-term GICs.

Bank of Canada Interest Rate Projections

Posted on by
Reply

On July 20, the Bank of Canada is very likely to increase the overnight target interest rate from 0.50% to 0.75%; this has already been baked into the marketplace. The Prime Rate is likely to correspondingly increase from 2.5% to 2.75%.

In terms of what lies ahead in the future, we look at the only financial product in Canada that one can use to predict such rate changes, the 3-month Bankers’ Acceptance Futures:

Month / Strike Bid Price Ask Price Settl. Price Net Change Vol.
+ 10 JL 0.000 0.000 99.045 0.030 0
+ 10 AU 0.000 0.000 98.960 0.030 0
+ 10 SE 98.875 98.880 98.880 -0.005 10612
+ 10 DE 98.700 98.710 98.710 -0.010 20474
+ 11 MR 98.540 98.550 98.540 0.000 17714
+ 11 JN 98.350 98.360 98.360 0.000 10038
+ 11 SE 98.140 98.150 98.140 0.080 2281
+ 11 DE 97.890 98.110 97.890 0.080 209
+ 12 MR 97.580 97.700 97.680 0.000 341
+ 12 JN 97.370 97.490 97.430 0.090 0

What we see is a 3-month future rate of 1.12% in September; and by years’ end we have a 1.29% rate.

There are four more meetings left in 2010; July 20, September 8, October 19 and December 7.  Right now, the market is speculating that there will be 0.25% increases in two of these meetings, leading to a year-end target rate of 1.00%.  It is possible that after September 8, that the Bank of Canada will leave short term rates unchanged for the duration of the year.

In 2011, the market believes that the short term rate will increase by about 0.75% above this; to 1.75%, still a very low rate by historical standards.

Presumably after its July20 statement it will change the language which will sufficiently guide the marketplace to adjust its prices.

Of note is the impact on mortgage rates; only variable-rate mortgages will be going up as a result of these short-term rate increases.  The reason is because longer-term rates are set by the marketplace, and these have gone down over the past quarter.  A 5-year government bond yields 2.49% currently; this was as high as 3.2% back in April.

BP – When to exit?

Posted on by
1

Earlier, specifically on June 16, I stated the following about BP:

For people that insist on getting into BP, the next couple weeks should be a good time. The exact timing in terms of price is an unknown variable, but I would estimate layering in 25-30 dollars a share (e.g. if it goes down to 28, you will get a 40% allocation).

Indeed, the common shares fell to a low of 26.75, which means that using the “25-30 dollars a share” algorithm would have resulted in a 62.5% position (e.g. if your typical position is 5% of your portfolio then you would have ended up with 62.5% of 5%, which would be 3.125%). The average price would have been $28.375/share, not factoring in commissions.

Now that BP has risen and the big headline (“they’ve solved the oil leak”) has come out in the news, it brings up questions of what the ideal price to liquidate will be.

I see a two-phased trading approach should work well. The first phase should involve an immediate bump up due to the “news” coming out. This has mostly occurred, as you can see by this one-day chart:

After attracting the initial wave of profit-takers, I anticipate a second wave of demand coming for BP shares which should bring the stock to the $45-50 range. This is the target I would set for my sell order. The simple justification is that I estimate this whole debacle should cost BP about $40 billion dollars, or about $13/share. Before this all began, BP was valued at around $60/share, so simple math would assume an approximate $45-50 valuation, hence the sell point at this price. Assuming the exit is achieved, you would be looking at around a 67% gain on the transaction, which I would estimate between now and the end of the year.

This is a very elementary valuation exercise; naturally to properly model the situation you have to take into assumption the strategic effects of the oil spill (i.e. reduced offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico) but also have to strongly factor political considerations.

I have not and will likely not trade common equity in BP, but I have sold puts on Transocean and they have moved out of the money at present from my initial transactions. They will likely expire in August.

This was probably one of the better trading opportunities I have seen in 2010.