Miscellaneous notes

I took a few days out in a remote area (i.e. away from major urban centres) to do some reflection and avoiding the airwaves for the most part. It allows for mental digestion without dealing with the day to day distractions. Also, due to Covid-19, the tourism sector for the most part is decimated, which is why it is the perfect time to go out to places that would otherwise be swamped with tourists.

Covid

It’s pretty evident that nomenclature has made this much more difficult than it should be. The virus that causes COVID-19 is SARS-CoV-2. An analogy is that HIV is the virus that causes AIDS. Unfortunately, in everyday conversation, the words “COVID-19” refer to the disease and are conflated with the virus. There is ample evidence that even if you have the virus, there is a very good chance that you don’t get the disease, but the reports are still such that you are “COVID-positive”.

There are plenty of viruses out there that people are completely asymptomatic to. A good example is the Herpes Simplex virus, where it is estimated that 2/3rds of the world population has it. The disease that the virus causes is called Herpes simplex (same name as the virus).

Until people make a proper distinction between the virus and the disease, I generally believe public policy will be quite irrational in circumstances. Specifically, efforts to contain the virus by caging people and restricting various activities are effective in the short term, but pay very little to the fact that in the longer run, there will be re-infections. Jurisdictions that have claimed victory (e.g. New Zealand, Atlantic Canada, Hong Kong) will discover that the virus will re-emerge despite all efforts to contain it. This is ultimately a futile battle.

If I was pulling the public policy levers, it would be to focus on those obviously vulnerable to the disease and not the virus. As the age cohort is the dominant variable that correlates with mortality and severe symptoms, these people should continue to take extra precaution – both due to SARS-CoV-2, but also because there are a boatload of other viruses out there that also correlate positively with age in terms of mortality.

But in the meantime, we have long since passed the point where COVID-19 is used for rent-seeking and other political purposes. This is obvious in places like Hong Kong, which authorities are claiming to cite as the reason why they should shut down again (real reason – legislative elections are coming up and they won’t be good for the establishment), but also here in Canada, where incessant “mask or no mask” polarization completely misses the point – people that get the virus don’t necessarily get the disease.

This search for a vaccination is also a huge red herring, but it will serve a psychological purpose – a light at the end of the tunnel. However, my deep suspicion is that this will be similar to attempts to vaccinate against the common cold (Rhinoviruses and other Coronaviruses) and the annual “flu season vaccination” which protects against certain strains of flus (H1N1, H5N1, etc.). There is evidence to show such vaccinations do have effectiveness, but it is never a “black or white” situation – the flu vaccination, for instance, ranges in effectiveness from 10% to 50% (if you believe the evidence!), but it is impossible to measure after the fact – for ethical reasons, you can’t run a double-blind test where you purposefully infect people in one arm. Measuring something that does not happen is much more difficult – if you took the flu vaccine, but didn’t catch the disease, who is to say that you just simply never would have gotten it anyway?

So here is my prediction on the COVID-19 vaccination – there will be something released, it will be ‘proven’ to be effective, but its effectiveness will be diffuse (let’s call it a statistically significant 10% success rate). Victory will be claimed, and a whole bunch of people will take it (which will spark another public controversy over mandatory vaccinations vs. not taking them) and the world will move on.

Fundamentally, what is going on is much more simpler – we all have immune systems. Some of us are much better at fighting certain classes of viruses than others. There are some of us that have very good immune systems, and some of us that get sick all of the time. Statistically speaking, if you are young, treat your body well and have had general exposure to other amounts of viruses in your past life, your body will be well adapted to fighting SARS-CoV-2. Some will be much more vulnerable. A simple analogy is that happened to when the European explorers introduced smallpox to the native populations in North America – the natives didn’t stand a chance since their immune systems were not trained at all to fight the classification of viruses that had brewed up in the filthy urban centres of Europe over the prior centuries (prior to the advent of urbanized sewage systems, it made Chinese wet markets look very sanitary by comparison).

Another analogy is physical fitness – if you are asked to run 5km in a 75th percentile time and you haven’t done it before with zero athletic training, chances are if you actually forced do it, it would probably cause severe damage (shin splints to name the least, but it would probably cause severe cardiovascular damage). Recall the first recorded instance of a person running a marathon died after completing his mission (Pheidippides)! However, if your body is trained, you will be adapted to the stress that heavy physical activity incurs. While this simplifies matters with regards to immunology, the body that has faced a variety of viruses in the past will likely do better dealing with SARS-CoV-2 than those that are inherently sensitive.

Finally, if this virus is anything like other viruses, there will be subtle mutations that will increase and decrease the prevalence of disease – just like how you can get a “light” cold and a “bad” cold.

I really think it’s time we move on.

Investments in Markets

It is evident to me that investing in ‘stuff’ rather than ‘dollars’ is going to be the right decision. Other than some (rapidly depreciating) cash, I hold nothing financial in my portfolio. No banks, no insurers, etc.

There is currently a boom in technology-related issuers and I am content to let this segment of the market figure itself out with their high valuations. The rush to liquidity to largecap issuers (the FANGS, and throw in Tesla in there while you’re at it) are also a result of passive indexation – you throw a dollar into an S&P 500 index fund, and 20 cents of your investment automatically get forced into the top 5 or 6 companies – who’s going to sell it to you? As a result, prices rise when liquidity rises. The major indicies will likely continue rising.

It will eventually implode (analogy is year 2000) and when it does, the survivors left standing will be the ones that are actually producing real stuff. This means primary industry participants (that can actually produce such products at competitive costs as primary industries are quite competitive), but secondary industry participants that produce viable products from primary industry participants will also do quite well. I realize this is quite abstract, but I do have some names in mind.

Commodity investing

Gold is going crazy right now (and rightfully so – why bother speculating on negative interest rates with government bonds that are effectively yielding zero, when you can just get your hands on the shiny yellow metal?). I do not like any of the gold mining companies – they are all capital pits.  Their market value will go up on the basis of reserves, rather than having efficient operations and capital management.  Perhaps I’m a little too dismissive and throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but I think there are too many eyeballs on gold producers (despite most of these producers not being very well represented on the indicies). If you believe in gold, just buy the futures contracts and get price exposure that way.

Oil is a more interesting space, at least in Canada. Canadian SAGD producers (and more conventional low-decline producers) are going to be in shockingly decent shape – most of the capital has been spent and it requires relatively less maintenance capital to keep the production flowing. Contrast this to capital-intense shale producers which is now financially nonviable (and institutions are now smart to how this pricing model is no longer functional). Especially in Canada, environmental laws are incumbency protection for the major producers, and now that US shale has peaked (Q4-2019), they are going to be more reliant on imports once demand gets back up again. With Trans-Mountain continuing, Coastal Gaslink proceeding and Keystone probably continuing to fruition (maybe), it actually bodes quite well for Canada. Teck not getting into the oil sands game was probably the death knell for further oil production in Canada in the foreseeable future, which means the Suncor, CNQ and Cenovuses are going to be reaping the rewards.

My guess is we will see a triple digit oil price in a couple years. Other fossil fuels (gas, coal) will follow. It will be considered a massive surprise from market participants that thought the days of fossil fuels were done.

Again, just like gold stocks, probably investing in futures contracts are the easier method, although in Canada, most of the companies have been hacked so badly in the past decade that they are lean operations and you can pick and choose from them to get sufficient leverage (in addition to being registered account eligible).

Finally, the outlook for Coal companies right now feels like how the market felt about tobacco investing in the late 1990’s. The highest returns are to be made when an entire sector is shunned without any hint of contrarianism (which is what you see now in the airline and cruise ship industry).

Election Politics – USA

It is tough to believe the US Presidential Election is just over three months away.  Four years ago the election felt like it lasted a year.  This time around it feels like it hasn’t even started yet.

The most credible gambling site where you can throw a bunch of money at and not get defrauded (they respect wagers from people that actually are winning clients) is Pinnacle Sports.  They have Trump at +156 (39% to win) and Biden at -184 (65% to win) (note that the excess of 4% of the total of 104% is the “bid/ask spread”).  Another credible site (Betfair, but not available for Canadians) has Trump at 9/5 odds.  The basis for this is likely the litany of polling showing that Trump is down by about 9% across the country, which in most ordinary circumstances would result in a slaughter.

However, this is not any ordinary election, and the winner is determined from the electoral college and not the popular vote.  Just like in 2016, Trump is going to get slaughtered by significant margins in California and New York, but it doesn’t matter whether he loses by 40% or 20% in those states – the outcome is already pre-determined.  The question is how he does in MI, OH, FL, NC, PA.

The other question is if polling data is reliable.  In both Canada and the USA, elections are determined by who turns out to vote, and polling typically does not capture this data very well.  If I were to guess at present, I would say the odds are reversed.

Election Politics – Canada

There is a non-trivial chance of Justin Trudeau calling an election for October.  Be warned.

Gran Colombia Gold’s confusing capital allocation strategy, part 4

(Part 1 on June 12, 2019; Part 2 on November 16, 2019); Part 3 on February 7, 2020)

This just gets better and better.

On February 6, 2020, after raising CAD$40 million in an equity offering (at CAD$5.60/share with a healthy dose of 3-year warrants at CAD$6.50) they announced they will be repurchasing 30% of their senior secured notes (TSX: GCM.NT.U) which I thought was a good use of capital (their rate of return will be in the teens for this repurchase).

They spun off their Marmato mine into an entity called Caldas Gold (TSXV: CGC) – this mine is going to require a ton of capital investment to ramp up gold production (it produces about 2k ounces per month prior to this investment). On March 17, they announced they spent $2.4 million to purchase off the open market stock in Caldas.

Then things get a little weird. On May 5, they announced they were going to invest in a solar project. The capital cost of this project is $8 million, and “may be financed by up to 70% through local banks”. Although this isn’t going to cost the company too much, it does seem like a deviation.

Then the company on May 11th announced they were proposing to merge with Gold X (which they held a 19% interest in) and Guyana Goldfields (TSXV: GLDX and TSX:GUY), which would have rendered existing GCM shareholders with 60% of the company. The justification was that the mines involved in Guyana were 50km apart and they were able to realize synergies between them. My quick take, without much mining engineering knowledge, was through a simple Google Satellite view of where both mines would operate and I realized that it would be a monumental undertaking to join them together. GCM shareholders avoided disaster on May 25th when there was a superior offer floated by a competing entity and they decided to drop the bid.

So this wasn’t enough. On June 30, GCM announced they invested another CAD$14 million in Caldas to pursue a project called the Juby Project, which is approximately 15km WSW of Gowganda, Ontario. To acquire this interest, they had to give shares of Caldas to the point where GCM has a 57.5% equity stake in Caldas.

This is very puzzling to me since it isn’t clear that the Juby Project will actually generate a dollar for the company. All that was advertised is they will do drilling in 2021, after “incorporating machine learning and other studies”.

Finally, today (July 19), GCM announced they invested another $1.4 million in Western Atlas Resources (TSXV: WA) to bring their ownership to 25.8%.

What’s the conclusion here? Gran Colombia, by virtue of their Segovia operation and a US$1,800 gold price, is making plenty of cash flow. However, they are proceeding to blow it on everything else at a rapid pace, probably for the reason that grades in Segovia are going to decrease and the economic utility of the mine is continuing to drop and they need to start selling promise rather than actual results.

In particular, I believe they objective with Caldas Gold is to get their ownership in the company under 50% so that way they no longer have to consolidate their expenses (and losses) in their main financial statements. Watch out for another acquisition using Caldas stock to achieve this purpose.

I don’t own any GCM stock, but I do own the notes (GCM.NT.U) which I expected to be called away on or shortly after March 31, 2021. I still think at present prices GCM (and Caldas) should be raising equity capital while the going is good. If for whatever reason gold makes a sustained decline, history will be repeating itself with this firm.

Evening Finance with Sacha, Episode 6

Late Night Finance with Sacha, Episode 6

Date: Friday, July 17
Time: 7:00pm, Pacific Time *** NOTE NEW TIME
Duration: Projected 30-45 minutes.
Where: Zoom (Registration)

Frequently Asked Questions:

Q: What are you doing?
A: Performing a general review on what was a very eventful week (judging from the first three days of the week, who knows, Thursday and Friday might be more mundane!). I’m guessing the commentary will go for about 10-15 minutes and the Q&A will fill up the rest of the time. Aiming for 30 minutes, although if things are interesting, will go on for another 15 minutes or so.

Q: Why are you doing this?
A: Continuing my experimentation in video broadcasting. Who knows, I might learn something from you as well.

Q: How do I register?
A: Zoom link is here. I’ll need your city/province or state, and if you have any questions in advance just add it to the “Questions and Comments” part of the form. You’ll instantly receive the login to the Zoom channel.

Q: Are you trying to spam me, try to sell me garbage, etc. if I register?
A: I can hardly manage a mailing list without breaking my own website, what makes you think I will spam you? No, if you register for this, I will not harvest your email or send you any solicitations. Also I am not using this to pump and dump any securities to you, although I will certainly offer opinions on what I see.

Q: Why do I have to register? I just want to be anonymous.
A: I’m curious who you are as well.

Q: If I register and don’t show up, will you be mad at me?
A: No.

Q: Will you (Sacha) be on video (i.e. this isn’t just an audio-only stream)?
A: Yes. You’ll get to see me.

Q: Will I need to be on video?
A: I’d prefer it, and you are more than welcome to be in your pajamas. No judgements!

Q: Can I be a silent participant?
A: Yes.

Q: Is there an archive of the video I can watch later if I can’t make it?
A: No.

Q: Will there be a summary of the video?
A: A short summary will get added to the comments of this posting after the video.

Q: Is there a limit to the people that can participate?
A: Zoom limits me to 100. I really hope the number isn’t higher than 10.

Q: Will there be some other video presentation in the future?
A: Yes.

Robinhood and overactive retail trading

Globe and Mail had an interesting article on the advent of Robinhood.

Robinhood is not currently available in Canada, but I’ve seen enough videos to come to an easy conclusion – it is the financial brokerage equivalent of crack cocaine.

There’s two items I’d like to discuss. One is commission-free trading, and the other is the psychological aspects of trading.

Robinhood allows commission-free trading of various products. The company’s business model makes money on payment for order flow, where the entity sells order flow to market making entities (such as Virtu – VIRT on the Nasdaq). The market makers execute on the trades and they pocket money buying on the bid, selling at the ask, and also making some informed speculation on the very short term future prices of securities depending on the order flow coming in (which is why you tend to see discontinuities on intraday trading – it is the market maker pulling away from the bid when there is a crush of supply pressure or pulling away at the ask when there is a crush of demand pressure).

For each share of stock traded, Robinhood made four to 15 times more than Schwab in the most recent quarter, according to the filings. In total, Robinhood got US$18,955 from the trading firms for every dollar in the average customer account, while Schwab made US$195, the Alphacution analysis shows.

I would suspect this magnitude difference (US$18,955 for a Robinhood dollar to $195 for a Schwab dollar) is a mis-print, but the 4-15 times magnitude of payment for order flow would intuitively sound like it is in the ballpark – reflecting the fact that customers purchase the most profitable type of items (call and put options) with large spreads. A market maker isn’t going to make much money if you buy 100 shares of Microsoft, but if you purchase 50 call options of some medium-capitalization security, it is virtually guaranteed that they will be paying at least a 25 cent (if not 50 cent or 1 dollar) spread on the trade.

In essence, there are two components to the cost of a trade. One is the commissions and fees associated with the trade – and for the most part, this is fairly transparent. The other less transparent cost of trading, which is much higher than the commission, is the slippage you pay for execution. If you want immediate execution, you must pay the spread. This is more costly than most commissions unless if you are trading the most liquid of securities.

There is a more subtle aspect to trading which applies when you have to take larger positions in companies, and that is how to acquire enough of the stock without materially impacting the stock price, but this is usually an institutional concern. This concern does sometimes happen at the retail level, especially in lower capitalization/volume stocks (e.g. my frustrations with trading Torstar, where it didn’t take much money to affect the stock price!).

So as a result of Robinhood’s price structure, they have an incentive to have their customers trade as much as possible, and ideally trade securities that will generate higher payment for order flow margins (i.e. high bid-ask spread options, especially multi-leg option positions such as Iron Condors!).

As a result, they make trading as easy as opening up an app on your iPhone and tapping a few keys and you’ve suddenly made a trade. You can trade on the bus, trade in bed, trade at the gym, etc, etc.

Clearly they’re trying to turn it into a legalized version of casino gambling, without telling the consumer that the expected value of their transactions are probably going to be higher at a casino.

So this leads me to the second item of this post, and this is psychology. There is a book called Nudge which you should read and Robinhood employs many of these tricks.

Just viewing the plethora of Youtube videos of people “minting coin” (e.g. “How I Made $30,000 in 1 Week Stock Trading on Robinhood“), and the general “millennial” attitude of these market participants, makes it definitely a herd mentality atmosphere, coupled with the “missing out” psychological sentiment – other people are making money, seemingly by tapping buttons on their phone in bed, why can’t I??? Robinhood couldn’t purchase this type of marketing. Contrast this with Interactive Brokers, where you get some very dry videos that few people in relation will click on.

The other phenomena is the advent of more sophisticated “trading rooms”, which has existed since the dawn of time (yes, pre-digital world), where people with their Robinhood accounts can band together to pumping up securities and purchasing and selling the hot tip of the day, just like a huckster at a horse racing track. There is so much rich history in herd mentality in stock trading that it would fill volumes, but for example, I’m going through a book called “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds“, which was published in 1841, and its first chapter is about after Louis the 14th bankrupted France, eventually there was a mania in paper currency and the corporation that was created to exploit the Louisana Territory – people were lined up to subscribe and shares were bidded up to the roof. It didn’t end well.

Another great example is the “bucket shops” of the late 19th and early 20th century. A book written on behalf of Jesse Livermore is a good chronicle of this form of legalized gambling (in the name of speculating on the prices of securities), but it basically has the same rhythm to it.

There are all sorts of stories of financial malfeasance, and they all prey on the same human psychological ‘nudges’ that we see today. The only difference is the medium, and our digital age. Our psychological failures are the same and have not evolved with technology.

Robinhood is indeed marketing brilliance, and the net asset value in these accounts gets transferred to the shareholders of Robinhood, the market makers, and the counterparties to the trades that get executed on the platform. I generally do not have much sympathy for those that lose money in this manner. I just hope they do not ruin their lives in the process.

Just Energy – Unjust Recapitalization

I wrote about Just Energy (TSX: JE) last December after they suspended their preferred share dividends and were obviously awaiting a recapitalization.

A memory refresher on their debt structure:

A couple days ago the proposal came out.

Given all of the classes of debt, this is a messy proposal to read through all the relevant terms. It involves a debt/preferred share conversion, a 33:1 reverse split, and then a follow-on offering of equity.

* Exchange of C$100 million 6.75% subordinated convertible debentures due March 31, 2023 (TSX: JE.DB.D) and C$160 million 6.75% subordinated convertible debentures due December 31, 2021 (TSX: JE.DB.C) (the “Subordinated Convertible Debentures”) for new common equity;
* Extension of C$335 million credit facilities by three years to December 2023, with revised covenants and a schedule of commitment reductions throughout the term;
* Existing senior unsecured term loan due September 12, 2023 (the “Existing Term Loan”) and the remaining convertible bonds due December 31, 2020 (the “Eurobond”) shall be exchanged for a New Term Loan due March 2024 with initial interest to be paid-in-kind and new common equity;
* Exchange of all 8.50%, fixed-to-floating rate, cumulative, redeemable, perpetual preferred shares (JE.PR.U) (the “Preferred Shares) into new common equity;
* New cash equity investment commitment of C$100 million;
* Initial reduction of annual cash interest expense by approximately C$45 million; and
* Business as usual for employees, customers and suppliers enhanced by the relationship with a financially stronger Just Energy – they will not be affected by the Recapitalization.

In total, the Recapitalization will result in a reduction of approximately C$535 million in net debt and preferred shares.

Translated:

1. Convert C$260 million of convertible debt into equity
2. Convert US$117 million par of preferred shares = ~CAD$160 million in equity
3. Add CAD$100 million in equity financing
4. Convert ~CAD$15 million in the “Eurobond” to equity

This is where they get the bulk of the CAD$535 million figure from – from the publicly traded JE.DB.C/D and JE.PR.U securities.

None of the other tranches of debt receive a haircut – instead, they get extended. I will note that the holders of debt is that is the (unlisted) US$207 million unsecured term loan receives relatively preferential treatment in this recapitalization. The likely reasons for this: “The US$14 million draws were secured by a personal guarantee from a director of the
Company.”, and the fact that this tranche of debt was loaned from Sagard Credit, who is backstopping the equity offering.

The CAD$260 convertible debentures will be converted into 56.7% of the equity of the company, prior to the CAD$100 million equity financing.

JE this second is trading at 49 cents per share. At their existing market cap, JE equity is valued at $74.3 million. Convertible debt holders are being asked to convert CAD$260 million into $42 million of pre-diluted equity. This would also explain why the debentures presently are trading at about 18 cents on the dollar.

Preferred shareholders receive 9.5%, and this works out to 4.4 cents on the dollar. This class of shareholder is lucky to get anything.

The common shareholders will retain 28.8% of the company, and they should be even luckier to hold onto anything.

The convertible debentures are subordinated unsecured obligations of the company, which means that they are the lowest tranche of debt in the pecking order. However, the convertible debentures upon maturity can be converted into shares of JE with a standard VWAP clause:

The Corporation may, at its option, on not more than 60 days and not less than 30 days prior notice, subject to applicable regulatory approval and provided no Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, elect to satisfy its obligation to repay all or any portion of the principal amount of the Debentures that are to be redeemed or that are to mature, by issuing and delivering to the holders thereof that number of freely tradeable Common Shares determined by dividing the principal amount of the Debentures being repaid by 95% of the Current Market Price on the date of redemption or maturity, as applicable.

Presumably, if the convertible debentures were allowed to be exchanged for shares under this formula they would be receiving more than 56.7% of the pre-diluted equity. This is not allowed to happen because the senior creditors (the facility due on September 1, 2020) want to squeeze them out for a lot less.

This is what I’d call a fairly “unjust” recapitalization of Just. Caveat Emptor for those that were holding onto any of these securities! In particular, the purchasers of the February 22, 2018 offering of the 6.75% convertible debentures have realized an approximate 70% loss in their investment over the 2 years they’ve been holding it, which is fairly impressive.

No positions, never had any, do not intend on taking any either, and also commend management for ruthlessly taking out more retail capital – this is a textbook case.