Macro / China

The currency depreciation war is active and alive (below is a chart of the US Dollar to Chinese RMB exchange rate, showing a 3% devaluation over the past couple days which is historically quite volatile for the currency):

We’re entering into a strange topsy-turvy financial world where things are going to stop making much sense at all. We already have that in Europe, where a lot of sovereign bonds are trading at negative yields (which is the definition of financial insanity).

Interest rate futures for the US federal reserve already show that the fed funds rate will slip down to about 1% – the December 2020 fed funds futures are a full percentage point below the present values. The Bank of Canada will likely be forced to match to some degree – I would look for the Bank of Canada to drop their rates correspondingly.

In terms of investment themes, always keep in mind TINA – There Is No Alternative – as safe bond yields get pushed into the low single digit yields, in order to make any returns at all, the risk frontier continues to get pushed further and further into the equity realm. Dips in equity valuations will eventually be bought as pensions and institutions need to seek returns that they are not going to be receiving from bond portfolios. Specifically, domestic industries (i.e. no China exposure) with cash flow pricing power will remain king.

The allure of leverage (why not when you can borrow so cheap?) will also be tempting.

Unfortunately, a lot of these companies (e.g. most utilities) already trade rich, but there’s a decent chance that the escape for safety will continue to push asset prices even higher.

Also, with medium-term interest rates declining, those 5-year rate reset preferred shares will also likely take a hit. There may be some interesting opportunities coming up in this space as shares get sold off.

Atlantic Power Q2-2019

This is a review of Atlantic Power’s second quarter, 2019.

My thesis statement on ATP a year ago was “Terrible industry, cheap stock” and little has strayed from that. The industry is still terrible (over-capacity, subsidies for wind/solar have drenched the market, etc.). However, with every passing quarter, Atlantic Power de-levers a bit and makes small financial decisions to the betterment of its shareholders.

For instance, in Q2-2018, they had US$778 million in debt, while in Q2-2019 that is now US$685 million (saving about 4.25% on interest expenses). Preferred share par value is from US$159 million to US$142 million. Shares outstanding went from 111,302,692 to 109,381,678.

Q2-2019 was better than expected due to weather – Curtis Palmer, a hydroelectric project in New York state, is projected to contribute $8.6 million in extra EBITDA. Negatives include the prolonging of the San Diego decommissioning (and costing a million more than previously guided), and other unexpected maintenance issues. Management guided that Curtis Palmer is 17% below average in the month of July, so clearly a caution that weather can be variable.

Atlantic Power has a very low capital expenditure profile, as maintenance is directly expended off the income statement (the accounting implication here is the “DA” in EBITDA is much more relevant because you are not artificially inflating reported cash flows with high capital expenditures – effectively EBITDA is a proxy for free cash flow). For the first six months of the year, they generated $68 million in operating cash flow.

The storm clouds on the horizon involve the expiration of their power purchase agreements PPAs. Manchief, currently producing $7.7 million in EBITDA in 1H-2019, will expire on May 2022, and afterwards will be sold for $45 million. The market did not receive it very well as it represented nearly a quarter of the company’s power generating capacity (incorrectly extrapolating that the rest of it will be sold at the same rate). The company’s hydroelectric projects are much more likely to claim a higher multiple to EBITDA.

The reduction of capacity and expiration of PPAs are somewhat offset by the purchase of biomass facilities which appear to be purchased at 20%+ EBITDA levels.

As the debt continues to be whittled away at (noting that the company’s tax shield is considerable – $587 million in operating loss carryforwards as of the end of December 2018), eventually the market will realize there is a lot more value to Atlantic Power than what it is presently trading for. If by some miracle the power generation market recovers, there will be even further value to the equity. Looking at a three year stock chart is like watching a heart EKG but fundamentally, the corporation is in much better shape today than it was 3 years ago. Eventually the graph will “hockey stick”, but in the meantime, this is one to purchase and forget.

Conference call notes

Sean Steuart, TD Securities Equity Research – Research Analyst

Few questions. Wondering if you can give some context on deal flow. Are the best opportunities you are seeing limited still to biomass or are there other technologies that, I guess, state your preference for out-of-favor cigar butt-type investments?

James J. Moore, Atlantic Power Corporation – CEO, President & Director

Yes. So biomass, I would say, is the main focus of what we’re looking at now because they’re unglamorous, they’re not popular. A lot of them have had difficult start-ups and difficult operating-wise. Our internal expertise on biomass allows us to kind of roll that out as we try to integrate new plans. So we’re becoming quite a large biomass operator with the acquisitions we’re going from 4 to 8.

I think in the past, we’ve said — look, we were asked this question over the last 4 or 5 years, we’re paying off debt, but we’re going to be very focused on intrinsic value per share. We’re going to be very disciplined. So it took us 5 years before we ended up making some acquisitions.

And then what we did, we moved with some speed and scale. So I think that’s the way we’re always going to approach this. So today in terms of the deal flow, we are looking at biomass plants. We also picked up half of the hydro plant. It’s all about price to value for us, and a sector may be unpopular and then something happens.

Back in 2015, we sold off. I think it was 5 wind plants for what I estimated, my own look at it, around 14x what would be normalized as cash available for distribution. And within 6 months, with the yield cost coming apart, I thought we might be able to buy those at attractive prices. We might be able to buy wind at 15%.

And so we’re going to be very disciplined as evidenced by the fact that over 5 years, we paid down a $1 billion of debt, we cut 60% of our overhead, we didn’t do any external acquisitions for 5 years while we were buying in shares and buying prefs, but when we saw opportunity and when we thought were attractive returns, we jumped on it. It’s getting interesting now. I mean power and commodities, the difficulty with them is they’re commodity-priced and they’re capital-intensive and they’re volatile. But for a value investor, that creates an interesting opportunity set for us. So we come in every day and this — the market tells us what return we can expect if we buy in our own shares or buy prefs what the cash return on that will be.

And then, from time to time, we’ll see something in the external markets and — we didn’t go out and buy 5 plants in the last year because we had cash burning a hole in our pocket. We bought 5 plants because we thought the economics for the various plants we bought were compelling. So we’re continuing to do that, and we are seeing some interesting deal flow, some interesting disruption in the market. There is nothing imminent other than the next 2 biomass plants that are going to close very soon. But that’s the game plan we’ll say on in the next few years.

Rogers Sugar – Example of diversification not going well for shareholders

When a company dominates its product or service space, it has two choices – either stick with it and be very vigilant to ensure that whatever competitive moat you have continues to exist, or start to expand and diversify.

In many cases, expansion and diversification can end up consuming far more money and mental capital of management than otherwise warranted.

Rogers Sugar (TSX: RSI) is a good case example. By virtue of trade protection, the refined sugar domain in Canada is dominated by Rogers (and its other label, Lantic). The only Canadian competitor is Redpath Sugar (privately held and ironically owned by American Sugar Refining), which is a distant second in terms of volumes sold, and geographical presence (their operations are mainly around the Toronto area, while Rogers has a presence across most of Canada).

I have been tracking Rogers Sugar for well over a decade. In fact, at one point (during the economic crisis) it was my largest portfolio position since their units (back then they were an income trust) were trading at such a ridiculously low level given their rock-solid business. I still follow it and would love to get back in at the right price.

In 2017, Rogers decided to purchase a maple producer (L.B. Maple Treat Corporation – located in Quebec and Vermont) for $160 million, paid with a mixture of cash raised in equity ($69 million raised at $5.90/share) and debt. Later in the same year, they purchased a bottler and maple producer, Decacer (also located in Quebec), for another $40 million (paid by the credit facility). Subsequent to the acquisitions there has been further capital investment in the maple unit, but for the purposes of this post I will ignore these expenditures.

It is nearly two years later, and Rogers is still having difficulty with their maple acquisitions. Was this the correct decision?

The sugar industry in Canada can be described as very mature. Rogers can generate about $80 million a year of EBITDA with the sugar segment, and this is stable. It takes approximately $20 million a year in capital investment ($17 million in FY2017, $23 million in FY2018) to sustain this, so sugar is a cash machine in Canada. There is a very high barrier to entry in the marketplace given the total size of the market. The sugar market only grows in relation to the population size. There are substitutes available (high fructose corn syrup) that keep a lid on prices for industrial customers.

A $60 million a year cash stream ($80 million EBITDA minus $20 million CapEx) is approximately $44 million after taxes. Since the sugar business is so bond-like, an unlevered firm in today’s interest rate environment would probably go for a 7-8% perpetual discount, or approximately $580 million (at 7.5%). Indeed, one can make an argument that the sugar industry deserves an even lower discount when looking at comparators such as Keg Royalties Income Trust (TSX: KEG.UN – with 6.8% at a 100% payout ratio) or the grossly over-valued A&W Revenue Royalties Income Fund (TSX: AW.UN – a ridiculous 3.4%!). Both of these entities have nowhere close to the competitive moat that Rogers Sugar has.

Rogers is capitalized entirely by debt financing – tangible book value is negative $19 million, and total debt is $362 million (face value) consisting of secured bank loans and unsecured convertible debentures (TSX: RSI.DB.E and RSI.DB.F) for low rates of interest (the debentures are roughly at 5% and the credit facility is at LIBOR plus 20 to 200bps depending on financial ratios – blended interest expense, ignoring financing costs is 3.6%).

Completely ignoring Rogers’ sugar adventures into maple syrup, the debt completely self-sustains the entire company for a cost of $13 million a year. Even if interest rates doubled, the sugar entity would be very profitable.

As such, the enterprise value of Rogers is about a billion dollars. The equity pays a 36 cent/share dividend or about a 6.4% dividend yield – not too bad given some comparators above.

After the close of August 1, 2019, they released their 3rd quarter results. It is quite apparent that as of right now, their expansion in Maple has yielded sub-par results.

In fiscal year 2018 (the first full fiscal year after the maple acquisitions), the adjusted EBITDA on maple was $18.6 million – and depreciation was about $5 million and $1.9 million in “non-recurring” costs, but we will ignore the latter costs for the sake of argument. After taxes, this is approximately $10 million a year – or 5% on the original $200 million invested in 2017. Definitely a worse outcome than what is going on in sugar – and barely enough to keep up with the cost of capital it paid.

One might be able to understand that in the first full year after an acquisition there will be growing pains before things get “back to expected”, but this is not happening as of the 3rd quarter of 2019.

For the first 9 months of the June 2018 reporting period, the maple division had adjusted EBITDA of $13.9 million, while the same period in 2019 was $12.1 million, or a 13% decline. Management now expects a $16 million adjusted EBITDA result for the full fiscal year and additional capital expenditures to increase the efficiency of the maple operation. The cited reason for the decline in profitability is “heightened competitiveness in the marketplace and, to a lesser extent, some operational inefficiencies related to the plant footprint optimization.”

It does not take a CFA to figure out that the maple acquisition is turning out to be a negative decision for the company, given how much was actually paid.

Despite the fact that the decision to get into the maple market had logic to it (sugar and maple syrup are both sweeteners; the company has its major operating headquarters in Quebec and some French-speaking executives; the company has vast experience in manufacturing and distribution of food products; etc.) – the capital invested is clearly earning a sub-par return, despite the company’s operational expertise.

This is a pretty good lesson that moving from a competition-protected domain (sugar) into a business that has less protection (maple syrup), no matter how similar, conducted at the wrong price will end up destroying shareholder value. I am guessing the board, management and public shareholders didn’t see this one coming.

I expect the stock to trade lower on August 2, 2019.

Genworth MI Q2-2019 – surprisingly good quarter

Genworth MI (TSX: MIC) yesterday announced their quarterly results. If there was one figure in the report that was surprising, it was the following:

I do not think many people would have expected year/year quarterly growth in transactional premiums growing. This is a fairly strong result, and would suggest that Q3-2019’s number will also be up around 10-12%. In the MD&A, it is cited that it is “primarily due to a modestly larger transactional mortgage originations market”.

With a combined ratio (loss ratio plus expense ratio) of 35%, Genworth MI makes 65% pre-tax margins on their written premiums – assuming that residential real estate market conditions don’t change.

With interest rates now being held low by central banks, this is a reasonable proposition.

The number of delinquencies also remains relatively steady, down to 1,701 from 1,760’s previous quarter – which is white noise given the 2.17 million units of real estate they have on the insurance books.

For Genworth MI, the good news has gotten even better. I thought this would be a story of ‘steady as she goes’, but things are surprisingly good. This probably is the reason why the stock is up some 7% at present.

However, all of this is overshadowed by parent Genworth Financial (NYSE: GNW) which is now actively trying to unload their 57% stake in the Genworth MI subsidiary. My original post speculated that they’d not get more than $50 from a transaction, but given today, I’ll shade this higher to around $55/share.

Kinder Morgan Canada / Q2-2019

Skimming the Q2-2019 financial results of Kinder Morgan Canada (TSX: KML) –

Entity is 30% owned by the public (roughly 35 million shares outstanding) while Kinder Morgan (USA) owns roughly 81 million shares.

Because the public only owns 30% of the operating entity, even if the company reports $10 million in earnings, the public effectively receives $3 million. The $7 million is a “minority” interest (of course, this is no longer a minority!).

When looking at the first half of the year, we have the following (and I have highlighted the relevant area in a box).

The entity is pleasantly profitable – $43 million in net income for the first half.

However, the preferred shareholders (entirely held by the public) get the first slice of income. Their take is $14.4 million. This leaves $28.5 million for the entire entity. Kinder Morgan’s slice is $19.9 million. This leaves $8.6 million left for the 34.9 million shares that are publicly trading on the TSX – about 24 cents per share for the half.

Do some quick math – 48 cents a year for a stock now trading at CAD$12, which is a net return of 4%. It’s obvious this isn’t strictly about income, there is some pricing potential in the assets.

The preferred shares are at around 5.6%, and also get priority when KML finds a buyer at an acceptable price for their Canadian assets. The CAD$550 million is a drag on KML’s balance sheet, but they are virtually first-in line (as KML got rid of most of their debt after the Trans Mountain Pipeline sale).

For the most part, the income stream is stable. There will be some reductions in 2020, but otherwise they will easily cover the preferred shares.

I bought some preferred shares in early June as a cash parking vehicle. This is a very low risk, low reward type situation where you can watch paint dry for a maximum upside of par – and in the meantime, you can clip your coupons.