Revisiting ARCH

ARCH has been up and down like a yo-yo for the past half-year, ranging from roughly its current lows of 115 to a high of about 170 per share.

They have been able to cash in significantly in the post-Covid metallurgical coal boom, which is also instigated by the lack of capital invested in the industry.

I’ve been revisiting the math with this company.

I made some significant projection errors with my previous April 26, 2022 post. I improperly accounted for the shares outstanding (16 million vs. 19.8 million actual) and also underestimated the cash collection cycle when it come to the Q2 dividend. I was off by a mile, estimating an $11.60 dividend when it was actually $6.00! In fairness to my projection, the company did earn about $25/share on my mistaken input of 16 million shares, but they allocated some excess dividend cash to asset retirement.

I’ve sharpened my pencils since then and hopefully will be a little more precise. While at times I can be a spreadsheet warrior and try to calculate numbers to the nearest decimal point, investment analysis is a really strange business where in most cases it is intellectually wasteful to try to be exactly correct, but optimally be mostly correct with your assumptions and directions. We will apply the same standards here.

Balance sheet-wise, ARCH ended Q2 with approximately $191 million net cash, not including the $100 million they stashed away for asset retirement obligations. This assumes the capped call transaction is cashed in, and the convertible debt is converted. This positive net cash value represents about 10% of the market cap of the company, although for the purposes of this analysis we will make a conservative assumption and ignore the net cash on the balance sheet.

We will use 19.8 million shares as the denominator, although it is quite possible ARCH did perform share buybacks in Q3.

The key statistic in Q2 was the average met coal sales price of US$286 per ton. They already have committed sales in North America for US$216, and seaborne for US$284. The rest is spot sales, which for most part should be at comparative prices.

I see that Australian coking coal futures are trading around US$264 spot and US$310 for Q1-2023 coal (quite the contango).

The point is that Q3 met coal sales pricing should be around the ballpark as Q2, or about $400 million in net income.

This time, however, the company will have fully funded the reclamation funds and paid down the debt, so they can fully utilize the free cash flow for the 50/50 capital allocation model (half to dividends and the other half to either buybacks, capital preservation or the like). In Q2 the dividend was reduced by $40 million (~$2/share) than it otherwise should have been due to the $80 million contributed to asset retirement.

ARCH should be able to give off about $9/share in their Q3 dividend, based off of approximately $360 million in distributable cash. I am guessing that their accounts receivable balance will not bloat further during the quarter.

This will make the three-quarter average for dividends $7.75/share, or $31/share annualized.

Recall this is half of the company’s distributable cash flows, which annualized is about 27% of the current share price (US$115/share).

The company will probably dump the majority of the other half of free cash flow into share buybacks. Needless to say, at a price of a 27% implied yield and in a net cash situation, I do not disagree with using capital for buybacks. Even if they are the worst market timers on the planet, they would have bought back a million shares this quarter, which would take out 5% of the shares outstanding and they would be able to jack up the dividend even further – to about $9.50/share.

At US$280/ton for met coal prices, ARCH is a cash generating machine. The margin of safety is quite high.

However, many dead bodies are littered on the road of purchasing commodity stocks after cycle highs. If the world is heading into an interest rate induced global economic recession, it does not bode well for steel production, which in turn would sap demand for metallurgical coal production. Current indications suggest a mixed environment, which bodes well for future returns.

The only real threat, other than raw commodity pricing, is their tax shield. At the end of 2021, ARCH had reserved $500 million for a valuation allowance with respect to their income taxes. In the first half of 2022, they went through $120 million of this, which will result in their tax shield expiring around Q4-2023 at the current pace of their earnings. The blended tax rate for ARCH would be approximately 28% when this kicks in – reducing the returns significantly for 2024 and beyond, but still a very healthy amount.

How to survive a high interest rate environment

Things in the real economy are going to get a lot worse. You will see this with a lot of lagging indicators, especially unemployment. Come January and February 2023, the unemployment rate will rise a lot higher than the reported 5.4% for August.

The financial economy tries to predict these changes in advance and indeed, some of this has been already priced in. There are typically two areas where the market does not anticipate very well – when it over-extrapolates a trend, and also the failure to predict second and third order impacts of economic developments. The ability to predict these contributes to a lot of alpha for portfolio managers – worthy of a separate post.

At the end of the day, however, equity markets have some semblance of valuation on the basis of residual profits of the various entities which are given to shareholders. There is never an equilibrium price achieved, it is always fluid and subject to anticipation of changes.

When the so-called “risk-free” rate increases like it has, the comparisons become more competitive as there is always a risk premium between risk-free and risk-taking.

A concrete example of this is looking at a relatively stable equity versus a government bond.

We will use A&W Revenue Royalties Income Fund (TSX: AW.UN) as our example. It is nearly a universally recognized entity in Canada. The business is stable. The debt leverage employed is not ridiculous. While there are some complexities (the controlling interests have somewhat of a conflict with the unitholder trust), all you need to know for the purpose of this post is that the business skims 3% of the revenues of all A&W franchise sales across Canada. After interest expenses and taxes, the cash is passed to unitholders.

Right now this trust yields unitholders 5.4%.

Contrast that with a 1 year government bond, yielding about 4%, or a 10 year government bond yielding 3.1%. If you’re dealing with retail amounts of money and want to put it into a GIC, a 1-year GIC earns 4.53%, while a 5-year GIC earns a cool 5% – that’s a larger rate of interest than it has been for a very, very long time. Savers are finally getting rewarded for a change.

In contrast with units of A&W, you’re not receiving a lot of compensation for your risk. As a royalty business, you are less concerned about profitability and more about gross sales – your incentive is that the business operate rather than thrive. For some reason, the market warrants the risk spread (to government debt) of about 1.4 to 2.3%, depending on time horizon, is deemed to be sufficient. One can argue this is too high or too low, but right now it is what it is.

If interest rates continue to rise from here, it is only logical that the equity risk premium rise as well. In other words, if 1 year rates go to 5%, and 10 year rates go to 4.1%, then all things being equal, the equity should be priced around 6.4% – or the equity should take a 15% price haircut from the current point.

The equity risk taken is absurd especially in light of other perpetual investments that offer a seemingly higher margin of safety than A&W. An example would be in preferred shares of Pembina Pipeline, say PPL.PR.A, which gives you around a current 6.9% eligible dividend (much better tax treatment than royalty income) with a gigantic margin of safety. However, in rising rate environments, many of these entities are extremely leveraged with debt, which may result in credit risk deflating the value of your shares.

There is also the overall market liquidity risk – when liquidity continues to decline (central banks are tightening up the vice with QT as we speak), valuations across the entire market will compress as the marginal dollar does not have the ability to sustain high asset prices.

So how does one survive as an investor in a rising interest rate environment? There are very few escape valves.

One is cash, or very short-term cash equivalents. While you take the inflation hit, your principal will be safe. You will also be the recipient of rising rates when you rollover your debt investments into the like.

However, many do not have the luxury of holding cash (funds are restricted from holding over a certain amount).

Preferred shares in selected companies are another possible escape route. While they do not offer great returns, many of these firms that obviously will be solvent and paying entities are trading at reasonable yields. Your opportunity for capital appreciation is likely to be very limited, but at least you’ll be generating a positive and tax-advantaged return. (I will once again lament the upcoming redemption of Birchcliff Energy’s preferred shares (BIR.PR.C) as being the last redeemable preferred share left on the Canadian marketplace (R.I.P.).)

However, many do not have the luxury of holding fixed income products.

So say there is a gun pointed to your head and you are forced to wade into the equity markets.

The problem is that anything with a yield is sensitive to increasing interest rates. Companies trading at high multiples will have P/E compression and this will kill your equity value.

The formula is that you need to invest in a company generating cash at a very low multiple (well beyond a 2-3% spread from the risk-free rate), the cash flows are sustainable, AND the company can either repurchase its shares at such a low multiple or give out cash to shareholders at a yield well beyond the risk-free rate.

There are not many companies like this that trade. Ideally one day you would find a royalty company trading at a 15% yield. Then you would pounce on it with full force.

There are very few moments where you see this happen, and when it does, it can be very profitable. February 2009, Q1-2016, Christmas 2018, and March 2020 were some recent times where you had a gigantic rush for liquidity in various names.

Execution on the trading is also not easy – before a royalty company reaches a 15% yield, it will have to trade through 8%, 10%, 12%, etc. At these valuation points, it will increasingly look more and more attractive. Back during the economic crisis of 2008/2009, I remember purchasing long-dated corporate debt in Sprint (the telecom) for a 20% yield to maturity and feeling a bit resentful when at one point it was trading at 25% YTM before it slowly made its way back to the upper single digits YTM a couple years later. A similar situation with equities and some distressed debt will likely happen over the next 12 months, so plan accordingly to reduce resentment of not catching the absolute bottom – markets are most volatile at their bottoms and tops. I do not think we are at all close to seeing the peak in volatility for this cycle yet, which is surely a ‘down’ cycle.

Diversification

There are events that you just can’t predict, such as having to deal with malware on your web server.

This week has been full of them, and it is only Wednesday.

Teck (TSX: TECK.B) announced on the evening of September 20 that their Elkview coal plant (their major metallurgical coal operation) had a failure of their plant conveyor belt and it would be out of commission for one to two months. If out for two months, this would result in a loss of 1.5 million tonnes of coal. Considering that they can get around US$400/tonne for their product, and very generously they can mine it for US$100, this is a huge hit. Not helping is that one export terminal (Westshore (TSX: WTE)) is going on strike, but fortunately Teck managed to diversify from this operation last year with their own coal loading terminal!

Cenovus (TSX: CVE) owns 50% of a refinery in Toledo, Ohio. BP owns the other half, and they are the operating partner. There was a story how a fire at the plant resulted in the deaths of two workers, and the refinery has been shut down to investigate. Making this more complicated is that on August 8, 2022, Cenovus announced they will be acquiring the other 50% of the refinery for US$300 million in cash. Ironically in the release, it is stated “The Toledo Refinery recently completed a major, once in five years turnaround. Funded through the joint venture, the turnaround will improve operational reliability.

Given the elevated level of crack spreads and the 150,000 barrel/day throughput of the refinery, the cost of this fire will not be trivial, and quite possibly will involve an adjustment to the closing price.

The point of these two stories is that there can be some one shot, company-specific event that can potentially affect your holdings – if there are other options in the sector you’re interested in investing in, definitely explore them and take appropriate action. Teck and Cenovus are very well diversified firms, but if you own an operation that has heavy reliance on a single asset (a good example would be when MEG Energy’s Christina Lake upgrade did not go as expected a few months ago), be really careful as to your concentration risk of such assets.

On a side note, have any of you noticed that many, many elevators are out of commission in publicly-accessible buildings? It’s like expertise in anything specialized is simply disappearing – it makes you wonder whether the maintenance operations of the above companies (and many others not listed in this post) are being run by inexperienced staff.

Site is back online

It appears that due to some stale installations of WordPress on my web hosting account, somebody managed to inject a whole bunch of garbage into the server that is running this website.

From what I can tell the initial intrusion happened in late August, while the thing that caused the site to go down happened on the morning of September 19th.

The script that ran on the machine injected files across practically every available directory on the server. It wasn’t a very subtle hack. It allowed the host to act as a ‘pass through’ – if you ever wonder why hacks these days are almost impossible to geo-locate, it is because they are almost always done through infected servers and this makes things incredibly difficult to trace after the fact.

Anyway, after many hours of polishing off my ancient UNIX skills, I’ve managed to restore this site from my backups and things should be back to normal again.

Divestor is back online – for now!

I could not imagine how anybody that doesn’t know how to navigate within an SSH session could solve this without getting external assistance (read: $$$$). Things are getting really complicated these days.

Cash ETFs

I’m sitting on some relatively heavy losses (0.7%) in my investment in the Canadian Short Term Bond Index ETF (TSX: XSB). The loss was a result of speculating that an average 3-year yield would perform better than a short-term cash account. Needless to say, it is annoying that had I just kept the cash in the account (even earning zero-yield, as Questrade generously offers on cash) I would have done a lot better.

Now that the Bank of Canada has cranked up short-term interest rates even further, the yield curve is flatter and spot yields are about 70bps lower than 1-year yields. The compensation for duration is quite low.

So while I contemplate flip-flopping to even shorter maturities than 3.11 years in exchange for a boost-up of about 100bps on spot rates, we look at the cash ETF options (alphabetical order by ticker symbol):

(TSX: CASH) – info – gross yield 378bps – MER 13bps
(TSX: CSAV) – info – gross yield 296bps (pre-BoC 75bps increase on Sept 7) – MER 16bps
(TSX: HSAV) – info – gross yield 375bps – MER 12bps
(TSX: PSA) – info – net yield 359bps – MER 17bps

All four of the above trade with penny spreads on the TSX in sufficient liquidity volumes.

For comparison, Interactive Brokers offers 276bps on their CAD cash yields. The question is whether it makes sense to flip cash for near-cash, and for each $10,000 transaction, it would cost approximately $2 in commissions to make a trade for approximately 90bps of yield, good for a $90/year difference, or $7.50 monthly.

The question then becomes whether the structural risk of the cash ETF (What happens if the market makers decide to quit? What happens in a true market crisis where everything blows up? What happens if the “cash” investments the ETF invests in goes belly up? What happens if the custodial arrangements the ETF management has turns out to be fraudulent or defective, etc.?) becomes worth it for a $7.50/$10k monthly difference. Is it worth a 360bps difference? Likely. Is it worth a 90bps difference? Probably not.