Pinetree Capital – another debenture redemption

Previous articles on Pinetree Capital can be found with this link.

Today, they announced a redemption of $3 million in their senior secured debentures out of a total of $9.716 million outstanding. Interest accrued will be another 1.07% on principal. The redemption will be effective January 8, 2016.

The only wrinkle in this announcement is that $1 million of the $3 million principal will be redeemed in equity of Pintree Capital (TSX: PNP) and based on 95% of the weighted average price of trading from December 2 to December 31. So debentureholders will have 10.3% of their debt redeemed in equity of Pinetree Capital.

Based on Pinetree Capital’s equity, they have 201.9 million shares outstanding and are currently trading at 5 cents per share. If trading is around the 5 cent level, Pinetree will be issuing 21.05 million shares, representing a dilution of approximately 9.4% to existing shareholders. If the common shares start trading lower as a result of this announcement, each incremental decrease in trading will result in more dilution to shareholders – a mildly toxic convertible situation. For example, if the weighted average price is 4 cents a share, Pinetree will issue 26.3 million shares with 11.5% dilution. At 3 cents, the issuance is 35.1 million shares (14.8% dilution).

My guess at present is that the common shares will trade around 4 cents as a result of this announcement, but after the issuance of shares there will likely be a supply dump.

What was peculiar is the following quote in the news release:

The issuance of common shares in partial payment of the redemption amount is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions contained in the indenture governing the Debentures, including the approval of the Toronto Stock Exchange, failing which the total redemption amount will be paid in cash.

I have guessed the motive of the company to do this redemption was to reduce interest expenses, but if they are opting to not deploy cash in exchange for (nearly worthless at this point) equity, then it is constructively like doing a secondary offering in the marketplace at a very low share price.

The other motive for this partial redemption might be management bracing for impact when they take an impairment expense on their Level 3 assets when they do the year-end audit. The deadline for the year-end annual report is the end of March 2016. They still have to abide by a debt-to-assets covenant of 33%. They are at 28% as of the Q3-2015 report. If there is a mild asset impairment then they will breach their covenant. There might be a temporary breach of the covenant (between the December 31, 2015 reporting period to January 8, 2016) which will be cured by this redemption, but investors will not know about this breach until the issuance of the annual report itself as they no longer report monthly NAV.

Pinetree also received a serious setback when Aptose Biosciences (TSX: APS) suspended a clinical trial, taking its stock price down 50% on November 20, 2015. This probably destroyed another $2.5 million in Level 1 assets (of which $14 million was remaining on September 30, 2015!).

In terms of estimating the shareholder value, the primary variable at this point is whether the board of directors has any plans on executing on a recapitalization-takeover of the company, utilizing its massive capital losses for an acquiring entity. I’m guessing this would be worth about 8-10 cents a share, but first they need to get rid of their remaining debt.

General portfolio thoughts leading up to US Thanksgiving

This week is the US Thanksgiving, where non-discriminating consumers go crazy purchasing tangible objects under the perception that they are discounted.

It is quite apparent, however, that floor retail is getting smashed by online retailing. This has been my underlying theory for quite some time and leads me to the theory that avoiding retail-heavy REITs such as Riocan will be a money-saving procedure. If you can’t compete with Amazon, then the entire structure of your business should be examined.

What’s going to be interesting is if this Amazon-ification of retail will impact corporations like Walmart – certainly their equity is being eroded by Amazon, but I think there is a limit to the erosion where people will simply want to look at tangible stuff in a consolidated warehouse environment. The success of Costco is an example of this – eroding Costco would be the holy grail for Amazon and Walmart, but even Walmart couldn’t pull it off with Sam’s Club.

I have been looking for distressed entities and right now anything resource-based (especially energy) is clearly stressed. I still do not find a lot of value in this sector, but there are ancillary businesses that seem to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Anything related to bulk dry shipping is also getting killed, but most corporate entities that are publicly traded come from Greece, and this is a country I do not want my money invested in for a lot of reasons.

I still remain relatively defensively positioned. It is odd how my normal investment patterns is to go for capital gains and growth, but every component in my portfolio right now is giving off a substantial amount of income. There will probably be a time to shift to growth but it doesn’t appear that now is that time.

Bombardier Bailout, part 2

Today’s big news is that Bombardier is selling 30% of its transportation division to the Quebec Pension Plan (CDPQ) for $1.5 billion.

The quick analysis is the following:

1. BBD will have received a cash injection of US$2.5 billion as a result of selling 49% of its C-Series aircraft interest and 30% of its transportation division; this will alleviate any short-term solvency concerns (from the September 30, 2015 balance sheet, they will have over CAD$5 billion liquidity to deal with). This capital is obtained with zero interest cost and some potential dilution of shareholders if the common share price ever gets above the US$1.66 exercise point (which one would hope it does in the recovery scenario!). Near-term bond yields (2018 maturities) are trading at 6.8%, while mid-range debt (2022 maturity range) is between 10-11%. The market is still skeptical of the financial recovery of the corporation.
2. BBD issues another 106 million warrants at an exercise price of US$1.66 on their subordinate voting shares. This is in addition to the 200 million they issued with the previously announce US$1 billion investment from the Quebec government.
3. BBD is required to maintain a cash balance of US$1.25 billion otherwise control on the board will start to erode.
4. This will save BBD from the hassle of doing an IPO (i.e. going through a regulatory quiet period, doing an institutional investor road-show, etc.), but noting that the CDPQ will have rights to trigger an IPO after 5 years of investment. CDPQ will also have significant minority shareholder rights.
5. If the Government of Canada wishes to tag along with some sort of contingent financing offer or backstop, BBD is in a considerably better position to negotiate as they will have sufficient financial reserves to do so.

I view this generally as a positive for the corporation, although they will still need to execute on getting the C-Series jet out the door and be able to generate sales. However, they seemed to have tackled the immediate perception issue of financial trouble, and have shown the financial world that the Quebec government will do whatever it takes to ensure Bombardier’s survival. If the Government of Canada chips in some cash, it will be icing on the cake.

My assessment of the preferred shares is still the same – they will likely pay dividends for the foreseeable future. At CAD$6/share, BBD.PR.B gives off a 11.25% yield, while BBD.PR.C is sitting at around 16%, with the risk that they’ll be force-converted to 12.5 shares of BBD.B – something I doubt management will do, but financially speaking it would make sense to issue 118 million shares to save CAD$14.7 million/year cash flow – with the way they are treating their equity holders, they might as well eliminate this headache off the books. This is the most likely reason why there is such a yield spread between the preferred share series.

The endgame for Pinetree Capital

Long-time readers will know of my investment in Pinetree Capital Debentures (TSX: PNP.DB) and the various amounts of volumes written on this company in the past, probably more than anywhere else on the internet and if I may modestly say so, in higher quality.

The debentures caught my eyes when the underlying company blew their debt-to-assets covenants and while having questionable asset quality, they still had enough blood that could be squeezed from the stone which would flow through to the bondholders.

So far this has been the case – purchasing my 70 cent stones has yielded one dollar blood droplets, plus a generous annual coupon of 10%. In addition, security is granted on all assets of the company, so even if things went wrong, there was a first-in-line claim to picking what was left of the carcass.

By virtue of going from $54 million in debt to about $10 million presently, I’ve had over 80% of my initial position redeemed in cold, hard cash. There’s a bit of residual that I continue to hold. I had an order set to liquidate the position above par, but I am content on riding it until maturity (or CCAA proceedings, whatever the case may be!).

This brings me to my latest post on the company, which is subsequent to their third quarter release. The information contained in the news release is relatively useless for analysis purposes, but their financial statements on SEDAR are much more relevant and I will quote some of the material.

First of all, they were in breach of their covenants and failed to cure them and were under forbearance with a committee of debtholders. This has now passed and the company’s debt-to-assets ratio is once again under 33% (it is approximately 28% as of the end of October). As a result, the debtholders no longer have any direct control of the company’s operations.

What will follow is a simple mathematical exercise in terms of the cash requirements of the company vs. their capacity to actually pay it.

The company still has about $9.8 million in secured debt to pay off, which matures on May 31, 2016. They have an approximate $0.5 million coupon to pay off on November 30 and assuming no further maturities, another $0.5 million in May 2016.

They are sub-leasing their offices and paid somebody $1.55 million so they could get rid of their lease. $1 million is to be paid in Q4-2015, and the remainder on February 1, 2016. They pay about $0.6 million/year for their lease so they gave somebody a 2.5 year inducement on a lease contract that expires on December 2023. They vacate their office effective February 1, 2016. It is not known where they will be moving to, but one can reasonably expect that Pinetree Capital can be run out of a lawyer’s office in the near future instead of a 9,928 square foot behemoth employing less than 10 people.

The company’s burn rate otherwise is $0.8 million/quarter, so operationally they will spend about another $2 million, plus likely professional fees if they are going to do anything financially sophisticated (like liquidating their tax losses!).

So their total cash requirements to May 2016 is likely to be around the $14 to $15 million range – $10.8 million for debenture principal and interest payments, and the rest of it the usual G&A and professional expenses that all publicly traded companies must incur.

In terms of their ability to pay, they had $2.3 million cash on the balance sheet at September 30, 2015. We know they redeemed $5 million in debentures (plus $0.2 million interest) in October, so this functionally put them at a negative $2.9 million balance.

Level 1 assets included $14.2 million in equities – likely consisting of PTK, APS and AAO equities. They do have a minor amount of PRK and LAT, but disposal of these equities will prove to be difficult given the lack of liquidity.

Let’s pretend they liquidated enough Level 1 assets to pay the $2.9 million residual (or they were actually successful in liquidating some of their Level 3 assets, which would be a minor accomplishment). This leaves them with $11.3 million in Level 1 assets remaining to bridge a $14-15 million expense requirement over the next 7 months.

In other words, even if they were to get perfect liquidity on their Level 1 assets the next half year, they still are going to be short on cash.

The remaining assets are Level 3 assets, which total $24 million. However, most of these assets are private investments and hints of what these are can be dredged through previous press releases. SViral was a $5 million investment that nothing could be heard of over the past year in terms of that company’s operations (indeed if any exist at all).

Keek was a slightly more transparent case as it is publicly traded. Pinetree had invested $3 million in their secured notes and they cut a deal to sell them for an undisclosed amount of money. Did Pinetree receive 100 cents on the dollar? Or did they take a slab of equity that they can’t possibly choke through the marketplace?

Due to management not disclosing any information at all about Pinetree’s investment portfolio, one can only guess what else is in there. However, as the year-end audit comes closer, the auditors will have to determine whether management performed a proper test for asset impairment (IAS 36 for those in the accounting world reading this – I am an accountant, after all!) – i.e. is the book value as stated on Pinetree’s books actually what the fair value of those assets are? I would find it very difficult to believe that a $5 million equity investment in SViral is still worth $5 million presently.

My gut instinct says the real value of this Level 3 portfolio is worth about 25% of what management says it is, but without any real disclosure of the components, who knows?

One thing I do know, however, is that management has a huge incentive to ensuring that reported value is kept as high as possible, because they don’t want their assets to fall to the point where the debt-to-assets covenant (33%) gets breached again! My calculations show if they had to impair $6 million of their $24 million in Level 3 assets (without any offsetting gains in their remaining Level 1 asset investment portfolio), they’d once again breach the debenture covenant and have to go through the charade of curing the default.

There are a couple other options for Pinetree and both of these have been discussed before.

One is that in their indenture agreement they are allowed to redeem up to 1/3rd of the debentures in the form of Pinetree equity. The equity redemption of the remaining debentures would dilute existing shareholders by a significant fraction at current market prices (6 cents per share).

Another solution is a monetization of the capital losses the company has incurred to date in a financial transaction. Pinetree has had the dubious distinction of losing half a billion dollars in its investments over the past few years and these tax losses can theoretically be monetized by some sort of recapitalization transaction. Using a theoretical capital gains tax rate of 13% and a willing partner buying the tax credits at 40 cents on the dollar would suggest there’s about $20-25 million left to be harvested here after legal expenses. This is really the only reason why I’m holding onto the secured debt.

Either way, management is still going to be financially creative to get their debt albatross off their backs. It still does not look good in any manner for the equity holders and the debtholders will actually face some risk in terms of getting paid their due in cold, hard cash.

Disclosure: Still holding onto some of those debentures!

Genworth MI Q3-2015 report

Late last month, Genworth MI (TSX: MIC) reported their 3rd quarter results for 2015.

The headline results were quite positive – premiums written were up from $217 to $260 million in 2015 vs. 2014 for the same quarter. As a result of premiums written increasing, revenues (premiums earned) will also be booked at an increasing rate for years to come. The loss and expense ratios remained in-line (at 21% and 19%, respectively) which still give an extraordinarily low combined ratio of 40%.

Management during the conference call pre-emptively went out of its way to explain the situation in Alberta and how they are well prepared for the upcoming onslaught of the double-whammy of increased unemployment (triggering mortgage defaults) and lowering property prices (triggering an increase of loss severity when mortgage claims do occur).

Balance-sheet wise, there were a couple negative developments. One is that the company dipped into preferred shares (selling their common share portfolio at the beginning of the year and investing in preferred shares) and are currently (as of September 30, 2015) sitting on an unrealized loss position of $42 million or 18% under the cost they paid for them (which in the preferred share market is huge!). It is currently 3.4% of their investment portfolio.

The company announced it is increasing its dividend to 42 cents per share quarterly instead of 39 cents, which is consistent with previous years’ behaviour to increment the dividend rate. They did telegraph on the conference call that they will likely not be repurchasing shares with their minimum capital test ratio at 227% even though their goal is to be “modestly above 220%”. The diluted shares outstanding has dropped from 95.6 million to 92.2 million from the end of Sepetember 2014 to 2015, but as I have discussed before, I generally view these period when market value is considerably under book value to be a golden opportunity to repurchase shares instead of issue dividends.

Conflicting with this apparent excess capital is the recent announcement that they are considering a debenture offering, which would allow them to raise more cheap capital. Would this be for leveraging purposes? They were quite successful at their last capital raising attempt – $160 million of debt raised on April 1, 2014 at a coupon of 4.242% and maturity of 10 years. Current market indications suggest they would receive roughly the same yield and maturity terms if they attempted another debt financing. Raising another $250 million in debt financing and attempting a dutch auction tender at around CAD$33/share seems to be a possibility at this stage.

Finance wise, it seems like a win-win: Raise money at 4.5%, fully tax-deductible interest expense. Use to repurchase shares that yield 5.1% (which is not a tax deductible cash outlay for the company). At a corporate tax rate of 26.5%, it is a gain of 1.8% after taxes! Remains to be seen if this is what they are thinking.

This might also be because the Genworth MI subsidiary is 57% owned by subsidiaries of Genworth Financial (NYSE: GNW), which are facing financial challenges of their own – perhaps this will be an inexpensive way for Genworth Financial to raise a cheap $140 million of equity financing and still not give up any ownership in their prize profit-generating subsidiary?

Valuation-wise, Genworth MI is still trading at 15% below diluted book value which still puts it in value range, but this market valuation is clearly influenced on negative market perceptions of the Canadian real estate market – Genworth MI has still not recovered fully from the aftermath of the effects of the drop of crude oil prices. Still, if they effected a buyback at around CAD$33/share, it would still be accretive to their book value!

The company did dip below (dividend-adjusted) CAD$27/share on a couple occasions on single days in late July and August, but I was nowhere near nimble enough to capitalize on that freak trading activity. At such valuations (25% below book value) it would be difficult to not re-purchase shares that I sold in 2014 when MIC was trading at and above $40. The fundamentals of the company are that of a bond fund asset management, sprinkled with the profit generator of Canadian home mortgage insurance.

The other elephant in the room is questioning the effects of the change in the federal government – the new mandate for CMHC might be to get it more involved in mortgage insurance instead of being (relatively) non-interventionist like the previous Conservative government. This might functionally increase the competitive space for Genworth, but it remains to be seen what the Liberal Party’s intentions are with CMHC. The only line in the Liberal Platform is the following:

We will direct the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the new Canada Infrastructure Bank to provide financing to support the construction of new, affordable rental housing for middle- and low-income Canadians.

This does not appear to conflict with the profitability of Genworth MI. But one can never depend on any new majority government to stay strictly within their platform points!