Encana – cutting back capital expenditures

Encana (TSX: ECA) is a very large natural gas producer. In their recent quarter, they announced they will be cutting back capital expenditures and reduced expectations due to lower natural gas prices. Hydraulic fracturing is saturating the marketplace, leading to reduced prices. This is well known by the marketplace, and as such, Encana’s stock was only down by 3% today on the news.

The two charts will explain the story, one is of Encana’s stock price, and the other is the spot rate for natural gas, and one will see the correlation:

One can easily see the connection. Encana is a type of company that will not have its equity double in value in a short period of time, but it does represent a fairly good store of value in terms of the vast reserves it can control (especially reserves in politically stable climates such as Canada). It also represents a fairly good proxy for the price of natural gas.

One of the worst ways to play an increase in natural gas, however, is through the Natural Gas ETF (NYSE: UNG) which I have written about before. I will let the chart do the speaking here:

Whistler-Blackcomb going public

Whistler-Blackcomb, owned by Intrawest, filed to go public on the TSX. The salient numerical details, such as the total amount of the offering (rumoured to be $300 million) and pricing of the company’s stock remains to be seen.

Intrawest used to be public, but was taken private in 2006 and is now owned by Fortress Investment Group.

Although I have not completely read the document (and won’t until the issue has a price), of note is that the public entity will hold 75% of the Whistler-Blackcomb partnership (page 128); the corporation will have an additional $261 million in debt taken out; and the entity will generally have historically made about $50-60 million in income from 2007, 2008 and 2009. Note that because the corporation has a 75% interest in the partnership, that some accounting rules will kick in and subtract the 25% minority interest, so the net income figure will be lower.

This offering is being touted in the media as an income play, which is likely why the company is going public right now – to get out while the premium paid for income-bearing securities is red hot.

I have a paper napkin valuation which will likely be lower than what the actual selling price will be. I also think there are a whole host of risks that this venture are correlated to – including the resort real estate business, and BC tourism in general. I believe the company is using the elevated 2010 numbers from the Winter Olympics to tout their equity, which will be a mistake for investors to depend on. The 9 months ended 2010 show a $52 million income year, compared to $58 million the year before. Note the last quarter of the year is a money-loser.

The BP Saga is nearly over

The US government yesterday now allows drilling applications to take place in the Gulf of Mexico. There will be increased scrutiny with respect to contingency plans that will make the already expensive process even more so, but there will eventually be drilling back in the Gulf.

This nearly closes the saga on the BP oil spill – although you hardly hear of any further environmental consequences. The only story left will be a decade of litigation in court to determine who pays for the damages.

Be careful of people touting their horns – what I’m about to write will be a high magnitude of chest-beating.

Earlier, I gave a fairly accurate forecast of the financial consequences. I made a projection on June 16, after BP had cut its dividend, that if you were playing BP, one should purchase BP shares between $25 to $30/share. BP subsequently made it to $26.75/share, which would have resulted in a 65% fill. On July 15, stated that one should exit BP at $45 to $50/share (this is after it spiked up to $39/share), and July 27, I fine-tuned the price model to $42-47/share. I stated that BP should be around that price range by the end of the year.

Currently, BP is trading at $41.50/share, so it is within striking range of this price range where an investor should offload the shares. Indeed, the price risk from the oil spill has been mitigated to a degree from the stock, so investors in BP at this moment should be evaluating the company not with political risk in mind, but operational risk of the various businesses it controls around the world, and of course, the price of oil.

BP still looks undervalued strictly from an earnings and “price of oil” perspective – they have a huge amount of reserves and production going on, and will likely continue to make money in the foreseeable future. Analysts expect the company to earn about $6.51/share in 2011, which gives it a 6.4x P/E ratio, or about 15.7% yield from current earnings. By comparison, Exxon has a 9.7x P/E ratio on 2011 earnings. Even though it is an operational basket case, BP still looks dramatically undervalued.

Always keep in mind that analyst projects tell you what the market is pricing in – so in order to make money from the present, you have to believe the company will make more money than what the analysts are predicting. In theory, the analyst estimates are baked into the current stock price.

One prediction that has not come to fruition yet has been a June 16 prediction that the drillers will fare better than BP – right now, BP is leading the two drillers I selected by about one percent. When re-evaluating the drillers, I think BP is now the better deal.

There is a reason why I do not like large capitalization companies – many other eyeballs have spent time looking at the companies far longer than you have, which makes your potential advantage in properly valuing such companies to be less probable.

Deploying some capital

After some considerable investigation, my US equity research has finally hit some pay dirt this week, and I have been attempting to get a position in two equities – one relating to the defense industry, the other relating to oil and gas. One of the companies is a well-established player in the industry, while the other one is relatively newer. I would not consider either to be “speculative” in that both firms generate cash, but I do have a good idea why the market believes they should be trading at relatively low levels, and why the market is incorrect.

One has a dividend yield close to 1%, and the other does not give out a dividend. Investors in either company will not be “yield chasing”, so I am happy to not be paying for other people’s yield-chasing demand!

It always seems to be the case that when I place my orders the market suddenly sees my interest in buying a 0.0001% stake in the firm, and then takes the bid up 5%. This is frustrating, but both companies should hopefully regress in price and I will ideally receive a relevant fraction in my portfolio. Both companies have liquid stocks, so somebody of my volume will not move the price.

I will eventually be deploying the rest of my US-denominated currency from bonds to equities, but the bulk of it will happen in early 2011 when I can get rid of the bonds.

I am still investigating a couple other candidates on the US side. I have already rejected many other names – investing in the USA is becoming economically more and more dangerous because of their domestic economic situation. Investors need to be careful of the impact of silly government decisions.

Market places a premium on yield

I have had this ongoing theory that the market is bidding up yield-bearing assets beyond what is rational.

Nothing is as good an example as today when a small asset management firm, Integrated Asset Management (TSX: IAM) announced that they were resuming an annual dividend – 4 cents a share.

IAM is a very illiquid company, but I have had the advantage of considering them as an investment candidate a couple years ago, but never invested because of valuation (too high). This turned out to be a money-saving decision (notwithstanding the economic crisis!). They had previously given out 4 cent dividends on a semi-annual basis (which was unsustainable), but in order to build up their equity they suspended dividends in early 2009.

Their balance sheet otherwise is quite clean – they have a small cash cushion (about 36 cents a share) and no debt.

Yesterday, the company closed trading at 62 cents a share on 1,500 shares of volume (that is about CAD$930 that traded hands, which is about half of its historical daily volume). Today, they are presently trading at 90 cents a share, and I see about 135,000 shares that have changed hands.

Suffice to say, a 45% price increase because of a dividend announcement is a good indication that the market is valuing yield above everything else.

In terms of actual valuation, it was my belief that before this announcement that IAM was trading at the lower end of my valuation range, but not quite at “buy” territory. In addition, the illiquidity would have made it prohibitive to accumulate a position with any speed and thus illiquidity translates into a lower valuation.

The company itself is an asset manager – they claim to deal with “alternative assets”. At the end of their last quarterly report, they reported nearly $2 billion of assets under management. Their year ends on September and 2009 was a very poor year for them, but it was also the case with every other financial institution. In a more “regular” year, the company should be earning around 6 to 7 cents a share, so their dividend payout schedule will be around 2/3rds of their income.

The dividend announcement shouldn’t change what the company earns, so it is puzzling to see it rise so much after the announcement. It also makes you wonder how many other yielding securities have their prices elevated strictly due to dividends and income distributions, rather than earning economic profits through their operations.

An astute trader can also try to time these announcements in other securities. I will leave this to an exercise for the reader.