Pinetree Capital – Possibly the worst closed-end fund, ever

This article is about Pinetree Capital (TSX: PNP), which came across my radar a few months ago when doing some casual screens of the market.  I’ve analyzed this one many, many years ago and dismissed the idea for obvious reasons.  Nothing much has changed since then other than that management has blown about half a billion dollars – this is an accomplishment that very few non-fraud artists can claim.  The firm itself is quite easy to analyze.

The company functionally operates as a closed-end fund that invests in extremely risky microcap ventures in the mining sector. They were lucky enough to catch the uranium boom half a decade ago, but judging by their subsequent performance it was likely due to luck more than anything else. Their existing investment portfolio is full of unrealized losses in failed ventures:

 

With a whopping 378 investments, this company is a functional proxy for the TSX Venture exchange index.  And as investors might know, the Venture exchange has taken a serious beating over the past year, especially as most gold ventures have cratered (the TSX Venture is down 24% year to date, while you can see Pinetree capital’s portfolio is down about 45% in a year where there is a raging bull market in practically everything else than what Pinetree is invested in).

It is kind of amazing to see the $494 million unrealized loss row on the financial statements as this type of prowess in investment picking should be carefully harvested in a hedge fund designed to mirror 180 degrees exactly whatever the Pinetree investment committee chooses to engage in.  Investors would have made a fortune.

On the balance sheet side, the asset portfolio is primarily capitalized with $388 million equity from generous investors and the usage of convertible debentures (TSX: PNP.DB) of which $61 million is currently outstanding.  Strictly in terms of assets and liabilities, the debentures are the only major liabilities on the book and they are currently the only debt on the books (aside from some broker margin loans that arise from time to time):

 

There are a couple comments I will make on asset quality (or lack thereof):

1) Fortunately, most of them ($124 million) are level 1 assets, which means that there is some external methodology (market quotations) that can be attributable to how management values them.  The level  2 and 3 assets I would mentally write off.  Even the level 1 assets will likely have questionable amounts of liquidity (given that the history of the corporation is to purchase minority stakes in various junk firms) and should be mentally discounted for this reason.

 

2) The company is likely to exclude the $23 million in deferred tax assets when they release their year-end audited report as it will be a very, very long time before they’ll be able to use it all.  In fact, one of the likely liquidation scenarios for the entire firm is to sell the whole thing to somebody that knows what they are doing, and will recapitalize the firm and utilize all the capital losses the company will be booking – indeed, if you journal the half billion in losses, the company does have about $65-70 million in a reasonable capital tax shield to a potential acquirer.

This tax asset does have hidden value, but you have to get by the fact that management has a heavy severance penalty.

So when doing some mental adjustments on these assets (eliminating the deferred tax asset, eliminate level 2 and level 3 assets, and taking a 20% haircut off the level 1 assets) you have about $100 million, offset by about $61 million in convertible debentures.  The residual $39 million is reasonably close to the current market cap of the company ($42 million at present).

Management is entrenched in the company and they make a pretty profit from simply being there.  I will let this chart speak for itself:

 

Suffice to say, pulling a cool million a year out of this train wreck is rivaling what Robert Mugabe has done to Zaire Zimbabwe over the past few decades.

So what is the thesis on this train wreck? The answer is in the debentures.  They are trading at around 2/3rds of par value for obvious reasons – they mature in May 2016 and investors are wondering whether the level 1 assets are going to have any hope of recovery or not.  That said, there was a covenant in the debentures that required the company’s liability to asset ratio to not be greater than 33%, which they breached earlier this year (mainly due to losses on their investment portfolio).  They had to arrange a special meeting to obtain a partial cure (where the liability to asset ratio would be 50%) for 9 months, and endeavour to buy back some debentures and raise a little more equity capital on a best efforts basis.  They were able to obtain this by giving out a 6% sweetener and increasing the coupon from 8% to 10%, effective at the end of this month.

If the company didn’t broker this deal, debenture holders could have foreclosed on the entire firm and then there would be a firesale to make the debtholders whole.  Indeed, the salaries of top management could be used to pay for bankruptcy trustees.

In addition, the following terms and conditions were agreed upon:

 

 

It is clear that there is some large holder out there of the debenture that is dictating terms to the company.  Notwithstanding the external pressures being applied by the major debenture holder, management still has firm control of the company and it is clear that nobody rational would ever want to own the common shares of the business.

Management has a clear incentive to seeing that this train wreck continues as long as possible – it is a million dollar per year vehicle to extract capital out of unwitting investors and this incentive should make it possible for them to get rid of the pesky debenture holders by just selling enough assets and getting rid of them.

Of course, the scenario of destruction is that management will continue to bleed away their asset base.  At the rate they have been going, they will hit zero at 2014.  I think the value of the gravy train is more of a powerful force for management than trying to screw over debtholders, however.

The debentures can be redeemed at maturity for shares of common stock at 95% of the market value at a pre-defined time before maturity.  This is the ultimate nuclear button for management, but it would virtually ensure they would lose control of the firm at this point.

There is the additional catalyst of the 9 month deadline for the company to once again be compliant with the 33% liability-to-asset ceiling.  This is June 12, 2014.  By then, the company should have bought back $20 million in debentures and raised $5 million in equity.

The risk/reward dynamic here is obvious – if the Venture index does not plummet any further, debtholders should come out whole and also receive some very healthy-sized coupon payments along the way as compensation for holding onto the train wreck.  The risk is the aforementioned market risk with the index-like exposure the company has to the penny stock market.

Anyhow, I took a position in this early July before some other insightful writer identified this opportunity and it became public on Seeking Alpha.  It received a temporary boost-up in value then, but it has recently sunk to values that made me want to write about this in case if somebody wanted to hold their nose and purchase some of this stinker – the debentures, not the equity.

Interactive Brokers / Options / Probabilities

Interactive Brokers (Nasdaq: IBKR) is the best brokerage out there that is available to the retail level. They give me a degree of comfort that simply doesn’t exist in any other brokerage firm that I have dealt with. One of the reasons for their superiority is their founder, Thomas Peterffy, continues to push the innovation curve in such a manner that makes the firm cutting-edge.

The company is publicly traded and has been on an unsual uptrend over the past few months:

ibkr

The only reason why I have never put money in them is because the publicly traded entity is essentially a minority slice (12.4%) of the “true” asset and this creates all sorts of perversions of incentives that are not necessarily in shareholders’ best interests. It is a classic case of the underlying business being fantastic but the stock not necessarily being a good investment.

Anyhow, they have a tool that is relatively easy to utilize that highlights potential option strategies given the differences between the market’s implicit probability distribution and your own personal expectation of outcomes. Although I do not trade options very often (indeed, it is very rare that I do so simply because trading options is quite costly in terms of spread), this tool and this explanation is quite intuitive. If you do not understand how options are priced, this is a pretty good tutorial that avoids math.

Clearly understanding the math helps and I would highly recommend people learn some option pricing theory before considering trading them. Putting it mildly, options are a fantastic way of losing money if you don’t know exactly what you are doing. Options also appeal to gambler-types that love seeing huge rewards in total disproportion to the amount risked.

Petrobakken / Lightstream

It has been some time since I’ve written about Petrobakken (prior slew of articles here), now renamed Lightstream Resources (TSX: LTS).

Pretty much the trajectory to its share price was what I was more or less expecting, simply because investors would come to the realization that capital expenditures are indeed expenses that are incurred today, as opposed to over some mythical amortization curve:

lts.to

A few weeks ago the company announced its targeted production rates, but finally started introducing language concerning the leveling off of its production. The language used in the release was quite creative:

As our resource play assets mature and our base decline rates gradually reduce, we continue to work towards levelling out our production profile and increasing our annual average production levels on a year over year basis. As we enter the fourth quarter, we are on target to exceed the lower end of our forecasted 8% to 12% annual average production growth (46,000 to 48,000 boepd) and we continue to target exit production in excess of 47,000 boepd. By addressing facility challenges and executing the remaining components of our 2013 capital program, we believe these achievements will be met within our capital budget of $700 to $725 million.

We are currently finalizing our operational and financial plans for next year and remain committed to improving our sustainability ratio (cash outflows compared to cash inflows), lowering our debt to cash flow ratio and improving our liquidity through the many options available to us, which include, but are not limited to, modulating capital expenditures, selling assets, terming-out debt, altering our dividend program or issuing equity. Over the long-term, we continue to target a sustainability ratio of 100% and a debt to cash flow ratio of 2.0 or less. We plan to announce further details with respect to these options when we release our 2014 guidance later in the fourth quarter of 2013.

I love the use of the word “modulating” instead of what it really is – a reduction. Once the production curve is levelled, the financial game is finally over – there is a very clear indication how much money is required to maintain stable production. And investors figured out some time ago that it is quite expensive to do so for what they are purchasing.

So when we look at the debt side of the balance sheet, both the banks and the bondholders are wondering how they’re getting their $2.1 billion back. The bondholders have to wait until 2020, but the banks will extract their pound of flesh in 2016 unless if the company gets serious in reducing its cash burn profile.

There is only one way this is going to occur – a reduction in dividends. They tried doing this stealthily by introducing a stock component to the dividend, but this will only further increase the erosion of the value of equity holders in the company. The lion’s share of cash will be going to debtholders in the future. That said, there is some value in the equity, but just not what it is currently trading for.

Genworth MI Q3-2013 report

Genworth MI (TSX: MIC) reported their third quarter earnings report yesterday evening. The highlights are not too dissimilar from their second quarter report (which I wrote about in an prior post) with the prevailing trends continuing:

– Year to year, gross/net premiums written continue to track lower this year than the previous, by about 12%, solely due to government regulatory changes. For the 9 months, premiums written were $382 million vs. recognized revenues of $430 million, so premium recognition at this rate should drop proportionately going forward.
– Loss ratios, and subsequently losses on claims, are the lowest they have been for a very, very long time. The loss ratio is 22% and this is incredibly low.
– The share buyback, as I reported earlier in the preview, brings down the shares outstanding to about 95.1 million. I very much doubt they will continue buying back shares at existing prices.

Also, while not directly relevant, they increased the dividend from 32 cents to 35 cents – historically they have increased the dividend by 3 cents each year. Cash-wise, the company has paid back $199 million to investors in the first nine months of the year and generated about $250 million through operations.

Portfolio-wise, they continue maintaining a bond portfolio – $5.06 billion, yielding roughly 3.7% at 3.8 years duration, and $219 million in dividend-yielding equity.

Business-wise, they’re clearly in a sweet spot where relatively few are defaulting on their mortgages and they continue to make a lot of money on insurance premiums. They also have a valuable vested interest in keeping the duopoly situation – the Government of Canada is the other player in the market via CMHC and they will obviously not want to pop the balloon which keeps them solvent as well. The question is whether this will continue and at least in the short term, it will. Market momentum might take this company higher than what its valuation on paper seems to be, which currently looks like what it is trading for presently. If we start seeing significant premiums over book value then I might consider paring back some of the position, but I am not in a rush to do so right now – even though due to appreciation this is starting to be quite a concentrated position.

Fairfax Chart and Blackberry

Normally when a corporation is buying out another entity (especially at a premium), the market’s instinctive reaction is to jettison the shares of the purchaser.

Fairfax’s slow attempt to take Blackberry out has a rather odd effect: Fairfax’s common share price has skyrocketed (at least relative to its historical trading patterns, which has been relatively boring):

ffh

There is a deep insider’s game being played with Blackberry and some of this information leaks into Fairfax’s stock price. Maybe I’m reading too much into this (realizing that Fairfax’s 10% stake in Blackberry is only about 5% of Fairfax’s market cap).

My hunch:

1. The terms of the deal were materially struck on October 25th and will likely be announced on November 4th in absence of any other deals;
2. Facebook getting into the scene is priced in as a negative (i.e. potential to pay more, hence worse for Fairfax).
3. The market believes Fairfax is getting a good deal.

Zuckerberg at Facebook is not an idiot and realizes that his $120 billion market cap is not going to last forever and the company needs to branch out. Similar to what Steve Case did with AOL and Time Warner, there is an interesting business case of just sheer diversification of doing an all-stock deal for Blackberry at some double-digit per share price – Facebook stock is now expensive currency and why not do a late 1990’s internet stock type move and purchase something tangible?

Its a low probability outcome, but right now capital is cheap and the market is giving the titans lots of currency to play with.