Tag: TECK

Teck’s coal spinoff (Elk Valley Resources)

Many smart people have already written about this, and many smart people have traded this. I won’t repeat their analysis.

The key point was this line in the conference call:

Concurrent with the separation, we announced agreements with two of our steelmaking coal joint venture partners and major customers to exchange their minority interest in the Elkview and Greenhills operations or interest in EVR. Notably, Nippon Steels $1 billion cash investment implies an $11.5 billion enterprise value for our steelmaking coal assets.

Given the amount of cash the EVR spinoff is producing at current met coal prices, the EV that they gave the equity stake to is low, which is probably why they got the minority shareholders to subscribe to EVR.

I surmised in my previous post:

What you also do to complete the financial wizardry is that you load the coal operation with debt, say around $10 billion. Give it to the parent company as a dividend, or perhaps give it to shareholders as a dividend in addition to the spun-off equity and the projected return on equity will skyrocket (until the met coal commodity price goes into the tank, just like what happened two seconds after Teck closed on the Fording Coal acquisition before the economic crisis).

It turned out my $10 billion dollar figure was nearly correct, but in the form of a 60% royalty on the first $7 billion of cash, coupled with $4 billion in 6.5% mandatorily redeemable preferred shares. Instead of doing a straight debt deal, this all just goes into Teck’s bank account.

The length of the payout period depends on met coal pricing being sufficiently high – something that I don’t think can be depended on for the majority of the rest of the decade.

Quite frankly, I think they screwed it up and hence the market reaction.

Since Teck is likely to make huge positive cash flows coming forward with their copper operations, they did not need to do a cash grab on the coal operation. If the spinoff was a simple one, I think much more market value would have been assigned to the joint entities.

Also, not being given enough attention is the give-away to the Class A shareholders. This is a very rare situation where you have a dual class structure and the voting shares get a huge payoff. (Looking at Rogers’ stock here!). I will be voting against this arrangement.

A few small observations

A mixed post.

Where I was mistaken

I made a claim earlier that I thought employment around January or February of this year would be shown to decline, presumably due to a slowdown in demand and companies cutting costs. Unless if you were one of the victims of a big tech company’s layoff, wow, was I ever wrong with this! Gross employment trends continue to exhibit strength, consistent with anecdotal reports of employers finding it difficult to source labour.

So where was I wrong here? Is there a demographic issue? Are companies out there finding additional vectors of demand to necessitate employment? Or am I just premature with my prognostication? I’m not sure.

There are some hints on the Fiscal Monitor – income tax collections and GST collections are up over comparative periods last year, and especially corporate income taxes. The government is likely to report an improved fiscal balance as well. This leads me to the second issue, which is…

The progression of QT

Members of Payments Canada (a.k.a. financial institutions parking reserves at the Bank of Canada and earning the short-term rate) continues to hover at the $190 billion level. The recent slab of government debt maturing off of the Bank of Canada’s balance sheet got directly subtracted from the Government of Canada’s bank account at the Bank of Canada, but the GoC is still sitting with $65 billion cash as of February 15, 2023.

What does this mean? The presumed pressure on liquidity is not happening – yet. Banks can still lend out capital, but you have to have an awfully good proposition since they’re not going to give it to you for cheap interest rates. Why should they lend it out to you at 6% when they can keep it perfectly safe at the Bank of Canada and skim their 4.5%?

While there’s liquidity, it’s definitely a lot more expensive. When you combine what I wrote about employment above, coupled with real estate finding its two legs again (helps that there is zero supply in the market), makes me think that the Bank of Canada was incredibly premature to call a pause on rates – March 8th they’ll be guaranteed to stand pat, but perhaps we might continue to see rate increases if CPI doesn’t drop quickly enough in the next couple months. Also, the US-Canada currency differential is also going to widen as the US Fed will be raising rates for longer.

A public market investor at this point is facing a crisis of sorts. Asset prices (unless if you owned garbage technology companies) haven’t deflated that much, so what is trading out there is really not the greatest competition for the risk-free rate. You have cash.to giving off a net 4.89%, and when you look at some average 20 P/E company, one has to ask yourself why you should be bothering to take the comparative risk. Just look at the debenture spreadsheet and the spreads over risk-free rates is minimal.

Commodities

In the middle of 2020, the trade was a no-brainer. Ever since then, it has become less and lesser so, to the point today where it is no longer about throwing capital into random companies and winning no matter what – discretion has been critical from about June of last year. The meltdown in the natural gas market is one example of where an investor could have turned into roadkill, especially with leverage. In general, you can lose less money by investing in low cost structure companies, ideally with as low debt as possible. The problem is if you have a whole bunch of industry participants in a good balance sheet situation – the race for the bottom becomes brutal since they can mostly survive low commodity price environments until some finally do get eliminated due to high cost structures and/or high debt service ratios.

Teck

They explicitly had to disclose they’re looking into strategic options for their met coal unit, which would be a cash machine of a spinoff if they went down that route. Seaborne met coal has rebounded as of late and it would be really interesting to see the price to cash flow ratio assigned to a pure met coal unit. A comparable would be Arch Resources, and they are trading at 4x 2023 earnings. Teck does have considerable competitive advantages, however – better access to the Pacific and a lower cost structure, in addition to being able to pump out more coal. Stripping out the coal business would leave the copper and zinc business in core Teck, and the residual copper business might get a 20x valuation (looking at Freeport McMoran as the comparable here). When you do the math on both sides of the business (especially as Teck’s QB2 project is ramping up this year and will produce gushing cash flows at US$4 copper), the combined entity would be worth well more than $30 billion today. So with a little bit of financial engineering, Teck can generate market value from nothing.

Let’s look at the first 9 months of the year (which is abnormally high for met coal, but just to play along).

I have (for met coal) their gross profit minus capital expenditures, minus taxes, at around $4.5 billion annualized. Give that a 4x multiple and you have $18 billion. On copper, with QB2 at full swing, it should be (very) roughly $1.5 billion total for their consolidated copper operations and at 20x you get $30 billion. Add that together and it’s well over the existing market cap.

What you also do to complete the financial wizardry is that you load the coal operation with debt, say around $10 billion. Give it to the parent company as a dividend, or perhaps give it to shareholders as a dividend in addition to the spun-off equity and the projected return on equity will skyrocket (until the met coal commodity price goes into the tank, just like what happened two seconds after Teck closed on the Fording Coal acquisition before the economic crisis).

Despite the above calculation, I’ve been taking a few chips off the table. My overall position has continued to be of increasing caution, one reason being that I don’t have a very firm footing on what is going on.

A few miscellaneous observations

The quarterly earnings cycle is behind us. Here are some quick notes:

1. There is a lot more stress in the exchange-traded debenture market. Many more companies (ones which had dubious histories to start with) are trading well below par value. I’ve also noticed a lack of new issues over the past six months (compared to the previous 12 months) and issues that are approaching imminent maturity are not getting rolled over – clearly unsecured credit in this domain is tightening. There’s a few entities on the list which clearly are on the “anytime expect the CCAA announcement” list.

Despite this increasing stress in the exchange traded debenture space, when carefully examining the list, I do not find anything too compelling at present.

2. Commodity-land is no longer a one-way trade, or perhaps “costs matter”. I look at companies like Pipestone Energy (TSX: PIPE) and how they got hammered 20% after their quarterly release. Also many gold mining companies are having huge struggles with keeping capital costs under control. Even majors like Teck are having over-runs on their developments, but this especially affects junior companies that have significantly less pools of financial resources to work with (e.g. Copper Mountain).

3. This is why smaller capitalization commodity companies are disproportionately risky at this point in the market cycle – we are well beyond the point where throwing money at the entire space will yield returns. As a result, larger, established players are likely the sweet spot on the efficient frontier for capital and I am positioned accordingly. I note that Cenovus (TSX: CVE) appears to have a very well regulated capital return policy, namely that I noticed that they suspended their share buybacks above CAD$25/share. The cash they do not spend on the buyback will get dumped to shareholders in the form of a variable dividend. While they did not explicitly state that CAD$25 is their price threshold, it is very apparent to me their buyback is price-sensitive. This is great capital management as most managements I see, when they perform share buybacks, are price insensitive!

4. Last week on Thursday, the Nasdaq had a huge up-day, going up about 7.3% for the day. The amount of negative sentiment baked into the market over the past couple months has been extreme, and it should be noted that upward volatility in bear markets can be extreme. This is quite common – the process is almost ecological in nature to flush out negative sentiment in the market – stress gets added on to put buyers and short sellers and their conviction is tested. Simply put, when the sentiment supports one side of a trade, it creates a vacuum on the other side and when there is a trigger point, it is like the water coming out of a dam that has burst and last Thursday resembled one of these days. In the short-term it will look like that the markets are recovering and we are entering into some sort of trading range, but always keep in mind that the overall monetary policy environment is not supportive and continues to be like a vice that tightens harder and harder on asset values – and demands a relatively higher return on capital.

I suspect we are nowhere close to being finished to this liquidity purge and hence remain very cautiously positioned. My previous posting about how to survive a high interest rate environment is still salient.

Can Teck unload their met coal operation?

Teck (TSX: TECK.A/B) had some interesting news yesterday – they dumped their 21% interest in the Fort Hills oil sands project for $1 billion to Suncor (the majority owner and operator), and they also released their quarterly report.

The Fort Hills project was the black sheep of Teck, primarily because it goes against their “wokeist” image they are trying to project and is clearly not in their strategic mandate to be a lead producer of “low carbon metals” (aren’t all metals non-carbon?). Once the Frontier Oil Sands project was shelved, pretty much the days were numbered for the Fort Hills division.

For Q3, Teck’s share of the project was 37,736 barrels of oil a day, and the consolidated project is 180,000 barrels – not a trivial size.

The project historically has been plagued by operational issues and, in my quick evaluation, the deal is good for both Teck (who wanted to get out) and Suncor (who is likely to consolidate 100% of the project in the near future). The Frontier project might get revived in a future decade when regulatory concerns get alleviated, but I would not hold your breath.

Of note is that both companies (Teck and Suncor) will be taking non-cash accounting losses on the disposition – in Teck’s case, the amount of capital dumped onto the project is less than the amount that they were able to get back from it with this disposition. The impairment charge on the books was $952 million. The conference call transcript indicated there was a ‘small capital loss’ on the transaction.

Teck’s major project in the works is the QB2 copper mine in Chile. One reason why their stock had a tepid response to the quarterly report is because of the usual announcements of delays and construction cost escalation, coupled with a decreased expectation for production in 2023. However, this is yet another sign that one cannot click a few buttons on Amazon and expect a mine to start producing – the scale and scope of these projects is gigantic and this one has taken about 5 years to get going from the “go-ahead” decision to when things will be materially completed. If this decision was pursued today, the costs would likely be even higher (not to mention the regulatory climate would be even worse than it is today).

QB2 is the example of their “low carbon metals” strategy, where apparently they can be dug up from the ground without emitting carbon, but I digress. The “to-go” capital expenditure on QB2 is anticipated to be US$1.5-$1.9 billion from October 1, and once this is completed, Teck will be a free cash flow machine barring some sort of total collapse in the copper market (beyond the 30% drop from half a year ago).

The balance sheet is very well positioned, with $2.6 billion in cash and no major debt maturities until 2030 other than a US$108 million bond due February 2023, which they can easily pay off. As a result, Teck will be in a position to either buy back stock or issue increased dividends later in 2023.

But the focus of this post isn’t about QB2 or Teck’s future prospects, it is about their metallurgical coal operation.

Their met coal operation generated $1.24 billion in gross profits in Q3, and $5.55 billion year-to-date. It is single-handedly the reason why Teck is in such a fortunate financial position to be able to dither on QB2 and not get terribly concerned about it.

However, it flies in the face of their “low carbon metals” strategy and this reminds me of last year’s article which rumoured that Teck was looking at getting rid of, or spinning off their met coal operation.

My question is still the same – who would buy this? It is making so much money that even if you paid 2x annualized gross profits (an incredibly generous low multiple), somebody would still need to cough up $15 billion to buy the operation. This puts pretty much every coal operator out there except for the super-majors (like Glencore) out of the picture.

However, if Teck were to dispose of the coal unit, it would likely be in conjunction with a significant distribution to shareholders – a $15 billion sale would result in roughly a $22/share distribution, assuming a 25% tax rate (the actual tax paid will likely be less since Teck’s cost basis will be considerably higher from the Fording Coal acquisition). At a zero-tax rate, that would be roughly $29/share.

However, a giveaway is the non-answer during the conference call:

Orest Wowkodaw
Analyst, Scotia Capital, Inc.
Hi. Thank you. Jonathan, your number two priority seems to be rebalancing the portfolio to low carbon metals. I’m wondering if that if your strategy there is solely around growing the copper business and i.e. diluting the coal business, or do you see the potential for accelerating that transformation perhaps by either divesting some of the coal business?

Jonathan Price
Chief Executive Officer & Director, Teck Resources Limited
Yeah. Hi, Orest, and thanks for the question. There’s a number of approaches that we’ve been taking to that. The first as you’ve seen overnight is the announced divestments of Fort Hills. Clearly oil sands carbon, an opportunity there to reduce weight in the portfolio through that divestment, something we’re very pleased to have agreed and have gotten away.

Secondly, as you highlight really the key approach for us is the growth around copper with the doubling of copper production as we bring QB2 online next year. And then with the projects I mentioned being new range being San Nicolás being the QB mill expansion all bring more copper units into the portfolio which further swing us towards green metals and away from carbon. As we’ve said before, we’ll always remain very active and thoughtful in reviewing the shape of the portfolio and the composition of our portfolio. But right now those factors I’ve mentioned are the key execution priorities and that’s what the team is focused on. And that’s what we’re gearing up to deliver.

I’m pretty sure reading between the lines that they are, at the minimum, thinking of doing this. But who in their right mind would buy such an operation in a very hostile jurisdiction?

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.