Author Archives: Scalper1

The AES’ (AES) CEO Andres Gluski on Q3 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

The AES Corporation (NYSE: AES ) Q3 2015 Earnings Conference Call November 05, 2015 09:00 AM ET Executives Ahmed Pasha – Vice President-Investor Relations Andres Gluski – President and Chief Executive Officer Tom OFlynn – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Analysts Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Ali Agha – SunTrust Keith Stanley – Wolfe Research Stephen Byrd – Morgan Stanley Gregg Orrill – Barclays Chris Turnure – JP Morgan Brian Chin – Merrill Lynch Operator Good morning. My name is Lori and I will be a conference operator today. At this time I would like to welcome everyone to the AES Corporation Q3 2015 Financial Review Call. [Operator instructions] Ahmed Pasha, you may begin your conference. Ahmed Pasha Thank you, Lori. Good morning and welcome to our third quarter 2015 earnings call. Our earnings release presentation and related financial information are available on our website at aes.com. Today we will be making forward-looking statements during the call. There are many factors that may cause future results to differ materially from these statements. Please refer to our SEC filings for a discussion of these factors. Joining me this morning are Andres Gluski, our President and Chief Executive Officer; Tom O’Flynn, our Chief Financial Officer; and other senior members of our management team. With that I will now turn the call over to Andres. Andres Gluski Good morning everyone and thank you for joining our third quarter 2015 earnings call. Since our last call, the global macroeconomic environment has continued to weaken, and we have seen a further drop in foreign exchange rates, commodity prices and economic growth in some of our markets. As you may have seen in our press release, these conditions are reducing our earnings outlook. Despite these challenges, we are taking measures to reduce their impact and will continue to generate strong and growing free cash flow, which we will use to maximize risk-adjusted shareholder returns. Today I will discuss the impact of these macroeconomic factors on our outlook, our mitigation plan and our capital allocation strategy. Then Tom will provide our third quarter results, an update on our 2015 guidance and our capital allocation plans for 2015 and 2016. Beginning with macroeconomic factors I just mentioned, the majority of the decline in our earnings forecast is related to currencies and commodities moving against us as well as the deteriorating economic outlook in Brazil. As you may know, some of our businesses, particularly in Brazil, Colombia and Europe, have been impacted by devaluations of up to 35% in their local currencies. Furthermore, lower oil and electricity prices have a direct impact on our businesses in the Dominican Republic, DP&L and Kilroot. To mitigate the impact of these factors we are launching a $150 million cost reduction and a revenue enhancement initiative. This initiative will include overhead reductions, procurement efficiencies and operational improvements. We expect to achieve a least $50 million in savings in 2016, ramping up to $150 million including modest revenue enhancements in 2018. These bottom line improvements are on top of the $200 million of overhead cost reductions and the $170 million of productivity enhancements we have initiated since 2012. I will discuss these drivers in more detail in a few minutes. Turning to Slide 4. And our expectations for cash flow growth through 2018. Despite being affected by the macroeconomic pressures that I just discussed, our free cash flow remains strong. We are expecting average annual growth in proportional and parent free cash flow of at least 10%. Specifically, in 2016, we expect to generate roughly $1.3 billion of proportional free cash flow which translates to $0.90 per share. We also expect to generate about $625 million in parent free cash flow in 2016, which is 20% higher than our 2015 guidance. Our focus on approving sustainable cash to the parent through more efficient use of cash at our subsidiaries has helped us reduce the impact of macroeconomic headwinds on our parent free cash flow. As you may recall, parent free cash flow is the basis for dividend and capital allocation decisions. Turning to Slide 5, we believe proportional free cash flow is the most important valuation metric for AES as it represents the cash generated at our businesses that can be distributed to the parent or utilized locally to delever or fund growth. Proportional free cash flow is essentially operating cash flow minus maintenance CapEx adjusted for our ownership. In 2016, we expect to generate $1.3 billion in proportional free cash flow. Of this approximately 40% or $500 million is expected to be used to pay down nonrecourse debt at our subsidiaries, which generates equity volume and roughly 15% or $175 million may be retained by our subsidiaries due to timing or other reasons. That leaves us with $625 million of parent free cash flow, which is available for discretionary uses at Corp. Turning now to Slide 6, as a reminder, the projected growth in our cash flow is driven by our projects currently under construction which remain on budget and are expected to come online through 2018. All but $160 million of our $1.1 billion in equity requirements for these projects has already been funded. And we continue to expect average cash returns of around 15%. Turning now to our adjusted EPS guidance beginning on slide 7. In 2016, the impact from microeconomic factors is roughly $0.25. The most significant drivers of our revised guidance are first, the deterioration in the forward curves for commodities and currencies from December 2014 to October 2015 accounts for more than half of the impact, or $0.15, in line with the sensitivities that we provided. Second, we are seeing another $0.05 from more demand in higher interest rates in Brazil, primarily at our utility in Rio Grande do Sul, which has also experienced catastrophic flooding in October. Previously we had been expecting demand growth of 2.5% for Brazil, but we have seen a 5% drop in demand in 2015, and expect no recovery in 2016. Third, there is an additional $0.04 impact from regulatory changes at El Nino. The regulatory changes affect capacity prices in the United Kingdom and ancillary services in the Dominican Republic. Although hydrology, in Latin America has improved, we are still expecting El Nino to have a slight negative impact on our businesses in Brazil and Panama. And finally, we expect offset $0.05 of these headwinds through our new cost savings initiatives. Taking all these factors into account, our 2016 adjusted EPS guidance range is $0.05 to $0.15. Turning now to slide 8, which show our updated outlook for adjusted EPS growth through 2018. Although the net impact on our 2016 adjusted EPS guidance is approximately $0.20, our cost savings and other initiatives will reduce the net decrease to about $0.06 per share by 2018, which keeps us within the low end of our previous 2018 expectations. Now on to capital allocations beginning on Slide 9. When we laid out our strategy four years ago, we identified specific levers to improve total shareholder returns, reduce risk and simplify the portfolio. By completing timely exits from 10 countries and netting $3 billion from our asset sales, our portfolio is in a much stronger position today than it was four years ago. Over this period, we have allocated 80% of our $5 billion in discretionary cash to debt pay down and return to shareholders. This has resulted in a 23% reduction in parent debt and a 14% reduction in share count. In fact, as you can see on slide 10, since 2012, we have turned $2 billion to shareholders through share repurchases and dividends including $700 million or 9% of our current market cap in 2015. Turning to Slide 11, going forward, after debt pay down at our subsidiaries, we expect to have a total of $2.6 billion in discretionary cash available through 2018, which is roughly one-third of our current market cap. After shareholder dividends and investments in projects under construction, we will have $1.3 billion available for other discretionary uses. These include targeting 10% annual dividend growth, continuing to deliver in order to improve our credit metrics and reduce cash and earnings volatility and opportunistically utilizing our new Ford authorization for $400 million in share repurchases. And finally, while we are still seeing a number of attractive growth opportunities, mainly in brownfield projects across the portfolio, the benchmarks for new investments has been raised. We are focused on completing those projects under construction as well as the South Line repowering and LNG-related facilities in Panama. We will continue to compete any potential investments against the other capital allocation alternatives I just discussed. I would also like to point out that the $1.3 billion in discretionary cash I outlined does not include up to $1 billion in potential asset sale proceeds through 2018. As we allocate capital among these alternatives, we will look to further reduce risk and enhance returns as we continue to fine-tune our portfolio. We expect to strengthen our credit profile over time as we pay down debt, complete our construction projects and grow our cash flow. These actions will improve the stability of our cash flow and earnings. The bottom line is our portfolio generates strong and growing free cash flow, which we will use to maximize risk-adjusted returns for our shareholders. With that, I will turn the call over to Tom to discuss our third-quarter and year-to-date results and full-year 2015 guidance. Tom OFlynn Thanks Andres, good morning everyone. Today, I’ll review our third quarter results, including proportional free cash flow by Strategic Business Unit or SBU, adjusted EPS, adjusted pretax contribution or PTC by SBU. Then, I will cover our 2015 guidance as well as our 2015 and 2016 capital allocation plans. Turning to Slide 13, third quarter adjusted EPS of $0.39 is $0.02 higher than third quarter 2014. At a high level, we benefited from a reduction in share count of 6% or $43 million shares and lowered parent interest expense as well as higher equity earnings as a result of a restructuring of one of our businesses in Chile, which we discussed on our Q1 call. These positive contributions were partially offset by lower operating results at some of our businesses such as DPL and in the Dominican Republic, which were negative year-over-year but not material versus our full-year expectations. Through roughly 35% to the valuation in foreign currencies, particularly the Brazilian real and Colombian peso. Turning to Slide 14, overall, we generated $621 million proportional free cash flow, an increase of $194 million from last year and we earned $322 million in adjusted PTC during the quarter, a decrease of $32 million. Now we will cover our SBUs in more detail on the next six slides beginning on slide 15. In the U.S., our results were largely impacted by lower contributions from DTL, primarily due to the expected transition to market prices for our regulated load and lower margin volumes and prices. Proportional free cash flow was further impacted by lower collections and the timing of working capital at IPL. In Andes, our results improved primarily due to the gain on restructuring at Guacolda in Chile and higher energy prices at Chivor in Colombia, partially offset by the devaluation of the Colombian peso. Proportional free cash flow also benefited from increased VAT refunds related to the construction of Cochrane in Chile. In Brazil, we benefited from lower spot purchases due the seasonality and shaping of our contract requirement a Tiete, partially offset by a weaker Brazilian real. Proportional free cash flow was negatively impacted by increased working capital as a result of higher recoverable energy purchases at Eletropaulo. In MCAC our results were largely impacted by lower spot sales, financially service revenue in the Dominican Republic, partially offset by improved hydrology in Panama. Proportional free cash flow had very strong increase in the timing of collection of outstanding receivables in the Dominican Republic. In Europe, we were negatively impacted mainly due to a weaker euro and the timing of planned outages at Maritza in Bulgaria as well as the sale of the Abute in 2014. Proportional free cash flow improved largely driven by higher collections at Kavarna in Bulgaria. Finally, in Asia, we benefited from improved availability at Masinloc in the Philippines and the commencement of operations along at Mong Duong in Vietnam. Turning now to 2015 guidance, on Slide 21, based on year-to-date performance and outlook for the year, we are already at about 95% of the low end of our proportional free cash flow guidance and are confident that we will be in the range. One key variable that would put us toward the high end of the range is the receipt of the $330 million in outstanding receivables at Maritza in Bulgaria as part of the previously announced capacity price reduction agreement. Government-owned utility NEK and their holding company BEH are in the process of raising capital to pay these receivables. The remaining issue is the extent of government guarantee from bridge financing prior to the issuance of a long-term bond. While we expect to close later this year, payment could slip into early next year. Turning to adjusted EPS, as we have discussed in our prior calls, we have been facing significant headwinds of about $0.20 from currencies, commodities, hydrology and declining economic conditions in Brazil. We have offset the majority of these impacts with cost savings, hedging and capital allocation. Unfortunately, these same pressures have continued in the third quarter and we face an additional $0.07 impact. We have also faced a $0.02 impact from outages at DPL and AES Hawaii. We have been working to implement additional opportunities, but now believe they will be difficult to capture. We therefore are lowering our guidance range to a $0.18 to $0.25 per share, which is roughly $0.08 lower than the midpoint of our prior guidance of $0.25 to $0.35. Now to Slide 22, and our parent capital allocation plan for 2015. The sources on the left hand side reflect total available discretionary cash or roughly $0.5 billion. As a reminder, we previously announced asset sale proceeds from the sale of a portion of interest in Ipalco and Jordan as the sales of the Armenian mountain wind farm and our solar assets in Spain. Today we are also announcing the closing of the sale of our solar assets in Italy for $42 million, bringing our total asset sales proceeds this year to $401 million. We are also expecting an additional $27 million return of capital which, with our parent free cash flow, provides us with roughly $550 million available for dividend payments and growth incremental share repurchases, debt reduction and potential investments. Turning to uses on the right hand side, we plan to invest $140 million in our subsidiaries, which does not include direct investments by CDPQ into IPL. We have invested $345 million in prepayment and refinancing parent debt, leaving us with only $180 million in parent debt maturities through 2018. In addition to dividend, we have invested $423 million of our shares. This brings total cash returned to shareholders through buybacks and dividends to $700 million for the year. Finally, we expect to have unallocated discretionary cash of about $225 million for the rest of the year. Turning now to 2016, parent capital allocation on Slide 23, source on the left hand side reflect $1.2 billion of total available discretionary cash for 2016. This includes asset sale proceeds of approximately, $200 million, the majority of which is coming from one transaction that we expect to announce shortly. Discretionary cash also includes our parent free cash flow of $625 million, which is approximately 20% higher than the midpoint of this year’s expectation. Strong cash flow, the strong growth in our parent free cash flow demonstrates our increasing focus to upstream sustainable and growing cash from our businesses to further improved returns to our shareholders. In fact, parent free cash flow is the largest contributor to the expected $2.6 billion in discretionary cash available through 2018 that Andres just covered. We’re also expecting $70 million in returned capital from operating businesses. Additional potential asset sale proceeds could further increase our discretionary cash by up to $1billion through 2018. Turning to uses on the right-hand some of the slide. As Andres mentioned, we’ll be investing in our projects under construction as well as already announced expansion projects at Southland, California and in Panama. After considering these investments in our subs, our current dividend and debt prepayment, we’re left with roughly $400 million of discretionary cash to be allocated. Consistent with our capital allocation framework, we will invest this cash in dividend growth, further debt reduction, to continue to improve our debt profile and increase the stability of equity cash flows, and share repurchases. Regarding new growth investments, we will continue to compete any new projects against share repurchases. All in all, our 2016 parent free cash flow and proportional free cash flow are growing significantly over 2015. We expect this trend to continue through 2018 and beyond. With that now, I will now turn it back to Andres. Andres Gluski Thanks, Tom. In summary, we’re pulling all levers from cost reductions, to capital allocation to respond to the challenges presented by a generally weaker global economy. As a reminder, our 6 gigawatts of projects under construction are largely funded and are the driver of at least 10% average annual growth in proportional and parent free cash flow over the next three years. Looking forward, we do not believe that our strong and growing cash flow is fully reflected in our valuation. Over the next three years we will generate $2.6 billion in discretionary cash, an amount equal to one-third of our current market cap. As our track record demonstrates we will invest in dividend growth, debt paydown and share repurchases. In fact, in 2015 alone, we have returned $700 million or roughly 9% of our current market cap to our shareholders. With that I would now like to open up the call for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions] Your first question is from Julien Dumoulin-Smith of UBS. Your line is open. Julien Dumoulin-Smith Hi, good morning, can you hear me? Andres Gluski Yes. Good morning Julien, we can hear you fine. Julien Dumoulin-Smith Excellent. So perhaps just following up on the guidance instruction here. I just want be very clear. When you’re making the assumptions for 12% to 16% growth off this lower 2016 number, what exactly are you embedding by the time you get to 2018 in terms of FX and commodities? I just want to be abundantly clear about that. Andres Gluski Basically what we are using is those commodities and currencies that we have with a relatively liquid market, we’re using basically forward curves two years out. And then more or less a purchasing power parity thereafter. So we have considerable devaluations embedded into these forecasts. Julien Dumoulin-Smith And so then can you help articulate a little bit further the offsets? I know you just did a little bit just now, but can you elaborate a bit further exactly how you’re able to drive these potential mitigating factors? Andres Gluski So we’re talking about the $150 million initiative. We have already done a $200 million initiative which we started in 2012. Recalling a little bit, we had set out a $100 million program and we managed to get twice that number in savings. What we have in front of us for next year is $50 million and that will be 100% cost reductions. And these are things that we have identified in terms of becoming a more efficient company, streamlining our structure, streamlining processes and really making sure that every single dollar that we are spending is going towards meeting our objectives. So, for example, we have to make sure that we are not spending any money on any business development, for example, in deals that we’re not going to do over the next couple of years. I think we have this very well identified for 2016. When we think of 2017 and we start getting into some of the initiatives that we’ve had in the past the we’ve started and we’re well underway. We have churn of accounts now, we are really looking at our procurement efficiencies. We are starting to really achieve significant efficiencies on our new construction projects. So by standardization and by more global deals. We really think that we have to get this more into our global procurement as well. There will be continued streamlining of the company as well and this continues into 2018. The only thing in 2018, we see a small number, maybe 10% of this, 15% of this in terms of revenue enhancements, these are several things that we have identified. But one of them which we don’t have in our forecast is really having a channel partner to sell some of our advancing product. We think by then it’s reasonable to think that we’d have some income from this. So we feel very confident about hitting this $150 million. And, if you go back to our earnings call, we have always hit our cost savings and revenue enhancement numbers. Julien Dumoulin Got it. And then just following up on the impact from El Nino, you kind of alluded to it but can you define that a little bit more specifically across your portfolio. What exactly are you? Andres Gluski Well, not all El Ninos are the same. This is a particularly strong El Nino. So that, normally El Nino would be favorable to, us but in the very case of the very strong El Ninos, it tends to be a bit drier in Panama than a normal El Nino. And, if you look at Southern Brazil you tend to get more rains in the extreme Southeast and somewhat less rains in the Central South. So were taken those into perspective. Normally in Colombia it’s somewhat better but with a very strong El Nino it is a little bit more volatile. So that’s the net that we think it’s a little bit negative from these factors. One thing that hasn’t been perhaps highlighted is that we have had really torrential rains in Sewall, in Rio Grande do Sul. We’ve had the worst rains since 1940. We have had storms that just recently knocked out 14 transmission towers and left half of the 1 million customers without power. And so that’s one of the things, for example, that’s affecting our 2015 guidance. So it’s basically these factors. It is a little bit Brazil, a little bit Panama and we are not expecting because it’s a strong El Nino to have the full offset in the case of Chivor in Colombia. Julien Dumoulin Great. I’ll leave it there, thank you. Andres Gluski Thanks, Julien. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Ali Agha of SunTrust. And as a reminder please mute your computer speakers. Your line is open. Ali Agha Thank you, good morning. Andres Gluski Good morning. Tom OFlynn Good morning, Ali. Ali Agha Andres, first question, beyond the FX profile that you’re looking at through 2018. Can you remind us what are you assuming for Hydro levels, for example, in Brazil? Are you assuming back to normal in 2016, 2017 and 2018. Or what is your assumption on Hydro? Andres Gluski Yes, Ali. We are assuming normal hydrology in Brazil for 2017 and 2018. That is correct. We’re assuming an El Nino through the first half of 2016. Ali Agha Okay. Secondly, can you also remind us why is there this huge disconnect between your earnings profile that continues to come down and your cash flow profile that remains 10% or higher with a proportional parent level? Why is the cash flow not being more impacted by these macro impacts on your earnings? Andres Gluski Yes. One of it is arithmetic. It’s a bigger number, so if you have an x amount of decrease, say $100 million, it is going to impact the smaller number more. But I think to be frank, we had a little bit more margin in our cash flow. And realize that our cash flow, as we have always been saying, is going to be growing faster than our earnings. And the primary driver is we have $3.5 of NOLs, we have higher depreciation that we have maintenance CapEx. And we also have some of the accounting for lease accounting and HLBV et cetera tends to spread this out. So I think, those are the primary reasons. They have not changed. And we been saying for some time that the fundamental strength of this company is its cash flow. And, I think that we have seen that even with these negative external factors, we’re delivering on what we had laid out. Tom OFlynn I’ll just add on one point that Andres just mentioned on the differential between proportional depreciation and proportional maintenance on environmental CapEx. We do continue to bring our maintenance environmental CapEx down, but that differential this year is about $300 million. The differential widens as new plants come on, that differential widens by about $75 million a year, so call it $0.78, that’s keeping earnings down, but growing cash. Ali Agha Got it, got it. And then thirdly, a more bigger picture. You’re doing a great job of trying to come up with internal offsets to these macro headwinds. Have you stepped back and taken a look at this entire portfolio? I mean, is this model working? That the AES global model and does it have to make sense for you to perhaps relook at the fact that the sum of the bars may be greater than the whole in terms of maximizing shareholder value? Andres Gluski We always look at that. I mean, we have an open mind. We know that we’re working for our shareholders. We will look at anything that we think increases shareholder value. Having said that, in terms of our portfolio, we think we have the global scale that really allows us to reach economies and synergies. So, for example, if you look at recent bids recent bids, whether it be California or the gas plant in IPL, which had to basically complete with alternatives or the gas plant and regassification terminal in Panama, we’re winning bids against the best in the business. And we’re able to do that because of this global scale and reach that we have. I think we’ve also shown that the portfolio, in this case, is offsetting. It’s doing well in one place; it’s not doing well on the other. And we think we have good combination of rapidly growing markets in Asia. And Latin America is going through a downturn in the cycle but realize that, other than Brazil, these markets are growing whereas, for example, in the U.S. it is a market where energy demand is not growing. Having said that, we have further fine-tuning to do. We have to sell down those areas where we have particular risks that have been affecting us. We are growing in those areas. If you look at where our growth is, 80% is U.S., or it’s Chile or even if you include Panama, it’s dollar-denominated. So we’re decreasing our currency and hydro risk over time. So we will continue to do what we’ve done in terms of fine-tuning this portfolio, taking advantage of our synergies, making it more efficient, cutting costs, standardizing to become the good operator. We keep an open mind. I think that we have – when, for example were people discussing Yoto in the past, we said we would look at it. We didn’t see it really a fit for us and we also felt that that would commit us to growth in situations where the markets may not be good. So, having said that, we will keep an open mind, but I think we have shown a lot of prudence in terms of going forward. We continue to look hard at our portfolio, what makes sense as a whole. And, we think we are on the right track. We have been hit with some pretty hard exogenous factors. But as we fine-tune this portfolio, we’ll be less susceptible to them over time. Ali Agha Understood. And lastly, did I hear you right, you think you’ll have another $1 billion in sale proceeds potentially between now and 2018? Andres Gluski Yes, we said up to. We said up to and this involves not only selling out of some places, but it could also mean selling down on specific businesses where we think we have too much of some risk or that we can churn that cash and put it to better use somewhere else for our shareholders. Ali Agha Thank you. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Keith Stanley of Wolfe Research. As a reminder please mute your computer speakers. Your line is open. Keith Stanley Hi, good morning. Could I just go back to the previous question on the cash flow outlook versus the earnings outlook? There is such a disparity there. Earnings, I guess come down a couple times now, but you guys continue to be able to maintain the cash flow outlook. So first of all, is the Bulgaria, the receipt of the Bulgaria receivables, is that now in your 2016 proportional free cash flow number? Andres Gluski No, it is not. As Tom laid out, we still hit our range without it in 2015, but we’re not including it in 2016. Keith Stanley So it would be upside to 2016 when you receive that cash? Andres Gluski That is correct. Keith Stanley Okay. And then, can you just talk a little more about what is – I know you identified some of the things that are driving cash flow to be stronger. How much should we assume is coming from opportunities within the subsidiaries to pull cash out? For example, you had that U.S. hold sell this year; you pulled about $200 million out. Are there a lot of opportunities to work within capital structures of subs that is helping to find incoming cash flow? Andres Gluski I’m going to ask Tom to answer this. I think the one thing to realize is that we’re focusing more on cash and getting cash back to the parent and that’s really what we’re maximizing. Sometimes there will be lumpiness in this, but not always from the same place. And we are also – but this is sustainable, because they really represent earnings from those companies that have been over time. So while there may be some lumpiness and when you get a back, it is not like a one-time shot. These things are sustainable over time and they will get bigger. Realize that we have about $1.1 billion in construction projects. We have our equity in construction projects. We have to put in $160 million more. We have a lot of money that is not yet producing results. So, Tom, if you’d like to clarify his question. Tom OFlynn Keith, I just on proportional free cash flow, maintenance and environmental CapEx is coming down. Just a general sense, it was close to $600 million this year. Over the next couple years, it’s going to be closer to $500 million. Part of that is working hard with efficiencies, but also we did finish an enviro retrofit program at Chile that is basically finished at the end of 2015, so that helps us. And you then you contrast that with growing depreciation from new assets, so it’s the differential between maintenance and environmental CapEx versus earnings. It is about $300 million today, and that differential grows about $75 million a year. We’ve always said, we do have NOLs that hit EPS, don’t hit cash. And then just sometimes when you bring a new business on, especially a new project, the earnings can be leaner at the early years, but cash continues to be strong. On parent free cash flow, it is an increasing focus of the business and a has been for a couple years. But we continue to find ways to drive efficient use of cash through the business. It may come through inventories, they’ll be down about 15% year-over-year. Our unrestricted cash on the balance sheet will be down about $100 million a year and it is down about $300 million from a couple years ago So we continue to look for efficient ways to run the business. I will say that, when we talk about parent free cash flow, all that is earnings. It’s either earnings from this year or it’s retained earnings from a prior year. When we call it parent free cash flow, it has to be earnings, either this year’s or last year’s or whatever. When we do something like the Jennco financing, if it’s a reflection of prior retained earnings, then we will call it parent free cash flow. If it’s a reflection of cash beyond retained earnings, then we will call it returning capital, and that’s why we make that distinction. To the shareholder, it’s really all money. We make that distinction which is really accounting driven. But we do think there are continued opportunities. A lot of that is growing cash in the businesses. It’s a function of proportional free cash flow, but then there are also opportunities to get businesses that may have delevered over time; we can re-lever them periodically. Obviously you don’t do that every year; you do that every few years. And of the ways to look to up freeing cash, that is a big focus. I will just say on the comment of, we do pay down a fair amount of subsidiary debt. $450 million, $500 million a year of subsidiary debt, and a lot of that we give value for, but we get it, let’s say, in loss. We will get it because we’ll refi something at one point in time that allows to have a chunk of your dividend that year. We may get it from the opportunity to build something where we have created equity value in a business and you build something, basically all debt because your equity all is already embedded in the business. Were doing that right now in the DR. And then also, obviously, the extent that we delever a business, like DPL we’re delevering. So on an aggregate-value business, equity is a bigger part of ag value. Andres Gluski Just to serve some high numbers, we’re paying about a 4% dividend. We have about a 9% parent free cash flow yield and about a 17% proportional free cash flow yield. I think it is very important what Tom said about the net debt that we pay down at the subs. The vast majority of this in businesses that are ongoing businesses, whether it be, for example, DPL utility. The money we feel that we’re paying down there, we’re creating value. I do agree that if that which would be going for an out of the money older coal plant, that would not be necessarily creating future equity value. But that is very small of that total number. So most of it is going for ongoing businesses. And realize that, because we are in markets that are growing, those plants that we have that we’re paying down nonrecourse debt are likely to even be recontracted at the same or higher prices in many cases. We are in markets that are growing at 10%. This is a very dynamic than in the states where we basically have flat demand. Keith Stanley That’s all very helpful. Two quick follow-ups. Can you give an update on the Brazil GSF cap and any progress there? Tom, I think you talked about at Maritza, sort of the issue is the government guarantee of the bridge financing. Is there a material risk there in Maritza or are you still feeling very confident on getting this done? Tom OFlynn Yes, let me get those one at a time. There are discussions going on down in Brazil about compensation to the generators for the meaningful reduction in output GSF beyond listing their nameplate. This year it is going to be about 83% to 85% of GSF. Those discussions are ongoing. I think there are some offsets, some exchanges that have to be made to get some of that. And we are cautious, I would say about whether that will be really a value to us. We’re not baking any of that into our numbers is the important thing. The team is working hard. They are working with other folks down there in similar positions, but at this point we are cautious. And we are not baking any value, cash, earnings or anything else, into our outlook at this point in time. In Maritza, we continue to be positive about it. As you know, we do have a large receivable now of $330 million. Everyone is on board in terms of the banks. The issue, NEK is owned by a holding company called BEH. BEH does have public debt out there. I believe it trades around 5%, 5.5%, but they’ve gone out for proposals from some bank groups. There’s two or three large groups. The primary issue is whether the banks would do a bridge before public take-out that would basically be a parry passive with the current BEH outstanding. Whether the banks would get a sovereign guarantee for all or part of that net, that is the major discussion. Our team is obviously in the middle of this. There may be some other ways to work our way through it. We think ultimately this will be resolved. We do think given its – time is marching on here for 2015; it may be in 2016. That’s not a material issue for us at this point. As you asked Keith, we will be in the range for proportional free cash flow if Maritza’s resolution doesn’t happen this year. All be it, it will be in the lower end of the range. But we expect it to happen next year. And obviously, we would have a very large number for next year. The discount that would accrue, which is about $2 million or $3 million a month, does not kick in until we get paid. Keith Stanley Right. Andres Gluski I think one of the important things to mention is that the Bulgarian government is in the process of enacting the regulatory reforms and terra pro forms that will make NEK cash sustainable over the time. There are two parts, one we want to catch up as soon as possible. But equally important is to have the enactment of these reforms which will solve the problem on an ongoing basis. Keith Stanley Thank you. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Stephen Byrd of Morgan Stanley. [Operator Instructions] Your line is open. Stephen Byrd Hi, Good morning. Andres Gluski Good morning, Step. Stephen Byrd I wanted to follow up on the point about deleveraging down at the subsidiary level. As you look out at the different subsidiaries, is there a potential for releveraging increasing financing there such that over 2016 or beyond you could increase the cash flow to the parent beyond your expectations? Is there a meaningful potential for that as you look at over the next couple of years? Andres Gluski What I would say is we do have a number of under-levered assets in different markets. We’ve talked a lot about Chiete, over time, how to relever Chiete. I would say that it’s really going to depend on the development in those markets and what rates we can relever these businesses. One of these issues we’ve had in Brazil at Sul, is that the interest rates on that particular business, which was hit by the drought and the lag in tariff increases and therefore needed more cash as the interest rates on loans in Brazil are 18% to 19%. So we will be cautious about that. Realize that 95% plus of our subsidiary debt is in the functional currency of that business. So that means means, in places like Brazil, you have to go with floating rates to accomplish that. So we don’t have a currency mismatch. But, to answer your question, we do have those opportunities. Tom and the team have taken advantage of it. In many cases it’s to put that money to work on what we think are very attractive adjacency sort of Brownfield type projects. There are opportunities there, but we don’t feel at this time to put anything into our guidance. It’s an opportunity we have to see how some of these markets develop. Tom OFlynn Yes. Steve, I just said, I mean we do have. It’s a great point. We are continuing to work at that that. Parent free cash flow will be up next year about 20%. That is why we have lost margin in the businesses for the currencies and other things that we talk about. Part of that is a reflection of trying to do exactly as you say. Stephen Byrd Understood. I wanted to shift over to growth. You’ve been able to develop a number of hybrid term projects. When you look out at potential further growth out there in your targeted market, do you think it’s a fairly target rich environment or do you think you are more likely to move towards greater amounts of share buyback given where the stock is? Generally, how do you see the context for even further growth in the future? Andres Gluski Obviously, where our stock is trading at is a factor. That really raises the bar in terms of what the projects have to return. As you pointed out, we have had very attractive returns on our projects. A key factor of that is partners. By bringing in partners who pay us a management fee or a promote or buy into a project, that really raises return on our capital. In terms of a target-rich environment, we are going ahead with those that we see are extremely profitable short-term platform additions. Desal in Chile, as an example. We are going to complete our projects in Panama and Southland. But we are narrowing our scope because of the drop in our share price also, quite frankly, because of the decrease of cash flow of some of our subsidiaries, as a result of XF and commodities. I think we will continue to do what we’ve been doing. We will continue to strengthen our credit over time. We have allocated some paydown of debt in 2016 as we did in 2015 and as we have done before. And that will continue to make us more stable in terms of earnings and cash flow at the parent. So that’s the focus that we have. So in summary, we continue to see good opportunities, but the bar has been raised. We will continue to use partnerships extensively to take advantage of it and we will continue to try to get the optimal portfolio. Taking Ali’s question, we want to get to a portfolio which has the growth, but has less of certain risks be it hydrology are specific markets. Stephen Byrd That’s very helpful. Thank you very much. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Gregg Orrill from Barclays. As a reminder, please mute your computer speakers. Your line is open. Gregg Orrill Yes, thank you. I had two questions. First on DPL. Can you talk a little bit more about how you expect the credit to be trending and maybe on an FFO to debt basis over the next number of years. And then on Brazil. How much of the 2016 earnings impact was related to Brazil, and how are you thinking about managing that position in general? Thank you. Andres Gluski Okay. Yes, I’ll ask Tom to talk about the credit improvement for us at DP&L and then we’ll come back to the Brazil question. Tom OFlynn We continue to pay down debt. I haven’t got the FFO projections offhand, but the next maturity which is with at the DPL parent, not DP&L, the utility is $130 million next fall and we expect to be able to pay that off with internal cash flow that was contemplated when we left some of it outstanding with the refi we did a year or so ago. So we continue to see debt paydown. We will be transitioning the DP&L integrated utility from a fully integrated. We will be creating a Jennco, basically a sister to the utility that will involve some refinancing at the DP&L level, and that we’ll be over the next couple of years, within the next couple of years. We can follow up with the FFO specifically at DPL and DP&L. Gregg Orrill Okay. Andres Gluski When you’re asking about Brazil, are you asking versus 2015 or versus our prior 2016 guidance? Gregg Orrill Prior 2016. How much of the $0.20, roughly $0.20, impact is Brazil? Andres Gluski It’s approximately $0.05 that is coming from Brazil from the different things that are happening in Brazil. Again, going back, we had a 5% decrease in demand, which is very strong, this year. It’s reflecting a weakening economy. The economy in Brazil is actually contracting between 2.5% and 3% this year. In addition, you had increase in tariffs and you’ve had these terrible weather conditions in Sul. That’s a part of the things that are affecting demand in Brazil and then you have the effect on the currencies. Gregg Orrill Thank you. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Chris Turnure of JP Morgan. And as a reminder please mute your computer speakers. Your line is open. Chris Turnure Good morning. I just wanted to touch a little bit more on growth opportunities both organically and via asset purchases outside the Company. You guys have kind of already given color on this, but mentioned that there’s a higher bar now due to your lower share price and the alternative there of repurchasing shares. Are there any particular markets via purchases or organic growth that are that much more attractive today versus a year ago that the investment opportunities with the leverage with the JV partners might make you more interested in certain areas versus others or certain risk profiles versus others? Andres Gluski I think we would have to really look at the distribution of our portfolio. And really where we have synergies. We’re not going to do any deals, we’ve always said, that would just bring money. There really has to be synergies or something special to it. Right now we’re really focused on completing our projects and those that we mentioned are Southland and Panama, a little desal in Chile. And some energy storage projects which we think have a great potential not only for the projects themselves, but also to help us with third-party channel sales of our technology. I would say Mexico is a market that looks attractive given the partner that we have, but we’re going to be very disciplined. We’re going to be disciplined going forward, because, obviously, we have to react to the change of circumstances. We think that we have a lot of embedded growth in what we have already done. We do not want to be in a situation where we are spending on things that therefore we cannot finance or we have better opportunity to use that money somewhere else. Now having said that, if we give guidance out to 2018, but obviously 2019 is going to be even stronger. And then in 2020, you have Southland coming on. So we also want to have the opportunity for of these brownfield additions in the 1920s space, but we’re not going to be spending a lot of money chasing them at this stage. But if there are opportunities that we can keep at a low cost on the back burner, we will be looking at those. Chris Turnure Okay great. And then just could you give us some high-level thoughts on Brazil right here? You touched on hydrology for next year and that you think load growth is probably going to be around flat versus it being down so much this year. Could you talk more to the medium and longer term picture there? Andres Gluski Sure, I think there are two things in Brazil. One is that they are in a recession now. It is a going to take a little time for them to work their way out of it, in my opinion. There’s obviously a lot of political confusion, which doesn’t help. But, having said that, in the case of Brazil, this is an economy which has a population in the optimal level. It is still growing. There is still a lot of opportunities in Brazil, especially they do have structural reforms. So I think everybody, if you look at a medium to longer term outlook for Brazil, in the energy sector, will be far more positive than the outlook today, because you’re really looking at it. I think what is important to realize about Brazil, it is not just commodities that’s affecting them. It has really been internal politics and internal decisions. So, their ability to recover is much greater. So that’s it. We don’t expect great recovery in Brazil in 2016, and maybe even 2017. But thereafter, the fundamentals as the market look pretty sound. Chris Turnure Great. Thanks Andres. Operator And your final question comes from the line of Brian Chin of Merrill Lynch. And please mute your computer speakers. Your line is open. Brian Chin Hi, good morning. Tom OFlynn Good morning, Brian. Brian Chin Just a clarification on the guidance. You mentioned that there had been share repurchases of 400 million that were newly authorized by the Board. Does the guidance consider those share repurchases, or no? Tom OFlynn In terms of the longer-term guidance, we have some modest share repurchases in there. I would point out that I’ve always said in the past, we do always get the authorizations that we need. But we have said that we would do this opportunistically. So we will be very, again, disciplined in our execution of this. In terms of cash, we have some debt pay down as well into these forecast to make sure that we are credit neutral or improving our credit overtime. Brian Chin So then, just to be clear, the longer-term guidance considers some portion of 400 million share repurchases? The near-term numbers we should assume do not incorporate any; is that right? Tom OFlynn Yes, Brian. We look at a balance of share repurchase and debt repayment. It takes time, there’s opportunities to complete those. We’ll look at those, but we don’t put hypotheticals into our numbers. It’s an allocation of discretionary cash beyond our CapEx as to find between share repurchase and debt payment. Brian Chin Okay, understood. I realize that I’m perhaps delving in a little too nitty-gritty on what is assumed in there or not. But one more question on this front. We’re talking about still pursuing $1 billion in asset sales proceeds. That is not considered in the guidance? Or is it? Tom OFlynn It’s really a good question. First I want to clarify. This is up to $1 billion. So we don’t have a targeted $1 billion in sales. So this is up to $1 billion. It will depend on the opportunities and the use that we have for that cash. I want to make that perfectly clear. In terms of our guidance, we do have continued fine- tuning of our portfolio. We have some consideration for some modest dilution from some of the sales. Because that may not pan out in the sense it depends what we sell, the timing of what we sell. But we are being prudent in here that if we sell so. We will update that in terms of some of these asset sell downs materialize. And of course and it will vary very much the net effect. Whether it’s exactly what we have embedded or not, will depend on the use of that cash, whether it’s debt paydown or share buybacks or it’s another project and what’s the gestation period of that project. Brian Chin Understood. And last question, the $150 million cost-cutting initiative that was launched, can you give us a sense of what is mechanically are you looking at? You’ve had a number of cost-cutting initiatives over the last few year, many of which have been successful. Just a little more color on what you’re envisioning with this one and can you give us an SBU or at least geographic breakdown of where most of the cost initiatives you think –? Tom OFlynn I’m going to pass this one to Bernard. We’re not going to give a breakdown by SBU. But Bernard can give you a little color about some of the things. He’s looking at the SBU level, but this is everyone. This is finance; this is IT; this is absolutely everything is being look at in the Company. Bernerd Da Santos When you look at what we have done since 2012, we have seen more opportunity for seeds we moved actively for the SBU. So we’re taking advantage for economies of scales, some process, some monetization. I’m trying to give you a flavor of four pockets that we’re looking more into that quarter. The first one is intensified our progress in subsidiaries and economies of scale that is very focused on sourcing, cold, scarce inventory and long-term service agreements. The second part that we have here is centralized our global G&A. We continue to focus on that. We have roughly about $480 million is the global G&A ownership-adjusted. So we have financiers, we have service centers already lower across locations where we operate. So we’re going to lever up those. We want to continue to have more G&A transactional process, or back-office activity done in those lower cost locations. The other one is done that is estimatization and relegation of what our AES programs, that is actually to improve our profitability for our 35 gigawatts fleet. That is also including cheap grade and lower our outage or efforts that we have in our fleet. And the last pocket is really streamline our organization as we rebalance the portfolio. As we sell down some of our business, as we sell some of our assets, we also were looking for what are the new operations that are coming in for our construction. We’re streamlining our organization in order to be more centralized and more focused on more efficient base on the portfolio that we have. Brian Chin Great. Thank you very much. Andres Gluski Well, we thank everybody for joining us on today’s call. We look forward to seeing you at EAI. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to call our team. Thank you and have a nice day. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s conference call. You may now disconnect.

Is The Argentina ETF A Good Buy Ahead Of The Runoff Election?

Argentina has been on investors’ radar lately for the much-awaited election results that can make or break its fate for the coming four years. The country’s economy is in dire straits, with cooling growth, higher inflation, declining currency and debt default issues. Naturally, a probable change in political power, which might bring about a shift in economy policies, has drawn investors’ attention. In such a backdrop, a poll was held on October 25. But the election did not led to a clear winner, and thus led to a runoff. Notably, Argentina’s outgoing leftist president, Cristina Fernandez, was constitutionally debarred from fighting for the third successive term , and her party’s candidate shocked with a feeble performance. And Conservative opposition’s pro-business candidate Mauricio Macri’s unexpected strength in the poll box set the stage for a runoff on November 22 . Marci will rival FPV candidate Daniel Scioli, who is, in fact, backed by Cristina Fernandez. The first round of elections was a neck-to-neck competition, with Daniel Scioli getting 36.86% and Macri receiving 34.33% votes. Sergio Massa, a past partner of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner who shifted allegiance to the opposition, could be the wire-puller after capturing 21.34% of the votes, with analysts suspecting that he might tie up with Macri to form the government, as per NY Times . Since Mauricio Macri is viewed as a proponent of free markets, a runoff lifted the Argentine equities. However, citizens are receiving online warnings that they might lose out on social welfare if Macri wins. Basically, Scioli has a leftist approach. He is, thus, repeatedly referring to the free-market policies of the 1990s that led to the 2002 economic crisis, per Reuters . However, Macri’s political pledge is to revamp investment and curb inflation, while simultaneously maintaining the required social programs. Market Impact As the first round of election went against the opinion poll and Mauricio Macri emerged as a dark horse to capture the close second position, investors started to look for growth prospects in Argentina. Several analysts went long on these stocks. The only ETF targeting the nation – the Global X MSCI Argentina ETF (NYSEARCA: ARGT ) – added about 22.9% in the last one month (as of November 2, 2015), of which 11.7% returns came in the last 10 days. Can it Run Further? The second round of elections will take place on November 22. And with Scioli still maintaining the lead, hopes are still alive for him to win. Sergio Massa’s 21% voters will matter the most now, as they could swing the balance. If Macri wins, the Argentina ETF is sure to see a nice rally. If not, then too the stocks will likely enjoy a decent run on hopes of a political change ahead of the runoff election. Investors should also note that Scioli is apparently more market-friendly than Fernandez, under whose governance the country’s growth slackened. So no matter who wins, the Argentina ETF might see a rebound in the near term. ARGT is still 13.7% down from the 52-week high (as of November 2, 2015), and thus, has room for further advancement if speculations over Macri’s win persist. So, investors with a stomach for risks can take a look at the ETF. The fund presently has a Zacks ETF Rank #5 (Strong Sell), with a High risk outlook. Let’s wait for November 22 to see what lies ahead for ARGT in this uncertain time. ARGT in Focus The ETF tracks the MSCI All Argentina 25/50 Index, which measures the performance of the 30 largest and most liquid companies that are listed in Argentina or perform most of their operations in the country. Holding 30 stocks in its basket, the fund is highly concentrated on the top four firms at 60%, while other firms do not hold more than 5.68% share. The fund has amassed $15.2 million in its asset base, and trades at an average daily trading volume of nearly 12,000 shares. The product charges 74 bps in fees and expenses. Original Post

Dynegy’s (DYN) CEO Bob Flexon on Q3 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Dynegy Inc. (NYSE: DYN ) Q3 2015 Earnings Conference Call November 5, 2015 09:00 ET Executives Rodney McMahan – Managing Director, Investor Relations Bob Flexon – President and Chief Executive Officer Clint Freeland – Chief Financial Officer Hank Jones – Chief Commercial Officer Catherine Callaway – Executive Vice President and General Counsel Sheree Petrone – Executive Vice President, Retail Dean Ellis – Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Carolyn Burke – Executive Vice President, Business Operations and Systems Analysts Julien Dumoulin-Smith – UBS Michael Lapides – Goldman Sachs Neel Mitra – Tudor, Pickering Steve Fleishman – Wolfe Research Mike Wartell – Venor Capital Praful Mehta – Citigroup Mitchell Moss – Lord, Abbett Eric Lee – Caspian Capital Jeff Cramer – Morgan Stanley Operator Hello and welcome to the Dynegy Inc. Third Quarter 2015 Financial Results Teleconference. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Rodney McMahan, Managing Director of Investor Relations. You may begin, sir. Rodney McMahan Thank you, Bob. Good morning, everyone and welcome to Dynegy’s investor conference call and webcast covering the company’s third quarter 2015 results. As is our customary practice, before we begin this morning, I would like to remind you that our call will include statements reflecting assumptions, expectations, projections, intentions or beliefs about future events and views of market dynamics. These and other statements not relating strictly to historical or current facts are intended as forward-looking statements. Actual results though may vary materially from those expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements. For description of the factors that may cause such a variance, I would direct you to the forward-looking statements legend contained in last night’s news release and in our SEC filings, which are available free of charge through our website at dynegy.com. With that, I will now turn it over to our President and CEO, Bob Flexon. Bob Flexon Good morning and thank you for joining us today. With me today are Clint Freeland, our Chief Financial Officer; Hank Jones, our Chief Commercial Officer; Catherine James, formerly known as Catherine Callaway, our Executive Vice President and General Counsel; Sheree Petrone, our Executive Vice President of Retail; Dean Ellis, our Vice President of Regulatory Affairs; and Carolyn Burke, our Executive Vice President of Business Operations and Systems. We have posted our earnings release presentation and management’s prepared remarks on our website last night. Following a few opening remarks, we will devote the bulk of our scheduled time to your questions. I would like to start this morning by acknowledging that the third quarter has been a difficult one for our shareholders as the energy sector and IPPs have experienced sharp declines in equity values following the overall commodity sell-off. Mild summer temperatures compounded the challenges. Lower demand reduced price volatility and masked the impact of retirements we will ultimately have on energy prices. For the items within our control, we responded quickly by further increasing our PRIDE improvement opportunities that produced additional liquidity supporting our action to accelerate the share repurchase program. Our uprate projects have progressed and we continue to work on plant reliability. We had significant success during the quarter in capacity sales through auctions and bilateral transactions in all of our markets, including California. We made a very difficult decision about our Wood River facility, but it was the right one for our shareholders as the EBITDA and free cash flow profile does not support the ongoing operation of Wood River. Moving to the quarter and year-to-date results, our safety performance as measured by our total recordable incident rate significantly improved during the first nine months of 2005 versus the same period last year. The gas segment year-to-date is at top quartile performance and overall the year-over-year improvement in safety performance from our generations fleet has been driven by the legacy locations. Adjusted EBITDA for the second quarter was $350 million versus $90 million during the same period last year, highlighting just how important the recent acquisitions are to Dynegy. Third quarter contribution from the newly acquired businesses was $240 million. The acquired combined cycle plants have access to lower cost natural gas supplies, which results in strong spark spreads, even during periods of low demand and low commodity prices. Four of the acquired combined cycle facilities in PJM had capacity factors in the mid 90% range during the quarter. Recent portfolio developments include notification from NYISO in New England at 70 megawatts of uprates, and NYISO in New England have qualified for the 7-year capacity rate lock should these megawatts clear the upcoming auction for planning year 2019-2020. 60 megawatts of uprates at the Hanging Rock facility and PJM are expected to come online in the fourth quarter of this year. Recent capacity awards include 1,825 megawatts from Moss Landing; 1 and 2 from Southern California Edison; 575 megawatts for 2017; 400 megawatts for 2018; and 815 megawatts for 2019. Within MISO, the Illinois Power Agency procured 1,033 megawatts of Zone 4 capacity, of which Dynegy was awarded a portion. The overall weighted average price for all 1,033 megawatts of awarded capacity was $138.12 per megawatt day. Full year 2015 guidance ranges are being narrowed for both adjusted EBITDA and free cash flow. Adjusted EBITDA for the year is now forecasted to be $825 million to $925 million versus the prior range of $825 million to $1.025 billion. Free cash flow range is now set at $140 million to $240 million versus the prior year range – sorry, versus the prior range of $100 million to $300 million. At our second quarter call, we announced a $215 million share repurchase program that targeted upwards to half of that amount to be utilized by year end and the balance over the course of 2016. As a result of our PRIDE program substantially exceeding its balance sheet target, $187 million of that authorized amount has been utilized to-date and completion of this phase of capital allocation is expected much sooner than originally forecasted. As part of our call today, we are initiating 2016 guidance with adjusted EBITDA being set at $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion and free cash flow of $300 million to $500 million. The manner in which free cash flow has been calculated is different from prior years as explained in the scripted comments published last night as well as within the financial press release. The 2016 free cash flow forecast, combined with the estimated cash balance in excess of operating needs, results in capital available for allocation next year of $425 million to $625 million. Known uses for this capital total approximately $178 million, leaving about $250 million to $450 million of uncommitted capital available for further allocation during 2016. Prior to opening up for questions, I would like to cover one final item. Our Wood River facility, which has been operating over 60 years, will be retired in 2016. Retiring facilities is neither an easy decision to make, nor one which we take likely. But as I commented earlier, it’s the right decision for our shareholders given the foreseeable financial outlook for the facility. The underlying reason for the retirement is the flawed design of the MISO capacity market, in which two business models operate within one market. Central and Southern Illinois, which is Zone 4 is the only zone with a competitive structure and is surrounded by market participants from 14 regulated states. Mixing competitive market participants with regulated participants, results in the artificial suppression of capacity prices within MISO as the regulated participants bid their capacity in the annual option at little to no cost since their compensation is received through regulated channels. If the existing structure continues unchanged, the State of Illinois will see its jobs leave the state for the surrounding regulated states as assets in Zone 4 retire prematurely. MISO recently published an issue statement resource adequacy in restructured competitive retail markets, which recognizes the shortcomings of the existing market design. We are committed to working productively with MISO and other stakeholders on improving the market design in Zone 4. And clearly, MISO, along with policymakers and others in Illinois are beginning to grasp the importance of the issue. As for Wood River, we will work closely with our union partners to place as many of the 90 impacted workers at other Dynegy facilities as possible and work with the community of Alton on transitioning to the future once Wood River retires. I want to personally thank all the Wood River employees for decades of loyal service. At this point, Bob, I would like to open up the session for Q&A. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you, sir. [Operator Instructions] Our first question is from Mr. Julien Dumoulin-Smith from UBS. Your line is open, sir. Julien Dumoulin-Smith Hi, good morning. Bob Flexon Good morning, Julien. Julien Dumoulin-Smith So, perhaps just to pick it up where you left it off there, on MISO you have gained the regrets to the employees of the station. I would be curious when it comes to implementing solutions here, what are you seeing? Is there the potential for real reform prior to the next option in April? Bob Flexon Julien, I would say that the reform for the upcoming option would be limited. I think we are probably looking more towards the auction that takes place in ‘17-’18 versus ‘16-’17. Julien Dumoulin-Smith And do you think, just in terms of what you are giving out there at Techno Conference, etcetera, that you can credibly get a black and white market distinction, such that you would have a clear market signal in that in the Zone 4 region and is that what you are driving at, I suppose? Bob Flexon Yes. I mean we are certainly looking Julien, for more of a competitive framework. And I would say that the various stakeholders that are involved in all this are as I have mentioned in the opening comments are beginning to understand the seriousness of the situation. There is a lot of momentum building. There has been a working group within MISO that’s comprised of MISO, ourselves, Exelon and some others, that have put together a proposed framework that could accomplish those things. So I think we can actually get there and the technical conference, I think put forward a lot of good ideas as well. I think they have not complicated ideas to put in place. It’s more just getting everybody onboard, which seems to take a little bit more time that it should. But the solutions are pretty straightforward. Julien Dumoulin-Smith Excellent. And then just related to IPH, you are guiding for $150 ex-allocation, up material year-over-year, can you talk a little bit about the factors, is that just capacity improvement or are there other elements that play? Clint Freeland Julien, it really is mostly around increased capacity, as you mentioned. Next year, IPH will be sending roughly 300 megawatts of capacity into PJM. That certainly will give IPH a nice uplift. And in the balance between some of the kind of upsize contracts that IPH has as well as increased MISO capacity sales, really accounts for almost all of that incremental uplift. Julien Dumoulin-Smith Got it. And then a quick last one here, just expectations on New England, I suppose your written comments suggest expectations for capacity price uplift after Pilgrim, what are you expecting in terms of regional breakout [indiscernible] or do you expect the entire region in New England to see the higher prices as a consequence of Pilgrim? Clint Freeland Julien, with the combination of Northeast mass and Southeast mass Rhode Island into one zone, some additional transmission work that comes into the equation, we don’t expect the zones to separate. Julien Dumoulin-Smith Great, excellent. I will jump off to let others. Thank you. Clint Freeland Thanks, Julien. Operator Thank you. Our next question is from Mr. Mike Lapides of Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Michael Lapides Hi guys. Just curious, Bob or Clint, how are you thinking about what’s the timeframe and what are the things you need to see there with your business or the market or both, for making a decision about capital allocation with that excess $250 million to $450 million of capital? Bob Flexon The main thing I would say Michael, is let’s go through the winter and see how the winter shapes up because we still have some open link, particularly Brayton Point is a big swing factor in the winter period, where you have open capacity there. And that’s where you have some extreme pricing when – if you had a reasonable winter. So I would say that we would probably be prepared to make a decision, probably either at our year end call or our first quarter call. So I would say as we are finishing up the winter. Michael Lapides Got it. And when we look at your 2016 guidance, what are you guys assuming in terms of output at some of the key coal units, I am thinking the capacity factors at the MISO units as well as maybe something like Kincaid as well. It’s just, we have seen a ton of coal to gas switching this year in 2015 forwards for gas and especially for gas basis in the Marcellus and Utica, that might impact your Ohio units is having an impact as well, more combined cycles coming online. Just curious about how you are thinking about how hard your coal units are expected to run next year? Clint Freeland Michael, I think in general, we would expect the coal plants to run with capacity factors generally in kind of the 55% to 70% range depending on individual assets. One of the things that we have seen this year is some operational challenges in the Ohio coal fleet. I think there has been a lot of work done, a lot of investment made to remedy some of those specific problems. So I think I would expect and we would expect to see some improvement in that fleet relatively to this year. But again, back to kind of a 55% to 70% capacity factor range across the fleet is generally what we would expect. Bob Flexon And I would say Michael, as well particularly as it relates to Ohio, we saw a third quarter where we are buying gas in that market for our combined-cycle unit at times below $1. And you still see that our capacity factors on the Ohio coal units or I should say our own economics actually – uneconomic hours are quite low. So I can’t imagine much more of a difficult gas scenario than our coal assets in Ohio competing at when you are already competing with gas prices of about $1. But still you are seeing the uneconomic hours being anywhere ranging from 5% to 15% or so. So it really comes down to the balance of that time being, how are we doing on reliability. But beyond economic hours, I really wouldn’t expect – I got to imagine, it can’t really get much worse when you are competing against $1 gas. And sometimes even below $1. The coal units are still economic because the coal units are needed to clear the market in PJM. So I wouldn’t expect any difference on the uneconomic hours. I would expect higher capacity factors because we have got the reliability situation improved in Ohio. And I would say right now, it’s immersed in the middle of a $47 million outage that’s very much targeted to improve the reliability of that particular facility. Michael Lapides Got it. Last question, when we think about O&M and G&A in 20 – that’s embedded in your 2016 guidance, how different relative to what you are actually going to show in kind of your 2015 level or more importantly what do you think the decline in O&M and G&A is next year? Clint Freeland I think G&A is relatively in line with this year. You will have a little bit of step up. One of the differences in the total cost is going to be the fact that we will have a full 12 months of ownership of the new fleets versus nine months this year. So that’s an adjustment that you ought to think about. But generally speaking order of magnitude, it should be in line when you look at the run rate for the last nine months of this year. Michael Lapides Got it. On the G&A side and on O&M kind of a quarterly run rate, higher, lower, flat year-over-year? Clint Freeland I would say on a run-rate basis, I think you are relatively flat. And you may have some lumpiness along the way. We have got an unusual number of outages in our gas fleet next year and you have some O&M related to outages. But again, that’s not going to move the needle materially. Bob Flexon Michael, I would say I like the way you phrased it. I always like to think about how much will G&A declined every year or 2 years so. Michael Lapides Understood. Thanks guys. Much appreciate it. Bob Flexon Thanks. Operator Thank you. Our next question is from Mr. Neel Mitra from Tudor, Pickering. Your line is open. Neel Mitra Hi, good morning. Bob Flexon Good morning Neel. Neel Mitra I had a follow-up question on the MISO capacity market. I know you got a lot of criticism from stakeholders once you moved up to $150 a megawatt-day and one of the issues is that in Zone 4, it’s basically you and Exelon, how do you address the situation in creating a competitive market when there is still a few entities involved in that one region? Bob Flexon I am not – I will let Hank answer this question, but I think it comes down to the market design and there is really three key principles that we are pushing that we think we will accomplish that. But Hank, I will let you go through the trip? Hank Jones Certainly, also there are three primary market design issues in MISO. One is the vertical curve, demand curve versus the slope demand curve. And as you know in a vertical demand curve, there is no value attributed to any megawatts in excess of the planning reserve margin. So to the extent that assets are offering in at cost as opposed to regulated utilities generally offering in as price takers, those megawatts are going to be on reserve margin received no capacity compensation whatsoever. So as noted, our average capacity price given the 3,000 megawatts day problem in the present market design for ‘15-’16 was $59 per megawatt-day, which is insufficient to invest further. And so the slope demand curve is the first and foremost request. The minimum offered price really which serves as a buyer side mitigation is critical. And the third piece is to have a longer term planning horizon between the timing of the option in the beginning of the planning year. And presently, it’s 8 weeks, which is insufficient to make any meaningful CapEx decisions or commitments. Bob Flexon I think one of the key points in all of that, Neil, is that minimal offer price rule, where again the utilities, these regulated utilities are just delving in there with zero, distorting the market. And then for companies like Exelon or Dynegy, we are in there relying on a capacity market where every other participant is putting in at zero, because they get reimbursed through a different channel. And so that is really critical to making it work where you just can’t have people coming into the capacity market putting in zero, because they are compensated in a different manner. Neel Mitra So when we think about Zone 4, we think about you guys and Exelon as the big players. How many other regulated players are bidding into the auction at zero or something close to zero? Bob Flexon MISO has adequate resources system wide and they have come out and they continue to say it. So, we are competing against regulated utilities from every other state in 14 or so states within MISO. So, I would say essentially all of them are putting in at zero. You just look at the clearing prices of all of the prior capacity options and you see it’s basically at zero. And I think it’s for two reasons. One again, they are fully reimbursed for 100% of the generation via another way, And I think the other aspect is I can’t imagine they would want to go back to their local PUC and say, we didn’t clear all of our megawatts, because they are not needed. And that’s probably a bad message going back as they are getting reimbursed for it from all the customers within the state. So, I think essentially, it’s only the competitive guys that are putting in a real price. Clint Freeland And Neil, one factor to keep in mind also is that some capacity is able to be imported into Zone 4. So, when you are thinking about competitiveness within Zone 4 in and of itself, it’s not just the players that have physical capacity in the zone. There is also capacity from outside the zone that’s able to come in and satisfy some of that need. So, it’s a wider group of competitors than you might otherwise think. Bob Flexon And I would say that my discussions with the legislature within Illinois, they are starting at a real appreciation that the design of Central and Southern Illinois is putting their jobs, their economic base at risk, and it needs to be changed. And the Illinois Commerce Commission has two work sessions coming up to address this. MISO is looking for their recommendation from the ICC as well and we are certainly working with legislature on what we think our proposed legislation could possibly look like. That would straighten this out. Neel Mitra Great. And last question, in California, with the 3-year RA agreement with Moss Landing how do you look at that market now? Is it something you see yourself staying in or are you going to try to remarket the assets maybe not through an auction process, but just maybe reaching out to potential buyers? Bob Flexon Yes. First thing I would say, Neil, is that the capacity awards out there are three 1-year annual capacity products. It’s not a one 3-year contract. It’s three 1-year contracts, if you will, in terms of the recent auction. And I review it as it provides more clarity, certainty around the economics of Moss Landing and we are still waiting – we will hear later this quarter on where the rate case is settling out. And I think once you have got clarity on all of those things, there could be some bilateral discussions at some point. California is not a market that we want to be in for the long haul. It’s a market that’s changing rapidly because of the obviously all the renewable efforts and longer term if you don’t have a fleet of speakers, you are probably at the wrong fleet for California. So for us, California is not the place that we are going to be investing money. Neel Mitra Thank you very much. Operator Thank you. Our next question is from Mr. Steve Fleishman of Wolfe Research. Your line is open. Steve Fleishman Yes, hi Bob. Good morning. Bob Flexon Hi, Steve. Steve Fleishman Hi. Just on the cash available and that rough range in 2016 and maybe even thinking beyond that, kind of what’s your kind of priorities of how you are going to use that cash? Bob Flexon Steve, I said I want to talk to the board about. I think what they will need to be looking at is looking at our leverage, looking at our share price, looking at our various opportunities. But I would certainly say that one of the things that’s clearly on the table is part of that it’s maybe more so than what we looked at this year is making sure we have got the balance sheet positioned the right way and we are continuing to trend in the right direction. So, I would say it’s a combination of looking at where is our high yield debt trading in the marketplace? There are some opportunities for some open market repurchases. They have potentially, potentially some more share repurchases. I mean, I think probably the main two priorities, because anything else around the portfolio tends to be – we are not a buyer of single assets, that’s kind of the way that I view that for this company. We bring the ability to integrate platforms into our platform in a very cost effective measure. Buying a single asset does not create synergies and I think it actually puts pressure on the balance sheet ends up using liquidity, putting incremental leverage. Next thing you know, you are refinancing down at the project level or asset level creates a balance sheet with cash traps. So, I would view it’s really a decision between – at this point, my main two priorities for that was probably between the right balance between debt and equity. Steve Fleishman Okay. And then just for the – in MISO just for this next auction between stuff you are sending to PJM and retail and all that stuff, how much capacity is actually available to sell in the next auction? Clint Freeland So, we have approximately – we have 7,000 watts of installed capacity. You cap with about 6,400 and so at present we have about 3,500 megawatts to place for the planning year. A portion of it will continue to pursue all of our channels, which is we expect more retail activity. There are ongoing multi-year bilateral conversations or wholesale conversations. There is some bilateral brokered activity. And of course, the exports, everything else will go into the option, so out of the 3,500, it will be able a function of how successful we are in the other channels to market. Steve Fleishman Okay. And then just lastly just on the Wood River shutdown, I assume maybe you just give a little flavor of what that asset was doing and what I assume their savings from shutting that down? Bob Flexon Yes, if I look at it over a longer period of time see when I think about a recent completion of our 5-year plan, that’s Wood River, depending on your assumption of different market factors and the like the negative free cash flow burn on that was in excess of $50 million. Clint Freeland It was actually higher than that. It was closer to $100 million. Bob Flexon So, any – call it $80 million to $100 million is my guess… Clint Freeland Yes, between negative EBITDA as well as CapEx. Steve Fleishman Okay. And just, I mean, are there more assets like that where you have negative cash flow if things stay like they are, if things don’t change that you would potentially need to act on? Bob Flexon Steve, I think that’s an important question. When we come through this next auction, in April for MISO, we have the situation where we have got assets still that are not clearing and not getting any capacity payments. It clearly puts assets at risk and there could be additional retirements if we are not getting the right price signal. And that’s why pressing upon the State of Illinois and the like that we have really got to get urgency around getting the designs proper, because we are not going to let our shareholders absorb these fiscal losses of these plants, because the market is not designed in the right way. We have to take action on these things. And the next point in time, the measure of that will be what happens in the upcoming auction this coming spring. Steve Fleishman Okay, thank you. Operator Thank you. Our next question is from Mr. Mike Wartell from Venor Capital. Your line is open. Mike Wartell Hey, Bob. How are you doing? Bob Flexon Hi, Mike. Mike Wartell Quick question on the IPG bonds, just wanted to get an understanding, obviously, they haven’t fared as well as your holdco bonds. The 18 maturity trades at probably around a 14%. And as we look forward to kind of refinancing that out, I wonder if you could maybe touch upon your thoughts as to how you think about that? Bob Flexon I would say two things about that, Mike. First of all, I mean anything that we do at the genco level and that our day-to-day decision making is completely around what’s the best decision to make for the bondholders of genco. And when we look at the cash generation capability of all of our facilities and specifically as it relates to genco, we will always look at what’s the best decision to improve the liquidity for the bondholders and to make it re-financeable in 2018. And without showing our hand too much on some of our ideas, we have ways that we think we can strengthen the collateral package for bondholders or through a refinancing that makes the fleet very re-financeable for 2018. So I mean we are very optimistic that we are going to be able to refinance the ‘18s. We have got liquidity in the box down there now and it really comes down to what’s the best way to optimize that. And we will do what we need to do to make sure we are successful in refinancing it. Mike Wartell Okay. Thanks Bob. Operator Thank you. Our next question is from Mr. Praful Mehta of Citigroup. Your line is open. Praful Mehta Thanks. Hi guys. Bob Flexon Hi Praful. Praful Mehta Hi, I had a quick question also on coal plant life and really, it’s around – if you have gas prices the way they are right now and if in PJM you have new gas coming in this replacing inefficient peaking units, how do you see as environmental compliance costs increase as you have laid out in your notes as well, how would you see asset life for coal plants in PJM as well going out if gas were to stay around these levels? Bob Flexon Well, I think it’s clearly a scale play. I mean the smaller units will struggle. Specifically our units, I mean what we are saying particularly when you think about the Ohio units and Kincaid is that they have a good level of scale, they are environmentally compliant. They are receiving excellent capacity payments within PJM, which is obviously very helpful as well. And the view is that they are – particularly Ohio again, has the economic hours. They just have to get the reliability. So the type of assets that are going to struggle, I think for the balance of the decade in the market or it’s going to be nuclear and it’s going to be peaking units that don’t have the capability to meet the CP requirements. But the coal units will have the right level of reliability and functionality and economics to continue on. I don’t see any risk of our Ohio units being subject to retirement. Praful Mehta Got it. Thank you. And then in terms of gas units, clearly you have had a great quarter in terms of capacity factors and spark spreads. If the capacity factors being at these levels, 95%, 94% levels, are these sustainable for CCGTs or do you see them designed to run at these levels or if they can continue to run as base load units, do you see any risks or unreliability at some point? Bob Flexon No. I mean, we have our long-term service agreements with GE. And when they hit their scheduled maintenance based upon run time or start time or whatever the metric is given the situation, the maintenance is done. So I think the most would say that the most difficult time for a combined cycle assets is when it’s actually starting up. And once they are running, they are just running and the units have a high level of reliability and we don’t see any issue whatsoever with that. Praful Mehta Okay, great. Thanks so much, guys. Bob Flexon Thanks. Operator [Operator Instructions] Our next question is from Mr. Mitchell Moss from Lord, Abbett. Your line is open. Mitchell Moss Hi, I had a question, I want to understand this IMA metric that you referenced in the press release, just because it’s – I am looking at Slide 7, the fleet performance of your presentation. And if I compare that to the IMA, is that – I mean, how can I think about tying those two together, is it sort of the light blue and is it like the dark blue divided by the dark blue plus the light blue, is that the IMA? Bob Flexon First of all, the IMA is basically the design that when the asset is available to run, how many economic hours did it actually answer the bell. The Slide 7 disclosure shows – I think the IMA gets caught up in all of this because the uneconomic hours would be kept separate from the IMA calculation. So it would really just be around the light blue and the dark blue that would be influencing the IMA. Mitchell Moss Okay. And so if I look at the Newton plant – for Newton and Joppa, it looks like those are the ones where they had a relatively high uneconomic percentage and you mentioned how Joppa has – you are working on a new rail agreement or you have a new rail agreement in place, what are some of the factors that we can think about for Newton, perhaps that could hopefully reduce that uneconomic – bring that down in line with some of the other coal plants? Bob Flexon Yes. I mean, the primary benefit for Newton is going to be we are addressing congestion, and I will let Hank speak about that for a moment on what we are doing there. Hank Jones Sure. So Newton has suffered from some congestion, in part due to the ongoing MTEP projects, the big transmission projects have come across the state as well as routine maintenance. And we have been working closely with MISO and the transmission operator on a particular – a generation runback or operating guide where as a basis or congestion mitigation measure. It was intended to be a temporary measure where we would provide operational flexibility to the system in exchange for removing some of the contingencies, thereby increasing or excuse me, decreasing the basis between the Indy Hub and Newton. Along the way, through a lot of negotiations and discussions, what’s happened is the line work that was required in this particular case to improve the basis has been accelerated by 2 years to 2.5 years and actually went into service October 28. So what was a temporary mitigation measure really only lasted for a short period of time, but it did result in the acceleration of some work there, so we expect congestion relief to be meaningful and only time will tell but we expect congestion at least to be meaningful and to provide an uplift to the economic hours for Newton with immediate effect. Mitchell Moss Sorry, immediately – so into the fourth quarter and the first quarter winter, you should hopefully see some more economic hours at Newton? Hank Jones Again, it remains to be seen, the true economic impact of it. But there is clearly a – there is a strong view that the basis – we will experience basis relief and it’s only been a few days or a week we already have. But we need more time to truly measure that, but that’s certainly the expectation. Mitchell Moss I mean, can you give us a sense on how much of a different basis is it for Newton versus some of the other coal plants that they have been experiencing? Hank Jones I don’t have that off the top of my head, I am sorry. There has been basis issues around Coffeen and Newton. Those have been the primary vendors, we have seen basis improvements across the DMG fleet in part because of the Baldwin Transformer work, and there is additional re-conductoring that’s part of that investment over the next 18 months to 24 months. The Coffeen and Newton have borne the brunt of the congestion issues and we think we found a real solid solution or partial solution at Newton. Bob Flexon I would say just not having all the empirical data in front of me, but just looking at the on-peak pricing every single day, it’s not unusual to see Newton on-peak hours clearing in the day ahead market $5, $6, $7 lower than our coal assets to the North. There is a north to south separation that tends to happen. Newton tends to be on the low end of that. And again, you are seeing $5 plus on a regular basis on peak pricing in the day ahead market. Mitchell Moss Okay. And on Slide 19, when you talk about freeing up some collateral, how much of that collateral is tied to low gas prices, so if gas prices go back up, do you – do any of your collateral requirement change? Clint Freeland So Mitchell, what we tried to communicate here is that what we have really done here is not necessarily reduce the potential collateral calls. What we have done here is to convert how we satisfy those collateral calls when they come. And so historically around gas purchases, those are done under our first lien collateral arrangements, but only really up to a certain threshold. And beyond that, we need to post collateral immediately, the same day with our gas suppliers. Historically, what we have done is we have used cash, because it takes two weeks to negotiate LC forms and all that kind of thing. And so we have used cash for that purpose. And as a result, we always needed to keep extra cash on our balance sheet just in case we would need it to satisfy those collateral requirements. What we have done now is we were actually reached out to all of our major gas suppliers and pre-negotiated LC forms. And in fact, we have even issued initial letters of credit to them in very, very small amounts, but we have those out there to where when that same day collateral call comes, instead of having to give them cash, we can simply call our LC issuing bank, have them change the number on the LC and issue it same day. So, what that means is, is that cash that we have historically kept on our balance sheet for this purpose can now be reallocated to other purposes, because what we have done is we have transitioned that collateral risk, if you will, that liquidity risk, over to our revolver and away from our cash balances. Mitchell Moss Okay. And is that then – does that change the, I guess, any of the risk or commitment factors that go into thinking about bidding behavior around CP? Bob Flexon Not at all. It’s just a matter of just what’s the most efficient collateral. So, it has no impact whatsoever on that. Mitchell Moss Okay, thank you guys. Operator Thank you. Our next question is from Mr. Eric Lee from Caspian Capital. Your line is open, sir. Eric Lee Hey, guys. Just had a follow-up question on IPH, would you be able to expand on what you meant by potentially enhancing the collateral at the Genco box and how that might look, for example? Bob Flexon Yes. Eric, I think it’s probably premature for me to get – I am already getting a lot of nasty looks from my group here, but it’s probably premature to go into that. But certainly, when you look at the IPH enterprise, it has a retail business and there is – it has sister plants in Duck Creek and Edwards and they all kind of work as a package together. So, it’s one of those things where we need to think about what’s the best way to support the Genco operation. You have got long-term power purchase agreements between all of these parties. So, at some point, we would need to try to untangle all of that and create what’s the most efficient structure for the different entities within that entire complex. But I can’t really – I don’t really – it’s probably premature to get into too granular at this point. Eric Lee Would you consider perhaps… Bob Flexon I am sorry, Eric. You broke up there. Eric Lee Bond repurchases at that box or was it your comment earlier perhaps more on that? Bob Flexon I am sorry, Eric, I missed the first half of your question. I think you are asking, would we consider debt repurchases at the Genco level versus the parent level? Is that the question? Eric Lee Yes, that was the question. Bob Flexon When talking earlier about the – any potential repurchases up at – with the available cash that’s at the Dynegy level. So that would be Dynegy level, parent level, decisions around debt versus equity would not be at the Genco level. We continually say that the parent company is not sending cash down into the IPH complex. So then the solutions for Genco and IPH will come from within IPH and Genco. Eric Lee Okay, great. Thank you very much. Bob Flexon Thanks. Operator [Operator Instructions] And our next question is from Mr. Michael Lapides from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open, sir. Michael Lapides Hey, guys. Apologies. Quick follow-up for Bob, Hank, can you give any disclosure about hedged pricing? You gave volumetric disclosure or percent of generation. Can you give me any disclosure about just kind of directionally where hedged pricing kind of resides? And if there are some parts of the fleet where you are more hedged within coal co or gas co than others? Hank Jones Sure. I guess, there is multiple things to talk about here. I appreciate the question. One is our hedging strategy is driven by – the overlay is our view of the impact of tightening reserve margins on the system that when in periods of high demand, the volatility will increase and that overall prices will increase and that will be reflected in the forward market. Regrettably, with the milder weather this summer, the system wasn’t tested. And certainly, it doesn’t look like its getting tested in early November. But when high demand periods come, we expect appreciable increases in volatility and price. And when we look at our hedge profile, I think it’s important to keep a few things in mind. On Page 23, there is a breakdown of our gross margin composition in 2016. 39% of our gross margin is locked in through capacity payments. We benefit greatly from our critical mass in New England and in PJM in the form of capacity payments. And we are certainly encouraged by what we are seeing in New York. Just as a sidebar, the 2017 capacity market has increased by $0.60 to $0.70 per KW a month in New York in light of the Fitzpatrick retirement announcement. And carrying on, on Slide 23, 26% of our commodity – or gross margin is in the form of hedged commodity exposure. We have 18% in un-hedged sparks and 17% in un-hedged coal fleet. We will talk about the un-hedged sparks for just a moment. Over the course of 2015, those spark spreads throughout the Eastern Interconnect have widened. And we view our open spark position with purpose and that is that it’s a defensive play against declining natural gas prices. Gas prices are dropping off faster and in larger proportion than power prices. Power prices are stuck, because there is a number of expensive, high heat rate units or units that are burning expensive cap coal that are setting the price. So, we view our un-hedged spark position as a defensive position against gas and again it’s been expanding over the course of 2015. 17% of our gross margin sits on our un-hedged coal fleet. And there is some – a few – there is a little bit of color I would like to provide around that. Part of that is our Brayton Point facility. Brayton Point, as you know, is on a glide path to closure. So, there are – there is limited CapEx investment in the facility and the reliability factor becomes an issue. So, there is a substantial portion of that asset that we won’t hedge. We will just take it into the daily markets, so that we don’t get stung in a cold spell with finding ourselves short at the very far end of the pipe in a volatile situation. Further, in our coal fleet, specifically in MISO, we are – we try to minimize our correlation risk meaning the time – the relationship between our traded hubs and our busbar. And we reach our limit at some – in the 50% to 65% range depending on the availability of FTRs and busbar sales and our retail activity. So, there are some boundaries around what we can accomplish in our coal fleet. Just to add little bit of color, the coal hedges there are – about 55% of the on-peak volume is hedged. At IPH, all the hedges come through our retail business for collateral reasons and depended upon retail business flow. And what we have – we found really interesting and intriguing is the off-peak spark spreads in PJM and New York. We have got 45% to 50% of our off-peak volumes hedged in those areas for calendar ‘16. They have widened out to substantial levels. So, that’s a long way around the block to give you some color on where we sit. Michael Lapides Got it. Thanks, Hank. Much appreciate it. Hank Jones Sure. Operator Thank you. Our next question is from Mr. Praful Mehta from Citigroup. Your line is open, sir. Praful Mehta Hi, guys. Sorry, just one final follow-up question. On your un-hedged sensitivity on Slide 23, just wanted to understand you have $0.50 of movement in gas upwards leading to $107 million EBITDA uplift. Is that linear as in does it go both ways or how does that change? I know we have discussed that in the past. And just quickly on the gas segment declining in EBITDA as gas goes up. It’s good if you could just touch on that as well? Clint Freeland Sure, Praful. The sensitivity that we have provided is linear, up and down. And when you present it this way, you need to choose one of those for the change in gas, because as an example, the gas segment goes the other way. So, you need to know how to represent that on the slide. When we kind of step back just from a process standpoint, where do these numbers come from? I think we discussed it to some extent at Analyst Day, but, specifically for this slide, what we did is we looked at over the last 12 months how forward gas prices and forward power prices have traded in each of these markets. And as gas prices are changing, how are power prices changing as well and looking at those relationships over that 12-month period. And so then applying a $0.50 change in the delivered cost of fuel at each of the locations and coming up with the numbers that are represented on this slide, I think directionally and intuitively, it makes sense to me that the gas segment is moving in the opposite direction of the coal segment. And so there is a level of offset there, certainly on an un-hedged basis and that flows through when you apply the level of hedging that we have at each of the segments. That’s where you come up with the hedged sensitivity. So, I don’t know if that’s helpful or if you need some additional color on where these numbers came from. Praful Mehta I think that’s really helpful. I appreciate it. Thank you. Clint Freeland Sure. Operator Thank you. Our next question is from Mr. Jeff Cramer of Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Jeff Cramer Hey, guys. Good morning. Just a few follow-ups on the discussion, the thing about 2016 guidance what if any have you included from PRIDE Energized? Clint Freeland Yes. Jeff, we included our full $135 million for PRIDE Energized in our 2016 guidance. And you see that, it really kind of runs through really through the income statement depending on where those initiatives are whether that’s in gross margin, G&A or OpEx. But really all of the PRIDE initiatives that we have identified are in there and it totals $135 million. Jeff Cramer Okay. So, we will see a full year run rate of that then next year? Bob Flexon That’s right. Jeff Cramer Okay. And just quickly on Wood River, given you have got a few coal plants kind of in Central and Southern Illinois is it safe to say that, that was the most unprofitable kind of on the outlook? And that’s why – also why it was chosen. Bob Flexon One of the things that impacts Wood River is congestion as well down in the southern portion of the state. So, while it’s cost structure is okay and it doesn’t get impacted on the power price, now it’s also a plant that has – that will need further environmental investment as well. And one of the things that is different this quarter versus last quarter, the ELG rule comes out, finalized and it now applies to units that are greater than 50 megawatts and not just units greater than 400 megawatts as the market had anticipated and much more in line with what we thought would be the outcome. So Wood River with two units below the 400-megawatt threshold but above 50, it impacts their environmental cost as well. So it’s a combination of congestion on the pricing and the environmental spend that that plant would have to make over the next few years. And again, all into that goes the fact that we know that there is a number of megawatts that won’t clear the auction. So when you think about those three things together, Wood River was the unit selected for retirement. Jeff Cramer Okay. Thanks. And maybe for Clint, it seems like there is a renewed focus on repaying debt here, has your leverage – your targeted leverage metrics changed or could you just remind us what those are? Clint Freeland Yes. I think what we have said before and what remains true today, is that our objective over the medium-term is to migrate closer to BB type of credit metrics. And as Bob said a little bit earlier, as we think about our 2016 capital allocation program, we will need to give that some thought and be sure that we continue to move in that direction. So I don’t think there is really any – has been any change in the direction that we want to go in and what we like to see from our balance sheet. We just need to continue to monitor that over time and make decisions as appropriate. Bob Flexon Yes. And I would like to reemphasize that point Clint just made is that when we make a decision on capital allocation, we always looked at the balance sheet to ensure that balance sheet is in an area that we are comfortable on. And that is the first decision before we make the decision on the repurchase element. So that’s just part of the normal ongoing thinking. I don’t want to signal the changes suddenly we are going to be going after all debt and no equity or all equity and no debt. It’s the same way that we have been doing it all along and looking at both and making the right decision to make sure we have got it calibrated the right way. And I don’t want to leave the impression that that suddenly has shifted from before. And that’s a decision that we will take to the Board once we get through the winter and what our recommendation is on what we actually do with the available, uncommitted cash and make the decision at that time based upon the facts and circumstances then. Jeff Cramer Okay. Thanks guys. I appreciate it. Operator Well speakers at this time, we have no more questions on queue. So I will give the call back to you. Bob Flexon Great. Well, thanks Bob. And again, thanks everybody for calling in and participating in the call this morning. Thank you. Operator That concludes today’s conference. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.