Tag Archives: alternative

Expected Returns For A 60/40 Portfolio: A Simple Approach

Summary Most asset managers have 10-year expected returns of 6% for stocks, 2% for bonds, and 2% for inflation. For my strategic outlook, I am monitoring inflation, corporate margins, and stock buybacks. For my tactical overlay, I am monitoring earnings momentum and economic momentum. Assumptions about expected returns have a big impact on financial planning: Investors should check the capital market assumptions used by their financial advisor, robo advisor, or online retirement calculator. I recently reviewed the long-term capital market assumptions (CMAs) for five leading brokerage firms and wealth managers. I also looked at the CMAs for the top private and public pension plans. I believe these are a reasonable proxy for market expectations. To keep things simple, I focused on expected returns for a 60/40 portfolio over the next ten years. This exercise led me to create my own set of CMAs, and the attached PDF at the end of this article has a slide deck with links to the original sources. (Readers may wish to review the slides first, since this article merely breezes over the main points.) Expected Returns I agree with consensus, and I expect: A 4.4% return from the 60/40 portfolio over the next ten years. A 6% return for stocks, using the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (NYSEARCA: SPY ). A 2% return for the iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond (NYSEARCA: AGG ). Inflation of 2%. These expectations closely align with the forecasts from firms as varied as JPMorgan (NYSE: JPM ), AQR, and Charles Schwab (NYSE: SCHW ). The range of expectations is surprisingly narrow and reasonable. Public pension plans, on the other hand, are too optimistic. I suspect that political pressure prevents public plans from reducing their assumptions for expected returns. Lower returns would increase pension liabilities, and this may result in higher taxes. (Good luck with that!) Attractive Strategies In this environment, investors will have to work harder for less: Low expected returns for beta also suggest low expected returns for alpha. (Low forecast returns also suggests continued pressure on fees throughout the asset management industry.) In this environment, I believe that attractive investment strategies include: Income : Bond ladders, annuities, and covered call strategies Diversification : Managed futures, hedge fund strategies (liquid alts and traditional alts) Return Enhancing: Private equity, UK equities, high yield bonds, and Asia-Ex Japan (though that looks like a crowded long-term trade) Tactical Overlay Long-term assumptions help determine my strategic outlook, but my tactical outlook depends on current valuations and market conditions. My asset allocation process uses a tactical overlay that allows the defensive use of cash, and I attempt to mitigate drops of more than 20%. Right now, the catalysts for a tactical overweight in equities would be lower valuations. (I added to equities in August.) The catalyst for a tactical underweight would be negative momentum in either the economy or corporate earnings. The key factors I’m watching now are inflation, corporate margins, and stock buybacks. A Word on Robo Advisors Automated portfolio construction solutions such as Wealthfront and Betterment make sense for investors who are accumulating assets: Robos offer convenient, low-cost, long-term diversification. But robos are usually limited to an algorithm based on historical data and Mean Variance Optimization. Most algorithms do not change based on current market valuations or current market conditions. After all, if robos changed the assumptions that drive their asset allocation process, they would not be robo advisors – they would be active managers. The static nature of the algorithms used in robo advisors makes me worried about bubbles and crashes. Obviously, the assumptions used by any automated tool will determine the outcome, so investors need to do their homework. I give an A+ to Charles Schwab for the transparency of their CMAs, which are available through a link on their retirement calculator . In either case, investors cannot blindly rely on an automated solution without understanding the assumptions behind it. RBI Capital Market Assumptions

TransAlta: Environmental Regulations And Cheap Crude Make For A Perfect Storm

Summary TransAlta’s share price has fallen sharply over the last six months in response to the return of cheap petroleum and the election of pro-environment governments in Alberta and Canada. Planned and unplanned downtime in Q2 prevented the company from taking full advantage of hot temperatures in Canada, resulting in a large earnings miss for the quarter. Looking ahead, the company is faced with the prospect of either converting its existing coal facilities to natural gas or writing off a large amount of relatively young assets. While a large forward yield could catch the eye of dividend investors, the company’s outlook is too negative to be an attractive long investment opportunity at this time. Author’s note: This article refers to a Canadian company and all dollar figures represent Canadian dollars unless otherwise stated. The share price of Canadian electricity generator TransAlta Corporation (NYSE: TAC ) has plummeted in 2015 to date as the prices of natural gas and petroleum have halved and regulatory concerns have mounted in its primary markets. This volatility has only increased over the last week in the wake of Canadian voters bringing the country’s pro-environment Liberal party to power in national elections and a rumored buyout attempt, although the company’s shares have rebounded by 27% over the last four weeks. This article evaluates TransAlta as a potential long investment opportunity in light of this uncertainty. TransAlta at a glance TransAlta owns and operates power plants in Canada, the United States, and Australia. Owning more than $9 million in assets, including more than 5,200 MW of generating capacity in the Canadian province of Alberta alone, the company utilizes a diverse mix of coal, natural gas, wind, and hydro to generate electricity that is then sold to nearby electric utilities via power purchase agreements. TransAlta is heavily reliant on coal despite this diversity, however, owning 4,931 MW of coal-fired capacity, 88% of which is contracted out for an average period of 5.5 years. This capacity has an average age of 17 years, making it relatively young given that coal-fired capacity can remain operational for up to 50 years. Another 1,447 MW of TransAlta’s capacity relies on natural gas, of which 95% is contracted out for an average period of 10.9 years. The company also utilizes 1,271 MW of wind power, 65% of which is contracted for an average of 10 years; and 914 MW of hydro, 96% of which is contracted for an average of 5.3 years. While electricity generation operations provide the majority of the company’s earnings, it also operates an energy trading division that has historically generated roughly $50 million in annual EBITDA. TransAlta has reported steady annual EBITDA growth since FY 2009, including 6% annually since FY 2012. This growth has been made possible primarily due to its heavy exposure to Alberta, which has been home to rapid economic and construction growth in recent years due to its large reserves of unconventional petroleum in the form of oil shale and tar sands. In addition to being substantially more energy intensive than conventional petroleum extraction, Alberta’s unconventional reserves became the subject of heavy demand in the early years of the current decade as rising energy prices made their extraction commercially attractive. This set off a resource boom in the province that in turn led to population growth, demand for new housing, and ultimately higher electricity demand. Unfortunately for TransAlta’s shareholders, electricity generators responded to this demand with a sharp increase in supply. Oversupply in Alberta was the ultimate result, leading to lower electricity prices. FY 2010 and FY 2011 proved to be the high points for the company’s annual revenue and EBITDA results, respectively, although both have also rebounded from their FY 2012 lows. It was on the verge of returning to its pre-glut earnings level in FY 2014 when petroleum prices swooned, making the extraction of Alberta’s unconventional petroleum reserves unattractive. The province’s economy has reversed course and the construction industry has faltered, further increasing its electricity glut and hurting electricity prices. TransAlta has responded to the poor situation in Alberta by diversifying its operations in terms of both geography and fuel mix. It has expanded its capacity in Australia, building 1,000 MW of new natural gas-fired generating capacity and acquiring 136 MW of existing renewable capacity. Recognizing its heavy exposure to the North American coal market, however, with North American coal generating capacity contributing 45% of its Q2 2015 consolidated EBITDA and Canadian coal contributing 39%, the company is also moving forward with an effort to expand its share of Alberta’s generation market from 11% currently to 30% by 2021. Perhaps the most important development, however, is TransAlta’s 2013 decision to form a subsidiary focused on renewable generation, the aptly-named TransAlta Renewables (OTC: TRSWF ). In May, TransAlta dropped down $1 billion in Australian assets to its subsidiary in exchange for $217 million in proceeds, which it used to reduce its debt load, and a post-transaction ownership interest of 76%. The subsidiary’s focus on renewable generation assets provides it with a number of advantages over TransAlta, including attractive financing rates and lengthy contracts as Canada’s government incentivizes the move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. TransAlta, in turn, intends to use TransAlta Renewable’s distributions (it has a forward yield of 9.3% at the time of writing) to provide it with the cash flow necessary to finance its own debt and future capex. TransAlta Renewable will play an important role in TransAlta’s ability to meet its target of $50 million annual EBITDA growth and 8-10% annual shareholder return moving forward, the latter being something that it hasn’t achieved since FY 2011. Q2 earnings report TransAlta reported Q2 earnings that demonstrated the negative effects of its exposure to the North American coal markets and Alberta’s unconventional petroleum market. Revenue came in at $438 million (see figure), down by 10.8% YoY, as availability at its generating facilities declined from 85.4% to 80.9% over the same period (8,820 GWh generated versus 9,283 GWh YoY). The revenue decline came despite an increase in Alberta’s average electricity price from $42/MWh to $57/MWh due to abnormally hot weather during the quarter and was primarily due to one of its coal facilities experiencing damage-induced unplanned downtime that lasted most of the quarter and another facility undergoing planned downtime at the same time. TransAlta financials (non-adjusted) Q2 2015 Q1 2015 Q4 2014 Q3 2014 Q2 2014 Revenue ($MM) 438.0 593.0 718.0 639.0 491.0 Gross income ($MM) 238.0 356.0 450.0 362.0 279.0 Net income ($MM) -131.0 7.0 148.0 -6.0 -50.0 Diluted EPS ($) -0.47 0.03 0.54 -0.03 -0.18 EBITDA ($MM) 133.0 231.0 359.0 238.0 158.0 Source: Morningstar (2015). Gross profit came in at $238 million, down from $279 million YoY. Surprisingly, given the earnings reports of other North American electricity generators, TransAlta’s cost of revenue fell only slightly over the same period from $212 million to $200 million despite the presence of much lower energy prices in the most recent quarter. As a result, net income fell to -$131 million from -$40 million in the previous year. Some of the decline was attributable to a non-cash adjustment to the fair value of the company’s energy hedges as well as the presence of a higher base tax rate in Alberta. Accounting for these factors resulted in an adjusted net income of -$44 milllion compared with -$12 million YoY. Adjusted EPS fell to -$0.16 from -$0.04, missing the analyst consensus by $0.14. EBITDA also fell, declining from $213 million to $183 million YoY. The company’s emphasis on coal-fired generation hurt, with its coal segment reporting the only YoY decline to EBITDA; the wind segment was flat and the natural gas and hydro segments reported gains, albeit insufficient to offset coal’s performance. Beyond its generation segments, however, TransAlta’s trading segment reported a $22 million YoY decrease due to volatility in the energy markets. Free cash flow increased slightly by $3 million to $23 million over the same period, although the company’s operating cash flow fell from $51 million to -$39 million. Outlook TransAlta took steps to reduce the uncertainty in its outlook during Q2, although several new headwinds have developed that will likely offset the positive impact of these steps. First, the company agreed to pay $56 million to settle market manipulation allegations in Alberta, bringing a multi-year saga to a close. Furthermore, the company’s aforementioned drop-down to TransAlta Renewables was the first stage of a process to reduce its debt load via further drop-downs. Moody’s recently announced that it is reviewing the company’s bond rating for a downgrade to junk status in light of its high debt load. In July, TransAlta agreed to purchase 71 MW of renewable capacity in the U.S., and this, too, could become part of a second drop-down to TransAlta Renewables that the company intends to use the proceeds from to further reduce its debt. The presence of very warm temperatures in Canada caused the company’s number of cooling degree-days to increase in Q3, allowing management to reaffirm its previous FY 2015 EBITDA guidance during the earnings call , albeit at the lower end of the given range, despite the Q2 earning miss. The current year’s guidance is likely to receive further support by the development of a historically strong El Nino event, which is expected to keep temperatures higher than normal through September, potentially boosting air conditioner use and supporting electricity prices. These positive impacts could become negative in FY 2016, however. Past El Nino events have been associated with below-average winter precipitation levels, especially in Canada’s western half. Many regions of Canada are already suffering from drought and, given the large number of hydroelectric facilities that TransAlta operates in many of those same regions, it is feasible that an especially strong El Nino could ultimately result in lower availability starting in Q2 2016. TransAlta’s outlook worsens still further beyond 2016. May saw the election of a left-of-center provincial government in the historically conservative Alberta. More recently the centrist Liberal party, which favors restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, won Canada’s national election and will replace the outgoing pro-business Conservative party. The new governing party is expected to support clean energy initiatives, in part by placing national restrictions on coal-fired generation facilities. Given an average contract term of 5.5 years, TransAlta’s coal segment will need to establish new power purchase agreements relatively soon after any new environmental policies become entrenched. Two of its alternatives, the use of carbon capture and sequestration at its coal-fired facilities and conversion to natural gas from coal, offer ways around this hurdle while incurring additional costs. Carbon capture and sequestration, in particular, is unlikely given the high costs that it incurs despite years of industrial R&D. Conversion to natural gas is more important and while this will incur conversion costs, it is preferable to simply shutting down coal-fired assets that have up to 30 years of effective productivity remaining. A more pressing matter is the continued presence of low petroleum prices in North America. The health of Alberta’s economy has long been linked to petroleum prices, with the province experiencing lower growth and falling construction rates during previous petroleum bear markets in the early 1980s and again in 2009. Likewise, TransAlta’s share price lost most of its value in late 2008 and early 2009 as petroleum prices fell, although crude’s rapid rebound prevented this from being reflected by a steep drop to its annual earnings in either year. The duration of the current low price environment is very important to TransAlta’s outlook due to its current debt situation. The company has $1.1 billion (mostly denominated in U.S. dollars) of debt that matures in FY 2017 and FY 2018, with another $400 million maturing in FY 2019. Its ability to repay these loans while also financing its planned capex and potential acquisitions will be very dependent on the economic health of Alberta, especially given the company’s plans to increase its share of the province’s generation market. While I do not expect petroleum prices to remain at their current levels for such an extended period of time, potential investors should be aware of the potentially severe financial repercussions to the company that would result from such a situation. Valuation The consensus analyst estimates for TransAlta’s FY 2015 and FY 2016 earnings have been revised significantly lower over the last 90 days in response to its missed Q2 earnings report and mounting headwinds, management’s reaffirmed guidance notwithstanding. The FY 2015 diluted EPS estimate has fallen from $0.23 to $0.12 while the FY 2016 estimate has fallen from $$0.29 to $0.23. Both of these results would be well below the company’s 5-year highs. Based on a share price at the time of writing of $5.25, the company’s shares are trading at an adjusted trailing P/E ratio of 105x and forward ratios of 43.8x and 22.8x, respectively. Even the FY 2016 ratio is well above the company’s respective historical range, suggesting that the company’s shares remain very overvalued despite their poor performance in FY 2015 to date. While a recent anonymous report suggested that TransAlta had been very close to selling itself , buying at the current price level would require the presence of very optimistic assumptions regarding future operating conditions for the company. Conclusion Shares of Canadian electric generator TransAlta have lost nearly half of their value over the last six months and are currently trading at only a fraction of their historical high price. While such a negative market reaction often indicates the presence of a value investment opportunity, potential investors in the company should be wary of the numerous pitfalls that sit in its path over the next several years. Low petroleum prices are already causing Alberta’s economy and construction market to slow, hindering the company’s plans to further increase its share of its largest market. Likewise, the removal of the Conservatives from both Alberta’s government as well as Canada’s national government since May make it likely that the company’s heavy exposure to the coal-fired power segment will hamper its overall earnings in the coming years as existing restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions are strengthened and future ones are enacted. With a share valuation that is much larger than its foreseeable earnings potential, a large debt load, and free cash flow per share that has been less than half of the company’s dividend per share in recent quarters, TransAlta is a very risky prospect for investors. There is a chance that a buyout could occur on favorable terms, resulting in a modest gain for new investors. I consider the probability of this occurring to be quite small compared to the potential for further losses in light of how overvalued the company’s shares are at the time of writing, however. Yield-seeking investors are encouraged to look elsewhere.

Why I Am Still Buying Southern Company

Construction cost overruns will remain the headline grabbers that keeps share prices down, but as the saying goes, “This too shall pass”. Total returns will continue in the 9% to 11% range annually, and should be acceptable to most utility investors. AGL Resources acquisition will cement Southern Company as a premier electric and natural gas utility, with the prospects of future financial engineering. For long-term utility investors, there is a lot to like about Southern Company (NYSE: SO ). Southern Co is a worthy example of investor uncertainty creating opportunistic share prices. There is much to dislike about SO, but as the issues become resolved over the next few years, current investors will be amply rewarded. Starting with the negatives, investors have several issues working against the company. Over budget and behind schedule, the Kemper “clean coal” and Vogtle nuclear plants are viewed by some to be the firm’s twin albatrosses. Kemper is expected to be fully operational by mid-2016. Final rate decisions by the Mississippi Public Service Commission is expected in Dec of this year. As of this month, the plant has been producing power for a year. More information on what needs to be done for project completion can be found in SO’s latest investor presentation pages 12 to 16. As discussed in a previous SA article from last May, Moody’s downgraded Mississippi Power based on the financial stress of Kemper. In Aug, Mississippi Power senior unsecured rating was downgraded to Baa2 from Baa1 and its preferred stock rating to Ba1 from Baa3, and the outlook was termed “Negative”. These represent a bond rating still in the investment grade category but a preferred downgrade into non-investment grade. Southern Company’s credit rating remained unchanged and its outlook is “Stable”. Mississippi Power lost a 15% Kemper equity partner in May who requested their initial deposit back and was ordered to refund to customers a previously approved rate increase. Combined, these amount to a total of almost $650 million ($300 million and $350 million, respectively). To make up this shortfall, Mississippi Power has received a short-term loan from its mothership SO for $300 million and has received a $152 million rate increase approval in Aug. Vogtle construction will be a bit more drawn out as the project’s completion date is now 2019 and 2020, leaving several more years of headline-grabbing events. Some cost overruns are being challenged in court between SO and its contractors. Investors with sufficient grey hair to remember the 1970s and 1980s should also remember the cost overruns that plagued those years of the nuclear power plant buildout. From the publication , The Nuclear Energy Option, by Professor Emeritus Bernard L. Cohen, University of Pittsburgh: For example, Commonwealth Edison, the utility serving the Chicago area, completed its Dresden nuclear plants in 1970-71 for $146/kW, its Quad Cities plants in 1973 for $164/kW, and its Zion plants in 1973-74 for $280/kW. But its LaSalle nuclear plants completed in 1982-84 cost $1,160/kW, and its Byron and Braidwood plants completed in 1985-87 cost $1880/kW – a 13-fold increase over the 17-year period. Northeast Utilities completed its Millstone 1,2, and 3 nuclear plants, respectively, for $153/kW in 1971, $487/kW in 1975, and $3,326/kW in 1986, a 22-fold increase in 15 years. Duke Power, widely considered to be one of the most efficient utilities in the nation in handling nuclear technology, finished construction on its Oconee plants in 1973-74 for $181/kW, on its McGuire plants in 1981-84 for $848/kW, and on its Catauba plants in 1985-87 for $1,703/kW, a nearly 10-fold increase in 14 years. Current estimates are for reactors #3 and #4 to cost upwards of $15 billion with Georgia Power’s share at $7.5 billion. Investors should not believe this is both the final cost calculation and the final in-service date, as both will increase over the next four years. However, these projects will eventually pass and will contribute to higher cash flows over time, as did the previous construction overruns and delays of the 70s and 80s. On the positive side, SO dividend offers a nice yield of 4.75% and is expected to match earnings growth at around 4%. This current yield is on the higher end of its historic year-end yield as offered by fastgraph.com. In addition, SO return on invested capital ROIC has been one of the better in the utility sector. ROPIC was reduced in 2014 due to construction cost overruns charges against earnings. The graphs below outlines SO’s 20-yr history of stock performance and ROIC. (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) Of interest to investors is the acquisition of AGL Resources (NYSE: GAS ). Since the deal was announced on Aug 24th, SO stock has been flat, with the day-prior to the announcement share prices of $45.80. The $12 bil deal will be financed through $9 bill of permanent financing and $3 billion of equity raises between now and 2019. With a market cap of $40 billion, this amounts to a dilution of around 8% but management believes will boost earnings growth from 3% – 4% annually to 4% – 5%. With the Clean Air Act applying added pressure on coal-fired power producers in favor of natural gas plants, this move not only leap frogs SO into the number 1 spot for utility size, but it also diversifies SO’s income stream to include more natural gas regulated assets, such as distribution, pipelines and processing. It seems Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK ) is not far behind with its acquisition agreement involving Piedmont Natural Gas (NYSE: PNY ). Over the long-term, the GAS acquisition will be a good move by management and may eventually offer the prospect for a financial re-engineering via a MLP spinoff similar to other gas utilities. Investors should factor in the advantages of SO operating in one of the most favorable regulatory environments and even setbacks with the Kemper plant cost recovery should not dampen its overall relationship with regulators. SO share prices hit a double bottom on June 25th at $41.61 and on Sept 4th at $41.98. Share prices have not broken below $40 since Aug 2011. Technically, the outlook is positive as long as share prices don’t break support at $42 and then $40. MACD has been rising since crossing its trend line on July 20 and is still above its trend, albeit with a skinnier spread. Income investors may want to analyze Mississippi Power’s various preferred stock offerings. The most liquid is their $30 million-issue 5.25% Cumulative Preferred Depositary Shares (MP-D), with each share representing one-quarter shares of the underlying $100 par value issue with the same dividend. This creates a trading par value for MP-D of $25 a share and a dividend of $1.32 a year, with a high/low for the year of $27.02/$24.92. At a current price of $25.46, the preferred shares offer a 5.15% yield, but its volume is quite low at just 1200 shares a day average for the past 90 days. Other Mississippi Power’s preferred include a $2.6 million-issue 4.4% Cumulative Preferred (MPRWL) with a current yield of 4.8% and a price of $90.60, a $1.7 million-issue 4.6% Cumulative Preferred (MPRWP) with a current yield of 4.9%, and a $3.4 million-issue 4.72% Cumulative Preferred (OTC: MSPWP ) with a current yield of 4.7%. However, the last three stocks trade very infrequently and should be considered as illiquid stock holdings. For example, according to OTCmarkets.com, MSPWP has only traded 12 days during past year. While naysayers are having a field day with cost overruns on its construction projects and these topics will still make headlines for the foreseeable future, the underlying moves by management reflect optimism concerning their business. I expect a 4% to 6% share price appreciation coupled with a 4.75% yield and a 4% dividend growth rate for a total return of 9% to 11% annually. This is why I am still a buyer of Southern Company stock. Author’s Note: Please review disclosure in Author’s profile.