Tag Archives: california

Tax Free Income From Municipal Bond Closed End Funds

Summary Municipal bond CEFs offer attractive income free from federal taxes. In this article I explore the current muni-bond CEF space. Top funds for key metrics are discussed. Two funds that stand out on the basis of discount and NAV distribution yield are called out as particularly attractive at this time. Life changes and market changes: Both loom on my horizon. The first is unstoppable; the second is uncertain. And taken together they are exerting impacts on my portfolio. Regarding market changes: My view of macro events has led me to re-position my portfolio to a more defensive stance. One consequence is that I’m finding myself with more uninvested cash than I’m comfortable with, especially in my taxable income account where I have been trading out of high-risk, high-yield holdings. Life changes are also having an effect. These speak to my own case as an individual. But all my life I’ve been only a step or two ahead of a demographic tsunami, so I know many others will soon be dealing with similar issues. I’ll soon be putting another zero-birthday up on the scoreboard. This time a seven comes in front of the zero, a milestone that carries major tax consequences. First, my income will jump as I begin to draw social security retirement benefits, which I’ve put off as long as I could. This is a welcome addition and means I can comfortably give up some ground on income yield from my investments. But it also means more taxable income. In addition, in 2016 I will have to begin taking required minimum distributions – RMDs – from my tax-deferred accounts. This adds yet another increment to my taxable income. So, tax efficiency has become an important consideration. High yields are fine, but not if they come with a tax bill of staggering proportions. One outcome of these two pressures is that I continue to increase my allocation to tax-free municipal bonds in my income portfolio. There are other strategic moves underway, but for today’s topic I want to cover the muni bond space. I plan to follow up with a review of other tax-efficient income investments by early next week. As regular readers are aware, my strong preference for tax-free income is to invest in muni-bond closed-end funds. Tax-equivalent income from the CEFs is quite favorable compared to many other fixed-income sources. And it is much better than can be earned from holding individual municipal bonds or other municipal bond funds (EFTs or mutual funds). That attractive income comes, unsurprisingly, with risks. The high yields are partially generated by employing leverage, so it comes with the risk that leverage carries. In choosing funds I try to moderate some of that risk by looking for funds that are experiencing sharp downward moves in their premium/discount status. My assumption is that P/D status often tends to revert to mean values over time, so buying funds at an outsized discount (relative to the fund’s individual history) can help cushion some of the leverage risk. Of course there is often a very good reason for a sharp change in P/D status. In such cases, any confidence in mean reversion must be tempered by the full situation. In addition to leverage risk, muni bonds, like all fixed-income investments, are subject to interest rate risk. But the fact that many of these funds can sell at hefty discounts to their net asset values can help to moderate this risk to some extent. Interest rate fears tend to drive prices down, often well out of sync with interest-rate driven declines for NAVs. This creates deeper discounts. Keeping in mind all the usual caveats about the impossibilities in timing markets, an awareness of changes in P/D status as a reflection of investor psychology can often help moderate interest rate risk by opening opportunities to purchase a fund at a bargain rate. For example, ten months ago (Oct. 2014) I looked at muni bond CEFs here and noted that the space looked to be marked by extreme over-selling, likely a result of interest-rate anxieties. I considered those interest-rate fears overblown and came to a conclusion that bargains were common. I picked out five funds I particularly liked at the time. When I next wrote about muni bond CEFs 4 months later (Feb, 2015) those five funds had returned an average of 7.62% vs. 1.38% for the largest muni bond ETF, the iShares S&P National AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: MUB ), much of it due to discount compression as interest-rate fears faded. But, by Feb 2015 the market had corrected the anomaly of a few months previous and bargains were scarce. It was, as I noted, not a good time to be a buyer in the muni-bond CEF market. I did select three funds at that time despite the paucity of attractive buys, but those three have lost 2.31% while MUB has only dropped -0.95%. This illustrates the importance of timely entry into this market when investor fears outweigh the actual risks. I’m not sure we are quite at that state now, but I expect it’s not far off. In any case, today’s muni bond fund market is, to my mind, much more buyer-friendly than it was in February. The muni-bond CEF space is large. There are at least 99 national muni CEFs and dozens more single-state funds. I’ll restrict my thoughts here to the 99 national funds covered by cefanalyzer . Those of us who live in high-tax states are likely to generate better after-tax returns with a state fund. For my own portfolio, I am invested in California state muni-bond CEFs. Tax-Equivalent Yield One of the things I like to do when discussing muni bonds is to present an overview of tax-equivalent distributions for marginal tax rates to make it easier for readers to determine what the yields mean to them. Most summaries of muni-bonds report tax-equivalent returns based on the highest marginal rates. Few of us qualify for those rates, so it’s important to consider one’s unique situation in deciding if a muni bond investment is appropriate. (click to enlarge) There are good taxable equivalent rate calculators on-line. My favorite is from Eaton-Vance ( found here ). It incorporates state income tax rates and the state-to-state variation in how muni bond income is handled. Distribution Yields Let’s start with a look at current distributions for the universe of national muni-bond CEFs. Distribution rates range from a low of 3.24% to a high of 7.38% (median = 6.18%). The full range for distribution rates looks like this: The top five funds for distribution at Market Price are: Distribution Price Distribution Price Discount Pioneer Municipal High Income Advantage Trust (NYSE: MAV ) 7.50% 5.00% Eaton Vance Municipal Income Trust (NYSE: EVN ) 7.00% 1.42% Dreyfus Municipal Income Inc (NYSEMKT: DMF ) 6.98% -5.01% Pimco Municipal Income Fund (NYSE: PMF ) 6.96% 8.95% Invesco Advantage Municipal Income Trust Ii (NYSEMKT: VKI ) 6.96% -9.38% And, the top five for distribution at Net Asset Value are: Distribution NAV Distribution NAV Discount Pioneer Municipal High Income Advantage Trust MAV 7.88% 5.00% Pimco Municipal Income Fund PMF 7.58% 8.95% Eaton Vance Municipal Income Trust EVN 7.10% 1.42% Pimco Municipal Income Fund Iii (NYSE: PMX ) 6.95% 2.51% Nuveen Municipal High Income Opportunity Fund (NYSEMKT: NMZ ) 6.73% -1.33% I’ve included Discount(/Premium) in the distribution tables because there is a strong message in the relationships. Note that funds with high distributions on NAV tend to sell at a premium. This is a widely seen phenomenon in closed end funds, where investors focus strongly on income and distribution rates. That focus tends to adjust premium/discount status in the direction of an equilibrium distribution on price. Thus funds with low to modest NAV distributions tend to get priced down; they will sell at deep to modest discounts. This does, of course, increase the distribution rate bringing them more in line with funds that have high NAV distributions. At the same time, the high NAV-distribution funds tend to get priced up into premium ranges thereby reducing their distribution rate from the NAV value. MAV, which holds top positions in both distribution metrics illustrates this. Its 7.88% NAV distribution drops to 7.5% after the 5.0% premium takes its bite. VKI, by contrast, lags well behind MAV on NAV distribution at 6.31% (which ranks a respectable 12th of the 99 funds). But its -9.38% discount drives the distribution on price to 6.96% pushing it into the top five for market yield. MAV is an interesting case to illustrate the downside of being too focused on high yield when selecting a fund. MAV had been selling at an outsize premium (approaching 25%) as recently as May of this year. But, as should have been clear to investors, that premium was generated by an unsustainably high distribution rate. In May the distribution was cut from $0.095 to $0.08/share, a drop of -15.7% and the premium fell from a high of 24.48% to near par (0.08%) late in July. As seen in the table above, the premium has picked up a bit in the past three weeks. NAV Yield, Discount/Premium, and The Move Toward Equilibrium Eli Mintz has documented the relationship between NAV yield and Discount/Premium status in an excellent article ( here ). He argues that the relationship between NAV distribution rate and Discount/Premium is a primary factor to be considered in evaluating municipal bond CEFs. Following his lead, I’ve plotted the current values with a linear trendline for these metrics for the 99 funds under consideration. (click to enlarge) Mr. Mintz advocates choosing among funds that fall well under the trend line, so I’ve narrowed the chart to show those funds posting discounts below -5.00%. (click to enlarge) Selection from the lower thresholds of this distribution produces several that look worth exploring on the basis of this metric. But, as we can see in the next table, some are paying out distributions that exceed their actual net investment income (NII Yield). NII calculations are done on a market price basis for the table. On this basis, CMU and MFM look particularly attractive. CMU has a discount below 10%. Its NAV distribution of 6.03% generates 6.73% for its current market rate. And with an excess NII yield of 71bps above distribution, the yield appears secure. MFM sports a discount just shy of -13% and a NAV distribution at 5.44% which generates 6.25% distribution yield. It, too, appears to be earning that distribution with net investment income 48 bps above its distribution yield. This is illustrated in the heat map distribution seen in the next table: Leverage and Duration I’ve included two indicators of risk here, average portfolio maturity and percent leverage. CMU’s leverage (35.56%) is about the middle of the pack for the muni bond CEF space, ranking 55 of the 99 funds. MFM carries less leverage. Its 30.04% leverage ranks 25th in the space. Maturity can provide some indication of interest rate risk. Duration adjusted for leverage would be preferred but this is not a metric that is available through the screeners I use. The average maturities of the CMU and MFM portfolios both stand at 18.6 years, ranking 66 of 99. For this set of funds, the Nuveen offerings (NMA, NMO, NQS, NXZ and NZF) might appear to be better positioned for interest rate risk on the basis of portfolio maturity. But, when portfolio duration is calculated this is not supported. Fund Duration (Unadjusted) Duration (Leverage Adjusted) CMU 6.56 10.20 MFM 7.00 10.00 NMA 7.10 10.85 NMO 7.72 12.10 NQS 7.76 12.32 NXZ 7.47 11.31 Summarizing Other Metrics I’ll close with a summary of the top five funds for some other metrics for readers who may be interested in exploring funds leading for these categories. Along with the ranking metric, I include discount, distribution rates, NII yield and NII excess. The top five funds for discount: Discount Dist Dist (Price) NII yield Excess Nuveen Quality Municipal Fund Inc (NYSE: NQI ) -13.62% 4.61% 5.34% 5.55% 0.21% Nuveen Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 NXZ -13.07% 5.25% 6.04% 5.62% -0.42% Nuveen Municipal Market Opportunity Fund Inc NMO -13.02% 5.08% 5.84% 5.92% 0.08% MFS Municipal Income Trust MFM -12.91% 5.44% 6.25% 6.73% 0.48% Nuveen Dividend Advantage Municipal Income Fund (NYSEMKT: NVG ) -12.82% 4.77% 5.47% 5.66% 0.19% Top five for Total Return (Price) for one year: TR Price 1Y Discount Dist Dist (Price) NII yield Excess Western Asset Managed Municipals Fund Inc. MMU 11.92% -1.03% 5.52% 5.57% 5.55% -0.02% Western Asset Municipal Defined Opportunity Trust Inc. (NYSE: MTT ) 11.85% 6.49% 4.47% 4.19% 4.40% 0.21% Mfs Investment Grade Municipal Trust (NYSE: CXH ) 10.77% -7.45% 4.90% 5.29% 5.63% 0.33% Nuveen Municipal High Income Opportunity Fund NMZ 10.25% -1.33% 6.73% 6.82% 6.93% 0.11% Blackrock Muniassets Fund, Inc. (NYSE: MUA ) 10.21% -1.65% 5.38% 5.47% 5.35% -0.12% Top five ranked for Total Return for one year: TR NAV 1Y Discount Dist Dist (Price) NII yield Excess Delaware Investments National Municipal Income Fund (NYSEMKT: VFL ) 11.15% -11.32% 5.35% 6.03% 5.50% -0.53% Eaton Vance Municipal Income Trust EVN 9.10% 1.42% 7.10% 7.00% 6.89% -0.11% Western Asset Municipal Partners Fund Inc. (NYSE: MNP ) 8.13% -9.59% 5.24% 5.80% 5.53% -0.27% Western Asset Managed Municipals Fund Inc. (NYSE: MMU ) 7.77% -1.03% 5.52% 5.57% 5.55% -0.02% Pimco Municipal Income Fund Iii PMX 7.07% 2.51% 6.95% 6.78% 6.98% 0.20% Top five for one-year Z-Scores, a measure of the extent to which the current discount/premium varies from the average discount/premium for the past year. Readers unfamiliar with Z-Scores can read about the metric here . Z-Score 1Y Discount Dist Dist (Price) NII yield Excess MFS Municipal Income Trust MFM -2.00 -12.91% 5.44% 6.25% 6.73% 0.48% Nuveen Municipal Income Fund Inc (NYSE: NMI ) -1.80 -6.06% 4.38% 4.66% 4.77% 0.11% Nuveen Municipal Market Opportunity Fund Inc NMO -1.63 -13.02% 5.08% 5.84% 5.92% 0.08% Western Asset Intermediate Muni Fund Inc. (NYSEMKT: SBI ) -1.63 -7.12% 4.61% 4.96% 4.46% -0.50% Pioneer Municipal High Income Advantage Trust MAV -1.56 5.00% 7.88% 7.50% 7.43% -0.08% I’ll add the following chart which shows the distribution of 1-yr Z-Scores for all funds considered here. It provides a useful touchstone to compare with similar charts from previous articles to compare trends in the municipal bond CEF universe. I’ll close with the seven funds having the shortest average portfolio maturities. But keep in mind, as noted above, this is not a stand-in for leverage-adjusted duration, the preferred metric for evaluating interest-rate risk. Leverage-adjusted duration can usually be found on the sponsor’s web pages for a fund. I do not know of a screening tool that uses this metric. If any reader is aware of one, I would certainly appreciate your sharing that information. Maturity Discount Dist Dist (Price) NII yield Excess Blackrock Municipal 2018 Term Trust (NYSE: BPK ) 5.4 -0.65% 3.64% 3.66% 3.99% 0.33% Nuveen Select Maturities Municipal Fund (NYSE: NIM ) 5.7 -2.78% 3.16% 3.25% 3.35% 0.10% Deutsche Strategic Municipal Income Trust (NYSE: KSM ) 5.9 -0.23% 6.55% 6.57% 6.41% -0.16% Deutsche Municipal Income Trust (NYSE: KTF ) 6.2 -4.67% 6.28% 6.59% 6.44% -0.14% Alliance Bernstein National Municipal Income Fund (NYSE: AFB ) 6.3 -7.81% 5.48% 5.94% 6.20% 0.25% Eaton Vance Municipal Bond Fund Ii (NYSEMKT: EIV ) 6.3 -7.78% 5.41% 5.87% 5.86% 0.00% Putnam Municipal Opportunities Trust (NYSE: PMO ) 6.3 -10.08% 5.41% 6.02% 6.35% 0.33% Additional disclosure: I do not hold any of the funds discussed above. My municipal bond holdings are all in California state bond funds at this time. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Algonquin Power & Utilities’ (AQUNF) CEO Ian Robertson on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Executives Alison Holditch – Manager of Investor Relations Ian Robertson – Chief Executive Officer David Bronicheski – Chief Financial Officer Analysts Rupert Merer – National Bank Paul Lechem – CIBC Nelson Ng – RBC Capital Markets Matthew Akman – Scotiabank Ben Pham – BMO Sean Steuart – TD Securities Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp ( OTCPK:AQUNF ) Q2 2015 Results Earnings Conference August 13, 2015 10:00 AM ET Operator Good day and welcome to the Alqonquin Power & Utilities Corp Q2 2015 Analyst and Investor Call Conference Call. Today’s conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Alison Holditch, Manager Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Alison Holditch Thank you. Good morning everyone. Thanks for joining us on our 2015 Second Quarter Conference Call. My name is Alison Holditch, Manager of our Investor Relations function. Joining me on the call today are Ian Robertson, our Chief Executive Officer and David Bronicheski, our Chief Financial Officer. For your reference, additional information on the results is available for download from our web site at AlgonquinPowerandUtilities.com. I would like to note that on this call, we will provide information that relates to future events and expected financial position that should be considered forward-looking. We will provide additional details at the end of the call and I direct you to review our full disclosure on forward-looking information and non-GAAP financial measures in our results published yesterday which are available on the quarterly results page of the investor center on our web site. This morning, Ian will discuss the highlights for the quarter, David will follow with a review of the financial results and then we will open the lines for questions. I would ask that you restrict your questions to two and then requeue if you have any additional questions to allow others the opportunity to participate. Now I would like to turn things to Ian to review the quarter’s results. Ian Robertson Thanks Allison and thanks to everyone for joining us for our Q2 results call from [indiscernible] I would point out that it rained last night but it is sunny and windy today which is kind of the tri-sector for an organization which is in the hydro, solar and wind power business. So anyway, in summary for the second quarter, we were pleased to see the continuation of increased year-over-year financial results. During the second quarter, we realized a 22% increase in our adjusted EBITDA with $81.1 million generated versus the $66.4 million we reported at the same period a year ago. This growth is the result of incremental contribution from both our generation and distribution business groups and it is highlighted in the second quarter with two renewable energy facilities having achieved commercial operations is favorable rate case settlements in our regulated utilities. Within the generation business group, the company’s eighth generating facility, the 23 megawatt Morse Project in Saskatchewan and the company’s second solar facility, the 20 megawatt Bakersfield I Solar Project located in California. Both achieved commercial operations in April, these facilities operate under 20 year power purchase agreements with large investment grade electric utilities effectively extending our average power purchase agreement. While the resource levels of wind, solar and hydro naturally fluctuate from quarter-to-quarter, we were pleased that the diversification strategies on which our portfolio is constructed were to effectively to mitigate the lower than average resources experienced in the Generation Business Group. As a note, regarding further reductions in our already competitive cost of capital in their reaffirmation of the General Business Group DBRS changed their outlook commentary to positive obviously such trend will change is consistent with our view of the credit positive activities within this business group. Moving on, the Distribution Business group had a good quarter with a 9% overall increase in net utility sales and a 27% increase in operating profit. Growth in net utilities sales is driven primarily by successful rate case outcomes specifically the EnergyNorth asset and received final order on its spending rate case request approving a US$12.4 million revenue increase. And lastly, APUC’s Transmission Business group announced last November that its participation in the joint development of Kinder Morgan’s NorthEast energy direct natural gas pipeline transmission project in the North East US. We were pleased that in July that Kinder Morgan Board of Director approved proceeding with the project development, this opportunity now adds more than US$300 million to our growth pipeline. Before I turn things over to David, I like to provide a quick update on our continuing strong relationship with our larger shareholder in Emera. By way of background, open in Emera entered into a strategic investment agreement or SIAS we call it five years ago, which crafted a collaborative commercial relationship between our respective organizations. Without a doubt our [indiscernible] enjoyed benefit from our close relationship with the Emera through their endorsement of our growth strategies, their continuing financial commitments would just help drive down our comp to capital and last but not least the continuing contributions of Chris Huskilson, Emera‘s CEO as a member of our Board. Over the intervening five years, Algonquin has undergone profound growth and evaluation to put that in perspective in 2010, Algonquin was $980 million organization focused primarily on independent power development. In pretty start contrast today’s Algonquin is a $4.5 billion organization competing across the entire generation distribution and transmission utility value spectrum serving over 0.5 million electric natural gas utility customers owning over 1,100 megawatts of electric generation and driving growth through our $2.6 billion pipeline of identified opportunities. It might be important to note that is just Emera or Algonquin who is just growing and changing in addition to Algonquin’s broadening strategic interest over the past five year Emera has also continued to evolve it’s business focus with a recently stated interest in natural gas utilities. In recognition of these natural evaluations in our respective organizations over the past five years, Emera and ourselves jointly concluded that our strategic investment agreement or SIA would benefit from an update to its terms. And therefore, we’re now in the process of updating this agreement to serve us better for the next five years while the final document is an active work in progress. There are three main areas of which the changes are focused. First, we are seeking to reflect the pursuit of larger transactions by Algonquin giving the reduced size differential between our respective companies. Second, the amended SIA needs to acknowledge the evolving sectorial and geographic areas of interest of both organizations. And lastly, we will remove the existing share ownership restrictions, which would potentially allow Emera to increase its interest in Algonquin beyond the current 25%. In summary, we believe and I’d hope that Emera would also agree that the relationship embodied in the SIA has served us well for the past five years, delivering significant benefits to both of us and we look forward to continuing to create mutual value with Emera for the years to come. With that, I’ll turn things over to David to speak to the Q2 results, David? David Bronicheski Thanks, Ian. And good morning, everyone. We’re pleased to be reporting yet another solid quarter of earnings. The benefits of the diversification of our portfolio are evident in our results, as well as the benefits from having 80% of our operations in the US given the recent strength of the US dollar. As an example should the current exchange rate of a US$1.30 hold to the end of the year, we would expect this contribute over and above everything else we are doing, and additional $0.40 per share relative to the $1.10 exchange rate that we experienced in 2014. Adjusted EBITDA in the second quarter totaled $81.1 million, a 22% increase over the amount reported a year ago, which was primarily due to rate case settlements of full three months of production that are Morse and Bakersfield solar facilities and of course, as I mentioned a stronger US dollar. Adjusted EBITDA for the six months came in at $195.6 million, a 19% increase over what was reported in the first six months of 2014. Taking that close to look at some of the numbers are just a net earnings came in at $22.2 million compared to $16.6 million a year ago for the quarter and on a six-month basis, our adjusted net earnings were $64.6 million compared to $53.6 million last year. So now I let’s move into a little bit more detail about our operating subsidiaries beginning with the generation group. For the first six months of 2015, the Generation Groups renewable energy division generated electricity equal to 88% of long-term average resources compared to a 100% during the first six months of 2014. For the second quarter of this year, the combined operating profit of the Generation Group that will $45.9 million as compared to the $43.3 million during the same period in 2014. Moving on to our distribution group in the second quarter of 2015, the distribution group reported an operating profit of $35.4 million compared to the $27.9 million reported in the same quarter a year ago. The increase in the operating profit is primarily due to the impact of rate case settlements. In the first six months of 2015, the distribution group reported an operating profit of $98.3 million compared to $86.1 million for the six months of last year. And a little bit more detail, the electricity division within the distribution group had net utility, electricity sales totaling $17.4 million compared to $18.1 million last year. For the first six months of 2015 net utility electricity sales totaled $36.1 million which adjusting for the retroactive recognition of $2.5 million for new revenues granted under the granted state electric system rate case implemented in the first quarter of last year or consistent basically year-over-year. Moving on to the natural gas division. In the second quarter of 2015 net utility natural gas sales and distribution revenue was $34.7 million compared to the $29.9 million for the same period a year ago. We have been quite successful in our rate cases and that accounts for most of that increase. Moving on to the water division in the second quarter of 2015 revenue from water distribution and waste water treatment totaled $15.6 million compared to $15.1 million during the same period in 2014. Again, rate increases and our successful prosecution there up was a main contributing factor as was the acquisition of White Hall Water System. Now I want to update on recent financing activities at April 30, 2015 the distribution group completed a private placement of the U.S. issuing $160 million of senior unsecured 30 year notes bearing the coupon of 4.13% this was the first time the utility group issued 30 year notes and we were very pleased with the offering. The proceeds of the financing would be used to partially financing our pending part water system acquisition, which is expected to occur later this year and some of that for general corporate purposes. This offering a very attractive rates and long tender clearly demonstrates the strong currencies that are elaborating utilities on platform has in the U.S. private placement market. I’m also pleased to report as Ian had mentioned DBRS is also changed the rating trend to positive on a generation business, which we view as a quite positive and reflective of the strengthening credit of our generation business. I’ll now hand things back to over Ian. Ian Robertson Thanks, David. Before we open the line up for question as usual, I would like to provide a quick update on our growth initiatives. Within the generation business group construction work at our 200 megawatt, Odell Wind project in Minnesota commenced in May of this quarter and I can report that all of the access rows and foundation [indiscernible] has now been completed. We’re started on the collection and introduction facilities for approximately three quarters of transmission line haven’t been installed. With the California Bakersfiled, one solar facility now completed. The generation business groups team has begin work on the adjacent 10-megawatt Bakersfiled 2 expansion project. During the quarter, the final permit complaints binders were submitted to the county, engineering designer facility as well underway in procurement of long lead-time electrical equipment in solar panels has begin. Within the distribution business group applications now have been filed seeking a total of $26.2 million in revenue increases collectively for the CalPeco electric system in California, the Black Mountain Sewer system in Arizona, Dracut system in Massachusetts and the Missouri natural gas system final decisions on all for rate proceedings are expected within the next 12 months. Regarding the acquisition of the Park Water company, which David spoke, approval from both the California Public Utilities Commission and the Montana Public Service Commissions are required. An approval application was filed in November 2014 with the CPUC seeking approval to acquire the two water utilities, which are located in California. In this regard, a joint settlement agreement has now been executed with the office at the ratepayer advocate and a joint motion to approve settlement was filed with the CPUC in May. The settlement agreement is currently before the administrative law judge and the decision is expected in the fourth quarter of this year. In Montana, an approval application was filed in December last year with the Montana Public Service Commission seeking approval to acquire the Montana Utility Mountain Water Company. I would say notwithstanding the ongoing twist and turns in the condemnation proceeding with the city in Missoula are regulated – a regulatory hearing with the State of Montana is now scheduled for October 19 of this year with the decision on the Montana application expected before the end of the year. Within the transmission business group permitting work on the Northeast Energy Direct continued with the Environmental Review being filed with the FERC in June and the filing of the formal FERC certificate application planned for October of this year. Construction is currently forecast to begin in January 2017 with the commercial operation targeted for late 2018. In closing, we trust the shareholders were pleased with the dividend increase that we announced early in Q2. I will point out that this represents the fifth consecutive year of dividend increases bringing our current five-year dividend CAGR in Canadian dollars to over 15%. APAC has confirmed its expectations for double-digit earnings in cash flow growth to support future targeted dividend increases. And lastly, before we go to questions, I would like to offer the commentary that we believe that our current dividend yield is not fully reflected of the fundamental value of our business. In particular, we speculate that perhaps it’s not fully appreciated that the material growth in our annualized dividend is more than $0.48 Canadian per share to our normal course increases together with appreciation of the U.S. dollar is actually supported by increased Canadian equivalent earnings coming from 80% of our operations, which are located in the U.S. We’re confident that as we continue to communicate their hedging and deliver on the promised earnings cash flow and dividend growth from our clearly identified $2.6 billion growth pipeline this will ultimately reflect in a continued rise in our share price for the balance of 2015. So with that, let’s open the line for the question-and-answer session. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Your first question will come from the line of Rupert Merer with National Bank. Please go ahead. Rupert Merer Good morning everyone. Ian Robertson Good morning, Rupert. David Bronicheski Good morning, Rupert. Rupert Merer So on growth and M&A with your updated agreement with [indiscernible] it sounds like you could cast your net a little wider for growth, can you talk about how your focus could change and then what are you seeing on transaction multiples recently, maybe a little color on how prices vary between asset types and what you could see in broader geographies? David Bronicheski Sure, I’m not so sure that in broader geographies we clearly obviously have been, I won’t say home bodies because we have a North American focus and I think of your question would we consider regulated utilities outside of North America and I don’t think it would be unreasonable for us to think that there is – there maybe opportunities for us in OECD countries obviously outside of our current focus. In terms of the multiples, I think it’s not – they remain strong and robust, the interest rates are continued to be low though I think we are cautiously optimistic that I think there is an interesting dynamic developing between Canada and the U.S. as you read every day in the newspaper with continued slide in the oil and gas prices, the prospect for increases in Canadian interest rates is somewhat muted whereas in the U.S. I think the prospect of interest rate increases is probably if not a foregone conclusion. It’s certainly a probability. I think that’s creating an interesting dynamic that would improve the competitiveness of Canadian organizations in the M&A space as we think about US. So perhaps think about it this way, improving PDEs in Canada versus falling PDEs in the US and so I think we are cautiously optimistic Rupert that our competitive advantage generated by the differential between the Canadian environment in the US market will create some very interesting opportunities over the next 12 to 18 months. Rupert Merer Great. And then a follow-up on growth talking about Kinder Morgan pipeline, it looks like our COD target November 2018, and I believe you mentioned potentially starting construction January 2017. Talk about what the milestones look like for that project leading up to construction what you are going to need to see to be sure you are moving forward that’s’ and what the returns look like compared to some of your other investment opportunities. Ian Robertson Sure. Well, I think we all in this business obtaining the FERC Certificate is a huge gaiting item right now but the first FERC is expected to be filed in October of this year so October 2015 I think a year worth of prosecution of that application is probably are reasonable so therefore October 2016 is a reasonable period to expect that FERC certificate. Our construction start of January 2017 really kind of falls on the expected receipt of that certificate late fall next year. I will say that, what is ongoing and I think Algonquin Liberty can play an important role in it is all of the outreach programs that are going on certainly across New Hampshire. We are thinking an active role in demonstrating the benefits that this pipeline can bring to the existing customers of liberty utilities, but also potential new customers that pipeline is going through a sections of the state which are underserved by natural gas as I sort of joke. They don’t call the Hampshire the granted state for non and that the installation of pipelines is quite expensive and so I think we are taking a lead role and trying to show the talent and communities that will now be within economic distance of the pipeline, the opportunity to participate in what is undeniably a convenient and cost effective field. So I think that the next year is going to be busy for us in terms of supporting Kinder’s prosecution of the FERC and our own continued outreach in New Hampshire. You asked the question about returns, I think we are confident that the returns of the Kinder Morgan pipeline are going to meet or exceed the returns that we see from our other utility investments and frankly depending how the capacity of the pipeline has increased to incremental compression to get at it, the returns could significantly exceed the regulated returns on our distribution utilities. I hope that’s helpful, Rupert. Rupert Merer Yes. That’s helpful. Thanks very much. Ian Robertson Thanks, David Bronicheski Thanks, Operator Your next question will come from Paul Lechem with CIBC. Please go ahead. Paul Lechem Thank you. Good morning. Ian Robertson Good morning, Paul. Paul Lechem Good morning. And just continuing the question on Northeast Energy Direct, you have an option to increase your ownership from 2.5% to 10% so I just wondering under what circumstances would you exercise that, are you looking, are you waiting out through the FERC process, for you do so, is that something else you are waiting for. Ian Robertson No our auction is continuing until the FERC certificates in hand and frankly when we negotiated it with Kinder, the fault was, where is the FERC certificates in hand, it’s pretty clear what the future is going to look like and so I’m not sure there is really practically any value in exercising the options since it’s at book value if you want to think of it that way before that date. So October 2016 will be called on to make a decision, it’s hard to frankly to imagine a circumstance as we look at the project today to say that you wouldn’t be exercising that option. I think the project is an attractive opportunity to commit as I said close to US$300 million to other opportunity, which will generate returns, which are kind of consistent with our expertise of our regulated utilities and so with the approval of Kinder Morgan’s board of directors of the project. I think from my perspective and you’d I have spoken and historically I have always characterized the Northeast energy direct opportunity really more I asked people to characterized it more as an additional of the entrepreneurial spirit alive and well within our [indiscernible] to be able to set out this kind of an opportunity but I think now with the approval in hand and the commitment from Kinder Morgan that we start to think about this being added to the do this rather than that perhaps the spec of that nature that might had before. Paul Lechem Okay, thanks and then back on the [indiscernible] agreement given your expanding geographic and scope of the acquisitions you’d look at how do you avoid complex between the two companies when you go after these new expanded opportunities access, of the areas where you still delineates which company will go after what’s or is that potential now for you both to start looking at similar kind of opportunities? Ian Robertson Well I think I’ll start by saying is that, is this has been an incredibly collaborative relationship over the past five years and well we certainly we evolved and Emera’s evolved and I’m highly confident that reasonable people can come to a reasonable understanding in terms of what’s best for both of us and I think that there is, there remains obviously a size differential I think they would probably agreed or the very, very focused on the North East, U.S. in terms of and Eastern, in terms of their focus and so I think there, I see way more opportunities for mutual support then for competition if you want to think of that way and but I think it is important if we just recognized that what was five years to go probably requires a update this and so we’re going into this, I don’t say positive and enthuse and you have to ask Chris but I would probably say the same from his perspective, it’s been a great run and we obviously wanted to continue. Paul Lechem Okay, thanks again. Ian Robertson Thanks Paul. Operator Your next question will come from Nelson Ng with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Nelson Ng Great, thanks good morning everyone. Ian Robertson Good morning Nelson. Nelson Ng Just two follow up on that Emera arrangements would there any projects where over the last year so we’re you actually wanted to pursue but based on your current arrangement with Emera you current per sale. Ian Robertson Yes, no, that I mean that it’s not about should have not being able to pursue and then just saying no or asked the say no clearly it’s a much more as I said collaborative relationship with that I think if you read the SIA that existed five years ago there were some sort of size though limits in there that probably don’t make as much sense any more we are clearly with the NED have got foot in the natural gas pipeline business which is with never contemplated before I think Chris acknowledged on his call that I think their interest per utility they’re spending to include natural gas a distribution utilities that was in contemplate. So I think we just need to. I think we just need to, I think it’s all about are just recognizing that the companies look different today but I think their remains the commitment to create mutual value as they said its worked really well and we’re filled with the relationship I don’t what more I can add because we’re obviously in the discussions for right now but we’re – we strive can kind of provide transparency in terms of these sort of ongoing relationships that’s kind what we are talking about it. Nelson Ng And could you just remind us when you expect to have that agreement revised or completed. Ian Robertson Its, discussions is going on right now, I think but there is couple of things that we’ve certainly have committed to and I kind of outline them in the agreement and one of them is obviously the agreement made reference to restrictions to – interest in Algonquin [indiscernible] totally appropriate any more given the size of Algonquin and so its underway right now, it’s in active working progress Nelson. Nelson Ng Okay. Got it. And then I guess somewhat related in terms of pursuing M&A or development opportunities, I guess there is a lot of activity in Mexico and I was just wondering whether you would look at doing transmission or pipeline or power opportunities there? Ian Robertson We actually have looked at some solar projects down in Mexico, obviously whatever other thing is a big step for us to be thinking about introducing country risk and potentially currency risk depending on how the PPA or is denominated but Mexico is not too far certain Dallas, Arizona utility and so I think there would definitely be a comfort there and I think what are the things that maybe just getting back to my prepared remarks is broadening its horizon on that one and as we look forward to the next five years, I think there are opportunities that we need be at least cognizant of that – that would be considered international as we think about U.S. and Canada today but I might provide reasonable growth and value opportunities for our shareholders. So I’ll give you, the short answer to your question Nelson is yes I mean I think we are interested in looking there. Nelson Ng Okay, got it. And then just one last question in terms of the Park Water acquisition on the Missoula condemnation process, I believe there was a ruling in favor of the city and can you provide us with an update on the process going forward, presuming you are appealing the decision and how long will that take and when do you think that will be final decision on that? Ian Robertson Sure. Well maybe the best way to quote the answer to your question is to quote the Montana Commission when they were petitioned by the City to dismiss our approval – transfer approval application in the commission basically said back to the City, when you are a long way away from actually owning this utility and some check is written, we are going to continue on, it’s a long road as you point out Nelson, we are in early innings that as you suggest the ruling on necessity which is only half of the process has been appealed by us the next part of the process is the valuation section of a condemnation and that is crafted to make sure that under the fifth amendment of the U.S. constitution we [indiscernible] just consideration. And I would point out that the value application, the valuation that is being submitted by Park Water in respect of that valuation process is close to $200 million and we’re just as I said this is a twist and turns kind of road, but we are looking for to completing the acquisition that we signed up for with Carlyle and we will continue to prosecute the condemnation part of this – the condemnation proceeding in the way we would do in any other of our jurisdictions and it’s certainly a process that we’ve been familiar with, you may recall we kind of bumped into this in Texas and so I see them as two completely independent and parallel processes now. So we’re looking forward to completing the acquisition of the whole [indiscernible] late this year. Nelson Ng Okay, great. Thanks for the clarification. Ian Robertson Thanks Phil, thank you. Operator Your next question will come from Matthew Akman with Scotiabank. Please go ahead. Matthew Akman Thank you. Good morning. Ian Robertson Good morning, Matthew. Matthew Akman My question is just follow up on the agreement with – one thing I’m not sure if you mentioned was whether you would consider doing development with [indiscernible] in line with possibly doing larger acquisitions? Ian Robertson That’s an interesting thought, until now historically as you’re aware – development has really kind of focused on development within the regulated utility footprint and joint ventures with other developers. And it is I guess I got to be frank and say that that is something that we would need to explore to see whether that is of interest with Emera I think one of the things I think this is where the heart of your question is that the development, I will call it again but the development process for power projects is becoming should have not again for Mom’s and Pop’s as you know Odell project is a third of US$1 billion. We’ve looked at other projects which are significantly larger and so there may well be an opportunity for a collaboration between Emera ourselves and some of these larger projects up to now we’ve been pretty comfortable with the things that we’ve been able to announce Emera has obliviously implicitly supported our initiatives by stepping up to the plate with continued commitments of equity capital and there has obviously been a history of us working together, you will recall the CalPeco acquisition was done in direct partnership with Emera and ultimately they rolled their direct interest into us to create an indirect one. So I think it’s a great thought and certainly something that will be on the table as we’re sort of continuing discussions over the coming weeks. Matthew Akman Okay. Thank you. And just one other question is with the Obama administration announcing that they will be putting in place more incentives for clean energy in the US, I’m wondering if you have started to give any thought to opportunities around your existing US footprints that might arise from that. Ian Robertson I think you are making reference to the whole rule, Section I 11D of that clean power plant. We think that’s a real shot in the arm for a positive shot in the arm for the renewable sector and so for sure I think as we contrast the activity that’s taking place in Canada versus the US, there is no doubt about it, our development teams are keeping their Canadian passports in good stead because there is tons of opportunity down there and frankly, to be frank we actually don’t bump into as many certainly in Canadian competitors who are comfortable with the US tax equity landscape and the US electricity markets and so for sure I think the recent announcements and you might continue, you might phrase it as Obama is continuing war on coal, I think is a really good things as positive implications for an organization with our focus. Matthew Akman Okay. Thank very much. Those are my questions. Ian Robertson Thank you. David Bronicheski Thanks, Matthew. Operator Your next question will come from Ben Pham with BMO. Please go ahead. Ben Pham Hi, thanks, good morning everybody. Ian Robertson Hi, Ben. Ben Pham I just wanted to go back and then maybe if you can quantify the size of the [indiscernible] opportunity for you in terms of acquisitions when you consider your EBTIDA mix and just where you want to go, geographically going forward. Ian Robertson Sure. I think in terms of our, I mean I will start with the question about EBITDA mix. Currently we are about 50-50, we are completely comfortable with 50-50 though I will say we are not wedded to 50-50 and acquisitions such as the Odell project, or Park Water, they tend to be lumpy, we don’t add our EBITDA $1 in time. So we acknowledge that, that split could temporarily move in one direction or the other. I think we are mindful of the fact that our credit rating is primmest on the organization as a whole, which is obviously reflect of significant portion of our earnings on regulated utilities and so we are mindful of that. In terms of our sweet spot for transaction, I think we were obviously comfortable with the Odell project, a third of a US$1 billion. And so arguably maybe our sweet spot has certainly increased as the organization is headed for $5 billion in total size but the good news is projects tend to be getting larger in size and the scale as well and so we are tending to find those larger projects. In terms of M&A, acquisitions, I don’t think it’s a reasonable rule of some to say that quite comfortably an organization could probably do M&A equal to about one-third of its size without creating huge [indiscernible] in the marketplace and so as we head for $5 billion we’re definitely north of $1.5 billion in terms of the acquisition that we can do on our own. But just a follow on, I know that was Matthew’s question but one of the benefits of the relationship of the Emera is allowing us to punch way above our weight in terms of that scale and scope of M&A activity I mentioned our California experience which Amherst took a direct interest in the utility, the allowing us to as definitely hunt in a size range that would be north of that $1.5 billion which would be our left or own devices kind of threshold and so I think it’s just been another example of how we benefited from that opportunity of the [indiscernible] relationship to be able to explore opportunities which have a very wide dynamic range Ben Pham And you mentioned about the CalPeco JV and years back when you first starting you guys thinking that’s one own with the utility side of things when you think about that doing from our side and thinking about the nears comments about the OTC gas, I remain are you having more discussions about bringing back that JV structure going forward with Amherst? Ian Robertson Well, I think it would, I think it’s obviously circumstantial dependent, we have, when do you we gone at on our own I think that the short answer is we’ve identified utility acquisitions and growth opportunities that obviously to seem to make sense to fit into our portfolio perk water in examples that’s hard to imagine how JV with the [indiscernible] on that would have been strategically aligned for them but obviously right on the fair away from our perspective but I think as we think about some of the larger opportunities and I think we’re thrilled that [indiscernible] has an interest in gas LDCs because now all the sudden there is a possibility to collaborate on some of the larger LDC sales where – would say yeah, we are interested in a direct opportunity up till now to be frank I think it would been reasonable to a thought that those JV opportunities would have been pretty much limited to electrical distribution company because that’s where [indiscernible] focus was so I think it actually just expand the potential scope for in terms of modality and in terms of geography for collaborating with – so I think it’s all good. Ben Pham Okay, got it. That’s all I have. David Bronicheski Thanks Ben. Operator Your next question will come from Sean Steuart with TD Securities. Please go ahead. Sean Steuart Thanks good morning guys. Ian Robertson Hi Sean. David Bronicheski Good morning. Sean Steuart Thanks for all the general commentary on I guess broader growth ambitions I just have a couple of projects specific questions. On Odell you guys have an option to take full ownership there, can you give us a little bit of context of you’re thinking on when that actually happens? Ian Robertson Sure and I think it’s important as we think about managing our balance sheet through the development cycle and those we think about all of the metrics by which we’re elevated that joint venture structure is a good way to address what is the very short term part of the overall life of a generating station and so when you think that once the generated station hit COD you’ll got 30, 40 years of life in front of you but the development pace is 12 months long. And so we were comfortable putting that development structure in place during the construction phase but would have to rethink whether we would prefer to own a 100% of that come to COD of the project and we’ve obviously crafted an option to do that and so I think may be so just to be so to be specific in responses to your question we would probably a evaluate whether we want to 100% of that project at the end of the development phase once we got through the COD and that’s where we probably be thinking about it. Sean Steuart Okay, understood and on Amherst you guys give a little bit of commentary in the MD&A about some recent progress there any inside on what we might be looking at for construction beginning and expected appeals from locals any general update on Amherst? Ian Robertson Sure and obviously we kind of give up, given specific dates for how we think this process will but broadly and that the which is the renewable energy approval and we’re thinking end of summer the appealed process which is you aware is called the Environmental Review Tribunal ERT at the six month process and so it sounds like as we have been managing our construction timing and contracting that next year we jumped heavily into that construction process at the end of the ERT which kind of sounds early 2016. Sean Steuart Okay. Thanks very much Ian. Ian Robertson All right. Thanks, Sean. End of Q&A Operator [Operator Instructions] There are no further questions at this time, please continue. Ian Robertson Well again, thanks everyone for joining us on our Q2 investor call and we appreciate all the questions and interest that you’ve demonstrated. So with, I would ask everyone to remain on the line for a review of our disclaimer. Alison. Alison Holditch Certain written and oral statements contained in this call are forward-looking within the meaning of certain securities laws and reflect the views of Algonquin Power & Utilities with respect to future events based upon assumptions relating to among others, the performance of the company’s assets and business financial and regulatory climates in which it operates. These forward-looking statements include among others statements with respect to the expected performance of the company, its future plans, and its dividends to shareholders. These forward-looking statements relate to future events and conditions by their very nature and require us to make assumptions and involvements here and uncertainties. We caution that although we believe our assumptions are reasonable in the circumstances, these risks and uncertainties give rise to the possibility that our actual results may differ materially from the expectations set out in the forward-looking statements. Material risk factors include those presented in the company’s most recent annual financial results, the annual information found in most recent quarterly management discussion and analysis. Given these risks, undue reliance should not be placed on any forward-looking statements. In addition, such statements are made based on information available and expectations as of the date of this call and such expectations may change after this date. APUCs reviews materials, forward-looking information that is presented not less frequently than on a quarterly basis. APUC is not obligated to nor does it intend to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future developments, or otherwise except as required by law. With respect to non-GAAP financial measures, the terms adjusted net earnings, adjusted earnings before interest tax and depreciation and amortization, or adjusted EBITDA, adjusted funds from operations, per share cash provided by adjusted funds from operations, per share cash provided by operating activities, net energy sales, and net utility sales collectively the financial measures are used on this call and throughout the company’s financial disclosures. The financial measures are not recognized measures under generally accepted accounting principles or GAAP. There is no standardized measure of these financial measures, consequently APUC’s method of calculating these measures may differ from methods used by other companies and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. Our calculation and analysis of the financial measures and a description of the use of non-GAAP financial measures can be found in the most recent and published management discussion and analysis available on the company’s website and cedar.com. Per share cash provided by operating activities is not a substitute measure of performance or earnings per share. Amounts represented by per share cash provided by operating activities do not represent amounts available for distribution to shareholders and should be considered in light of various charges and clearance against APUC. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude the conference call for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect your lines.

Just Energy’s (JE) CEO Deb Merril on Q1 2016 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Just Energy Group Inc. (NYSE: JE ) Q1 2016 Earnings Conference Call August 13, 2015 2:00 PM ET Executives Deb Merril – Co-Chief Executive Officer Pat Mccullough – Chief Financial Officer James Lewis – Co-Chief Executive Officer Analysts Damir Gunja – TD Securities Nelson Ng – RBC Capital Markets Carter Driscoll – MLV & Co. Kevin Chiang – CIBC World Markets, Inc. Operator Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Just Energy Group Incorporated Conference Call to discuss the First Quarter 2016 Results for the period ended June, 2015. At the end of today’s presentation there will be a formal Q&A session. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the meeting over to Ms. Deb Merril, Co-CEO, Just Energy Group. Please go ahead, Ms. Merril. Deb Merril Thank you very much. Hi, everyone. My name is Deb Merril. I’m the Co-CEO of Just Energy and I would like to welcome you all to our fiscal 2016 first quarter conference call. I have with me this afternoon our Executive Chair, Rebecca MacDonald; my Co-CEO, James Lewis; as well as Pat McCullough, our CFO. Pat and I will discuss the results of the quarter as well as our expectations for the future. We will then open the call to questions. Before we begin, let me preface the call by telling you that our earnings release and potentially our answers to your questions will contain forward-looking financial information. This information may eventually prove to be inaccurate, so please read the disclaimer regarding such information at the bottom of our press release. Our first quarter results shows significant improvement in those operating measures we deem critical to our long-term success. During the first quarter, we delivered strong sales growth and continued to significantly improve the margin profile of our customer base, which translated to 29% year-over-year Base EBITDA growth and strong cash flow generation. Notably, we accomplished this in what is traditionally our seasonally weakest fiscal quarter. Our margin per customer improved in both the residential and commercial business throughout 2015 and that progress continued in the first quarter of 2016, as gross margin grew by 22% year-over-year. The consumer division contributed an increase of 30%, resulting from higher margin per customer earned, while the commercial division increased 2% in line with the 3% growth in customer base. The gross margin success is directly related to the ongoing commitment to the margin improvement initiative that we have talked about publically over the course of the past year. To add some color on how far we’ve come along in this initiative, we’re now signing consumer margins at $204 per RCE, which compares to $184 one year ago. Additionally, commercial margins are being added at $80 per RCE in Q1, as compared to $66 dollars one year ago. We were able to drive these improvements in margin, because our innovative new products are gaining more appeal and presenting more value for customers. This is allowing us to price our energy management solutions at more premium points and drive sustainable profitability for the future. Most of the gains we are driving through the sales in gross margin improvements are being realized in our Base EBITDA. Base EBITDA grew 29% during the quarter as a small portion of the gains were offset by increased administrative cost to support our large customer base, as well as increased selling and marketing costs. Overall, the results for the first quarter exceeded management’s expectations and provided a great – with great confidence we can deliver a very strong fiscal 2016. Before I go any further, let me pause for a moment to make sure everyone picked up on the change in commercial commission terms we announced in conjunction with these first quarter results. We are pleased to be able to announce that we have made a change to the commercial commission terms, better aligning with the realities of today’s commercial business. We believe this change will help the company better manage costs and cash flows, as well as provide greater alignment between base EBITDA and our results of operations for investors. Pat will cover the details of this change shortly, and we’ve also covered this in our press release and MD&A. While this change in commercial commission terms moved more cost into the Base EBITDA metric, the profitability profile of the company is improving to a degree that management is able to still commit to the previously provided fiscal 2016 Base EBITDA guidance of $193 million to $203 million. We believe this is a strong testament to the validity and sustainability of the improvement initiatives we see for the company, most notably the margin per customer initiatives. Now, let me turn to our customer base activity and provide some color on what we witnessed in the recent quarter. During the quarter, we did see a decline in year-over-year gross customer additions, as well as negative net additions. These customer declines were driven by a couple of things. First, more difficult market conditions marked by lower commodity prices and thus more competitive pricing across all markets, compared to the conditions we faced one year ago during the polar vortex, a time when we thrived in adding customers due to our unique value proposition. Additionally, our commitment to only accepting and renewing new customers that meet our profitability profile also impacted our results. As I discussed previously, Just Energy is not willing to participate in irrational pricing activity, nor do we feel we have to in order to remain competitive or increase our long-term profitability. In fact, Just Energy continues to become significantly more profitable and we are expanding our reach into our 2 million existing customers in a way that allows us to grow as they demand new innovative ways to meet their changing energy consumption needs. For example, our consumer customer base includes almost 50,000 smart thermostat customers today. These smart thermostats are bundled with a commodity contract and our experience indicates that customers with bundled products have lower attrition and higher overall profitability. Further expansion of smart thermostat is a key driver for continued growth of Just Energy, and we will keep adding new innovative products bundled with technology to drive continued improvement in the profitability of the business. Overall, we are very pleased with the business performance this quarter, as well as the prospects for future. With that, I’ll turn it over to Pat. Pat Mccullough Thank you, Deb. We’re very pleased with this quarter financially, especially as you focus on profit and cash. One of the things that I noticed is very significant, about the P&L this quarter, especially as you compare it to year ago Q1, we grew the top line revenue by 14%. And while doing that, we’re able to grow gross margin by an even higher amplified percentage of 22%. As you go down to Base EBITDA, again, we’ve grown the percentage increase year-over-year by 29%, a higher figure, and ultimately, Base FFO by 91%. That amplification of year-over-year percentage increase as we trip down, the P&L is very important to us, this means that we’re doing more with every dollar of sales that we bring into the company. So we’re pretty excited about that. Let me cover some of the highlights of the first quarter and then provide some added color in certain areas. First quarter sales were up 14%, as I mentioned to $933 million, reflecting the growth in customer base, price increases, and higher U.S. selling prices after currency conversion to Canadian dollars. The Consumer division’s sales increased by 12%, while the Commercial division’s sales increased by 15%, primarily as a result of currency conversion impact on U.S. dollar denominated sales. Gross margin was up 22% to $150.9 million, driven by higher sales, the impact of foreign translation of stronger U.S. dollar, and higher realized margin per customer in the current period, due to more disciplined pricing strategies. The Consumer division contributed an increase of 30%, resulting from higher margins per customer earned primarily on variable rate products and JustGreen contributions, while the Commercial division increased by 2%, primarily in line with the 3% growth in customer base. Base EBITDA was $38.9 million, up 29% from last year. This was driven by sharply higher margins, partially offset by higher operating expenses. The Consumer division contributed $30.9 million to Base EBITDA, an increase of 37% year-over-year. The Commercial division contributed $7.9 million to Base EBITDA from continuing operations, an increase of 5% year-over-year. The Commercial division saw higher gross margin being offset by higher operational expenses. Effective fiscal 2016 with management’s change to limit the upfront payment of commissions to an average term of 12 months, the capitalized commission will be classified as a current asset and the amortization of contract initiation cost is expected to decrease with no new additions going forward. Let me take a minute to make sure this is clear, and then I’ll answer any questions you might have during the Q&A. Beginning this quarter, capitalized commissions will be classified as a current asset, a prepaid expense essentially, instead of a non-current asset as it was previously recognized for those contract initiation costs. As the capitalized commission is expensed into selling and marketing costs over the term for which the associated revenue is earned, it will no longer be recognized as amortization and will therefore be included in the Base EBITDA calculation. Just Energy implemented this change to the commercial commission terms to lessen the period of prepayment term to an average of 12 months to help the company better manage costs and cash flows. We believe, this change will provide greater alignment between Base EBITDA and our results of operations for investors. There is no expected impact on the selling and marketing costs going forward, but it will result in a decrease in the amortization portion of the expense. As a result of this change in fiscal 2016, Just Energy expects to include approximately $20 million of incremental deductions in Base EBITDA. Despite this increase headwind, Just Energy expects to offset this with continued strong gross margin performance building upon the strong performance in the first quarter. After careful consideration, we have elected to hold to our originally projected full-year fiscal 2016 Base EBITDA guidance of $193 million to $203 million. In other words, we’re effectively raising guidance by $20 million for the full-year. As you think about the effect of this change moving forward in fiscal year 2017, Just Energy expects to include incremental deductions and Base EBITDA of approximately $40 million of prepaid commercial commissions, which would previously have been included in amortization within the selling and marketing expense. This $40 million is more indicative of the full-year effect of this change moving forward. Moving back to the quarterly results. As Deb mentioned, we did see a decline in year-over-year gross customer additions, as well as negative net additions. Gross customer additions for the quarter were $302,000, a decrease of 32%, compared to $441,000 customers added in the first fiscal quarter of 2015. Consumer customer additions amounted to $140,000 for the quarter, a 15% decrease from $165,000 gross customer additions recorded last year. The customer additions in the period – in the prior period benefited from the volatility experienced during the polar vortex as commodity prices increased dramatically. The combined attrition rate was 17% for trailing 12 months, a slight increase from the 16% reported a year prior. While consumer attrition rates remained consistent at 28%, the commercial rate increased to 9%, the increase in commercial attrition as a result of increased competition. Let’s step back and look at profitability per customer, the initiative that was referenced earlier. Over the last quarter, we have added or renewed 238,000 new consumer customers at an average gross margin of $204 per RCE. This compares to 167,000 consumer customers lost at an average gross margin of $187 per RCE, that’s an increase of $17 per RCE on average in the Consumer division. The higher margin on consumer customers is an important positive trend as these customers are largely locked into multi-year contract terms. Turning to the commercial side of the business, over the last 12 months we added or renewed 390,000 commercial customers at an average gross margin of $80 per RCE, whereas we lost 217,000 commercial customers that were locked in at only $68 per RCE of gross margin. So there you’re seeing a much more dramatic percentage increase to the margin profile we’re creating. Also worth noting is that, if you look back one year, you see the exact opposite taking place. We were losing customers at $80 per RCE and adding customers at only $66 per RCE. Let me close with an update on some metrics in balance sheet items. The payout ratio for Base Funds from continuing operations was 63% for the three months ending June 30, 2015, compared to a 198% reported in the first quarter of fiscal 2015. The payout ratio on Base FFO for the trailing 12 months ending June 30, 2015, is 70%. We ended the quarter with $105.1 million in cash and equivalents, an increase from $25.1 million, or 318% improvement from last year. We reported no debt outstanding on the credit facility at quarter end as compared to $136 million drawn last year. The increase in cash balances and decrease in credit facility withdrawals over the past year have resulted in $216 million of additional buying power. At quarter end, long-term debt was $676 million, compared to $774 million one year-ago. Our book value net debt was three times our trailing 12 months Base EBITDA. This is down from 4.2 times one year ago. We do have the ability to make a normal course issuer bid to purchase for cancellation a portion of our convertible debentures, as of June 30, we repurchased $2.7 million of those. One of the next steps in further delevering is renewing the credit facility. We are in advanced discussions with our syndicate of lenders for the credit facility. Based on commitments to-date, we’re optimistic that once finalized the credit facility available will increase from the current capacity of $210 million with the term of the agreement spanning a longer period than the previous credit facility. The renewal on the credit facility is expected to be completed during the second quarter of this fiscal year. In summary, we are off to a great start to fiscal 2016 and making tremendous strides along our strategic initiatives. We’re operating from a greatly improved overall financial position, a position we intend to further improve. This increased financial flexibility combined with our commitment to maintaining a capital-light model supports our ability to pursue our growth strategy which focuses on new geographies, innovative products that meet customer’s changing demands and new energy management solutions that will continue to disrupt the traditional utility model. With that, I’ll turn it over to Deb for some concluding remarks. Deb Merril Thank you, Pat. As Pat said, we are off to a great start of this fiscal 2016. And we have aggressive goals laid out for the coming quarters. I like to shift the focus a bit more to the critical elements of our strategy that will be the platform for our sustainable long-term success. Let me start with our overseas business. The UK business continues to thrive. Today, that market has grown to become 5% of our customer base, adding 233,000 million RCEs in total. This is a significantly profitable piece of business for our company. And we are seeing growth both on the commercial and the consumer side. We believe this early success validates our model and our ability to compete outside of North America. Taking the lessons learned and evaluating new avenues for growth in new markets that will benefit from our innovative approach to energy management solutions, as such, we will continue evaluating new market opportunities that offers strong demographics, clear participation and industry trends, and a favorable regulatory landscape in Continental Europe. Now, moving over to solar. Just Energy Solar program remains on track. The feedback has been very positive and the door-to-door efficiencies are proving to support strong growth in this platform. We commenced our initial pilot phase in southern California during the quarter with a volume of customer signed during this initial pilot resulting in higher-than-expected profit. Based on the success of Just Energy’s pilot launch in Southern California, operations will continue to grow with further expansion in California and the Northeast U.S in the near term. While pushing the industry forward to develop more value-add customer friendly products. As you may know, our solar partner, Clean Power Finance recently merged with Kilowatt Financial to create Elevate Power. And we view this as a very positive development. Just Energy will continue its partnership with Elevate Power, which will be one of the largest providers of third-party residential solar financing and loans in the United States. In summary, Just Energy’s objectives remain unchanged. As a company we strive to deliver outstanding financial results, and made significant progress toward achieving our objective of becoming a premier world-class provider of energy management solutions. Management is encouraged by a stronger – by the stronger profitability in the business and remains confident. It is delivering the appropriate dividend strategy that is supported by our continued ability to generate strong cash flows consistently. We foresee continued sustainable growth that will be driven by an expanded geographical footprint, continued product innovation, and bringing new energy management solutions to market that align with customer demands. With that, we will now open for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from Damir Gunja from TD Securities. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Damir Gunja Oh, thanks. Good morning. I’ve got two, just a quick one to begin. So the change with the treatment of the amortization, so that – I just wanted to be clear. Does that start with the second quarter results? Pat Mccullough No Damir, this is Pat. That began effective April 1. Damir Gunja Okay. So, the amortization that I see in the financials here is related to something else. Pat Mccullough Fiscal 2015. Damir Gunja Right, okay. Pat Mccullough So, we’ll continue to amortize outside of Base EBITDA the previously capitalized long-term assets, which I believe have a balance of about $10 million at the end of Q1. And then, every commercial commission will be a prepaid expense within Base EBITDA from April 1, 2015 going forward. Damir Gunja Okay. And just on the – I guess, on the margin side, the one thing I’m trying to reconcile is you mentioned a relatively competitive environment, I guess, on the pricing side. I’m trying to wrap my head around that, versus sort of the higher margins that you’re seeing in both consumer and commercial. Deb Merril Yes. And, I think, what you see is in our net additions. We’re tending to walk away from business that we don’t deem is profitable enough. So we’re increasing that average margin, and sales may be slowing down a bit, but overall the profitability of the businesses in a better profile. Damir Gunja Okay. And are you able to give us even a rough idea of the year-over-year benefit from FX, that’s in the gross margins? Pat Mccullough Yes. In gross margin, it was almost $12 million about a third of the gross margin improvement came from FX, about two-thirds of it remaining from performance. EBITDA, we saw a $2.7 million of FX, good guide year-over-year. So that $9 million increase, $2.7 million of it is from FX, the remainder from performance. Damir Gunja Perfect. Thanks. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from Nelson Ng from RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Nelson Ng Great, thanks. Deb, I was wondering whether you can provide a bit more color, in terms of the solar rollout. You mentioned that you’re looking to expand in California and the U.S. Northeast. But I was just wondering are we still in like very early stages or could you give some idea of how like many sales people would be pitching solar in this quarter or the next quarter and how that would increase? Deb Merril Yes. So we – as we said before, we’re in California. We actually launched New York last week. And we’re leading up to that, doing some work, but actually hit the street in New York last week as well. So we’re now in two states, and continuing to kind of probably pick up the pace here. In the last few weeks our sales have increased on a kind of week-over-week basis, so we’re certain to see some momentum on that. So we expect that now over the next few months we’ll be able to increase and start to maybe have it be meaningful enough, where we can start to communicate that to the market as well. Nelson Ng Okay. Thanks. And then just on competition and just following on Damir’s question, in terms of the level of competition, have you seen a – like competition has picked up, I think you mentioned; but you’re also kind of walking away from business. So could you remind us how – like just a rough comparison of level of competition now compared to, I guess, a year-ago when – I think the polar vortex put a number of energy retailers out of business, like have you seen a big pickup in the number of firms competing for business and how things changed? James Lewis Nelson, this is Jay Lewis. I think what we’ve seen here is some of the bigger players you – like FirstEnergy, you mentioned they were getting now a dominion. And then what we’ve seen having is some smaller players come back into the market that maybe aren’t familiar with the polar vortex or the summer pricing that can happen in archived [ph] here. And so, when we see things like that, we understand the marketplace, and so we walk away from, let’s say, deals there, but we see other opportunities, which is why we’ve seen our profitability grow. Nelson Ng Okay. And then, just one quick question on FX, I presume it’s for Pat. Can you just remind us of what your current FX strategy is? And, I guess, given the weak Canadian dollar, is that a good time to increase or reduce hedges? Pat Mccullough Yes. So right now, we do not take any forward contracts or hedges around the translation exposure that we think about in the earnings call. We do take positions on a 12-month forward basis for the transactional risk associated with the U.S. dollars that we’ll have to bring back to Canada to service dividend payments, interest payments et cetera. As we go forward, one of our strategies is to reduce the amount of Canadian dollar base debt, and get more of natural hedge alignment between our debt and the rest of the book. If you think about our gross margin, the translation risk around gross margin is largely neutralized by the footprint of SG&A, which fits where our gross margin is incurred. So about 71%, 72% of the business happens in the U.S., very similar ratio of the SG&A. So the translation exposure that we have is really only on the EBITDA values and we do take positions for the transactional movement of U.S. dollars back to Canadian dollars, but not the translational risk. Nelson Ng Okay. Got it. Thanks. Those are my questions for now. James Lewis Thank you. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from Carter Driscoll with FBR. Your line is open, please go ahead. Carter Driscoll Good afternoon. First of all, congratulations on a very strong start to fiscal 2016. Deb Merril Thank you very much. Carter Driscoll – MLV & Co First question, obviously, you’ve taken a very specific strategy of kind of pruning the less profitable customers. Would it be fair to say that you expect very minimal net addition growth, maybe even flat growth for this year as you continue to prune that portfolio? Or maybe I’d ask it in a different way, how long do you expect this to continue to show such noticeable changes on a quarterly basis in terms of your net RCEs? Pat Mccullough Yes. So we do believe to support the long-term profit picture here that we need to focus on growing customer base, which will then obviously turn into sales growth and profit growth over the long-term. Having said that we’re going to be very determined to creating a level of profitability that’s acceptable for the amount of risk and frankly value that we provide. As you look at our three growth areas that we talk about quite a bit, the geographic expansion that we’re looking for in both Ireland and Continental Europe is one place that we’re going to see some customer growth. As you look at product innovation with flat bill or other bundle type solutions you’re going to see some nice customer growth and product per customer growth, which is something we’re going to have to think about presenting to you in an articulate way in the future. And then the last one is these adjacent energy management solutions like residential rooftop solar or energy storage at some point in our future, these are areas of customer growth that we expect to put on the board. We don’t think this is going to be a tremendous hit to our scale in the short-term. But we’re proving that we really are willing to ensure that we have accretive cash and profit coming in on new deals, not just chasing market share. Carter Driscoll Got it. And then, maybe following up on that, the CPF merger with KW Financial, I’m assuming that will help the scale, obviously, [some incentives and buy dividend] [ph]. What else does this do for you, that merger potentially? I’m assuming it opens up new territories and maybe some new financing possibilities in terms of maybe your smart thermostats. Could you address that for me, please? Pat Mccullough Yes. We’re pretty excited about this. Clean Power Finance and Kilowatt Financial coming together now puts $1.6 billion of assets under management, so it almost doubles the capacity of the Clean Power Finance add. This also takes Clean Power Finance’s footprint and expands it dramatically. So over 45 states where they offer residential rooftop solar programs, both PPA lease and loan products, which we’re excited about this puts the loan products in their portfolio directly. And then Kilowatt Financial has been in the energy efficiency financing business. This is a huge coup for Just Energy as well, as we attempt to respect and protect our CAPEX light or no CAPEX model. We can start to think about accelerating smart thermostat deployments or other energy efficient devices potentially through the use of our partner’s financing. Carter Driscoll Okay. Next question is in terms of the pruning of the commercial profile, was there any particular type of commercial customers that you found to be less profitable in any regional area, where you found maybe pockets of weakness that you pruned, or has it been uniform across your territories? James Lewis Carter, this is Jay Lewis. I think when you look at it for this past quarter, Texas and Illinois, for example, are two markets there where the margins didn’t seem to probably [ph] with the rest level for us. They have – those markets tend to come back at certain times. We did have some weather here in the last week or so. Prices didn’t prink [ph] like they we have historically, but you are seeing some pricing run up there. Carter Driscoll Okay. And I think you originally talked about and I realized it’s very early in your forays into solar, but you talked about north of $65 of kilowatt hour, maybe you talk about what you’re experiencing, at least, in the early days, and why do you think that’s sustainable as you scale, I don’t know, if you can put a specific number around it, or maybe talk about percentage versus your initial expectations from a pricing perspective? Deb Merril Yes. I mean, I can tell you that we are seeing margins and profit higher than what we initially expected, which was – we’re very pleased by, and we’re starting to see some of that the expertise in sales and talking to customers about these products is taking shape as well. So, I think, we’re seeing a positive trend on that. Carter Driscoll Okay. Maybe could you compare – maybe compare and contrast, because I think your initial foray into the UK was focused more on the commercial side and that you mentioned more or maybe evenly balanced between consumer and commercial. Is it a different product set that you’re selling versus the U.S., I mean, is it more adoption of JustGreen, or anything – any type of color you can compare in this territory as to why you are getting such a higher margin, or maybe discuss your initial penetration steps, help me understand a little bit better? Deb Merril Sure, Carter. Yes, we actually started in the UK on the commercial side taking our platform, our portal, and our pricing platform over there to make it easy to get deals done and do business with us. We quickly, within a year to probably 16 months moved into the residential side, as well. And really in the last, I would say, probably this last quarter was when we were starting to see a lot of pickup on the residential side, we’re starting to go into, using a few more channels to more online channels and affinity, as well as one of the things, I think, is really exciting for us is that, we have the ability to start using some of the products we have in the U.S. and taking them over to the UK. And I think they tends to be maybe less because of very limited, the number of products they can offer, each retail can only offer four. So you’ve seen less product innovation in the UK than you have probably in the U.S. and markets like Texas and other Illinois and all the other markets we operate in. So over time, what we’re seeing now is, we’re bringing over some of our innovative products in the U.S. over to the UK. And I really think that that will continue to help drive a lot of margin, as well as customer growth on outside as well. Carter Driscoll Okay. And then last question for Pat. The credit facility, if I understand correctly, it’s more about extending the term than it is necessarily increasing the size of facility. And then follow-up to that is, kind of what priorities are in terms of recapping? Pat Mccullough Yes, we’re looking at the capacity actually going up from the present $210 million capacity. We’re expecting to get north of $250 million. We’ll close at a level that allows us to support our intra-month working capital needs, and we’re expecting to have a longer-term on that. This allows us to really unlock the divestiture net cash proceeds that we’ve been holding onto on our balance sheet to really attack the long-term debt. So as we can get this credit facility behind us, the immediate next step is to focus on the longer-term convertibles and bonds on our books. Carter Driscoll Okay. All right. I’ll get back in the queue. I appreciate all the time. Thank you. Deb Merril Thank you. Operator Thank you. And our next question comes from Kevin Chiang with CIBC. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Kevin Chiang Hi. Thanks for taking my question, and congrats on a good start of the year here. Just on your net attritions – the negative net attritions in Q1, it seems like some of this was due to, as you mentioned, like the steps you’ve taken to remove less profitable customers. And, I guess, as you looked at your contract renewal schedule, I’m just trying to get a sense of how much more of a headwind is going to be as you look to rebase your gross profit per customer higher here. Are we in for, say, a few quarters of headwind until this rolls over, or do you view this as more of a one quarter impact? James Lewis Kevin, I think when you look at it what we’re saying is that on the renewal side, we decided not to go after that low, let’s say, gross margin which then translate to low to no EBITDA unless everything goes according to plan. What you see on the attrition side, especially around the commercial, as commercial customers comes in, ended [ph] their contracts, and they haven’t seen any volatility there. Sometimes they let those roll over, and then when they decide to renew at these low margins, that becomes attrition. So when we say the pruning and it’s more along the lines of being selective about which customers we sign up on a gross adds perspective, and then which customers we go after on a net perspective. So, I think, what we’re doing today we have better data analytics to understand which customers are – we’re making money with, not just on average. And so as long as we’re making money on the customers, you’ll see us on as and there, so that’s the way we look at it going forward. Kevin Chiang Okay. That’s helpful. And just a point of clarification, Pat, on the FX comments you provided in terms of the tailwind, if I were to look at customers added and renewed the gross margin per customer, they are up roughly $20. Should I also be thinking that is roughly, call it, two-thirds related to internal initiatives to improve profitability and one-third being FX related, or those are piece of the pie different when I look at that specific metric? Pat Mccullough Yes, you’re correct, Kevin, that’s a fair observation. Kevin Chiang Okay. That’s helpful. And then lastly from me, I know you are transitioning from independent contractors to employees. And just trying to get a sense of how that’s coming along? Are you seeing any impact on worker productivity; impact on some of your better sales members; just trying to get a sense of how that transition is going through this period? James Lewis Kevin, when we look at it, it’s really market by market. In the markets where we have converted, we’ve seen success there, but we also had success with that independent contractor model. So we – in certain market it makes sense to have that model in place. And other markets where it doesn’t and we think we need to have more control to get that value proposition out. It’s been successful as well. So I think we’re open to making sure we have the right sales-force going forward, but that independent contractors are employee based. Kevin Chiang Perfect. That’s it for me. Thank you very much. Operator Thank you. We have no further questions at this time. I would now like to turn the call back over to Ms. Deb Merril for closing remarks. Deb Merril Perfect. Thank you very much. And we appreciate everybody’s participation on the call, as well as your support of the company. And like we said, we’re very excited about our first quarter. We are looking forward to a great fiscal 2016. I also like to quickly thank our employees. We have a lot of people in a lot of different offices across three countries that really make this happen and we couldn’t – we wouldn’t be here without them. So definitely take the time to thank them for their efforts and we’ll talk you guys again in a couple of months. Thank you. James Lewis Thank you. Operator Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This concludes today’s conference. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.