Tag Archives: earnings-center

40% Return In ~4 Months With Our IP Selected Healthcare Companies Since SA Publication

Summary Portfolio consisting of 17 healthcare companies would have returned nearly 40% from February 10th 2015 (date of article publication on SA) to June 18th 2015. Outperformance exclusively obtained with Patent Dynamics/Patterns (IP models) with XBI, FBT and IBB as benchmarks. Expert and/or financial analysis may be combined with such IP models for even better returns. Tickers covered: JAZZ, SAGE, TNXP, SGYP, ASPX, XNPT, INSM, RNN, NVDQ, ZSPH, ACUR, ICPT, RDHL, CORI, SPNC, EBIO and HAE. We wanted to know how the ” 17 Healthcare Companies To Consider Based On Patent Dynamics And IP/Patent Indexes ” performed since SA publication on February 10th 2015, namely JAZZ, SAGE, TNXP, SGYP, ASPX, XNPT, INSM, RNN, NVDQ, ZSPH, ACUR, ICPT, RDHL, CORI, SPNC, EBIO and HAE. Results below are impressive taking into account that these companies were only selected using Patent Dynamics/Patterns within these companies. This represents another evidence of the utility to take into account Patent Dynamics/Patterns in any investment selection process. Moreover, complementing or combining such patent filtering criteria with a financial/expert analysis and/or active management would have probably resulted in an even higher return on investment. Results: I. Performance of the 17 companies from February 10 th 2015 to June 18 th 2015 COMPANY TICKER EXCHANGE PERF% Synergy Pharmaceuticals SGYP NDQ 211.90 Corium International CORI NDQ 109.67 Sage Therapeutics SAGE NDQ 97.65 Acura Pharmaceuticals ACUR NDQ 83.33 Tonix Pharmaceuticals TNXP NDQ 77.55 Auspex Pharmaceuticals Inc ASPX NDQ 65.48 Redhill Biopharma Ltd RDHL NDQ 55.19 Insmed, Inc. INSM NDQ 51.36 Intercept Pharmaceuticals ICPT NDQ 32.01 ZS Pharma, Inc. ZSPH NDQ 24.15 Jazz Pharmaceuticals JAZZ NDQ 7.55 Haemonetics Corp HAE NYS 0.21 XenoPort, Inc. XNPT NDQ -3.34 Rexahn Pharmaceuticals, Inc. RNN NYS -9.33 Novadaq Technologies NVDQ NDQ -15.91 The Spectranetics Company SPNC NDQ -19.17 Eleven Biotherapeutics EBIO NDQ -74.21 70% of the companies have positive performance (30% negative). To note that ASPX was acquired by Teva Pharmaceuticals ( announcement on March 2015 ). II. What would have been the return of a portfolio composed of these 17 companies? A portfolio consisting of these 17 healthcare companies would have returned nearly 40% from February 10 th 2015 to June 18 th 2015 (in a bit more than four months) . This is to be compared with biotech ETFs like XBI, FBT or IBB returning respectively 26.66%, 15.67% and 18.73%. Hence, this represents a strong outperformance by applying Patent Dynamics/Patterns only versus benchmarks. Return is based on an equally weighted portfolio rebalanced each month. Cumulative performance of the 17 healthcare companies versus benchmarks (XBI, FBT and IBB) (click to enlarge) Table: Monthly performance and cumulative return of the 17 healthcare companies versus benchmarks (XBI, FBT and IBB) DATE MONTHLY PERF 17 Healthcare XBI-MONTH XBI FBT-MONTH FBT IBB-MONTH IBB 10.02.2015 N/A 100.00 N/A 100.00 N/A 100.00 N/A 100.00 10.03.2015 11.05 111.05 13.60 113.60 9.97 109.97 7.28 107.28 10.04.2015 7.75 119.66 1.77 115.61 2.02 112.19 4.69 112.31 11.05.2015 -1.32 118.08 -1.70 113.65 -2.18 109.75 -1.44 110.69 10.06.2015 8.26 127.84 7.38 122.03 3.17 113.22 3.84 114.95 18.06.2015 9.40 139.86 3.79 126.66 2.16 115.67 3.29 118.73 Focusing only on the Rating provided by the IP model (see article), we might have done even better in terms of performance by changing the weight of each company as the worst performer EBIO (-74.2%) had a Rating of D (worst form Ratings from A to D), whereas the two best performers SGYP (+211.9%) and CORI (+109.67%) had A Ratings. As mentioned, financial analysis and/or active management might have contributed as well to improve the performance. If we take for example the worst performer EBIO, disappointing results were released . Taking into account financial and/or expert analysis, one would have probably sold or reduced the weight of EBIO, see for example financial analysis indicated that caution was warranted , precursor sell signal or the comment from SA user businessofbiotech : “Eleven Bio’s lead product candidate fails in Phase 3 study; shares plunge 78% [ View news story ] Anyone with the slightest knowledge of dry eye and bit more attention to the press release of Phase 2 results would have never invested in this company. In their press release they mentioned they achieved statistical significance from baseline to end of tx, but not between the groups. They gave the false impression that their drug worked by showing decrease in the frequency of artificial tears (not an FDA approvable endpoint). The CEO knew the drug was a bust and she still took the company public on the false hope of their technology platform. Now she is trying to sell the hope that this drug will work in allergic conjunctivitis….One word- RUNNNN!!!” What to do next? The IP models provide some indications on what to do with those companies at the present time as their Grade, Score or Patent Index might have changed since the February publication (some slight modifications have been made to the models so the grade as published in February 2015 might not always correspond to the ones in the table below). The following recommendations are therefore only based on the IP models (with the exception of recent run up). It is recommended to combine the present IP approach with a financial and/or expert analysis. For JAZZ, Grade has changed from A to C, with a Score declining from 2 to 1, and with a present Patent Index (PI=3) smaller than the maximum Patent Index (PIMax=4). A PI

Unitil Corp.: Small And Dull Isn’t Necessarily A Bad Thing

Summary Electricity and natural gas distributor Unitil Corp. has seen its share price fall by 13% YTD even as its earnings were boosted by frigid winter conditions in its service area. The company has an impressive record, with its share price outperforming between FY 2010 and FY 2014 and strong net income and EPS CAGRs over the same period. A lack of market penetration in its service area and investments in expanded natural gas capacity should enable the company to continue its earnings growth trend in coming years. Its shares are not undervalued at present, although bearish sentiment from a rising interest rate could create an attractive long investment opportunity. Existing investors are encouraged to maintain their positions while potential investors are encouraged to initiate long positions if the share price falls below $30.40 in response to interest rate news. Electricity and natural gas distributor Unitil Corp. (NYSE: UTL ) has seen its share price and trailing diluted EPS move in opposite directions over the last several months, with the former falling by 13% since late February even as the company’s earnings were boosted by a harsh Northeast winter (see figure). The company has been an above-average performer on the S&P Utility Index since the beginning of FY 2010 and hasn’t reduced its dividend since its incorporation in 1984. This track record has not been enough to shield Unitil from the bearish sentiment that has afflicted the utility sector in anticipation of rising interest rates later this year, however. This article considers Unitil as a potential long investment in light of its falling share price and strong earnings YTD. UTL data by YCharts Unitil Corp. at a glance Unitil is a New Hampshire-based utility public holding company that provides electricity to 102,400 customers and natural gas to 75,900 customers in the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Maine. The company serves its customers via its five wholly-owned subsidiaries. Unitil Energy Systems is an electric distribution utility serving 74,000 customers in central New Hampshire, including Concord. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light distributes electricity to 15,700 natural gas customers and 28,600 electricity customers in northern Massachusetts. Northern Utilities is a natural gas distribution utility with 62,200 customers in coastal New Hampshire and Maine, while Granite State Gas Transmission owns and operates an 86-mile underground natural gas pipeline that runs throughout Unitil’s subsidiary natural gas service areas in New Hampshire and Maine. While these subsidiary utilities are all regulated, Unitil also owns Usource LLC, which is an unregulated energy brokering and management firm that serves as agent for 1,200 customers. Unitil has been one of the better performers in the utility sector, with its shares outperforming both the S&P 500 and the S&P Utility Index between the beginning of FY 2010 and end of FY 2014 even as it has been largely ignored by analysts (only one analyst participated in its most recent earnings call ). This performance can be attributed to several factors, including access to inexpensive debt that has allowed it to finance a 54% increase in its net PP&E value, a favorable regulatory structure that has allowed it to report consecutive increases to ROE since FY 2012, and low customer penetration within its existing natural gas distribution system. The company has also benefited from its exposure to natural gas distribution, which has grown steadily since the end of 2011 (see figure) as increased shale gas extraction caused prices to plummet. This has been a boon to natural gas distributors in the form of rising sales volumes and revenues. Unitil has experienced CAGRs of 17% and 12% for its net income and diluted EPS, respectively, since FY 2012. Meanwhile, natural gas distribution now generates 55% of the company’s sales margin versus 45% for electricity (as of FY 2014). US Natural Gas Consumption data by YCharts Q1 earnings report Unitil reported very strong Q1 earnings at the end of April in the wake of an especially cold and snowy winter in the Northeast U.S. Consolidated revenue came in at $172.2 million, up 10.3% from $156.1 million YoY and beating the consensus estimate by 7.8% (see table). Natural gas revenue increased by 8.3% over the previous year’s Q1 to $100.3 million while electricity revenue increased by 13.6% to $70.3 million. The only subsidiary to report flat revenue was Usource, where revenue remained unchanged at $1.6 million. The revenue gains were driven by strong natural gas sales, which increased by 6.8% YoY; electric sales gained only slightly to 0.3%. The former’s strong performance was the result of a combination of the cold weather, with Q1 containing 4% more heating days versus the previous year and 14% more versus the long-term average, and FY 2014’s 3% increase in total customers. Unitil Corp. Financials (non-adjusted) Q1 2015 Q4 2014 Q3 2014 Q2 2014 Q1 2014 Revenue ($MM) 172.2 119.8 76.6 73.3 156.1 Gross income ($MM) 61.6 50.7 39.3 36.6 57.3 Net income ($MM) 13.6 9.4 1.6 1.1 12.6 Diluted EPS ($) 0.98 0.68 0.11 0.08 0.91 EBITDA ($MM) 39.8 31.3 18.5 17.4 35.8 Source: Morningsta r (2015). Gross income rose by 7.5% YoY due to a 6.3% increase to the consolidated natural gas sales margin and a 10.4% increase to the consolidated electricity sales margin. The distribution of the sales margin between natural gas and electricity remained almost unchanged from the previous Q1 at 63% and 37%, respectively (residential and commercial natural gas consumption peaks in the winter when heaters are running whereas electricity consumption is higher in the summer when air conditioners are in use, explaining the difference between the Q1 distribution and the FY 2014 distribution). These increases caused net income to improve by 8% YoY to $13.6 million from $12.6 million, resulting in a diluted EPS of $0.98 versus $0.91 YoY that beat the analyst consensus by $0.04. EBITDA rose to $39.8 million from $35.8 million the previous year. The EPS improvement and beat were both largely attributable to the winter weather, with management stating in the Q1 earnings call that the higher number of heating degree days boosted EPS by $0.02 compared to the previous year and $0.08 compared to the long-term average in the service area. The weather was not the only positive factor, however, as natural gas therm sales increased by 5% YoY on a weather-normalized basis due to a combination of more customers and the rapid fall in the price of natural gas that occurred in the second half of 2014. The impressive earnings performance brought Unitil’s trailing ROE up to 9.2% overall, compared to 8% and 8.2% in FY 2012 and FY 2013, respectively. Unitil ended the quarter with $11.2 million in cash, down from $14.3 million the previous year (see table) due to infrastructure investments over the previous four quarters. The company’s current ratio improved YoY from 1.11 to 1.28 despite this cash decrease, however, while its total assets grew by 12% thanks to an 11% increase to net PP&E compared to Q1 2014. While Unitil’s balance sheet isn’t as strong as some other utilities, in combination with the company’s earnings growth record it is sufficient to maintain a BBB+ credit rating from S&P. Furthermore, while cash on hand is not substantial, it is augmented by $88 million remaining in credit facility liquidity. Management was comfortable enough with the state of the company’s finances at the end of FY 2015 to increase the quarterly dividend by 1.4%, resulting in a forward yield of 4.2% based on an annual dividend of $1.40. While not as high as some of the bigger utility names – the widely-followed utility Southern Company (NYSE: SO ) has a forward yield of 5.2% at present – it is higher than the sector average. The iShares U.S. Utilities ETF (NYSEARCA: IDU ) has a 3.57% yield before expenses, for example. Unitil Corp. Balance Sheet (restated) Q1 2015 Q4 2014 Q3 2014 Q2 2014 Q1 2014 Total cash ($MM) 11.2 8.4 10.1 12.0 14.3 Total assets ($MM) 1,040.8 1,000.2 916.5 900.6 928.0 Current liabilities ($MM) 140.4 129.4 76.0 102.6 131.7 Total liabilities ($MM) 757.5 726.9 648.6 629.8 654.0 Source: Morningstar (2015). Outlook Unitil offers potential investors with a number of advantages over other utilities in addition to its high dividend yield. First, the company only has 60% penetration within its existing natural gas distribution system, leaving it with 50,000 potential future customers without the need for investment into expanded service areas. This gap allowed it to achieve a customer growth rate in FY 2014 that was 3x the region average. Furthermore, roughly 70% of the company’s existing natural gas distribution system is made of new, high-durability materials, minimizing the amount of capex that needs to be directed toward the replacement of existing capacity. Unitil therefore has the ability to generate continued earnings growth in coming years via existing capacity, supporting a continuation of its net income CAGR of 17%. Unitil is in the process of expanding its service areas to meet expected natural gas demand in the Northeast U.S. despite its ability to meet new customer growth with its current capacity. Northern Utilities is in the process of expanding its natural gas service areas to increase the company’s potential customer growth in coming quarters. Electricity isn’t being ignored either, with a sufficient number of new substations being constructed in New Hampshire to meet expected load growth in the state. There are a number of reasons to expect natural gas and electricity demand to increase in Unitil’s service area. First, the regional economy has fared quite well of late, with the unemployment rates in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Maine all falling well below the U.S. average (see figure). This trend, combined with the continued presence of inexpensive natural gas prices, will eliminate constraints on natural gas consumption. Finally, all three states benefit from their reliance on relatively clean feedstocks for electricity generation compared to other states. Coal as a source of electricity has come under a great deal of pressure from state and federal regulators in recent months. That fuel is responsible for only a small fraction of the electricity produced in Unitil’s service area, however, with nuclear power, natural gas, and renewables generating the vast majority of electricity there. Coal’s regulatory difficulties have boosted the fortunes of natural gas and will benefit those companies such as Unitil that generate income by distributing the latter. New Hampshire Unemployment Rate data by YCharts Valuation Analyst estimates for Unitil’s diluted EPS in FY 2015 and FY 2016 have remained quite stable over the last 90 days, reflecting the lack of volatility in the company’s outlook. The consensus estimate for FY 2015 has remained unchanged at $1.90 while that for FY 2016 has fallen only slightly from $2.00 to $1.98. While the presence of only two analyst estimates would normally call these numbers into question, the performance stability of regulated entities suggests that they will be close to the company’s actual results. If so, they will represent the company’s best earnings since at least FY 2010, continuing a growth trend that has been in place since that year. Unitil’s share price at the time of writing of $33.37 yields a trailing P/E ratio of 17.9x and forward ratios for FY 2015 and FY 2016 of 17.5x and 16.9x, respectively (see figure). All three of these numbers are solidly in the middle of their respective ranges since the beginning of 2012, suggesting that the firm’s shares are fairly valued at present. UTL PE Ratio (NYSE: TTM ) data by YCharts Conclusion Unitil Corp. has been something of an unsung hero among public regulated utilities over the last five years, outperforming both its sector and the broader market since the beginning of FY 2010 even as it has gone largely unnoticed by analysts. Both of these developments can be attributed in large part to the company’s focus on a small service area in a relatively rural part of the country. This lack of size and volatility shouldn’t deter investors, however, as the company’s recent track record has demonstrated. While I believe that Unitil is in a position to continue its record of steady earnings and dividend growth by increasing its market penetration within its existing service area and expanding its natural gas service area, the lack of a clear value argument at present and the prospect of bearish sentiment continuing to negatively impact utilities’ share prices as the first interest rate increase by the Federal Reserve in almost a decade grows closer prevent me from initiating a long investment at this time. Existing investors should hold their positions, however, and I will look to join them in the event that the company’s FY 2015 P/E ratio falls below 16x (or $30.40 based on the current consensus estimate). Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, but may initiate a long position in UTL over 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.

AusNet Should Not Be Bought By Conservative Investors

Summary AusNet has been a steady dividend payer but it actually cannot afford the dividend as in the past two financial years it had to borrow cash to cover the dividend. Despite considering half of the capex as ‘growth’ capex, there won’t be a clear revenue increase further down the road. I consider my investment profile to be a bit too conservative to invest in AusNet right now as it isn’t self-funding the dividend (if you include growth capex). Introduction AusNet Services ( OTCPK:SAUNF ) operates a gas and electricity distribution network in Melbourne and Victoria (Australia) as well as high voltage power lines supplying Victoria. The company is known for its relatively generous dividend payments, but in this article I will discuss whether or not these dividends are sustainable. AusNet is an Australian company and you should trade in AusNet shares on the Australian Stock Exchange for liquidity reasons as the average daily dollar volume is almost $4M. The stock’s ticker symbol in Australia is AST . Is AusNet spending too much cash on dividends? In order to answer this question, we obviously need to have a closer look at the company’s financial situation, so we will focus on the results of its financial year 2015 (the most recent numbers available to the general public). Source: press release At first sight, AusNet had a pretty decent year as its revenue increased by 1.9%, resulting in a 2.9% increase in its EBITDA to just over A$1B. You immediately notice the strong EBITDA conversion as in FY 2015, no less than 57% of the company’s revenue was converted into EBITDA, which is pretty strong! However, this trend was discontinued at the bottom line as AusNet’s (adjusted) net profit decreased by approximately 2.5%. But of course, net profits and net losses don’t have any importance when you’re trying to find out whether or not a company can afford its dividend policy and that’s why I will switch to the company’s cash flow statements. AusNet generated an operating cash flow of A$768M (a very nice increase compared to the A$730M last year), but unfortunately the company had to spend A$800M in capital expenditures resulting in a negative free cash flow of almost A$40M (US$30M). So there wasn’t any free cash flow, but AusNet decided to spend A$180M (US$135M) in dividend distributions anyway. That’s not a good sign. Source: financial statements But okay, maybe this was a one-time bump in the road, so let’s pull the 2014 numbers as well. In the previous financial year, AusNet generated A$730M in operating cash flow but spent A$925M on capital expenditures, so AusNet hasn’t had a positive free cash flow in two financial years, but nevertheless decided to reward its stakeholders by paying out cash dividends to the tune of US$330M (keep in mind this does NOT include the additional dilution caused by shareholders accepting their dividend in new shares. If everybody would have elected a cash payment, the cash outflow would even be $100M higher!). This cash shortfall was compensated by issuing more debt. Why I’m not interested in buying AusNet at the current valuation I’m obviously not narrow-minded nor short-sighted (at least, I try not to be), and it does look like AusNet’s future will improve a bit as its capital expenditures are coming down. This should be the last year of heavy capex investments (estimated at A$900M), but from FY 2017 on the capital expenditures should be reduced to A$725M per year. Taking an expanding operating cash flow into consideration, this means I would expect AusNet to generate a positive free cash flow but his will be insufficient to cover the current 6% dividend yield. There’s an additional reason why I’m not very keen on adding AusNet to my portfolio. It’s quite common for utilities companies to have a lot of debt on its balance sheet and AusNet isn’t any different. As of at the end of March it had A$5.8B in net debt. That shouldn’t be a huge problem given the strong operating cash flows and EBITDA (and as said, it’s very normal for a company in this segment to have an above-average net debt). However, if you’d look at the cost of this debt, you’d be surprised at how this leverage could kill this company. AusNet paid A$326M in finance costs, so let’s now assume its average interest rate it has to pay is approximately 5%. If the average cost of debt would increase by 1%, AusNet’s bill would increase by A$50M and this will have a further negative impact on its ability to generate a positive free cash flow. But I don’t want to be too negative I always get a little bit nervous when I see a company telling its shareholders ‘the dividend is fully backed by the operating cash flow’. Whilst this is essentially true, I prefer to look at the free cash flow/dividend ratio. Whilst this is ratio is negative in AusNet’s case, there is also something working in its favor. (click to enlarge) Source: company presentation Of the A$800M it spent on capex in FY 2015, only A$380M was maintenance capex whilst the remaining A$420M capex was spent on projects to ensure further growth. However, looking at the average analyst estimates , there’s no clearly visible increase in the revenue expected within the next few years so even though A$420M is being spent on ‘growth’, I’m cautious until I indeed see a revenue increase. Investment thesis AusNet is paying a handsome dividend – which it promises to increase once again this year – but it’s only able to afford the dividend by raising additional cash through issuing more debt and that’s a dangerous game to play. I’m fine with AusNet spending A$420M on ‘growth’, but it’s a bit disappointing the company hasn’t released updated revenue growth targets for the next few years so it’s difficult to check if the ‘growth capex’ is really paying off. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying AusNet is a bad company, not at all. But I personally wouldn’t feel comfortable with a continuously increasing net debt profile which has the potential to erode the majority of the future free cash flow should the interest rates increase (which isn’t really unlikely). Editor’s Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks. 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.