Tag Archives: ideas

Playing The Ratings Game

By Alan Gula Care to take a guess at Lehman Brothers’ credit rating right before its bankruptcy? I’ll give you some help. Investment-grade ratings range from AAA down to BBB- (on the Standard & Poor’s ratings scale). Anything below investment grade (BB+ and below) is considered high yield , which is also known as speculative grade, sub-investment grade, or “junk.” The higher the credit rating, the higher the perceived credit worthiness. In other words, high-rated companies can probably pay you back. Thus, you’d assume Lehman Brothers had a solidly junky rating – perhaps CC – reflecting the high risk of default during the credit crisis… right? Actually, Lehman had an “A” rating right before it went bust! The major ratings agencies – Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Investors Services, and Fitch Ratings – took a lot of flak for this egregious misjudgment. To be sure, credit ratings still provide valuable information. In fact, looking up the credit rating and reading the commentary from the ratings agencies is a great place to begin when evaluating a stock. You can access Standard & Poor’s ratings for free by registering on their site. Just keep in mind that the ratings agencies may have missed some material risks. Therefore, we should really take notice when a company has a high-yield rating. Yet, most equity investors are unaware of the credit ratings of their holdings. For example, the following table shows three real estate investment trusts (REITs) that are in the S&P 500. Equinix Inc. (NASDAQ: EQIX ), Crown Castle International Corp. (NYSE: CCI ), and SL Green Realty Corp. (NYSE: SLG ) specialize in data centers, wireless communications towers, and commercial properties, respectively. I guarantee that the vast majority of retail investors in these stocks have no idea that the S&P’s long-term issuer rating of these REITs is sub-investment grade. It’s easy to see why these REITs have relatively low ratings, too. Their net debt (debt minus cash) to EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) ratios are all at least 4.0 times, which is high. The average net debt/EBITDA in the S&P 500, excluding financials, is 1.36 times. At a time when many high-yield bonds are coming under significant pressure, investors need to be vigilant . I’m not saying that these companies will default on their debt. However, I do think these REITs should have much higher yields to compensate investors for the additional risk, which is being ignored. The cost of debt capital will likely rise for most high-yield issuers during the next few years. This will be a painful process for unsuspecting equity investors in highly leveraged companies. Most stock watchers fail to appreciate the inextricable linkage between the credit and equity markets. Keep in mind, very few companies have rock solid balance sheets like Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ ), which is AAA rated. Sadly, many people’s idea of “research” involves pulling up a stock chart and (improperly) drawing some trend lines. If that’s the extent of your analysis, then you shouldn’t be investing in individual stocks. Stick with exchange-traded funds (ETFs). If you insist on individual stocks, at least do some credit analysis on your portfolio. You’ll thank me when defaults spike, sending shockwaves through the credit – and equity – markets. Link to the original post on Wall Street Daily

El Paso Electric: Fairly Valued, No Significant Upside

Summary We initiate coverage on El Paso Electric with a Neutral rating and TP of $40. The TP is based upon company’s future financial performance and historical valuation against industry peers. Current political situation in El Paso may cause challenges in reaching a settlement with the PUCT. Thus, the company would have to face uncertainty related to litigation. PVR anticipates the regulators of Texas and New Mexico to finally allow the significant increase in rate base. However, the current stock price is not including uncertainty related to regulatory. EE would have to apply for relief in rates in challenging jurisdictions as a result of new generation investment. Plain Vanilla Research ((NYSE: PVR )) initiates coverage on El Paso Electric Co. (NYSE: EE ) with a Neutral rating and a target price ((TP)) of $40. Since September, the stock price of El Paso Electric has outperformed the Utilities Sector by 7.28 percentage points (ppts). This is shown in the chart below: (click to enlarge) However, we think that the performance is not sustainable in the future as the company is facing challenges on multiple fronts. This restricts the stock from offering significant upside potential. In addition to that, a dividend yield of only 3% is not very attractive to tempt dividend investors. We will be discussing the challenges below: 1. Political Circumstances In El Paso In the past, proceedings related to change in rate base in El Paso have been engulfed with politics a lot. The company can be anticipated to face an interesting stance from the City Council officials as they will try to create challenges for the company to reach a settlement agreement. Furthermore, the supporters of solar-powered energy have also entered the arena as the publicly-listed corporation is trying to create alterations in rate design, which would cause installers of rooftop solar panels to make a partial requirements fee payment. Instead of reaching a settlement with the City Council authorities, we think the company should play the long game and wait for a decision from the Public Utilities Commission of Texas (PUCT). Although, the road is long and would result in higher uncertainty but it will result in a more favorable decision for the organization. 2. Approval From Texas And New Mexico Regulatory Authorities We anticipate that the regulatory authorities of Texas and New Mexico will allow the significant increase in rate base at the end. However, the current stock price reflects that investors expect the regulatory authorities to allow the increase in rate in any case. We think that slight hindrance in regulatory approval will result in the stock price on a downward trajectory. Texas is responsible for contributing roughly three-fourth to El Paso Electric’s bottom line. Meanwhile, the remaining contribution is from the state of New Mexico. 3. Demand For Rate Relief Requests In Challenging Jurisdictions El Paso has the finished the construction of two peaking units located at the Montana Power Station (MPS). In addition to that, the company will be finished with the construction of the third unit by spring of next year and by year-end, the company intends to complete the construction of the fourth unit. The four units are natural-gas powered and will have a capacity of 352 megawatts ((NYSE: MW )). These units are built to cater the increasing requirement of electricity in El Paso’s service territory. Montana plant and support infrastructure is anticipated to have a cost of $375 million. The company has been lucky to experience an annual growth rate of 1% to 1.5% for the past several years in the service territory. Normally, the industry has been seeing flat or decline in power consumption. Derivation Of Price Objective PVR has based its target price (TP) of $31 at earnings per share ((NYSEARCA: EPS )) of $2.67 along with a forward P/E multiple of 15.39x. The following forecasted income statement reflects as how we have arrived at our 2018 EPS. Currently, El Paso Electric’s stock is exchanging hand at PVR’s forward price-to-earnings (P/E) multiple of 15.44x. In the past three-years, the stock has traded at an average forward P/E multiple of 14.94x. This reflects that the stock is trading at a premium of 6.5% against its three-year average forward P/E multiple of 14.94x. (click to enlarge) Meanwhile, against its peers’ combined forward P/E multiple of 12.23x, El Paso Electric’s stock is presently trading at a premium of 26.2%. In the past three years, the stock has traded at an average premium of 22% against its peers’ combined forward P/E. (click to enlarge) We have arrived at our target forward P/E multiple for El Paso Electric by calculating the three-year average forward P/E multiple of 12.24x for the combined industry peers. After that, we have applied the three-year historical premium of 22% to the historical average peers’ combined forward P/E multiple to reach El Paso Electric’s target forward P/E multiple of 14.93x. We have formulated the peers forward P/E multiple by combining our forward P/E ratios of Consolidated Edison (NYSE: ED ), PG&E Corporation (NYSE: PCG ), PNM Resources Inc (NYSE: PNM ), American Electric Power Company Inc (NYSE: AEP ) and Xcel Energy Inc (NYSE: XEL ) along with El Paso Electric. We have given their respective P/E weight according to their market capitalization.

BRICs, PITs, And PIGS: Go Ugly

In my research and investing, I stress three things: people, structure and value. I look for companies that are controlled and managed by quality people, have corporate structures that align minority and majority shareholder interests, and trade at valuations that are below fair value if not outright cheap. This blog is somewhat aligned with valuation and yet another example of how investing in beaten down, unpopular and ugly markets can lead to better returns. Usually, valuations are low in markets that are not very attractive. Stocks can look very inexpensive, and prices seem to reflect all the negative news, but who knows when the news can get even worse? And it can take even greater will power to stay invested when nobody around you sees your point of view, friends and peers are calling you crazy, and well-educated, respected and slick I-bank analysts and traders are negative (think negative of your point of view?). It’s a lot easier to invest in markets when (where) there’s a lot of good news and the future looks very bright. The problem is that these markets tend to be expensive and future returns tend not to be as good. To contrast these two points, let’s look at two emerging market acronyms – BRICs and PITs that originated about the same time. BRICs stands for Brazil, Russia, India and China. The acronym is attributed to Jim O’Neill in a paper he wrote for Goldman Sachs in November 2001. In it, he argued that these four countries should be included in high-level government groupings such as the “G7” because their size and growth would make them increasingly influential. The acronym came out not long after the tech crash. Wall Street was ripe for a new story, and over the next few years, the term became more popular. Goldman Sachs and many others launched BRIC funds and ETFs. There are now over 200 of them, according to a very expensive database. The term took on a life of its own and the four appear to like the grouping. Just a few months ago the four countries and South Africa formally launched the BRICS Development Bank ( link here ). About the same time BRICs was coined, traders and analysts who survived the late 1990s Asian financial crisis were referring to the ASEAN countries as PITs. The term stood for Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand: the three of the hardest economies and markets. Unlike BRICs, I don’t think anybody has come forward to claim responsibility for it. Calling your home market a degrading term soon after your clients lost money would not likely make one popular. Investing in the four BRIC countries when the phrase was coined would have been smart. The four countries’ headline indexes are up 302% since late 2001 for a CAGR of some 10.5% (return figures are based on equally weighted headline indexes, in USD, dividends not included). In contrast, and despite the acronym’s negative connotation, one would have done considerably better by investing in the three PITs markets than the four BRICs markets. An equally weighted investment in the three grew by 675% over the same time period, which means the PITs investor would have made more than double the money than the BRICs investor. All three PITs indexes did better than even the best performing BRIC index. Thailand, the worst performing PITs country, rose by 229%, a bit more than the best performing BRICs country, which rose by 611% from November 2001 to November 2015. The outperformance of the PITs countries continued after the expression was coined. In July 2006, Goldman Sachs launched a BRIC fund. From launch to close, the fund’s performance was just under 20% and almost exactly in line the four countries’ equally weighted performance. Over the same time period, the three PITs indexes increased by 157%, meaning that one would have made almost eight times more money by investing in the markets that were unloved rather than the ones that were popular by investment funds and advisors. Are PIGS Today’s PITs? PIGS stands for Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain and was supposedly coined by traders. These are of the world’s worst performing economies and equity markets since the 2008 global financial crisis. Like PITs it is not a flattering grouping and member countries have reportedly renounced the term (more information on PIGS is here ). I suspect PIGS could be an up-to-date version of PITs. The origins of both are the same and they describe markets that are having problems and are out of favor. Also, like PITs, the countries in the grouping are geographically close and have a lot in common in terms of economic integration, language, and culture. This is more than can be said of BRICs. Except for their size, I don’t really see much that binds them like PITs and PIGS. Since July 2012, the four PIGS headline indexes are up 9% on average. Not very impressive for two-and-a half-years. However, these could be some of the better performing markets in the next 10 to 15 years if similar to the PITs. Back to BRICs Ironically, now may be a good time to consider investing in BRIC equities. Russia has some of the world’s least expensive large companies and is one of my biggest exposures. Brazil is starting to look interesting with its currency down some 40% in the last two years. There are some exciting and inexpensive companies in China, and at 7x PE, the Hang Seng China Enterprise Index does not seem very expensive. Weren’t US equities trading at the same level in the early 1980s just before that market’s 18-year bull run? There’s also a good contrarian signal. Big banks have a good habit of closing operations and products just when things start turning around. HSBC closed its South East Asian equity research offices in 2001 – just before those markets went on a multi-year bull run. Goldman’s closing of its BRICs fund may be a similar signal. Go Ugly This short piece is meant to show that going against the grain and doing what is uncomfortable and unconventional many times leads to higher returns. The best place to find value is typically in ugly sectors and geographies. Are there other places that appear to be ugly and warrant catchy phrases such as PIGS? How’s “RUKs”, for Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, three ex-Soviet countries whose currencies are down and some of the highest interest rates in the world. Or “PCB”, for Peru, Columbia and Brazil, three of the worst performing equity markets this year for US dollar investors? Or “JOBQE”, for Jordan, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar and Egypt which are amongst the world’s least expensive equity markets likely due to the large amount of uncertainty in the Middle East?