Tag Archives: investing

OGE Energy (OGE) CEO Sean Trauschke on Q3 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

OGE Energy Corp. (NYSE: OGE ) Q3 2015 Earnings Conference Call November 5, 2015 09:00 a.m. ET Executives Sean Trauschke – President, Chief Executive Officer Steve Merrill – Chief Financial Officer Todd Tidwell – Director of Investor Relations Analysts Anthony Crowdell – Jefferies Matt Tucker – KeyBanc Capital Bryan Russo – Ladenburg Thalmann Jay Dobson – Wunderlich Paul Patterson – Glenrock Associates Operator Good day ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Third Quarter OGE Energy Earnings Conference Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will follow at that time. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this call will be recorded. I would now like to introduce your host for today’s conference, Mr. Todd Tidwell, please go ahead. Todd Tidwell Thank you, Katherine. Good morning everyone and welcome to OGE Energy Corp’s third quarter 2015 earnings call. I’m Todd Tidwell, Director of Investor Relations and with me today, I have Sean Trauschke, President and CEO of OGE Energy Corp; and Steve Merrill, CFO of OGE Energy Corp. In terms of the call today we will first hear from Sean, followed by an explanation from Steve of third quarter results and finally, as always we will answer your questions. I would like to remind you that this conference is being webcast and you may follow along on our website at oge.com. In addition, the conference call and the accompanying slides will be archived following the call on that same website. Before we begin the presentation, I would like to direct your attention to the Safe Harbor statement regarding forward-looking statements. This is an SEC requirement for financial statements and simply states that we cannot guarantee forward looking financial results. But this is our best estimate to date. I would also like to remind you that there is a Regulation G reconciliation for gross margin and ongoing earnings in the appendix along with projected capital expenditures. I will now turn the call over to Sean for his opening remarks. Sean? Sean Trauschke Thank you, Todd. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us on today’s call. This morning we reported third quarter results and our utility OGE contributed $0.82 per share compared to $0.79 per share last year. Looking forward to the full year, the company projects 2015 utility earnings to be at the low end of the earnings range of $1.41 to $1.49 per average diluted share. This is primarily due to mild summer weather as compared to normal and environmental compliance assets placed in this service that have not yet been included in rates. Earnings from the Enable Midstream for the third quarter of 2015 include a pension settlement and the good will impairment charges of $0.35 per share. Ongoing earnings on a consolidated basis which exclude these non-cash charges were $0.90 for the third quarter compared to $0.94 per share for the same period in 2014. Steven will discuss the financial results and impairment in more detail in just a moment. That being said, the Enable impairment does not change our plans for OGE. We are on plan to achieve our utility long term growth rate of 3% to 5% and to continue to grow our dividend through 2019. We continue to believe our businesses are strong and well positioned for the long term growth and value creation. In September the Board of Directors proved a 10% increase in the quarterly dividend, bringing the dividend to $1.10 per share annually. This was the 10 th consecutive year of dividend growth. It reaffirms our commitment to growing the dividend 10% a year through 2019. We have received approximately $104 million of distributions from Enable year-to-date. With the quarterly distribution they’ve just announced, distributions to OGE will be approximately $140 million for the year. As we said before, cash distributions received is the key metric we are using for Enable. Distributions from Enable will continue to help fund our dividend and utility investments. Turning to the utility, our service territory remains strong despite the continued pressure from the current commodity cycle. The latest economic statistics with Oklahoma’s unemployment rate at 4.5%, with Oklahoma City just under 4%. Although these rates have increased, we are still well below the national average. As expected, we are seeing pull backs in the industrial and oil field sector, but growth from the commercial sector, particularly chain accounts has offset those loses. This is a testament to our region’s growing economic diversity. Our operations team did a great job of maintaining the fleet in the grid this summary. Our combined cycle plants achieved best in class for liability of nearly 99% and capitalize on lower gas pricing to bring the best value to our customers. Our coal units demonstrated a liability of 91% and during the summer months 9% of our total generation came from renewable resources. On the cost side we continue to focus on controlling costs and increasing efficiency and productivity. As a point of reference, our O&M cost per customer is lower today than it was in 2011. This is really good news for our customs. Attracting customers with not only competitive rates, but additional products and services is a key component of our strategy. Last month our customers saw improved functionality with the implementation of our estimated time of restoration project. This technology allows customers access to outage issues, and estimates for when they can expect service restoration. We continue to look for ways in which technology will improve our customer experience. Next I would like to provide an update on our regulatory events in Oklahoma and Arkansas. In Oklahoma we are still waiting on a order for our environmental case. We plan to file a general rate case in Oklahoma later this month, with a test year ending June 30, 2015. The case as we have said previously will focus on two main issues. First, we have terminated a large wholesale contract and several smaller contracts and will now seek to place in the rates approximately 300 megawatts of that capacity previously used to meet those obligations. The second focus will be to recover the retail portion of several in-service transmission lines that OG&E has constructed at SPP’s direction over the last few years. Also in Oklahoma we’ve filed a distributed generation tariff with the commission. Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 1456 was signed into law last year, requiring us to have a tariff by the end of 2015. This tariff is to ensure that distributed generation customers are not being subsidized by other customers. Our proposed tariff enables an individual adding distributed generation to expense reductions in their utility bills, while ensuring that they pay for their fair share for the grid as the law requires. While the number of DG customers of our system is very small today, this prepares us for accurate cost recovery in the future, should the adoption of DG devices become more prevalent. Moving to Arkansas, we have filed under Act 310, which provides a constructive way to file and begin the recovery of environmental expenditures for assets placed in the service. We made our first filing in May, and put the rates into effect in June. The settlement hearing was in October and we are waiting the commission’s final order. We anticipate making our second filing later this month and we will update the filing every six months as additional compliance investments are placed into service. We are very pleased with this process in Arkansas. We also plan to file a general rate case in Arkansas in early 2016. We intend to utilize the formula rate provision in the recently passed legislation, and our biggest issue in Arkansas continues to be the imputed capital structure utilized. We are planning to work with the Arkansas Public Service Commission on this issue. Proper resolution of this issue will improve our ability to enhance the customer experience in Arkansas and to make investments that will help attract new businesses to this day. Turning to the environmental compliance plan, regardless of the delays we experienced on the regulatory side, we must move forward to meet our compliance deadlines. Regarding the activated carbon systems from MATS compliance, we are on budget and construction has begun to meet the April 2016 compliance deadline. Looking at the regional haze compliance plan, four of the seven low NOx burners are complete and in service and installation will begin on the remaining units this winter and will be completed by the spring of 2017. The equipment and installation vendors for the two dry scrubbers at Sooner have been selected and schedules and budgets are on plan. For the Mustang plants, full notice to proceed has been issued to the turbine manufacturer. Permanent applications have been filed with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental quality and we anticipate the final permit will be issued by the end of the month. Engineering studies for the conversion of the two coal units in Miscurgie have been completed and we’ve issued an RFP for gas supply, and recall our plan is to continue to run these coal units as long as possible to maximize the benefit to our customers. Finally the EPA issued its clean power plant in August and the plan seeks to reduce CO2 emissions in Oklahoma from 24% to 32% depending on the format of the compliance plan, the mass versus rate base plan by 2030. As you know Oklahoma’s Attorney General has begun the legal proceedings against the EPA in regard to the clean power plant, stating that it threatens the reliability and affordability of power generation across the nation. Similar to regional haze litigation, we will be support of the AGs efforts on behalf of the State of Oklahoma. In the meantime we are in process of reconfiguring our fleet with the addition of Mustang and the conversion of the Miscurgie units. In addition, we are we are 18 months into the SPP day head market and the decisions other generators and other states make could impact our fleet. As a result we will continue the evaluation of our units, our role in the state and our role in the broader southwest carpool, while continuing our active discussion with the state regarding various options of compliance. Finally, last week Rod Sailor was announced the CEO of Enable. As you know Rod joined us in April of 2014 and has been an instrumental part of the company. Since June, Rod has been leading the development and execution of the business strategy, and I’m comfortable that Rod brings familiarity to the company, customers and the market, providing that stability and consistency we are looking for. I’m confident that he is the right person to lead Enable’s growth strategy going forward. So in summary, this is an exciting time for us at OGE. As a management team we are committed to executing on our strategy to continue growing our business. I’ll now turn the call over to Steve to review our financial results. Steve. Steve Merrill Thanks Sean and good morning everyone. For the third quarter we reported net income of $111 million or $0.55 per share as compared to net income of $187 million or $0.94 per share in 2014. The contribution by business unit on a comparative basis is listed on the slide. I would like to point out that the loss from Enable is due in part to a $0.35 per share write down of good will and a pension charge. Excluding the impact of these charges, third quarter 2015 earnings would have $0.90 per share as compared to $0.94 per share for 2014. I will discuss the good will impairment on a later slide. The holding company loss is primarily attributable to changes in our differed compensation plan. The holding company is on plan, and is expected to be flat for the year. At OG&E net income for the quarter was $163 million or $0.82 per share as compared to net income of $157 million or $0.79 per share in 2014. Third quarter gross margin at the utility increased approximately $11 million, which I’ll discuss on the next slide. O&M is on plan for the year. The decrease of $4 million is primarily due to the lower maintenance cost at our power plant and our continual focus to control cost. Depreciation increased $7 million, primarily due to the large transmission lines that were added in the last 12 months, part of the over $800 million of plant placed in service in 2014. Income tax expense also increased approximately $4 million due to higher pre-tax net income and a reduction of federal tax credits recognized. Turning to the third quarter gross margin, utility margins increased approximately $11 million for the third quarter of 2015 compared to 2014. The primary drivers for gross margin were new customer growth, which contributed $9 million. We added over 9,000 new customers to the system as compared to the third quarter of 2014. We continue to see about 1% growth supported by the commercial sector. Weather contributed nearly $9 million of margin as cooling degree days increased 6% compared to the third quarter of 2014. However, compared to normal, weather decreased for us the margin, approximately $11 million for the quarter. Partially offsetting this growth was wholesales transmission revenues which decreased $4 million compared to the third quarter of 2014, primarily due to an adjustment of the SPP formula rate to reflect the continuation of bonus depreciation. Finally, on June 30 we had a wholesale power contract that expired, reducing margin by nearly $8 million for the quarter. As we’ve said before, this is an item that will be included in the general rate case we are filing this month in Oklahoma. For the third quarter of 2015, Enable Midstream contributed ongoing earnings of $0.10 per share compared to $0.14 per share in 2014. Cash distributions increased by 6% to $35 million from $33 million in 2014. Year-to-date OG&E has received approximately $104 million of distributions from Enable. Before I explain the impairment charge, I would like to point out that cash flow in the form of distributions, not the earnings from Enable of what is important to OGE. Though commodity prices are low, Enable is performing as planned in regards to allowing us to fund environmental CapEx and to grow our dividend by 10% per year through 2019. Turning to the impairment, Enable Midstream recorded a goodwill impairment of approximately $1.1 billion in the third quarter of 2015. OGE’s portion of Enable’s good will impairment is approximately $108 million. The reason our shares left within the pro rata share is because of the formation of Enable. We received a higher level of LT [ph] interest just compared to the assets that were contributed. However, we were required to record our investment of historical costs, thus creating a basis difference. Turning to 2015 outlook, the company projects 2015 utility earnings to be at the low end of the earnings range with $1.41 to $1.49 per average diluted share, primarily due to mild summer weather as compared to normal and environmental compliance assets placed into service that have not been included in rates. For the Midstream business we are projecting to receive approximately $140 million in cash distributions. Utility is on track to achieve its long term growth rate of 3% to 5%. Our cash flow position for 2015 remains strong and is key to our value proposition, which is growing utility UPS and utilizing our cash flow from Enable to fund our capital investments and grow our dividend at 10% annually. This concludes our prepared remarks and we’ll now answer your questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Anthony Crowdell with Jefferies. Your line is open. Anthony Crowdell Good morning. Sean Trauschke Hey, good morning Anthony. How are you doing? Anthony Crowdell Just crushing it. How about yourself? Sean Trauschke Just crushing it. Well, I’m going to use that line. Anthony Crowdell No worries. Just two questions, the first question is related to I guess the delay in the approval of your regional haze CapEx. Do you think that the clean power plant or the Oklahoma Attorney General fighting the clean power plant is what’s causing the delay of the regional haze approval? Sean Trauschke No, I don’t. I think those are totally independent issues and the ruling on the regional haze is with the three commissioners right now. So the AG is not part of that. Anthony Crowdell If I remember correctly, you guys said I think a 55 month window to comply. Is this eating into the time of that 55 month window to comply? Like it’s a clock running and you are just waiting to start executing once you get approval on it. Sean Trauschke Yes, no very good question Anthony. You’re exactly right. We have a deadline to comply. By law we have to comply. So we are actually in that process of complying. I mentioned in my comments, we’ve got four of the seven low NOx burners already in service. We’re well down the path that Sooner on the scrubbers. We’ve made the commitment; we’re doing an RFP right now for the gas supply, the stogie for the conversion. So we’ve got to move ahead. We could not wait for commission approval to begin this. I mean we have to comply and so that’s what’s going on, we’re moving forward. Let me say it differently; non-compliance is not really an option. Anthony Crowdell Right, but I guess I’m just thinking out loud if you did not get approval for regional haze, does that create a more challenging regulatory environment? Sean Trauschke Yes, while we’re surprised or disappointed that it’s taken this long to get the order; we do believe that we’re going to receive approval for these required expenditures. Anthony Crowdell Great. And moving to the easy part of the business Enable, I think on Enable’s second quarter call or whatever they spoke about when they thought they’d hit maybe the Tier 2 distributions, which that also I think it begins with GP just like getting some distributions. When does OGE forecast that they start receiving some of the GP distributions? Steve Merrill Sure. At the present time with the guidance that Enable put out yesterday, we would anticipate starting to receive those in 2017. Anthony Crowdell And is it like a – I don’t want to use the word trickle, but a small amount and then 18 to get a gradual step up or… Steve Merrill That’s correct. I mean at the current growth that’s out there right now, it would be a gradual step up. Anthony Crowdell Great. Guys, thanks for taking my questions. I’ll see you at EEI. Sean Trauschke All right, see you Anthony. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from Matt Tucker with KeyBanc Capital. Your line is open. Matt Tucker Hey guys, good morning and thanks for taking my question. Sean Trauschke Good morning Matt. Matt Tucker I was hoping you could elaborate a little bit on what’s changed in terms of the utility outlook. If you could maybe quantify how much of the headwind is weather versus the recovery of environmental investments and is that Writer drag just related to the delay in the environmental case approval? Steve Merrill Yes, that’s correct. If you look at weather, it’s about $0.03 and then the environmental drag is a couple of cents at this point and yes, it’s just timing of the Writer. That will go away as soon as we get the Writer. Matt Tucker Got it, thanks. And then thinking about, you’ve maintained the long term outlook despite Enable kind of reducing its distribution growth guidance for the next couple of years and I know that you built a lot of cushion into your longer term assumptions. Could you talk a little bit about how stress tested those are if Enable were to hypothetically hold its distributions flat for the next couple of years or beyond. Would you still be okay in terms of the dividend growth guidance and lack of equity needs? Sean Trauschke Yes, we would. Matt Tucker Okay, great. That’s all I had guys, thanks. Sean Trauschke Thanks Matt. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from Bryan Russo with Ladenburg Thalmann. Your line is opened. Bryan Russo Good morning. Sean Trauschke Hey, good morning Bryan. Bryan Russo Just curious. How much environmental spend is not in base rates. Steve Merrill Right now that’s about $39 million. Bryan Russo Okay, great. I realized the delay in the OCC order. I think previously you had conveyed that they indicated they were going to try to make a decision by September and we’re probably six weeks past September; any reason for the delay? Sean Trauschke None that we’re aware of Bryan to be perfectly blunt. There was that public hearing they did allude to. They thought they were going to try to get an order out within 30 days. We’ve not seen the order and we’re talking to them and anxious to receive the orders as quickly as you are. Bryan Russo Okay, so it’s basically any day is how we should look at it? Sean Trauschke Yes, but I wouldn’t characterize that any day any differently from September. Bryan Russo Understood. And if you don’t get the ECP for the tracker order by the end of the month and you file your rate case, does not having that tracker or a decision on the order, does that complicate this rate case at all or is it because your environment, the spin is so back end loaded that your able to manage it? Sean Trauschke Yes, you’re correct in your assumption there. I think the complication that arises with this filing is that under 1910 there is a provision there that you file a rate case every two years after the Writer goes in place and our goal and objective was we wanted to run our business and we didn’t want to get tangled up in rate cases every couple of years and just because of the time, energy and money you spend going through that process. In your scenario there we would file and not have – file a rate case and we potentially could not have rates, the Writer in place and so that may give rise to another rate case. I believe we’ll cross that bridge when we get there. I think the thinking thereby and just to be perfectly honest, we said all along we were going to file this rate case this year and this is to recover those items that Steve’s mentioned to that are not being recovered today. There would be good value for customers, the transmission lines are in service and we are going to bring 300 megawatts there back to our utility customers around 230 a KW. So that’s good value for the customers and we ought to be doing it, but we’ve got to kind of run our business for our customers and not get bogged down with kind of the regulatory timeline. Bryan Russo Okay, and the June 2015 test here. What’s like the true-up here or a known and measurable date? Sean Trauschke Six months. Bryan Russo Okay, and what’s the statutory deadline for the commission to issue a final order in a rate case? Sean Trauschke Well, after 180 days from that filing in the rate case, we can implement rates. Bryan Russo Okay, got it. So we should feel rest assured or comfortable that new rates are going to affect prior to near your summer third quarter peak period. Sean Trauschke Yes sir. Bryan Russo Okay, great. Thank you. Sean Trauschke Thank you. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from Jay Dobson with Wunderlich. Your line is open. Jay Dobson Hey, good morning Sean. Sean Trauschke Hey, good morning Jay. Jay Dobson Hey, a couple of questions if I can. Operating cost trends obviously have been moving in the right direction and you spend a little time highlighting them. Can you talk a little bit about what’s going on there and sort of the durability of those controls or reductions? Sean Trauschke Yes, I think – good question. So we’re actually quite proud of this and philosophically this is not a one-time project that we have these initiatives or teams out there; this is every day. This is just grinding away, looking for opportunities. We’ve seized opportunities around supply chain recently, around our maintenance of our facilities, our engineering systems. We’ve had a number of opportunities as people have retired. How we re-tool the workforce and brought new people into the company. So there’s no singular item Jay is what I would tell you and I think that speaks to the durability or the sustainability of what we’re doing here and it’s just a daily effort and we’re keenly focused on keeping our own costs low. In this case actually reducing them, but I expect that to continue. Jay Dobson Is that something we’d measure in quarters or years? Sean Trauschke I think it’s probably something that you do on an annual basis. A lot of things going at your own expense, but I think that’s more of an annual trend and we’ve been trending that. We’ve been watching that since 2011 and I’m really proud of the effort the entire company has put forth on this. I don’t expect it to seize. The expectation is we’ll continue going forward. Jay Dobson No, that’s great. So the reduction sort of to-date or whenever the rate case is filed, you’ll be sort of handing those back in a rate proceeding, but looking forward sort of post rate case we should assume that costs could continue to decline in a measurable pace. Sean Trauschke Well, let me clarify that a bit. So we are very fortunate to see low growth on our system and so we’re adding customers and so what we’ve been able to do is absorb that and not see incremental costs go out, okay. So I don’t think you’re going to see O&M reductions go down if you’re thinking in terms of rate case activity or anything like that. What we’re saying is that we’re absorbing this additional low with productivity and efficiency gain in our system. Jay Dobson Nope, that’s perfect. It’s like you read my mind. So commercial trends you indicated, what exactly is going on there? Is there new customers coming in? Is this expansion sort of economically related? What’s going on there? Sean Trauschke Yes and yes and so we’re seeing a number of the chain account kind of builds, box stores and restaurants and things like that coming in. We are beginning to see a bit of a slowdown in the oil field sector as you would expect, but it does not seem to be slowing down on the commercial side or the retail side. Jay Dobson Got you, that’s great. And then Enable, I assumed they’d be in the running to serve the Miscurgie conversion and Mustang gas needs. Sean Trauschke Yes, I think we’ll conduct a competitive bid process like we do with everything we procure in this company and if they are successful they’ll get it, if they are not, somebody else will get it. But yes, they would certainly be a viable candidate, but they will not receive any kind of special treatment. Jay Dobson Do they serve other facilities on your system currently? Sean Trauschke Yes, they do. So Enable serves the Mustang plant currently and Horseshoe Lake and Seminole and then some other suppliers serve Redbud and McClain. Jay Dobson Got you. And then two last ones; tax rate with the write down maybe more for Steve. I imagine not that you’re a big tax payer, but that it would do Steve, actual taxes paid, so cash flow benefit. Am I thinking about that right from the good will impairment you recorded? Steve Merrill Yes, you are. We won’t be a full tax payer until 2018. Jay Dobson Perfect. And then last one, just to tag on to the – I think it was the last question Sean. So you can implement rates, 120 days if you don’t have a decision, but am I remembering historically you haven’t actually done that. Sean Trauschke Yes, so it’s actually 180 days and so have we done that? I believe we’ve done it way, way back in the past, but not in recent history. Jay Dobson Okay, got you. Awesome! Thank you so much. Look forward to seeing you in a couple of days. Sean Trauschke All right, thanks Jay. Take care. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Your line is open. Paul Patterson Hi, how are you doing? Sean Trauschke Hey, good Paul. How are you? Paul Patterson I’m managing. With respect to the, back to this regional haze thing, I mean I guess it was asked and I guess if you could just elaborate a little bit. I mean there’s no sense as to why this is being delayed. Sean Trauschke Well, they are deliberating right now. This is I think the top item on their play. In fairness to the commission, they’ve got a heavy case load. They’ve been very involved in some of the – there’s been a lot of earthquakes here. So they’ve been involved in that analysis and in fairness to commissioner Hye [ph], he walked into this. He didn’t have the benefit of the history that had gone on the previous four years with this. So he is quickly getting up to speed as well. So I don’t really have any, Paul any more insight than that and we’re as anxious as you are to get this resolved. We’ll tell you that we have had some discussions, not complaining or anything about this case, but more about prospectively we’ve got to come up with solutions. What can we do on our side to make this process faster in the future. So we are looking forward in terms of how we can improve this process to make it more timely. Paul Patterson But the record has been closed for some time. There was a deliberation statement from Anthony right. I mean so isn’t like – it seems like it’s got nothing to do with you guys at this point, correct. I mean you guys can’t do anything to – so generally your really… Steve Merrill I think your thesis is exactly right. I mean we have asked if they are looking for any more information or they need anything from us. I think your thesis is right. Its sitting there on their desk. They are deliberating right now. Paul Patterson So we are really not going to be in a situation where you are going to be doing things to address the regional haze issue before we get this; at least nothing that would be controversial potentially. Correct? Sean Trauschke Are you talking about as far as taking access to comply? Paul Patterson Yes. Sean Trauschke No Paul, we are taking actions to comply. We have a deadline, we have a compliance date between regional haze and MATS and we are taking actions – go ahead. Paul Patterson But is there anything that like I guess in terms of – is there any risk that you’ll be taking action that these guys might say, ‘hey, well that’s not what we really thought you were going to do.’ Sean Trauschke No, no the actions we are taking is exactly what we spelled out in our testimony, exactly what we communicated well in advance of our filing and our plan of attack is exactly what we’ve been communicating for a couple of years now. Paul Patterson Okay and so if these guys come up with a decision that’s different than that? Sean Trauschke When you say a decision different than that, what do you mean? Paul Patterson I mean if they go with the ALJ recommendation, right. Would that… Sean Trauschke The ALJ, I think the ALJ was primarily speaking about various components of how you’d recover that, but the commission is not – it’s our job to kind of design and operate this system and make these decisions on how the business is going to operate, and aside I don’t believe that they are going to get into making decisions about what asset we should be utilizing. And besides remember, the ALJ did indicate all of this was prudent, and the legislation provides for that as well and that this was a mandate, a requirement and that’s what this legislation that was put in place was to address, was timely recovery for environmental mandate and this is the mandate. Paul Patterson But the Mustang monetization plan and stuff like that, I mean how do we think about that I guess. Do you follow what I’m saying? Sean Trauschke Yes, so on Mustang, our point there on Mustang was we wanted to be upfront and transparent with the commission. Let them know where we are going with how we are going to reconfigure our fleet. We had a window of opportunity there to be able to site new generation closest to the largest load center. It serves a very critical piece of our 345 transmission loop around the city and we made that case to the committee, to the commission and whether they account for that and the writer or whether they want to do deal with that later in a rate case, that’s fine, we’ll deal with that. Paul Patterson Okay. And then just in terms of good will, I’m sorry to be a little so on. Just with the account and back to Jay’s question, what was the tax impact? I apologize, it’s been a busy morning, associated with our write-off. Steve Merrill I mean it’s really just a timing issue as it relates to a tax impact. That write-off will actually flow through our corporate tax calculation and impact our effective rate accordingly. Paul Patterson As opposed to being amortized, is that how we should think about it. Steve Merrill That’s correct. It accelerates in the amortization, and you don’t really amortize good will anyway. It just sits there until… Paul Patterson Not on a GAAP basis, but on the tax basis, was there any amortization on that. Steve Merrill No. Paul Patterson Okay, I just wanted to check on that. Steve Merrill Okay. Paul Patterson Thank you. Sean Trauschke Thanks Paul. Operator Thank you. And I am showing no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the call back to Sean Trauschke for any closing remarks. Sean Trauschke Well, once again I want to thank our members for their hard work and dedication and commitment to safety and thank all of you for joining us on this call today and have a great day. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation in today’s conference. This does conclude today’s program. You may all disconnect. Everyone have a great day.

It’s A Good Time To Buy A Good Junk Bond Fund

Summary Spread between yield on high yield debt and U.S. Treasuries is above average. Credit loss costs on speculative grade fixed income securities have been below average for the past few years. Among junk bond funds, Lord Abbett High Yield Fund has a strong track record and an attractive portfolio. The recent underperformance of speculative grade bonds has made the asset class attractive to investors focusing on fundamentals. The chart below shows that the spread between high yield fixed income securities and 5 year U.S. Treasuries is above average. Additionally, credit loss rates have been below average for the past four years. Combining these two trends suggest high yield investors are receiving a good premium for the risk in today’s environment. U.S. High Yield Spreads and Credit Loss Rates Sources: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and Merrill Lynch Macroeconomic Conditions Since the latest data on high yield credit loss rates is for 2014, it is helpful to briefly assess the macroeconomic conditions in the U.S. and determine their implications on companies with high leverage, volatile cash flows or deteriorating profitability. The U.S. economy continues to recover gradually from the Great Recession. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the unemployment rate has declined to 5.1% from a crisis era peak of 10.0% in 2009. Last month’s non-farm payroll report was below most economists’ expectations, but the general trend in jobs has been good. The economy has added 13 million jobs since 2009 including 1.6 million in 2015. GDP and corporate earnings have been volatile in 2015, but expectations are for better growth in 2016. The International Monetary Fund expects U.S. real GDP growth to improve to 2.8% in 2016. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters expect earnings for the S&P 500 to increase 9% next year. Some sectors of the economy definitely have blemishes particularly industries that produce energy or depend on sales abroad. Overall, macroeconomic conditions may not be great, but they are decent and improving which should limit corporate defaults. Fund Selection After determining high yield fixed income securities are an attractive asset class, the next step is selecting the appropriate security or securities. Most retail investment accounts do not allow investors to buy high yield bonds directly. Instead, they must use mutual funds or exchange traded funds (ETFs) to gain exposure to this asset class. Even if retail investors could buy individual high yield bonds, it would still be a good idea to use mutual funds and ETFs due to the diversification they provide. Below is the criteria used to select mutual funds and ETFs for more thorough analysis. At least 75% of holdings rated BB+ or lower Mutual funds with Morningstar rating of 4 or 5 stars No load or waived Top 20% in 5 year return vs benchmark Applying this criteria identifies the following mutual funds: Fidelity Capital & Income Fund (MUTF: FAGIX ) Oppenheimer Senior Floating Rate A (MUTF: OOSAX ) Lord Abbett High Yield A (MUTF: LHYAX ) Guggenheim Floating Rate Strats A (MUTF: GIFAX ) Selecting one fund for investment will involve more subjective judgment than the process used to identify a list of viable funds. Historical performance is obviously important. Since profiting on the above average spread for high yield debt and the below average loss costs is the investment thesis, the composition of the fund’s assets is important. Exposure to interest rate risk should be examined because rates are likely to increase which negatively impacts the value of bonds. Finally, it is appropriate to compare expense ratios. Fund Performance OOSAX’s performance compares unfavorably to the other funds selected by the screen. It also performed considerably worse than Morningstar’s high yield index over longer periods. FAGIX probably demonstrated the best performance over both short and long-term periods. LHYAX has the best five year total return, but its performance in the past year trails FAGIX and GIFAX by a wide margin. GIFAX has done well recently. However, it is a relatively new fund, and its three year total return is pedestrian. Return (%) YTD 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year FAGIX 2.04 1.26 6.84 6.78 LHYAX 1.99 0.18 5.88 7.01 GIFAX 2.39 2.21 4.45 — OOSAX 0.57 -0.28 2.84 4.06 Morningstar High Yield 0.09 -2.02 3.43 5.19 Source Morningstar Credit Risk LHYAX has the most attractive credit risk profile. It has the highest yield despite having similar interest rate risk and ratings distribution as other funds. FAGIX’s lower allocation to ‘B’ and ‘CCC’ fixed income securities is a negative because the investment thesis focuses on exposure to corporate default risk. Instead of dedicating its portfolio to high yield bonds, FAGIX has allocated about 20% of its assets to equities. Although this strategy has favorably impacted FAGIX’s total return in recent years, it is not consistent with the investment thesis. OOSAX’s greater proportion of ‘B’ and ‘CCC’ securities does not translate into a higher yield because OOSAX only invests in floating rate securities. Credit Risk and Yield (click to enlarge) The table below compares each fund’s actual SEC defined yield to the expected yield based on the credit ratings distribution of its holdings and the current yield for each rating category according to Merrill Lynch. A positive difference means the fund is generating a better yield than would be expected by the ratings distribution of its assets. Oddly, the difference is negative for all the funds. This issue would be more troubling if the funds have been underperforming Monrningstar’s high yield benchmark. Instead, it likely reflects a difference between the duration of the funds’ assets and duration of the securities used to create the benchmarks. Since LHYAX and FAGIX have approximately the same duration, it is reasonable to assert that LHYAX has done a better job of selecting securities that generate a yield consistent with their ratings. It is not surprising that OOSAX and GIFAX have a negative difference because they only invest in floating rate securities which tend to have lower yields. However, the magnitude of GIFAX’s negative difference is troubling. Return (%) SEC Yield Expected Yield Difference LHYAX 5.79% 7.59% -180 FAGIX 4.21% 6.34% -213 OOSAX 4.76% 7.19% -243 GIFAX 3.55% 6.92% -337 Source: Morningstar, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and Merrill Lynch Ratings Distribution (click to enlarge) Source: Morningstar Energy companies are in the midst of very challenging environment due to the collapse in oil prices. Fortunately, none of the funds being reviewed have material exposure to this sector. According to Yahoo Finance, investments in fixed income securities represent 4% of LHYAX’s assets and 2% of FAGIX’s holdings. Neither OOSAX nor GIFAX has any exposure to the energy sector. Interest Rate Risk OOSAX and GIFAX have no material exposure to interest rate risk. LHYAX and FAGIX have a moderate amount of interest rate risk. If interest rates rose by 100 basis points in a parallel shift, investors should expect these funds to decrease by 4% to 5% as a result to the increase in interest rates. The actual impact of interest rate changes is extremely difficult to predict for the following reasons. Effective Duration Maturity > 5 (%) LHYAX 4.7 80 GIFAX 0.4 66 OOSAX 0.0 49 FAGIX 4.4 84 Fees and Expenses FAGIX has a moderate expense advantage. GIFAX has a modest expense disadvantage over the other funds under consideration. All of the funds’ expense ratios are below Morningstar’s average for high yield funds of 1.08%. Net Expense Ratio (%) FAGIX 0.72 LHYAX 0.94 OOSAX 0.97 GIFAX 1.04 Source: Morningstar Conclusion LHYAX is the best vehicle for executing on the investment thesis. However, a strong case can be made for long positions in either LHYAX or FAGIX. These two funds significantly outperformed OOSAX and GIFAX over the long term. LHYAX has the best comparison between actual yield and expected yield based on ratings distribution. Finally, LHYAX has the most exposure to high yield fixed income securities which is the heart of the investment thesis. FAGIX allocates a material portion of its assets to equities.

S&P 500 Posts 3rd Best October Returns In 25 Years

After losing -8.35% over the prior 2 months, the S&P 500 was up +8.44% in October. Abnormally high monthly returns like this are uncommon by historical standards. The stock market in 2015 continues to illustrate a volatile and highly unstable investment environment. We have often heard investors refer to October as being one of the worst months to invest in the stock market. To the degree that we have even witnessed investors hastily move their investments to cash. Perhaps this lies in some deeply rooted market fears that can be traced back to Black Monday , when on October 19th, 1987 the U.S. stock markets lost nearly -22% in a single day of trading. Whatever the cause for trepidation may be, the reality is that over the past 25 years October has actually been one of the best months to be an investor in domestic equities. After two consecutive months of negative returns for the S&P 500, investors entered October 2015 spooked by such technical omens as a break in the 200 day moving average, a death cross , and the Hindenburg Omen , among others. And yet, after all of the technical damage that had been wrought in recent weeks the S&P 500 managed to shock us all by turning in the best October return since 2011, up +8.44% for the period. While that last statistic may not sound overwhelmingly impressive, one must further consider the context. That unexpected +8.44% monthly return was actually the third best October return in the past 25 years! Perhaps even more incredulous is the fact that that was actually the 7th best return generated in any month over the past 25 years period (including the “go-go” markets of the 90’s)! In other words, out of the past 397 months of S&P 500 returns, last month’s return came in 7th. And let’s be blunt, no one saw it coming. In October of 2011, the S&P 500 generated the highest return of any month over the past 25 years, up +10.93%. This came after 5 consecutive monthly losses over which the S&P 500 suffered a cumulative decline of -16.26%. Losses over this period were exacerbated by an August S&P downgrade of U.S. long-term debt from AAA to AA and growing fears that the Euro may break up, all of which led to capitulation by worrisome market participants. As is the case in most instances, the markets overreacted to the downside and rebounded with strength shortly thereafter. In October of 2002, the S&P 500 generated the 2nd highest October return over the past 25 years, up +8.80%. This came at the height of the bursting of the Tech Bubble, where over the prior five month period the S&P 500 experienced an outsized cumulative loss of over -28%. So here again, we witnessed capitulation followed by a strong rebound. Even coming out of the Great Recession, when in early March of 2009 we finally found our bottom, the S&P 500 generated a monthly return of +8.76%. However, this strong return to the upside only came after the markets had lost a gut wrenching -41.83% over the prior 6 month period. So forgive us if we find it somewhat peculiar that the S&P 500 was up over 8% last month. In nearly every instance in which returns of this magnitude have been generated in a single month over the past 25 years, they have come only after the markets had suffered significant losses. While we recognize losses of any size may be difficult to bear, a loss of slightly more than 8% over a two month period is exceedingly commonplace in the stock market. What is uncommon are returns north of 8% in a single month without coming after significant losses. In 2002 when October returns were this strong, the S&P 500 still finished down -22.10% for the year. In October of 2011, when the S&P 500 posted it’s strongest monthly return over the last 25 years, the S&P 500 finished up a modest +2.11% (all of which was attributable to dividends, without them the return was actually 0.0%). Where we end up for 2015 is really anyone’s best guess, but after taking a look at monthly returns over the past 25 years, it should be clear to see that volatility has increased and the markets appear undecided for the time being as to whether our next leg will be up or down. It should also be clear that listening to the noise that is so widely disseminated in our industry, should largely be ignored. What is more important is that investors follow an investment discipline devoid of emotional influence. With that said, we would be remiss if we did not impart a word of caution regarding our current investment environment. One should be weary of market head-fakes , as the markets in 2015 have grown increasingly prone to lead investors in one direction, only to quickly reverse course. Adding new monies into equities at this time may very well prove to be an exercise and lesson in chasing returns. For tactical investment managers, employing an asset rotation based investment approach, whipsawing markets such as we have seen thus far in 2015 can prove to be challenging, as underlying trends become less stable. However, if executed properly the purpose of reducing volatility in returns and achieving low correlations to both the equity and bond markets should be evident. For those unfamiliar with tactical portfolio management, you may refer to our previously published article on SeekingAlpha, How To Beat The Market With Tactical Asset Rotation or our recently published book by Wiley & Sons, “Asset Rotation” . In each we illustrate a rudimentary approach to tactical portfolio management and provide a root foundation for understanding the benefits of this type of investment philosophy. Lastly, since we have attached a table with monthly returns on the S&P 500 for reference pertaining to this article, there are a couple ancillary points we will leave you with that may surprise you: Over the past 25 years, October has generated a negative monthly return only 7 times (tied for third best). 3 out of the 7 best monthly returns over the past 25 years have come in October. Surprisingly, July and September posted monthly losses in 12 out of the past 25 years (tied for the worst month for investors over the period). Never underestimate the power of the jolly fat man… December has posted a negative rate of return in only 4 out of the past 25 years (by the far the best month for investors over the past 25 years). (click to enlarge)