Tag Archives: management

SPHD: A Monthly Dividend ETF With A 3.5% Yield That Is Growing Stronger

Summary SPHD offers an excellent dividend yield of 3.5% with monthly payments. The ETF has a moderate expense ratio. The sector allocations look great and the volatility over the last few years has been lower than the domestic equity market. The PowerShares S&P 500 High Dividend Portfolio ETF (NYSEARCA: SPHD ) looks great. After readers suggested I take a look at the portfolio, I decided it was time to dive inside and see what I could find. This is a very solid ETF. Investors may quibble on whether the allocations are perfectly or merely good, but there is far more to like than to hold against the fund. As you’ll see in the article, I find the sector allocation to be a bigger selling point than the individual holdings. Expenses The expense ratio is a .30%. This is fairly mediocre for expense ratios in my estimation, but there have been quite a few funds coming up lately with expense rates that are downright excellent. Dividend Yield The dividend yield is currently running 3.50%. For the investor that wants a very strong dividend yield to support them in retirement, this should certainly qualify. Investors can create a stronger yield by selecting individual companies, but they are creating a high yield portfolio that is exposed to substantial risk of dividend cuts when they allocate aggressively to companies that are yielding materially higher than this portfolio. There are two other things to like about the dividend here. One is that the dividend is paid out on a monthly basis which many investors appreciate because it is easier for them to plan around. The other is that the 3.5% dividend yield is based on trailing dividends rather than forward dividends and the dividends have been moving slightly higher over the last year. The dividend went from around 9 and a half cents per month to over 10 cents per month. Holdings I grabbed the following chart to demonstrate the weight of the top 10 holdings: Seeing AT&T (NYSE: T ) and Verizon (NYSE: VZ ) with medium weights is one area where I tend to feel conflicted. Investors won’t see the Verizon in the chart, but I rarely find ETFs that only hold one. When I checked the rest of the holdings I found Verizon was represented with 2.22% of the portfolio. The dividend yields are great but the sector is becoming more competitive. On the upside any technology that actually makes them obsolete or at least incapable of growing earnings would be indicative of the investor having a lower cell phone bill, so there is another benefit to aligning the portfolio to match an investor’s individual expenditures. Honestly, is there any better way to pay your phone bill than with a dividend check from the phone company? This is a difficult one to come down on because I love the strategy of covering a cost with dividend income from the company, but I’m also concerned that Sprint (NYSE: S ) is offering a very viable competitive product. Their reception may be terrible in some cities, but they are great in Colorado Springs. Since the allocations are less than 5% of the portfolio combined, I think the representation here is pretty reasonable. I also see Realty Income Corp (NYSE: O ) as an easy choice for investors looking for solid growth in income. The triple net lease REIT has an excellent history of raising dividends. They pay their dividends monthly and have raised the dividend 81 times already. They have done an incredible job of executing their investment strategy and it is simpler than it seems. The REIT enters into net lease operations where the tenant is paying most of the operating costs. Realty Income Corporation is acting as an alternative format of financing for their tenant. Their strategy is so successful that they have been acquiring over a billion dollars in real estate each of the last few years. They already acquired almost a billion dollars in real estate in 2015. Sectors Heavy allocation to utilities makes sense for an equity fund seeking lower total volatility levels. The utility companies have a tendency to be partially correlated to equity and partially correlated to bonds which creates a method for a pure equity ETF to reduce volatility by incorporating some exposure that is very similar to bonds. For investors with a diversified portfolio, that means this fund may not get as large of a benefit from being combined with treasuries and other long duration bonds as a total market portfolio would get. Regardless, with investors needing stronger yields in retirement and often going light on bonds in favor of equity, this would be a more rational allocation model than simply going with full market exposure. The allocation to financials provides the shareholders with exposure to REITs that would fall with utilities when rates go up, but it also gives them access to banks that would benefit from higher rates paid on excess reserves. The combination works fairly well to create a portfolio with lower volatility. The heavy allocations to consumer staples also makes sense in that context since consumer staples tend to be a solid sector for taking smaller losses during a recession. I was a little curious about their decision to put 10% into industrials, but when I looked at the individual holdings for the sector it made sense. While General Electric (NYSE: GE ) is seeing their share prices just getting back to where they before the crash, their still offer a sold 3% yield. Volatility Measured since October 2012, this fund has demonstrated annualized volatility of 10.9% compared to 12.6% for the S&P 500. The beta on the fund has been a mere .75. While the fund has not kept up with the S&P 500, it is a very attractive allocation strategy with the market at fairly high valuation levels. For the investor that would like to reduce their risk and is willing to accept a lower long term projected return, this fund fits the bill. If market prices had fallen by 40%, I would try to look at more aggressive allocations. When prices still seem high, I prefer using defensive allocations and this fund offers a great deal of them. Conclusion All around this looks like a solid fund. The only thing I can find not to be excited about is the expense ratio. Even there, the ratio isn’t terrible. It is simply higher than what I am used to paying as I favor the Vanguard and Schwab ETFs. If this fund got larger and dropped the expense ratio, it would be absolutely excellent. I think that might be a viable option for the fund’s sponsor as well since the strong yield and monthly payment with a low expense ratio would create enough demand to warrant significantly more shares of this ETF being created.

Suburban Propane Partners Q4 Earnings Review: Good Performance Despite Higher Losses

Summary Operating loss increased from $34 million to $48 million. Integration costs and pension charges skewed results. Earnings should improve once these charges are eliminated. It’s been a week since Suburban Propane Partners (NYSE: SPH ) reported Q4 earnings, and the market remained neutral. Despite declining revenue and $48 million in operating loss, I believe that results were fantastic. Let me tell you why. As with many other natural gas related companies, sales suffered, dropping from $241 million to $174 million. The difference between this revenue decline and say a midstream company with POP contracts is that a lot of the company’s costs are variable. As the result of lower commodity prices, the company was actually able to increase the gross margin from 50% last year to 67%. This is a phenomenon that is common among refiners as well. What about the net loss? After all, the company did report an operating loss of $48 million. I would like to remind readers that the propane business is highly seasonal, and losses during warmer months are expected. (see below) As mentioned in my previous article , the company sells around two-thirds of retail volume from October to March, so the goal during hotter months is really to minimize loss. Unfortunately, the company does not seem to have accomplished that goal, as Q4’s operating loss of $48 million was higher than Q4 2014’s loss by 39%. However, there were multiple one-time costs that hurt Q4 results. First there is the integration cost. As mentioned in the previous article, the company acquired Inergy in 2012, and the integration process was still in progress in Q4 2015. During the quarter, the company spent $6.4 million on integration costs versus $3.2 million last year. This may be alarming since it would appear that integration costs are ramping up as opposed to going down. However, the management stated that the integration process was essentially complete, leading me to believe to that this cost increase is related to the “final push” as the company wraps up everything. Going forward, I expect integration costs to decline significantly or be eliminated. In addition to the integration costs, the company also had two pension related charges. First there was $11.3 million relating to the company’s partial withdrawal from a pension plan covering some former Inergy employees, which will save the company money later. If we account for these one-time charges, operating loss would actually decrease $30 million, which would be a 3% improvement from Q4 2014’s adjusted loss of $31 million. Keep in mind that the company was able to achieve this result despite the warmer weathers that we’ve been experiencing. When we take the above factors into consideration, I think it’s clear that the company’s Q4 performance was very impressive. Takeaway Despite mounting losses, I believe that the company had a great quarter when we take one-time factors into account. When you invest in Suburban Propane Partners, there is always the risk of warmer weather. Unfortunately that is what we’ve experienced in Q4, but that is what makes Q4 performance even more impressive. Overall, I believe that the company will improve earnings going forward as it gets rid of the one-time charges.

Terraform Power: Buying When There Is Blood On The Streets?

Summary Terraforma Power shares collapsed over the past few months. Liquidity concerns and the funding of future commitments are worrying investors. I will dig into the liquidity issue to assess whether the company is a good investment opportunity at current prices. Terraform Power: buying when there is blood on the streets? The original quote is attributed to Baron Rothschild, who apparently made a lot of money by buying assets amid the panic that followed the Waterloo battle against Napoleon. Can we apply the same concept to Terraform Power (NASDAQ: TERP )? Only one thing is certain. There is a lot of blood on the streets. The stock is down almost 80% from 40$ in July to 8.4$ at the time of writing. A bit of a background may help those not familiar with the story. The company owns and operates clean power generation assets (solar and wind in particular). In a nutshell they buy the assets, they structure the financing, they negotiate power purchasing agreements (if they do not come already with the assets) and they distribute the income once operating costs and financing costs are repaid. A very simple business model. Two things make it complicated: Liquidity: in the good old days of a stock trading between 30$ and 40$ they signed agreements for acquiring a significant amount of assets knowing that they had a lot of options to finance deals (project financing, corporate bonds, loans and equity issues). The stock decline worried investors to the point that the liquidity issue is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy: the stock goes down, cost of equity and debt goes up, they have fewer options available for financing and therefore the stock goes down even more. Issues at Group level. TERP is partially owned by its sponsor, Sunedison (NYSE: SUNE ), a developer of solar plants whose stock price has crashed even more due to high leverage, significant commitments to buy new projects and incredibly difficult to read financial statements, with a mix of recourse and non-recourse debt and questions on the future solvency of the business. In this report I will try to assess the current situation of TERP and the future commitments in order to establish whether the market overreacted to the liquidity issues and is mispricing the stock. A good starting point is the presentation of Q3 results. On slide 17 the company shows the most recent capital structure adjusted for the latest deals announced: (click to enlarge) Source: Q3 2015 Earnings presentation The company shows cash of 796 mln and a combination of recourse debt (two bonds for 1.25bn) and non-recourse debt (project financing for 1.3bn). The net financial position including all debt is therefore 1.76bn. This debt is against a 2016 ebitda run rate for the current portfolio of approximately 400 mln with a net debt / ebitda of 4.4x and against a portfolio of renewable energy facilities valued at approximately 4bn in the balance sheet. If we were talking about real estate we would say that the loan to value is 44%, a reasonably low level. Remember that we are talking about assets with highly predictable cash flows and long term power purchasing agreements in place (average life of 16 years). The status quo shows one thing: the company is currently under levered given the type of assets they held. One important supporting factor is the recent (November 6th) renegotiation of the debt on certain assets in the UK, the results of which are in the pro-forma figures showed above. The company managed to refinance those UK assets at a 4% all-in interest cost with non-recourse debt. That figure shows how – at an asset level – TERP’s portfolio is seen as extremely high quality. Now let’s look at the commitments. Here things start to become challenging. TERP committed to buy 1,453MW of solar and wind assets from Invenergy and Vivint as part of a deal structured by its parent Sunedison. The total cost of those assets is approximately 3bn. From the 10Q we can also see that the company has commitments to buy additional energy facilities from Sunedison for a total of 1,080MW (1.4 bn). Let’s analyse how the company is thinking about those commitments. On slide 18 of the Q3 presentation the company offers a picture of the current status of the financing plan for the Invenergy and Vivint acquisitions, showing 1.7 bn completed and 1.3bn in progress. (click to enlarge) Of the “in progress” part of the financing we have three components: Vivint Term Loan or TERP bond (250 mln) Project finance debt (726 mln) 3rd party infrastructure capital (300 mln) During the Q3 conference call the management stated that they are making good progress on the financing. My personal take is that a TERP bond is not realistic (the yield would likely need to be above 10% given the sentiment around the stock) while all other options appear credible. In particular the largest chunk is project finance debt and the company showed earlier this month that they can successfully raise that kind of capital at very good terms. Infrastructure capital should also not be a serious problem in a market full of yield hungry investors. I will let you make your judgement on this but I believe we are not talking about an impossible task for the company. Remember, all assets are cash generating with 15 years plus of revenues under contract with primary standing counterparties. Moving on to the commitments to buy the Sunedison facilities the company states in the 10Q that on October 26th SUNE entered into a purchase and sales agreement with a JP Morgan fund that agreed to buy three of the assets that are part of those commitments. Upon closing, expected on the fourth quarter of 2015, TERP will have a reduction in its commitment to buy SUNE assets from 1.4 bn to 580 mln. The company intends to deal with these commitments through a combination of project finance debt, company cash, assumption of current debt and the involvement of third party infrastructure investors. While TERP is currently working on securing the financing, SUNE is also looking for third parties that may be interested in taking the projects directly. In case of a sale by SUNE the commitments for TERP would decline further. A final point that I would make on the liquidity issue is that the company currently has in place an unused revolver credit facility equal to 725 mln that is going to increase to 1 bn and can offer further flexibility in structuring the financing for the deals mentioned above. My final take on the liquidity issue: it is very scary when sudden lack of confidence hits a company. TERP’s 2023 bonds moved from 95 at the beginning of the month to current values of around 70. Capital markets are clearly closed for TERP at the moment. That contrasts a lot with what the company managed to achieve by financing at the asset level , like they did in the UK. I particularly like the fact that at the moment there is only 1.3 bn of project finance debt in place against 4 bn of assets and that suggests me that deals similar to the UK refinancing could soon take place in other parts of the portfolio. I am confident the company will work in this direction and will eventually be able to finance all the deals even though spreads will certainly be higher than a few months ago. Finally let’s look at the stock. What are you buying at 8.4$? I will make a very simple analysis here. Let’s assume no equity is issued and all commitments are paid for with new debt. Let’s also assume that the incremental debt raised and its amortization completely eats all of the cash flow produced by the assets. That’s very harsh credit conditions. Even in that case we would have a company that can sustainably keep the current dividend rate at 35c (in reality the plan is to increase it to 0.425 in 2016) based on the cash available for distribution from the current assets while building some additional equity in all those projects thanks to the amortization of the debt. That is a 16.8% yield + the build-up of some equity in the current projects. Not bad. Worst case / best case. The worst case scenario would be a bankruptcy of parent SUNE, with certainty of some messy agreements that would need to be worked through, and complete lack of financing. In this case I believe the equity would still be worth something (let’s say 3 / 4 dollars a share) based on a liquidation of all the assets owned + commitments at a 25% discount to book while repaying all debt at face value. A clear sky scenario would see the company providing for all the liquidity needs through external sources at reasonable terms. In that case the stock would rebound and, even though I believe the 30$ – 40$ range will not be reached for a long time, we would likely see TERP trade back to around 25$ (three times the current level). Conclusions: although risks are extremely high and volatility will continue to characterize the stock, I believe TERP offers a great asymmetric return profile. The downside is large in a worst case scenario and therefore position sizing should take that into account but, at least this time around, I am a buyer despite all the blood on the streets.