Tag Archives: management

I Don’t Understand Why Ausnet Moved 10% Higher After Its Update

Summary Ausnet’s performance doesn’t seem to improve, and the high capex (sustaining + growth) results in a free cash flow negative result. Despite being FCF negative, Ausnet has actually increased the dividend, attracting more income investors. The dividends are currently borrowed by issuing more debt, but with a net debt/EBITDA ratio of in excess of 5, it might be locked out of the debt markets. I still prefer to sleep well at night, and I’m not taking a stake in Ausnet. Introduction Back in June, I warned investors Ausnet’s ( OTCPK:SAUNF ) dividend was at risk because the company had to borrow cash to fund the dividend payments. That’s a red flag for me, and even though a large part of the capex was growth capex, I still don’t feel comfortable investing in such companies. SAUNF data by YCharts Ausnet is an Australian company and you should most definitely use the Australian Stock Exchange to trade in the company’s shares. The ticker symbol in Australia is AST, and the average daily volume is approximately 3.25 million shares while the daily dollar volume is almost $4M. The H1 revenue jump was nice, as was the net profit result The top line looks really good, considering Ausnet was able to increase its revenue by 10% to approximately A$1.07B ($770M). In fact, the income statement looks really good, as not only did the revenue increase by a double-digit amount, operating expenses also fell by approximately 3%. While this doesn’t sound like a big deal, these two factors allowed Ausnet to increase its operating income from A$340M ($245M) to A$455M ($327M), a 34% increase compared to the first semester of the financial year 2015. (click to enlarge) Source: Financial statements The (much) higher operating income also led to a higher operating margin, which increased to 42.5% compared to 35% in H1 2015. The finance costs increased, which is directly due to the fact Ausnet had (and still has) to issue more debt to cover its dividend payments. Thanks to the higher operating income and despite the higher interest expenses, the pre-tax income increased by in excess of 50%. Additionally, the tax bill is much lower as well, resulting in a conversion of last year’s net loss into a net profit. The EPS was almost 11 cents per share. (click to enlarge) Source: Financial statements That’s good, but once you turn the page to have a closer look at the cash flow statements, you’ll start to see why I’m quite worried about Ausnet’s ability to cover the ongoing dividend payments. The operating cash flow was approximately A$284M ($203M), but this still wasn’t sufficient to cover the A$350M ($252M) capex. Yes, the negative free cash flow was lower than in H1 2014, but it’s still negative. And yes, some of the capex is growth capex and doesn’t impact the “sustaining” free cash flow, but still… But the cash flow doesn’t cover the dividend payments Based on the headline numbers, the free cash flow was negative as the total capital expenditures were higher than the incoming operating cash flow. And it doesn’t look like Ausnet is planning to slash the dividend to reduce the total cash outflow from its balance sheet. It has declared another dividend of A$0.04265 per share ($0.03) payable in December, and based on the current amount of outstanding shares, this dividend payment will cost the company almost A$150M ($107M). So I’m worried about Ausnet’s ability to continue to pay a dividend. And I’m not alone with this view. The Royal Bank of Canada (Nov. 18): Dividends are aggressively positioned and balance sheet is going to come under pressure if AST wishes to retain an A range rating. (…) We believe AST has an unhealthy reliance on the dividend re-investment plan to fund capex. And Deutsche Bank (Nov. 18 as well): AusNet reaffirmed guidance for FY16 distributions of 8.53cps, implying growth of 2%. Consistent with full-year guidance, and DB expectations, AusNet declared an interim distribution of 4.27cps. However, on our estimates, cash coverage ratios will remain stretched with the Electricity distribution business facing lower earnings from next year once the new regulatory period begins (lower regulatory WACC). We forecast FY17 distribution cash coverage of c.93%, which makes the company reliant on its DRP to help fund its FY17 distributions. I had the impression I was all alone with my warning back in June for Ausnet shareholders that the company might not be able to meet its dividend commitments, but financial institutions are becoming increasingly wary of the dividend coverage as well and are now openly wondering whether or not the dividend is sustainable, and the “reset” periods in the next 24 months will be important for Ausnet’s ability to generate cash flow. (click to enlarge) Source: Company presentation Investment thesis So there’s no reason why I would have to change the opinion I expressed in the article I wrote in June. Ausnet is paying a very handsome dividend with a current dividend yield in excess of 5%, but I fail to see how the company can afford this dividend. Right now, the current capital expenditures aren’t covering the dividend expenses, and the investment in growth capex will be offset by the expected lower revenues due to regulatory pressure. Ausnet still remains an “avoid” for investors, and even though shareholders might have been lured by the attractive dividend, I fail to see how this dividend could be maintained in the longer run (unless the company continues to have access to the debt markets, the regulatory situation improves or its shareholders continue to use the reinvestment plan). I understand people are attracted to high-dividend stocks, but I’m not comfortable with Ausnet’s dividend policy right now. And yes, that’s an (arbitrary) personal choice. 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.

3 Top-Rated Prudential Investments Mutual Funds To Buy

With around $74 billion of assets under management (as of Dec 2014), Prudential Investments – a segment of Prudential Financial, Inc. (NYSE: PRU ) – offers a wide range of funds including both equity and fixed-income, and open- and closed-end funds. The company currently offers services across 41 countries and territories including the U.S., Asia and Europe. Investment professionals of the company are also involved in managing assets of major corporations and pension funds throughout the globe. Founded in 1875, Prudential Financial has $1.1 trillion in assets under management (as of Sep 2015). Below we share with you 3 top-rated Prudential Investments mutual funds. Each has earned a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy) and is expected to outperform its peers in the future. Prudential Jennison Growth A (MUTF: PJFAX ) invests a minimum of 65% of its assets in equity securities of companies having market capitalization of over $1 billion. PJFAX primarily focuses on acquiring securities of companies that are believed to have an impressive growth potential. PJFAX invests in securities including common stocks, nonconvertible preferred stocks and convertible securities. The Prudential Jennison Growth A fund has returned 10.5% over the past one year. PJFAX has an expense ratio of 1.05% as compared with the category average of 1.19%. Prudential Municipal Bond High-Income A (MUTF: PRHAX ) seeks to maximize income exempted from federal income taxes. PRHAX invests the lion’s share of its assets in municipal debt securities that are expected to provide return free from federal income tax. However, PRHAX may invest in securities that provide interest income, which is not exempted from the federal alternative minimum tax (NYSE: AMT ). The Prudential Municipal High-Income A fund has returned 4.3% over the past one year. As of September 2015, PRHAX held 412 issues, with 1.13% of its assets invested in Golden St Tob Securitization C Toba 4.5%. Prudential Short-Term Corporate Bond A (MUTF: PBSMX ) invests a large chunk of its assets in corporation bonds irrespective of their maturity durations. PBSMX is expected to maintain an effective duration of not more than three years. PBSMX may also invest in mortgage-related and asset-backed securities. PBSMX may allocate a maximum of 35% of its assets in dollar denominated debt securities issued by foreign entities. Not more than 20% of PBSMX is invested in securities that are rated below investment grade. The Prudential Short-Term Corporate Bond A fund has returned 1.1% over the past one year. Steven Kellner is one of the fund managers of PBSMX since 1999. Original Post

Twitter: How Emotional Investing Can Kill A Portfolio

Summary Twitter is a great example of emotional investing. How long can one hope for a turnaround? Twitter is also an example of how emotional investing can lead to big time losses. I have a difficult time understanding why many people want to hold onto Twitter (NYSE: TWTR ) and speak of its potential. The analyst community, who are supposed to be an unbiased group, does not want to openly admit that they were wrong about the stock. According to Investopedia the hold rating from the ownership perspective means that if you own the stock do not sell it. Therein lies the problem. It appears to me that analysts themselves have not invested their own money. If they did, they would not tell investors to hold onto a stock that has lost over 50% of its value. I do not mean to sound harsh, but cutting your losses is one of the first fundamental investment principles taught. You can always go back in if the stock starts performing again. If not, take your capital and move on to another security. (click to enlarge) Source: Yahoo Finance Dollar-Loss Averaging Dollar-cost averaging plays on the psychological aspect of human emotions as well. It adds to our nature of wanting to be right all of the time. We can interpret our deceptive actions as having a positive effect on our position. (I like to think of the concept as dollar-loss averaging.) Unfortunately, it is one of the worst concepts mainstream finance preaches. Basically if you buy Twitter at $60 and it goes down to $50 and $40 and so on you buy more because instead of paying $60 per share you effectively paid $50 per share assuming equal purchase amounts. However, this is very deceiving. Initially you paid $60 total, but now you paid $150 total. You have allocated more capital to a bad investment. Overhead Supply There is also another concept called overhead supply. According to Investor’s Business Daily , “Overhead supply represents price levels at which a stock’s recovery is impeded as it tries to rally back from a steep decline.” It is due to investors who got into a specific stock earlier and are waiting to get out at breakeven. Once the price hits specified levels a wave of selling hits the stock making it difficult to climb. This is exactly what is happening with Twitter. So many people want to get out of this stock that it is having a difficult time climbing higher. IBD also pointed out that this specific behavior is due to the loss avoiding nature humans have. Is Hanging On Worthwhile? Assume for a minute, Twitter stays in this $20-to-$30 range for the next 10-to-20 years or never recovers. Don’t think it’s possible? Take a look at the chart of General Electric (NYSE: GE ) below. You were much better off investing in the SPY (NYSEARCA: SPY ) or some other broad market fund. (click to enlarge) Source: Yahoo Finance Is Getting to Breakeven With Twitter Worthwhile? Additionally, I am assuming those in Twitter are hoping for a breakeven investment. For that, I have two scenarios to consider. Let’s say in a simple scenario you bought Twitter at its peak and it does recover in 10 years. Let’s also say you purchased the SPY ETF for the same monetary value. What have you gained? Getting back to breakeven after 10 years is no accomplishment for your Twitter holding. With the SPY, assuming its 10% annual return continues to hold, you more than doubled your money. You made approximately 159% of your initial capital. [(1.1^10)-1]/[1] Now let’s take this one step further with a much more concrete example. Assume you invest $10,000 in Twitter. Let’s say you were so emotional about the investment even though it was slowly declining. It finally got to the point where you could not take more pain and took a 50% loss. After taking a few hours to recollect yourself, you decide to invest the $5,000 you have left from Twitter into the SPY ETF. After 10 years, your account is $12,968.71. [(5000*(1.1^10)] Both are much better alternatives than hoping for a breakeven trade. Conclusion For those in Twitter, if you manage to make money, that is great. I am happy for you, but do not try to bank on luck. I think it is best to take the pain if you are in the stock.