Tag Archives: seeking-alpha

Birchcliff Energy – Waiting For A Higher Gas Price

Summary Birchcliff’s production rate is higher than anticipated and has reached a new quarterly record. This allows the company to increase its production guidance and to reduce its capex guidance. I’m hoping for a long and harsh winter that will cause the natgas prices to spike, providing relief for Birchcliff’s balance sheet. Introduction As I remain convinced the oil and gas price won’t stay forever at the current levels (I even expect the gas price to increase a bit due to the construction of LNG plants to ship the gas to Europe and Asia where the price is 3-4 times higher), I have started to look for some interesting oil and gas companies. I came across Birchcliff Energy (OTCPK: BIREF ), a Canadian gas company (with some oil production as well) and decided to dig a bit deeper in this relatively large producer. Birchcliff is a Canadian company and has its main listing on the Toronto Stock Exchange with BIR as its ticker symbol. The average daily volume is almost 300,000 shares and the current market capitalization is approximately US$610M. The production rate continues to increase, but so does is the net debt Birchcliff had a pretty decent second quarter of this year as the average production during the quarter was almost 38,500 boe per day at an operating cost of just $4.53 per boe. This production rate is a new record for the company and emphasizes it’s still very focusing on expanding its production rate in order to build shareholder value. Source: press release In fact, the production growth was so impressive, Birchcliff’s management team has now increased the average production guidance for the fourth quarter of this year. Instead of producing an average of 39,000 boe per day, Birchcliff now expects to produce 41,000 barrels per day, a 5% increase. On top of that, I’m also expecting the production cost to continue to decrease a bit. I’m not complaining at all about the current cost of C$4.53 (US$3.4) per boe (which is an amazing result compared to the $5.25/boe in Q2 2014 and the $5.11/boe in Q1 2015), as the weak Canadian Dollar is definitely an advantage for Birchcliff Energy. (click to enlarge) Source: press release Despite the crash in the oil price (and the weaker gas price which is more important for the company as 86% of its production is natural gas), Birchcliff was able to realize a funds flow netback of just over $13 per boe which isn’t bad at all, considering the circumstances. Additionally, Birchcliff has now reduced its capital expenditure guidance from C$267M to C$250M (US$190M). This won’t be covered by the operating cash flow though as I’m not expecting the operating cash flow to be higher than C$175M (US$130M), so Birchcliff’s debt will very likely continue to increase. As of at the end of the second quarter, Birchcliff had drawn down roughly C$600M from its C$800M ($600M) credit facility, so it can draw down another C$200M (US$150M) to cover for the shortfall. The stronger-than-expected output provides a solid basis for next year Not only was Birchcliff able to increase its production guidance for the fourth quarter of the current year, this also bodes very well for next year. The increased production guidance for Q4 of 41,000 barrels per day is an ‘average’ daily production, and Birchcliff is expecting the exit production to be 41,000-42,000 boe per day, and this production increase will be underpinned by an updated of the company’s oil and gas reserves after seeing excellent production results from the horizontal wells drilled in the past 18 months. In fact, Birchcliff isn’t just hinting at a reserve increase, it says it expects the reserve increase to be ‘material’, so that should also have a positive impact on the NPV of the company as a whole. The winter season is coming closer, and those months are usually the best months for the gas price which could see a substantial price increase, boosting Birchcliff’s financial performance. It will be very interesting to see how the gas price will behave in the run-up to 2016, as a weak gas price will probably mean Birchcliff might have to defer some more capital expenditures as it knows it cannot stretch its balance sheet too much. Investment thesis Birchcliff’s financial performance will almost entirely be determined by the strength of the gas price in the upcoming winter. Whereas the gas price (Henry Hub) for delivery in September is trading at $2.64 , the futures for natural gas with delivery for January and February is trading at $3 and this will help Birchcliff’s financial performance. (click to enlarge) Source: CME Group I like Birchcliff’s limited exposure to oil (10% of its production) and focus on natural gas (86% of its output) and the next few quarters will be crucial for the company. I’m hoping for a long and harsh winter as that should bode well for all natural gas producers and result in a decent relief for its balance sheets. Editor’s Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, but may initiate a long position in BIREF over the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

The Hidden Danger Of Index Funds

Summary Index funds have grown fantastically in popularity, and in 2014 received over half of inflows to equity funds. Data suggests that index funds outperform during bull markets, but not during bear markets. Index funds have become extremely popular, perhaps a bit too popular for both the health of your portfolio during current market conditions and the long-term implications to the stock market. The recent return of volatility to the market – multiple days where the major averages gained or lost several percent – has revealed a lot about the stock market that years of slow, grinding gains managed to camouflage. Index funds have become the “new religion” of the stock market, but they may not be the panacea that many think. In particular, they may pose a danger to the value of your investments under current market conditions. The Growth of Index Funds Index funds have been around for decades. Vanguard introduced its Vanguard Five Hundred Index Fund (MUTF: VFINX ) in 1976. Enthusiasm for indexing remained muted for years, but in 1992 the Amex went a step further and created the S&P Depository Receipts Trust Series 1, or “SPDRs.” These proved extremely popular, and many other Exchange Traded Funds (“ETFs”) soon followed. The allure of ETFs that mirror an index is obvious. They remove human error and, more importantly, the expense of active management. The real benefit, though, is the fact that securities linked to an index provide an “average” performance that beats that of the majority of active managers. The media loves to tout that passive investing beats active investing up to 85% of the time. Warren Buffett famously advises non-professionals to dump their money into index funds. Even those arguing in favor of active management, such as Wealthfront Knowledge Center, must admit that during bull markets, index returns beat those of most active managers. So, this is not an attack on index funds. They have their place. However, there is more to the story than simply assuming that index funds will remove all investing concerns. Burton Malkiel, whose “A Random Walk Down Wall Street” is one of the classics of investing, studied why index funds are better investments. He concluded that the primary reason is simply the extra costs associated with active management. Otherwise, they offer similar performance. There are good reasons for passive investment. Many, if not most, investors, don’t have the time or inclination to ascend the steep learning curve required to become a successful investor. They have their own careers, own lives, and not everyone is entranced by the wonders of the stock market. While one might think that the growth of the Internet and extremely low commissions relative to the past would lead to individual investors becoming more active investors who take matters into their own hands, it seems that the opposite is taking place. Why this is happening is a complex problem. Perhaps the inundation of random facts and opinions about stocks now available on the Internet has the perverse (or perhaps salutary) effect of making amateur investors realize how little they (or their advisers) really know about how stocks will do. From its humble origins in the 1970s, index investing recently has mushroomed. As of year-end 2013, it accounted for 35% of equity funds and 17% of fixed income funds. In 2014, 55% of money invested in equity mutual funds went to index funds. Obviously, if the asset base of equity funds was 35% in index funds, but the marginal contributions constituted 55%, the popularity of index funds is growing quickly. One could almost call it a “bandwagon effect.” There is very good reason to be leery about something that provides such an attractive lure that seems to cure all investing problems. Why This Trend is Dangerous It is easy for investors to look at the research showing the out-performance of index funds, throw up their hands, and bypass active management. I myself like index-based funds. They make sense for good returns without too much effort, and the data supports that. The problem is that they make too much good sense. This was masked for several years due to the gradual rise of the U.S. markets since the 2008-2009 recession. Basically, the stock market during these past few years was a “one decision” project. If you bought during periods of market weakness, the market quickly sent the averages to new highs. We can argue about the reasons, but the slow, steady, unflinching march higher of the S&P 500 and other major indexes in recent years made active management basically superfluous. Why pay the additional costs of active management if everything is going up? While making perfect sense for the individual investor, for the investing class this seemingly ironclad line of reasoning could lead to poor results in the future for a couple of reasons. First, index funds do not perform well during bear markets. In fact, a study found that during bear markets, an S&P 500 index fund beat only 34% and 38% of its active management competitors. That means that the “cruise control” of index funds will send you into the ditch just at the wrong time. Second, index funds rely on the pricing of their components for their own pricing, but that pricing can be questionable at times. This may seem trivial, but it can hurt you in unexpected ways during illiquid markets. On Monday 24 August 2015, when the Dow Jones Industrials opened down over 1100 points, many stocks didn’t open until well after the open. Market makers basically had to “guess” at the prices of their stocks. Old-time market participants will recall the same thing happening during the 1987 market break, and during others. This type of volatility leads to “pricing havoc” of index ETFs, as happened on Monday. That may sound terrific if you wanted to buy an ETF at a weirdly low price, but not if you were selling. Third, the growth of index funds appears to be turning the market into a binary casino. Now, it is hardly new to disparage the market as a random casino, that has been going on for as long as stock markets have been around. However, decreasing the role of active managers means the market increasingly leans toward becoming an “all or nothing” bet. If people are selling, then everything sells off at once, and vice versa. Bob Pisani at CNBC noted that there were wild swings of “panic selling” and “panic buying” during the big Monday morning rout, something he had never seen before. He mentioned that there were “strange numbers” in the market, such as only two new highs and 1200 new lows, and 120 stocks advancing while 3100 were declining. Was this due to the influence of all-or-nothing indexing decisions? That could have been a contributing factor. If you were holding an index fund, that would have directly affected pricing of your holdings, quite possibly to your detriment if you had chosen that time to sell. A glance at the chart shows how bizarre some prices were that morning. Fourth, if you don’t have active managers and sufficient numbers of investors in individual stocks, on what exactly are the indexes going to be based in the future? This is more of a longer-term problem, but if you don’t have millions of individual decisions being made about individual securities every day, the market is only going to become more binary and treacherous. The only thing left to determine its course, really, will be economic government data at a macro level, with individual stock prices set basically by the index funds. The individuality of the market will lessen, and as things become more “standardized,” you can count on returns decreasing. Conclusion Index funds make good sense for the individual investor – too much good sense at times. I use them myself, as do many professional investors. However, hidden dangers lurk both in the short term – if the market suddenly stops rising year after year – and long term. They can be dangerous to your financial health during times of market volatility. There are many ways for the individual investor to shield themselves from these sorts of dangers, but ignoring them is not one of them. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

This Small-Cap International ETF Is Really Growing On Me

Summary SCHC has incredible diversification within the holdings. The ETF needs to be combined with domestic equity ETFs and bond ETFs to be at its best. The expense ratio is higher than most of the ETFs I’m considering, but .18% is better than most international ETFs. I may need to sell off some VNQI and add some SCHC. Investors should be seeking to improve their risk adjusted returns. I’m a big fan of using ETFs to achieve the risk adjusted returns relative to the portfolios that a normal investor can generate for themselves after trading costs. I’m contemplating changing the way I structure my portfolio and I’m going to be analyzing several of the ETFs that I am considering. One of the options is the Schwab International Small-Cap Equity ETF (NYSEARCA: SCHC ). I’ll be performing a substantial portion of my analysis along the lines of modern portfolio theory, so my goal is to find ways to minimize costs while achieving diversification to reduce my risk level. Expense Ratio The expense ratio is .18% which is one of the higher expense ratios out of the ETFs I’m consider, however it is vastly lower than many international options and is in a fairly small niche with targeting small-cap international equity. Most international equity funds would simply hold the international companies with larger market capitalizations. This ETF is nice because it allows investors a different exposure. Largest Holdings The internal diversification is out of this world. There are no holdings higher than 1% and only 1 that is higher than .45%. For getting diversification of holdings into the portfolio SCHC is a very impressive option. (click to enlarge) The diversification includes over 1600 companies which is more than I can recall for any of the international ETF options I’ve considered. Investors should be aware that during periods of financial stress in the international markets the correlation of returns is increased so SCHC may exhibit high correlation despite having very different holdings. I would treat that correlation as a market failure and just keep rebalancing the portfolio as necessary. Even if the high correlation in international investments is a market failure that does not reflect underlying value, remember that values can remain irrational for longer than some investors can remain solvent. Building the Portfolio I put together a hypothetical portfolio using only ETFs that fall under the “free to trade” category for Charles Schwab accounts. My bias towards these ETFs is simple, I have my solo 401k there and recently moved my IRA accounts there as well. When I’m building a list of ETFs to consider I want to focus on things I can trade freely so that I can keep making small transactions to buy more when the market falls. Within the hypothetical portfolio there are no expense ratios higher than .18%. Just like trading costs, I want to be frugal with expense ratios. The portfolio is fairly aggressive. Only 30% of the total is allocated to bonds and I would consider that the weakest area in the portfolio. I’d like to see more bond options (with very low expense ratios) show up on the “One Source” list for free trading. (click to enlarge) A quick rundown of the portfolio The Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF (NYSEARCA: SCHD ) is a dividend index. The Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF (NYSEARCA: SCHB ) is a broad market index. The Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF (SCHX ) is focused on blended large cap exposure. The Schwab International Equity ETF (NYSEARCA: SCHF ) is developed international equity. The Schwab Emerging Markets ETF (NYSEARCA: SCHE ) is emerging market equity. The Schwab U.S. REIT ETF (NYSEARCA: SCHH ) is domestic equity REITs. The Schwab U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: SCHZ ) is a remarkably complete bond fund. The SPDR Barclays Long Term Treasury ETF (NYSEARCA: TLO ) is a long term treasury ETF. The PIMCO 25+ Year Zero Coupon U.S. Treasury Index ETF (NYSEARCA: ZROZ ) is an extremely long term treasury ETF. Notice that the 3 international equity ETFs have only been weighted at 5% while the broad market index has been weighted at 25%. I find heavy exposure to international equity to bring more risk than expected returns so I try to keep my international exposure low. I prefer no more than 20% in international equity. Plenty of domestic companies already have enormous international operations so the benefit of international diversification is not as strong as it would be if the markets were isolated from each other. Risk Contribution The risk contribution category demonstrates the amount of the portfolio’s volatility that can be attributed to that position. When TLO and ZROZ post negative risk contribution it is because the negative correlation to most of the equity holdings results in the long term treasury ETFs reducing the total portfolio risk. In my opinion, this is the best argument for including them in the portfolio. Correlation The chart below shows the correlation of each ETF with each other ETF in the portfolio and with the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ). Blue boxes indicate positive correlations and tan box indicate negative correlations. Generally speaking lower levels of correlation are highly desirable and high levels of correlation substantially reduce the benefits from diversification. (click to enlarge) Best Partners SCHC stands to benefit from being mixed with bond funds. The longer bond funds such as TLO and ZROZ exhibit the strongest negative correlation at -.42 and -.44 respectively. To reach a more optimal portfolio when using SCHC it would be wise for the investor to use a material allocation to bonds. Within the equity investments the lowest correlations are SCHH and SCHD. When I first looked at SCHC last year, I didn’t like it as much because the .18 expense ratio was higher than I wanted to pay on my ETF investments. I do have a strong desire for low expense ratios, but I think SCHC is investing in a smart area. Small capitalization was a great area for indexing in the U.S. market for a long time before investors caught on and widespread use of whole market indexes and broad market indexes allowed the average investor to gain effective small-cap exposure. While the international markets used in SCHC are reasonably developed, there may still be some outperformance in those markets. At the very least, there are 1600 companies that won’t get heavy exposure anywhere else in my portfolio. Conclusion I like SCHC now more than I did when I first looked at it. Perhaps it is simply seeing the market fall in August, but I’m placing a larger emphasis on designing my portfolio to be simple for rebalancing and to drive the portfolio volatility down. Currently all of my international equity exposure is through SCHF and the Vanguard Global ex-U.S. Real Estate ETF (NASDAQ: VNQI ). I’m contemplating selling off the VNQI and reallocating it to Schwab funds to make my portfolio easier to rebalance and to take advantage of lower expense ratios. I like the use of international REITs in VNQI, but I don’t like the expense ratio of .24%. I may initiate a small long position in SCHC in the near future. As of submission, I have a small limit buy order entered that is significantly below the market price. If shares take a sudden fall, I will be starting a small position. Disclosure: I am/we are long SCHB, SCHD, SCHF, SCHH, VNQI. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Additional disclosure: Information in this article represents the opinion of the analyst. All statements are represented as opinions, rather than facts, and should not be construed as advice to buy or sell a security. Ratings of “outperform” and “underperform” reflect the analyst’s estimation of a divergence between the market value for a security and the price that would be appropriate given the potential for risks and returns relative to other securities. The analyst does not know your particular objectives for returns or constraints upon investing. All investors are encouraged to do their own research before making any investment decision. Information is regularly obtained from Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, and SEC Database. If Yahoo, Google, or the SEC database contained faulty or old information it could be incorporated into my analysis.