Tag Archives: seeking

Duke Energy- Investors Do Not Like The Piedmont Deal, Nor Do I

Summary Duke Energy is expanding its natural gas operations in the Carolinas by acquiring Piedmont. Investors doubt the steep premium being offered for Piedmont, as do I. Duke has failed to quantify the anticipated earnings accretion as I think that the company´s acquisition track record is mediocre at best. The only real appeal comes from the dividend yield as earnings multiples are inflated due to the low interest rate environment. The increase in leverage makes me very cautious amidst the historical and relative steep multiples at which Duke is trading as the future of the industry is becoming more uncertain. Duke Energy ( DUK ) announced a sizable deal as the company is looking to acquire Piedmont Natural Gas ( PNY ) in a $4.9 billion cash deal. Investors in Duke balk at the high premium being offered for Piedmont´s shares, as I fail to see real appeal as well. Add to that the poor acquisition track record of Duke, an increase in leverage, and increasingly uncertain future for the regulated industry, and I am very cautious. For these reasons, shares remain a no go in my eyes as the dividend is the only appealing factor for the shares. Amidst risks to the valuation in case interest rates rise and non-compelling dividend growth, I would be very cautious. A Strategic Deal.. Duke is looking to expand its operations in the Carolinas and Tennessee as ownership of Piedmont will give the company access to a million customers in those states. Roughly 90% of these customers are residential and customer growth has averaged roughly 1.5-2% per year. These are fairly attractive growth rates in comparison to Duke which is reporting customer growth rates of around 1% per year. The increased scale and expansion of Duke´s natural gas platform are not the only reasons behind the deal. Both companies have been working together in the $5 billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline project. Piedmont has a lot of interests in other joint ventures as well including Hardy Storage, Pine Needle LNG Storage, the Cardinal pipeline and Southstar Energy Services, among others. It must be said that the vast majority of both earnings and assets are generated through Piedmont´s regulated utility business however. Besides increasing Duke´s scale, the deal allows for the expansion of its gas infrastructure platform and the transformation towards becoming a highly regulated business. Ahead of the deal, Duke generated 85% of its earnings from regulated utility operations in the Midwest, Carolinas and Florida. Roughly 10% of the earnings are generated from the international operations in Latin America as commercial wind and solar project generate the remainder of the profits. This latest deal will only increase the relative profit share of the regulated business. The company has not discussed cost or revenue synergies from the deal besides the strategic benefits. On the deal conference call , management actually admits that no synergies have been considered in the decision to pursue this deal. It must be stated that Duke has the ability to borrow cheaply. Additionally, Duke is making a large bet on continued oversupply of natural gas in North America, keeping prices low for a long time to come. This should make natural gas the preferred energy option for decades to come, at least in Duke´s opinion. This shifts the company away from coal based generation as the electricity business is suffering from lower long term demand for electricity following increased efficiency of usage. ..Comes At A Price To obtain ownership of Piedmont, Duke is willing to pay a roughly 40% premium for Piedmont´s shares. This translates into a purchase price of $60 per share. Including the $1.8 billion in debt, the deal price comes in at $6.7 billion. While this is a sizable amount, Duke expects to finance just $500 to $750 million in the form of newly issued equity with the remainder coming from additional debt. Despite the fact that the board of both companies have already agreed in favor of the deal, and Piedmont´s shareholders are likely to do the same given the fat premium offered, closing is only anticipated late in 2016. Regulatory approval is always a tedious issue in this industry, which makes that it takes more time before deals finally close. Despite the fact that Duke is paying a 40% premium, the company anticipated accretion to adjusted earnings per share in 2017. Unfortunately Duke does not quantify this anticipated accretion although it cites that the cheap cost of debt of 4% alone is sufficient to result in accretion. This is even the case if no synergies are being realized. Adding To The Long Term Targets The vast majority of Piedmont´s business is a regulated business which is allowed to earn a return on equity of 10-10.2% from its operations. Duke anticipates that the faster growth rate of Piedmont will improve the overall growth profile as it reinforces its position as the largest US utility business. The company previously anticipated that earnings will come in at $4.55 to $4.75 per share in 2015. The deal are complementing the company´s plans to grow earnings per share by 4-6% per year through 2017. Investors should like the sound of this as the company sticks to its 65-70% payout ratio, having paid dividends for 89 years in a row now. The deal actually allows the company to make a big step with its investments plans for the years 2015-2019. The company outlined a $23-$26 billion spending plan for these four years with respect to new power generation, infrastructure investments as well as compliance and other investments. By acquiring Piedmont, Duke will complete a major step with regards to its infrastructure investments. With the deal, Duke is pulling a lot of its investments forwards in time. This does have an impact, namely that the leverage position will continue to increase in the short to medium term. Duke itself operated with a net debt load of roughly $40 billion ahead of the deal as the purchase of Piedmont will increase this number to roughly $46 billion. This corresponds to pro-forma EBITDA of some $9.7 billion, for a 4.7 times leverage ratio. The Market Is Not Buying It Shares of Duke Energy have fallen some 2.5% in response to the deal, wiping out roughly $1.2 billion in shareholder value. This wealth destruction is pretty much equivalent to the $1.4 billion premium being offered for Piedmont. The skepticism of investors can be understood, even as the deal is relatively small compared to Duke´s enterprise valuation of roughly $84 billion. The negative reaction is driven by the large premium and the fact that the deal will face some uncertainty, given that Duke already has a large presence in the Carolinas. This could potentially raise some anti-trust issues down the road. Other concerns include the mediocre track record with regards to large strategic deals which Duke has made in the past. This mostly relates to the $26 billion purchase of Progress Energy back in 2012. This deal has created some problems for Duke in recent years as it made the company an owner of nuclear plants, as Duke ended up paying multi-million dollar settlements in the years following as well. Back in 2007, Duke Energy has actually spun-off gas assets into Spectra Energy (NYSE: SE ) . Ironically, it are similar kind of assets which the company is now aiming to buy back through the purchase of Piedmont. All these deals have not really paid off for investors. While pro-forma revenues of $25 billion have increased by two-thirds over the past decade, the outstanding share base has increased by 70% as well. As a matter of fact, the book value of the company and earnings per share have only moved down, so have dividends. Of course investors have received a stake in Spectrum, although that does not make up for the disappointing results. This makes that Duke´s prime attraction is the 4.6% dividend yield amidst a very modest track record. The trouble is that this yield is very attractive on a relative basis, as those looking for income have pushed up shares of ¨yield¨ plays in recent years. As a result, Duke is now trading at similar multiples as the general market. This makes shares very risky in case the interest rate environment will change and trend upwards. Add to that the increasing leverage and an increase in the uncertainty faced by the still regulated industry, and you understand why current levels do not look appealing for long term investors. This is based on my assumption that the regulated industry model will come under pressure as advancements in notably wind and energy power generation have the potential to undermine the regulated industry business model. If you combine everything you will note that this is a very dangerous situation for long term holders of the stock. While the strategic rationale behind the increased focus on gas makes sense, the premium seems very steep as much more infrastructure has gone for sale in the form of limited partnerships in the last year. The high valuation, increasing leverage, pricey deal and the long term uncertainty for the industry all outweigh the appeal of the current dividend.

ETF Research Trading Analysis For 10-27-2015

Summary We took profit from both JNUG and JDST on Tuesday. DWTI doing well for us along with DGAZ. Reminder it is Fed week and expect some volatility – which we don’t mind. (Subscribers received early access to this article here .) INDEXES The markets opened down a bit on Monday as housing starts fell more than expected. It tried a couple of times to get going but it just couldn’t get over the hump. The ProShares UltraPro QQQ ETF (NASDAQ: TQQQ ) was the only one that could move higher ending positive for the day. If the market opens higher tomorrow I would look to trade the ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF (NYSEARCA: SVXY ) and the Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3x Shares ETF (NYSEARCA: FAS ). It’s Fed week and I said in Sunday’s article to subscribers I like the ProShares Ultra VIX Short-Term Futures ETF (NYSEARCA: UVXY ) during Fed week as we usually get a lot of volatility, opened at 28.50 Monday and went as high as 29.65, closing near the high of the day at 29.51. I would be a buyer over 29.65 Tuesday. If it gaps up buy the higher high. CHINA/RUSSIA/EMERGING As I wrote in my Current Thoughts on Monday referencing China, the country has some big issues ahead of it with its shadow banking that we here in the U.S. have already experienced. I have said for the longest time I like the Direxion Daily FTSE China Bear 3x Shares ETF (NYSEARCA: YANG ) on dips but thought we would get a reversal to play with a potential U.S. market move higher. Two days in a row of weakness and we may be done with the Direxion Daily FTSE China Bull 3x Shares ETF (NYSEARCA: YINN ). I am still holding out hope but the truth about China is going mainstream now. I even said that would be back over 100 again and I think it will at some point. The Direxion Daily Russia Bear 3x Shares ETF (NYSEARCA: RUSS ) has really lagged the last run up and I would be a buyer over 31 Tuesday. The Direxion Daily Russia Bull 3x Shares ETF (NYSEARCA: RUSL ) is still a buy over 17.24 but these two have not triggered green on the weekly yet. The Direxion Daily Emerging Markets Bull 3x Shares ETF (NYSEARCA: EDC ) opened lower and this uncertainty is causing me a little concern in that the Direxion Daily Emerging Markets Bear 3x Shares ETF (NYSEARCA: EDZ ) may now become the play. We’re only 3 points away from a run in but first need to take out 39.20. Being that it is Fed week, either one of these can offer some trades on a higher high. With the Direxion Daily Brazil Bull 3x Shares ETF (NYSEARCA: BRZU ), we stopped out with some profit Friday and it did open higher at 18.69 Monday and went as high as 17.28 but then fell with the overall market. If you did get in again, it may have got you a little profit but I can’t say I like it now. Volume was pathetic Monday. INTEREST RATES As you know, I have been saying for 6 months now I like the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: TLT ) on the dips but thought the ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury ETF (NYSEARCA: TBT ) would move higher with a turn in the market. With it gapping down at the open Monday was obviously taken off the table. Interest rates on the 10-year were down 1.4% Monday and TLT is looking closer to a run once it gets over 126.61. First up, the 124.55 resistance. PLEASE NOTE: I have to keep reminding everyone that during Fed week, we get more volatility than normal. Monday was the first example with a reversal of Friday’s run up. Tuesday, we could very well get a reversal higher and it’s easy to switch sides after recognizing it. But today’s report is written mostly with the assumption that Tuesday’s micro trend is continued. In the Trading room, I call it like I see it during market hours and it was a good day for us Monday. ENERGY I said at the close on Friday I like the VelocityShares 3x Inverse Crude Oil ETN (NYSEARCA: DWTI ) at 109.80 where it ended the day. It gapped up Monday and I emphasized in the room that I still like it and gave again my target at some point of 200 again, which we played the last run up to over 200. It closed at the high and is up to 116.81 after hours. Stay long and strong now. Dips will come to try and shake you out and if you want to take profit then do so as you can always get back in. Past 124.25, which may act as resistance, I would stay in for a nice ride. For the VelocityShares 3x Inverse Natural Gas ETN (NYSEARCA: DGAZ ) I said to stay long and strong in Sunday’s report and move stops up to where you lock in profit now or 9.74 if conservative. Monday, we got the gift of a gap up to 11.05 and it never looked back. I said in the room Monday a couple of times to lock in some profit as it got to the upper $11s and again just over $12. We have had a 30% run in this and nothing goes straight up. As such, I have put the VelocityShares 3x Long Natural Gas ETN (NYSEARCA: UGAZ ) on the one to watch list. The Direxion Daily Natural Gas Related Bull 3x Shares ETF (NYSEARCA: GASL ) I keep saying another day another 4% lower and Sunday I wrote, “I would only run from it.” Monday for the first time in a while, I don’t have to say it lost 4%, as it lost much more down 17.84% for the day. I am now putting it on the watch list as the volume increased which is either sellers or some buyers coming in. We can get a 10% to 20% bounce in this quickly but again, keep in mind it is a lower volume play. I only want to buy it on an up day, not chase it down. The Direxion Daily Energy Bear 3x Shares ETF (NYSEARCA: ERY ) is the one making higher highs for us. Be a buyer over 24.55 Tuesday. It is 24.43 after hours. Energy not behaving very bullish and looks like it wants to run. Some resistance around 28 and then 30. GOLD MINING RELATED ANALYSIS The Direxion Daily Junior Gold Miners Index Bear 3x Shares ETF (NYSEARCA: JDST ) gave way to the Direxion Daily Junior Gold Miners Index Bull 3x Shares ETF (NYSEARCA: JNUG ) in the trading room Monday and we scalped a little off on an intraday reversal. Then we got full on long again and I recommended holding. We have to get through 24.50 now and then 25.35 and 26.74. Past 30.58 we are off to the races. I have been waiting for a while now to get long and stay long and even though reversals come, the dollar is poised to move higher and we just need gold and silver to move lower. As you can see from the first sentence though, even though I have been waiting for a great trade in, I can still trade the other side for profit if it comes. (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge)

When Picking Mutual Funds, Don’t Be The Dumb Money

For the typical retail investor, mutual fund research reveals an uncanny ability to pick the worst fund categories at the worst possible times. The reason has to do with the tendency to base these types of decisions on “gut feeling” or emotion, rather than careful analysis. Investors feel most comfortable climbing aboard overvalued sectors of the fund universe towards the tail end of bull markets, only to flee to safety when stock prices are closer to their lowest. First identified by researchers Andrea Frazzini from NYU and Owen Lamont from Harvard, the poor timing ability of fund investors has come to be referred to as the “dumb money” effect. Emotion, limited attention, misguided perceptions and inexperience lead retail investors to make questionable decisions. This tendency to invest more in funds with high positive sentiment (for example tech stocks in the 1990s), and to pull out of funds with high negative sentiment (for example liquidating stock funds in 2008 and moving to bond funds), has led retail investors to lose on average about 1.5% annually, according to a 2007 analysis by Geoffrey Friesen of the University of Nebraska and Travis Sapp of Iowa State. Understanding investor behavior provides insight into why retail investors underperform the market. It also reveals how an investor, with a modest amount of additional effort, can improve their performance by avoiding common decision mistakes. Recent performance is the force that drives dumb money losses for many retail investors. This isn’t surprising since mutual fund advertisements and fund prospectuses tend to emphasize how well the mutual fund has performed in the past. Most investors shop for mutual funds the way they would for a toaster or microwave oven. Instead of researching the quality and durability of the product, they use shortcuts – cues of quality such as brand name recognition, an appealing marketing campaign, or a recommendation from a friend or family member. Yale researcher James Choi and his co-authors David Laibson and Brigitte Madrian of Harvard investigated how an average investor uses information on a mutual fund prospectus using identical S&P 500 index funds with different fund initiation dates. In addition to the prospectus, they gave respondents in different groups a “cheat sheet” that summarized differences in fund fees, and another that spelled out how the objective of all funds was to mimic the S&P 500. Samples of both employees and Wharton MBA students (with average SAT score at the 98th percentile) consistently focused on the obviously irrelevant fund performance rather than on fund fees even when presented with information that should have helped them make better choices. Brad Barber of UC Davis and Terrance Odean of Berkeley blame return chasing on the limited attention span of individual investors. According to their investor attention hypothesis, most of us have limited time to devote to researching mutual funds. We can either invest a huge amount of time and effort into learning how to evaluate and select funds, or we can simply invest in ones that capture our attention. The fact that mutual fund investors are attracted by the shiny funds does not serve them well in a market where sentiment can drive the value of securities too high or too low. A simple way to break the cycle of mutual fund underperformance is to develop an investment policy in which the investor maintains a diversified portfolio that reallocates periodically as market values change. This naturally works against investor sentiment by increasing investment in bonds when stock prices are rising and reducing one’s bond allocation when stock prices have fallen. Azi Ben-Rephael of Indiana University and his co-authors estimate monthly shifts between bond and stock mutual funds and find that investors consistently do the opposite-they shift to bond funds when equity values drop and back toward stock funds when equities rise in value. I use the monthly calculated shift in equity funds during the two significant equity bear markets of 2001-2002 and 2007-2009. In both cases, mutual fund investors move sharply toward bonds after stock prices have fallen. Investors appear to be unwilling to follow a disciplined long-run investment strategy by maintaining their portfolio risk exposure in a down market. Since poorly timed mutual fund sales are more harmful than poorly timed purchases, these flights to safety can have a significant impact on long-run portfolio performance. Including an investment policy statement inevitably leads to a discussion of the importance of rebalancing during good times and bad, allowing a client to anticipate portfolio volatility and follow a smart money strategy. Friesen and Sapp found that sentiment-driven underperformance on load funds was twice as large (1.92% per year) as the performance gap on no-load funds (0.96%). Incubated funds are also significantly more likely to be load funds. This is consistent with other studies that suggest that the mutual fund universe can be split between funds that are sold through the broker channel and funds that are bought through a direct channel. It is far easier to sell a privately incubated fund with significant recent excess performance, than it is to sell a fund with average performance. This is so even if neither fund is actually more likely to outperform in the future. It would be tempting to conclude that bad investor timing is primarily the result of inexperienced investors making bad choices, but a recent study by Ilia Dichev of Emory University and Gwen Yu of Harvard found that dollar-weighted returns on hedge funds are between 3% and 7% lower than time weighted returns. This is more than twice the dumb money difference observed in mutual fund investments. Since hedge fund investors are primarily institutions and extremely wealthy individuals, apparently even the professionals can get caught up in the excitement of investing in hot funds. Whether novice or professional, it is easy for an investor to fall into the trap of chasing returns of attention-grabbing funds. The good news is that investors who avoid relying on their emotions are much more likely to succeed in the long run. And a skilled investment advisor can help a client tune out the noise.