Tag Archives: stocks

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.

Why Are Utility Black Hills Investors Seeing Red?

Black Hills recently priced a secondary offering at a full 30% off its peak price in 2014. The acquisition of SourceGas doubles its community count in states they currently service. While Moody’s and Fitch placed Black Hills on “Negative Watch”, they are generally supportive of the company’s business profile. Black Hills Corp (NYSE: BKH ) is a small cap diversified utility whose stocks price has collapsed from $60 in June 2014 to $40 currently, with share prices down 10% on Nov 17. The answer lies in two circumstances: its business profile and the issuance of dilutive equity to fund an acquisition. The first situation is more long-term and the second more short-term. Originally founded 132 years ago in Deadwood, ND (interesting name for an investment headquarters), BKH has a long history of dividend increases, stretching back to 1970. Black Hills is a utility with regulated natural gas and electricity assets and non-regulated assets, with the non-regulated assets generating the negative issues. BKH mines coal, generates electricity with coal, and explores for oil and natural gas. These business segments are currently out of favor with most investors, and are creating financial stress. Black Hills services 680,000 customers in Colorado, Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska along with 110,000 customers in South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana. 205,000 are electric customers and 585,000 are natural gas customers. Below is a graphic of its service territory. (click to enlarge) The annual dividend is currently $1.62, for a yield of 4.0%. The company has a 45-year string of dividend increases, driven in part by strong industrial load growth in electricity. Over the previous 5 years, Black Hill’s growth has been in its regulated utility business. In 2009, regulated utility business generated $126.2 million in operating income vs. $19.9 million for non-regulated. Last year, regulated businesses generated $222.4 million vs. $39.3 million for non-regulated. At no time over the previous 5 years has the non-regulated segment generate over $45 million in operating income while operating EPS over the same time frame increased from $1.38 to $2.93. Management has forecast operating EPS of $2.90 to $3.10 for this year, midpoint $3.00, and $3.15 to $3.35 for 2016, midpoint $3.25. According to S&P Credit, the states serviced have the following regulatory environment (based on three groups of regulatory friendliness – Strong, Strong/Adequate, and Adequate): Colorado and Iowa – Strong; Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana – Strong/Adequate. Pre-2014, S&P Credit offered five categories of regulatory friendliness and it seems Colorado, Wyoming and Montana improved their relative positioning. In addition, Black Hills geographic service territory includes some of the higher economic growth rates. Below is a map from the Bureau of Economic Advisors of economic growth by State for 2014. As shown, Colorado and Wyoming exceeded the national average growth rate of 2.2% while the balance of the states served fell short. In general, the Rocky Mountain States saw their economic growth rate expand from 1.4% in 2011 to 3.9% in 2014 while the Plains saw their rate of growth slashed from 2.1% to 1.3%. This underlying economic growth helps to lift energy demand. (click to enlarge) Similar to the entire oil and gas exploration and production industry, BKH has experienced large non-cash write-offs for redetermination of its natural gas reserve values. The YTD charges amount to $2.53 a share, or $110 million, reducing Trailing Twelve Months reported earnings to $0.37 vs. TTM operating earnings of $3.07. In tune with their peers, BKH has slashed its capital expenditure budget for oil and gas exploration from $242 million to a measly $27 million. From an overall observation, BKH’s future lies with its regulated business, as the non-regulated business will continuing to provide a drag on investor interest. Presently, Black Hills can provide about 50% of its natural gas delivery needs from internal production, and with commodity pass-through provisions, allows BKH to be more self-sufficient than other small natural gas utilities. While not a large attribute in these times of low gas prices, if prices were to rise over time, this could add another potential profit layer. In early summer, Black Hills announced it was buying a neighboring natural gas utility from private sources. In July, BKH announced it was buying SourceGas from an investment fund owned by Alinda Capital Partners and GE Energy Financial Services for $1.89 billion, including assumption of $720 million in debt. The expansion will add 425,000 customers and solidify its position in its existing service states as the number of community served doubles to 800. In addition to the current seven states, BKH will add Arkansas customers. However, to fund the acquisition, this week management priced a 5.5 million share secondary offering at $40.50 a share, for a dilution of about 12%, based on 44.5 million shares outstanding before and 50 million after. The company will also offer equity units comprising of an interest in a 2028 subordinated debt and a collar contract to buy additional common shares between $40 and $47. When exercised, the equity units will further dilute share count by 10% and the equity unit is expected to yield 7.5%. Net proceeds from these two are expected to total $465 to $535 million on their close at the end of Nov. The original acquisition funding estimates called for $575 to $675 million in new equity. This still leaves new debt issuance of between $590 and $660 million, and is higher than the original estimate of $450 to $550 million. In connection with the acquisition, Moody’s and Fitch credit rating agencies lowered BKH’s outlook to “negative”. The added concern mainly focuses on higher debt levels BKH will take on. Moody’s comments : However, the decline in financial metrics is slightly offset by the anticipated improvement in the company’s business risk profile. The transaction brings increased scale and diversity as well as additional opportunity to grow rate base in the constructive regulatory environments that SourceGas operates in. It improves Black Hill’s overall risk profile as it adds low-risk LDC utility operations and reduces the proportional size of its higher risk E&P operations. The rating affirmations and stable outlooks on Black Hills Power and SourceGas reflect the companies’ stable utility operations with visible growth opportunities. Because Black Hills already operates in three of SourceGas’ four states, we expect Black Hills to improve efficiency by combining utility operations and to be better positioned in these states through the increased scale. Arkansas is the only state where Black Hills currently does not have any operations. In recent years, SourceGas has experienced improvements in its regulatory environment in Arkansas, including a reasonable outcome in its rate case in 2014. Fitch’s comments : BKH operates regulated electric and natural gas utilities in seven states, all of which allow for pass-through of commodity and/or purchased power costs and many feature other riders or recovery mechanisms that enhance timely recovery of expenses and invested capital. Transmission investments are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or state regulatory commissions with most capital expenditures eligible for rider recovery. The diversity by regulated jurisdiction further enhances the predictability of cash flows and minimizes the effects of exogenous factors. Non-regulated investments consist of a legacy upstream energy exploration and development business. Fitch considers BKH’s coal and competitive generation businesses, which are largely contracted to BKH’s utilities, as possessing relatively low risk. BKH’s utilities, coal, and merchant generation businesses have a large degree of operational and financial integration, with jointly owned or contracted generation and common call centers. BKH has interests in the Mancos shale play and is committing relatively large capital investments in order to further assess and prove its potential reserves in the area. BKH’s proposal to place a portion of its natural gas assets into a nonregulated exploration and production subsidiary, which would supply its utilities with up to 50% of annual gas consumption through long-term contracts, if successful would reduce the inherent risks and volatility of the non-regulated oil and gas business segment and would be viewed positively by Fitch. BKH has traditionally managed this business in a conservative manner and uses swaps and other instruments up to two years in duration to hedge pricing risk. Black Hills has earned a disappointing S&P Equity Quality Below Average Rating of “B”. Fastgraph outlines the current valuation for BKH in the chart below, along with a historic review of return on invested capital ROIC. ROIC between 2006 and 2011 were at sector average of 4% to 5%., but has improved since 2011. (click to enlarge) Source: fastgraph.com (click to enlarge) Source: fastgraph.com Since 2014, investors have punished BKH with a substantial stock price haircut, but the barber may not yet be done. By all accounts, the acquisition of SourceGas will reduce the company’s risk profile by increasing its regulated footprint in states where they have a good PUC relationships. Black Hills would be more enticing with a further dip in price to generate a higher yield, but nibbling here could offer interesting opportunities as a small-cap portfolio diversifier serving the Rocky Mountain and Plains geographic area. Author’s Note: Please review disclosure in Author’s profile.

VEA: Who Doesn’t Like Developed Markets With Low Expense Ratios?

Summary This fund serves a viable core holding for the international portion of an equity portfolio. Investors can customize their position by adding other small allocations. Investors need to remember the importance of international diversification even as domestic equity as thoroughly outperformed during the latest bull market. The ETF has an very reasonable expense ratio. The Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF (NYSEARCA: VEA ) is a great ETF for getting exposure across the world. I love covering Vanguard ETFs because the low expense ratios and reasonable allocations regularly give me reason to be excited about an ETF being designed to benefit the investors. This is no exception, the ETF sports an expense ratio of.09%. Vanguard regularly sets the bar for creating low fee investment vehicles for investors to gain solid diversification with low costs. Holdings I grabbed the following chart to demonstrate the weight of the top 10 holdings: These sector allocations are fairly common for large international equity ETFs with a fairly passive management style and low expense ratio. In my coverage of international ETFs, I regularly see most of these companies in the top 10. If you wonder what that means for investing, it means the funds with lower expense ratios have a very material advantage. It’s hard enough to beat a lower fee fund when the sector allocations are similar, when the underlying companies are the same it becomes an absurd task. That makes the .09% expense ratio a pretty big winner for VEA. Sectors (click to enlarge) The sector allocations here are pretty similar to the benchmark and pretty similar to peers. Since the top companies are fairly similar across major international ETFs, it shouldn’t be a huge surprise that the sector weights will also be fairly similar. In a domestic fund I would consider this to be a fairly aggressive allocation. When it comes to international equity, this reflects what is available in the market. I would love to see international investing shift to include more of the defensive sectors to reduce the volatility that can plague international investments, but for now the best strategy available to shareholders is to simply utilize international investing as a way to gain further diversification for an intelligently designed domestic portfolio. Attempting to use VEA as the entire portfolio would expose investors to a substantial amount of diversifiable risk. However, using the fund within the context of a portfolio allows it to enhance diversification and create a lower level of total risk rather than a higher level. Region Japan and the United Kingdom both got huge weightings here. If there is one critique for this otherwise stellar ETF it would be that the exposure might be weighted to create a slightly lower allocation towards individual countries. I’ve got nothing against investing in Japan or in the United Kingdom, but I would like to see heavier weights for the lower countries on the list. If investors want to create the optimal international allocations, I think VEA is a perfectly reasonable place to start. I would want to add some customized exposure to the emerging markets and possibly enhance the weight of countries that are a smaller portion of the fund. I’ve been a bear on China for quite a while, but many of my bearish assumptions have been priced into the Chinese equities now so I wouldn’t be too opposed to having a small allocation there. I’d love to add some exposure to Latin America as well. Russia is another market that is still excluded from the developed markets ETF. I would want to give the emerging markets positions a much lower weighting than the developed markets position, but I wouldn’t mind a small position in those markets. Conclusion I see plenty to like in this Vanguard fund and very little to dislike. For my personal tastes, I would want to add a little bit of emerging market exposure, but a huge developed market ETF with a low expense ratio gives investors a way to grab their main international exposure so that other positions can be customized to fit in any other small allocations the investor would like. Think of this fund as an option for the core of the international piece of the portfolio. For some investors this will be enough by itself, for others it will make sense to compliment it with a few other holdings.