Tag Archives: stocks

NiSource – Red Flags All Around

Summary NiSource’s coal operations have gotten it in trouble before; it won’t be the last. Floundering gross margins have handicapped profitability. Net debt/EBITDA over 4x indicates significant leverage. Nearly $500M in annual interest expense. NiSource (NYSE: NI ) is a provider of natural gas and electricity to customers across seven states. The company touts its long-term return potential, citing strong local market growth, geographic diversity, and sizeable upgrade potential on its existing infrastructure, on which it would be entitled to a fair return on its investment. NiSource recently completed a spin-off of its Columbia Pipeline (NYSE: CPGX ) business, which means the new NiSource generates nearly 100% of its revenues from regulated utility operations. This fact, plus management’s guidance of 4-6% annual dividend growth from here on out, has drawn in income investors that have been searching for low-risk, stable income options in a highly volatile market. Is NiSource deserving of this praise, or are there potential bumps in the road for the company in the years ahead? Columbia Pipeline Spin-Off NiSource completed the spin-off of Columbia Pipeline Group in early July. Pitched to shareholders as unlocking value by separating two distinct businesses into independently run, pure-play public companies. Shareholders bought the idea hook, line, and sinker. Columbia Pipeline owns an extensive route of pipelines connecting the Northeast Marcellus/Utica shale plays to important local locations along with hundreds of billions of cubic feet of natural gas storage. Customers are primarily contracted, fee-based giants in the energy/utility business such as Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM ) and Dominion Resources (NYSE: D ). The prospect of management-guided 20%+ annual EBITDA growth on a seemingly ever expanding domestic energy market drew in investors chasing big capital gains and solid dividends. Unfortunately for shareholders of this new entity, the market has sold off highly leveraged midstream energy MLPs like Columbia Pipeline (along with peers like Kinder Morgan (NYSE: KMI )) on fears related to the sustainability and growth potential of American energy production. Smaller companies like Columbia Pipeline have been more adversely affected by the sell-off; shares are down 40% in a few short months compared to a flat performance from the S&P 500. This lesson in volatility has likely been a tough pill to swallow for dividend investors who have likely grown used to relatively mild movements in price. While I think midstream MLPs have been oversold and selling here would be a mistake, investors should likely consider paring down exposure to Columbia Pipeline as the share price recovers. Pro-Forma Operating Results Unfortunately for shareholders, NiSource has done a mediocre job regarding transparency of breaking out Columbia Pipeline’s contribution to NiSource’s earnings results on its presentations. This is necessary for investors to properly evaluate how the utility business has been performing over the past few years. After digging around in the SEC filings, I’ve broken out NiSource’s utility operations above given its pro-forma Columbia Pipeline filings given here . Total revenue has grown marvelously, but gross margins have contracted. NiSource has never been known for efficient operations and that trend has continued into recent years. This has always been a concern for investors. Another concern with the company is its electric operations, which generated approximately 30% of total utility revenues in 2014. The vast majority of available power generation (2,540MW of 3,281MW, or roughly 77% of power generation) is fired by coal. Energy mix has been unchanged for years, and given my pessimistic outlook on coal, my opinion here should be obvious. With such a high percentage of ageing coal power plants, it is likely only a matter of time before these plants reach the same fate as the company’s Dean Mitchell Generating Station, which was shut down in a settlement with the Obama Administration. This agreement also led to the company being forced into $600M in infrastructure upgrades on these old coal plants. The company had avoided provisions that required these upgrades for years. Even pro forma to exclude the buildup in the Columbian Pipeline infrastructure over the past few years, NiSource has been a serial burner of cash and a big issuer of debt – the combined company has issued billions in debt over the past few years to cover cash flow shortfalls. After the spin-off, NiSource is being left with a $5.5B long-term debt load. With EBITDA falling in the $1.3B range for 2015, net debt/EBITDA will be a hair over 4x. This is manageable for a utility, but investors should be cautious, especially given likely capital expenditure requirements for NiSource to maintain and update its prior-mentioned aging coal power plants. Conclusion Management here has the opportunity for a fresh start towards operating a functional utility. Improving gross margins, investing in its business smartly, and paying down its debt. Unfortunately, the company is more like a three-legged chair at the moment – the very foundation of the company is wobbly. Coal-fired generation puts a target on the company’s back. Nearly $500M in annual interest expense cuts operating profit off at the knees. With the company trading at nearly 18x 2016 earnings estimates, shares aren’t cheap compared to peers. Fair value is closer to 15x 2016 earnings of $1.03/share, or $15.45/share. In my opinion, investors would be wise to avoid NI’s shares currently.

Comparing Consolidated Edison And American Electric Power

In a previous article I detailed the past history of Consolidated Edison. In detailing this observation, it can be helpful to compare that security to others. This article compares the results of Consolidated Edison and American Electric Power, along with how you might think about the securities moving forward. In a previous article I looked at the past business and investment growth of Consolidated Edison (NYSE: ED ). This is useful for two reasons: it gives you a historical view of the company and it allows you to better think about potential repeatability moving forward. The historical look gives you much more insight than a simple stock price. Instead of seeing a line squiggle about, you can observe how revenues translate to earnings, earnings to earnings-per-share, EPS to share price growth and ultimately to your total return. There are a lot of factors at play that are not adequately captured in a stock chart. Moving forward, this type of information allows you think about the business in the future, with a solid understanding of how it previously got to where it was. If past investment growth was driven by an uptick in the earnings multiple or reduction in the share count, for example, these would be areas that you might want to explore on a forward-looking basis as well. Of course looking at a single security, even through the lens of various return drivers, does have its limitations. Its hard to tell whether revenue growth or investment growth is reasonable or not without also comparing this to other similar firms. As an illustration, let’s compare Consolidated Edison to American Electric Power (NYSE: AEP ), a similar-sized utility, to get a better feel for the company. Here’s a look at both companies historical business and investment growth during the 2005 through 2014 period: ED AEP Revenue Growth 1.1% 3.9% Start Profit Margin 6.2% 8.6% End Profit Margin 8.3% 9.6% Earnings Growth 4.5% 5.2% Yearly Share Count 2.0% 2.4% EPS Growth 2.1% 2.6% Start P/E 15 14 End P/E 18 18 Share Price Growth 4.0% 5.6% % Of Divs Collected 46% 43% Start Payout % 76% 54% End Payout % 70% 61% Dividend Growth 1.1% 4.1% Total Return 7.3% 8.4% From this table we can learn a variety of things. First, note that AEP was able to grow its revenues at a faster rate than Consolidated Edison. AEP also began with a higher net profit margin, and grew this over the period. Interestingly, due to the lower starting base, Consolidated Edison actually made up some growth ground in this area. Total earnings growth for Consolidated Edison came in at 4.5% per year against 5.2% for AEP. Part of the higher growth for AEP was offset on the shareholder level due to having to issue more shares. Once you get to earnings-per-share Consolidated Edison was growing at 2.1% per year against American Electric’s 2.6% annual growth. Allow the companies got there a bit differently, shareholders saw markedly similar growth during the time. Shares of both companies began the period trading around 14 or 15 times earnings and moved up closer to 18 times earnings by the end of the period. The P/E expansion was slightly higher for AEP, resulting in 5.6% annual share price growth versus Consolidated Edison’s 4% annual growth. This is an important point. It’s not just the ending valuation that matters, but also the expectations that lead up to that value. Consolidated Edison started with a higher dividend yield, but grew its payout at a slower rate. Still, an investment in the New York utility would have provided more aggregate income, resulting in closer overall returns. An investment in AEP would have generated 8.4% annual gains, while an investment in Consolidated Edison would have provided 7.3% yearly gains. As a point of reference, based on a $10,000 starting position, that’s the difference between accumulating $18,900 and $20,600. American Electric Power was able to outperform Consolidated Edison in the past due to its slightly faster earnings growth rate and higher valuation uptick. Consolidated Edison provided more dividends per dollar invested, but still trailed slightly. This type of view can illuminate a few things. First, even though the growth rates weren’t spectacular the returns were reasonable. A high starting yield and an uptick in valuation for both companies drove this result. Perhaps just as important, it shows you why one company might have turned in better performance and not just that it happened. Moving forward you could think about an investment in either security in a similar light. Here’s where things get less compelling, in my view. Below I have presented the same table substituting what actually occurred in the past with a hypothetical example for the next decade: ED Forecast AEP Forecast Revenue Growth 1.1% 3.9% Start Profit Margin 8.3% 9.6% End Profit Margin 9.3% 10.6% Earnings Growth 2.3% 4.9% Yearly Share Count 2% 2.4% EPS Growth 0.4% 2.4% Start P/E 18 17 End P/E 15 15 Share Price Growth -1.6% 1.1% % Of Divs Collected 40% 46% Start Payout % 72% 63% End Payout % 72% 63% Dividend Growth 0.4% 2.4% Total Return 2.3% 4.7% On the top line I used the exact same revenue growth, 1.1% per year for Consolidated Edison and 3.9% for AEP. Naturally these could be switched around or any number of different iterations, but the above is used specifically for a demonstration. The next two rows show improvement in the net margin of each company. So you have two companies growing revenue at the same rate as before, and actually keeping more of those profits. Yet the overall growth rate for both companies would still be lower. As a result of coming off a higher base, formulating growth becomes more difficult – it’s not enough to improve, you would need to improve by a greater and greater margin. If the number of shares outstanding also increased at past rates, you would be looking at rather slow earnings-per-share growth rates. Not that the past growth rates weren’t spectacular, but these would be noticeably lower still. With the same business performance, the growth rate is lower off a now higher base. It becomes more and more difficult to offer continued growth. The big difference between 2005 and 2015 is that today you’d likely want to be more cautious in your future multiple anticipation. Its certainly possible that these two companies could trade with P/E ratios of say 20 in the future, but I would contend that this might not be altogether prudent to expect. As such, share price growth could trail the already quite slow earnings growth. In turn, your main total return reliance would rest with dividends. Although the dividend yields are above average – sitting around 4% – they wouldn’t be expected to grow very fast. As such, you might anticipate collecting the dividend yield, seeing it keep pace with or even trail long-term inflation and not much more. A lack of strong growth, coupled with average to above average expectations, makes for a less compelling value proposition. Of course the above assumptions could be too pessimistic. Analysts are presently expecting 3% intermediate-term earnings growth for Consolidated Edison and 5% growth for AEP. Still, these assumptions would only bump the return anticipations up to the mid-single-digits. And to be complete, these higher assumptions can miss share count dilution and the possibility of a lower valuation in the future. In short, both Consolidated Edison and AEP as businesses didn’t grow very fast over the past decade. In spite of this, investors saw reasonable returns due to an uptick in what investors were willing to pay to go along with a solid ongoing dividend. In the future, you likely still wouldn’t expect these companies to grow very fast. However, this time the returns might not be as reasonable. The valuations are higher and consequently dividend benefits a bit lower. As the growth rate of a security slows, the relative expectations and valuation paid become more and more important.

BKLN: Higher Yields Without The Duration Risk

Summary BKLN holds loans that primarily have maturities within 2 to 10 years, but the fund doesn’t move with typical junk bond movements. The loans in the ETF benefit from having LIBOR based loans so their coupons reset on a regular basis. When high yield bonds were dipping during the taper tantrum, loans like these were much steadier. Investors should be seeking to improve their risk adjusted returns. I’m a big fan of using ETFs to achieve risk adjusted returns relative to the portfolios that a normal investor can generate for themselves after trading costs. One of the funds I’m looking into is the PowerShares Senior Loan Portfolio ETF (NYSEARCA: BKLN ). 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. I’ll cover the holdings of the fund and then look at its performance in what I would consider a reasonable portfolio. Expense Ratio The net expense ratio is .66%. That’s fairly high compared to the junk bond funds I would normally consider. On the other hand, BKLN is holding a senior loan portfolio rather than a simple junk bond portfolio and the expense ratio is in line with the norms for this sector. Maturity The portfolio has a fairly simple standard of holding loans with a maturity from 1 to 5 years. These senior loan ETFs will be following an index and when those indexes are updated they often exclude any loans with a maturity of less than one year. It might seem like this would cause the fund to have quite a bit of interest rate risk, but as you’ll see, that isn’t entirely the case. Interest Rate Sensitivity The following chart shows the price movements on two indexes. Note that these are indexes being measured rather than directly measuring the performance of any single ETF tracking that index. The normal high yield funds suffered much worse than the loan index. Even though both are exposed to a material amount of credit risk, BKLN has loans with their coupons resetting based on LIBOR. Because of this resetting feature the duration exposure is substantially lower. This should make the loan ETFs an interesting option for investors seeking for acceptable yields while already holding enough bonds that they are concerned about the duration risk. Credit Credit risk is still a factor here. That shouldn’t be a surprise since we are talking about a high yield portfolio. Building the Portfolio This hypothetical portfolio has an aggressive allocation for the middle aged investor, but should be fairly reasonable for a younger investor. Investors nearing retirement should aim for a significantly more conservative portfolio unless they have a high risk tolerance and a high ability to actually bear the risk. Retirees depending on the portfolio value should aim for something more conservative than this. A total of 40% of the portfolio value is placed in bonds. That makes it appear to be a fairly reasonable allocation for the middle aged investor. However the position in junk bonds is highly susceptible to losses at the same time as the equity positions because fear in the market will cause junk bonds to be sold off along with equity. You’ll also notice that emerging market bonds also have a positive correlation with domestic equity markets due to the influence of fear. The portfolio assumes frequent rebalancing which would be a problem for short term trading outside of tax advantaged accounts unless the investor was going to rebalance by adding to their positions on a regular basis and allocating the majority of the capital towards whichever portions of the portfolio had been underperforming recently. Because a substantial portion of the yield from this portfolio comes from REITs and interest, I would favor this portfolio as a tax exempt strategy even if the investor was frequently rebalancing by adding new capital. The portfolio allocations can be seen below along with the dividend yields from each investment. Name Ticker Portfolio Weight Yield Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF VYM 30.00% 3.16% iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF IYR 10.00% 3.82% Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF VEA 10.00% 2.94% Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF VWO 10.00% 3.12% Vanguard Emerging Markets Government Bond Index ETF VWOB 10.00% 4.73% Vanguard Long-Term Corporate Bond Index ETF VCLT 10.00% 4.54% Vanguard Long-Term Government Bond Index ETF VGLT 10.00% 3.12% I include the yield from each investment to aid investors looking for a higher yielding portfolio. If nothing else, this should provide a very quick reference point for which other ETFs mentioned here might also be useful in constructing your own portfolio. I picked VYM as a replacement for SPY in this portfolio due to it having a significantly stronger dividend yield and the assumption that domestic equity would be the core of the portfolio. The next chart shows the annualized volatility and beta of the portfolio since October of 2013, courtesy of Investspy.com. (click to enlarge) Risk Contribution The risk contribution category demonstrates the amount of the portfolio’s volatility that can be attributed to that position. To make it easier to recognize the risk impact of the various positions, I’ve built this portfolio to be equal weight with the exception of the position in VYM. Since this is the core of the portfolio, I’ve allocated 30% to the ETF. You can also see that VGLT has a negative total risk impact on the portfolio. When you see negative risk contributions in this kind of assessment it generally means that there will be significantly negative correlations with other asset classes in the portfolio. The position in VCLT is also very low in the impact on total portfolio risk. That is because these are very long duration high quality bonds. Even though they are not treasuries, they have a much higher correlation with treasury securities than with equity securities. Thinking of Modifications If an investor wanted to use something like this as a high yield portfolio while significantly reducing the risk, one way to do it would be to cut the allocations to VEA and VWO and to increase the allocations to VGLT and VCLT. That would create a lower risk portfolio overall and it would strengthen the yield on the portfolio. It should be noted that this modification would reduce the expected level of returns over the long term. A quick rundown of the portfolio I put together the following chart that really simplifies the role of each investment: Ticker Role in Portfolio VYM Core of Portfolio IYR Yield and exposure to equity REITs VEA International diversification VWO International diversification VWOB Strong Yield with International Diversification VCLT Moderate yield, moderate risk VGLT Strong Negative Correlation to Equity Correlation The chart below, created by Invest Spy shows the correlation of each ETF with each other ETF in the portfolio. 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) Conclusion The difference between BKLN and a typical high yield fund can be seen by factors such as its fairly low correlation with other debt instruments. Even VWOB, the emerging market bond fund, is only showing a 35% correlation with BKLN. It is interesting to note that BKLN has a higher correlation with VYM and SPY than any other investments in the table. In short, the credit exposure in the portfolio is the dominating factor in price movements as the ETF will generally move up and down with the rest of the economy rather than trading with other bond portfolios. That means this kind of ETF is better suited to the risk averse investor that is overweight on bonds and looking for a small allocation to increase yields without having it go up down with his other bond investments. Just keep in mind that this is still a high yield fund, even with very little duration exposure.