“In 1936 I suddenly saw that my previous work in different branches of economics had a common root. This insight was that the price system was really an instrument which enabled millions of people to adjust their effort to events of which they had no concrete knowledge.”
“They say I’m old-fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast!”
In Singapore both EOL and Pacific Radiance are trying to freeze time to their advantage. I can’t see it working. Both parties seem to be using a judicial process to try and slow the reality of weak market conditions, and yet the longer this keeps on the worse the offers to finance these businesses seem to get.
EOL signed a “binding” term sheet with new investors in September 17… Then BTI/Point Hope came back and said they wanted new terms, and then again… and again. The only possible explanations were A) EMAS is performing even more poorly than was estimated last September when they first agreed a “binding” term sheet, or perhaps than in December 17 when they agreed a revised “binding” term sheet; or, B) the market hasn’t recovered so the new investors don’t want to put cash in. The parties were looking to sign another (“binding” I presume?) term sheet so asked the court for a moratoria that will allow them to keep operating while they tried to sort out a $50m investment. But then today BT accepted reality walked away. It bodes ill for Pacific Radiance.
At some point the creditor groups led by DBS and OCBC must be forced to either recognise the market value of the assets or just accept what is needed in terms of the size of the write down, which is going to be very large if they liquidate the EMAS fleet now, or new working capital required and what it will be priced at. It is very hard to see anything viable coming out of EMAS whatever the price.
Pacific Radiance can’t even get the binding part of a term sheet: they just have a group of investors so keen to move forward they can only agree preliminary terms. News reports suggest that these are investors from outside the industry looking for a bargain. Good luck with that. The only operational plan appears to be for the company to carry on as before and spend a ton of new money on OpEx while waiting for the market to turn (and enter the nascent Asian wind market). That’s fine if you could actually get the money signed up to do this, but of course that hasn’t happened yet…
The Pacific Radiance restructuring involves USD 120m cash going in and the banks writing off $100m but getting $100m cash out immediately. Getting effectively .5 in the dollar on some aging offshore support vessels is a great deal in this market (see above)… almost too good to be true… The remaining USD 120m gets paid back over three years starting on January 1 2021. This is the ultimate bet on a market recovery in the most margin sensitive OSV market in the world. Pacific Radiance generated a cash loss from operations of $4m in Q1 2018, so should the market not come back then you have a small amount of cash sitting behind USD 120m of fully secured bank debt. Given current OSV rates if investors are putting money into this project they are betting that this company can generate at least $40m per annum to pay the banks back before they have any prospect of their equity having any value in only 3 years time.
I will be really will be surprised if the Pacific Radiance deal goes ahead in this form. At this stage of the cycle if you are providing working capital finance to help the banks recover their asset value you should have some prospect of getting your money back first. A three year repayment profile just doesn’t reflect the economic realities of these vessels or the likely market moving forward no matter how much the banks behind this may choose to believe something else.
People keep telling me that DBS and OCBC have have taken large internal write-offs with their investments in these companies. I struggle to believe this as if this were really the case the banks would surely just equitise their investment fully, bring the new money in, and sell the shares when they started trading again, which in simplistic terms is what happened to the creditors in the Tidewater and Gulfmark. Both banks, as with all banks with lending to the sector, should be maximising their own position, but in doing so they are ensuring collectively the poor financial performance of the entire fleet they longer they keep the extensions up.
There is a fine line in these situations between judging when the market is being excessively negative in the short-term, and therefore put new money in, or just liquidate. I know the bankers are loo king at Pacific Radiance going how can USD 600m be worth so little? But the answer is the assets have a very high holding cost and breakeven point and they lent in the middle of a credit boom. Given current market prices it looks like the banks are holding out not just for the unlikely now but the impossible. In economic terms these banks own nothing more than a claim to some future value on a vessel if the market recovers, and for a load of reasons (some related to accounting regulations), they want others to front this cost. But the economic substance of their claim remains the same.
Both Pacific Radiance and EMAS are locked in a problem of mutually assured destruction if they both get temporary funding for another season. The market is structurally smaller than it was five years ago and ergo the vessels are not worth as much, and at the moment cannot generate enough cash to cover more than OpEx (not even including dry docking). The market hasn’t come back and shows no sign of doing so in any substantial way. If both of these firms secure further cash to blow on operating at cash break even for another season or two they will simply ensure overcapacity remains and no one in the industry can make money and therefore no rational investor should put money into the industry until capacity is reduced.
This Tidewater presentation shows quite how oversupplied the market is: from 4.5 vessels per rig to 8 on a significantly lower rig base down 40% from the peak in 2014.
The other point to note is that turnover for Pacific Radiance dropped 16% on last year for Q1 2018. Price deflation in an asset industry, particularly one with debt, is the nuclear bomb of finance as debt remains constant in nominal dollars while real earnings to service it decline. I doubt Pacific Radiance lost market share so I think that is indicative of pricing pressure that customers are pushing on them. What is clearly not happening, as in every other sector of offshore, is that E&P companies are asking vessel owners to scrap older tonnage so they can pay a premium for newer kit. In fact they are just demanding, as they always have but particularly in Asia, the cheapest kit that meets a minimum acceptable standard. The “aging scrapping” myth will have to wait a while longer before becoming reality. Pacific Radiance might be right and the nadir of the market has arrived, but there is precious little sign of an upward trajectory from here, and plenty of signs from contracted day rates that market expectations are for at least another season of rates at this level.
To be fair the graph is contrasted with this:
But “adjusted supply” is a forecast and a nebulous concept at best. And with a 16%% drop in revenue over last year even if the increased utilisation figure is true it just means productivity is dropping. There is no good news at the moment on the supply side.
If prolonged these constant judicial delays to economic reality risk doing further harm to the sector as they will actually discourage private sector investment. MMA raised private money on market terms to manage the downturn, yet it’s returns are being forced lower because it is effectively competing against firms being kept on life support by a seemingly never ending stream of judicial moratoria from its competitors. The more this happens the less other private investors will become to get involved because a never ending overcapacity situation becomes effectively a court annoited market.
There is a moral hazard problem here where these indefinite moratorium agreements encouragement management, and in some cases creditors, to negotiate in bad faith while the costs of this are paid for by private sector investors who have put new money into competitor companies. The BT/ EMAS position shows the folly of allowing parties unlimited time to negotiate as it worsens the economic pain for firms that have proactively sought solutions. At some point these parties need to be given a “hard stop” date at which time the courts will not allow moratoria to be rolled over.
Eventually the restructuring in Asia will begin in earnest because there are simply not enough chairs now the music has stopped (with apologies to Chuck Prince). EMAS surely looks likely to kick this off.