A money creation theory of offshore asset recovery…

The reason we are less enthused by companies which rely on tangible assets such as buildings or manufacturing plants [Ed: or rigs/jackups/ships?] is that anyone with a big enough budget can easily replicate (and compete with) their business. Indeed, they are often able to become better than the original simply by installing the latest technology in their new factory. Banks are also quite keen to lend against the collateral of tangible assets under the often illusory view that this gives them greater security, meaning that such assets can also be financed easily with debt, or as we call it, ‘other people’s money’. Debt is provided to such companies both cheaply, and with seeming abandon at certain times in the economic cycle, with often perilous results.

Smithson Investment Trust, Owners Manual

High confidence tends to be associated with inspirational stories, stories about new business initiatives, tales of how others are getting rich…

Akerlof and Shiller, Animal Spirits

…the instability due to the characteristic of human nature that a large proportion of our positive activities depend on spontaneous optimism rather than on a mathematical expectation, whether moral or hedonistic or economic. Most, probably, of our decisions to do something positive, the full consequences of which will be drawn out over many days to come, can only be taken as a result of animal spirits — of a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities.

Keynes, Chap 2: The State of Long Term Expectations, in The General Theory

While quite ready to change my opinion, I have, at present, a strong conviction that these two economic maladies, the debt disease and the price-level disease (or dollar disease), are, in the great booms and depressions, more important causes than all others put together…

Some of the other and usually minor factors often derive some importance when combined with one or both of the two dominant factors.

Thus over-investment and over-speculation are often important; but they would have far less serious results were they not conducted with borrowed money. That is, over-indebtedness may lend importance to over-investment or to over-speculation.

The same is true as to over-confidence. I fancy that over-confidence seldom does any great harm except when, as, and if, it beguiles its victims into debt.

Irving Fisher, The Debt Deflationary Theory of Great Depressions

… the modern debt-deflation process encompasses falling asset prices, debt repayment difficulties, a reluctance to lend, a financial crisis, the impact on the banks, and the inter-dependency of the financial system…

Wolfson, Cambridge Journal of Economics

Financial illiteracy is a recipe for debt, default and depression, whose effects appear to feedback on each another in a vicious spiral.

These individual costs are amplified when they are aggregated up to the macro level. How people’s expectations evolve – their degree of optimism or pessimism, exuberance or depression – is crucial for determining their individual decisions. It has long been recognised that these expectations can be shaped importantly by others’ expectations. For example, “popular narratives” can emerge which shape collective expectations among the public – optimism or pessimism, exuberance or depression – and which can then drive aggregate economic fluctuations…

At a macroeconomic level, the work of George Akerlof and Robert Shiller has looked at the popular narratives which emerge during periods of boom and bust.  Using words extracted from newspapers, they find the prevailing popular narratives about the economy have played a significant role in accounting for the heights of the peaks and depths of the troughs during macro-economic booms and busts. Public expectations, embedded in the stories they tell, are a key macro-economic driver.

Andrew Haldane, Bank of England, Folk Wisdom

Last week the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia gave a speech titled “Money – Born of Credit?”, in this speech he outlined an important, yet underappreciated fact, of modern economies: deposits in bank accounts are caused by loans. A lot of people think that by putting money in their bank account they are giving the bank the ability to make a loan, but actually in a systemic sense it is the other way around: the money in your account is the result of banks making loans that end up as deposits in your account. In case you think this is some bizarre, and wrong, economic tangent, the Bank of England has an explanatory article “Money creation in the modern economy” which states:

In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood: the principal way is through commercial banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.

The Chief Economist of Standard and Poor’s summed it up in this article:

Banks lend by simultaneously creating a loan asset and a deposit liability on their balance sheet. That is why it is called credit “creation”–credit is created literally out of thin air (or with the stroke of a keyboard). The loan is not created out of reserves. And the loan is not created out of deposits: Loans create deposits, not the other way around.

This ability of privately owned banks to have the power of money creation is not often discussed. To many economists, although generally not those working at banks, this is a privilege where the ability to ‘privatize the profits and socialise the risk, is most flagrant and should perhaps be regulated more. The ‘Exorbitant Privilege‘ of the private sector. There is significant evidence that financial and banking crises have indeed become more common since the move to deregulate the financial system and credit creation that became especially strong post the end of the Bretton Woods era (post 1973).

If you are still reading at this point you may be wondering where I am going with this? The answer is that the implications for an industry like offshore, an asset-backed industry where values were sustained by huge amounts of bank leverage, are important for understanding what a “recovery” will look like. The psychology and ‘animal spirits’ of the commercial banks is likely to matter more than any single factor in dictating when an asset price recovery will be. Given that the loan books are closed to all but tier 1 borrowers, and contracting overall in offshore sector exposure, this would appear to be some way off.

Part of “the boom” in offshore since 2000, barring a short and sharp downturn in 2008/09, was the increasing value of rigs and offshore support vessels, but important too was the willingness of banks to lend against 2P reserves (Reserve Based Lending). This was a pro-cyclical boom where because everyone believed the offshore assets and reserves were worth more than their book value banks were willing to lend significant amounts of money against them. There was a positive and logical narrative of a resource-contrained oil world to unlock the animal spirits, it wasn’t irrational per se. As these assets changed hands banks created deposits in company accounts, they literally created “money” out of thin air by believing that the assets were worth more than they were previously. It is no different to a housing boom, and the more money the banks pumped in, the more everyone believed their assets were worth more (as the deposits grew). Ergo a pro-cyclical credit boom combined with an oil price boom. The demand for oil, and its price, has recovered, and this will affect the amount of offshore work undertaken, but the negative effects of an asset price boom will take longer to recover.

Right now the banks aren’t creating any new money for the offshore sector, collectively they are actually destroying it. When banks refuse to lend on ships or rigs no deposits flow through the system. Money from outside the system stops flowing into the offshore sector from the banks. Values and transactions are supported by the economic earning potential of current assets and the amount of equity and debt raised externally by funds. None of these “creates” money as banks do. These funds are “inside” money.

As an example last week Noble purchased a jack-up from a yard in Indonesia and was granted a loan by the yard selling the unit (a Gusto unit pcitured above). A piece of paper was exchanged and credit was created for the $60m loan of the total ~$94m price. Neither firm has any more money than they had prior to signing the loan contract. Credit isn’t the same as money… had a bank been involved (simplistically) it would have credited the yard with $60m, created a debt of $60m for Noble (a debit), and created an asset for $60m on its balance sheet. This money would have flowed from outside the offshore industry. The total value of the transaction would have been the same but the economic consequences, particularly for the liquidity of the yard, would have been very different. It is safe to say the reason this didn’t happen is because no bank would lend the money under similar terms. Relief rather than animal spirits seems a more likely emotion for this transaction.

It is not just the offshore contracting companies but also the E&P companies that are suffering from reduced bank credit and this is affecting the number of projects they can execute (despite a rise in the oil price). Premier is currently raising funds for the Sealion project, as part of this Drilquip has been given the contract for significant parts of the subsea scope, and they have provided this on a credit basis. In past times Premier would simply have borrowed the money from a bank and paid Drilquip. Now Drilquip has an asset in how much credit it has extended Premier but in the hierarchy of money that is lower than the cash it would previously have had, and it has to wait for Premier to sell the oil to pay it, and take credit risk and oil price risk in the meantime. Vendor financing is not the panacea for offshore because unlike banks vendors can create credit, but not money, and these are two fundamentally different things. There is a financial limit to how many customer Drilquip can serve like this. Collectively this lowers the universe of potential projects for E&P companies, and therefore the growth of the industry, that can be achieved. Credit creation is essential for an industry to grow beyond its ability to generate funds internally.

Another good example is the Pacific Radiance restructuring. Here the proposed solution, that I am enormously sceptical of, is that a new investor comes in allows the banks to restructure their loan contracts/ assets such that they can get paid SGD 100m in cash immediately while writing down the size of the loan. The equity and funds coming in are funds from the existing stock of money supply, they are not additional liquidity created by a belief in underlying asset values and represented by a paper loan contract and a growth in the loan book of the bank. While the new funds are adding to the total stock of money available to the offshore industry the bank involved is taking nearly as much off the table and you can be sure they won’t be lending it back to the sector. And thus the money stock and capital of the industry is reduced. Asset values remain low and the pain counter-cyclical process continues.

When you see companies announcing asset impairments and net losses that flow through to retained earnings this is often merely accounting of the banks withdrawing money from the sector and the economic cost of the asset base not being in tune with the amount of money available to the industry as a whole. It is also seen in share price reductions as the assets will never pay their owners the cash flows previously forecast.

In a modern economy this is normally the transmission mechanism from a credit bubble to a subsequent economic collapse: the ability of private sector banks, and only banks because of the system can create “money”, to amplify asset prices and cause sectoral booms on the way up and reduce the money stock and asset valuations on the way down. Why this happens is a complex topic and cannot be tackled in a blog, but it has clearly happened in offshore. Just as it has happened in housing booms, mining booms, ad infinitum previously. The dynamics are well known and are accentuated in industries which have had a lot of leverage. Much work was undertaken following the depression of agricultural prices in the 1930s, a commodity like oil which fluctuated wildly but the tangible backing of land allowed banks to supply significant leverage to the sector. Irving Fisher, quoted above, was famous for predicting that the US stock market had reached a “permanently high plateau” in 1929,  but his understanding of debt dyamics from studying banking and the US dustbowl depression transformed our understanding of the role of credit and banking.

[This explanation crucially differentiates between inside-money and outside-money. I am making a distinction between money generated inside the offshore sector and outside. By inside money I mean E&P company from expenditure, credit created amongst firms in the industry, and retained earnings. Outside money is primarily bank credit and private equity and debt funds. But whereas private equity and debt funds must raise money from the existing money stock only bank created money raises the volume of money].

In offshore the credit dynamics have been combined with the highly cyclical oil industry and allows optimists to believe a “recovery” is just possible. But a recovery scenario that is credible needs to differentiate between an industrial recovery, driven by the amount of E&P projects commissioned, and an asset price recovery, which is essentially a monetary phenomenon.

A limited industrial recovery is underway. It is limited by the availability of bank credit and the huge debts built up in the previous boom by the E&P companies, and their insistence that shareholders need dividends that reflect the volatility risk of the oil and gas industry. It is also limited because of the significant market share US shale has taken from offshore. But the volume of offshore project work is increasing. This is positive for those service firms who had limited asset exposure, and particularly for the Tier 1 offshore contractors, as much of the work being undertaken is deepwater projects that are large in scope.

But an asset recovery is still a long way off. There are too many assets for the volume of work in the short-run and in the long run it will be very hard to get banks to advance meaningful volumes of credit to the industry. Companies can write loan contracts with each other that represent a value, but banks monetise that immediately by providing liquid funds and therefore raising the animal spirits in the industry, whereas shipyards lending money to drilling companies need them to generate the funds before they can get paid. The velocity and quantity of money within the industry become much smaller. Patience and animal spirits make poor bedfellows.

Bank risk models for a long time will highlight offshore as a) volatile, and b) risky given that a bad deal can see even the senior lenders wiped out completely. Like all of us banks fight the last crisis as they understand it best. Until banks start lending again the flow of funds into the offshore industry will mean the stock of assets that were created in more meaningful times are worth less. In a modern economy credit creation is the sign that animal spirits are returning because it raises the return to equity (and high yield) providers.

In the boom days leading up to 2014 money and credit were plentiful. The net result was a vast amount of money being “created” for the offshore sector and a lot of deposits being created in accounts by virtue of the loans banks were creating to companies in the offshore sector based on their asset value. Now the animal spirits are no more and a feeling of caution prevails. The amount of money entering the sector via higher oil prices and private equity and debt firms is much smaller than was previously created by the banking sector. Over time this should lead to a more rational industry structure… but a repeat f 2014 days is likely to be so far away that the market at least has forgotten it…

As The Great Man said:

We should not conclude from this that everything depends on waves of irrational psychology. On the contrary, the state of long-term expectation is often steady…[but]…We are merely reminding ourselves that human decisions affecting the future, whether personal or political or economic, cannot depend on strict mathematical expectation, since the basis for making such calculations does not exist; and that it is our innate urge to activity which makes the wheels go round, our rational selves choosing between the alternatives as best we are able, calculating where we can, but often falling back for our motive on whim or sentiment or chance.

Greece, Solstad Farstad, and other restructurings…

The recent Greek debt deal is proof that when no other option exists lenders will sometimes do the right thing. Greece it should be remembered was a banking crisis as well as a sovereign debt crisis, and although the Greek banks are recovering five years after the first major ructions they are still on life support from the ECB. This should provide both some degree of hope and reality for Solsatd Farstad when they announce where they are on the latest restructuring this week. I understand that as part of the process the Farstad name will be dropped in October/ November and the Farstad’s will sell out and not be associated with the company.

The banks and investors now seem to be aware of the scale of the problem here and realize that a booming market isn’t coming and isn’t going to save anyone. The high-end AHTS have even had disappointing day rates relative to expectations (hopes?) and the Q2 numbers will simply not bank enough for a long idle winter to give anyone real comfort. And all the while the Deep Sea Supply fleet festers like a cancer on what healthy tissue remains in the body. Now only an agreement with the banks can  provide any long term solution.

Offshore companies remind me of banks in a funding sense, hence why I mention Greece, as the debt dynamics and issues are broadly similar. Offshore vessel operators fund themselves in charter markets that are significantly shorter than the economic life of the assets they buy. Charter periods dropped from 5-8 years in the early 2000s to complete spot market/ at risk vessels by 2013/14. That is complete market risk funding the purchase of a 25 year asset.

Banks also borrow-short and lend-long, in simplistic terms they borrow money as deposits and lend them to businesses for significantly longer periods of time, and while the deposits can be drawn down as requested the loans cannot. There is in effect a funding mismatch called “maturity transformation” which creates value.

This same sort of duration mis-match between the vessels owned and the charter market created huge value for offshore vessel and rig companies in a booming market. Vessel owners committed to 25 year assets, with 10 year loans on 12-15 year repayment profiles, and funded this in some cases purely in the spot market. In trading terms it was a carry-trade with the high yield short term market being funded by a long term lending market. This was a totally procyclical financial phenomenon that meant the short-term market had a pricing premium compared to the long term cost to anyone who took the risk to commit assets to the short-term market. Now, just like a banking crisis, there has been a freeze in the short-end of the market and this is impacting their ability to meet long term commitments. As Paul Krugman stated “if you borrow short and lend long you are a hedge fund and should be regulated like one”, and that is in effect the embedded funding profile of many offshore operators prior to 2014.

That model is now dead, although not completely, but I think this is the most important, and maybe the least discussed, part of the industry change. And there will be change, not through any grand initiative, but eventually as the market recovers and banks lend on offshore assets again they will force the counterparty to have a longer term contract, and gradually the time/duration risk will be more equitably split than it currently is in an oversupplied market. But I think that is going to take a long time.

It will also mean for smaller E&P operators, marginal producers, their costs could increase significantly for assets on the spot market… and they should! Building assets in the tens-to-hundreds of millions and relying on the spot market to clear them just isn’t rational, as is currently being shown. Being able to call up a jack-up PSV, AHTS, CSV or whatever at a moment’s notce and get it delivered in a few hours or days is currently proving to be a terrible business model for asset owners. Longer term the industry should move to larger operators with a series of longer contracts that roll off in a time efficient way rather than everyone thinking they can clear excess capacity in a short-term market. Larger E&P companies will commit to longer contracts and get a much lower margin as a result. Those providing short term assets will have to charge a substantial premium for this given the risk involved but it will be a smaller, risker part of the market, with substantial amounts of equity to cushion the cyclicality required. It is this factor that I think will drive consolidation far more than any cost savings: how much idle time can your business model handle?

The solution is therefore going to look like banking resolutions in Europe. Traditionally that has meant either a) bankruptcy/insolvency (and there is still more of this to come), or; b) a good bank/ bad bank split (e.g. Novo Banco). Solstad I think could eventually go this way: Solship 3/ Deep Sea Supply was an early attempt at this but failed. More radical solutions are needed now but the final solution will end up more like this. In order to compete with Standard Drilling and others in the North Sea the banks behind Solstad would need to equitise their entire expsoure to the PSV fleet and the most likely new “bad bank” starts here. The “bad bank” they already own, Deep Sea Supply, needs to be cauterised. All the banks have with these assets anyway is a claim to some future value when the market recovers and they want someone else to pay the OpEx to get there. It might have worked in 2016 but the investment narrative has changed since then.

These are moves that take months not weeks and not all the stakeholders are in the same place. A cold winter with lots of tied up vessels is likely to bring these groups closer together. Resolution is some way off. Eventually, when all the other options have been exhausted, the banks are likely to do the right thing here.

Seadrill restructuring… secular or cyclical industry change?

There is a cheeky 879 page document that outlines the Seadrill restructuring, agreed this week, if anyone is interested. My only real point of interest is that the business plan that was agreed finally in December 17 contained a significant reduction in day rates and forecast utilisation levels from the previously agreed plan of June 2017.

Seadrill VA Dec 17.png

It seems to sum up something I have said here before that the general consensus  said 2017 would be better than 20 16, and actually as the numbers come in it was not, and therefore 2018 will be another year with only weak growth for offshore. The longer this keeps up the harder it gets to mark the drop in demand in the offshore industry as a purely cyclical change that will reverse. The longer the rigs and jackups keep quiet the longer the boats will be under-utilised as well. Part of this I think is the realisation that the industry has relied in the past on very high levels of utilisation to remain profitable: fixed costs are so high that profit often wasn’t reached on any unit until it has worked 270-300+ days a year, so a future where these levels might not be reached permanently again is almost too much for many banks to accept or even contemplate.

A quick look at the forecast P&L for Seadrill shows that this is a business that requires a rapid recovery for this complex restructuring to work:

Seadrill forecast P&L 2018.png

In 2019 Seadrill needs to grow revenue 65% to lose $415m of cash after turning over $2bn. In 2020 Seadrill then needs to grow 40% again, and only then do they generate $25m after meeting all their obligations. A rounding error. A few thousand short on day rates or a few percentage points in utilisation adrift and they will lose some real money. Sure they start with a big cash pile, but they are still paying off .5 billion debt per annum and it goes up quickly. You don’t need to be a financial wizard to see that there is very little margin for error here. But the real dynamic here is the banks who would have to look at writing off billions if a plan along these lines cannot be agreed. And this is exactly the dynamic that drove the SolstadFarstad restructuring.

Here is a graphic example of “extend and pretend” or “delay and pray” that the Seadrill restructuring has come up with:

Seadrill extend and pretend.png

The banks are hoping that a collection of 32 assets, many  in lay-up, will recover in economic value enough to keep them whole in the next six years. I guess if you are in for this much it is a risk you have to take but is it really realistic?

McKinsey noted in their latest OFS outlook that:

[t]he offshore Baker Hughes rig count managed a tentative rise to 215 in January from a record low of 209 in September – barely reflecting the beginning of what many expect to be a more broad-based recovery in oil and gas project development in 2018 and 2019. Our data show that after showing signs of recovery in Q1–Q2 2017, rig demand actually decreased in the second half of the year (–3 percent for jack-ups, –13 percent for floaters since July 2017). Demand has now stabilized, although it remains more than 30 percent below levels seen in mid-2014. In the next bid round, we anticipate some improvement in rates as a result. [Emphasis added].

It doesn’t feel like a deep recovery that will lead to increased day rates. Certainly not on the scale that would lead to huge increases in day rates and utilisation. Borr Drilling recently used this data point:

Borr Activity Levels.png

Tender volumes might be rising… but surely if the price goes up some tenders will be withdrawn because the work will come in above budget? The longer oil stays rangebound at $70 surely the less likely, and longer, and these high utilisation and day rate scenarios become? Borr also have a whole presentation that essentially argues for a degree of mean reversion in day rates which is really just an argument that this is a cyclical downturn. For large portfolio investors Borr might make a sensible hedge in case it is true, but I don’t think it reflects the profound nature of the change going on in the industry at the moment.

The second Borr chart simply ignores the fact that in every other upturn mentioned shale was a non-existent market force, not the marginal producer of choice it is now. And look at the most recent 2011 recovery cycle: a very shallow recovery, and the fleet increased significantly since then. But the Borr presentation does highlight the scale of the upside if this is purely a cyclical downturn. My doubts are well known here.

The other unresolved issue in the restructuring is the fate of Seadrill/ Sapura JV flexlay vessels. In Europe everyone concentrates on the DOF/Technip and Subsea 7 vessels but the Sapura/Seadrill JV also own six PLSVs operating on long term contract. The huge drop in Brazilian floater and jack-up work directly imperils the long term demand for all the PLSVs in Brazil, and it is impossible to see Petrobras renewing such long-term and rich contracts for all these vessels.

Seadrill is going to be a very public bellwether of what an industry recovery looks like in the rig market and whether this is a cyclical or structural change in industry demand. The restructured Seadrill will have to hit the run rate very quickly this year or it will rapidly become apparent that, not for the first time in this downturn, projections of a broad industry recovery have been far too optimistic.

 

A really big boat, asset specificity, and Chinese finance….

The picture above is a purpose built vessel, a deepsea mining unit for Nautalis Minerals, currently being built in China at the Mawei yard. It is undoubtedly an amazing piece of engineering, enormous as can been seen: 227m x 40m . A few more shots here:

The problem of course is who is going to pay for it. This is a deal that has been kicking around the market for years, a complex vessel, with few other potential buyers, ordered in the boom times with no takeout financing. Surely, yet again, like the DSVs floating around at the moment the yard is going to be stuck with this?

The economics of this argues that a charter is not the right option for Nautalis here. The vessel is the perfect example of asset specificity where it has a higher value to Nautalis than any other owner, and logic would dictate that Nautalis should raise the capital to pay for it. But Nautalis may get lucky here that the yard knows this and will simply have to charter them the vessel to avoid a firesale for an asset that has few other natural buyers. Delivery date is approaching here and it will start to get interesting.

When you read about the Chinese credit bubble it isn’t all in real estate (although a fair proportion is). This asset is one of number where it seems fairly clear that the losses, or at least the risks in the case of this vessel, will be taken by a semi-private entity at some point, maybe moved to a state bank leasing arm. The question is how systemically important the number is overall for all the Chinese yards? Rumours in China abound that the UDS may end up with the Chinese Navy or Coastguard.

At some point, as the German banks discovered, lending money to make ships that people can’t pay for, even as great short term job creation scheme, has an enormous economic cost.

There is a good article here summarising the Chinese push to become far more active in ship finance as part of a broader strategic plan. I have no idea what the bad loan capacity is for China Inc. as a whole in shipping, in offshore the Chinese lease houses appear to have paid top dollar for some average assets, but so did everyone in the boom and staying power will be important the longer demand stays depressed. In general shipping they may have missed the worst and be coming in at a good time.

Regardless, quite what happens to this vessel will make an interesting case study of how these issues get dealt with. Ship building is a relatively low margin industry that takes massive risks to get orders in the door, often with tacit or explicit state support, but when it goes wrong the potential losses seem so much larger than the upside ever offered. Hopefully the number of speculative new builds for such specific assets, without take-out financing, will drop going forward because it is so economically inefficient. But I doubt it.

The Nemean lion of debt in offshore supply…

The slaying Nemean lion was the first of the twelve labours of Heracles. The lion had an indestructible skin and it’s claws were sharper than mortals swords. I sometimes feel that the first task in getting some normality into the offshore supply market is to find a Heracles who can begin to slay the debt mountain built up in good times…

In Singapore Otto Marine and Pacific Radiance appear all but certain to enter some sort of administrative process as their debt burden divorces from the economic reality of their asset base. The best guide to what they need to achieve, and the enormity of the task, come from the recent MMA Australia capital raising. I think MMA is a company that understood the scale of this downturn, and reacted accordingly, but they still have a tough path to follow, but at least they have an achievable plan.

The MMA plan involved raising AUD 97m new equity (AUD $92 cash after AUD$ 5m in fees, which is steep for a secondary issue and shows that this wasn’t easy) compared to bank borrowings of AUD $ 295m i.e. 33% of the debt of the company, or over 100% of the equity value (at AUD 88m) was raised in new capital in one transaction in November 17. In order to do this the lending banks involved had to agree to make no significant dent in the debt profile before 2021, reduce the interest rate, and extend the repayments. “Extend and pretend” as it is known in the jargon. All this for a company that in the six months ending 31 Dec 2017 saw a revenue decline of 22% over the same time last year (AUD $119m to AUD $92m) and generated an EBITDA of only $7.6m (which excluding newly raised cash would give a Debt/EBITDA of 14.3x when 7x is considered high).  I’d also argue the institutions agreed to put the money in when the consensus view (not mine) was that 2018 would be a better year, raising money now looks harder. (Investment bankers can sometimes come in for some stick but this, in my opinion,  was a really good deal for the company and the banks earned their money here).

The fact that MMA’s Australian banks have far less exposure to offshore supply than the Singaporean banks made them more pragmatic (while still unrealistic), but this shows what needs to be achieved to bring in new, institutional quantities, of money to back a plan. As a portfolio move from large investors, making a small bet on a recovery in oil prices leading to linear increase in offshore demand, I guess that is sensible. I don’t think it will work for the reason this slide that Tidewater recently presented shows:

TDW OSV S&D.png

There is too much latent capacity in an industry where the assets, particularly the MMA ones, are international in operational scope. By the time the banks need to start being repaid these 20-25 years assets will be 3 years older, 7 since the downturn, yet expected to bear an unmarked down principal repayment schedule. It’s just not realistic and requires everyone else but you to scrap their assets. It maybe worth a punt as an institutional shareholder… but I doubt that few really understand the economics of aging supply vessels.

This contrasts with Pacific Radiance where this week the bondholders refused to agree to accept a management driven voluntary debt restructuring and management seem to be relying on the industry reaching an “inflection point”. As soon as you hear that you know there is a terrible plan in offing that relies on the mythical demand fairy (friends with the Nemean lion I understand) to save them.

I would have voted against the resolutions this week as well had I been a bondholder, but mainly because of the absurdity of agreeing to a plan without the banks being involved or new money lined up. The bond was for SGD 100m… have a look at the debt below on the latest Pacific Radiance balance sheet (Q3 2017)… can anyone see a problem?

PR Balance Sheet Q3.png

Pacific Radiance has USD 630m in debts. Even writing off the bond would mean you are in a discussion with the banks here. I have no wish to take people through the math involved in what the bonds are worth becasue in reality all anyone owns here is an option on some future value, and if you are not the bank you don’t even have that. In order to bring the plan into line with MMA, Pacific Radiance would be looking at presenting an agreed plan with the banks, and ~USD 220m capital raise, an amount that is real money for a company that is still losing money at an operating level.

No one believes the vessels and the company are worth USD 710m. If the banks really thought they could get even .80c in the dollar here by selling to a hedge fund they would be out tomorrow. A large number of the Pacific Radiance vessels are well below the quality of the MMA vessels and in the real world it would seem reasonable for the banks to have to write down their debt significantly to attract new money. If vessels are sold independently of a company transaction, like MMA, then they go for .10c – .20c of book value, so it would make sense for the banks to be sensible here. However, I fear that so many have told shareholders they are over the oil and gas exposure that major losses here will be resisted despite economic reality. I suspect the write-off number here would need to be at ~50-60% of book value to make Pacific Radiance viable and get such a large quantity of new money, an amount that will have risk officers at some Singaporean banks terrified.

As I keep saying here the real problem is that if everyone keeps raising new money for operational expenditure, on ever lower capital value numbers, then the whole industry suffers as E&P companies continue to enjoy massive overcapacity on the supply side. Eventually without a major increase in demand a large number of vessels are going to have to leave the industry and this will happen when the  banks have no other options, and we are starting to get close to that point.

In reality the Pacific Radiance stakeholders need to sit around the table, have a nice cup of tea, and accept the scale of their losses. Then all the stakeholders can come up with a sensible business plan and the new money for operational expenditure can be found. But the banks here will be desperate to be like the MMA banks and get the new money in without suffering a serious writedown while trying and push the principal repayments out until a later date. I don’t see that happening here and the bondholders may as well sit around with all parties rather than be picked off indepdently. A major restructuring would appear the only realistic outcome here and if Pacific Radiance is to continue in anything like it’s present form there will be some very unhappy bankers.

Investment banking analysts, groupthink, and the space shuttle disaster….

“a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action”

Janis, Victims of Groupthink, 1972

The quotes in the graphic above come from an MMA Australia equity placing last year. As a follow on to an earlier post I made regarding equity analysts at investment banks I read this article in the Financial Times Alphaville blog this week which makes essentially the same point:

The problem is that equity research has a famous bias towards positivity. Investment banks seek to do business with companies, which tend to dislike sell ratings. Stock markets spend most of their time rising. Fund managers don’t love to be told their decisions to invest in something is wrong…

So, it is very rare to see more than a quarter of analysts recommend their clients sell a stock

The distribution of ratings bears this out. Goldman Sachs aims to have 10 per cent to 15 per cents of stocks it covers rated as a sell. Morgan Stanley discloses 18 per cent of 3,200 stocks covered are rated underweight/sell. For UBS the global figure is 16 per cent. Investec has just 9 per cent of European and Hong Kong stocks on a sell rating.

How could the offshore analysts of some of the major maritime banks have been so positive when managers in the industry are saying things are very different? And in fact MMA’s latest financial results offer no hope of a market recovery?

Part of the answer I think lies in the psychology of groupthink (a classic article on it is here which applies this logic to the Challenger disaster). Another part of the answer lies in behavioural economics where analysts exhibit a positive confirmation bias, in which they look, and notice, information that accords with their preconceived ideas. This bias comes about understandably because analysts are employed by firms seeking to do business with companies they write reports about (and to be clear analysts who a nicer to managers get preferential treatment). People who want unbiased advice should probably pay for it from someone who owes them a duty of care is my takeaway… but hey I’m biased…

The oil market…

I am not an oil forecaster, if merely use of the word isn’t a misnomer, but I am interested in the psychological effects the market has on the physical and pricing of offshore services. Only last week Goldman called $80 oil, coincidentally when they called oil going to $20 in 2016 (when it was $36), it marked the low point in the market, now it seems this maybe the high as the price dropped yesterday.

To put these daily fluctuations into perspective there is a good article here on the swings in the oil price since 1973 until 2014. The story of shale gets a passing mention but remains to be written.

I have also noticed a lot of commentary mocking the market analysts from investment banks for their inability to predict accurately the turns in the market. I would note firstly if you think analysts at an investment bank have a job to do beyond helping the firm sell securities then you are wrong. IB analysts fall under the remit of marketing and that is their job, not to provide independent, and free, research to the community at large.

And even if they are trying to be accurate, say a firm with a limited corporate finance arm, one should remember Alfred Cowles. Cowles was the inheritor, and investment advisor, to a large Chicago newspaper fortune, as well as being a statistician and economist. In 1929 he was long on stocks and lost a great deal of money and set out to find the answer to a question made famous when asked by the Queen to LSE academics in 2008, namely “Why did nobody notice it?” (as in the Global Financial Crisis). Specifically, Cowles wondered why the big Wall Street brokerages didn’t see the crash of 1929 coming? Did they know any more than their customers? (I mean The Great Vampire Squid was keen on Ceona when anyone with a modicum of pipelay knowledge knew the Amazon lay system was a busted flush?)

In a famous paper “Can Stock Market Forecasters Forecast?”, published in Econometrica in 1944,  Cowles proved that they can’t. I urge you to read the whole article (aside from anything the language is beautiful), for example Cowles found:

Cowles.png

The answer would be exactly the same for the oil market today if replicated I would wager. This comes up time again in mututal fund research and other areas of finance, where essentially the outcome is random and cannot be predicted with accuracy (a statistical theory known as “Random Walk“). In case you think technology has improved things this paper was published recently “Do Banks Have an Edge” … and the answer is no… you would be better off buying a portfolio of treasuries than going to all the effort of taking a complex mix of loans and securities that banks do. And that is when the bank is acting as a principal not even trying to sell the stuff!

So when you read that someone is calling the oil market, or whatever, you need to treat it with the scepticism it deserves, and not be surprised when it is wrong.