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:


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 Mermaid 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.

Bibby Offshore restructuring: Latham and Watkins, York Capital, and DeepOcean/Triton…

Latham and Watkins, legal advisers to Bibby Offshore Holdings Limited in their restructuring, recently published a ‘thought leadership’ article on the transaction. It is a short read, and as an exercise in varying perceptions, well worthwhile if you followed the relatively shambolic proceeds that allowed the company to reach it’s current state.

I liked this line:

In early 2017, Bibby Offshore’s directors determined that the company’s capital structure had to be right-sized and that additional liquidity was required to meet the challenging market conditions facing the business.

This is a business that lost £1m a week in 2016 of actual cash. How early in 2017 did the directors determine the need for a change in the capital structure? As I noted in June 2017 paying the interest payment was irresponsible when the business needed new funding within the next few months. The fact is this transaction only started seriously in August, as testified by York claiming £200k per month for their efforts from that point (and public announcements by Bibby at that time), but by which time the business was insolvent in an accounting sense, only a going concern because they were in discussions about a transaction, and the restruucturing plan itself presented when the business was literally days away from administration as they were down to ~£2m cash.

The fact that Moodys downgraded Bibby Offshore Holdings Ltd in Nov 2016 could also have been a hint?

In fact in March 2017 the Chairman of BOHL (who later lost his job in part because of this fiasco) made this statement :

Mike Brown 23 March 2017

I guess it wasn’t that early in 2017 the Directors came to that realisation then? Like, “well positioned” apart from the fact they were running out of money? Or did they just decide to print something blatantly untrue in their statutory accounts?

Maybe this line from the CEO (25 March 2017):

CEO Bibby 25 March

This disclaimer “apart from losing £1m per week at operating cash flow level and we will therefore need to right-size the capital structure” should really have been added to make the Latham and Watkins story credible. Or maybe this one:

Bibby CEO March 2017

In case orders should increase rapidly?!!! Turnover in 2017 dropped 50% over the previous year and they obviously had to drawdown on the revolver! Surely this was obvious by the end of March (which most people calculate as nearly 25% of the way through the year)? The Bibby directors don’t sound like a group of proactively looking at a restructuring “early” in the year here. Reference to the Bibby shareholders putting money in is comedically short given the known financial position of the Group and how far underwater the equity was.

You literally cannot make this up (unless you are a lawyer I guess?).

Look, I get this is essentially a small marketing piece for Latham and Watkins (the vessel on pictured on their website isn’t even an offshore vessel, yet alone a Bibby Offshore one), and they are being diplomatic. But the truth is the Bibby restructuring was a highly uncontrolled event by a management team out of their depth and a shareholder unwilling to accept the reality of his financial situation. All the documents (since taken down) relating to the transaction were clearly drafted late in the process and reflected the power, and weakness, of York at that stage who was committed to a deal. The restructuring agreement contained wide ranging clauses designed in lieu of actual execution documents that would be drafted when more time was available. This is not a criticism of Latham and Watkins, to get a deal over the line at that stage, when it appears that Barclays had refused to extend the revolving credit facility and the much vaunted “supportive shareholder” was unwilling to put anything in, was creating a situation that would have led to an immediate administration, it is therefore a considerable achievement. But it was that close.

The reason I am going on about the past is that it is impossible to understand the dire current position of Bibby Offshore without understanding the context. I guess if you buy companies with zero due diligence you have to expect the occassional dud, and it is clear this is a bomb that has blown up in the investors face.

The crucial point is this say Latham and Watkins:

As echoed by Bloomberg’s comment on the transaction: “(….) this is about as fair of a deal for all creditors as I have seen. Parties may differ on what the future holds, but the terms of the restructuring are clear and equitable. This is a text-book restructuring (…)”.

The reason for this is clear: York and their co-investors dramatically overpaid. The rest of the creditors were happy because they couldn’t believe the terms that someone was putting money in at! The old saying that “if you don’t know who is getting screwed on a deal it’s you” is apt here. The only question now is how much money the Bibby investors lose and how quickly?

One of the great mysteries of this deal is why York, charging £200k per month for their competence and skill, allowed the business not to go through an administration process (which they would have controlled as the largest creditor), and emerge via a pre-pack debt free. The business had virtually no backlog, and as has happened in the Norwegian restructurings, trade creditors can be protected. By not doing this the business has been saddled with many of the historic obligations that now call into question the viability of the business. In particular the office space in Aberdeen and the US (both entered into at the peak of the market), residual liabilities to Olympic (the Ares redelivery costs are owing and the Olympic Bibby charter), and ROV leases and hangers, redundancy costs, Trinidad tax etc, all these costs must be paid for from current market revenues and rates which are significantly below levels when the contracts were entered into, by a business that is dramatically smaller in scale.

A quick look at the uses of the £50m rights issue shows Bibby Offshore to have solved its immediate financial problems but it has not solved the issues with its economic model. Without a substantial change in market conditions the business will require a further capital injection, potentially as early as later this year. This is a rough guide to how much cash Bibby Offshore currently has available:

Bibby 50m.png

I have made aload of assumptions here, I have, for example, no idea what the Latham and Watkins fee or EY fee is, but have made an esitmation based on London Big 4 rates. If anything I could have underplayed these, but the overall number will be correct within a few million, especially as trading losses are likely to have been higher. I haven’t included rebranding costs as York are hoping to flip this prior to dropping a 6 figure number on these. The point is this though: it is not exactly an impregnable balance sheet and unless market rates for DSVs rise substantially, and there is no indication they are doing so, it will not be enough to get to this time next year as a credible going concern. Bibby/ York realistically require victory in the (highly speculative) EMAS case for the business to have a viable financing strategy that can absorb trading losses for longer than the ~£20m they realistically have available.

I believe York confused a liquidity crisis for a solvency crisis and therefore acted as if all the business needed was a short-term cash facility. York appear desperate now to offload the business quickly to Triton/ DeepOcean. There are few other logical buyers and yet there are huge challenges if Triton/DeepOcean take on this risk. DeepOcean appear to be keeping the diving personnel on to give them some options in this area.

One challenge is contractual risk: Bibby Offshore recently won a large decomissioning job for Fairfield. I haven’t seen the exact specs, but it is probably ~30 days DSV work and ~120 days ROV work. Which is good… but … to win they have taken all weather risk, which is just gambling. They may have needed to in order to win the work, but that is taking an active decision to take risk that you cannot mitigate. It may all work out well and they could make a profit, but a bad summer and the boats will be bobbing around unpaid while they finish the work, and all to Bibby’s account. For a small loss-making, undercapitalised, contractor that is a disaster scenario. Anyone buying the company would be mad to take on this, literally, incalculable risk. Why not just wait and see what happens?

The problem for the seller is the longer the cash burn continues the weaker their position becomes and the harder raising, or justifying raising, capital will be. Bibby’s competitive position is significantly weaker than a year ago with Boskalis buying the Nor vessels. Bibby faces three very well capitalised companies who are clearly committed to the market. Any further fundraising for the company would recognise this, and the fact is that the Bibby fleet is older than comparative fleets.

There are very few investors who will continually inject new money into a micro-scale, loss making, niche business, competing against three global players with strong balance sheets, in an industry that requires vast quantities of CapEx , has over capacity issues on the supply side, with weak demand growth forecast, and a realistic chance of dropping from the #3 player to number #4. And that is exactly the scenario facing Triton/DeepOcean as well (they can capture some cost savings but how much do you pay for those when the order book is less than a year and your newest competitor has €1bn cash?).

The whole economic and market environment has changed. DSV rates look to be settling at £100-130k for the Boskalis/Bibby fleets (slightly higher for the Technip/SS7 new builds) and at that level I don’t think the business model, especially with historic obligations, works. Is there really room for four DSV companies in the North Sea market? in 2014 the Harkand boats worked in Africa to get utilisation. If not, do Bibby, currently operating at a trading loss, have a real plan to battle it out against 3 publicly listed giants, with no other plan than a market turnaround in day rates? Without CapEx work picking up the IRM space will be competitive for years.

The big surprise is how slow the inevitable restructuring has been. The US and Norwegian offices were closed within weeks (despite L&W claiming ” that it has a strong consolidated position from which to expand in the markets in which it operates”) but there are well over 200 people in Aberdeen! 3 vessels working have to cover not only the crew onboard but nearly 70 people onshore per vessel as well (and some very expensive consultants to boot at the moment). That is totally unsustainable and it is causing the company to burn through its much vaunted cash pile. The DOF Subsea ratio is 1 boat to 42 people.

Scale and legacy cost issues pervade the business: the Bibby office in Aberdeen, for example, must be at least £3.5m per annum, that means even with three vessels working 270 days each one needs earn £4.4k per day just to pay for a proportionate share of it. And these three vessels still have to pay for the US office until they can get out of the ten year lease. The same for the ROV hanger. The same for the upcoming restructuring and redundancy costs. There are simply too few boats working to cover proportionately the expenses being incurred.

In addition Bibby Offshore has the least competitive asset base of any North Sea DSV contractor. The Bibby Polaris needs a fourth special survey next year. At 20 years old she is two generations behind the newer vessels (the Bibby ST and Tecnhip/SS7 newbuilds), the forward bell arrangement is awkward, and the carousel is not efficient. So even if someone paid the equivalent of £20m for the vessel, and assuming you got ten years of life out of it that means c.£7500 per day in depreciation if the vessel works 270 days a year, over and above running and financing cash costs. If the drydocks come in over budget you would be lucky to achieve even cash breakeven at current market rates. PE investors, like York, mainly talk cash, which is fine until you run into an asset with a finite life. Sell the vessel out of the North Sea and you would be lucky to get £10m, and it would cost you six months running costs to get that.

The Bibby Sapphire looks to have temporarily avoided the fate of layup and is currently at anchor in Aberdeen. Sapphire will dive some days this summer, but having an asset that is needed only 90-100 days a year, at £100-120k per day (less 50k for project crew), is not economic at more than a de minimus price when the full 365 costs are taken into account and dry-docks/surveys are needed. Yes, she can work as an ROV vessel as well, but in-case no one noticed the reason that companies like Reach, M2, and ROVOP are making money at the moment is that they get the boat for free (in an economic sense).

I get how the spreadsheet added up to £115m Bibby valuation that York led the investment at… it’s just the assumptions required to get there that I think are erroneous.

York don’t have a good track record in offshore. Cecon, which York gained control of via distressed bonds, was a disaster, and for many of the same reasons the Bibby Offshore: a fundamental misunderstanding of the asset base and business model of the acquisition. The rump of Cecon is Rever Offshore, which mainly consists of a rusting hulk in Romania (ironically named the Cecon Excellence originally), rapidly going nowhere. York may have made some money off the one  Cecon vessel sold to Fortress at the peak of the market… But transactions such as this saw York Capital Management lose a significant portion of assets under management in 2017:

…funds to see withdrawals included York Capital Management, which lost $6.10 billion [from $22.3bn to 16.2bn]. The fund posted negative 2015 performance of 14% and was flat in 2016, a year in which The Wall Street Journalreported fund CEO Jamie Dinan said he experienced “his most intense client interactions in years.” That can happen when dramatically underperforming benchmarks.

York must be hoping there is a hoping there is another financial buyer who knows even less about subsea than they do.  Triton/DeepOcean want to make sure that York’s one good investment in offshore, their minority position in DeepOcean, doesn’t go the way of their other investments in the sector by trying to take advantage of York’s … er … skills…

Rigs and vessels… traders become operators…

Yet again another great commentary from Bassoe on the Borr acquisition of Paragon. I like this bit:

In the beginning, some may have considered Borr to be an asset play with no intention of becoming a long-term, established contractor.  The company could stack its rigs efficiently, wait for a rise in rig values, and sell everything for a profit.  In and out.

As time went on, Borr continued adding assets.   And although jackup values rose (primarily as a result of Borr’s transactions), the prospect of Borr selling off rigs at higher prices faded as they eventually became too big for any of the established drilling contractors to acquire them.

Whether this was the plan the from the beginning or something that just happened over time, the quick sale and profit option became less tenable.   So what could have started as a pure asset-flipping maneuver turned into a deliberate quest to become a fully-fledged drilling contractor. [Emphasis added.]

That has happened to a lot of people in the industry. Standard Drilling now aim for medium term capital appreciation, which is a significant change in their original position. The Nor bondholders had to sell out to an operational company in less than a year after their 2016 capital raise. York can’t really believe the Bibby DSVs or their Rever Offshore assets will ever appreciate? Will the Boa Deep C and Sub C ever return to active service? What on earth will someone pay for the Lewek Constellation? etc…

Without some fundamental change in the demand side of the market the asset recovery story should really be dead-and-buried now under a welter of evidence and transactions. You need to be long delivery capability and short assets to profit from “The New Offshore”. Backlog, liquidity, and capability. Everything else is noise.

Zombie offshore companies… “Kill the zombie…”

“I’ve long said that capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without Hell. But it’s hard to see any good news in this.”

Frank Borman

“In a business selling a commodity-type product, it’s impossible to be a lot smarter than your dumbest competitor”.

Warren Buffet

The Bank for International Settlements defines a Zombie Company as a “firm whose interest bill exceeds earnings before interest and taxes”. The reason is obvious: a firm who is making less in profits than it is paying in interest is likely to be able to eke out an existence, but not generate sufficient profits to invest and grow and adapt to industry changes. A firm in such a position will create no economic value and merely exist while destroying profit margins for those also remaining in the industry.

The BIS make clear that zombie companies are an important part of the economic make-up of many economies. I am sure sector level data in Europe would show offshore comfortably represented in the data.

Zombie Firms.png

Conversable Economist has an excellent post (from where I got the majority of my links for this post) on Zombie Companies and their economic effects, which timed with a post I have been  meaning to right about 2018 which I was going to call “year of the zombie”. Zombie companies have been shown to exist in a number of different contexts: in the US Savings and Loans Crisis zombie firms paid too much in interest and backed projects that were too risky, raising the overall costs for all market players. Another example is Japan, where post the 1990 meltdown Hoshi and Kashyap found (in a directly analogous situation to offshore currently):

that subsidies have not only kept many money-losing “zombie” firms in business, but also have depressed the creation of new businesses in the sectors where the subsidized firms are most prevalent. For instance, they show that in the construction industry, job creation has dropped sharply, while job destruction has remained relatively low. Thus, because of a lack of restructuring, the mix of firms in the economy has been distorted with inefficient firms crowding out new, more productive firms.

In China zombie firms have been linked to State Owned Enterprises, and have been shown to have an outsize share of corporate debt despite weak fundamental factors (sound familiar?). The solution is clear:

The empirical results in this paper would support the arguments that accelerating that progress requires a more holistic and coordinated strategy, which should include debt restructuring to recognize losses, fostering operational restructuring, reducing implicit support, and liquidating zombies.”

The subsidies in offshore at the moment keeping zombie firms alive don’t come from central banks but from private banks, and sometimes poorly timed investments from hedge funds. Private banks are unwilling to treat the current offshore market as anything more than a market cycle change, as opposed to a secular change, and are therefore allowing a host of companies to delay principal payments on loans, and in most cases dramatically reduce interest payments as well, until a point when they hope the market has recovered and these companies can start making payments that would keep the banks from having to make material writedowns in their offshore portfolios.

Now to be clear the banks are (arguably) being economically rational here. Given the scale of their exposure a reasonable position is to try and hold on as the delta on liquidating now, versus assuming even a mild recovery, is massive because of the quantity of leverage in most of the offshore companies.

But for the industry as a whole this is a disaster. The biggest zombie company in offshore in Europe is SolstadFarstad, it’s ambition to be a world leading OSV company is so far from reality it may as well be a line from Game of Thrones, and a company effectively controlled by the banks who are unwilling to face the obvious.

A little context on the financial position of SolstadFarstad makes clear how serious things are:

  • Current interest bearing debt is NOK 28bn/$3.6bn. A large amount of this debt is US$ denominated and the NOK has depreciated significantly since 2014, as have vessel values. SolstadFarstad also takes in less absolute dollar revenues to hedge against this;
  • Market value equity: ~NOK 1.73bn/$ 220m;
  • As part of the merger agreement payments to reduce bank loans were reduced significanlty from Q2 (Farstad)/Q3 (Solstad) 2017. YTD 2017 SOFF spent NOK ~1.5bn on interest and bank repayments which amounted to more than 3 x the net cash flow from actually operating all those vessels. While these payments should reduce going forward it highlights how unsustainable the current capital structure is.

The market capitalisation is significantly less than the cash SOF had on the balance sheet at the end of Q3 2017 (NOK 2.1bn). Supporting that enormous debt load are a huge number of vessels of dubious value in lay up: 28 AHTS, many built in Asia and likely to be worth significantly less than book value if sold now, 22 PSVs of the same hertiage and value and 6 ageing subsea vessels. The two vessels on charter to OI cannot be generating any real value and sooner or later their shareholders will have had as much fun as they can handle with a loss making contracting business.

But change is coming because at some point this year SolstadFarstad management are in for an awkward conversation with the banks about handing back DeepSea Supply (the banks worst nightmare), or forcing the shareholders to dilute their interest in the high-end CSV fleet in order to save the banks exposure to the DeepSea fleet (the shareholders worst nightmare and involves a degree of cognitive dissonance from their PSV exposure). Theoretically DeepSea is a separate “non-recourse” subsidiary, whether the banks who control the rest of the debt SolstadFarstad have see it quite that way is another question? It would also represent an enormous loss of face to management now to admit a failure of this magnitude having not prepared the market in advance for this?

Not that the market seems fooled:

SOFF 0202

(I don’t want to say I told you so).

SolstadFarstad is in a poor position anyway, the company was created because no one had a better idea than doing nothing, which is always poor strategic logic for a major merger. What logic there was involved putting together a mind numbingly complex financial merger and hoping it might lead to a positive industrial solution, which was always a little strained. But it suited all parties to pretend that they could delay things a little longer by creating a monstrous zombie: Aker got to pretend they hadn’t jumped too early and therefore got a bad deal, Hemen/Fredrikson got to put in less than they would have had to had DeepSea remained independent, the banks got to pretend their assets were worth more than they were (and that they weren’t going to have to kill the PSVs to save the Solstad), and the Solstad family got to pretend they still had a company that was a viable economic entity. A year later and the folly has been shown.

Clearly internally it is recongised this has become a disaster as well. In late December HugeStadSea announced they had doubled merger savings to 800mn NOK. The cynic in  me says this was done because financial markets capitalise these and management wanted to make some good news from nothing; it doesn’t speak volumes they were that badly miscalculated at that start given these were all vessel types and geographic regions Solstad management understood. But I think what it actually reflects is that utilisation has been signifcantly weaker than the base case they were working too. Now Sverre Farstad has resigned from the Solstad board apparently unhappy with merger progress. I am guessing he is still less unhappy though than having seen Farstad go bankrupt which was the only other alternative? I guess this reveals massive internal Board conflict and I also imagine the auditors are going to be get extremely uncomfortable signing vessel values off here, a 10% reduction in vessel value would be fatal in an accounting sense for the company.

The market is moving as well. In Asia companies like EMAS, Pacific Radiance, Mermaid, and a host of others have all come to a deal with the banks that they can delay interest and principal payments. Miclyn Express is in discussions to do the same. This is the very definition of zombie companies, existing precariously on operating cash flows but at a level that is not even close to economic profitability, while keeping supply in the market to ensure no one else can make money either. Individually logical in each situation but collectively ruinuous (a collective action problem). These companies have assets that directly compete with the SolstadFarstad supply fleet, with significantly deeper local infratsructure in Asia (not Brazil), and in some cases better assets; there is no chance of SolstadFarstad creating meaningful “world class OSV company” in their midst with the low grade PSV and AHTS fleet.

Even more worrying is the American situation where the Chapter 11 process (and psyche) recognises explicitly the danger of zombie companies. Gulfmark and others have led the way to have clean, debt free, balance sheets to cope in an era of reduced demand. These companies look certain to have a look at the high-end non-Norwegian market.

SolstadFarstad says it wants to be a world leading OSV company that takes part in industry consolidation but: a) it cannot afford to buy anyone because it shares are worthless and would therefore have to pay cash, and b) it has no cash and cannot raise equity while it owes the banks NOK 28bn, and c) no one is going to buy a company where they have to pay the banks back arguably more than the assets are worth. SOF is stuck in complete limbo at best. Not only that as part of the merger it agreed to start repaying the banks very quickly after 2021. 36 months doesn’t seem very far away now and without some sort of magic increase in day rates, out of all proportion to the amount of likely subsea work (see above), then all the accelerated payment terms from 2022 will do is force the event. But still is can continue its zombie like existence until then…

In contrast if you want to look at those doing smart deals look no further than Secor/COSCO deal. 8 new PSVs for under $3m per vessel and those don’t start delivering for at least another 18 months. Not only that they are only $20m new… start working out what your  10 year old PSV is really worth on a comparative basis. There is positivity in the market… just not if you are effectively owned by the bank.

One of my themes here, highlighted by the graph at the top, is that there has been a structural change in the market and not a temporary price driven change in demand. Sooner or later, and it looks likely to be later, the banks are going to have to kill off some of these companies for the industry as a whole to flourish, or even just to start to undertake a normal capital replacement cycle. Banks, stuffed full with offshore don’t want to back any replacement deals for all but the biggest players, and banks that don’t have any exposure don’t want to lend to the sector. In an economy driven by credit this is a major issue.

I don’t believe recent price rises in oil will do anything for this. E&P budgets are set once a year, the project cycle takes a long time to wind up, company managers are being bonused on dividends not production, short cycle production is being prioritised etc. So while price rises are good, and will lead to an increase in work, the scale of the oversupply will ensure the market will take an even longer time to remove the zombie companies. At the moment a large number of banks are pretending that if you make no payments on an asset with a working life of 20-25 years, for 5 years (i.e. 20-25% of the assets economic life), they will not lose a substantial amount of money on the loan or need to write the asset down more than a token level. It is just not real and one day auditors might even start asking questions…

I don’t have a magic solution here, just groundhog day for vessel owners for a lot longer to come. What will be interesting this year is watching to see the scale of the charges some of the banks will have to make, a sign of the vessel market at the bottom will be when they start to get rid of these loans or assets on a reasonable scale.

Kill the zombies for the good of the industry, however painful that may be.

McDermott buys Chicago Bridge and Iron…

“Chicago Bridge and Iron is not based in Chicago, doesn’t make bridges, and uses no iron”.



We argue that mergers and merger waves can occur when managers prefer that their firms remain independent rather than be acquired. We assume that managers can reduce their chance of being acquired by acquiring another firm and hence increasing the size of their own firm. We show that if managers value private benefits of control sufficiently, they may engage in unprofitable defensive acquisitions.

Gorton, Kahl, and Rosen, 2005


If you want to have a look at what signals the insiders in offshore SURF are sending, and that major shareholders are supporting, look no further than McDermott (“MDR”) acquiring Chicago Bridge and Iron (“CBI”). MDR, which had $435m cash on hand at Q3, generated $155m EBITDA in the quarter, and is widely regarded as a very well run company, brought a declining onshore construction and fabrication house (with a small technology arm). No wonder the shares dropped 9% in aftermarket trading while CBI rose.

What it means is that a well informed group of rational senior executives in the offshore industry, in a company with ample liquidity and investment capability, decided the best option for growth and shareholder returns were for them to diversify onshore in the US. I don’t think that rings of confidence for an offshore recovery. At the moment anyone with enough financial capacity to charter ships (at below economic cost) and hire engineers can win market share. It is obvious what that will do to financial returns and why therefore companies are looking at different sources of growth and not recycling cash flow generated from the industry back into it. Over the long term this is part of the story of how the offshore industry will lose the capital it needs to in order restore the market to equilibrium.

This is a defensive merger. MDR was simply too small not to be acquired as part of a major acquisition had it remained independent (part of the reason the shares have dropped is the loss of the “acquisition premium” in their value), but it also needed to pay in shares only to keep its operating flexibility in this market. MDR was just big enough to raise the needle signficantly for someone else, but not large enough to buy an industry leader or number two. MDR had the choice of going on a shopping spree of SURF companies, maybe Aker Solutions or someone, and then trying to compete with Susbea 7 or FTI, and slowly over time getting materially bigger, risk being acquired as the industry consolidates, or buying something big and leveraging up so as to make it to big and risky to be acquired. The short-term risk was someone like GEBH, having failed to acquire an installation capability with SS7, deciding MDR was large enough to swallow. I’d love to know if the Board instructed one of the banks to sound out other bidders instead of this? I suspect instead that Goldman Sachs, lead adviser to MDR, was brought in with a specific mandate to keep MDR independent and CBI was the company they settled on.

Clearly, and having sounded out the shareholders as well, MDR management have decided that the least risky option, or at least the deal that could be done, was onshore US, a business about which MDR management have limited exposure. Whether consciously or  not, the fact is MDR management couldn’t find enough value, on a risk weighted basis, to carry on investing in offshore.

MDR management decided to diversify, a so called “vertical merger“. Financial markets generally dislike verticals, which have a limited range of situations when they are likely to be profitable, preferring to believe shareholders are better at diversifying individually than company management. However, financial economists have spent a huge amount of time studying M&A, and from what I can ascertain all they really agree on is that returns are hugely dispersed around the mean i.e. sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t:

[o]n balance, one should conclude that M&A does pay. But the broad dispersion of findings around a zero return to buyers suggests that executives should approach this activity with caution.


I get why it was done I think: scale. Cynical theories abound in economic research:

What, then, is the motive for the widespread and persisting phenomenon of conglomerate mergers? In this study, a “managerial” motive for conglomerate merger is advanced and tested. Specifically, managers, as opposed to investors, are hypothesized to engage in conglomerate mergers to decrease their largely undiversifiable “employment risk” (i.e., risk oflosing job, professional reputation, etc.). Such risk-reduction activities are considered here as managerial perquisites in the context of the agency cost model. [Emphasis added]

In this case the argument is really that increased scale will help the offshore business as a standalone unit with lower unit costs being spread over a large company. If management can make it work, and they prove to have swooped on CBI in a moment of weakness, then everyone will be happy. That isn’t really my point with this: it is my agreement that offshore contracting/SURF still has excess capital at an industry level and I agree with MDR management that in the current environment deploying more, even at current price levels,  looks hard to justify.

So rather than hold out for an acquisition premium, or try and build up slowly, MDR management have made the company virtually impregnable to being acquired, for a few years anyway, and if they can turnaround CBI as they have done with MDR the risk will be worth it.  But I also think it sends a signal that management have far more confidence in the lighter CAPEX onshore market than they do about the offshore market, and even though they had the opportunity to buy a string of assets and companies at rock bottom prices MDR management (with the support of the Board and shareholders) decided it was less risky to buy an onshore construction business. That is consistent with the investment profile of many E&P companies who are cutting offshore investment in favour of onshore.

I think that this M&A decision tells you a lot about what those actually making the investment decisions in profitable offshore companies think about the market direction and the risk weighted returns available from it, for the forseeable future. MDR are backing themselves to apply the lessons learned in the downturn to another business rather than applying it to more businesses in the sector.

The Economics of Constraints and (Really) Deepsea Diving…

It’s a poor sort of memory that only works backwards.

Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

In historical events what is most obvious is the prohibition against eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge.

Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

One of my frustrations with offshore/SURF is that despite the mathematics of engineering and economics being the same, both are really optimisation problems, there is precious little of the latter influencing the former in offshore. A classic case of this came in Frontrunner today where there was an attempt at a serious discussion about diving below 300m. Now I accept that this is technically possible, lots of things are technically possible, for a billion dollars you can probably get NASA to take you on holiday to the moon, but because not that many people want/are able to spend a billion dollars on such a holiday there are very few companies offering this as an economic choice. If money is not a constraint then you have few constraints, but in economics and business money is always a constraint.

Diving at up to 600m is definitely technically possible, but it would be economic lunacy. Don’t get me wrong if I was an equipment supplier I would want to believe it was possible as well, but that doesn’t make it viable. There are so many realistic economic and organisational constraints on this I can’t be bothered going into them all, but here are a few, all of which are complete showstoppers:

  1. There is no market: the list of marginal field developments that could be made viable between 300-600m of water if a DSV could be used is minimal, even on a global basis. Most shelves drop off completely below 300m and there simply no proof that there are suitable reserves that could be tapped by this technology
  2. In order to service this (non) market you would have to build a 600m capable DSV completely at risk (which is admittedly what UDS claims to be doing), budget $160-185m, then prove the technology and procedures, which will be months of testing and practice dives etc, and only then be ready to sell it, all the while burning vast amounts of risk capital. Then you would need to get a bunch of global oil companies to change their entire HSE approval process, which will take years, and get this to coincide with a project approval process. This strikes me as an enormous barrier because even if you could prove this worked there is no demonstrable evidence of the long-term health effects on the divers and you risk creating an abestos like residual legal claim on the oil companies (as the diving contractor may be bankrupt) for approving this. And then, and only then, years after building a 25 year asset and burning through working capital you might, just might, win a project competitively tendered against an ROV solution. That is without going into IMCA, class, various regulatory agencies etc. All this for a project whose financial upside must by definition be capped at what a comparable ROV service could deliver the project for. So a venture capital investor has no possible way of making a returns in the 100s of % to cover the risk. Literally nuts.
  3. ROVs are currently oversupplied and operating below their capital cost, and are likely to for an extended period, so not only would this harebrained plan have to compete for work against the above constraints it would have to with competitors who will be selling at below economic cost

If you speak to divers who go below 250m they will tell you the joints hurt and they really notice the pressure. It is not a popular depth to dive at. Subsea 7 and Technip now have special dive procedures in place for anything over 200m and there is enormous resistance to diving over this depth level even if you could prove what it costs. Changing this organisational inertia for marginal benefits only just don’t represent a viable economic time/cost trade-off.

This is just a classic case of someone trying or thinking of doing something because it is technically possible not because there is any economic rationale to it. The idea is so DOA from an economic perspective it doesn’t bear serious analysis.

SOR also make the following highly questionable claim:

Sources close to the scene, suggest BP’s huge west of Shetland Quad -204 redevelopment might have cost a third of the total bill if the project could have used divers. [Emphasis added].

Now the best estimate of the costs I have is £4.4bn ($5.7bn), but that includes drilling, fabrication, control modules, a FPSO etc. Traditionally the SURF installtion scope is 10-15% of the total project budget, so at best what I think SOR mean is they could have saved 1/3 of this… so maybe 5% of the total budget. But that is a pretty minimal saving in the scheme of things and exposes the installation to a lot more weather and other operational and contractual risks. For a 5% saving on the overall cost you would have exposed yourself to having a minimal choice of assets to complete the task and run the risk that all future OpEx operations would have to be done by divers (i.e. no ROV handles) and that needs to be factored in to the total economic cost.

[But if I am wrong I am happy for SOR to publish some more detailed information to correct my erroneous logic and I will happily publish a correction having been suitably educated].

But again the Quad 204 cost statement avoids the economics of this situation: if Quad 204 was going offshore in 2014, when every North Sea class DSV was operating at capacity the job would probably have cost more because DSV rates were at a premium. Re-bid the job now and you might get a different answer. Markets are dynamic not static. So there “might” have been a saving, but there is a much smaller North Sea class DSV fleet than ROV fleet that “might” have been busy, or it might not, and the saving would have been dependent on that. And surely the losing contractor would have gone back and offered to make such a substantial saving? But whatever the situation it would not have transformed the economics of a project the size of Quad 204 as suggested.

Interestingly the whole Frontrunner is relatively bullish on diving. Although, frankly any previous investors in vessels backing MEDS would be amazed if their ability to get hold of a vessel should be seen as a sign of confidence in  the market given the losses they have suffered on the Altus Invictus and Altus Extertus (disclosure of interest: I was a Director of one such company). I don’t think SAT diving is going to go away, that isn’t what I am arguing at all, but until significant CapEx projects involving DSVs return to the North Sea then the market on any reasonable basis remains over-supplied and day rates and utilisation levels will remain under huge pressure.

SOR has been at the forefront of reporting the creditors involved in the rescue of Bibby Offshore and I’d be interested to know if they have a consulting relationship with any of the bondholders who they have named? Either someone very close to the deal is speaking to them or they are working on this deal… And you would really have to believe in a degree of bullishness about diving that isn’t grounded in current market reality to buy into the Bibby deal at current value levels…. And frankly any financially rational actor would be more than a little nervous now Boskalis have the Nor vessels… contracts for small DSVs in Brazil won’t save the North Sea market…

I am wondering if a lack of clear economic thinking has permeated the deal for the investors, maybe they have been blinded by perceived benefits such as 600m diving, because when you have to get management to warrant that:

  • Within the next 7 days, Bibby Offshore will appoint an independent consultant on behalf of the noteholders to support management on the ongoing cash flow management and transition of the business to the new shareholders.

you clearly don’t have a great handle on the business or what you plan to do with it. This could well be a classic situation of the “Winners Curse” in M&A.

At the time I had worked with two seperate hedge funds who were also looking at the deal. We valued the business at ~.08 – .15 of the outstanding bonds (£14.0 – 26.5m) reflecting the new working capital required. Different people have different perceptions of value and therein will lie the answer to who makes money on this deal. A 2 x North Sea DSV operation, focused only on being a low cost operator, was the plan. In order to get to a bigger number you need to back a platform business to expand. No one outside of the large contractors has made diving work on a global basis as there are no economies of scale and procurement is all regional and follows different standards. So in order to recover £115m Enterprise Value York & Co., are backing a subscale, loss-making business, in an industry that is consolidating with large competitors, in a market with huge cost pressures. Traditionally that has been a poor route to value creation… but it is also true that counter cyclical investments generate huge returns. The hard part here is that because of the lead times for projects (which are well documentted), and Bibby’s own investment documents show, this is a market forecast to grow at CAGR c. 7%… roll the dice…

Private equity and offshore: Bibby/York Offshore, DOF Subsea, and Ocean Installer and “stuck in the middle”..

Realism provides only amoral observation, while Absurdism rejects even the possibility of debate.



The firm stuck in the middle is almost guaranteed low profitability. It either loses the high-volume customers who demand low prices or must bid away its profits to get this business away from low-cost firms. Yet it also loses high-margin businesses — the cream — to the firms who are focused on high-margin targets or have achieved differentiation overall. The firm stuck in the middle also probably suffers from a blurred corporate culture and a conflicting set of organizational arrangements and motivation system.”

Porter, Competitive Strategy, p. 41-42


“Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.” “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

Bibby/York Offshore, DOF Subsea, and Ocean Installer are all tied into the same economic dynamic in the offshore market: the improvement in the market is coming in IRM spend (marginally), large-deepwater projects, and  step-outs associated with existing deepwater infrastructure, not the markets that made these firms viable economic entities (although the DOF Subsea question is just as much about leverage and overcommitting to assets). These companies highlight that although offshore spending may increase in 2018 over 2017, though DNB notes risk to the downside, a recovery will not benefit everyone equally: asset choice and strategy that recognise different market segments are important to identify.

I have read the Bibby Offshore “Cleansing Document” that was sent out as part of the takeover/recapitalisation notice. A cleansing document is required when investors, who are classed as “outsiders”, gain confidential information as part of deal and therefore become “insiders”, who learn confidential information, and must make all the investors aware of what they know. It’s an extraordinary presentation, a business plan so outrageous that it can’t be taken seriously. The document obviously has its origins in the EY attempted distress M&A transaction, that couldn’t be funded, and when you read this you can see why. Worringly the new investors must accept something similar or they are involved in a gigantic scheme to knowingly lose money.

The most obvious affront to intelligence is the 2017 growth rate for revenue pegged at 52%!!! Seriously, in this market someone is telling you they are going to grow at 52% and they actually have enough chutzpah to put it to paper… words don’t often fail me. Not only that they then double down and state it will rise 50% again the year after. I can tell you there is a 0 (zero)% chance of that happening. There is more chance of drydocking the Sapphire on the moon to save money. It’s not just the fact that IMR spend, the core Bibby/York offering, is set to grow at 3.3%, or the fact that total market spend is due to grow at 6.7%, that is just a common sense point: if the market grows at 6.7% and you are growing at 53% then 46% of your growth is coming from winning market share. Does anyone really think Bibby’s competitors are just going to wake up one day and allow them to be the only company in the entire industry that can grow that fast and let them take all that market share? Really?

Fictional Revenue and EBITDA Forecast

Lewis Carrol

Source: Lewis Carroll

To be clear the previous best year of growth was 2013-2014 when Bibby chartered in tonnage, in the greatest North Sea DSV boom ever, and it grew a measly 46%… seriously you can’t make this up.

North Sea Outlook

The fact is this forecast shows the core Bibby/York IRM market declining after 2019 and all the growth is coming in windfarm work. A portion of the windfarm work is likely to be bundled with installation workscopes, and that leaves Subsea 7 and Boskalis well positioned with their topflight installation capacity. And I have said many times the lack of oil and gas construction work (the light grey bar EPCI) will leave a surplus of DSVs as there are no multi-month construction projects to soak up capacity. There is an even more absurd graph later on designed to show a market shortfall in a few years that ignores latent capacity in meeting supply challenges.

Bibby/York will turnover £85m if they are lucky for 2017. In this market, if they have an amazing year next year they will turnover £95-100m, and if they have a bad year they will come in at £70-75m. And the risk is on the downside here because the first six months of 2017 included ROVs in Asia that were sold, most of which were working. But in offshore contracting in general some jobs will go your way and some won’t, so everyone in the industry budgets a modest increase and some get lucky. But what definitely won’t happen is putting 15 Red on at the casino and winning 30 times in a row, and talk of £130m in revenue is more unrealistic mathematically than that.

Even more the Sapphire now looks to be going into layup! So not only is turnover going up 53% but DSV capacity is going back 33%. It’s a miracle I tell you! That’s not profitability that is top-line!

The US office is of course a giant millstone and is put in the presentation as a “Diversification” play rather than as a cost centre – and certainly no spefic financiakl data on the office is offered. The US must be costing Bibby/York c.USD 250k per month in cash terms and now has no boat to bid. That puts them Bibby against DOF Subsea and OI for any significant project except they don’t have a boat? Zero chance. Literally less than zero. Only someone who really didn’t understand, or didn’t want to, the reality of the current market would sanction such move. Operating margins of similar competitors, following exactly that strategy are less than 10%, which means you will be losing cash forever. Nuts. Not needed and not wanted in an oversupplied market, it is simply a matter of time before that office is closed.

But I don’t want to get into it in a micro level because it degrades the wider point: in this market businesses don’t grow organically at 53%. It is a preposterous statement and needs to be treated as such on that basis only.

Not only that, Bibby claim they will make an EBITDA of ~£12m on the 2 x DSVs in the North Sea, and a staggering c.£11m using vessels of opportunity. So not only are they betting they will take enormous amounts of market share off their competitors they are also planning to do it at margins way above anyone else in the industry. And this from a management team, with exactly the same asset base, who presided over a revenue decline of 56% in 2016 and is on target for a 45% decline in 2017. The first few people who got this presentation must have phoned up and asked if the printer had had a typesetting error, not believing that intelligent people would send them this.

The only certainty of this plan is that it will fail. Statements around its release confirm the company ~50 days of work for 2018 yet they are planning 78% utilisation (up from 53% in 2017), yet if the first quarter work isn’t booked in now it won’t happen in a meaningful sense.  And once you are chasing you tail to that extent a dreadful dynamic sets it because you have committed to the cost and the revenue miss means you know early in the year you are facing a massive cash flow deficit. The fixed cost base is so high in the operation that a miss on the revenue side produces catastrophic financial results; just like a budget airline, the inventory is effectively disposable (i.e. after a possible days sale has passed) yet the cost base is committed. This of course explains how the model was created I suspect: a revenue number that magically covered the costs was devised, how real management believed that number to be at the time will be crucial by March (only 12 weeks away) when the plan is revealed as a fantasy. I’m not saying it’s deliberate, humans are strange, it took Hiroo Onoda until 1974 to surrender, so if you want to you can believe a lot of things, and unless you believe the revenue number then the whole economic model falls apart.

York clearly got into this late in 2016 and early 2017 not believing the scale of the decrease going on in the business in revenue terms, and without clearly understanding how the competitive space was directly supported by the construction market. Instead of pulling out they have doubled down and appear set to pump more in working capital into the business than the assets are worth (one of which is going into lay-up for goodness sake). York appear to have confused a liquidity problem with a solvency one.

The funds this come from are large but this is till going to be a painful episode for York while doing nothing to solve the long-term solvency issues at Bibby who now only have a 6 month liquidity runway based on current expenditure. At an Enterprise Value of £115m it values a business with one DSV on lay-up and a cost centre with no work, and an operation with a 1999 DSV and one chartered asset, losing substantial amounts of money and with historic liabilities, way above a the operation Boskalis are building with 2 x 2011 DSVs at a blended capital cost of ~USD 80m. Good luck with that.

I still wouldn’t rule out a Swiber scenario here where as York get close to the drawdown/ scheme of arrangement date they get lawyers to examine MAC clauses (e.g. Boskalis buying the Nor vessels), or simply not pay and worry about getting sued by the administrator. They must know now this is a terrible financial idea.

DOF Subsea on the other hand have the opposite issue: First Reserve looked to reduce their position earlier in the year via an IPO and couldn’t. Now DOF are slowly diluting First Reserve out in  the latest capital raise… there is no more money coming from First Reserve for DOF Subsea. I get the fact that some technical reasons are in  play here: it is difficult for late-life private equity funds to buy inter-related holdings, but they always seem to manage it on the up but never on the down.

DOF Subsea might be big but the problem is clear:

DOF Subsea Debt repayent profile Q3 2017


DOF Subsea EBITA Q3 2017

DOF Subsea isn’t generating enough cash to pay the scheduled debt repayments. And in these circumstances it is no surprise that the private equity fund is reluctant to put more equity in. DOF Subsea could sell its crown-jewels, the flexlay assets, to Technip but that would involve a price at nothing like book value; or maybe DOF/Mogsters’ bail them out but that will further dilute First Reserve. Either way First Reserve, some of the smartest energy PE money in history on a performance basis, have decided if you can’t get someone else to buy your equity then dilution is a better option.

Ocean Installer is a riddle wrapped in a mystery. OI has some chartered tonnage and some smart people. But it is subscale in nearly everything and I doubt it was even cash flow positive in the boom years as they were “investing” so much in growing capacity. The company had takeover talks with McDermott, that failed on price, and seems to exist solely because Statoil is worried about having an installation duopoly in Norway. It can’t continue like this forever. Rumours abound that Hi Tec have now installed staff in the Aberdeen office and are seriously looking at how to cut the burn rate.

There is nothing in OI that you couldn’t recreate for less in todays market, and that unfortunately means the equity is worth zero. Hi Tec, whose standard business model of taking Norwegian companies and opening a foriegn office, expanding both the quantum and size of the acquisition multiple (admittedly a fantastic idea in the boom), will not work here. Now it’s hunker down and build a substantial business of scale or exit. All the larger players have to do is sit this out, no one needs to pay an acquisition premium, buying work at a marginal loss, which will eventually reduce industry capacity, is a far more rational option.

Not all of these companies can survive as they are simply too similar and chasing the same projects that are also now being chased by the larger SURF contractors. Clearly DOF Subsea is in the best position as OI and Bibby/York have a very high cost of capital and owners with unrealistic value assumptions.

All these firms suffer from two problems:

  1. In strategic terms they are “stuck in the middle”. In 1980 Michael Porter wrote his famous text (“Competitive Strategy“) positing that a company chooses to be either low cost or value added; firms that didn’t  were “stuck in the middle” and destined to low profitability forever. In subsea the deepwater contractors are the value-add and the contractors without a vessel, or the regional companies with local tonnage,  are the low cost. Bibby/York, DOF Subsea, OI are stuck in the middle – not deepwater/rigid reel to add value and with too high a cost base to compete with the regional low cost operators – given their funding requirements this will not carry on indefinitelyPorter stuck in the middle
  2. The projects that made these companies profitable (if OI ever was) have suffered the largest fall in demand of all the market segments. Small scale field development, with flexibles as the core component, just aren’t big enough to move the needle for the the larger companies and the smaller E&P companies can’t raise the cash. All the FID stats show these developments to be almost non-existent. These were projects commissioned at the margin to satisfy high oil prices and therefore are the first to fall off as the price drops. That is why these companies have suffered disproportionately in the downturn: they have lost market size and market share (Bibby Offshore revenue has dropped by 77% since 2014 where as Subsea has (only!) dropped 45%

The subsea/SURF market is an industry that private equity/ alternative asset managers struggle with: a market with genuine advantages to industrial players with economies of scale, scope and knowledge. In an age of seemingly endless debt and leverage these equity providers are not used to coming across industries where their organisational advantages of capital and speed cannot work. But for the next few years, as the industry requires less capital not more, the smart money here will be on the industrial companies. It wasn’t the distressed debt investors in Nor Offshore who made money on the liquidity bond (issued this time last year), it was Boskalis when the reckoning came for more liquidity. That is a parable of this market.