Buying time for a managed exit from Deep Sea Supply….

The solution to a debt crisis is rarely more debt and a complete avoidance of the issue. From Solstad:

The Financial Restructuring includes a deferral of scheduled instalments, interests and bareboat payments until December 31st, 2019 in a total amount of approximately USD 48 mill. The Financial Restructuring also entails suspension of the majority of financial covenants in the same period.

As part of the Financial Restructuring, SI-3 will be provided a loan from Sterna Finance Ltd. in the amount of USD 27 million, which shall be applied for general corporate purposes in SI-3.

So the banks stop time and Fredriksen (Sterna Financial) lends the company $27m to get them through the next 18 months? And then what? Day rates rise and solve everything? Where that loan sits in the capital structure will be interesting…

Ships depreciate. That means they are worth less next year than this year ceteris paribus, and therefore their earning power is reduced. This plan is predicated on the fact that this is the bottom of the market and the vessels must work next year. Good luck with that. For the old Deep Sea Supply vessels this is your competition.  Yet in 18 months time they have to earn, after OpEx, $48m just to keep the creditors at bay? It’s just not serious. All the more so because the vessels have an Asian focus and there is widespread agreement that that is the most price-competitive oversupplied region in the world.

All this deal does is keep potential credible supply in the market. The problem for any industry rebalancing is the perceived capital value is so high compared to the actual layup or running costs, and that is an industry wide problem. Pacific Radiance, EMAS, Solship, etc., they can’t all survive at current demand levels, but while they try it is mutually assured destruction.

#lastrollofthedice surely?

Which leads me to believe that all involved know this. Have a look at the bulk of these assets and their status:

SF PSV.pngSF AHTS.png

No lenders really believe they are getting paid all they are owed here surely? My guess is that the JF money has been provided on some sort of “super senior” basis, which gets paid out before the banks, and provides working capital while the next 18 months is spent trying to unwind the Solstad exposure to the DESS fleet. The banks don’t write off anything because it protects their legal position to the claim and preserves the illusion of commitment (and allows the loss to be booked later). A managed wind-down of a clearly not viable business that avoids an immediate firesale would seem the most likely scenario here. A bottle of champagne awaits the first person to send me the IM 🙂

 

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.

Der Schrei der Natur …

It is very likely that the North Sea starts next summer without Ocean Installer, M2 Subsea, and Bibby Offshore. In fact I am going for probable rather than possible. Private equity owners are looking at having to inject real cash resources into these businesses and they are not happy given the prospects of getting it back.

Another minor sign: more changing of the guard in the tier two contractors with Bibby Offshore now parting company with their CEO today. This looks stage managed coming almost 6 months to day after York Capital took control (6 months is a standard BOHL executive notice period). Although there are clearly some specific circumstances in play here the driving force at Bibby Offshore is the same as at the other tier two contractors: the cash crunch (see here). As business plans are developed for next year, and the poor summer season continues, Boards are facing up to the fact they will need new funding for next year.

Just as the Board of Ocean Installer demanded a plan that saw HitecVision sever the cash umbilical this year, so Bibby Offshore had to go through the farce of a “recapitalisation” late last year (which was more Rabelais than reason). It was frankly an embarrasment (and here) although it has led to a severe dispute between York (who fell for it) and its authors EY.

Now in 2018 York are having to do it again with Bibby who have no path to cash flow profitability. Bibby Offshore is very vulnerable: In financial terms they are likely to consume £10-15m in cash this calender year, then start next year needing to put Polaris through a 4th special survey (£2-3m?) and Sapphire through an intermediate (£1m?). At current run rate they may need £10m more in cash before next April. It’s grim.

I don’t believe a sale of the business is realistic now it has this trading history behind it (see here). A potential buyer is now gets a business locked in a battle with Boskalis at the low-end and TechnipFMC and Subsea 7 at the top-end. Without a sustained improvement in market conditions, which now will not come at the earliest until summer 2019, the shareholders face another hefty cash call. And all to fund more of the same: a subscale business battling giants and losing cash with an increasingly aging asset base. It’s a hard pitchbook for investment bankers to write. There is no upside here in terms of expansion potential or margin expansion. And it’s very risky. Why not leave your money in the bank?

It’s sad for me to see but the honest truth is it was Bibby Line Group that killed the business: a 50% dividend policy in a capital intensive business like offshore simply cannot work long-term. The GBP 175m bond, the only real money Bibby Offshore ever had, was used to pay off SCB (USD 110m) and then a dividend recap to group of ~£35m. There were never funds to grow the business when the market boomed and no equity as a cushion when the market tanked. We are in the final stages of a tragic denouement now.

York are in a terrible position now with no realistic course of recovering their investment and no logical argument to keep putting money in. A dispute with EY over the “missing £50m” is apparently causing some tension between the two firms. The story as I have heard it (from a person directly involved in the deal) was that EY had their numbers wrong and had miscalculated the financial runway Bibby had. York realised too late and “had” to follow through not seeing how bad the current downside could be. On current performance the bondholders would be better off with the EY liquidation assumptions than current exit strategies would imply.

Quite how a self-professed set of financial geniuses and a Big 4 missed the obvious fact that a firm losing £1m in cash a week would run out of money quickly is being kept quiet for obvious reasons (see here June 2017). York blame EY but really it was obvious to any outside observer with a basic knowledge of offshore economics that this would happen and it’s just embarrassing for both parties.

The new management have strong experience with Songa and are in all likelihood extremely capable and talented individuals. They are unfortunately not alchemists and the fact is that the North Sea DSV and small projects market has not had a rebound of the scale needed to help firms of this size and it suffers from chronic overcapacity. Until the CapEx market comes back, and we know from field development plans it cannot in the short-term for the UKCS, then this situation will not change. It is a commitment battle and the firm with the highest cost of capital and smallest balance sheet will lose.

Throughout the supply chain this continues: Olympic Subsea came out with numbers last week and it shows again that this continues to be a broad, deep, structural market contraction. Have a look at the cash flow because at the moment nothing else matters:

Olympic Cash Flow Q1 2018.png

Olympic spent more on financial repayments in Q1 2018 than they received net from operating the vessels. And despite talk of a market improvement they have 3 CSVs for fairly close delivery available by the end of August. Olympic look like the will make it to their 2020 runway with the cash they have on hand, but then what? This summer isn’t going to save them only slow the cash burn.

For those without the cash the decisions are starting to get ominiously close.The North Sea summer next year is likely to have  a very different economic ecosystem from the one currently exists.

 

 

Devil take the hindmost…

“They run all away, and cry, ‘the devil take the hindmost’.”

Philaster

You can’t make this up: the above slide from the latest SolstadFarstad results sums up the problem: in putting together 3 companies to create a “world leading OSV company”, before they can even get the first annual report out, they have to admit that one of the three is insolvent and  another of the three has a serious covenant breach. This was always a triumph of hope and complexity over a serious strategy.  Having spent NOK 986m in Q1 to get NOK 875m in revenue, a NOK 469m loss after adding back depreciation, a financial highlight was considered a NOK 12m saving in overhead due to synergies! Personally I would have forgone the NOK 12m in synergies to not have two subsidiaries in default that threatened the entire company’s solvency? You don’t get any sense from the public announcements that anyone has a handle on how serious this is.

If there was any value in it stakeholders might want to have an honest look about what got them to this point? In reality I don’t think it is anything more complicated than wanting to believe something that couldn’t possibly be true: namely that at the back end of 2016 the market would recover in 2017. Not confronting that meant not having to come up with a proper financial structure for this enterprise, but really it meant not having to liquidate Farstad and Deep Sea Supply. But it also means that management and their financial advisers were unable to structure a credible 12 month business plan to be accurately reflected in the transaction documentation. This a serious failure and any realistic plan forward needs to recognise this. Talk of SolstsadFarstad being part of industry consolidation, as anything other than a firesale by the banks, just isn’t serious either.

Prospect theory, an area of behavioural finance that recognises people overweight smaller chances of upside rather than accept losses, and the disposition effect where people hold losing investments for longer than they should, seem apt for the lending banks  and management here as an explanation. But the current plan of getting waivers from the banks and waiting for the market to recover is clearly not a serious plan either.

SolstadFarstad will not survive in its current form. There is absolutely no way the assets are worth NOK 30bn (under any realistic valuation  metric be it cash flow, economic, or asset) and no way that they can ever hope to pay the banks back NOK 28bn, without even worrying about the bondholders. The scale of increase in day rates in a few years time would have to be so extreme it just isn’t credible, and every year day rates stay  low requires you add back the forgone assumptions about their increase on a future year increase. The assets are aging and maintenance costs are going up. SolstadFarstad is like a zombie bank where it has no capital because no one will lend it any money to grow (wisely) but it cannot get any equity because the debt is so high. The only chance of survival would appear to be a massive debt haircut, I don’t know what the number is but I would guess at least NOK 15-18bn, and then to get new equity in and come up with a sensible plan.

However it isn’t just money. I don’t think I have ever seen a major merger go wrong so quickly and then have senior management so blithely unaware about how serious the situation is.  The timing on the Deep Sea/ Solship 3 announcement being just one example. A good study here shows management who look beyond the external environment are more likely to survive significant industry change.

One very simple fact of the environment changing is was made by Subsea 7 recently:

John Evans

Yeah. So, what we’re seeing in the market today is the return to the seasonality we saw five to six years ago where the North Sea was relatively quiet in quarter one and quarter four. It’s really, really straightforward that, you know, the weather conditions are particularly extreme in those periods, and therefore then, clients are not looking for their work to be performed during those periods. During the high point in the market, we work right away through those periods and clients were prepared to pay the additional cost to get their first production online faster. Our aim is that we will see in quarter one and quarter three our active fleets and we’ll be back towards a reasonable level of utilisation in line with previous percentages for active fleet utilisation. But then we expect to see again the corner of sea market going relatively quiet in quarter four. So that’s what we really see and in terms of seasonality for us. [Emphasis added].

SolstadFarstad used to charter ships on a 365 basis. Now it has a large number of vessels that take time risk on some other company’s projects. These vessels are going to have less utilisation than before because 2 of the 4 quarters of a year are quiet. Unless there are very high day rates, which there aren’t, a ship that works 50% of the year is worth less than one that works 100% of the year. SolstadFarstad, Bourbon, Maersk, all these similar vessel owners are dealing with a fundamental change in the market and therefore the economic value of their asset base is dramatically lower given the fixed running costs. SolstadFarstad pretending they can ever make the banks whole in such a situation is absurd. A major restructuring gets closer by the day.

[Book recommentdation: Devil Take the Hindmost: A History of Financial Speculation]

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.

 

HugeStadSea goes wrong…

If completed, the Combination is expected to provide Solstad Offshore, Farstad and Deep Sea with an industrial platform to sustain the current downturn in the offshore supply vessel (“OSV”) market and be well positioned to exploit a market recovery. The Board of Directors of the three companies consider this to be a necessary structural measure that will enable the Merged Group to achieve significant synergies through more efficient operations and a lower cost base. The Combination will influence the SOFF Group’s financial position as total assets and liabilities as well as earning will increase substantially.

SolstadFarstad merger prospectus, 2017

This was always going to happen… nice timing though… just a few days before Easter, with everyone looking the other way, and only a short time before the Annual Report was due (with its extensive disclosures required), SolstadFarstad has come clean and admitted that Solship Invest 3 AS, more familiarly known as Deep Sea Supply, is in effect insolvent, being unable to discharge its debts as they fall due and remain a credible going concern:

As previously announced, Solstad Farstad ASA’s independent subsidiary, Solship Invest 3 AS and its subsidiaries are in discussions with its financial creditors aiming to achieve an agreement regarding the Solship Invest 3 AS capital structure.

As part of such discussions, Solship Invest 3 AS and its subsidiaries have today entered into an agreement with its major financial creditors to postpone instalment and interest payments until 4 May 2018.

I am not a lawyer but normally getting into agreements and discussions like this triggers the cross-default provisions of debts, including the bonds which look set for a default… and this would make all of the c. NOK 28bn debt become classed as short-term (i.e. payable immediately). Maybe they saw this coming and omitted those clauses when the loans were reorganised, but its a key provision, and I struggle to see it getting through compliance and lawyers without this? But it strikes me as a crucial question. The significance of this for those wondering where I am going with this is that it would be hard to argue SolstadFarstad is actually a going concern at that point. Maybe for a short while, but getting the 2017 accounts signed off like that I think would be tricky (ask EMAS/EZRA).

Investors, having been told  how well the merger is going, may want to have a think if they have been kept as informed as they would like here? There is nothing in this statement on 19 Dec 2017 for example to reflect clearly how serious things were at Deep Sea Supply. Indeed this statement appears to be destined for future historians to recall a management team blithly unaware of their precarious position:

With the reduced cost base we will be more competitive and with our high quality vessels and operations, we will be in a very good position when the market recovers.

The PR team may have liked that statement but surely more cautious lawyers would have wanted to add the rider “apart from Deep Sea Supply which is rapidly going bankrupt and the vessels are worth considerably less than their outstanding mortgages. We anticipate in the next 12 weeks defaulting on our obligations here until a permanent solution is found.” To make the above statement, when 1/3 of merger didn’t have a realistic financial path to get to this mythical recovery is extraordinary.

But the real and immediate problem the December 19 press release highlights is that in an operational sense Deep Sea Supply has been integrated into the operations of HugeStadSea:

The merger was formally in place in June 2017 and based on the experiences from the first six months in operation as one company, Solstad Farstad ASA is now increasing the targeted annualized savings to NOK 700 – 800 mill.

By the end of 2017 the cost reductions relating to measures already implemented represents annualized savings of approximately NOK 400 mill…

new organization structure implemented and the administration expenses have been reduced by combining offices globally and centralization of functions.

The synergies laid out here can only be achieved by getting rid of each individual company’s systems and processes and integrating them as one, indeed that is the point of the merger? So how do you hand Deep SeaSupply back to the banks now? For months management consultants from Arkwright have been working with management and Aker to turn three disparate companies into one, now apparently, as an afterthought, the capital structure needs sorting as well along with disposing of “non core” fleet. Quite why you would get into a merger to create the largest world class OSV fleet while simulataneously combining it with a “non core” fleet at the same time (that wasn’t mentioned in the prospectus) is a question that seems to be studiously avoided?

Just as importantly going forward here management credibility is gone. Either you were creating a “world class OSV company” with the scale to compete, or you weren’t, in which case taking on the Asian built, and pure commodity tonnage of Deep Sea Supply was simply nuts.

Around 12 months after the merger announcement, and six momths after the legal consumation, when managers have had sufficient day rate and utilisation knowledge to build a semi-accurate financial forecast, they are back to the drawing board. If SolstadFarstad hand the Deep Sea fleet back to the banks they will have to either fire-sale the fleet or build up a new operational infrastructure to run the vessels independently of SolstadFarstad… does anyone really believe the banks will allow that to happen? The problem is the tension between the different banking syndicates: a strong European presence behind SolstadFarstad and Asian/Brazilian lenders to Deep Sea. This is likely to get messy.

Is Deep Sea Supply really ringfenced from SolStadFarstad? Will the lending banks be able to force SolStadFarstad to expose themselves more to the Deep SeaSupply vessels? As an independent company Deep Sea Supply would have been forced to undergo a rights issue, and if not supported by John Fredrikson/Hemen it would have in all likelihood have gone bankrupt, the few hundred million NOK Hemen putting into the merger barely touched the sides here. For the industry that would have been healthy, but for the banks a nuclear scenario. Now management face a highly embarrassing stand-off with the banks to force them to take the vessels back, or the equally highly embarrassing scenario of admitting that the shareholders were exposed to the Deep Sea Supply fleet all along, and that the assumptions underpinning this deal were wrong… Something easily foreseeable at the time to all but the wilfully blind.

The “project to spin off the non-core fleet”, which I have commented on before, is the Deep Sea Supply fleet that makes a mockery of the industrial logic of the merger. That was started in Q3 2017 according to their annoucements, only a few months later needs to be sold? What is the plan here? Or more accurately is there one?

There are no good options here. The only credible option for the management team and Board to survive unscathed would surely be the banks writing down their stake in Deep Sea Supply entirely and making a cash contribution to SolstadFarstad to recognise the time and costs involved in running it. You can mark that down as unlikely. But just as unlikely is a recovery in day rates where Deep Sea Supply can hope to cover its cash costs even in the short term

The Board of SolsatdFarstad and their bankers need to ask some searching questions here. The merger was a very bad idea that was then executed poorly.  It is therefore hard to argue SolstadFarstad have the right skills in place at a senior management and Board level? This wasn’t a function of a bad market, this was the result of bad decisions taken in a bad market. This constant mantra that scale will solve everything, when the company has no scale, needs to be challenged. The other issue is how disconnected management seem to be from basic market pricing signals, and moving the head office away from its current location should also be seriously considered along with a changing of the guard.

I said at the time this merger was the result of everyone wanting to believe something that couldn’t possibly be true and merely delaying for time, but eventually reality dawns as the cash constraint has become real. The banks need to write off billions of NOK here for this to work. Probably, like Gulfmark and Tidewater, the entire Deep Sea Supply/ Solstad/Farstad PSV and smaller AHTS fleet need to be equitised at a minimum, and some of the older vessels disposed of altogether. The stunning complexity of the original merger, where legal form trumped economic substance, needs to be reversed to a large degree, but this will not be easy as the shareholders in the rump SolstadFarstad will surely balk at being landed with trading their remaining economic interests for a clearly uneconomic business.

The inevitable large restructuring that will occur here arguably marks the start of the European fleets and banks catching up with their American counterparts, and to some degree matching the pace of the Asian supply fleets. The banks behind this need to start a series of writedowns that will be material and will affect asset values accross the sector. Reporting season will get interesting as everyone tries to pretend their vessels are worth more than Solstad’s and the accountants get worried about their exposure if they sign off on this.

A common fault of all the really bad investments in offshore since 2014 was people simply pretending the market is going to miraculously swing back into a state that was like 2013. It was clear late in 2016 this would not happen. The stronger that view has been has normally correlated with the (downside) financial impact on the companies in question, and there is no better case study than HugeStadSea.

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.