Watching the Valeant (VRX) disaster unfold has, for those who are bystanders like us, resembled viewing an express train hurtling off an unfinished bridge into the ravine below, taking with it the reputations of some highly regarded investors. You’ll find no criticism here – professional humility has always been part of our DNA but if it wasn’t, enduring the 58.2% collapse in Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) from August 31st, 2014 to February 11th, 2016 assured an additional helping (those dates and figures are imprinted in my memory). Watching someone else’s catastrophe is an awe-inspiring distraction, in the same way that one feels sorrow for the victims of a foreign earthquake while assuring oneself of the sensible choice to not live on a fault-line. We’ll resist the self-satisfied observation that Valeant’s fall eclipsed even the most hated energy infrastructure MLP. During a stunningly brief period of a few months from August 5th, 2015 through last Friday, down for VRX investors was a long way – a staggering 89.7%.
We have no opinion on VRX and certainly wouldn’t suggest that its collapse was obvious. But it’s often the case that fund flows develop their own momentum. While Pershing Square and ValueAct, two large hedge fund investors in VRX, can manage their exposure to this calamity with little regard to fund withdrawals given their long lock-ups, the asset base of Sequoia’s mutual fund (SEQUX) is at the daily whim of its investors. Having similarly peaked with VRX on August 5th, SEQUX is down 33.5% and redemptions are likely causing unwilling selling of VRX by its managers. Morningstar’s placing of its rating under review can’t have helped their fund marketers.
Whatever the true value of VRX, in the short term Ben Graham said the market’s a voting machine, and investing in public equities forces you to endure the popularity (or loss thereof) of your holdings. MLPs certainly found that even as their security prices offered ever greater discounts to value, the marginal investor was nonetheless more often a seller rather than a buyer.
It’s worth revisiting the above chart, originally shown in early January (see The 2015 MLP Crash; Why and What’s Next), which remains our best explanation for the substantial dislocation we endured. Although MLP distributions (in red) used to comfortably exceed new capital raised (in blue), the Shale Revolution gradually reversed this relationship by creating an ongoing need for new infrastructure which required financing. The increasing shortfall between cash paid to investors via distributions and cash taken back via IPOs and secondaries was, for a time, met with new money from mutual funds and ETFs (in green) until falling prices induced these more recent investors to curtail inflows and eventually switch to outflows. Ultimately, institutional flows from non-traditional MLP investors were attracted (see Real Money Moves Into Real Assets). Although operating performance of midstream MLPs wasn’t immune to the collapse in oil, their stock prices often fell by many multiples of their drop in EBITDA. We continue to believe that what happened exposed the financing model of MLPs far more than their operating results, and that the flow of funds explanation is the most likely cause.
One pre-requisite for buyers to overwhelm sellers is excessive pessimism, and VRX is at least approaching that zip code. 21 of 23 analysts following the stock were bullish prior to last Tuesday’s earnings call, following which there was an undignified rush for the relative anonymity of a target price close to the current market. One firm slashed its target price from $200 to $70 (on Friday VRX closed at under $27). MLPs saw something similar over the past several weeks (see Pity the Equity Analyst) as sell-side analysts reacted as humans to the relentless criticism their bullish forecasts received from investors apportioning blame for their losses. On recent trends, MLPs should soon be positive for the year. The last time that could be said was May 8, 2015. Over the following seven and a half months the sector turned in its worst year ever. Whether or not February 11th, 58.2% below the August 2014 high, was the low for MLPs, it couldn’t be so without sufficient Wall Street analysts giving up. Industry mutual fund flows were heavily negative into the end of 2015, and there’s evidence more recently that flows are turning. We’re still 43% below the market peak. It is at least no longer unfashionable to expect rising MLP prices.
On Thursday, TransCanada (TRP) announced that they had agreed to acquire Columbia Pipeline Group (CPGX) for $10.2BN in cash (of which $4BN was funded with the proceeds of a TRP secondary offering of equity). The Wall Street Journal had reported on the negotiations several days earlier. TRP of course is behind the Keystone XL pipeline project which was eventually blocked by the Administration, further challenging Canada’s E&P companies as they seek ways to ship crude oil from Alberta to foreign markets.
CPGX is the General Partner that controls 15,000 miles of natural gas pipelines, mostly at the GP level although their MLP Columbia Pipeline Partners (CPPL) holds some of the assets. TRP saw no need to acquire CPPL, since their acquisition of CPGX already gives them control of CPPL and thereby retains the ability to continue dropdowns into the MLP where assets can be more cheaply financed although crucially this financing option isn’t currently available. The deal is the classic use of the MLP/GP structure. CPGX as the GP is analogous to a hedge fund manager, and CPPL is the hedge fund. Owning CPGX provides control of CPPL. CPGX, or now TRP, can eventually move assets into CPPL and continue to earn Incentive Distribution Rights on them, similar to a hedge fund manager earning a fee on assets in his hedge fund.
Although the acquisition valued CPGX at 19X 2016 estimated EV/EBITDA compared with TRP’s 12.75X, TRP expects the transaction to be accretive from 2017 as some of the CPPL backlog drops into production. TRP expects to finance $8BN of projects at CPGX over the next four years, earning $5.5BN in EBITDA over that time and exiting 2020 at a $1.7BN run-rate. The cancellation of Keystone and delay in another big project (Energy East) has left room in TRP’s budget, in addition to which TRP’s size leaves it better placed to finance this kind of backlog. Prior to the deal, CPGX was yielding 2.25%. Moreover, CPGX and CPPL moved sharply in opposite directions following the announcement (Chart Source: Yahoo Finance), as the market reflected the control premium paid for CPGX that wasn’t necessary for CPPL. This illustrates why owning MLP GPs is better than owning MLPs.
We were invested in CPGX until Friday and remain invested in TRP
The information provided is for informational purposes only and investors should determine for themselves whether a particular service, security or product is suitable for their investment needs. The information contained herein is not complete, may not be current, is subject to change, and is subject to, and qualified in its entirety by, the more complete disclosures, risk factors and other terms that are contained in the disclosure, prospectus, and offering. Certain information herein has been obtained from third party sources and, although believed to be reliable, has not been independently verified and its accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. No representation is made with respect to the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of this information. Nothing provided on this site constitutes tax advice. Individuals should seek the advice of their own tax advisor for specific information regarding tax consequences of investments. Investments in securities entail risk and are not suitable for all investors. This site is not a recommendation nor an offer to sell (or solicitation of an offer to buy) securities in the United States or in any other jurisdiction.
References to indexes and benchmarks are hypothetical illustrations of aggregate returns and do not reflect the performance of any actual investment. Investors cannot invest in an index and do not reflect the deduction of the advisor’s fees or other trading expenses. There can be no assurance that current investments will be profitable. Actual realized returns will depend on, among other factors, the value of assets and market conditions at the time of disposition, any related transaction costs, and the timing of the purchase. Indexes and benchmarks may not directly correlate or only partially relate to portfolios managed by SL Advisors as they have different underlying investments and may use different strategies or have different objectives than portfolios managed by SL Advisors (e.g. The Alerian index is a group MLP securities in the oil and gas industries. Portfolios may not include the same investments that are included in the Alerian Index. The S & P Index does not directly relate to investment strategies managed by SL Advisers.)
This site may contain forward-looking statements relating to the objectives, opportunities, and the future performance of the U.S. market generally. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of such words as; “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “should,” “planned,” “estimated,” “potential” and other similar terms. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, estimates with respect to financial condition, results of operations, and success or lack of success of any particular investment strategy. All are subject to various factors, including, but not limited to general and local economic conditions, changing levels of competition within certain industries and markets, changes in interest rates, changes in legislation or regulation, and other economic, competitive, governmental, regulatory and technological factors affecting a portfolio’s operations that could cause actual results to differ materially from projected results. Such statements are forward-looking in nature and involves a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, and accordingly, actual results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements or examples. None of SL Advisors LLC or any of its affiliates or principals nor any other individual or entity assumes any obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, subsequent events or any other circumstances. All statements made herein speak only as of the date that they were made. r
Certain hyperlinks or referenced websites on the Site, if any, are for your convenience and forward you to third parties’ websites, which generally are recognized by their top level domain name. Any descriptions of, references to, or links to other products, publications or services does not constitute an endorsement, authorization, sponsorship by or affiliation with SL Advisors LLC with respect to any linked site or its sponsor, unless expressly stated by SL Advisors LLC. Any such information, products or sites have not necessarily been reviewed by SL Advisors LLC and are provided or maintained by third parties over whom SL Advisors LLC exercise no control. SL Advisors LLC expressly disclaim any responsibility for the content, the accuracy of the information, and/or quality of products or services provided by or advertised on these third-party sites.
All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that any specific investment will be suitable or profitable for a client’s investment portfolio.
Past performance of the American Energy Independence Index is not indicative of future returns.