In the 1990s U.S. bankers were consolidating. My own career spans several bank mergers. Manufacturers Hanover merged with Chemical Bank in 1992, followed by Chase Manhattan in 1996 and JPMorgan in 2000. Other smaller deals occurred along the way, such as Hambrecht & Quist in 1999, and  Robert Fleming in 2000.

I remember then-CEO of Chemical Bank, Bill Harrison, discussing the inevitable consolidation of the banking industry, and how he had a team that was constantly evaluating the synergies of potential combinations. Relative pricing was an important consideration. Weakness in one bank’s stock could attract others who had already assessed a potential fit. Harrison had a mixed record at mergers until the combination with JPMorgan led to Jamie Dimon eventually running the company. Bill’s final deal left investors in good hands.

Chevron’s (CVX) acquisition of Anadarko (APC) last week reminded me of this. The relative pricing chart that CVX CEO Mike Wirth used in Friday’s call provided a useful insight into how they approached the deal.

Over the past year, stock prices for the integrated oil companies (IOCs) have outperformed the independent U.S. shale drillers. In terms of CVX’s currency (its stock), APC became cheaper. In effect, the market was pushing for this deal, by steadily improving its attractiveness to CVX. Investors want the world’s biggest companies managing shale oil and gas output.

It wasn’t always this way. In the early days of the Shale Revolution, independent companies like Pioneer Resources (PXD), EOG and others led the way. They had a willingness to experiment with different approaches while the industry sought the most effective techniques to unlock this new resource. Observers felt at the time that IOCs were poorly suited to the type of constant disruptive innovation at which smaller companies can excel.

Recognizing the unconventional thinking required to exploit this unconventional resource, huge companies like Royal Dutch Shell (RDS) created new divisions with considerable autonomy to innovate. It echoed the “skunkworks” popularized by Clayton Christensen in The Innovators Dilemma. His premise was that big companies were too often so invested in their existing products and processes that they were unable to see the threat posed by more nimble innovators. And in the early years of the Shale Revolution, IOCs were generally absent because unconventional plays didn’t fit their conventional thinking.

Frequent failures with their associated learning curve were protected from the centrally-imposed financial discipline that usually prevails. RDS enjoyed sufficient success with this approach that they applied some of the lessons across the company.

The CVX/APC deal highlights how things have changed. IOCs are no longer focused on trying to act like a small company practicing rapid innovation. Instead, they’re applying the scale and efficiencies of a big company to drilling techniques that are now well established. It’s the next stage in the Shale Revolution.

Equity markets accelerated this development, by assigning higher valuations to larger companies versus independents. CVX exploited this in their APC acquisition. It’s likely to spur consideration of other match-ups. Pipeline customers will be increasingly well-capitalized with properly funded, long term production plans. This should only be good news for investors in midstream energy infrastructure.

SL Advisors is the sub-advisor to the Catalyst MLP & Infrastructure Fund.  To learn more about the Fund,  please click here.

SL Advisors is also the advisor to an ETF (USAIETF.com).

Sharply higher commodity prices shouldn’t be a major source of concern for pipeline investors. But that was the answer Enlink (ENLC) President and CEO Michael Garberding gave to a question we’re often asked – what could go wrong. His reason was that it would induce midstream infrastructure to add excess capacity. “Our industry has shown it knows how to overbuild” was heard more than once during a recent investor dinner hosted by MUFG Securities. This set the tone for the evening’s conversation. Adrianne Griffin, Director of Investor Relations and whom we interviewed last year (see Discussing the Shale Revolution with Enlink Midstream), smoothly guided Mike to expand on issues of most interest.

Promoting the CFO to CEO doesn’t always guarantee a culture of financial discipline. For example, Kinder Morgan’s distribution cuts and taxing simplification, all to support their growth plans, took place while President Kimberly Dang was CFO. But we felt Mike Garberding had a good grasp of the company’s financial profile when he held that role, and hope to see it woven more fully into Enlink’s culture.

Any discussion with energy sector management is likely to cover the spread between cost of capital and project returns, prudent leverage and improved returns to shareholders. This dinner was no exception. ENLC expects their $1.2-1.5BN in growth capex to generate $250MM in annual EBITDA when completed, an attractive 5-6X build multiple if they achieve it.

Last year Devon Energy (DVN) sold their Enlink interest to Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP), and then Enlink consolidated their GP and MLP into a single LLC entity that is taxed as a corporation. Given ENLC’s current valuation and attractive projects, you might think GIP would want to buy the whole company, with the substantial pool of private equity dedicated to infrastructure investments. GIP’s role remains something of a mystery. Garberding noted that they were “very aligned with GIP” and that “they give us huge strategic advantages”. But specifics are few, and one investor asked when the benefits of GIP’s strategic role would become clearer. More detail would be welcome. Mike noted that there had been little opportunity to provide more clarity since last summer’s deal, given the just completed simplification. Hopefully, we’ll learn more in the future.

Another investor asked whether ENLC would sell their Barnett shale assets to a potential acquirer of DVN’s acreage, if the buyer was seeking more vertical integration. This was thought unlikely (though “every asset has a sale price”), and Garberding noted that if the new owner adds one more rig that would double the rig count on a play that requires very little annual capital, albeit with output currently declining 4-5% annually.

Upstream customers seem to be showing more stability – ENLC expects rig counts to be maintained across a wider range of oil and gas prices than in the past, which probably speaks to improving balance sheets across the energy sector. Drillers are showing, “a better capability to live within their cashflows.” It’s why he believes gathering and processing businesses are less risky than sometimes believed.

Vertical integration increases the number of opportunities to earn a fee from a molecule, and ENLC regards that as a critical means of competing with bigger firms such as Plains All American (PAGP) and Enterprise Products Partners (EPD), both of whom offer integrated solutions. Providing shippers with optionality and affording customers a choice of where to direct their output to maximize profits remains a key focus.

Connecting with other networks adds choices, and ENLC does this extensively with Oneok’s (OKE), for whom they are a top five customer.

CFO Eric Batchelder was jokingly referred to as the “C-F-No” as if to emphasize C-suite financial discipline. There was an interesting exchange on the balance between returning cash to shareholders via buyback versus distribution growth. The 9% yield on ENLC’s equity suggests that too few investors are attracted to the stock, and therefore a planned 5% increase in payout is unlikely to entice them. Some investors, including ourselves, would prefer that excess cash be returned through buybacks. Since buybacks reduce the sharecount, there’s the added benefit of raising coverage on the dividend

However, Batchelder noted that opinions varied and a significant number of long-time holders still favor dividend growth. ENLC reports fairly low investor turnover in the past couple of years, and clearly a great many original MLP holders (i.e. older, wealthy Americans) have retained their holdings. We think if ENLC investors fully understood the improving coverage inherent in buybacks, they’d prefer them to an increased payout.

An anonymous Twitter contributor well-versed in the capital mis-steps of the sector ran a hilarious NCAA-style tournament of pipeline stocks, which was still ongoing at the time of our dinner (see MLP Humor — A Target-Rich Environment). Voters determined the result of each match-up, based on which visited the more egregious abuse on investors. This was a brief topic of conversation. ENLC progressed through the first two rounds, and must have been relieved to have been eliminated at the “Sour Sixteen” stage.

ENLC is an overweight long position across our portfolios. It’s cheap, with good growth prospects and we like the management. Dinner reaffirmed our conviction.

We are invested in ENLC, EPD, OKE and PAGP.

SL Advisors is the sub-advisor to the Catalyst MLP & Infrastructure Fund.  To learn more about the Fund,  please click here.

SL Advisors is also the advisor to an ETF (USAIETF.com).

The S&P Energy sector has delivered the worst returns of eleven sectors for four of the past five years. Reflecting investor disdain, energy is now around 6% of the S&P500, down by half in the past decade. Realizing the full potential of the Shale Revolution has demanded a lot of capital – over $1TN by one estimate. Management teams’ desire to grow has increasingly conflicted with investors’ insistence on greater cash returns. In midstream infrastructure this has been especially acute, with the traditional income-seeking MLP investor enduring multiple distribution cuts to support growth projects.

On Twitter, an anonymous, well informed energy investor created a humorous NCAA-type bracket to identify the most capital-destructive management team among publicly traded energy stocks. Each pairing is resolved through online votes, with the ultimate winner earning a most ignominious title. One comment asked if there was another sector with as wide a gap between management self-perceptions and those of investors.

Yet there’s a class of investor that continues to find energy attractive – private equity.

A recent presentation by S. Wil VanLoh Jr. of Quantum Energy Partners offered a useful perspective.

Public equity investors are repelled by the energy sector’s persistently low free cash flow, with profits too frequently plowed back into new production. By contrast, private equity (PE) funds with their locked up capital are drawn by the internal rates of return, which they find attractive. Their ability to outspend cashflow for several years as projects are developed can’t be matched by their public counterparts, whose investors are sensitive to quarterly earnings. Although this hasn’t led to any significant public companies being taken private, it has led to PE becoming a steadily bigger player in shale. They recognize that the U.S. has already won the shale race against the rest of the world.

Growing market share and increased geopolitical flexibility must surely lead to good investment returns. But around $1TN in capital has not all been well spent, and any sector recovery depends on management teams regaining the trust that has been lost.

The industry’s operating efficiencies are well known. Capex per well has been declining while output has soared. Pad drilling has brought scale and corresponding efficiencies, with rig productivity up 6X in the last five years. Since 2010, acquisition and development of shale resources by PE has grown from 10% to over half the total. PE rig count is estimated at 37%, up from 20% six years ago.

Nonetheless, the shrinking of the public equity investor appetite for energy has impacted PE, because it’s constrained their ability to exit via a sale of assets to a publicly traded company, or via an IPO. There were no MLP IPOs last year, illustrating that the public equity markets are closed to energy companies. So PE holding periods have gone from 2-4 years to 4-7.

Meanwhile, public companies are responding to calls for greater cash flow discipline by moderating growth capex and redirecting more cash back to investors through dividend hikes and buybacks. There are also signs that capex plans now adjust more quickly to altered circumstances than in the past. Several upstream companies lowered their planned spending during 4Q18 as oil slumped.

On the midstream side, Magellan Midstream (MMP) recently have shelved an expansion project because of insufficient shipper demand. Several projects are planned to increase capacity for the largest crude tankers, which require deepwater ports offshore. Perhaps concerned about overcapacity, Kinder Morgan pulled out of a JV with Enbridge to develop a deep water crude oil export facility, although the project is still expected to proceed.

A consequence of this new capital discipline is that public companies’ criteria for buying assets from PE owners include that they be FCF-positive, so as to maintain promised cash returns to stockholders. A positive NPV is no longer enough, which is forcing PE investors to develop their assets more fully than expected, taking up more time and capital.

Infrastructure funds, which often include midstream energy infrastructure in their mandate, raised a record $88BN in 2018, up from $75BN in 2017.  PE investors have been active in the pipeline sector. Blackstone invested almost $5BN in two deals with Targa Resources (TRGP) and Tallgrass (TGE). Funds managed by Carlyle, Stonepeak and Arclight have also committed capital.

Although the 2014-16 MLP price collapse continues to haunt investors, there is a chronic shortage of assets that can generate stable cashflows over two decades or more. The recent drop in U.S. ten year yields to 2.4% is one example. Ten year German Bund yields are negative again, and French oil giant Total issued perpetual bonds at 1.75%. PE investors buying infrastructure understand this better than public markets, and a publicly owned pipeline with a distributable cash flow yield above 10% looks like a mispriced asset. It’s why we think the sector has substantial room to appreciate.

SL Advisors is the sub-advisor to the Catalyst MLP & Infrastructure Fund.  To learn more about the Fund,  please click here.

SL Advisors is also the advisor to an ETF (USAIETF.com).

The point of a public equity listing is to be able to access public markets for financing, to use the stock as a currency for acquisitions, and to provide liquidity for investors. A company’s cost of equity moves inversely with its stock price, just like bond yields and prices. Access to cheap equity is vital for companies that have growth projects, including most energy infrastructure companies. MLPs continue to face a comparatively high cost of equity.

It’s one of the reasons why we believe over the past few years many of the biggest MLPs have “simplified”, which has often meant they’ve abandoned the MLP structure to become a regular corporation (a “c-corp”). An important objective behind each of these restructurings has been to lower their cost of equity. Kinder Morgan (KMI) led this move in 2014, when their desire for external capital to fund their backlog of growth projects collided with the interests of their income-seeking holders. Investors in Kinder Morgan Partners (KMP) weren’t much interested in plowing their distributions back into secondary offerings, so KMP’s yield rose to levels that made equity issuance uneconomic (see 2018 Lessons From The Pipeline Sector).

KMI decided to combine with KMP, creating unexpected tax bills for holders and leading (eventually) to two distribution cuts. The goal was to access a broader set of investors. Fewer than 10% of the money allocated to U.S. equities can invest in MLPs. Taxes and K-1s generally limit buyers to U.S. high net worth individuals. KMI wanted to reach U.S. pension funds, global sovereign wealth funds, and other significant buyers. They had outgrown the old, rich Americans, who used to own their stock. If you ever talk to a former KMP investor, you’ll learn how much bitterness this caused (see Kinder Morgan: Still Paying for Broken Promises).

Other MLPs followed, and today midstream energy infrastructure is more corporations than MLPs. The list includes Enbridge (ENB), Oneok (OKE), Pembina (PBA), Targa Resources (TRGP), Semgroup (SEMG), Transcanada (TRP) and Williams (WMB). None of these are in an MLP index.

In late 2017 we created the investable American Energy Independence Index (AEITR). It’s a market-cap weighted index of North American energy infrastructure companies. It includes some MLPs, because the structure still works for those not in need of external equity. But MLPs are kept at 20%, reflecting their diminished role.

The AEITR’s limit on MLPs also means that funds linked to it aren’t subject to corporate tax. A flawed tax structure has been a substantial drag on performance for MLP-dedicated funds. For example, the Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP) has a since inception return of 0.47% p.a., compared with its index of 2.75%. It’s delivered less than a fifth of its index since 2010, in part because of a structure that requires it to pay corporate tax. Nobody would create such a fund today.

See MLP Funds Made for Uncle Sam for more detail.

The Alerian MLP indices are becoming outdated, because they represent what the pipeline business used to be, before MLPs started converting to corporations. An MLP-only approach to energy infrastructure misses most of the sector. MLPs aren’t going away, they’re just becoming less important.

For the former MLPs who converted so as to lower their cost of capital, stock performance shows that these were good decisions. The AEITR’s 80% allocation to corporations makes it more representative than the Alerian MLP Index (AMZX). Performance differences between the two are driven by how corporations are doing relative to MLPs. This year, AEITR is 5% ahead.

What’s also encouraging is that it’s coming with lower volatility. Since AEITR’s creation in October 2017, it has had average daily moves of 1.5%, half that of AMZX. This makes sense, because the corporations that make up 80% of AEITR have a wider pool of investors. It’s precisely why MLPs have been converting. A more diverse set of buyers means a deeper market, which lowers the risk for investors and thereby lowers the cost of capital for those companies.

So far, we haven’t heard of a company that regrets its decision to drop the MLP structure in a simplification, and those that remain get questions on every earnings call about their possible plans to simplify. There are some well run, attractive MLPs, including Enterprise Products Partners (EPD), Magellan Midstream Partners (MMP), Energy Transfer LP (ET), Western Gas Partners (WES), and Crestwood Equity Partners (CEQP). But the evidence is mounting that the adoption of a corporate structure and the global investor base that comes with it is beneficial.

We are invested in ENB, EPD, ET, KMI, MMP, OKE, PBA, SEMG, TRGP, TRP, WMB.

We are short AMLP.

SL Advisors is the sub-advisor to the Catalyst MLP & Infrastructure Fund.  To learn more about the Fund, please click here.

SL Advisors is also the advisor to an ETF (USAIETF.com)

Long time MLP investors fondly recall the days before the Shale Revolution, when yield comparisons with REITs and Utilities made sense. This ended in 2014, when the energy sector peaked. Cumulative distribution cuts of 34%, as subsequently experienced by investors in the Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP), convinced income seeking investors that pipelines were a hostile environment.

During the 2014-16 collapse in crude oil, yield spreads on energy infrastructure blew out compared with sectors that were formerly peers. It might be the only period in history when companies have slashed distributions primarily to fund growth opportunities, and not because of an operating slump (see It’s the Distributions, Stupid!)

Several months ago, Bank of America published this chart showing that EBITDA for the sector grew steadily through the energy collapse, and leverage came down. Persistent weakness in the sector can best be explained by the betrayal of income-seeking investors. Distribution cuts were unacceptable to many, regardless of the reasons.

2019 should be the first year since crude oil bottomed at $26 per barrel that payouts will be rising (see Pipeline Dividends Are Heading Up). Because falling distributions are so clearly the reason the sector has remained out of favor, increasing payouts could provide the catalyst that will drive a strong recovery.

Income-seeking investors who return to the pipeline sector will find much to like. Funds From Operations (FFO) is a commonly used metric for REITs. It measures the net cash return from existing assets. The analogous figure for energy infrastructure businesses is Distributable Cash Flow (DCF).

We’ve found that comparing pipelines with real estate resonates with many readers. Differentiating between cash earned from existing assets and cash left over after investing in new assets is intuitive when applied to an owner of buildings.

As we showed in Valuing Pipelines like Real Estate, looking at Free Cash Flow (FCF), or net cash generated after new initiatives, doesn’t present an accurate picture if a company is investing heavily. And because dividends have been declining, it’s been hard for investors to get comfortable that current payouts are secure. Since neither FCF nor dividend yields have been enticing, capital has often avoided the sector.

MLPs commonly paid out 90% or more of their DCF in distributions, which left too little cash to fund the growth projects brought on by the Shale Revolution. Attractive DCF yields drew scant attention when payouts were declining, but a consequence of the sector’s loss of favor is that 2019 DCF yields are two thirds higher than for REITs.

Moreover, they’re set to grow faster. U.S. REIT investors can expect only 2% growth in FFO on a market-cap weighted basis (data from FactSet). We expect 2020 DCF for the American Energy Independence Index to jump by 10.3%. Improving cash flow supports rising dividends, which we expect will be up 10% this year and next (see Income Investors Should Return to Pipelines in 2019).

Much of this is the result of growth projects being placed into production. A pipeline doesn’t generate any cash until it’s completed, so virtually all the expenditure occurs up front. MLP investors suffered the distribution cuts necessary to help fund this – we’re now starting to see the uplift to cashflows. It’s further helped by a likely peak in growth expenditures (see Buybacks: Why Pipeline Companies Should Invest in Themselves, chart #4).

Once REIT investors return to comparing their holdings with energy infrastructure, they’re going to find strong arguments in favor of switching. They’ll find they can upgrade both their income and growth prospects by moving their REIT holdings into pipelines. MLP yields are historically wide compared with REITs, and 85% of the last decade the relationship has been tighter. Just remember to invest in broad energy infrastructure and not to limit your investment to MLPs (see The Uncertain Future of MLP-Dedicated Funds). Four of the five biggest pipeline companies are corporations, not MLPs, which nowadays represent less than half the sector.

The Shale Revolution is a fantastic American success story. The Energy Information Administration expects U.S. crude oil output to reach 13 million barrels per day (MMB/D) next year. The U.S. continues to gain market share. It’s estimated that Saudi Arabia needs a price of at least $80 per barrel to finance their government spending. To this end, the Saudis are cutting production to below 10 MMB/D. They’re slowly ceding market share in the interests of higher revenues.

Investors have little to show for allocating capital towards the Shale Revolution. That is about to change. The American Energy Independence Index is up 18% so far this year, easily beating the S&P500 which is up 10%. The sector is starting to feel the love.

Join us on Friday, February 22nd at 2pm EST for a webinar. We’ll be discussing the outlook for U.S. energy infrastructure. The sector has frustrated investors for the past two years, but there are reasons to believe improved returns are ahead. We’ll explain why. To register please click here.

We are short AMLP.

SL Advisors is the sub-advisor to the Catalyst MLP & Infrastructure Fund.  To learn more about the Fund, please click here.

SL Advisors is also the advisor to an ETF (USAIETF.com)