How Will Keppel Corp Navigate the Oil Crash?

Keppel Corp is a favourite stock among Singapore investors, given its strong earnings and good dividends (prior to the oil crash in Jun 2014). I have it in my portfolio too, after it came off its high 6 months later. Having held it for 1.5 years and sitting on paper losses, I am beginning to reach a conclusion over whether I should continue to hold or sell the stock. Do note that this post involves some speculation over how Keppel Corp would navigate the oil crash, which might not turn out to be correct. After all, stock investments are about predicting the future rather than knowing the present.

The headlines hogging Keppel Corp this year has been the bankruptcy of Sete Brasil and its failure to take delivery of the 6 semi-submersibles (semi-subs) on order from Keppel Corp. However, in my opinion, Sete Brasil is a much smaller problem that can be managed. If you understand the corporate structure of Keppel Corp, you will notice that for every business segment, there is always a REIT or a business trust. For properties, there is Keppel Reit. For infrastructure, there is Keppel Infrastructure Trust. For data centres, there is Keppel DC Reit. The REITs/ business trusts provide avenues for Keppel Corp to recycle capital. The only exception to this is the Offshore & Marine (O&M) segment, which builds ships and rigs for customers and therefore does not hold any operating assets that can be put into a business trust. But with Sete Brasil saddling it with as many as 6 semi-subs worth a total of $6.2 billion when completed, putting all these assets into a business trust might be a solution to recover the capital. After all, Keppel Corp is an expert when it comes to recycling capital with REITs and business trusts. Fig. 1 below is taken from Keppel Corp's presentation of its financial results for 2015. If it cannot sell and service the rigs (upper branch of the tree), it might as well choose the lower branch of the tree and own, operate, stabilise, monetise and eventually inject the rigs into a trust or fund.

Fig. 1: Keppel Corp's strategy

Given investors' penchant for yields in the current low interest rate environment, investors might buy into the idea of a business trust. Even if an O&M business trust IPO is not well received by the market, Keppel Corp could always distribute the business trust in specie to shareholders. Simplying hiving off the non-performing assets (together with the corresponding debts) will do a lot of good for Keppel Corp's balance sheet. 

If it is able to pull this off, the impact will be significant. If you read my earlier post on Understanding Shipbuilders' Balance Sheets, the uncompleted rigs have resulted in elevated levels of inventory and Work-In-Progress (WIP) in the balance sheet. Keppel Corp has stopped work on the Sete Brasil rigs, which means that they remain stuck in the balance sheet as inventory and WIP and cannot move on to receivables (upon rig delivery) and cash (upon customer's settlement of invoices). A lot of capital is locked up in this state. By completing the rigs and hiving them off into a trust, inventory and WIP can come down significantly, cash will go up and debt will come down.

Although this strategy sounds workable, the feasibility of it depends a lot on finding drilling companies willing to charter the rigs. Fig. 2 below shows the current utilisation and day rate for semi-subs from IHS.

Fig. 2: Utilisation and Day Rates for Semi-subs

The current utilisation for semi-subs is 50%, which means now is still not the right time to execute this strategy. Keppel Corp will need to be very patient and wait for the utilisation to recover before executing this strategy. Even so, there is no need to wait for a full recovery to the point that drilling companies start to order new rigs. At some point in the recovery, there will be demand but uncertainty over how long the demand will last. It is at this stage that drilling companies might be willing to lease rigs instead of owning them outright. That is the time the strategy can be executed. Thus, there is a solution to the Sete Brasil issue, but it will require a lot of patience.

In my opinion, the far bigger problem is the dwindling of orders for the O&M segment. Although each succesful delivery of a rig means there is no further deferment, it also means that the order book is reduced correspondingly. As at Mar 2016, the order book stands at a respectable S$8.6 billion. However, this figure includes the Sete Brasil rigs. The order completion rate for the rigs is estimated to be 92%, 70%, 40%, 21% and less than 10% each for the remaining 2 rigs (see Sete Brasil is not the only thing Keppel needs to worry about, say analysts). This means that of the S$6.2 billion order for the 6 semi-subs, there is approximately another $3.7 billion still on the order book. Removing the $3.7 billion worth of orders, the order book reduces significantly to $4.9 billion. In Q1 2016, Keppel Corp received only $0.2 billion in new orders. This is hardly sufficient to replenish the depleting order book. Fig. 3 below shows the uncompleted contract value of Keppel Corp's O&M order book according to year of delivery.

Fig. 3: Keppel Corp's O&M Orderbook

For comparison purpose, I have added the $3.7 billion attributed to Sete Brasil's orders. Most of Sete Brasil's 6 rigs are pushed to 2019-2020 for delivery. After removing Sete Brasil's orders, there is not much business left for Keppel Corp after 2018, assuming that new orders continue to remain weak. Given the low utilisation and day rate for rigs as shown in Fig. 2, it is difficult to see how new orders can recover strongly in the next 2 years.

Although Keppel Corp has reduced headcounts significantly to cope with the slump, there is a point at which core competencies start to be affected. Keppel Corp has to decide whether to further cut manpower to save costs in the short term or maintain core competency in anticipation of recovery in the long term. I believe Keppel Corp will choose the latter, which means high depreciation and manpower cost for the O&M segment in the short term. Having chosen to retain core manpower, Keppel Corp will also not let its facilities and staff idle. Remember the 6 uncompleted Sete Brasil rigs? Keppel Corp will go ahead and complete them in 2019-2020, even if it does not receive further payment from Sete Brasil.

Besides hoping for new rig orders, Keppel Corp also recently acquired Letourneau's rig business so that they are able to provide aftermarket sales and services. Although drilling companies are not in the mood to place new rig orders, they still have to maintain their existing rigs, so that business provides an additional revenue stream for the O&M segment. Recently, Keppel Corp has also diversified into Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) business to reduce reliance on the oil sector. How much help these moves provide is uncertain.

Finally, please note that although I wrote a lot about the O&M segment, Keppel Corp is not a pure O&G company. It also has properties, infrastructure and investments. The reason why I did not write about them is because I do not have insights in these segments. For a complete assessment of Keppel Corp, you need to assess these segments as well.

See related blog posts:

• Is Keppel Corp's Provision for Sete Brasil's Orders Adequate?
• Keppel Corp – A Good Captain Sailing Through Rough Waters
• Understanding Shipbuilders' Balance Sheets

Is Brexit Just Noise?

And so, Brexit fears went as quickly as they came. Within 4 trading days, the Straits Times Index had recovered all of its losses from news of the Brexit referendum, giving very little time for investors to either buy or sell. Does the speed at which Brexit fears came and went and the relatively limited damage to the stock market make Brexit a non-event and noise to be ignored by investors of all stripes?

First of all, whether Brexit is a noise or not depends a lot on the investor's investment strategy. For a passive investor, Brexit (and most other events) is just noise. Regardless of Brexit or not, an investor using Dollar Cost Averaging would continue to put in the same amount of money at the same fixed time intervals. Likewise, an investor relying on Portfolio Rebalancing would rebalance his portfolio at fixed intervals or when the asset allocation moves away from the target allocation by a pre-defined threshold. For a long-term active investor with an investment horizon of 5 years or more, Brexit is also irrelevant as UK would have completed its exit from EU and established new relationships with the EU and other trading partners. However, for active investors with a shorter investment horizon of 2-3 years, Brexit is not without impact. Just because the stock markets recovered rapidly after the Brexit news does not make it irrelevant and just a noise.

As news of the Brexit referendum results broke out on 24 Jun, Japan's Nikkei index crashed 7.9%, Germany's DAX index dropped 6.8%, France's CAC index fell 8.0% while UK's FTSE index declined by a much smaller 3.1%, despite being the protagonist of this episode. When I wrote my initial thoughts about Brexit in What's Next for Brexit?, I was still wondering why UK's FTSE index fell much less than the other European stock markets. It turns out that the answer lies with the forex markets.

Over the same period, British Pound (GBP) declined by 8.1%, from USD1.4877 to USD1.3679. EUR also declined, but by a smaller 2.4%, from USD1.1385 to USD1.1117. On the other hand, JPY rose by 3.9%, from JPY106.16 to JPY102.22 per USD, as investors fled from GBP to safe havens such as JPY. The implication of these currency fluctuations is that UK's goods have suddenly become 8% cheaper while Japanese goods have become 4% more expensive. It is no wonder then that Japan's (and other European) stock markets dropped more than the UK stock market! To a global investor, should Brexit be considered economically irrelevant and just noise to be ignored?

Now, 2 weeks after the Brexit referendum, GBP has declined further to USD1.2954, EUR stayed relatively flat at USD1.1051 while JPY rose further to JPY100.54. From just before the Brexit referendum till 8 Jul, GBP has declined by 12.9%, EUR by 2.9% while JPY rose by 5.6%. Over the same period, in the stock markets, UK's FTSE index has not only recovered all of its Brexit losses but also gained 4.0%, Germany's DAX index is still losing 6.1% while Japan's Nikkei index is still down by 7.0%. The economic effects of Brexit are just beginning.

A major reason why global stock markets did not fall off the cliff after the Brexit news was the realisation that central banks around the world would loosen monetary policies to stave off any economic fallout from Brexit. The impending US Fed interest rate hike went from near certainty in Jun/ Jul to being postponed at least until the end of the year. This has pushed up stocks that are sensitive to interest rates like REITs. On the other hand, bank shares have been relatively flat, ranging from -1.5% for DBS to 1.9% for OCBC during the 2-week period. If you think about it, if interest rate sensitive stocks are gaining from lower interest rate expectations, why are banks not suffering from it? Banks make money from the interest rate differential that they charge on the loans and pay on the deposits. Since the begining of this year, the 3-month Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR) has declined from approximately 1.25% to 0.93% as at end Jun. They have also reduced the interest rate charged on housing loans recently. Coupled with lower loan growth and no improvement on Non Performing Loans from the Oil & Gas industry, banks are likely to see lower profitability moving forward, until US Fed decides to raise interest rates. To a local bank investor, should Brexit be considered a non-event and just noise?

If local banks are going to see reduced profitability from lower interest rates, imagine what would happen to European banks which had shown signs of stress even without the threat of Brexit in early this year, due to increased regulations, global economic slowdown, commodity price collapse, etc. (see Why investors are freaking out over European banks (again)). With Brexit, there is further economic slowdown in Europe, reduced cross-border business, forex losses at UK operations, and now, reduced profitability from lower interest rates. European banks are a major cause of concern (see Italy eyes €40bn bank rescue as first Brexit domino falls). Having said that, it is unlikely that there would be a repeat of the Lehman Brothers incident as central banks would step in to rescue any banks deemed as systematically important.

In conclusion, even though stock markets have recovered quickly from news of the Brexit referendum, it does not mean that Brexit is economically irrelevant and can be treated as noise and ignored, at least not by active investors with shorter investment horizons. It is akin to leaving the door unlocked and no thief came in. Does it mean that it is safe to leave the door unlocked? We might just be plain lucky.

See related blog posts:

• What's Next for Brexit?
• It Is Possible to Survive a Currency Depreciation
• Making America Great Again and Its Impact to Asia

Understanding Shipbuilders' Balance Sheets

By now, it is common knowledge that ship and oil rig builders are going through a difficult period with the low oil price resulting in customer bankruptcies, order cancellations and deferments. How are the balance sheets of ship and rig builders affected by these events? By understanding the effects of these events, you can predict how the balance sheets of ship and rig builders will look like in the coming quarters.

Before that, let us understand how a ship order "sails" through the balance sheet of a shipbuilder. When a new order is received for a ship, a deposit is usually collected. This shows up as an increase in cash on the assets side of the balance sheet. On the other hand, the cash deposit represents a commitment to deliver a ship. The same amount shows up as an increase in "excess of progress billings over work-in-progress (WIP)" (or unearned revenue) on the liabilities side. As work commences on the ship, cash is reduced to buy materials for the ship and pay workers' salaries. The company will also order some materials or services from suppliers on credit terms, leading to an increase in trade payables. It might also borrow money to pay for the materials/ services. Overall, on the assets side, cash will reduce while inventory and WIP will increase. On the liabilities side, excess of progress billings over WIP will reduce while trade payables and borrowings will increase. 

Subsequently, the company would recover the cash by progressively billing the customer for work done, which reduces the WIP but increases the trade receivables. When the customer settles the invoice, the trade receivables will reduce while cash will increase. That cash can then by used to pay off suppliers and reduce trade payables and borrowings. It is important to note that when the company bills its customer for WIP, it also includes the profit margin on the WIP. Thus, shipbuilders can progressively book a profit on the ship for the duration of the contract.

What happens when a customer goes into bankruptcy (e.g. Sete Brasil), terminates an order (e.g. Marco Polo Marine) or requests for deferment (e.g. North Atlantic Drilling (NAD))? The ship will remain as a WIP on the balance sheet, resulting in high inventory, WIP and trade receivables but low cash. Likewise, trade payables and borrowings will be at elevated levels while excess of progress billings over WIP will be low. You can compare SembMar's balance sheet as at end Dec 2014 and 2015 to see the impact.

SembMar FY15 Balance Sheet

Moving forward, if work continues on the ship with no further receipt of cash from the customer, those items mentioned above will worsen further. On the other hand, if work is stopped on the ship and there is no further order cancellation and deferment on other ships, the balance sheet will slowly improve as cash is received from the delivery from other ships.

If the company takes an impairment charge on the ship, the inventories and WIP will be reduced. In addition, the profit already booked on the ship has to be reversed out via a reduction on the revenue reserves/ retained earnings item. 

If the company manages to sell the completed ship to another buyer, the amount in inventories and WIP will be converted to trade receivables. When the buyer settles the invoice, the trade receivables will be converted to cash, which can then be used to reduce borrowings.

If the company manages to find a charter for the completed ship, the amount in inventories and WIP will be transferred to Property, Plant and Equipment (PPE). During the charter period, cash will slowly flow in from the charter but PPE will reduce progressively due to depreciation. Borrowings will not be affected significantly.

Finally, it should be highlighted that not all shipbuilders operate in the same manner. While most shipbuilders build only when they receive an order, there are others that build some ships without receiving orders. If buyers cannot be found for these build-to-stock ships, they are likely to result in a highly leveraged balance sheet for the shipbuilder. To understand why a rising oil price does not translate into better business for ship and oil rig builders, you can refer to The Missing Link Between Oil Price & O&G Profitability.

P.S. I am vested in Keppel Corp, Baker Tech and a host of other O&G companies.

See related blog posts:

• Know Your Customers Well!
• Is Keppel Corp's Provision for Sete Brasil's Orders Adequate?
• How Will Keppel Corp Navigate the Oil Crash?

What's Next for Brexit?

I seldom like to blog about the latest financial news, primarily because I am a slow but deep thinker. Nevertheless, after the financial mayhem that Brexit caused on Fri, Brexit was at the top of my mind. So, I might as well pen down my thoughts. Furthermore, blogging helps to sharpen the thoughts on it. The current thoughts that you see in this post are already the second iteration. The first iteration of thoughts are similar to the general consensus, which is that UK is likely to break up with Scotland seeking independence and UK faring worse than the European Union (EU) post-Brexit. The second iteration of thoughts, however, is a refutation of the first iteration. Let's begin.

The single most important question after Brexit is, what will happen to UK? Will Scotland and Northern Ireland seek to break away from UK so as to remain in the EU? The initial thinking was yes, because Scotland voted clearly in favour of staying within the EU. In fact, when Scotland rejected its own independence referendum in 2014, it was partly on the premise that UK would remain in the EU. Now that Scotland will be taken out of EU against her wish, it is likely that the Scottish Government would seek a second referendum and succeed in gaining independence. It is interesting to note that in the 2014 independence referendum, 55% voted to stay in the UK. In the Brexit referendum, 62% of Scottish voters chose to stay in the EU. A net 7% of Scottish voters do not mind leaving UK but staying in the EU. So, a new independence referendum would definitely result in Scotland's independence from UK.

The current thinking is, Scottish independence is unlikely. With all these referendums happening, it seems that people could choose to conduct a referendum and vote to leave a country or union as they wish. However, referendums actually need approval from higher authorities for the results to have any legal effects. In the case of the 2014 Scotland independence referendum, approval from the UK Parliament was needed (see Agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government on a referendum on independence for Scotland). To run another independence referendum, similar approval would be required. Given the shock results of the Brexit referendum and the likely outcome of the next Scottish independence referendum, nobody would be in the mood for another shock.

The more important reason why Scottish independence is unlikely is that none of the major powers wish to see a break-up of UK. UK is a major ally of US, often siding with it on major issues. A UK without Scotland would be weakened, which would be to the disadvantage of US. This is why President Obama said that the special relationship with UK would remain despite Brexit. Even the EU, despite the current squabbles with UK, would not wish for a weakened UK when it faces Russia to the east. Thus, the major powers would tell the Scottish Government that a Scottish independence would not be welcomed, at least in the near future. To understand the geo-political considerations of nations, a very good book to read is George Friedman's The Next 100 Years. Anyway, as will be explained later, staying within UK might not be a bad option.

So, UK is likely to remain intact with Scotland and Northern Ireland staying put. The next question is, will UK enter into a long-term decline post-Brexit? Together with the earlier question, this question has implications on the value of UK assets and British Pound. UK would lose privileged access to the EU single market that is reserved for EU members. It might also see companies relocating across the English Channel to EU. All these present serious challenges for UK. However, as a civilisation, UK/England has faced significant challenges in her history, recovered and prospered. Despite years of war, England failed to conquer the whole of the British island and had to share the island with Scotland, yet, both nations managed to put aside their historical rivalry to join in a political union to create the Kingdom of Great Britain that would later dominate the world. Also, despite failing to gain an edge over France in the 100 Years' War, UK/England went ahead in the 16th century to build an empire that would eventually span across the entire globe. In addition, despite losing its first empire (i.e. America) in the American War of Independence, it went ahead to build a second empire in Asia, Africa and the Pacific. During this period, UK also ushered in the first industrial revolution that changed the world forever. It was only in the last century that UK declined, no thanks to the 2 world wars fought in Europe. The most glorious days of UK were actually when she was looking outwards towards the rest of the world. It would be a mistake to write off the British people. Thus, UK would also recover from this event and prosper in the medium to long term.

In the short term, UK would suffer an economic decline due to investors' uncertainty over the eventual shape of UK, reduced cross-border trade with EU, relocation of companies to EU, etc. She would also have to re-establish trade pacts with other countries. There is a global backlash against globalisation and free trade currently, which is one of the reasons contributing to Brexit and the rise of nationalism in many countries. However, given UK's status as the 5th largest economy in the world and the fact that the existing EU trade pacts are going to be missing the UK portion, I believe that UK should not have much difficulties re-establishing such trade pacts, so as to make whole the EU trade pacts at least.

The third question from Brexit is whether other EU members would be emboldened by the move and follow UK out of EU. The implication for this question is whether EU and Euro will survive. In the short term when UK is suffering an economic decline from Brexit, the answer is no. EU members who aspire to do their own EUxit would want to see what happens to UK first before making the move. However, in the medium term, if UK prospers despite leaving the EU and if EU remains the current state, then yes, more countries will exit EU.

EU was born out of a desire to end the centuries of war waged among the various civilisations in Europe and to replicate the large single market of US. However, despite the grand and noble vision, EU remains very much a work-in-progress after almost 60 years of existence. The main issue is the unwillingness of individual countries to relinquish further power to a central EU government (i.e. European Commission) for complete integration. For as along as EU citizens see themselves as British, Germans, French, Greek, etc. and not as EU citizens, there can no integrated and united Europe like the US. Look at the economic side of the union. There is economic and monetary union, meaning EU members have a common set of trade rules and can share a common currency and a common central bank, but there is no fiscal union, meaning there is no fiscal transfer of money from one member to another via a central government budget. Thus, when the threat of Grexit erupted almost a year ago, individual EU member governments had to approve the bailout for Greece instead of the European Commission dispensing money to help its member state in need. As an analogy, when West Germany merged with East Germany, if West Germany had refused to help East Germany, very soon East Germany would not want to be part of a united Germany. Thus, EUxit, whether Grexit or Brexit, is only a matter of time. I just did not predict it to be Brexit. Unless EU integrates further, the likely outcome is some EU members will follow the footsteps of UK in leaving and the Euro will fall apart.

The figure below shows the performance of the UK and European stock markets on the first day after the Brexit news. 

European Stock Market Performance on Day 1 after Brexit News

The UK market dropped 3.15%, but the German, French and Spanish markets dropped even more, at 6.82%, 8.04% and 12.35% respectively. If the conventional wisdom is that UK will fare worse than EU post-Brexit, why is it that the German, French and Spanish stock markets dropped more than that of UK? Granted, this is only Day 1 after the Brexit referendum, but it is something for us to think about.

Finally, the most important question for investors is, will markets recover or continue to tank further after Fri? It is difficult to answer. In Fri's stock market rout, banks led the decline. Early this year, even without the threat of Brexit, European banks had shown signs of stress with doubts over the banks' ability to meet their liabilities in contingent convertible (CoCo) bonds. With Brexit, there is further economic slowdown, reduced cross-border business, forex losses at UK operations, etc. The current thinking is central banks will step in to prevent a repeat of the Lehman Brothers collapse, so perhaps it is not as bad as it seems. The stock market rout in Jan this year taught me that if I cannot figure out what the market will do, at least I must figure out what I should do.

See related blog posts:

• Is Brexit Just Noise?
• Making America Great Again and Its Impact to Asia
• Financial News Can Be Very Scary At Times

Lessons for Investing in OSV Companies from Shipping Trusts

I used to own a number of shipping trusts and lost heavily in them during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Like shipping trusts, Offshore Support Vessel (OSV) companies own and charter ships to other Oil & Gas (O&G) companies. Are there any lessons that shipping trusts can teach us about OSV companies?

Shipping trusts buy ships and charter them out to shipping companies on long-term contracts. They provide a steady stream of revenue to service the debt used to buy the ships and pay distribution to unitholders. Initially, they started off with a small fleet of ships and low debts. However, over time, they bought more ships and took on more debt as a result. Things went on smoothly initially, until business deteriorated for the shipping companies during the GFC. Spot rates for the ships fell. Although the ships were chartered out on long-term contracts at higher charter rates than the spot rates, shipping trusts were not immune to the shipping slump. Firstly, some shipping companies returned the ships to the shipping trusts upon or ahead of charter expiry to save on chartering expenses. Shipping trusts had to find new employment for the returned ships at the prevailing charter rates, which were lower than the original charter rates. This resulted in reduced revenue for the shipping trusts.

Not only that, the market value of their ships dropped in tandem with the lower charter rates. This resulted in a rising Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratio, which breached the LTV covenant in the bank loans for some shipping trusts. In return for waiving the breach, shipping trusts had to pay a higher interest rate for as long as the LTV ratio was above the threshold. Again, this meant that shipping trusts had less income to distribute to unitholders, leading to lower share prices.

Are any of these difficulties happening to OSV companies? OSV companies are experiencing declining utilisation rates for their ships as some ships have completed their charters. Using EMAS Offshore as an example, its utilisation rate has dropped steadily from 84% in FY14 to 75% in FY15 and to 59% in 1H FY16. The figure below shows that the revenue from ship chartering is going to drop further, unless new charters are found.

OSV Revenue Stream for EMAS Offshore

Due to the impairment in asset value from the lower utilisation and charter rates, EMAS Offshore reported in its 2Q16 financial statement that it "had breached certain financial covenants relating to its borrowings. As at announcement date, the Group had rectified the breach by way of obtaining covenant waiver and/or amendments to the financial covenants by the lenders."

EMAS Offshore is still growing its fleet of ships. It had committed to buy new vessels/ vessel equipment amounting to USD92M as at end Feb 16. Assuming no change to the capital commitment, it will mean that EMAS Offshore has to take on more debt and/or raise equity.

EMAS Offshore has not paid any dividend since its listing on Singapore Exchange in Oct 2014, while its parent company, Ezra, has stopped paying dividend since Feb 2014. This shows the difficult economic conditions OSV companies are facing.

Although I used EMAS Offshore as an example, it is by no means the only OSV company that is experiencing difficulties. POSH's fleet utilisation rate ranges from 57.6% to 69.4% for its range of vessels in FY2015, which is a drop from 63.5% to 84.6% in FY14. It also announced a litigation with a shipping company to recover money owed from the charter hire of 3 vessels in Mar 2016. It plans to buy 15 more vessels with outstanding capital commitment of USD145M as at end Mar 2016. POSH has cut its dividend from 1.5¢ in FY14 to 0.5¢ in FY15.

Having said the above, OSV companies are taking steps to shore up their finances. Ezra issued a 190-for-100 rights issue at a price of $0.105 in Jun 2015 and sold a 60% stake in its EMAS AMC division (now renamed as EMAS Chiyoda Subsea) to Chiyoda and NYK from Japan for a collective USD216M in Mar and Jun 2016. Together with EMAS Offshore, Ezra has proposed divestment of assets. They are also reducing vessel operating cost and actively seeking new charters for the vessels.

In summary, the difficulties previously experienced by shipping trusts are being played out in the OSV sector. OSV companies are still facing a tough time despite the recovery in oil price since Jan 2016. To understand why a rising oil price does not translate into better business for OSV companies, you can refer to The Missing Link Between Oil Price & O&G Profitability.

See related blog posts:

• The Missing Link Between Oil Price & O&G Profitability
• What Moving Averages Can Teach Us About O&G Stocks
• The Type of Debts O&G Companies Have Matters

The Economics of An Oil Exploration & Production Company

Last week, I mentioned that the Exploration & Production (E&P) spending budgets of oil majors hold the key to the recovery of most Oil & Gas (O&G) companies. Moreover, E&P companies are the most direct beneficiaries of the recent recovery in oil price among all O&G companies. This week, we will explore the economics of a small E&P company listed on Singapore Exchange -- Interra Resources. Interra was chosen for this analysis as it has a detailed breakdown of its Profit & Loss (P&L) statement.

Interra is involved in the exploration and production of oil in several oil fields in Myanmar and Indonesia through production sharing contracts. For Financial Year 2015, Interra's sale of shareable oil was 0.64M barrels. It earned a revenue of USD23.5M from the sale of oil and petroleum products. The average selling price works out to be USD36.87 per barrel. The total cost of production was USD34.1M, which works out to an average cost of USD53.56 per barrel. Thus, for each barrel of oil sold in FY15, Interra lost USD16.69. For Interra to turn a profit, the price of oil must exceed USD53.56. The current price of Brent is around USD50. Assuming that the price of oil that Interra sells is similar to that of Brent (a big assumption), Interra would be close to turning a gross profit.

Besides the total cost of production, Interra also breaks down the cost into 2 components -- production expenses and amortisation of producing O&G properties. The first component represents the cost to extract oil from the oil fields while the second component represents the depletion of oil reserves, which could also be viewed as the depreciation of the historical cost of purchasing the production sharing rights. The first component is a cash item, while the second component is a non-cash item as the cash had already been paid upfront when purchasing the rights. For FY15, the 2 components were USD16.9M and USD17.2M respectively. On a per-barrel basis, they work out to be USD26.52 and USD27.03 respectively. In other words, even though Interra was making a loss when selling oil at an average price of USD36.87, it was recovering cash from each barrel of oil produced as the average selling price of USD36.87 exceeded the extraction cost of USD26.52. This is why Interra (and other oil producers) kept on producing oil even though it was making a loss. Only when the selling price drops below the marginal cost of production would it make sense to shut down production.

Interestingly, in FY15, Interra made an impairment loss of USD31.8M on its producing O&G properties and almost wiped out the entire item from its balance sheet. This means that moving forward, there is not much depletion/ depreciation cost to be accounted for in the P&L statement and the only cost is the extraction cost. In 1Q16, Interra turned a small gross profit of USD0.6M. The average selling price was USD22.29 while the average cost dropped to USD17.72, which was almost entirely made up of extraction cost only.

Even though oil production looks like a passive type of investment, it is not the case. Oil production drops over time. In FY15, Interra's share of oil production dropped by 19.5% compared to FY14. Thus, although Interra almost wiped out the entire value of producing O&G properties from its balance sheet, it needs to keep on exploring and drilling new oil wells to replenish the diminishing production from existing oil wells. Even as it made an impairment loss of USD31.8M on the existing oil wells and fields, it spent USD7.9M on exploring and drilling new oil wells. This cost is capitalised, which means that it does not show up as an expense in the current P&L statement but as an asset in the balance sheet. If oil is found from these new oil wells, this cost will need to be amortised in future sale of oil products.

Lastly, Interra had this to say about its strategy for surviving the current oil slump:

"Due to the falling oil prices, the Group has adopted an extremely cautions approach with its capital and operating expenditures. All significant capital expenditures have been suspended until the current oil price situation improves."

Interra is a very small E&P company which might not represent the views and actions of major E&P companies like the oil majors. However, if correct, its views and actions suggest that the downstream oilfield services and equipment companies (e.g. Offshore Support Vessel companies and shipyards) that support the E&P companies will have a difficult time navigating the oil slump.

P.S. I am vested in Interra Resources, KrisEnergy (both recently) and a host of other O&G companies.

See related blog posts:

• The Demand and Supply for Oil
• Understanding Saudi Arabia's Game Plan on Oil Price
• The Missing Link Between Oil Price & O&G Profitability

The Missing Link Between Oil Price & O&G Profitability

Oil price has moved higher to almost US$50 per barrel recently. Yet, there is a continuous stream of bad news from Oil & Gas (O&G) companies. We had Linc Energy going to voluntary administration in Apr, Ezra reporting quarterly losses of US$283 million at the same time and Technics Oil & Gas going into judicial management recently. Is the disparity between oil price recovery and bad news from O&G companies just a lagging effect or are there some other factors unaccounted for? If it is solely a lagging effect, the gradual improvement in oil price in recent months should progressively lead to better business conditions for O&G companies and the current wave of bad news could potentially mean the worst of the slump is near. However, if it is some other factors at work, the wave of bad news might not end so quickly and the prices of O&G stocks might continue to slide. Just a disclaimer before we continue: I do not work in the O&G industry. Like many investors, I have invested and lost money in O&G stocks. The information in this post is based on information that I gathered in my attempt to recover the losses in my O&G stocks. Hence, any incorrect information is unintentional and regrettable. Do not rely on this post for your investment decisions.

The answer to the question above is both. Let us tackle the more fundamental question first. Although the fortunes of O&G companies are tied to oil price, the relationship is not a direct one for most companies. Only companies that are involved in oil exploration and production (E&P) such as Kris Energy and Interra Resources have a direct relationship with oil price. These E&P companies produce and sell oil in the market. Any change in oil price has a direct impact on their profitability. The majority of the O&G companies listed on Singapore Exchange, however, do not produce oil. Instead, they supply equipment and services such as Offshore Support Vessels (OSVs) to the E&P companies. These OSV companies include the likes of Ezra, CH Offshore, etc. Then, there are shipyards that build equipment for the OSV companies such as Keppel Corp, SembMar, Triyards, etc.

Thus, from the relationships above, the fortunes of shipyards are dependent on the OSV companies, which in turn are dependent on the E&P companies, which then in turn are dependent on the oil price. I reproduce this diagram from Marina Money Offshore to illustrate the O&G industry supply chain.

O&G Industry Supply Chain

Thus, to understand the fortunes of OSV companies and shipyards, it is not only necessary to know the trend of oil price, but also the spending budgets of E&P companies. Oil price has been discussed previously in The Demand and Supply for Oil and Understanding Saudi Arabia's Game Plan on Oil Price. This post moves the discussion downstream to the E&P sector which has a greater influence on the profitability of OSV companies and shipyards than oil price.

Although there are small independent producers like Kris Energy and Interra Resources, the E&P sector is dominated by National Oil Companies (NOCs) such as Saudi Aramco and Petronas and Intenational Oil Companies (IOCs) such as Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, etc. As mentioned earlier, oil price directly affects the profitability of E&P companies. In their attempt to navigate the deep and prolonged slump in oil price since Jun 2014, they have cut E&P spending budgets, jobs and deferred major projects. Such spending cuts are likely to continue (see Oil Spending Seen Down $70 Billion Next Year (i.e. 2016)), even though oil majors have reported better than expected earnings in 1Q2016 due to their downstream operations (see Oil's Profit Surprise Has Analysts Wondering How Well Exxon Did). 

In my opinion, even if oil price were to recover to higher levels, oil majors will be very cautious in raising spending budgets to previous levels after going through such a difficult period. As discussed in Understanding Saudi Arabia's Game Plan on Oil Price, there are structural changes to oil price. With OPEC producing to their full capacity regardless of price, oil price is likely to become more volatile and oil majors are likely to become more conservative in their capital expenditure. All these mean that while some business will return, the good old roaring business is not going to return for some of the OSV companies and shipyards.

I mentioned earlier that there is a lagging effect between oil price and profitability of OSV companies and shipyards. Based on the industry supply chain discussed earlier, there is indeed a lagging effect between higher oil price and improved profitability of O&G companies. However, from the discussion in the previous paragraphs, it is likely to take a fairly long time before we see higher profitability for O&G companies. In the meanwhile, it is still downhill based on E&P spending budgets and you can expect to see more bad news from the O&G companies.

Just a reminder, I am no expert in O&G. I am only an investor trying to work my way out of the O&G mess in my portfolio. It is a battle that I have no confidence of winning.

See related blog posts:

• The Demand and Supply for Oil
• Understanding Saudi Arabia's Game Plan on Oil Price
• What Moving Averages Can Teach Us About O&G Stocks