CF/ TRA Merger- some thoughts

Here are some thoughts on the drama that played over the last year in the fertilizer industry. Please note that these are thoughts and I am researching to what can be an investable idea.

Takeover Frenzy:

The year long dance between Terra, Agrium, Yara, and CF Industries came to an end. CF won the bidding for TRA and took it away from Yara and in the same breath fended Agrium advances.

• The acquisition of TRA is mostly a mechanism to fend off AGU hostile takeover. To defend against this unwanted advance CF overpaid. As Yara offered to buy TRA from underneath CF and CF struggling to find a white knight instead of Terra reaping a premium offer. In this vein, at least one person pointed out that once Yara did a deal with Terra, CF lost its white knight. CF was left facing a low bid by Agrium and its bidding here made sense in order to prevent a deal with Agrium for a low price forced by CF’s own coming election.
• The TRA acquisition is not a tuck in acquisition but almost a merger of equal. CF and TRA are of similar size in terms of market cap and Ent value. TRA had $1.5 B in sales as of 2009, $2.5b in 2008 while CF had $2.6B as of 2009.
• CF might got caught in a bidding frenzy for Terra that lead it to over bid for Terra. the increase in offers are as follow:
1. March 10, 2010 final and winning offer: $47 or $4.6 market cap. 37.15 in cash and the balance in CF shares
2. Dec 15, 2009 third offer: 45.91
3. Nov 1, 2009, second offer : $40.50
4. Jan 15, 2009 initial offer : $20.98 or $2.1 in market cap this was an all stock offer
• The peculiar thing is CF used its shares as a currency when it was beaten down in January 2009, however used an almost all cash offer in its winning offer in 2010 after its shares have a considerable run and traded at 52 week high. Why would the company uses its shares when it was trading at what it seems a large discount to intrinsic value while uses cash when the shares have recovered.
• Another peculiar aspect is CF has proclaimed that AGU offer undervalues the company but it was happy to use its own undervalued shares as a currency for takeover of TRA.
• The length of the merger process might have increased the mental investment and cost to CF executives making it harder to forgo those costs and walk away. although these costs should be considered sunk costs and not factor in making and acquisition in March 2010. Maybe it became win at all costs. I am not sure what changed in the span of 12 months to justify more than 100% increase in value paid to Terra.
• The merger announcement talked about being".. the largest nitrogen producer in the world among publicly traded companies as measured by production capacity". May be CF wants to the biggest and baddest at the exp of shareholders.

Over Paying

CF simply overbid for TRA to escape being bought by Agrium. Please consider:

• CF offer values Terra at $47 per share. The offer represents:
• 2.9 x sales (TRA highest achieved 2.2x at that market top in 2007)
• 9.5x book value
• 30.5 x earnings (highest achieved 25x in 2007)
• 22.7 x Cash Flow
• CF overpaid for the company as the DCF value of TRA as a stand alone company, assuming 10% growth rate for 10 yrs and 5% terminal rate for Cash Flow of $3.19 per share, is $41.68.
• CF claims that it paid 8x TRA's EBITDA (see merger presentation footnotes). That claim is more spin than reality for several reasons:
• CF averaged 3 years to get the EBITDA of 622 while 2009's is mere 402
• 2008 was an abnormal year for Ag where prices have shot up for Fertilizers and ag in general. CF includes 2008 to average out to 622 in EBITDA. TRA never approached that level in EBTDA or came close. would that be repeated again? so to include a record year in your EBITDA will increase average and lower the multiple to make the transaction more salable to shareholders, which by the way are precluded from voting on the transaction thank to CF management to not be bogged down with a limitation in their pursuit of TRA.
• CF claims "~$1.54Bn of combined EBITDA (including run-rate synergies): Based on 2010 CF management EBITDA guidance, excluding minority interests, of $752MM for CF (see non-GAAP reconciliation on p.6), plus $655MM of 2010 EBITDA per Terra (refer to Footnote 1 on prior page), plus $135MM of run-rate synergies" However, CF used its guidance for 2010 and the 3 year historical average for TRA to arrive at that number. Talk about apples and oranges.
• "I believe a $100/st nitrogen production margin ($3/MMBtu natural gas for 1 metric ton ammonia production in Yara's thinking) is as good as it will get going forward, and based on this, $600 million is the high water mark for earnings from this asset set. This is based on 6.5 million tons of annual nitrogen production, less SG&A. Terra's EBITDA hit $964 million in 2008, which was an extraordinary year for the company. "
• CF will pay about 6 percent of its entire market capitalization in fees. On a per share basis, I calculate this to be about $5.75 per CF share. This does not include the $123 million termination fee that CF is paying to Yara on Terra’s behalf as a result of TRA terminating with their merger agreement to accept CF's offer.
• CF will issue equity to fund TRA acquisition, lots of it; it can be dilutive. The company will issue $2 Billion worth of shares: $1B for TRA shareholders and another to the public. Total issuance represents 30% of current and new shares based on today's market price.
• TRA UK assets are declining due to pound devaluation
• valuation of integrated companies:
• what kind of return can CF garner on the acquisition? I reckon no more than 15% in ROIC, this is the best case scenario. The ROIC figure is covering assumed cot of capital of 12%, however, I have my doubts about their EBITDA and synergies claim as detailed here. If I start calculating more accurate ROIC figures using accurate EBITDA like better cycle than just 3 yrs and including an average of non recurring charges...etc I sure they do not earn their cost of capital.
• The invested capital is the cost of the acquisition which are:
1. offer: $4.6 Billion
2. termination fee to Yara: $123 million
3. bankers fee incurred by CF: $270 million
4. Grand total : ~ $5 Billion
• What is the return CF is going to get:
1. $622 (based on the 3 year average EBITDA of TRA)
2. $135 million in synergies

Perils of Integration

• Do CF have merger integration experience? CF did not make a large acquisition like this and was not a serial acquirer of smaller operations so that begs the question how will they integrate?
• I want to handicap CF management so lets look at their track record by calculating ROIC.
• CF has capacity to add debt as it has lower leverage . It will add $4.05 billion in financing to its balance sheet to complete the acquisition.
• what does the combined company look like?
• CF claims "flexible balance sheet with ~$1.7Bn of Net Debt by the end of 2010 (Based on CF management expectation of $2,034MM of debt less $321MM of cash (excluding $134MM of auction-rate securities)"
• CF claims that there is $135 million in annual synergies ( those synergies were $100 million at the time of the initial offer) from the elimination of:
• duplicate corporate functions: it should be very little if any to be considered material and worthy of synergy.
• optimization of transportation/ distribution : need to look closer at this claim
• greater economies of scale in purchasing and procurement: but 50% of their production cost is natural gas and the commodity is not driven by volume but rather by proximity to distribution network or closeness to production hubs. However natural gas is cheap at the moment given them larger margins and NG is expected to be low priced for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless it is an advantage that can be enjoyed by the entire industry rather from economies of scale as a result of the merger.
• It is hard to see exactly where CF is going to get the extra $75 million in synergies they asset they can deliver, over and above the $60 million that Yara said it can achieve, the latter being more evident.
• distribution channels are different since Terra's customer base is industrial and CF's is agricultural

BPO Properties REIT Conversion

BPO Properties, a public subsidiary of Brookfield Properties at 89%, will convert to a Reit in April 2010. The transaction does not really change the economics of Brookfield, however its implications are more subtle. Please note that I own Brookfield Properties.

1. Brookfield Properties will follow the same game plan of Brookfield Asset Management (BAM), its parent, by creating ownership structures floating them and earning management fees from them. Not only Brookfield Properties will de-leverage its balance sheet, which it badly need, but will establish high Return on equity revenue stream.
2. BPO Reits will be sold to less than 50% by Brookfield in the future as Brookfield will not want to consolidate debt of the Reit. Also conversion to a Reit mostly will benefit retail investors rather than corporate subsidiaries, as dividend income flows between corporation tax free.

Given that I am not sure why BPO Properties shot up 10% on the announcement? There will be more supply of BPO shares in the future and higher cost structure given all the fees the Brookfield Properties will earn from them.

A Bid for Illiquidity

Back in November 2008 to January 2009 buying decisions were fairly easy. There was all kinds of opportunities to choose from. All you had to do was step up to the plate in any asset class or in any market and take a pitch. Right now buying any asset is not so easy. Credit and equities are fairly valued. I have not find anything of interest. I spoke about few ideas but nothing interesting materialized.

To find a good pitch I have to find a market where the level of professional analysis is a bit lower. So I will have to avoid the US markets. That means I have to find illiquid assets. That is fine by me. Liquidity is not worth a cent in my book. So I found the Canadian Debentures. Those are subordinated and unsecured, in some cases, debt instruments issued by companies of lower credit quality. I have sifted through dozens of these names and I have found two ideas. I tried to establish a position in both but I was unsuccessful and the price ran to the point it is no longer attractive to me, and that is why I am writing about them now.

Royal Host 2013 6.25% Debenture (RYL.DB.C)

Royal Host is a hotel owner and operator in Canada. It owns and operates economy hotels mainly in Ontario and Western Canada. I do not need to go into the hotel industry fundamentals as they are atrocious right now. It is worth noting that hotels performance is tied closely to the economy. But this is not a bet on the economy, it is a wager that I will get paid in 2013 at 100 cents on the dollar while purchasing the debenture at 68 cents on the dollar.

I have been stalking this issue for awhile but the price ran from me from $68 to $80 at the close Friday. I am no longer interested at that price but if it dips down I will try again. What makes it worthy? The issue is distressed debt in the hotel industry, where debt is selling at 68 cents on the dollar. If hotel vacancy and rent per room are stable at current level which is bottom of the cycle then debt is over collateralized at cap rate up to 11.5%, extremely low valuation even in the hotel industry. The Company have several liquidity generation abilities and should fund its obligation and debt maturities with no issues. The debenture offers the potential to generate IRR of 27%.

If you bought the issue at 68, the company will have no problem repaying you at 100 cents on the dollar even if cash flow from operations after debt service is negative, according to my analysis and valuation. The company have several options to generate funds:mortgage assets that are free and clearsell a sizable marketable securities portfoliocut its dividends
The only issue here is the company stock buybacks. The company is using its available funds and selling its portfolio to buy back its shares. It had tendered for 26% of its shares in December and going back for more in Jan 2010. Why is the company doing this while it cash flow from operation can barely service its debt. The answer is it may be setting up for going private transaction.

The company is 25% owned by Clarke Inc and its board are mostly controlled by Clarke. After the tender Clarke ownership will jump to 37% and potentially more after the additional tender offers by the company. Clarke obviously wants to take private Royal Host with little cash outlay on its part, particularly that Clarke's balance sheet is in worse condition than Royal Host. If the privatization takes place sooner than maturity the debentures will be redeemed at 101 cents on the dollar. However if the tenders keep coming it will compromise the collateralizing of the debt.

Still at high 60s or low 70s I think the issue is worth the risk. But now I will bite my time until either it comes down in price or look back and see how pretty my spreadsheets look like.

Next post I will tackle the second idea.

Pacer: Change of Mind

Pacer is in the right space; the intermodal space that is. However it might not be the right investment. There is good likelihood of business failure and permanent loss of capital. I have sold out of it earlier and took a 3% gain from my cost basis.

Why I do not think it is suitable for an investment because of several factors:

1. The company lost its wholesale business to HUB Group, as Union Pacific (UNP) renegotiated their long term contract, which gave Pacer a competitive advantage for a long time.
2. Now Pacer does not have any pricing power or unique access to the UNP network so its advantage have disappeared.
3. Pacer will try to establish it new business going to shippers rather than selling to other logistics businesses, which is unproven field for it. If management had showed better skills and better Return on Capital over the last 5 years, even with unique advantage it failed, I may have given it the benefit of the doubt. But there are no indications of superior skill.
4. Management have to win business and that will be a tall order its revenue growth over the last 7 years, the go go years of global trade, have been -5%.
5. Pacer with no trucking assets can get its margin really squeezed by truckers to complete the various legs of the intermodal trip. However most of its competitors either have their own trucking or have a larger under contract owner operator. This will decrease Pacer flexibility and attractiveness for customer needs.
6. Recent liquidity issues and reduced credit facilities can turn off customers from giving their business. Supply chain managers and shippers priority will always be reliability rather than price.
7. Pacer would not see any positive cash flow from operations for next year according to my model which will continue to raise solvency issues as it did this year.
8. CEO abruptly retired. The company felt the need to issue a press release to recently to emphasize that all was preplanned. That was very defensive move that leads to believe that there are something more o this issue.
9. A lot of insider selling. Not a good sign.
10. the new credit facilities the company negotiated limits capex at $6.5 million per year going forward. The company used to average $9.5 million per year and most of it is maintenance capex. Without investment in the business it could lead to deterioration in operations.
11. Also the credit facility is very strict and keeps Pacer on a tight leach.
12. If I assume mid cycle revenue level of $1680 and loss of $550 due to the new agreement with UP that will leave Pacer with revenue level of $1130. Further if I assume the average EBIT margin over the last 4 years that will give me an EBIT level of $19 million. However the new cost structure of Pacer due to its agreement with UP and loss of business will be higher so lets assume 1% margin, which will leave us with EBIT of $11.3 million. This translate Pacer Earning Power Value is $113 to $160. This does not factor capex, taxes or interest, so very much where the market is trading right now. Not an appealing valuation.

The shorts are having a big field day with this; it is been shorted heavily with a good reason. Management need big effort to turn around, cost cutting can do only so much.

Lear: Post bankruptcy Equity

This is a very interesting idea. Lear (LEA) has just emerged from bankruptcy that it entered early in summer of 2009. The bankruptcy was voluntary.

Lear is a supplier of car seating and some electronics to car makers. Lear has a very dominant position in the seating market. However GM and Ford makes the bulk of its sales. In fact GM makes 23% of its sales while ford makes up 19%. Management is focused on diversifying this mix. They are focusing on sales into Asian countries where sales growth did not skip a beat in the last 2 years, unlike European and North American which sales plummeted.

What is good about the company is the following:

1. Bankruptcy. Although it sounds bad but Lear has shed a lot of debt that was kept on its balance sheet after sales of some units to Wilbur Ross.
   
2. Management owns a lot of stock. In fact management owns 2.4% of shares on fully diluted basis upon exit from Ch. 11 and the CEO has a big chunk of it. I think management will do whatever it takes to increase business value.
   
3. There will be a lot of forced selling and a lot of technical overhang that could pressure the stock in the next 12 months. the selling pressure will be from:
1. CLO funds. Lear debt and loans was wildly held by CLOs. CLOs do not hold equity; their charter do not allow it.
2. Preferred stock conversion. Right now preferred are in the money and the company can force its conversion.
3. Warrants exercise also in the money.
   
4. Warrants and preferreds conversion will cause 35% dilution.
   
4. The quick exist from bankruptcy limits lawyers and advisers fees.

What is not good about the ideas:

1. The auto market has a lot of capacity still. even after all the bankruptcies not a single car maker disappeared, well only one Saturn but Saturn is made by GM so capacity is still there. We need to see some liquidation in the space.
2. Margins are very thin right now below historical norm. This may change with more sales.
3. GM and Ford make the bulk of its sales. Enough said.
   
4. Economic risks of decline as so far recovery is shaky.
5. Valuation is not cheap enough. I figure a good entry is between $48 and the high estimate of $55. If I am right about the selling overhang it will get there within a year, although it does not look like it as the stock price is on a tear lately.
   

What is wrong with this picture?

Natural gas producers have rallied and continue to do so although the underlying commodity is suffering. Natural gas producers represented by index for natural gas producers have returned some 45% on YTD basis while the underlying commodity has declined by 62% on YTD basis.

Normally that relationship have a high correlation. Natural gas producers price returns go the way of the commodity. However the relationship seem to have been broken since March of this year.

Is buying in this market indiscriminate? May be, but this is a question that can not be answered with full certainty. You can only attempt to guess as one would never have complete information to ascertain the validity of a claim.