Dinero Caliente

“Never memorize something that you can look up.”

 -Albert Einstein


I used to have something of a photographic memory.  Lately, however, a plot of my capacity for short-term recall and a YTD chart of Gold would probably be hard to distinguish. 


I’d proffer that my bout with Cognitive Deflation is only transient and simply the byproduct of late nights with infants, serial overconsumption of caffeine, and serial under-consumption of exercise.  At least that’s what I tell myself. 


Either way, I’ve come to more closely relate to the aphoristic wisdom embedded in Einstein’s quote above.


With some beach time on the August calendar, I’m holding out hope the downtime catalyzes some needed cerebral exfoliation. 


Back to the Global Macro Grind….

We have been negative on emerging market debt and equities for most of 2013 with #EmergingOutflows & #AsianContagion headlining our 2Q13 and 3Q13 Macro Investments themes calls, respectively. 


The story of emerging market pain is one birthed from emergent strength in the U.S. dollar, acceleration in U.S. growth and the associated reversal in unprecedented Fed policy driving an expedited reversal in Hot Money & Yield Chase Flows out of developing economies.   


We’ve presented the principal conclusions of our research and suggested positioning in recent presentations, but it’s probably worthwhile to take an illustrative, didactic tour of capital flows to understand how the cycling of capital into and out of emerging economies can work to propagate negative economic and market impacts in an archetypical scenario.


Capital Flows to Emerging Economies for 3 Principle Reasons:


1.   External:  “Push” flows occur for reasons external to the capital-importing economy and generally relate to relative investment attractiveness.  Perhaps the simplest way to understand it is in the context of U.S. interest rates.  If growth slows, policy turns easy and interest rates in the U.S. decline, investment yields available in emerging economies become relatively more attractive and capital flows accordingly. Historically, this has been the largest driver of rich-to-poor capital flows.  It’s also generally the most volatile.   

2.   Internal:  “Pull” flows are catalyzed by improving economic fundamentals, sound policy and/or trade & capital market liberalization initiatives.  Pull flows provide firmer bedrock for sustained inflows. 


3.   Financial Globalization:  Here we’d highlight the ongoing, global trend towards Financial & Capital market integration and the proliferation of conduit investment vehicles allowing broad institutional and retail access to developing economies.   A secular shift in portfolio allocations towards international diversification holds positive longer term opportunity for developing economies.  However, in compressed periods in which flows chase performance, it can work to amplify volatility in market prices.     


It’s the potential transience of “push” and portfolio (i.e. equity & debt) flows that are of most concern to capital-importing countries, particularly given the reality of hyper-fast capital mobility.


So, what happens when the Hot Money starts to flow?


In a generalized model, the body of empirical evidence points to a number of discrete macroeconomic impacts:


1.   Currency Appreciation:  Absent Central Bank intervention the demand for foreign currency drives the exchange rate higher.


2.   Consumption Growth:   The influx of foreign capital provides for a higher level of domestic investment.  This higher level of investment is generally accompanied by a decline in the domestic savings rate.  Consumption rises as consumerism displaces saving.  


3.   Rise in the Money Supply & Inflationary Pressure: Stemming from a rise in economic activity along with any attempts by the central bank to quell the currency appreciation.


4.   Widening of the Current Account Deficit:  Don’t worry if you don’t remember the details about what the Current Account is.  Here, it’s sufficient to understand that imports rise relative to exports generally due to an appreciating currency and rising consumption. 


It’s not difficult to understand how the confluence of the above dynamics can work to drive recurrent boom and bust cycles for emerging and formerly, capital-rationed, economies.  Consider how the interaction of the above factors, which initiates with a large influx of foreign capital, can work to drive a self-reinforcing cycle in both directions:


U.S. growth slows, Bernanke cuts to 0%, institutes financial repression and forces capital to search out yield. Capital flows into the EM economy causing increased investment, falling domestic savings and rising domestic consumption.  Incomes rise alongside accelerating growth, driving a further increase in consumption in a positive, reflexive cycle.  Further, foreign capital inflows along with diverted domestic savings provide a bid for real (i.e. housing) and speculative financial assets.  Net wealth increases alongside inflating asset values.  Faster growth, higher incomes, and rising net wealth all serve to increase capacity for credit. Credit expansion then serves to amplify the cycle.  Everything is great, until…….

U.S growth starts to inflect to the upside, #StrongDollar starts to sniff out a Fed Policy reversal, and “push” flows begin to reverse.  


When portfolio capital starts to exit, asset prices deflate and credit gets tighter, investment and consumption both decline.  The currency depreciates, driving local inflation higher at the same time that aggregate demand accelerates to the downside. If demand is local and the debt is denominated in foreign currency, the debt burden on business is amplified.  Declining demand in the face of a crashing currency and elevated inflation can leave policy makers handcuffed. 


Thus, capital flows, this time the expedited exportation of foreign capital, catalyze a reversal of the boom cycle described above with some version of a self-reinforcing, contractionary cycle playing itself out.   


Of course, country specific fundamentals, policy decisions, and monetary systems matter and understanding the prevailing risk for a particular country is more nuanced, but the generalized model described above captures the broader dynamics that tend to drive the cycle. 


Further, given the large-scale proliferation of EM related investment vehicles whereby investors indiscriminately bought ‘international diversification’ without a real understanding of the underlying exposures, it’s unlikely they will be overly discriminate in their selling.  Historical precedent suggests #StrongDollar driven outflows from emerging markets are protracted. 


In short, we don’t think #EmergingOutflows have bottomed yet. 


Hopefully the decline in my recollective ability has.


Our immediate-term Risk Ranges are now:


UST 10yr yield 2.49-2.74%
VIX 13.23-14.78

USD 82.61-83.48

Brent 106.99-109.27

Gold 1 


Enjoy the weekend.  


Christian B. Drake

Senior Analyst


Dinero Caliente - vv. EL


Dinero Caliente - vp 7 19


TODAY’S S&P 500 SET-UP – July 19, 2013

As we look at today's setup for the S&P 500, the range is 31 points or 1.15% downside to 1670 and 0.69% upside to 1701.    










  • YIELD CURVE: 2.23 from 2.23
  • VIX closed at 13.77 1 day percent change of -0.07%

MACRO DATA POINTS (Bloomberg Estimates):

  • G-20 finance ministers and central bankers meet in Moscow
  • See GMEET for more on G-20 finance ministers’ talks
  • 11am: Fed to purchase $2.75b-$3.5b in 2020-2023 sector
  • 1pm: Baker Hughes rig count


    • House in session, Senate schedule TBA
    • 9am: Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., Agriculture Sec. Tom Vilsack, Interior Sec. Sally Jewell host event to announce federal, local, private partnership to reduce risks of wildfire to Colorado’s water supply
    • 10:30am: FCC open meeting to consider status of competition in video programming industry, possible rule to update program supporting high speed broadband in schools, standards for communications for disabled people

WHAT TO WATCH         

  • Google shrs decline as shift to mobile curbs 2Q avg. ad prices
  • Microsoft 4Q profit misses by biggest margin in at least decade
  • Vivus settles proxy fight giving First Manhattan board control
  • Charter said to work with Goldman on Time Warner Cable bid
  • Detroit filed the biggest U.S. municipal bankruptcy
  • Merck to pay $23m to settle Vioxx drug-purchase lawsuits
  • SoftBank $8.5b Universal bid said rejected by Vivendi
  • Electrolux raises U.S. forecast amid improving housing market
  • Whirlpool to release results at 6am
  • Allianz joins AIG on FSB’s list of too-big-to-fail insurers
  • Toyota sudden-acceleration settlement set for final approval
  • OECD proposes plan for crackdown on companies’ tax avoidance
  • Silverstein denied right to seek $3.5b from airlines
  • Apple, U.S. Home Sales, Facebook, Ford: Week Ahead July 20-27


    • Baker Hughes (BHI) 6am, $0.65 - Preview
    • Schlumberger (SLB) 6am, $1.10 - Preview
    • SunTrust Banks (STI) 6am, $0.67
    • Whirlpool (WHR) 6am, $2.42
    • Autoliv (ALV) 6am, $1.38
    • General Electric (GE) 6:30am, $0.35 - Preview
    • Honeywell (HON) 6:30am, $1.21 - Preview
    • Laboratory of America Holdings (LH) 6:45am, $1.80
    • First Horizon National (FHN) 6:55am, $0.19
    • Interpublic Group (IPG) 7am, $0.22
    • VFC (VFC) 7am, $1.17
    • State Street (STT) 7:13am, $1.18
    • First Niagara Financial Group (FNFG) 7:15am, $0.18
    • Rockwell Collins (COL) 7:25am, $1.15
    • Manpowergroup (MAN) 7:30am, $0.89
    • Kansas City Southern (KSU) 8am, $0.95 - Preview
    • Ingersoll-Rand (IR) 8am, $1.08


  • China Seen Ramping Up Global Wheat Imports After Rain Hurts Crop
  • Gold Bulls Dominate for Longest Run in Bear Market: Commodities
  • Thailand Faces Loss on Rice Sales to Drain Record Stockpiles
  • Commodities Reach 3-Month High in Best Weekly Run Since February
  • WTI Oil Trades Near Highest in 16 Months to Narrow Brent Spread
  • Gold Extends Gain in London, Rises 0.7% to $1,293.35 an Ounce
  • Copper Erases Decline, Trades at $6,910.25 a Metric Ton on LME
  • Corn Falls for a Third Day as Rain Set to Ease U.S. Crop Stress
  • Arabica Coffee Rebounds Before Possible Frost as Cocoa Advances
  • Rebar Rises for Eighth Day as Iron Ore Rallies, Inventory Drops
  • Hedge Fund Exit May Signal Commodity Rally End: Chart of the Day
  • Global Oil Prices Vulnerable to Geopolitical Unrest: Bull Case
  • Asia’s Bitter Harvest: The Hidden Human Toll of Palm Oil’s Boom
  • Commodities Daybook: WTI Crude Sheds ‘Broken’ Benchmark Status
  • China’s First Gold Exchange-Traded Funds Miss Targets


























The Hedgeye Macro Team


















Preconstruction costs on Wynn Cotai casino resort have exceeded the initial estimates by more than 5%, Wynn Macau said.  The “additional works” were expected to bring the total costs incurred by its contractors to about HK$1.59 billion (US$204.2 million) by the end of this month.


In January, Leighton Contractors (Asia) Ltd said Wynn Macau had selected it to design and build the Cotai casino-resort and the “first component of works” would cost A$222 million (US$203.5 million at current exchange rates).



Macau former triad head Wan Kuok-koi, better-known as “Broken Tooth Koi” conceded an interview to a HK media outlet and revealed his ambition to step back into the gaming business. 


Asked what he plans to do in the future, Wan said he would talk with people to know more about what’s happening. “I don’t have much time. If I act slowly now, I will be slow. (I will join) the gaming industry, of course. There will be a new casino hall open next month. But there will not be any ceremonies, just to be low profile. I will not manage that personally.”



Travellers International Hotel Group Inc will spend US$600 million (MOP4.8 billion) to expand its Manila casino resort in the next three years, saying the postponement of its US$1-billion IPO will not delay its investment.  Travellers, a joint venture by casino operator Genting Hong Kong Ltd and Philippine conglomerate Alliance Global Group Inc, said it could borrow the money while it waited to list its shares.


The company deferred its planned listing until September or October because of market volatility.  The proceeds will fund an expansion of Resorts World Manila that should be completed by 2016.


Hedgeye Statistics

The total percentage of successful long and short trading signals since the inception of Real-Time Alerts in August of 2008.

  • LONG SIGNALS 80.43%
  • SHORT SIGNALS 78.34%

Love the Smell of Burning Yens In AM!

Takeaway: Nikkei is up a Gozilla-like +43.8% year-to-date.

Take a deep whiff. Again. You smell that? It's the smell of Burning Yens back in the air.


That's what happens when the US Dollar stabilizes on Dovish Ben not being quite dovish enough, and Team Abe and Aso ready to win an election this weekend.


Cue the Nikkei.


Love the Smell of Burning Yens In AM! - NKY


Japan is enjoying a nice +5 day run and was up another +1.3% overnight. In fact, the Nikkei is up a Gozilla-like +43.8% year-to-date. It's the best-looking (liquid) equity market in the world right now next to the USA.


Ahhhh. Nothing quite like the smell of Burning Yens.

Tying Two Rocks Together – The LINN/BRY Merger

Tie two rocks together and chuck 'em in the pond.  Now do they float?


Key Points

  • LINN and BRY have their own problems; the merger doesn’t solve them.
  • With no material synergies, the all-stock merger makes little economic sense for either company.
  • The deal is accretive for LINE unitholders on a DCF/unit basis primarily because LINN will understate maintenance capex on the BRY assets as it does its own.
  • BRY is not cheap; in fact, we think fair value is ~$18 - $24/share.  LINN is buying BRY at peak cash flows and earnings.  Low multiples are warranted.
  • BRY is a high cost producer facing margin headwinds, deteriorating capital efficiency, and slow growth, among other issues.  We consider it a “structural short.”
  • LINN is using overvalued equity to buy BRY’s overvalued equity.
  • For now, we view BRY as a sell.  If the merger falls apart, we would strongly consider a short position.
  • LINN remains a short, regardless of whether the merger happens or not. 


It’s popular opinion that LINN Energy’s (LINE, LNCO) pending merger with Berry Petroleum (BRY) is a silver bullet for LINN.  We don’t see it that way.  While consummating the transaction would repair damaged sentiment in the short-term, in particular in LINN’s growth-via-C-Corp-acquisition strategy, we believe that the BRY merger makes LINN’s fundamental problems worse, not better.  Perversely, LINN will be a better short in the long-run if it merges with BRY (especially if it has to sweeten the deal terms) than if it doesn’t.

The core of LINN’s issue is that it does not generate the free cash flow needed to fund its distribution, and production growth has stalled such that its estimated maintenance capex (that amount of capex needed to hold production/reserves flat) is understated by ~$150MM per quarter – by our estimate – which is now the main source of distributable cash flow (DCF); reported DCF was $151MM in 1Q13.  LINN also relies on irregular accounting with respect to its commodity derivatives book, and aggressive adjustments to non-GAAP measures, to generate DCF, as we have discussed previously, at length.  LINN’s economic reality is that equity and debt raises fund the distribution; and management does its best to obscure it with the non-GAAP numbers.


What is LINN acquiring in BRY?  In our view, it’s a marginal cost producer that is moving up the cost curve, with a reserve base that is dominated by high cost, low quality crude; uneconomic dry gas; and a lot of proved undeveloped reserves (45% of total).  And LINN is attempting to acquire it during an ideal commodity price environment for BRY, which should not persist long.  We believe that BRY’s cash flows and earnings are near peak levels today, and low multiples are justified.  BRY is not cheap; we believe fair value is $18 - $24/share.  


In our view, the merger makes little sense for either company.  If it were a cash deal, BRY shareholders would be wise to take it; but it is an all-stock deal, and BRY shareholders are receiving massively overvalued LNCO paper for their company.  For LINN, it’s buying a capital-intensive, high cost producer at peak earnings – it’s not surprising that BRY could not find another buyer when shopping itself in 2011 and 2012.


A Closer Look at Berry Petroleum

Berry Petroleum (BRY) is an onshore US E&P that has produced oil in southern California for over 100 years.  Steam floods in those southern California heavy oil fields remain the Company’s core competency today (46% of BRY’s proved reserves are in CA, and those assets will get 50% of the 2013 capital budget).  Over the last 10 years BRY has diversified its oil and gas portfolio, entering the Uinta Basin in 2003, Piceance Basin in 2006, East Texas (Haynesville/Bossier) in 2008, and Permian (Wolfberry) in 2010; those plays make up the current asset base.  (The timing of those natural gas acquisitions was unfortunate – BRY paid $19,000/Mcf/d for East Texas in June 2008; recent dry gas acquisition multiples are ~$5,000/Mcf/d.)  BRY’s current production is ~40,000 boe/d, ~78% liquids.  YE12 proved reserves are 275 MMboe, 74% liquids and 55% developed.          


BRY’s production growth has slowed in recent years.  The Company’s dry gas production from its Piceance and East Texas plays is in natural decline, as BRY has deferred all drilling activities in those plays; total gas production will decline 10-13% year-over-year in 2013.  BRY’s medium-term goal is to offset that decline with 10-15% oil production growth for ~5-10% total production and reserve growth, per annum.


Predictably, both operating and capital costs have jumped as BRY has ramped activity in these high cost, legacy oil plays, putting BRY in the position of a marginal cost producer.  In 2010, BRY’s production costs (operating costs + production taxes + G&A + interest expense) totaled $30.24/boe; that same figure was $40.80/boe in 1Q13.  On the capital cost side, BRY’s F&D Cost (including our estimated, organic change in future development costs, but excluding all revisions – BRY does not break out price, performance, and timing revisions) was $40.03/boe in 2012, up from $16.83/boe in 2010.


Tying Two Rocks Together – The LINN/BRY Merger - b1 


The rapid deterioration in BRY’s capital efficiency is alarming.  While BRY does not explicitly break out price-related revisions from performance and timing-related revisions, additional disclosures in the reserve reports suggests that the majority of total revisions over the last three years, -54 MMboe, have been negative timing and performance revisions, not price.  Even when excluding all revisions, the FD&A, F&D, and PUD Conversion costs have increased markedly over the last three years (highlighted in yellow):


Tying Two Rocks Together – The LINN/BRY Merger - b2


BRY’s full-cycle costs are now over $70/boe, and the Company is struggling to make a full-cycle profit despite an ideal commodity environment – high oil prices, strong California heavy crude differentials, and low natural gas prices.


BRY’s heavy oil operations in California rely on natural gas-fired generators to produce steam that is injected into the reservoir to make the viscous oil flow.  BRY’s heavy oil fields have steam-to-oil ratios (SORs) between 5.0 and 10.0 (i.e. it takes 5 - 10 barrels of steam to produce 1 barrel of oil; the lower the SOR, the better).  For a project with an SOR of 6.0, the steam cost per barrel of oil produced at $5.00/MMBtu natural gas is ~$10.00/bbl.  Every $0.50/MMBtu change in the price of gas will have a ~$1.00/bbl impact on BRY’s variable heavy oil operating cost. 


Tying Two Rocks Together – The LINN/BRY Merger - b3


In 2010, BRY was a net producer of natural gas, and thus benefitted from rising natural gas prices.  But as its gas production has declined and heavy oil production has increased, BRY’s become a net consumer of natural gas.  In 2013, BRY estimates that it will produce 47.1 MMBtu/d and consume 73.2 MMBtu/d, putting it net short ~26.1 MMBtu/d (before hedging).  Going forward, rising natural prices hurt BRY.


Commodity prices over the last two years have been perfect for BRY, with natural gas in the $3 - $4/MMBtu range and California heavy crudes trading at a steep premium to WTI (vs. the normal 10-20% discount) and above $100/bbl.  We think that this goldilocks price environment is unlikely to persist.  The WTI curve is sharply backwardated with the 2018 swap trading below $80/bbl, while the Henry Hub curve is in contango with the 2018 swap trading near $5.00/MMBtu.  Further, we expect that California heavy crudes will revert back to their normal 10% - 20% discount to WTI as the glut of crude in the mid-continent eases over time.  BRY’s California oil production, 63% of total liquids production in 1Q13, is 13 - 15 API degree heavy crude oil – a low quality product – and it has only been trading at a premium to WTI in recent years due to insufficient oil transportation infrastructure, a situation we believe to be transitory.  In fact, California differentials have come in sharply in 2013 alongside the WTI-Brent spread.  California heavy is now trading at a discount to WTI for the first time in over two years.  We see margin compression in BRY’s future. 


Tying Two Rocks Together – The LINN/BRY Merger - b4


Tying Two Rocks Together – The LINN/BRY Merger - b5


By our estimates, BRY produced ~4,000 bbl/d of black wax crude oil out of Utah’s Uinta Basin in 1Q13, 13% of total liquids production.  There is a niche market for black wax crude in Salt Lake City, and it historically trades at a 15 – 20% discount to WTI.  Black wax crude must be trucked or railed in specialized tankers; if the crude does not reach the refinery gate in 4 – 8 hours, it hardens and must be reheated.  In 1Q13, BRY’s black wax crude was priced at a $15.65/bbl (17%) discount to WTI. 


Since 2007, BRY has sold all of its Utah crude to HollyFrontier’s Woods Cross refinery in Salt Lake City under a contract for 5,000 bbl/d at a set discount to WTI.  That contract was set to expire on June 30, 2013, and our read of the 10-K suggests that it was unlikely to get renewed.  The 2012 10-K reads,


“Our contract with Holly for the sale of 5,000 Bbl/d continues through June 30, 2013.  Before a sales contract in a given area expires, we generally allow potential purchasers to bid for a contract to purchase our oil in the area, and select the contract most beneficial to our business. However, new contracts may not be obtained on a timely basis or on terms beneficial to our business. Based on the current demand for oil and natural gas and the availability of other purchasers, we believe that, with the exception of our primary customer in Utah, the loss of any one of our major purchasers would not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and operating cash flows.” 


We are surprised that there was not an update on the status of this contract in the BRY/LINN merger proxy.  The market for black wax crude is over-supplied, and Newfield (NFX) is the dominant player in the Uinta and has contracted out the future capacity increases from HollyFrontier and Tesoro.  In 1Q13, BRY began shipping some crude via rail to markets outside of Utah.  It’s uncertain what the differential will be on those volumes.  If BRY’s contract with Holly was not renewed, it may have difficulty marketing this oil production, leading to wider differentials and production curtailments going forward. 


NGL production in 1Q13 was ~2,600 bbl/d, 8% of total liquids production

We estimate that only 16% of BRY’s total liquids production is light, sweet crude oil (Permian Basin); the other 84% is California heavy, Utah black wax, and NGLs.  BRY’s historical company-wide liquids differential is ~-12% of WTI.  But the premium pricing in California swung the differential to break-even in 2011 and 2012; we do not forecast that to persist, especially with CA heavy driving the production growth going forward, uncertainty with respect to marketing its Utah production, and weak NGL prices.   


Tying Two Rocks Together – The LINN/BRY Merger - b6


Berry’s key asset and forward driver of production growth is the Diatomite heavy oil play in southern California.  CEO Robert Heinemann said in 2012 that, “It’s going to be the foundational asset of the Company.”  The Diatomite will get 32% of the 2013 capital budget.  Production from the field is currently ~4,100 bbl/d and BRY’s goal is to ramp production to a peak level of 15,000 bbl/d by 2017.  The play is cost intensive – particularly on the operating, labor, and maintenance side.  Wells are shallow, drilled to ~800 feet, and generally cost only ~$150k - $400k to complete.  The wells come on and produce at 18 – 20 bbls/d flat for about ten years.  When they are taken off of steam flood, they quickly decline to 0.  Most of the capital is spent on processing facilities, steam-generating equipment, pipelines, and maintenance.  With wells coming on around 19 bbls/d, it takes a lot of activity to move the needle, and a lot of maintenance spending to maintain the asset.  BRY plans to bring on ~120 new wells per year.  Here is what CEO Robert Heinemann had to say about the play on the 1Q12 call:


“Every Diatomite developer usually plans to have about 15% - 20% well failures over the life of the field.  And while that is alarming to some people, when you look at the percentage of the expense in the field, if you look capital to expense, expense is about three times the capital in the field. And if you look at replacement drilling in total capital, it's a very small percentage because most of the spend is on facilities, pipelines and equipment.”

What’s strange is that Heinemann is touting the low capital costs of the Diatomite, but as BRY increased its focus and capital on this play in 2011 and 2012, its F&D costs skyrocketed.  It doesn’t quite add up. 


The Diatomite has been under regulatory scrutiny in recent years.  From the 2012 10-K (our emphasis):


“Recent regulatory changes in California have and may continue to materially and adversely impact our production and operating costs related to our Diatomite assets. Recent regulatory changes in California have impacted our Diatomite production. In 2010, Diatomite production decreased significantly due to the inability to drill new wells pending the receipt of permits from DOGGR [California’s Division of Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resources]. We received a new full-field development approval in late July 2011 from DOGGR, which contained stringent operating requirements. Revisions to the July 11 project approval letter were received in February 2012. Implementation of these new operating requirements negatively impacted the pace of drilling and steam injection and increased our operating costs for our Diatomite assets. The requirements continued to affect our operations through 2012, and we may not be successful in streamlining the review process with DOGGR or in taking additional steps to more efficiently manage our operations to avoid additional delays. In addition, DOGGR may impose additional operational restrictions or requirements. In such case, we may experience additional delays in production and increased operating costs related to our Diatomite assets, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and operating cash flows” (page 20).


It’s concerning that this play – with its 19 bbl/d wells, high costs, and regulatory difficulties is BRY’s “foundational asset.”  And there isn’t all that much running room, even if it were a high RoR asset.  BRY believes that there is 83 – 144 MMbbls of recoverable oil in the field.  55 MMbbls of proved reserves were booked to the Diatomite in the YE12 reserve report; using the midpoint of the recoverable oil range, 114 MMbbls, that leaves only ~59 MMbbls of non-proved, recoverable oil.


The YE12 PV-10 of BRY’s 125 MMboe of proved undeveloped reserves was $1.3B, or ~$10/boe.  Taking into account the impacts of future income taxes, price adjustments for strip pricing and heavy oil differentials, cost inflation, G&A expense, risk associated with non-proved resource, and time value of money, we value BRY’s 59 MMbbls of non-proved resource at $2.00/bbl, or ~$118MM.        


This brings us to valuing the BRY enterprise.  The YE12 standardized measure is $3.8B; after adjustments for balance sheet items ($1.8B of long-term debt is the big one), we get to a proved NAV of $38.50/share, about where BRY is trading today.  However, we believe that this standardized measure significantly overstates the value of BRY’s proved reservesOur reasoning:

  1. Recall that BRY is long low-quality crude oil and short natural gas.  The YE12 standardized measure holds $96.13/bbl (a $1.42/bbl premium! to the benchmark WTI price) flat over the life of the oil reserves, $39.53/bbl flat over the life of the NGLs, and $2.88/Mcf over the life of the gas reserves.  Essentially BRY is getting credit for an ideal commodity price environment in perpetuity, when futures curve are heading in the wrong direction.  We feel that these price decks significantly overstate future revenues and understate future steam costs, relative to the current futures curves and normalized crude differentials.
  2. The standardized measure is not burdened with G&A expenses (true of all standardized measures).  BRY’s G&A expenses were $6.24/boe in 1Q13.
  3. The standardized measure relies on historic operating costs, without escalation, that are too low.  Future operating expense per the reserve report is only $18.10/boe, while operating costs in 2012 were $20.43/boe and jumped to $24.13/boe in 1Q13.  We expect operating costs to continue to trend higher as gas production declines, heavy oil production grows, and natural gas prices increase.

Our model assumes strip commodity prices, a long-term liquids differential of -8% of WTI starting in 2016, higher and rising operating costs, and G&A consistent with the 1Q13 rate.  We calculate the after-tax net present value of BRY’s proved reserves to be $2.4B (~$1.4B below the YE12 standardized measure); after balance sheet adjustments, our proved NAV is $13.00/share.


Tying Two Rocks Together – The LINN/BRY Merger - b7


With BRY is trading at 3X our proved NAV, the question is whether or not there is ~$1.5B of non-proved value in this company to justify a share price near $40.00.


We struggle to see it, and, generally, we are not keen on giving E&Ps value for non-proved resource unless it is clearly warranted.  Maybe there’s $100MM - $150MM of value for additional recoverable resource in the Diatomite, as previously discussed.  In terms of acreage, BRY has 60k net acres in the Permian, primarily prospective for the vertical Wolfberry.  There’s little scale to the acreage, as it’s piecemeal in several counties.  Like many Permian producers, BRY has had infrastructure issues hampering production growth, and as a result, it’s taking its rig count down to 3 in 2013 from 6 in 4Q12.  We don’t see material undeveloped value for BRY in the Permian beyond what is already captured in the reserve report, which are 42 MMboe of PUD reserves.  In the Uinta Basin, BRY has 165k net acres and “approximately 80 MMboe of risked resource” (per BRY presentation) from multiple reservoir targets.  $2.00/boe for risked resource yields $160MM of NPV.  Looking across BRY’s oil and gas portfolio, we believe that ~$500MM ($9/share) of unproved NAV is generous.         

With our proved NAV of $13.00, and $9.00 of additional NAV for non-proved resource, we believe that fair value for BRY is ~$18 - $24/share.

Where’s the Accretion?

LINN states in its 2/21/13 press release that, “The [Berry] transaction is expected to be highly accretive to distributable cash flow per unit. In the first full year following closing, accretion is expected to be in excess of $0.40 per unit.”

With the annual distribution currently sitting at $2.90/unit, the deal is ~14% accretive to DCF in year one.  But where is this accretion coming from?


On the 2/21/13 conference call that announced the merger, LINN management stated pretty plainly that there were no meaningful operational or financing synergies, at least in the near-term:


Analyst: “First, congratulations on the acquisition. Just wondering if you see any cost synergies from the deal.  And if so, whether that's included in guidance?”

LINN CEO Mark E. Ellis: “Yeah, we really look at this transaction as being focused on creating growth and distributable cash flow is the primary focus here. So I mean that's what's really driving us in the transaction, the adding of the assets together and the focus there. As far as synergies, obviously, there'll be some over time, but that's not our key focus.”

Analyst: “What the appetite is to [refinance] some of [the bonds] Berry has out?”

LINN CFO Kolja Rockov: “Right.  No – look, it's a huge opportunity for us in the long-term.  In the short-term, we don't feel compelled to do anything quickly.”

In our view, the only meaningful source of accretion for LINE holders is via dropping BRY’s assets – currently taxed at the C-Corp level – into the tax-advantaged MLP structure.  According to the deal proxy, this is accretive to the pro forma standardized measure by $1.8B, or $6.00/pro forma LINE unit.  This would matter if LINN’s share price was anywhere near its stand-alone net asset value – which we calculate to be ~$8/unit using the standardized measure as our base.


But BRY, like most C-Corp E&Ps, does not currently pay a large amount of cash taxes.  In 2012, it paid $5.2MM of current income taxes, $5.0MM of which were state income taxes; in 1Q13, it paid only $1MM of cash taxes (no federal vs. state break out).  There is no material near-term tax accretion, with respect to DCF/unit.  


So – no near-term operational, financing, or near-term tax synergies…   


And BRY does not generate free cash flow.  In 2012, discretionary cash flow (which we define as CFFO before changes in working capital) was $480MM, while organic capital expenditures (which we define as all cash flows from investing activities excluding A&D) were $693MM, for negative free cash flow (“funding gap”) of -$213MM.  In 1Q13, the funding gap was -$43MM, or -$172MM annualized.  We estimate that BRY will generate ~$550MM of discretionary cash flow in 2013; the 2013 capex budget as of BRY’s February guidance is $500MM - $600MM, though LINN’s implied 2H13 production guidance for BRY implies that the Company will spend more than that; and the 1Q13 capex spend annualized is $706MM.  BRY’s capex budget is typically front-end loaded, though it is in on pace to mimic the 2012 capex budget.  BRY’s reiterated its 2012 capex guidance of $600 – 650MM back in April 2012 after 1Q12 capex came in at $173MM.  Actual 2012 capex came in ahead of budget at $693MM, and BRY spent more in 1Q13 than it did in 1Q12.  We believe that $650MM is a fair estimate for FY13 capex, which puts BRY at a FCF deficit of ~$100MM for the year.    


Tying Two Rocks Together – The LINN/BRY Merger - b8 


LINE is issuing 70MM new shares, increasing the total unit count by 30%, to tack on ~$100MM of annual negative free cash flow.  On a FCF/unit basis, the deal is massively dilutive.  How does LINN make it DCF/unit accretive?


In our view, the main source of the DCF/unit accretion that LINN cites is via understated maintenance capex on the BRY assets.


LINN’s management stated on the 2/21/13 conference call that,


“Maintenance [capex on the BRY assets] is around – I think we've got in there for a stub year about $120 million.  The full year is about $240 million.  And we utilize the same concepts were created for accessing maintenance on their assets like we do on our own, from a standpoint of replenishment of the reserve base and based on the quality of their asset – their investment opportunities” (LINN CEO Mark E. Ellis).


In our view, LINN’s claim that BRY can keep production and reserves flat on $240MM of annual capex is unjustifiable. BRY’s production growth is slowing to low-single digits on an annual basis.  In 1Q13, production was 39,676 boe/d, up 0.4% QoQ; LINN’s 2013 guidance implies that production from the BRY assets in 2H13 will average 40,368 boe/d, up only 1.7% over the 1Q13 rate.  And BRY is spending over $600MM in total capex to deliver that growth. 


As we have already discussed, BRY’s capital efficiency has deteriorated significantly over the last three years.  LINN’s pro forma guidance implies that in 2H13, stand-alone BRY maintenance capex will be $16.29/boe; compare that to the 2H13 DD&A guidance of $25.65/boe, BRY’s 3Y average F&D cost of $26.11, and BRY’s 2012 F&D cost of $40.03/boe. 


BRY stand-alone can barely grow total production on +$600MM of annual capex.  But after LINN acquires BRY, it can keep production flat on $240MM of annual capex, with no material synergies.  We don't see how that's possible.


The main source of DCF/unit accretion is financial engineering; it is why we believe that this deal – which is highly dilutive on a FCF/unit basis – actually makes LINN’s fundamental problems worse in the long-run.

Stock Thoughts

We do not have a strong view on what ends up happening with the LINN/BRY merger.  We don't think that it closes on the current terms – all-stock, 1.25x exchange ratio – but if LINN sweetens the terms, it could very well happen.  Much depends on the outcome of the SEC’s informal inquiry and the prices of LINE/LNCO, which we have no edge on.


If the LINN/BRY merger closes, there will undoubtedly be a short-term relief rally in LINE/LNCO, and it will be painful to experience knowing that nothing has changed.


If the LINN/BRY merger falls apart, we expect LINE/LNCO shares to fall, and we would strongly consider shorting BRY on that news.



Kevin Kaiser

Senior Analyst

Vapor Corp and E-cigs: Puts and Takes

We assess the electronic cigarette (e-cig) company Vapor Corp., a common stock listed on the OTC Bulletin Board under VPCO.


We caution that VPCO is a potentially volatile stock, thinly traded, however over time we believe in the growth of the e-cig category, including the opportunity for smaller players (non Big Tobacco) to compete in the space, and VPCO is the sole pure e-cig play that is publically traded. 



On the Industry

We believe e-cigs may be the first truly new consumer product in the markets in many years. They offer a compelling alternative to traditional cigarettes and offer a consumer a much different experience than a nicotine patch or gum. The involvement of Big Tobacco (RAI, LO, MO) in the category should continue to lend credibility to e-cigs and accelerate growth; we expect e-cigs to be margin-enhancing to the combined cigarette category for Big Tobacco and 2014 to be a breakout year for them, having tested the waters (through acquisition and mix) through 2013.


U.S. e-cigs sales were projected at $150MM in 2011, $500MM in 2012 ($300MM across retail channels and $200MM over the internet), and are estimated to be around $1-2B in 2013. We think there is a huge runway for converters in the $90B annual tobacco industry: in America alone, nearly one in five American adults smoke. Finally, we expect e-cigs consumption will continue to benefit from its significant price point advantage over traditional cigarettes (~ 4-5x cheaper after the cost of the start-up kit) which will help to grow repeat purchase behavior. 


That said we want to emphasize that e-cigs remain a miniscule portion of the portfolio for Big Tobacco, around 1%, whereas VPCO is a 100% e-cig company. There exists no basis for comparing the growth trajectory of a small e-cig company given its uniqueness as the sole publicly traded e-cig company and given the newness of e-cigs to the market.    



About the VPCO Business

The company was originally incorporated as Miller Diversified Corp in 1987 and operated in the commercial cattle feeding business until October 31, 2003 when it sold all of its assets and became a discontinued corporation. On November 2009, it acquired Smoke Anywhere USA, Inc., a distributor of e-cigs, in a reverse triangular merger, and e-cigs became its sole operating business. On January 7, 2010 the company changed its name to Vapor Corp. and VPCO commenced trading on the OTC Bulletin Board on May 11, 2010.


The company currently has a market cap of $60.8MM, with 60.2MM shares outstanding, and a float of 29.5MM shares.  It is not institutionally owned, has an average trading volume of 580K shares over the last 30 days, and short interest as a percentage of the float of 0.1%. The company offers no cash dividends.


The thirteen former stockholders of the subsidiary Smoke Anywhere USA, Inc., own in excess of 50% of the outstanding common stock. The largest shareholders are all Executive Officers and/or Directors of VPCO: Doron Ziv (11.53%), Jeffrey Holman (9.14%), Tamar Galazan (8.89%), Adam Frija (7.41%), Kevin Frija, President and CEO (7.15%), Isaac Galazan (6.86%).  Highly concentrated insider ownership can cut both ways: the insiders have strong motivation to make the company succeed, but they may also have strong motivation to get out of their stock.      


VPCO had sales of $0.51MM in 2008, $7.96MM in 2009, $10.91MM in 2010, $15.98MM in 2011, and $21.35MM in 2012. Its current distribution of sales is 75-80% through wholesalers (in a combined 60K doors) and 20% via its web and TV infomercial businesses. [It also has a private label distribution in Canada and unique agreement with an Indian tribe]. Its business is primarily focused in the U.S. and currently it has no international involvement or interests.


Vapor Corp and E-cigs: Puts and Takes - vv.income stat



VPCO’s E-cigs

With about four year in the business, Vapor Corp is a 100% electronic cigarette (e-cig) company with 10 different brands, including Krave, Fifty-One, Green Puffer, Americig, Vapor-X, EZ Smoker, Alternacig, Fumare, Hookah Stix, and Smoke Star.  


Its best-selling brand, Krave, is available across all retail channels and ranks as approximately the 8th top e-cig brand with around 1.2% of the dollar share or ~$4.3MM of sales (according to Nielsen data as of the 52 weeks ended 3/16/13).  For reference, the NJOY brand (Privately held) remains the e-cig market leader with a 26.3% dollar share on $96.7MM of sales, ahead of the #2 player BLU (Lorillard:LO) with 24.8% share, and the #3 player Mistic (Private: Ballantyne Brands) with 17.8% share.


Its target consumer is anyone that smokes, with a sales split of disposable versus rechargeable e-cigs slightly favoring disposable. Its disposable unit has 250-500 puffs with a MSRP of $7-12/unit. Its rechargeable unit has a starter kit (battery, filter, and USB charger) that retails for $19.99 and replacement cartridges with a MSRP of ~ $2-3, per unit, with discount as the pack size increases (sold in increments of 5).


VPCO has a wide range of brands and styles of e-cigs, with different strengths and flavors.  Strengths of nicotine range from 0-2.4%. VPCO has e-cigs that have 0% nicotine, including Hookah Stix that target a flavor experience. Other products have a scale of nicotine strength: low (1.4%), medium (1.8%), and high (2.4%). Flavors range from passion fruit to coffee to bubble gum, beyond traditional and menthol flavors.


The company currently sells slightly more disposable e-cigs, which are less profitable than rechargables (no specific margins were disclosed in a discussion with management) and its retail distribution is primarily to major retailers, which as a retail segment also diminishes its margins.  [Note: Ballantyne Brands, maker of the e-cig Mistic, said that its gross margin for disposables is in the 40’s (%) and that rechargeable e-cigs are north of that figure, considering the consumer already purchased the battery in a starter kit].


Currently, the company cannot sell its products in the states of Maine or Oregon.



The Need For Cash


We believe the company is likely to have an ongoing need to raise fresh capital until its profitability improves, given its size and ambition to earn profitable growth while expanding its distribution.  A capital injection would allow it to better fund larger volume buys from its suppliers to command a volume discount and to fund increased marketing support and distribution. As the e-cig business continues to become increasingly competitive, a key risk is the inability of a smaller player like VPCO to take price, leaving few levers (beyond volume discount buying) for VPCO to pull on its input cost line. COGs rose dramatically in FY 2012: VPCO’s gross margins went from 57.9% in 2011 down to 38.1% in 2012 as sales increased to $21.4MM from $15.9MM in 2011, or a 33.6% gain year-over-year.  

Any small growth company must spend to grow, yet given the 2012 operating and income losses, the competitiveness of pricing in the e-cig market, and increased labor costs in China, an investment would allow VPCO to grow its marketing spend (which declined to 16.7% of sales in 2012 vs 24.8% in 2011), increase its distribution across retail, and allow it to better manage its COGSs.  


For reference we've included the balance sheet and cash flow statements at the end of this note. VPCO has total liabilities of $4.9MM as of December 2012, including long-term debt in the form of a senior notes: the company borrowed $500k on July 9, 2012 from Ralph Frija, father of CEO Kevin Frija and a less than 5% stockholder of the company, with an interest of 24% that matures on January 8, 2014. Then on 6/9/13 Ralph Frija, Jeffrey Holman, and Ms. Vaccaro in aggregate purchased the company’s existing Senior convertible notes worth $350K. These transactions suggest that the company is already tapping channels for capital; we believe the company will likely continue to seek capital to fund its operations. 



Other VPCO Risks


Other risks for VPCO (and shared for most players in the industry) include general safety concerns of its product, inability to enforce quality control of its Chinese manufacturers, supply chain disruptions given its dependence on third party suppliers, and any impacts of a pending ruling from the FDA on e-cigs. As we’ve stated before, we believe the FDA will maintain that taxes be concerned at the state, not federal, level. Potentially damaging could be any restrictions from the FDA on online sales for VPCO as well as and any additional restrictions on advertising, marketing, package design, and/or where e-cigs may be smoked.


We believe the patent infringement charges brought against VPCO by Ruyan (a Chinese e-cig manufacturer that VPCO does not purchase from) are largely rear view. It settled the first claim brought against it for $12K (on 3/1/13) and management believes the court’s current “stay” on the second charge  (originally filed on 6/22/12) should be overturned, or result in a diminimus fine. 

We’ll be monitoring this company and may opportunistically add it to our real-time portfolio positions. We do not currently have a position in VPCO, but it factors bullish across our immediate and intermediate term TRADE and TREND durations (see the chart directly below).


We’ll be revisiting this name and electronic cigarettes as we increase our coverage of the tobacco industry. 


Matthew Hedrick

Senior Analyst


Vapor Corp and E-cigs: Puts and Takes - vvv. vpco


Vapor Corp and E-cigs: Puts and Takes - vv. bs


Vapor Corp and E-cigs: Puts and Takes - v. cash