Author Topic: FELP - Foresight Energy  (Read 269867 times)

Green King

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
Re: FELP - Foresight Energy
« Reply #1050 on: May 08, 2019, 07:51:34 PM »
Picasso-any thoughts here?? Is this a donut?

I think Foresight's GP always had a couple options with the business post restructuring. One was to be shareholder friendly, pay out distributions, and at some point take its share of the earnings of the business. The other was the nuclear option to wear down the common unit holders and essentially pressure the stock price enough to be able to either call in or acquire the minority holders, including Cline, at a price affordable to the GP. I could be wrong here but I think the company flipped from being shareholder friendly (perhaps because it appeared to be a viable path as recently as last year) to hitting the nuclear option.

I thought the distributions being paid since 2017 was evidence that they were planning to earn their way out of the arrears. And they did increase the distribution last quarter. Murray had put in equity at $6/unit, they started doing normal conference calls, and so on. Now all of a sudden in the span of a few months they feel that much less confident to pay out any distributions while still making growth investments in Deer Run and this land acquisition at Sugar Camp. In fact the tone on Foresight's call and press release couldn't be any more different than that of Alliance's, Consol's, Hallador's, etc. Either they suddenly because poor operators overnight or they decided they wanted to use this weakness as the start of pressuring the minority shareholders out. The flooded river conditions are temporary and the reduction in those volumes appear to have driven all of the reduction in EBITDA guidance and the Q1 results. It appears that they couldn't deliver on higher priced export tons and that drove most of the shortfall. That's probably something you should emphasize on the press release if you don't want to freak people out, especially when you're about to bring on 5-8Mt of new production. If they can't find a home for those 1-2Mt, won't it be difficult to find a home for the Deer Run production? And why buy more land for nearly $10 million around Sugar Camp.

Now I think the counter argument is that Foresight was heavily reliant on exports, has more leverage and less wiggle room than its peers. But their guidance and leverage is not only in line or better than last years but they're nowhere near tripping any covenants and it only takes around $20 million to cover these distribution payments. Taking that $20 million and paying down debt only goes so far for the GP because on the other side the arrears go up by $25 million/quarter. I think knowing that suspending the dividend only worsens the arrears situation, they would only do so if they planned to buy out the minority holders. If they know they have $480 million of arrears to deal with in a couple years, wouldn't it be nice to buy it all out for $160 million if the common unit holders took $2/unit?

It also might be that their outlook for thermal coal is so dire that they want to use available cash to repurchase debt to be able to keep Foresight on a path to continue making management payments to Murray Energy. But then that doesn't fit in with them making these growth investments back into Deer Run and Sugar Camp.

I'm thinking the same tactics they used for the NRP negotiation are probably being used here. If you recall, last year they put out a release saying they were writing down the value of Hillsboro because the coal couldn't be mined and so on. Everyone said well there goes that call option, then all of a sudden they settle with NRP and end up with a new agreement with less than half the original cost. And a month later they start putting out job postings and say they are going to bring out 5-9Mt of production. I don't think NRP is going to complain if they bring in that production but can you imagine what kind of face Foresight put on during negotiations about the fire, and how they can't mine it because of regulators, and then suddenly the fire is out and things are fine they just need some equipment. I bet they're doing the same thing with the insurance litigation. It's working so well for them there I guess they might want to try it on the common unit holders.

Anyway, guidance is basically the same as past years not because of price but because of volumes reductions due to conditions on the river and ports. And we still have pending insurance recoveries of up to $60 million. That's not something to take the stock back to 2016 levels when the company had even less EBITDA than now, worse coal prices, and $1.4 billion of debt accelerated to them. What I think could justify the stock here is the way the company has decided to treat the situation and remain vague on a variety of material parts of the business. But should it be at 1-2x excess cash flow because of that, 4x EBITDA? Maybe, I don't know.

There are some other questionable things here such as the new few years for coal markets. Inventories are tight in the U.S. but the international picture looks pretty well supplied if not oversupplied. I think there has to be some extra reliance on domestic markets given that and maybe demand for that falls faster than expected. There's a lot that could impact that, like I see EIA forecasts of reduced coal demand in 2019 are based on weather forecasts for a mild summer and winter. That could change things quickly just like the export picture changed in a few months.

One other thing that stood out to me, among many, is that Foresight appears unwilling to use their low cost structure to set the market price. Moore mentioned on the call not wanting to bring on tons that would pressure coal prices. I don't see why they wouldn't do that if the net result was positive? It would drive out higher cost producers and certainly benefit them on getting rid of these arrears. But then I realized that it wouldn't be good for Murray Energy to have Foresight put those extra tons onto the market because it would directly impact their sales as well. So maybe in addition to the management fees they earn from Foresight they also get the benefit of keeping the lower cost tons rationalized. My guess is if they owned all of it they would be more aggressive putting tons into the market at lower prices. Which again makes this share structure Foresight currently sits in very unwieldy.

I don't think this is a donut but I've been wrong on this the past year or two. In theory if they focus all excess cash flow on debt repayment with a Deer Run longwall coming back, some insurance recoveries and they can make some meaningful debt reduction then I could see the 2L's creep back up to par. Notice on the call they wouldn't say how much 2L they wanted to buyback in the market or were allowed to. Those holders are in the same boat we are, Foresight has no interest in talking up the price on those bonds at this point until they have to deal with a refi. By being vague and making things out to be bad they can buy more of that debt which can probably help in their efforts to roll up the minority holders when it makes sense to do so. They can't just come out next week and say "hey guys, we'll buy everyone out for $1/unit after tanking the price." But if the 2L debt has a cost of capital of 11% again instead of 20%, I don't think the equity will still have a 50-70% cost of capital. They could very well miss their window to squeeze out the minority holders if the debt reduction goes too well. My best guess here is they do this debt repayment for a bit then attempt the squeeze out.

By all accounts the units are in a weird limbo between coal markets that are on balance weak, a potential squeeze out between Murray and Cline/minority holders, a focus on debt repayment, and so on. That's a lot of uncertainty to deal with.

This explains why I feel the fear this morning. The probability of being squeezed just increase.
GK


heth247

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 558
Re: FELP - Foresight Energy
« Reply #1051 on: May 08, 2019, 09:26:40 PM »
Hi, Picasso,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. While I think a lot of your comments make sense, there is one that I have trouble to see it happening -- even assume that Murray manage to find funding to finance a buyout, why would Cline agree to be squeezed out at a $2~$3 price?  He has already made a killing on more than half of his FELP stake, so I think he should be the one that can afford to wait it out longer than anybody else (even than us, not to mention Murray). Why would he be in a rush to cash out the remaining 30M shares at such a low price...unless he thinks the equity has little chance to survive.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2019, 09:59:46 PM by heth247 »

roark33

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
Re: FELP - Foresight Energy
« Reply #1052 on: May 08, 2019, 09:41:23 PM »
The idea of a take-under argument for the decline in the stock price sounds very "bag-holder"-esque...just saying.

Picasso

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2025
Re: FELP - Foresight Energy
« Reply #1053 on: May 08, 2019, 10:13:20 PM »
The idea of a take-under argument for the decline in the stock price sounds very "bag-holder"-esque...just saying.

Tell me more about how debt repayment means no value for equity holders.

Green King

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
Re: FELP - Foresight Energy
« Reply #1054 on: May 08, 2019, 11:55:40 PM »
The idea of a take-under argument for the decline in the stock price sounds very "bag-holder"-esque...just saying.

Tell me more about how debt repayment means no value for equity holders.

I thought he was just trolling.
GK

wachtwoord

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1347
Re: FELP - Foresight Energy
« Reply #1055 on: May 09, 2019, 02:50:46 AM »
Hi, Picasso,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. While I think a lot of your comments make sense, there is one that I have trouble to see it happening -- even assume that Murray manage to find funding to finance a buyout, why would Cline agree to be squeezed out at a $2~$3 price?  He has already made a killing on more than half of his FELP stake, so I think he should be the one that can afford to wait it out longer than anybody else (even than us, not to mention Murray). Why would he be in a rush to cash out the remaining 30M shares at such a low price...unless he thinks the equity has little chance to survive.

Can Murray make a deal with Cline to fuck everyone else over together?
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"

heth247

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 558
Re: FELP - Foresight Energy
« Reply #1056 on: May 09, 2019, 08:50:00 AM »
Hi, Picasso,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. While I think a lot of your comments make sense, there is one that I have trouble to see it happening -- even assume that Murray manage to find funding to finance a buyout, why would Cline agree to be squeezed out at a $2~$3 price?  He has already made a killing on more than half of his FELP stake, so I think he should be the one that can afford to wait it out longer than anybody else (even than us, not to mention Murray). Why would he be in a rush to cash out the remaining 30M shares at such a low price...unless he thinks the equity has little chance to survive.

Can Murray make a deal with Cline to fuck everyone else over together?

Frankly, I don't think squeezing out minority holders is Murray + Cline's No. 1 priority at this moment. I worry more about thermal coal demand, price, export market, and the debt load than on being taken under.

Patmo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: FELP - Foresight Energy
« Reply #1057 on: May 09, 2019, 10:07:51 AM »
I've come to the conclusion that it is massively +EV to indiscriminately sell memey value stocks when a catalyst plays out. This is literally my 3rd stock in the last 3 years that has been a 5ish bagger based on a catalyst coming to fruition, then eventually went back down to square 1 or worse.

Having that said, I added a chunk at .90 today.

PS roark needs to step up his banter game

morob

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: FELP - Foresight Energy
« Reply #1058 on: May 10, 2019, 05:02:28 PM »
Hi, Picasso,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. While I think a lot of your comments make sense, there is one that I have trouble to see it happening -- even assume that Murray manage to find funding to finance a buyout, why would Cline agree to be squeezed out at a $2~$3 price?  He has already made a killing on more than half of his FELP stake, so I think he should be the one that can afford to wait it out longer than anybody else (even than us, not to mention Murray). Why would he be in a rush to cash out the remaining 30M shares at such a low price...unless he thinks the equity has little chance to survive.

Can Murray make a deal with Cline to fuck everyone else over together?

Frankly, I don't think squeezing out minority holders is Murray + Cline's No. 1 priority at this moment. I worry more about thermal coal demand, price, export market, and the debt load than on being taken under.

the take under scenario sounds compelling but perhaps the cancellation of the dividend has a much more simple reason than a change of shareholder friendliness. On the call More said that excess cash flow will be around 45M and at the midpoint of the guidance they will be again over 4x on the secured leverage. It follows that the excess cash sweep rises again to 75% if their guidance is correct. Of course, there might be some insurance proceeds which could change the picture but without them there would only be around 11M available for distributions. It kind of makes sense that they cancelled it given the situation, take under plans or not.



heth247

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 558
Re: FELP - Foresight Energy
« Reply #1059 on: May 10, 2019, 07:23:48 PM »
the take under scenario sounds compelling but perhaps the cancellation of the dividend has a much more simple reason than a change of shareholder friendliness. On the call More said that excess cash flow will be around 45M and at the midpoint of the guidance they will be again over 4x on the secured leverage. It follows that the excess cash sweep rises again to 75% if their guidance is correct. Of course, there might be some insurance proceeds which could change the picture but without them there would only be around 11M available for distributions. It kind of makes sense that they cancelled it given the situation, take under plans or not.

Actually I think Moore was being a bit too optimistic when he guided $45M excess cash flow. Here is what I got:
    $280 (mid pt ebitda) - $140 (interest) - $78 (mid pt capex) - $34 (longwall finance) = 28M

Without insurance proceed or more volumes from either export or Hillsboro, there is no way for them to do $45M excess cash flow for 2019. 

I remember a year ago, Moore commented on CC that he thought FELP would delever to 2.75X within the next 18 months or so. But here we are, back to 4X at the end of 2019. I guess this commodity business is really tough, even themselves could not have thought that things would have turned bad so quickly.