2011-05-07
NGL - NGL Energy Partners
NGL - NGL Energy Partners plans on offering 4.025 million units at a range of $19-$21. Wells Faego and RBC are leading the deal Suntrust, BMO, Baird, BOSC and Janney co-managing. Post-ipo NGL will have 15 million total units outstanding for a market cap of $300 million on a pricing of $20.
Ipo proceeds will be used to repay debt.
NGL Energy will own all non-floated units, the General Partnership and the incentive distribution rights. NGL Energy is comprised of the assets of three propane companies: NGL Supply, Gifford and Hicks.
From the prospectus:
'We are a Delaware limited partnership formed in September 2010 to own and operate a vertically-integrated propane business with three operating segments: retail propane; wholesale supply and marketing; and midstream.'
Before we get into the details here lets quickly look at anticipated yield, competitors and cash flows.
Distributions - NGL plans on paying quarterly distributions of $0.3375 per unit. At an annualized $1.35 per unit NGL would yield 6 3/4% annually on a pricing of $20.
3 aspects make up a strong energy master limited partnership.
1 - Solid balance sheet to enable cash flow positive acquisitions down the line. NGL does have s nice balance sheet on ipo due to utilizing ipo monies to pay off debt. $25 million of debt on the balance sheet post-ipo.
2 - Strong parent company to facilitate dropdown acquisitions once public. Nope, not much there parent wise here.
****3 - Sufficient annual cash flows to pay not only anticipated distributions, but also to cover debt servicing and capex. NGL falls woefully short here. Pro forma(taking into effect ipo as if it occurred 1/1/10) NGL did not have sufficient cash flows to have covered all three of these. Now NGL did embark on an aggressive expansion capital expenditure plan in 2010, so possibly that was an aberration. However forecasts for the first 12 months public(ending 3/31/12), NGL anticipates having cash flows post capex and debt servicing to pay just 61% of the expected distributions. This is as short on a percentage basis as I've seen in one of the MLP energy ipos. Simply put, NGL should not be structured as a pass through entity as their cash flows are not sufficient to cover expenses and the distributions to holders. The plan is to borrow the monies to pay the full distributions. Looking at it another way, NGL is borrowing money to service debt, pay capex and pay unit holders. Not ideal borrowing money to service your debt, which is what is happening here after all.
Solid yield, however the underlying business is not generating sufficient cash flows to pay that yield to holders and service debt and fund capex. Of course NGL would not be able to garner this pricing/market cap if they were coming public with a 40% smaller distribution so they will borrow to cover everything. Not interested here at all with this lack of cash flow coverage.
Comparables are NRGY(7.4% yield), APU(6.3%), FGP(7.7%) and SPH(6.5%).
Quick look at the actual operation here:
Retail propane - 54,000 customers, the 12th largest retail propane distribution company in the US. Georgia, Illinois, Indiana and Kansas.
Wholesale - 68 million gallons of propane storage space for supply to third party sellers.
Midstream - Propane terminals for transfer to third party trucks. 3 terminals in IL, MO and Ontario with annual throughput capacity of 170 million gallons.
Financials
$25 million in debt post-ipo. Expect this number to increase as NGL plans on borrowing to cover expenses and to pay distributions to holders.
Forecasts for the 12 months ending 3/31/12 - $884 million in revenues. Gross margins here are very thin at 6.5%. Operating margins of 1.8%, net margins of 1.5%. As noted above, cash flows will NOT be sufficient to pay expected distributions as well as capex and debt servicing.
Conclusion - Weakly structured energy MLP. NGL has historically not had sufficient cash flows to cover all expenses and the expected $1.35 per unit distribution. In fact after expenses, capex and debt servicing, NGL anticipates only being able to pay 61% per unit to cover all distributions for the 12 months ending 3/31/11. They plan on borrowing to cover the rest. Not interested in range, cash flows simply not strong enough to cover the expected yield.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<< | >> |
Categories
N/A
N/A
Recent posts
SXCP - Suncoke Energy Partners
DFRG - Del Frisco's
CSTE - Caesarstone
EPAM - EPAM Systems
SXCP - Suncoke Energy Partners
DFRG - Del Frisco's
CSTE - Caesarstone
EPAM - EPAM Systems
Archives
Jan 2013
Jul 2012
Apr 2012
Feb 2012
Dec 2011
Nov 2011
Jul 2011
May 2011
Apr 2011
Mar 2011
Feb 2011
Jan 2011
Dec 2010
Nov 2010
Oct 2010
Sep 2010
Aug 2010
Jul 2010
Jun 2010
May 2010
Apr 2010
Mar 2010
Feb 2010
Jan 2010
Dec 2009
Nov 2009
Oct 2009
Sep 2009
Jul 2009
Jun 2009
May 2009
Apr 2009
Nov 2008
Jul 2008
Jun 2008
May 2008
Apr 2008
Mar 2008
Jan 2008
Dec 2007
Nov 2007
Oct 2007
Sep 2007
Aug 2007
Jul 2007
Jun 2007
May 2007
Apr 2007
Mar 2007
Feb 2007
Jan 2007
Dec 2006
Nov 2006
Oct 2006
Sep 2006
Aug 2006
Jul 2006
Jun 2006
May 2006
Apr 2006
Mar 2006
Jan 2013
Jul 2012
Apr 2012
Feb 2012
Dec 2011
Nov 2011
Jul 2011
May 2011
Apr 2011
Mar 2011
Feb 2011
Jan 2011
Dec 2010
Nov 2010
Oct 2010
Sep 2010
Aug 2010
Jul 2010
Jun 2010
May 2010
Apr 2010
Mar 2010
Feb 2010
Jan 2010
Dec 2009
Nov 2009
Oct 2009
Sep 2009
Jul 2009
Jun 2009
May 2009
Apr 2009
Nov 2008
Jul 2008
Jun 2008
May 2008
Apr 2008
Mar 2008
Jan 2008
Dec 2007
Nov 2007
Oct 2007
Sep 2007
Aug 2007
Jul 2007
Jun 2007
May 2007
Apr 2007
Mar 2007
Feb 2007
Jan 2007
Dec 2006
Nov 2006
Oct 2006
Sep 2006
Aug 2006
Jul 2006
Jun 2006
May 2006
Apr 2006
Mar 2006
Members
Signup