Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Linn Co, LLC Message Board

  • s.eranger@sbcglobal.net s.eranger Jun 18, 2013 9:25 AM Flag

    Not So Good...

    Linn Energy LINE – From Barrons. A surprise disclosure supports a view in Barron's that Linn Energy's distributable cash flow is overstated and doesn't cover its distributions to investors. A surprise disclosure from Linn Energy (ticker: LINE), buried in a recent regulatory filing related to its planned merger with Berry Petroleum (BRY), supports the view put forth in Barron's that the oil and natural-gas producer's distributable cash flow is overstated and doesn't cover its distributions to investors. One of the key controversies surrounding Linn, which is structured like a master limited partnership, is the accounting for its energy derivatives in its distributable cash flow, a key financial measure for MLPs. Distributable cash flow (DCF) is the basis for Linn's distribution, the MLP equivalent of a dividend. Linn has a market value of $7.5 billion, plus $6 billion of debt. Linn has realized above-market prices for its natural gas due to its use of derivatives, including in-the-money put options. This has allowed the company to get more than $5 per million British thermal units for its gas when the market price has been $4 or lower. Linn argues that the put options amount to a capital investment, so their cost shouldn't be deducted from distributable cash flow. The company has leeway in computing DCF because the measure isn't governed by generally accepted accounting principles. Barron's view is that Linn's accounting is aggressive, because the company wants to recognize the financial benefits of the puts, but not the costs ("Twilight of a Stock Market Darling," May 6). In its GAAP-compliant net income, it recognizes its derivative expense. "It's the gain or loss from the derivative transaction that must be reflected in pre-tax accounting income, not merely the proceeds derived from the sale or disposition of the derivative," says New York tax expert Robert Willens. "I can't think of an accounting principle or theory that would permit recording only the proceeds from the derivative while ignoring the cost." Accounting issues, plus a flattening in Linn's energy output and concerns that Linn's merger with Berry may get derailed, all have weighed on Linn units. They fell 8% last week to $31, down from $38 at the time of our May article. Based in part on analysis from Hedgeye Risk Management, an independent research firm, we argued that Linn units are worth no more than book value, or about $17 per unit. Support for Linn units comes from a 9% yield. The Berry deal, which needs shareholder approval, is expected to close in the third quarter, later than originally forecast. Until the recent disclosure in a footnote on page 257 of a revised proxy for the deal, it wasn't possible to calculate the impact of the puts on Linn's distributable cash. And contrary to the impression the company has given this year in presentations aimed at thwarting short-sellers, that expense is significant. During the first quarter, the cost of puts that settled in that period was $43 million, or nearly 30% of the company's reported distributable cash flow of $150 million. Linn didn't cover its first-quarter distribution of 72.5 cents per unit even before factoring in the put cost. Including the put cost, the coverage ratio was just 63%. Some investors have said Linn is covering its distribution by selling equity and debt. The company disputes this, maintaining the funds come from free cash flow. Linn says it expects to fully cover its distribution for the full year. The drop in Linn units could imperil the Berry deal. Linn will pay for Berry with shares of LinnCo (LNCO), a corporation created by Linn that holds Linn units. LinnCo trades at $37, a six-point premium to Linn, but there is reason to believe the price of the less-liquid LinnCo shares will converge with the price of the Linn units, making the deal unattractive to Berry holders. LinnCo's current premium could reflect the difficulty of shorting the stock. What's more, there could be adverse tax consequences from the Berry deal for LinnCo holders, starting in 2016. Hedgeye's Kevin Kaiser argues that LinnCo shares probably should trade at a discount to Linn units because of the tax liability. Linn cites an opinion from an independent financial advisor that found the Berry deal fair to LinnCo holders, "including the deferred tax liability." Berry investors might want to think hard about approving the Linn merger, considering Linn's aggressive accounting and the potential tax hit. Linn units may be headed lower, and that could happen quickly if the Berry deal, considered important to Linn's financial outlook, collapses

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
 
LNCO
10.47-0.07(-0.66%)May 29 4:00 PMEDT