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

Crosstex Energy, AŞ Message Board

  • kokohapmton kokohapmton Oct 7, 2005 12:38 AM Flag

    Hedging "loss" is really a $7m gain

    If I read the announcement correctly, the "loss" of $11m was really a net gain of $7m. If prices have moved $.20 cents and each $.10 cents equals $9m in increased cash flow, then there is $18m more cash flow from the S Louisiana assets. The loss on the put options is $11m, so the net net of all this is a $7m gain, pro forma, assuming the deal closes.

    Now, the press release says this in so many words, but the emphasis is on the $11m loss on the puts.

    Can't fault them for being overly promotional......

    Compare the extra $7m (net of hedging) increase to the cash flo of the assets and you have something like a 12.7% lift over what they had projected earlier (was it $55m?).

    Anyone want to run the math thru to the G.P. level? Lets see, to do it the moron way, which is about as sophisticated as I can manage, you take $3.5m (there is no financing cost for this money) and divide by 13m shares and you get $0.27 cents/share of xtxi. This doesn't include the other $3.5m that goes to the LP and increases the LP payout, thereby increasing the payout xtxi would get from its xtex units.

    This is not money to bank on of course, because the $7m is related to the commodity price which could swing the other way tomorrow. Maybe it did today or yesterday.

    However that being said, my gonzo trailer park math is getting close to a $5.50 dividend, almost 10% at today's prices.

    Come down baby. Come home to beavis.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • The loss on the puts is a non-cash charge. They paid cash for the puts, essentially, they paid cash to lock in a bottom on NGL liquids prices. The market price has since risen and the puts value is being marked to market downward, but they are not out any additional cash, the value of the puts is down if the were to try to sell the puts, however, with the price of the liquids higher than the put price, they will sell the liquids at the market price. Think of it this way, they paid cash upfront for the puts, regardless of whether or not NGL liquids prices fall or rise. If NGL liquids prices come back down, the non-cash charge will reverse itself but XTXI will not be any richer, just like the non-cash charge did not make them any poorer. So, when the deal closes, and prices remain the same, XTXI may be reaping an additional 18 million in cashflow annually from the El Paso assets than they projected. I would suspect, that this additional cash will not be distributed but rather spent on internal projects or on debt service because they only have puts that lock in lower other words, if prices collapse, they don't have to cut the distribution because they have the puts to fall back on that give them a floor price. So, the extra cashflow is nice because they can use it to pre-fund small organic projects.

      • 1 Reply to rrb1981
      • That should be XTEX rather than XTXI in my previous post. Of course, even if XTEX holds onto that cash rather than distributing it, because it is volatile and may or may not be durable in nature, it will simply help finance an organic project that is stable and will contribute to the distribution.

    • I like your analysis, but I am embarrassed to correct you. The quote from the show is "Come to Butthead." Not come to Beavis.