Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 10:27 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

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

Williams Partners L.P. Message Board

jrad52 242 posts  |  Last Activity: Apr 17, 2014 9:10 PM Member since: Jul 25, 1999
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    No Audited financials??

    by buritoloco Apr 17, 2014 11:54 AM
    jrad52 jrad52 Apr 17, 2014 9:10 PM Flag

    The financials were audited, and the company got a clean opinion on its financials, as ugly as those financials are. Just look at the opinion. The opinion, which is from a CPA firm I never heard of, is on page 27 of the 10-K.

    What you quoted from was not from Item 9; it was from Item 9A, and was not under the heading of Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure. It was under the heading of Management's Report on Internal Control. MSN did not get any attestation as to internal controls, apparently because it wasn't required to get such an attestation.

    And the company is still a piece of garbage.

  • Reply to

    VOXX/Emerson Rumor

    by jj1000003 Apr 17, 2014 9:17 AM
    jrad52 jrad52 Apr 17, 2014 3:32 PM Flag

    Of course you've heard the same rumor. You've been reading his posts on the MSN board for months now. Now do you remember where you heard the rumor? :)

  • Reply to

    More bad coal news!

    by ayscuew Apr 16, 2014 5:40 PM
    jrad52 jrad52 Apr 16, 2014 6:10 PM Flag

    Why is that bad news? You might recall someone on this board saying the problem with coal was that the coal miners were keeping mines open, even if they were unprofitable, hoping for better times. Less supply should be good news, shouldn't it?

  • jrad52 jrad52 Apr 15, 2014 10:16 PM Flag

    You have been posting nonsense like this on MSN's board for months now. MSN is toxic. They show 3 or 4 pages of related party transactions with the bankrupt majority parent company. No one would buy MSN without getting out of those deals, and I doubt the parent company will give up those deals without getting paid quite a bit for them. Throw in the IRS exam, which is likely to use up quite a bit of the cash on the balance sheet, and you have a remarkably unattractive target. Throw in the parent company's bankruptcy proceeding and things are even muddier. Then there's the issue of MSN's basic business tanking. Sales down 40% year-to-date, operating profit down even more. But it's all the dealings with Grande that make a sale of MSN to anyone extremely unlikely. Boy, is MSN ugly.

  • Reply to

    Trading 4/15/2014

    by ayscuew Apr 15, 2014 10:06 AM
    jrad52 jrad52 Apr 15, 2014 7:50 PM Flag

    I haven't paid enough attention to the Ct of Appeals decision, but my understanding is that its biggest effect is on CAPP coal (another nail in the coffin?), which certainly hurts NRP. It is surprising to me, but something like 30% of coal-fired power plants still don't use scrubbers. They can get away with this by using CAPP coal (and PRB, I guess, but the energy differential makes comparisons difficult). CAPP coal is lower-sulfur and cleaner, so utilities could avoid the expense of installing scrubbers by using CAPP coal. My understanding of the EPA rules that were upheld by the Appeals Court is that the only way to achieve the lower pollution caps imposed by the EPA is to install scrubbers. So if you're a utility, you have 2 choices - don't install the scrubbers and replace the coal-fired plants with nat gas-fired ones, or install the scrubbers and switch to cheaper IB coal. Neither choice is good news for CAPP miners, and 40% of 2013 production at NRP's mines and 50% of NRP's 2013 royalties still come from CAPP. Of course, a lot of the CAPP production at NRP's mines is met coal, not thermal, and that isn't affected by the decision. On the other hand, the met coal production has its own set of problems, starting with price.

    FWIW.

  • Reply to

    Coal market

    by jbcguy Apr 15, 2014 12:32 PM
    jrad52 jrad52 Apr 15, 2014 7:37 PM Flag

    I don't think that PRB prices affect most midwest coal, and they don't affect CAPP or NAPP prices at all. Per the DOE, since 1/1/2013, weekly spot prices for PRB coal have increased 28.3% (from $ 10.15 to $ 13.02 per ton). During the same time period, CAPP spot prices have actually dropped 8.9%. IB prices are flat, and NAPP prices are up 11%. Not a whole lot of correlation. I went back into 2012, and I still don't see any correlation. The problem is that even with PRB coal going up 28% in price, CAPP coal is still 4 or 5 times as expensive ($ $60.58/ton versus $ 13.02/ton at April 7 2014). CAPP coal has a lot more energy per ton, but even adjusting for that, CAPP coal is more than twice as expensive as PRB coal. If you throw in any transportation costs, CAPP simply doesn't compete with PRB. My understanding is that the only coal that competes with PRB is IB, and that is only competitive in areas close to the IB where the transportation costs favor IB.

    I guess if you look at this from the perspective of PRB coal, the rise in price and the transportation problems make it harder for PRB to take even more market share from eastern coal. So that should help IB, CAPP and NAPP to some extent, but this hasn't shown up in the prices yet.

    I could be wrong; it wouldn't be the first time, or the last.

  • Reply to

    Coal market

    by jbcguy Apr 15, 2014 12:32 PM
    jrad52 jrad52 Apr 15, 2014 3:47 PM Flag

    NRP has very little exposure to western coal, so it isn't directly affected by PRB problems.

    If anyone benefits from western coal problems, it would seem to be Illinois Basin coal more than CAPP coal, because of geography. There are some areas where geography says that no one can replace western coal (like the western states, esp Texas); and there are other areas that might be up for grabs (in the midwest). I was surprised to learn how much western coal is shipped to Illinois utilities, for example. Chris Cline, one of NRP's major owners, and the controlling owner of Foresight coal, has been in the press over the last 2 years, trying to get Illinois utilities to switch to his IB coal, without any notable success. But maybe if PRB coal prices rise or the supply becomes less reliable, IB coal will benefit. But western coal prices are extremely low, even compared to IB, which in turn is far lower than CAPP. BTW, western coal's energy content is also far lower than IB or CAPP coal. I don't know how to compare the different coals on a practical basis. But I don't think any of this affects NRP much.

    FWIW.

  • Reply to

    From the Foresight Energy S-1

    by jrad52 Apr 14, 2014 12:16 PM
    jrad52 jrad52 Apr 14, 2014 2:15 PM Flag

    I have no access to the report and my experience is that they charge a fortune for mostly re-packaged information, so I'm not likely to ever see it.

  • Foresight and NRP already have a significant business relationship, and Foresight is obligated to offer certain business opportunities to NRP. The S-1 states "We expect to consummate additioanl deals under the Restricted Business Contribution Agreement in the future, including an offer to NRP to purchase certain infrastructure assets at Hillsboro and a dock servicing mining projects in Southern Illinois."

    So NRP will presumably invest more in coal handling assets.

    FWIW.

  • Neutral rating, TP $ 26. Summary: The subordinated non-Agency and DTAs have AI as 1 of the most levered to continued credit improvement, which could drive higher book value. The migration into more Agency, however, is likely to limit any price to book multiple expansion.

    FWIW

  • Reply to

    Mr. Cline selling his units?

    by jrad52 Apr 12, 2014 2:04 PM
    jrad52 jrad52 Apr 13, 2014 1:16 PM Flag

    You're being too dramatic. "Obvious Cline sees NO future in the coal business"? Sorry, but that's simply wrong.

    Mr Cline's major business is Foresight Energy, which BTW recently updated its S-1 to try to go public again. (Aside - a coal MLP IPO? In 2014?). That business is worth north of $ 1 billion, even today. Foresight is also one of NRP's major lessees and business partners, with Foresight paying NRP around $ 90 MM per year in 2013, plus another $ 20 MM in minimum royalties that haven't been recognized as income yet.

    Mr Cline has sold significant amounts of NRP in recent years, most recently selling 6 MM units in March 2011 for $ 208 MM. (Think of it; almost $ 35/unit. Think he knew what was coming? If he did, he should have sold more.)

    The updated S-1 filed by Foresight contains about 4 pages of related party transactions with NRP, with much more detail on a mine-by-mine basis than NRP gives. The strangest thing (so far, at least; I haven't finished reading) is the Macoupin mine. Foresight must have had great plans for this mine because it's paying NRP $ 16 MM per year in minimum royalties, plus other costs, but Macoupin's production has dropped from 1.8 MM tons in 2012 to 0.7 MM tons in 2013. There must be some problem at the mine.

    Anyway, more after April 15, maybe.

  • Last night, NRP filed with the SEC to register for sale the remaining units owned by Mr Cline and his family. He has quite a few entities that have owned NRP in the past that made it hard (for me, at least) to track changes in his ownership. But this filing is pretty clear - He and his family currently own about 10.5 million NRP units. NRP is registering 10 million of them for sale; the other 500,000 units were registered for sale last May, but were not sold.

    This doesn't mean that there will necessarily be a secondary or that the units will all be sold in one deal. It doesn't even mean that any units will be sold, although you'd have to wonder why he would go through the expense of a reg statement if he didn't mean to sell any units. The registration simply allows the units to be sold in the open market. But Mr Cline has been reducing his ownership in NRP fairly regularly in recent years, and these are the last of his units.

    It will be interesting (and maybe disappointing) to see if he is willing to accept $ 16 for his units. He didn't sell any of the units that were registered last May, and he could have gotten over $ 20 at that time.

  • Reply to

    ADF acquisition

    by jrad52 Apr 4, 2014 1:34 PM
    jrad52 jrad52 Apr 5, 2014 2:30 PM Flag

    I don't think there's a correlation between M&A activity and UBTI, In fact, if the M&A is done for cash/debt, there will be an increase in depreciation expense which reduces taxable income and UBTI. And to the extent that the M&A involves acquiring a subsidiary corporation, the MLP's income would be dividends and (possibly interest) income, which isn't UBTI.

  • Reply to

    6 year low for met coal

    by ayscuew Mar 26, 2014 12:56 PM
    jrad52 jrad52 Apr 5, 2014 8:34 AM Flag

    Biy was my math wrong. Good catch.

  • Reply to

    K-1s out tonight

    by jrad52 Mar 21, 2014 8:11 PM
    jrad52 jrad52 Apr 4, 2014 8:57 PM Flag

    Did your uncle get ETE units in exchange for Southern Union stock? If yes, I can give you a guess about his high tax liability. Otherwise, I'd have to ask what his "normal" tax liability is.

  • CLMT announced its acquisition of Anchor Drilling Fluids recently; the deal may have closed by now. I own stock in ACAS, which was the biggest shareholder in ADF, and I saw its announcement about the deal. That announcement was interesting.

    CLMT actually purchased the stock of a chain of corporations, headed by ADF Holdings Inc. Slightly unusual for an MLP, because there’s no tax basis step up in a stock purchase, and there will be continuing corporate taxes on ADF’s earnings. This has happened before – LINE purchased the stock of BRY, but they used LNCO (a C Corp investor in LINE) to actually make the acquisition; as a corporation, LNCO was able to liquidate BRY tax-free and sell assets to LINE. Also some MLPs have C Corporation subsidiaries, like NTI (another refiner) owning the gas station/bakery chain. But that structure was done because the bakery receipts are not MLP-qualified revenue. More to the point, the ETE group of companies purchased the stock of Southern Union a year or 2 ago, but the structure of that deal was really confusing. So the structure isn’t really new, but I don’t think it’s all that common, either.

    There are ways to reduce the corporate tax, like by charging ADF for parent company services or by having CLMT supply ADF with the raw materials it uses (I’ve been loosely following the posts on this board about the possible connection between refining and drilling fluids, so maybe CLMT can add some business). But the comments about ADF’s debt interest me.

    CLMT said they were purchasing the stock on a debt-free basis. Based on the limited information that ACAS and CLMT have disclosed about ADF, I think ADF had about $ 100 million of debt as of December 31 (that might include the redeemable preferred).

    So I guess the remark about buying the company on a debt-free basis means that ADF’s existing shareholders contributed cash to ADF to pay off the debt, and then sold the stock in the debt-free company to CLMT. Or more likely, the debt was converted into stock in ADF, which was then sold to CLMT. I think the debt conversion makes more sense because it wouldn’t require anyone to come up with cash for a short period.

    ADF didn’t seem to have much GAAP earnings, so maybe the plan was to have CLMT lever up ADF by lending it money which would be immediately dividended back to CLMT. The dividend would be tax-free ROC except to the extent of ADF’s earnings & profits. And if CLMT charges the same interest rate that ADF was already paying, it would be a way to withdraw $ 10 million per year from ADF without incurring a corporate tax. And if they levered up ADF even more, they would withdraw even more.

    Anyway, for those who bother to read this post, this isn’t a criticism of CLMT. I’m interested because the growth in MLPs means that they will be acquiring C Corporations more frequently, and I’d like to see the structures the MLPs are using.

  • For Q1, the average Mt Belvieu propane price was $ 1.32 versus $ 1.20 for Q4. But how we got to the $ 1.32 is interesting, with the March average price down to $ 1.06. Barring any undisclosed shutdowns, Q1 should have been decent.

  • Reply to

    K-1s delayed again

    by jrad52 Mar 28, 2014 4:00 PM
    jrad52 jrad52 Mar 31, 2014 7:48 PM Flag

    Yes, they are out.

  • Reply to

    First quarter trading!

    by ayscuew Mar 31, 2014 5:59 PM
    jrad52 jrad52 Mar 31, 2014 6:26 PM Flag

    You're doing it again. If you make a prediction, don't give a time limit. Although 3 quarters is a pretty long time. :)

  • The 6.50% Senior Notes due 2021 ..."were issued at par for net proceeds of approximately $884.1 million, after deducting the initial purchasers' discount..." (and certain expenses). It's meaningless, I know, but you have to laugh sometimes. How do you issue something at par but still give the first purchasers a discount?

    I will say this, though. The purchasers of the 9 3/8% 2019 notes made an absolute killing. Those notes were issued at fairly significant discounts (1 tranche went out at 93 cents on the dollar), so their yield was probably more than 10%. And when they are redeemed, they get an extra payment to reflect a year's worth of interest, discounted back to today at federal government borrowing rates.

    Right now, CLMT's debt makes up about 60% of total capital, which is way higher than its historical average. After the $ 300 MM unit offering/ATM sale/whatever, it will still be high, but a bit more manageable.

WPZ
51.25+0.60(+1.18%)Apr 17 4:02 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.