There is still 1.3 billion in equity, and the price of oil is rising, so should their revenues and the value of their oil assets. It is now a horse race between their payments needs and the rising revenues. There may still be value in the shares.
The world i s not what it seems, and Saudi Arabia is no exception. Things of note:
1. The Saudis said they had $750 billion in treasuries - They only have $120 Billion
2. The Saudis are running short of cash - they just borrowed $10 billion
3. The Saudis are running short of cash. They just told some contractors they would be paid in IOU instead of cash.
4. A lot of Saudis are getting killed in their wars in Yemen and Syria. There will be unrest brewing at home.
All of this suggests growing unrest in the Kingdom, and a really really great need to increase available cash. The price of oil will rise, either because the kingdom voluntarily reduces production, or because there are involuntary reductions. In addition, the increased instability in Saudi Arabia will also raise the prices of oil from the most reliable areas.
While there is about $1.3 billion in Equity, that is going to be somewhat diluted. The bond holders will want some revised terms in return for reduced interest payments. That will come out of equity. Possible in the form of Warrants convertible into common under specific conditions. Forced conversion of some or all of the preferred is also likely. That will be at some premium to the face value of the preferred of $25/unit. Just making a guess, giving Bond holders a 20% premium,will eat up $500 million of the common equity. Similarly, giving the preferred holders a 10% premium will eat up another $70 million of the equity. These transactions will result in the common shares having a value of between $0.50 and $1.00. Of course, this is just conjecture. The results could be much better or worse. So if I were placing bets, I would buy bonds and preferred, and let the common loose.
Note that in January Hal Washburn purchased about 50,000 shares of common for about $0.67/share. At that time he should have had a pretty good idea of what the value of the company would be as they went into a structured re-organization.(Chapter 11). My interpretation of that purchase is either:
1. Washburn is an idiot who had no idea of the value of the shares
2. He was trying to fake-out other investors or
3. He believes that the shares would be worth more than $0.67 after the reorganization was over.
Since my calculated (estimated) value of the common is between $0.50 and $1.00, I think choice 3 is the real thing, and the shares will be worth on the order of $1.00
I made an error.. The second quarter revenue/tanker will be lower, but the total revenue should be about constant. Third quarter revenue/tanker should also be lower, but there will be more ships. Overall, I expect earnings per share to stay fairly constant, though I think (but do not know) that the new Panama Canal will cause changes in the revenue and hiring patterns.
I meant Suexmax rates have been trending down over Q2. Q2 rates generally trend down. However, based on historic data, rates tend to trend up in Q3. I expect that, due to increased ships, NAT profits will be only a little down, if at all, though revenue per ship will be down by perhaps 15%
The SUEXMAX rates are continuing to trend between the 2014 and 2015 actual numbers. Based on the second quarter numbers, which average about 27,000 per day, NAT earnings will be between 10 and 15% below prior year numbers. The decrease in average earnings per ship will be partially compensated for by the increase in the number of operating ships. The third quarter actually looks to be a real improvement, with average rates trending upward, and the number of operating ships increasing. I'm holding at present, with an expectation of a downward drift until earnings are available.
Sold all immediately after X-dividend. In my opinion there is a lot of volatility still coming. Major potential for disruption in Venezuela, Iraq, Nigeria (increasing Oil Price) Increased instability in Saudi Arabia (Increasing or decreasing oil prices) Financial System collapse in China (Decreasing oil prices) Wild swings between 2 and 6 likely but I am willing to buy at 4.0
Rogers: 1. This is one termination, We have no assurance that there will not be others.
2. While terminations provide instant cash, the rigs still require operation and maintenance costs, reducing free cash flow.
3. The offshore business is undergoing change, with new sea bottom rigs and devices. There is some risk that these very expensive topside rigs will be facing less expensive sea bottom devices.
4. The Saudi's now in control are very young and inexperienced. They have had, what is in essence a palace coup, replacing many of the members of the prior regime with supporters of Saliman and his young sons. This event has seriously changed the stability of Saudi Arabia, its strategy, and the possible events in the oil business.
A Any investors in oil, at present, unless they are managing an integrated oil company, need to remain extremely nimble and jumping ship if doubt arises.. It behooves SDLP to let us know what they plan. They need someone similar to Herb at NAT to keep us informed.
If they do, I will buy in again. Need to see that their sales and marketing still working in this environment..
I agree that in the long term, this is likely to still be a good company. However having two rigs on layup will not look good, and there is every likelyhood that they will soon be up to three rigs in either wet or dry layup. In the short term the stock price trend is more likely down than up. Would buy at $4.00/share.
With the excess of rigs available, and older rigs being scrapped, re-leasing this unit in the near future is a low probability event. Not sure of net effect on cash flow, however, unless laid-up the daily expenses would be high. This is a definite negative for the partnership units going forward. Sold all at 5.84.
NAT has been in business since 1995 and paid dividends every quarter since then. You commented to me that "The proposition that NAT is somehow far superior to other major shippers when it comes to maintenance is just idiotic". The alternative to your proposition that every shipper does maintenance as well as any other shipper makes it sound as though you have never done maintenance on anything as big as a Suezmax. From my experience on ships larger than a Suezmax I believe that doing maintenance right is very difficult, and some people and companies are actually better than others in doing so. I do not know first hand if NAT is the best of breed in this area, but somehow they seem to have the lowest operating costs,though having an older fleet.
Decided to buy back 2000 shares of NAT today, though I am certain it will drop a bit between now and the next X-dividend date. There is so much uncertainty in the world that it is almost impossible to expect a drop in the volume of crude shipments.
Sold all at 15.74 to 15.85. Happy with 5% leveraged, 20% unleveraged for two weeks. Next quarter will be super interesting: The new Panama Canal is opening, the Saudi's just had a palace coup, with a lot of figurative heads rolling, and BREXIT may happen!
There are a class of things that the word "Commodity" apply to. Crude oil is certainly one of them. THe customer is only interested in the following things: Cost of shipping, reliability of shipping and product quality. NAT appears to be able to provide the lowest costs, with reliability and quality . In addition to low financial risk, it may be that one of NAT's success factors is their ability to operate and maintain their ships. If you have ever owned a boar, or operated a ship, or repaired one, you will understand how important maintenance and operational excellence are.
Fasebyao: Just for your information: As part of the Stock exchange's effort to increase trades, they AUTOMATICALLY reduce the value of a stock by the dividend amount the day that it goes X-dividend. Their "explanation" is that the stock is automatically worth less, so they drop the price. However that explanation does not stand the BS test. If that were really true, they would also automatically decrease the value of the shares every time a stock option vests. But they do not. As a result, the shares will open down on the x-dividend date by $0.25 - the dividend amount.