#insolvency

QLD gov’t to subsidize the rest of Australia on Virgin bailout?

AA

You have to hand it to the Queensland Government’s absolute lack of awareness. It has intimated that it might fork over $200m in loans to rescue the airline. To call any airline a “family jewel” means one probably thinks Great Wall is the pinnacle of luxury auto brands.

Perhaps what Premier Palazczuk and Treasurer Trad miss is that by using Queensland taxpayer funds they would effectively grant residents in other states the full benefit of Virgin’s recovery for free. Furthermore, if Virgin didn’t manage to pay back the monies, Queensland taxpayers would undoubtedly be caught in a zombie lending scenario. So the other states would still benefit. Federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg should be more than happy to see the sunshine state take his place.

We are surprised that so much umbrage is being taken at the idea of Chinese money coming in to subsidize the troubled airline. There is a sense of irony to see people cry nationalism when the airline has largely been owned by foreigners, 40% from China for a considerable time.

It is not as though the Chinese would treat Virgin Airlines like cans of baby milk powder and take all their planes home. Any rational investor would want to own a profitable airline based on juicy slot allocations rather than pursue relentless growth by building parallel tracks to already unprofitable destinations.

Sure, having an airline that boosts competition is a wonderful thing. We agreed with distressed debt specialist Jonathan Rochford’s summary which suggested insolvency as the best path forward. That way, hard decisions would be forced on Virgin and the restructuring would leave no stone unturned. Aircraft leasing companies have gone through this dance before and would be only too willing to act sensibly to help in the rebirth, especially given the appalling state of rail or road alternatives.

We understand people want to play hardball with China in a post-COVID19 world for its willful neglect shown during the pandemic. However, we must not let irrational fears turn away investment that benefits us, just because it is from China. Aussie investors haven’t supported Virgin much since the IPO in 2003. So why not let the Chinese do their dough? If we embraced their capitalist streak, were this investment to lower ticket prices, would we really complain? Or would we protest the idea that Qantas’ future might be at risk?

As comedian Dave Allen once said bout airlines, “they would make more money by leaving the planes at the gate and burning piles of cash on the runway!

Why insolvency is the best option for Virgin

Virgin Australia | Climate Active

Narrow Road Capital’s Jonathan Rochford believes that insolvency is the best option for Virgin Australia. The common misconception with insolvency is that most people think that means termination. Not so. Insolvency allows companies to take a long hard look at the business and restructure in ways to ensure the rebirth makes for a healthier business on the other side. The most important point to make is that the sooner the pain is taken, the better the ultimate outcomes.

We recall the last time American Airlines went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it ordered 900 brand new Airbus & Boeing aircraft the VERY NEXT DAY. Why? Because the leasing companies knew that helping the ailing airline by restructuring its fleet with more efficient aircraft would facilitate a quicker revival. Insolvency is all about forcing hard questions to be asked and executed upon, not waiting for endless lifebuoys to be tossed when all options haven’t been properly assessed.

Over to Jonathan:

“Virgin Australia has been poorly managed and poorly capitalised for years. Whilst the Coronavirus lock-down is the most recent cause of its woes it is merely the latest in a long list of excuses. Qantas had its turn with the begging bowl in early 2014, I wrote then that the Australian Government should deny it a bailout as it wasn’t necessary. A bailout would have gotten in the way of Qantas fixing its problems, which it ultimately did without government help. The situation is somewhat different for Virgin, it is most likely to go into administration without a bailout. However, insolvency is the best pathway for Virgin as it is the best opportunity to fix the longstanding problems.

The Problems with Virgin

Virgin’s structural problems are the result of years of mismanagement. It is trapped between being much more expensive than Jetstar and with a lesser offering than Qantas, although routinely being almost as expensive as Qantas. As a result, Virgin has consistently struggled to attract the high paying customers and load factors that would take it from being a loss maker to a strong competitor.

Virgin’s ongoing financial problems are no secret. After an IPO at $2.25 in 2003, its shares have rarely traded above $0.50 in the last decade. The company has pursued growth over profits adding marginal routes that weighed down the good business it had servicing the capital city routes. This failed strategy has left the airline overloaded with aircraft. The sale and subsequent repurchase of part of the frequent flyer business has left it loaded with debt, with most of the fleet and the frequent flyer business locked up by secured creditors.

The Alternatives to Insolvency

Virgin is now pursuing a dual pathway to attempt to remain solvent, searching for fresh equity whilst at the same time negotiating with lenders for a debt restructuring. Whilst either of these, or both in combination would give the business more time, both are likely to be fruitless endeavours. Virgin needs to go through a deep restructuring of its entire business including;

-Handing back/selling off aircraft it will not need in the medium term

-Making redundant staff it cannot put to work in the medium term

-Negotiating with suppliers for cheaper goods and services

-Reducing office space and corporate overheads

All of this needs to be done at the same time as the business is burning through cash, estimated to be at a rate of $5-7 million per day. Without most of the fleet being back in the air and carry near capacity loads, a situation extremely unlikely in 2020, Virgin will simply run out of cash. Even if all the unsecured debt was converted to equity it would make little difference to the cost base. The only feasible option to right size the business is voluntary administration.

The Earlier the Better for Insolvency

Given Virgin has limited cash left and is rapidly burning through it, an insolvency in a matter of weeks offers the best prospects of preserving a broad business. The less cash that is left when insolvency begins, the more likely it is that Virgin will follow in the footsteps of Ansett and be sold off for scrap. With a decent starting cash balance and in the current economic environment administrators would have a strong hand to:

-Cut a new deal on the greatly reduced number of aircraft that will be needed; aircraft lenders and lessors will be reluctant to take back aircraft given the current glut and economic outlook. [note FNF Media mentioned the history of actions by leasing companies here]

-Reduce staff numbers and cut staff costs back to levels in line with a low-cost carrier; remaining staff will be glad to still have a job.

-Negotiate with airports for reduced charges; the alternative for airports is being left with a dominant customer that is already throwing its weight around.

-Slash debt levels and reduce the balance of unsecured creditors

-Hand back office space and eliminate unnecessary corporate overheads

A leaner Virgin, with a lower cost base and greatly reduced liability position, has good prospects of attracting new owners and winning back customers. Only an insolvency can deliver this outcome. The alternatives of fresh equity, a debt for equity swap or a government bailout, if put in place without insolvency, would all delay and obstruct the necessary restructuring and increase the risk that Virgin ultimately ends up like Ansett.”

Forget the return “ON” your money. Just look to the return “OF” it

CM knew a lot of passive indices existed but not to this crazy extent. Probably explains why there is so much stupid money tied up in me too commoditised investment products. 4 years ago CM wrote a piece on the dangers of ETFs (especially leveraged)  and passive products in a downturn. These products predominantly follow the market, not lead it. So if these products end up stampeding toward the exits in a market meltdown, the extent will be amplified, especially those levered funds potentially making market panic look worse than it really might otherwise be. Don’t be surprised to see the mainstream media sensationalise the size of any falls in the market.

According to Bloomberg, 770,000 benchmark indexes were scrapped globally in 2019…however  2.96 million indexes remain around the world, according to a new report from the Index Industry Association…There are an estimated 630,000 stocks that trade globally, including c.2,800 stocks on the NYSE and c. 3,330 on NASDAQ or 5x as many indices as there are securities globally.

CM wrote back in October 2015,

ETFs are hitting the market faster than the dim-sum trolley can circle the banquet hall. Charles Schwab, in the 12 months to July 2015, saw a 130-fold preference of ETF over mutual funds given their relative simplicity, cost and transparency….

…ETFs, despite increasing levels of sophistication, have brought about higher levels of market volatility. Studies have shown that a one standard deviation move of S&P500 ETF ownership as a percentage of total outstanding shares carries 21% excess intraday volatility. Regulators are also realising that limit up/down rules are exacerbating risk pricing and are seeking to revise as early as October 2015. In less liquid markets excess volatility has proved to be 54% higher with ETFs than the actual underlying indices. As more bearish market activity has arrived since August 2015 we investigate how ETFs may impact given a large part of recent existence has been under more favourable conditions…

CEO Larry Fink of Blackrock, the world’s largest ETF creator, has made it clear that
leveraged ETFs (at present 1.2% of total ETF AUM) have the potential to “blow up the whole industry one day.” The argument is that the underlying assets that provide the leverage (which tend to have less liquidity) could cause losses very quickly in volatile markets. To put this in perspective we looked at the Direxion Daily Fin Bull 3x (FAS) 3x leverage of the Russell 1000 Financial Services Index. As illustrated in the following chart FAS in volatile markets tends to overshoot aggressively

…The point Mr Fink is driving at is more obvious with the following chart which shows in volatile markets, the average daily return is closer to 10x (in both directions) than the 3x it is seeking to offer. This is post any market meltdown. On a daily basis, the minimum and maximum has ended up being -1756x to 1483x of the index return, albeit those extremes driven by the law of small numbers of the return of the underlying index. Which suggests that in a nasty downturn the ETF performance of the leveraged plays could be well outside the expectations of the holders.”

CM has said for many years, where CDOs and CDSs required the intelligence of a mystical hermit atop a mountain in the Himalayas to understand the complexities, ETFs are the complete opposite. Super easy to understand which inadvertently causes complacency. Unfortunately, as much as they might try to do as written on the tin, the reality could well turn out to be the exact opposite.

Hence CM continues to believe that stocks with low levels of corporate social responsibility (CSR) scores like tobacco companies such s Philip Morris, JT and Imperial Tobacco, as well as gold/silver bullion,  look the places to be invested. Cash won’t necessarily be king because the banks are already in a world of pain that hasn’t even truly started yet. Aussie banks look like screaming shorts at these levels. The easiest way for the plebs – without access to a prime broker – to do this is to buy put options on individual bank names. Out of the money options are dirt cheap.

Banks

Forget the return ONyour money. Just look to the returnOFit.

NB, none of this constitutes investment advice. It is a reflection of where CM is invested only. 

 

STAY IN YOUR LANE!!!

Since when did the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) become an axe on climate change? Next thing we will see is 16yo Greta Thunberg, of school climate strike fame, adorning APRA releases and annual reports. APRA should stay in its lane as the only disaster on the horizon will be self inflicted.

In the AFR today, it was reported that the financial services sector regulator said, “there is no excuse for inaction on climate change, warning there is a high degree of certainty that financial risks will materialize as a result of a warming climate.”

APRA noted that only 1 in 5 companies are meeting voluntary climate risk disclosure targets which are set out by the Task Force in Climate-related Financial Disclosures, a private sector body chaired by none other than global warming alarmist Michael Bloomberg.

What in the world is APRA doing trying to implement guidelines put forward by a body backed by an agenda? Has APRA considered the wealth of literature debunking global warming? The plethora of scandals that have befallen the UNIPCC, NOAA and even our own Bureau of Meteorology! Has it considered the dozens of dud predictions made by the IPCC? The UN climate science body has publicly climbed down from so many alarmist claims, citing no evidence or extremely low confidence. Can APRA put hrs numbers on what global warming might do?

To be honest, APRA should stay in its lane. It follows on from the lunacy spread by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) on the same topic. The only “high degree of financial risk” will come from their own terrible stewardship of the financial sector.

As CM wrote late last year Australian banks are in a terrible position financially. CM believes there is a high risk that some of Australia’s major banks will end up all or part nationalized when the property market bursts. To quote some excerpts:

In the late 1980s at the peak of the property bubble, the Imperial Palace in Tokyo was worth the equivalent to the entire state of California. Greater Tokyo was worth more than the whole United States. The Japanese used to joke that they had bought up so much of Hawaii that it had effectively become the 48th prefecture of Japan. Japanese nationwide property prices quadrupled in the space of a decade. At the height of the frenzy, Japanese real estate related lending comprised around 41.2% (A$2.5 trillion) of all loans outstanding. N.B. Australian bank mortgage loan books have swelled to 63% (A$1.7 trillion) of total loans

From the peak in 1991/2 property prices over the next two decades fell 75-80%. Banks were decimated.

In the following two decades, 181 Japanese banks, trust banks and credit unions went bust and the rest were either injected with public funds, forced into mergers or nationalized. The unravelling of asset prices was swift and sudden but the process to deal with it took decades because banks were reluctant to repossess properties for fear of having to mark the other properties (assets) on their balance sheets to current market values. Paying mere fractions of the loan were enough to justify not calling the debt bad. If banks were forced to reflect the truth of their financial health rather than use accounting trickery to keep the loans valued at the inflated levels the loans were made against they would quickly become insolvent. By the end of the crisis, disposal of non-performing loans (NPLs) among all financial institutions exceeded 90 trillion yen (A$1.1 trillion), or 17% of Japanese GDP at the time.

In 2018, Australia’s GDP is likely to be around A$1.75 trillion. Our total lending by the banks is approximately $2.64 trillion which is 150% of GDP. At the height of the Japanese bubble, total bank lending as a whole only reached 106%. Mortgages alone in Australia are near as makes no difference 100% of GDP...

…In Westpac’s full-year 2018 balance sheet, the company claims around A$710 billion in assets as “loans”. Of that amount, according to the latest APRA data, A$411 billion of lending is ‘real estate’ related. Total equity for the bank is A$64.6 billion. So equity as a percentage of property loans is just shy of 16%. If Australia had a nationwide property collapse (we have not had one for three decades) then it is possible that the banks would face significant headwinds.

What that basically says is if Westpac suffered a 16% decline in the value of its entire property loan book then it would at least on paper appear in negative equity, or liabilities would be larger than assets. Recall in 2009 that BoA had over 16% of its residential loan portfolio which went bad.

We ought to be extremely worried if our financial regulators are devoting any time to this utter nonsense. It is highly doubtful that APRA could gain any meaningful insights on climate change even if there was 100% compliance with Bloomberg’s diocese. Utterly embarrassing.

Greatest Corporate Showman on Earth

Tesla’s 1Q 2019 results were dreadful. CM has long held that Tesla is a basket case. The ever charismatic Elon Musk is trying to fan the flames of his company with dying embers. The question is where do we start on this diabolical 1Q report?

1. Musk started off with cash to speak to solvency. Tesla talks to $2.2bn in cash and equivalents. Down $1.5b, partly due to a $920m convertible repayment. Don’t forget Tesla has $6.5bn in recourse debt and $3.5bn in non-recourse debt. It has payables and accrued liabilities of another $5.5bn offset with receivables of just over $1bn.

2. Model S/X deliveries fell from 21,067 in 1Q 2018 to 12,091 in 1Q 2019. That’s -56% at the high margin premium car end. Musk claimed it was due to demand pull forward with a reduction in tax credits. Well he just proved that without credits, demand suffers appreciably.

Model 3 production was 3% higher on the quarter but deliveries were 20% lower. Note customer deposits total $768m, marginally down on the previous quarter. If Tesla starts to implode, customers have a right to get those credits back. Residual values aren’t holding as we discuss in pt.5.

3. Solar deployed -38% year on year

4. (Battery) Storage deployed -39%YoY

5. CM made it clear in point 11 of the 30 reasons why Tesla will be a bug on a windshield report,

The Tesla Residual Value Guarantee, while well intentioned carried risks that crucified the leasing arms of the Big 3. After the tech bubble collapsed at the turn of the century, do you remember the ‘Keep America Rolling’ programme, which was all about free financing for five years? While sales were helped along nicely, the reality was it stored up pain…Goldberg & Hegde’s Residual Value Risk and Insurance study in 2009 suggested on average 92% of cars returned to leasing companies recorded losses on return of up to 12%. Any company can guarantee the price of its used product in theory, the question is whether used car buyers will be willing to pay for it. Sadly Tesla does not get a say in what the consumer will be willing to pay.”

In the 1Q 2019 result, Musk admits that Tesla suffered $121m impairment on residual value guarantees (RVG). Is it any wonder they stopped this scheme. Now it’s payback time. There are $480mn worth of RVGs still on the balance sheet that are unlikely to have been marked to market values.

6. Level 5 autonomous driving is a pipe dream in the near term. 20+ years away. A fleet of Tesla taxis is an even bigger thought bubble. Regulation will put that on the back burner. The current level 2 systems have already shown significant short comings given the numerous beta testing deaths at the wheel of the Tesla auto pilot.

7. Musk is doing a stealth cash raise by putting a time limit on auto pilot upgrades. The question is when will the next cap raise come. His noise around Tesla taxis, Level 5 autonomous systems, Model Y all speak to the snake oil promises that he needs to distract investors from what is clearly going on.

8. His public spat with his biggest supplier, Panasonic, will not end well. Suppliers have to be on board with production expansion. Panasonic is cooling off its relationship. Musk publicly slapped the Japanese battery maker. It doesn’t augur well for the rest of the supply chain either to see these ructions

Peter DeLorenzo wrote the following with respect to Musk,

That this latest charade from Musk is yet another desperate act in an attempt at saving his floundering company is obvious. Where it differs from other Muskian braggadocio is the fact that he is insisting that his AV technology is safe for mass application and consumption. Sorry to disappoint all of the St. Elon acolytes out there, but this is the insane part…

…Unleashing a fleet of zombie Teslas on the streets of America curated by a notorious nanosecond-attention-span personality such as Musk is the quintessential definition of flat-out crazy. You can’t even squint hard enough to suggest that this is, in some way, shape, or form, rational thought. It’s a case of an intermittently brilliant mind that has wandered over the line into the Abyss of Darkness. A dangerous mind that is so obsessed with pushing his perpetually sinking car company into some sort of elevated stratosphere that he is willing to treat real people as so much collateral damage...

This country is 25 years away – at least – from widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles. Yes, there will be scaled deployment in limited, commercial applications primarily in urban centers over the next two decades, but driverless Teslas careening around less than two years from now? It is a recipe for disaster the likes of which simply defies calculation.”

All the reasons CM has disliked Tesla remain. It is so chronically overvalued. This stock will be lucky to be $100 by year end. Sadly the economy is slowing meaning it will be tougher to compete with more competition launching this year. China may give cause for some future hope but don’t bet on it.

The more Musk talks, the more desperate he is. Don’t forget he is not learning from SEC requests to lay off Twitter. His guidance in 1Q is lower than recent tweets suggesting appreciably higher targets. Tesla is a time bomb.

Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing trends in the US surging

Chap 11.png

The Chapter 11 bankruptcy trends in the US have been picking up in the last 4 years. While well off the highs of the months and years of the GFC and years following it, the absolute numbers of filings has exceeded the levels leading up to the crisis in 2007/8.

Chap 11 by year.png

Here we put 2006/7/8 alongside 2016/17/18. The average monthly bankruptcy filings were around 355 in 2006 moving to 429 in 2007 and then 718 in 2008. If we looked at the data in the 12 months prior to the quarter leading into Lehman’s collapse, bankruptcies averaged 463/month. The ultimate carnage peaked out at 1,049 in 2009 (1,377 in Apr 2009). For 2016, 2017 and 2018 (annualized) we get 454, 480 and 521 respectively.

Chap 11 Comp.png

Bankruptcy filings tend to be seasonal and often show peaks in April when tax season coincides with businesses.

However the %-age spike in bankruptcies in 2008 ahead of Lehman’s downfall was 46%. In the latest recorded month from the American Bankruptcy Institute (ABI) was 81%. This March 2018 spike is the second highest since the GFC hit. April figures will be interesting if we get another lift on that figure. Not even seasonality can explain away the differences. The trends seem clear.

Thinking logically, we are at the end of the generous credit cycle. Interest rates are heading north thanks to a less accommodating Fed. Naturally ‘weaker’ companies will have more trouble in refinancing under such environments. The lowering of corporate taxes would seem to be a boon, but with loss making businesses it becomes harder to exercise tax loss carry forwards.

We’ve already started to see GFC levels of credit card delinquency at the sub-prime end of town. Sub-prime auto loan makers seeking bankruptcy protection have surged too.

Fitch, which rates auto-loan ABS said the 60+ day delinquency rate of subprime auto loans has now risen to 5.8%, up from 5.2% a year ago, and up from 3.8% in February 2014 to the highest rate since Oct 1996, exceeding even GFC levels.

growing number of car loans in the US are being pushed further down the repayment line as much as 84 months. In the new car market the percentage of 73-84-month loans is 33.8%, triple the level of 2009. Even 10% of 2010 model year bangers are being bought on 84 month term loans. The US ended 2016 with c.$1.2 trillion in outstanding auto loan debt, up 9%YoY and 13% above the pre-crisis peak in 2005.

The irony here is that sub-prime auto loan makers expanded lending because new technology allowed these companies to to remotely shut down and repossess vehicles of owners who were late on payments. That game only lasts so long before it forms its own Ponzi scheme.

Throw skittish financial markets, geopolitical instability and the mother of all refinancings coming the US Treasury’s way it is not to hard to see bankruptcies pick up from here.

“Nothing to see here…nothing to see here…”

Banco DB

Deutsche Bank, Germany’s largest bank continues to post all time low share price. To give an idea on its size, it is around 40% of National Australia Bank. When Europe’s financial powerhouse is down on its knees you have to wonder about whether such fears are indeed warranted and if not what is behind the weakness. Deutsche Bank’s Chairman has just said “Brexit would be a disaster for the UK” . Actually Mr Chairman Brexit would be a disaster for you.

I discussed yesterday that we had seen the forced bailout of Belgium’s Optima Bank. Not only that Banco Populare in Spain had been given E2.5bn to shore up its liquidity.

Banco Popu

We also mentioned several weeks ago that the ECB had been breaking its own charter by bailing out insolvent Italian bank debt, including the 540 year old BMPDS.

Banco BMPS

Tomorrow I publish a 30 page report on why I think this could be much worse than GFC1. Things are so much worse than the authorities want you to believe. Don’t forget we have been in the worst period of credit, currency and equity market manipulation in history.