Archive for the ‘Resources’ Category

Labrador Iron Ore on rebound from a rocky bottom

Sunday, January 24th, 2010
VOX / ROYALTIES
Report on Business Column
Labrador Iron Ore on rebound from a rocky bottom
FABRICE TAYLOR
741 words
24 December 2009
GLOB
B7
English
2009 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Fabrice Taylor is a chartered financial analyst.

ftaylor@globeandmail.com

Royalties are hot commodities these days. Look at Franco Nevada. Look at the oil patch, where feeble gas producers are selling a pound of their flesh in the form of an overriding royalty.

Most notably, look at the Labrador Iron Ore Royalty Income Fund. It’s doubled since hitting a rocky bottom 12 months ago. With dividends, it has done even better. And it’s still going up.

This is a little baffling at first glance. For an income fund, the stated yield looks low at less than 5 per cent. On top of that, the fund couldn’t cover its distributions from cash flow in the past year; it had to dip into its cash pile.

And finally, the high dollar has to hurt where it counts.

But scratch beneath the surface and you can make a case for owning this thing.

First, an explanation of the assets: Labrador owns a 7-per-cent gross overriding royalty on the production of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, whose claim to fame may be that it was once run by Brian Mulroney. But I’m digressing.

Royalties are wonderful things. You get paid before anyone else: before the workers, before the bond holders, before the tax man and before the shareholders. You don’t worry about expenses, in other words, because as far as you’re concerned there are none. You only worry about volumes and prices.

And worry you did in the past year, as Iron Ore didn’t operate at full capacity and didn’t earn great prices for its iron, hence the need for distributions from cash.

The fund also owns a 15-per-cent equity stake in IOC and earns a small amount of commissions – 10 cents a tonne – on what IOC sells.

There’s no leverage in a royalty stream, yet the swings in Labrador’s revenue are breathtaking. In 2007, Labrador earned royalties of $53-million (after paying a 20-per-cent tax to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador). In 2008, it soared to $129-million. On 32 million units out, that’s a big move.

And the value of the equity stake, which is affected by leverage (meaning that because of fixed costs a change in revenue leads to a much bigger change in profits), would have soared in similar fashion. Indeed, IOC paid dividends to shareholders.

This year’s recession brought the opposite effect. Royalty income in the first nine months of the year fell by more than half and adjusted cash flow per unit was a mere third of what it was the year before. Even royalty owners get burned by drastic price swings.

It looks like the old pendulum is moving the other way now though. Demand is back. IOC was back to full production in the third quarter – and spot prices are firming up. India, one of the biggest producers in the world, will import iron this year. Although some say that’s temporary as it fires up supply, it’s still a sign of rising demand.

Steel demand historically peaks at about 1000 kilograms per capita in industrializing nations. Neither China nor India are close to that yet. With about two billion people between them, that’s a lot of demand. It won’t happen tomorrow, but it takes a while for new supply to come on stream.

The hair in the soup is the Canadian dollar. Part of the drop in Labrador’s financials, mentioned above, is because of volumes and pricing, but a good part is also from foreign exchange. Some pundits see the dollar going to par with the greenback. That’s only another nickel or so but it would hurt.

Iron ore prices are, for the most part, set annually early in the year by producers and consumers. Given the rise in price of exchange traded commodities like copper, negotiated iron prices will likely be a lot higher next year than this.

Labrador units have done well, but they once changed hands for $60 before being interrupted by an inconvenient financial catastrophe.

In 2008, the distribution was almost $5 per unit.

That could happen again if the dollar behaves as it should. And don’t forget that stocks that do well tend to keep doing well.

Document GLOB000020091224e5co00026

Bullion may have raced ahead, but there’s still gas in the tank

Sunday, January 24th, 2010
VOX / GOLD
Report on Business: Globe Investor Column
Bullion may have raced ahead, but there’s still gas in the tank
FABRICE TAYLOR
918 words
14 December 2009
GLOB
B13
English
2009 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Fabrice Taylor is a chartered financial analyst.

ftaylor@globeandmail.com

It’s easy to say gold is a bubble. It’s up more than 26 cent in the past six months, so it has to be right?

Maybe, but I doubt it, for both obvious and less-obvious reasons. Gold isn’t as attractive as it was when no one wanted to own it a few years ago. Back then it was a no-brainer, trading for less than the marginal production cost. Today, there’s hot money in bullion, making it susceptible to sharp corrections. But the rally has legs nonetheless.

Let’s start with the obvious: Gold is up, true, but put it in a longer perspective and you’ll find that gold is actually lagging other assets, and consumer prices. Since the start of the great bull market in 1980, gold is only up about 60 per cent. Inflation, officially anyway, is up roughly 175 per cent and stocks are up almost 900 per cent. U.S. money supply is up nearly 500 per cent. The price of something in a bubble tends to zoom ahead of everything. Gold has in the very short term but it’s only catching up to other assets.

Another hallmark of a bubble is exuberant investor interest. There’s some of that for sure, but are the masses really clamouring for gold? Yes, demand for bullion-based exchange-traded funds is brisk. They’ve grown to about $70-billion (U.S.) in market capitalization since the first one was launched about five years ago.

Bullion ETFs are the most important thing to happen to gold prices in decades, and have stoked demand and prices. But although they’ve grown quickly, they’re still small relative to the trillions of dollars of gold in the world. They have lots of room to grow.

And if gold is in a bubble, why are so many interesting junior gold shares trading below book value? Building a mine is a tough way to make a buck to be sure, but in a bubble, no one thinks about that. They think about getting rich fast and pay crazy prices for whatever mania might make that happen.

Institutional interest, meantime, doesn’t appear particularly high. Gold doesn’t feel like real estate or tech stocks, two bubbles I’ve live through.

The fundamental supply-and-demand equation argues for higher gold prices. Production hit its high in 2001. It’s been down ever since. Even with flat demand prices should justifiably be higher.

If peak oil makes sense, why not peak gold? Yes, there are of course, differences. Once extracted, oil is burned and can’t be used again, while mined gold never disappears. Recycling is not a factor in oil whereas it is a big one in gold. Nonetheless, the basic supply-demand theory stands.

Perhaps the most important factor is that central banks are buyers. India bought 200 tonnes from the IMF recently. Yet gold is still less than 10 per cent of its reserves. For China, which is sitting on a mountain of U.S. dollars, the figure is less than 2 per cent.

Maybe most telling, governments, the U.S. particularly, doesn’t seem to mind if gold rises any more. These are quotes from a letter written to then President Gerald Ford by the Federal Reserve chairman Arthur Burns in 1975, declassified a couple of years ago: “The broad question at issue is whether central banks and governments should be free to buy gold, from one another or from the free market, at market-related prices … The Federal Reserve is opposed.”

The letter also alludes to the IMF, saying that “the role of gold in the international monetary system would be gradually reduced.”

And finally, “I have a secret understanding in writing with the Bundesbank, that Germany will not buy gold, either from the market or from another government, at a price above the official price of $42.22 an ounce.”

To say that governments didn’t at least try to manipulate gold prices is clearly naive. To say they didn’t succeed is probably naive too.

Today, they may not care any more, and at any rate they’re losing the battle.

As mentioned earlier, there’s hot money in gold, but it’s not universally owned. It takes a long time to overcome three decades of contempt. The last word goes to John Hathaway, portfolio manager at Tocqueville Asset Management: “While it is no longer enough to observe that the metal is of interest based on universal apathy, it is safe to say that it has a long way to go before it becomes mainstream.”

******

Gold’s lagging indicators

Despite its latest rally, gold still lags behind the gains other assets and indicators have experienced since 1980.

……………………………………………………….Jan. ‘80……..Dec. ‘09…….% change

Total U.S. credit market debt*……………$4.40……….$52.50……….1,097%

S&P 500……………………………………………..111…………1,100………….892%

U.S. money supply*…………………………..$1.50…………$8.40………….462%

U.S. GDP*………………………………………..$2.70……….$14.30………….425%

U.S. Consumer Price Index……………………78…………215.8………….177%

WTI Crude Oil…………………………………$32.50……….$76.84………….136%

U.S. Producer Price Index…………………..85.2

Gold – weekly average, per ounce………$738……….$1,196………….105%

*$-trillions (U.S.)

THE GLOBE AND MAIL

SOURCE: CENTRAL FUND OF CANADA

Document GLOB000020091214e5ce0001f

Vanadium may prove to be an element of surprise

Sunday, January 24th, 2010
VOX / MINING
Report on Business: Globe Investor Column
Vanadium may prove to be an element of surprise
FABRICE TAYLOR
846 words
16 November 2009
GLOB
B8
English
2009 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Fabarice Taylor is a chartered financial analyst.

ftaylor@globeandmail.com

Nestled between titanium and chromium on the periodic table of the elements lies a little known metal that could make investors a lot of money if the stars continue to align.

The element is vanadium, which you’ve probably never heard of, even though it surrounds you. It strengthens the steel in your office building, hardens the tools used to build that tower and, perhaps, will play a big role in the electrification of the automobile you may one day drive to get to work.

Vanadium has long been used in steel and that represents the vast majority of demand for the metal. Demand for steel is on the upswing. Averaging out the demand forecasts I’ve seen pegs growth at between 5 and 6 per cent starting around next year if the recovery is intact.

That’s good news for vanadium. Better news is that China and Japan are raising standards for rebar strength, meaning more vanadium demand over and above what comes from higher steel demand.

There’s no market quote for vanadium; like iron ore, it’s traded by contract between producers – of which there are relatively few – and consumers.

Indications are that the price per tonne was about $50 (U.S.) in mid-2005. It blasted to more than $80 in early 2008 then collapsed like everything else. Today, a tonne changes hands for about $30. It’s probably heading higher. But how much?

To answer you have to ask yourself how much you believe in electric cars. It appears that they will be one of the policy answers to greening the planet. I suspect that mandating tougher greenhouse gas regulations is also part of the plan to expand the economies of the world.

It’s not a fad, in other words.

If electric cars are to catch on – and I mean purely electric ones, not hybrids – the auto industry has to solve the battery problem. Batteries have improved but are still slow to charge and provide limited driving distance compared with a tank of gas.

Lithium was a big breakthrough but it also has drawbacks as used now. Some battery makers are experimenting with adding vanadium into the battery ingredient. Using vanadium, in theory, adds power among other things. It’s more expensive than some alternatives but the performance appears to compensate for the added cost.

There are, in fact, strong signs that vanadium is about to make its grand debut in battery technology. China’s BYD, which is backed by Warren Buffett, is among the leading-edge battery makers looking at vanadium and is building a plant in the vanadium-producing region of China.

Subaru, meanwhile, has a prototype, the G4e, which will use a lithium-vanadium-phosphate battery. It has twice the range of a prior prototype.

Finally, there’s the prospect for what’s known as vanadium reduction-oxidation batteries, also known as redox batteries. This is a very promising existing technology that works at the grid level and allows for the storage of a lot of power, which can be drawn for long periods of time. They’re ideal, among other things, for wind and solar farms, which produce power when it’s not necessarily needed.

Although usually mined as a byproduct, vanadium is pretty rare; there are few quality deposits in the world. That suggests that if demand rises, prices could move up quickly too, making deposits economical in a hurry.

So how to profit if this argument makes sense to you? There are no big pure play producers. But there are smaller companies trying to develop their plays.

One is Apella Resources, which I know a little because they’ve hired me to do some valuation work for them. Apella says it has a lock on pretty much all of the decent vanadium resources in North America. It certainly appears to have a lot of it underground, and all in safe jurisdictions. Management is solid and aligned. If vanadium really takes off – that is, if everything falls into place perfectly – there will likely be a bidding war for this one some day.

Uranium Star has a big play in Madagascar and, as the name implies, other interests besides vanadium, including some in Canada. The CEO came from Sherritt International and Inco before that.

Another is Syno Vanadium. I know nothing about its management but the properties are in China and the plan is consolidation.

These are all speculations, obviously. There’s no knowing for sure if and, as important, when vanadium demand might take off. The upside is potentially huge but the risks are not to be trifled with.

CORRECTION

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The price of vanadium that was published in a column on Monday should have been per kilogram not per tonne. Also, an incorrect name was published for a vanadium producer. It is Sino Vanadium Inc.

Document GLOB000020091116e5bg0000b

A little gold company that does it right

Sunday, January 24th, 2010
VOX: COMMODITIES
Report on Business: Globe Investor Column
A little gold company that does it right
FABRICE TAYLOR
754 words
30 January 2009

‘I’d rather be the hunter than the hunted,” says Tye Burt, who runs Kinross Gold Corp.

Curious comment given that it came on the very day Kinross announced a bought deal to raise as much as $415-million (U.S.), which would bring its cash hoard to nearly $1-billion. That’s kind of like walking into a meet market in a miniskirt insisting that you don’t like attention. A billion idle bucks is a lot of lipstick. Hunters notice.

Mr. Burt acknowledges that Kinross doesn’t need the money but wants to take advantage of the fact that junior companies can’t raise any money and are ripe for the picking.

Not to pick on Kinross – almost all the sizable gold companies are raising money or will – but this is the problem with the gold mining industry: It produces more share certificates than bullion.

Granted, gold mining is a hysterically brutal industry. Those beautiful, shiny gold bars you see in annual reports belie the sweat, blood and tears that go into wresting that metal from the ground. Still, it can be done in a way that creates value, but I don’t think you do that by hosing out shares every time your multiple gets high enough to ring the bell. Kinross’s is a rich 34 times earnings, or 25 if you look ahead a year.

Even investment bankers seem to agree: As one of them told The Globe, referring to gold issuers, “everybody is going to come to the trough.” Well put.

After all, besides potentially (if not most probably) diluting your investors, what does selling stock say to the world? If gold is going higher, won’t your cash flow? Why not rely on that to make acquisitions?

Maybe Kinross et al will create value but they’re handicapped by their predilection for financial engineering as opposed to mining engineering. There are exceptions to this rule, though. Take a little company called Wesdome Gold Mines. Chances are you’ve never heard of it even though it operates 17 per cent of the underground gold mines in Canada. That’s two of 12, and truth be told, they are probably the two smallest – Wesdome’s production is running at about 80,000 ounces annually. The market capitalization is a mere $104-million.

But it is making real money. Two weeks ago, Wesdome sold gold for $1,008 (Canadian) an ounce. Last week, it sold production for $1,107 an ounce. Every $10 change means about a penny of earnings per share. On a share price of a buck, that counts. It’s nice that gold is rising while the Canadian dollar falls.

But it’s also nice that the company’s share count hasn’t ballooned over the years. In fact, Wesdome has bought back some shares, cleverly at that: The company issued flow-through shares above market last year and, using free cash flow, repurchased the same number in the market under a normal course issuer bid, basically executing an arbitrage and netting $400,000 of free money.

One of Wesdome’s mines, called Kiena, is in the Val d’Or region of Quebec, the other, Eagle River, is in Northern Ontario. Both have short lives as things stand but they also have interesting prospects and are spinning off cash.

Here’s what I like most about Wesdome, though, and it has nothing to do with numbers or ratios. Over dinner with two of the senior executives the other day, I asked them what keeps them up at night. The answer to that question is typically a worry about something. The answer this time was immediate and mutual: Their high hopes for a new zone at Kiena that, if all works out, could substantially increase the mine life and the value of the business (both have substantial amounts of their wealth in Wesdome shares).

Wesdome is a tiny player. It deserves to trade at a discount to its bigger rivals. But that discount looks too high.

***

Fabrice Taylor is a chartered financial analyst.

ftaylor@globeandmail.com

***

CLARIFICATION

In a recent column on Gildan Activewear, I said the company recently changed the way it presents its cash flow in its public documents. This may have caused some confusion. The company’s disclosure is transparent, however it does highlight some of its cash flow figures differently compared to last year.

Illustration

Document GLOB000020090130e51u0001c