Posts Tagged ‘Canadian Oil Sands Trust’

Some hits and misses in a dangerous market

Sunday, January 24th, 2010
VOX / STOCK PICKS
Report on Business: Globe Investor Column
Some hits and misses in a dangerous market
FABRICE TAYLOR
804 words
13 August 2009
GLOB
B10
English
2009 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Fabrice Taylor is a chartered financial analyst.

ftaylor@globeandmail.com

The Vox portfolio, if you can call it that, has performed quite well in the past few months. Our picks – and by “our” I mean myself and the countless anonymous people I lean on for ideas and advice – have done pretty well.

For performance reasons, we’re looking at the months from the beginning of October, 2008, the last time we did a scorecard, to the end of July, 2009.

We started getting bullish on stocks in general last October, and that wasn’t a bad idea. We stressed blue chips in early October, and they’ve done well since. They always lead in a recovery. Some of them tested or bested lows in March, and were cheaper then, but we don’t aim to pick the bottom. That’s impossible. We thought, and smarter people told us, that big stable companies were cheap on a historical basis and it appears they were.

Another theme that we embraced in October was infrastructure, based in part on stimulus spending but also valuation. In particular, we looked at Aecon Group, Genivar Income Fund and Churchill Corp. All have done very well. Churchill doubled, Aecon is up 63 per cent and Genivar did fine also, up 31 per cent (all figures assume reinvestment of dividends in the stock).

But not all blue chips did well. The jury is still out on Kraft. It’s flat, but Molson is up 8 per cent – not bad, but that’s in U.S. dollars.

A call on preferred shares wasn’t bad in early November. Falling interest rates and generally improving common equity prices have served them well, especially the preferred shares of big stable companies we recommended with the help of Desjardins Securities.

I thought the selloff in real estate was overdone last fall, and recommended Mainstreet Equity and Brookfield Properties. Mainstreet is up 18 per cent and Brookfield is flat.

Now for a couple of stinker calls, or at least apparent stinkers. I said stay clear of Bank of Montreal late last November because the yield was almost 10 per cent and the market is pretty efficient on big names. The stock is up so much I’m embarrassed to say (okay, it’s up 63 per cent). I also said Teck Resources was dangerous at $11 and it more than quadrupled.

It’s possible, though, that the market was pricing these properly. Yes, they provided good returns but at what was presumably a very big risk, particularly with Teck, whose risks were easy to understand. BMO, like any bank, is, in my opinion, impossible to understand. That said, I own bank stocks through an ETF and CIBC directly, and the latter did very well after I recommended it. Dumb luck at play somewhere.

“Buy oil” was a good call last December. Oil stocks are up a lot since then. Using Canadian Oil Sands Trust as a guide – the stock I chose – you’re up 34 per cent , and in my opinion it’s a long-term holding. I think it will get taken out by some international concern looking for safe reserves, of which Canadian has decades worth. I own the stock myself.

Avoiding Gildan was great advice – if you find extremely large gains repulsive. The stock is up more than 50 per cent. I still wouldn’t own it, but who cares. I was wrong.

Avoiding Yellow Pages Income Fund was better. The units are down, although with distributions the investment is up a little.

Osisko Mining was not a “sell”; it was a “buy” for anyone wanting to make a 47-per-cent gain. But I redeemed myself on Wesdome Gold Mines, up nearly 80 per cent. It’s buying back stock and paying dividends. When Osisko does that, I’ll be a fan.

Citigroup may have been “still sick” in March, when I said its earnings report was a crock. But if going up 100 per cent in price is sick, I’d like the bank to breathe in my face.

But I made up for that on a call to buy Ford stock in late April. So far it’s up 60 per cent. Who’d have thought that?

Staying with cars, shorting ZENN, the Canadian concern that hopes to make electric cars, didn’t pay, but it didn’t cost much. It’s still a short; there’s too much stronger competition and management’s vision isn’t clear enough.

All in all, the picks were not bad. The bold call today: Being long is probably better than being short over all. We’ll see if that’s smart in six months.

Document GLOB000020090813e58d0001a

Oil: Get is while it’s cheap

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010
ENERGY
Report on Business: Globe Investor Column
Oil: Get it while it’s cheap
FABRICE TAYLOR
828 words
13 May 2009
GLOB
B13
English
2009 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Fabrice Taylor is a chartered financial analyst.

ftaylor@globeandmail.com

Alberta’s oil sands are commodity non grata. Their enemies are everywhere and multiplying. Even the mighty National Geographic paints a less-than-flattering portrait of the projects that strip energy from earth.

But who cares. Forget the media noise. The fact is we – the industrialized world, and particularly the United States – can’t afford to burden oils sands producers too much. Oil depletion is relentless, and the media remind us every day of why we don’t want to rely on the Middle East, or Africa, or Asia for that matter, for supplies. Oil sands are the only stable source that can increase production.

Not everyone believes that, judging from the behaviour of investors: Oil sands shares are cheap. Canadian Oil Sands Trust, COS.UN-T for example, is quoted at an enterprise value of less than three bucks per barrel of recoverable oil, according to BMO Nesbitt Burns – forget $55 (U.S.) a barrel. (Disclosure: I own COS.UN). If you believe in the thesis that oil prices are inevitably heading much higher in time, you should buy some cheap barrels in the ground in and around Fort McMurray, Alta.

Should you believe it? As mentioned in this space occasionally, we’re running out of cheap oil quickly. According to the International Energy Agency, production from big existing fields around the world is falling by almost 7 per cent a year. The rate of decline, more importantly, is getting faster.

Demand may be falling too, but not that much. And anyway, demand will start to grow again once the world’s economies recover. That will require more development. In fact, it requires more development today given the long lead times for getting new projects going. But no one feels up to it at $55 a barrel. In fact, expansion is on ice. In the meantime, the best assets – the ones with the lowest costs – are being aggressively exploited.

At what price will marginal projects be pursued? It appears to be a lot higher than today’s prevailing prices. Non-OPEC production actually fell from 2004 to 2008 even as prices surged. A big part of non-OPEC production is in the developed world. We have all the money and technology, but apparently we want better returns than $100 oil offers. So OPEC’s influence is only rising, and OPEC says a fair price is $75 a barrel. They’ll need more than that to keep their regimes going though.

So assuming you’re sold on the thesis, what makes for a recommendation of Canadian Oil Sands? First, it could produce for a century or more. Or it could ramp up production and produce for almost a century. The point is COS escapes the problem faced by so many other producers, especially trusts: replacing reserves. Some trusts have a mere 20 years of production. They’re on a treadmill and they can’t get off it.

Oil reserves are cheap now, but these trusts/companies can’t get credit or use their depressed shares. It’s a tough game, and few win. COS’s resource is so massive that it effectively doesn’t need to worry about it.

Another reason is that COS is run for oil bulls. The company doesn’t hedge, so you are fully exposed to oil prices. Investors may have wished the trust had locked in prices a year ago, but you can’t time these things. COS’s asset is a stake in Syncrude, which is run by Exxon, probably the best oil manager in the business.

Another selling feature: COS pays its excess cash to investors. We don’t worry much about poor capital allocation (although it can happen). The trust’s debt load is reasonable.

And finally, established marginal producers are the biggest winners when prices start to move. (As an aside, COS is arguably not as marginal as it seems. If you factor in the cost of its wars and subsidies, the United States pays a lot more than apparent for Middle East oil. This is not lost on the administration.)

Given how cheap COS and other oil sands producers are, this will sound like a contrarian argument, which can be dangerous. I see it more as an opportunity for “time arbitrage,” which is how most rich guys get rich. Most investors are traders – they don’t hold stocks for a long time. So ideas that pay off over the long term tend to go for cheap, especially if they have short-term problems, like low profits.

This looks like a classic example.

*****

By the numbers

Company                     Enterprise value/  Recoverable barrel of oil equivalent (U.S.)
Canadian Oil  Sands Trust   $2.58
Canadian Natural  Resources $3.79
Nexen                       $3.05
Suncor                      $2.07
Source: BMO Nesbitt Burns, as of April 30

Illustration

Document GLOB000020090513e55d0002e