Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
2012 InfratIl SEPtEMBEr GrOWtH InfraStrUCtUrE rEQUIrES CaPItal anD rEWarDS CaPItal PaGE 2 BUYInG GOOD BUSInESSES at faIr ValUE PaGE 4 InfratIlS tarGEt rEtUrn tO SHarEHOlDErS PaGE 8
*EBITDAF is a useful non-GAAP financial measure as it shows the contribution to earnings prior to non-cash items such as depreciation and amortisation, fair value adjustments and the cost of financing and taxation. A reconciliation of Infratils EBITDAF to Net Surplus can be found on page 45 of the Infratils 2012 Annual Report.
InfratIlS EBItDaf & nEt OPEratInG CaSH flOW (aftEr IntErESt anD tax)
$ Million
600
500
400
300
200
100
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and values changes
2011
2012
Note: A reconciliation of Infratils EBITDAF to Net Surplus can be found on page 45 of the Infratils 2012 Annual Report.
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Business Acquisition
2011
2012
Buying good businesses at fair value, then supporting disciplined internal growth
Over the last decade Infratil has allocated $3,060 million either to business acquisitions or internal capital spending. The increase in earnings and shareholder value over that period indicates that average returns on this capital has been good, however the average includes positives and negatives. Four brief case studies are outlined below.
InfratIl InVEStMEnt (BY COMPanY)
$ Million
Infratil airports Europe; right ingredients wrong outcome In the 1990s Australia and New Zealand were amongst the first countries to sell state-owned airports and to allow their commercial operation. The resulting value uplift encouraged Australasian investors to look at markets where similar developments were occurring, which led to Europe. Infratil invested in Prestwick, Kent and Lbeck airports and purchased an option over
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
an airport near Berlin. These airports were acquired at well below replacement cost as rapid growth in European air travel made it likely that their capacity would soon become needed and valuable. Kent for instance cost less than 20 million and the next London runway will cost over 2 billion (Mayor Boris Johnsons preferred site in the Thames Estuary is likely to cost over 20 billion). Notwithstanding this enormous potential, Infratil has now called it quits. European air traffic growth has slowed so that the need for additional airfield capacity is postponed, and Infratils assessment of the relative benefits of waiting (and continuing to meet operating cost) versus refocussing elsewhere have favoured exit.
Other TrustPower
an industry undergoing profound change created the opportunity to purchase the Z Energy shareholding at an exceptional price and to then drive earnings growth by changing managements focus In March 2010 Infratil acquired a 50% shareholding in Z Energy at a cost of $210 million. Since then the holding has provided cash returns (interest and dividends) to Infratil of $61 million and now has an average broker analyst valuation of $405 million. In addition, Z Energy has initiated a programme of internal investment to create further growth in throughput and returns. The recipe for a low purchase price and a great deal of subsequent value-add? Among the dozens of ingredients the salient one was a decade of uncertainty and change surrounding the New Zealand liquid fuel industry. That, along with poor financial returns, would have influenced Shells decision to exit, discouraged other
NZ Bus Z Energy
buyers, and created opportunities for a local as opposed to multinational management focus. The fuel processing and distribution industry is changing from the historic model of an oil major, such as Shell, finding and extracting oil (upstream activities) and also processing, distributing and marketing the oil and fuels (downstream). For some years it has been difficult, or just not possible, to be consistently successful at all the stages. Shell and other integrated oil companies are now selling out of refining and distribution to free up capital for upstream and exploration activities. In New Zealand the industry had poor returns and shareholders have maximised cash extraction through under-investment or in the case of Shell, sale of its downstream operations. The success of Infratils Z Energy investment reflects a low entry price and a new management team taking advantage of the opportunities created by a restructuring industry.
Infratil Energy australia group, low cost entry New Zealands electricity industry was deregulated in the 1990s and over the next decade it became vigorously competitive and mergers and acquisitions were common. A decade or so later the Victorian electricity market was the first in Australia to follow New Zealand and it created an opportunity for New Zealand experience to be applied building a business across the Tasman.
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
The Infratil Energy Australia group (retailing and peaker-generation in the south and eastern states, and generation and energy sales to wholesale customers in the west) was started from nothing by applying New Zealand electricity market expertise to the deregulated and restructuring Australian electricity and gas markets. It was a window of opportunity which is now less open as re-regulation makes startups more difficult and raises the costs of acquiring customers. The industry is also changing as it consolidates into a small number of large and medium sized companies. Strategy Infratils investment strategy is to look for lowcost entry into businesses which are well understood by management and to then build capacity and value as demand expands. The approach has mainly delivered, but not always. European airports were not successful for Infratil. They fitted the strategy, but the European economic crisis stifled air traffic growth raising the holding cost and extending the period before underutilised airfields would be needed. At t i m e s eve n ex t re m e l y s u cce ss f u l businesses will face a lack of demand in their
Capital Spend
EBITDAF
Note: A reconciliation of TrustPowers EBITDAF to Profit before Income Tax can be found on page 50 of TrustPowers 2012 Annual Report.
trustPowers recent investment focus has shifted from building generation in new Zealand to wind farms in australia and irrigation in Canterbury. this is a result of capital discipline and an ability to use expertise outside of core functions TrustPower owns 21 power schemes around New Zealand and retails energy to approximately 210,000 customers. Since 2000 TrustPower has increased its New Zealand generation capacity by approximately 40%, however the recent investment focus has been on irrigation in Canterbury and wind farms in Australia, especially the latter. TrustPower is expanding its Snowtown wind farm at a cost of $550 million and has over $1 billion of other projects in Australia. This shift in investment focus reflects discipline and a willingness to look outside of the usual while still taking advantage of inhouse expertise. At present New Zealand does
not need more electricity generation capacity, the economy has not grown for five years and nor has electricity consumption. Companies which have recently invested in New Zealand generation are likely to have inadequate returns for several years on that capital. TrustPower however is able to undertake attractive largescale investment by applying its capital and expertise to construct wind farms in Australia which benefit from that countys policy target of 20% renewable generation by 2020. The table below compares the disclosed economics of TrustPowers Snowtown project a n d a re ce n t l y i n i t i a te d w i n d fa r m i n New Zealand. It gives some indication of why TrustPower is building in South Australia and why it is able to create value with its investment. Recognising that different sites will have different output prices and operating costs so cost per unit of expected generation will explain only part of a projects economics.
core markets and a pause in growth unless investment in adjacent fields can be developed, which for TrustPower has meant wind farms in Australia. However, sometimes good investments will not be found and Infratil is prepared to defer capital spending or cancel projects if that is the best option.
rEtUrnS UK
index
The graphs show the relative performance of the funds managed by Keynes over 22 years and by Infratil for the eighteen and a half years
Kings Col Annual Return
2000 1600 1200 800 400 0 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938
13.7 6.8
1946
since listing. To provide a third reference Warren Buffetts last 22 years of performance is also shown. In each case the fund performance is compared against the relevant share and g ove r n m e nt b o n d m a r ket ret u r n s . Th e comparisons are not entirely level playing field as the individual circumstances of tax paying investors would mean that net returns are likely to differ from those shown. Both the Infratil and Keynes returns are after tax in the hands of Infratils shareholders and Kings College. All the bond returns do not deduct tax
1940
1942
1944
UK Shares Cumulative
UK Bonds Cumulative
rEtUrnS US
Index
2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
15.4 8.1
2011
What stands out is that investment in the equity of good companies can provide attractive returns, even over periods famous for their economic and financial upheaval. 1924 to 1946 included several worst of market crashes, depressions and wars, but well informed investment in good companies by Keynes was still able to post a compound return of 13.7% per annum. Perhaps more surprisingly the average UK market return for the period was 6.8% per annum. It is galling to note that the UK sharemarkets compound rate of return between 1924 and 1946 was better than the New Zealand markets
Bu ett Cumulative
US Bonds Cumulative
rEtUrnS nZ
Index
2000 1600 1200 800 400 0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
16.7
index have provided a lower return than the government bond index. Leaving aside tax, $100 invested in shares in March 1994 would have compounded to now be worth $313, while $100 invested in government bonds would have compounded to $378 over the same period.
6.4
2012
2008
2010
Infratil Cumulative
NZX Cumulative
NZ Bonds Cumulative
DEBt anD EQUItY rEtUrn COMParISOnS (all fIGUrES arE COMPOUnD annUal rEtUrnS)
Period US Equity US Bonds Infratil nZ Equity nZ Bonds aust Equity aust Bonds Japan Equity Japan Bonds UK Equity UK Bonds
Nominal 5 years 10 years 25 years Real 5 years 10 years 25 years In US$ 5 years 10 years 25 years 0.8 6.6 9.5 7.4 5.7 8.0 3.1 19.4 18.6* 0.9 10.7 8.3 9.7 13.5 9.0* (0.2) 14.9 10.9 14.4 14.0 12.0 (4.8) 4.4 (0.6) 10.0 5.7 5.9 (3.6) 7.7 8.0 1.1 5.0 6.9 (0.8) 4.2 6.6 5.7 3.3 5.0 (1.1) 11.3 14.3* (3.3) 2.6 4.0 5.5 5.2 4.7* (6.0) 5.2 6.0 7.7 4.3 7.1 (11.1) 0.2 (2.7) 2.7 1.5 3.6 (1.8) 5.4 5.7 3.0 2.8 4.6 0.8 6.6 9.5 7.4 5.7 8.0 1.6 13.7 16.7* (0.6) 5.0 6.4 8.2 7.8 7.1* (3.8) 7.9 9.2 10.3 7.1 10.3 (11.3) 0.2 (2.3) 2.4 1.4 4.1 1.1 8.0 8.8 6.0 5.3 7.7
* 18.5 years for NZ, from the time Infratil was listed in March 1994.
The table copied above shows the average returns investors have gained from bonds and shares in a number of markets, both in real and nominal terms. The returns are also calculated for a US$ investor to remove the impact of currency changes. All but the New Zealand figures came from a Deutsche Bank report.
In all these markets bonds have outperformed shares over the last five years. An anomalous outcome which hints at the difficulty in forecasting future returns and help explain why investors will be conservative now.
25 20 15 10 5 0
1900
1908
1916
1924
1932
1940
1948
1956
1964
1972
1980
1988
1996
2004
2012
20 16 12 8 4 0
1694
1714
1734
1754
1774
1794
1814
1834
1854
1874
1894
1914
1934
1954
1974
1994
UK Base Rate
25 20 15 10 5 0
1517
1547
1577
1607
1637
1667
1697
1727
1757
1787
1817
1847
1877
1907
1937
1967
1997
20 16 12 8 4 0
1790
1810
1830
1850
1870
1890
1910
1930
1950
1970
1990
2010
US 10yr Yield
the Infratil group has approximately $800 million of capital projects now underway and total spend this financial year is likely to be in the order of $500 million. the spread of the investment is set out in the table. This does not include NZ Refinings $365 million continuous catalytic converter project which Z Energy supported. The largest investment project now under construction by the Infratil group is TrustPowers $550 million. This is not expected to be fully commissioned until mid-2014 and is projected to provide annual earnings before interest, tax and depreciation of $99 million and free cash flows after operating costs, interest and tax of $53 million.
10
funding and partnerships $300 million a year is the average investment outlay of the the Infratil group over the last decade. The money has come from operating cash flows, borrowings, equity issues and asset sales. What it doesnt include is the use of co-investors in new ventures. The most salient example of this was the $210 million contributed by the NZ Superannuation Fund to acquire 50% of Z Energy. Infratil has a long track record of investment partnerships; Wellington City in Wellington Airport, Alliant Energy in TrustPower, management in Infratil Energy Australia, and Utilities Trust in Glasgow Prestwick Airport. The partnerships have allowed Infratil to participate in larger acquisitions than it could otherwise accommodate, to share risk, and to gain expertise and support. They are likely to to be a feature of Infratils future acquisitions, especially if the scale of transactions increases or they are made in sectors or locations where Infratil would benefit from local knowledge.
11
Details of the data sourced from infratil, used in constructing the graphs and tables in this Update are available from Infratil (info@infratil.com). further data and information was sourced from the following: *US returns data from the Federal Reserve of St Louis *Long term interest rates and return data ex-NZ from Deutsche Banks LT Asset Return Study by Jim Reid, Nick Burns and Stephen Stakhiv, September 2012 *NZ share, bond and mortgage rates and returns from Bloomberg, ANZ and the Department of Statistics and the National Library archive *Warren Buffett investment record from Buffetts Alpha by Andrea Frazzini, David Kabiller, Lasse Pedersen August 2012 *John Maynard Keynes investment record from Keynes the Stock Market Investor by David Chambers
12