Description. MAXIM Power Group (“Maxim”) is an
Independent Power Producer (“IPP”) engaged in the acquisition, development, and
operations of power generation facilities. The company operates 804 megawatts
(“MW”) of electric power in Canada, U.S., and France and 118 MW of thermal
power solely in France. The forty-one electric facilities are split between thirty-seven
gas fired plants (638 MW), three are LFG and waste heat recovery plants (16 MW),
and one coal plant in Alberta (150 MW). The company also has three attractive
development projects in its pipelines – a fully-permitted 18.9 MT met coal
reserve, a 190 MW fully permitted nat-gas power project, and a proposed 520 MW nat-gas
expansion to its existing coal plant.
History. Maxim checks off several boxes for a
stock that could contain hidden value: i) small cap security with ~C$150 mln
market cap; ii) illiquid stock – average volume traded is 70,000 shares, or
C$200k daily; iii) major shareholders are looking for ways to maximize the
company’s value and/or their return capital; and iv) a recent sales agreement that
was terminated due to a FERC inquiry sent stock tumbling 25%, and currently
trade at 0.6x book value.
The company is no stranger to idea-generation sites with
multiple submissions on VIC and SumZero, however every time investors feel the
company has found a way to unlock its value, something goes awry – in 2012
Alberta’s power prices fell despite steady economic activity and a new carbon
emission legislation shortened the economic life of its coal plant; in 2013 a
definitive sales agreement was terminated, while another expected agreement
failed to materialize. Despite all the blunders, Maxim’s assets are performing
better than ever, the balance sheet is as robust as ever, the company has a
clear divestment strategy, and yet trades near all-time lows based on
enterprise value.
Operations. In the past, the company’s split-persona
between an operator and a developer caused the market to discount its operating
assets (can’t distribute income to shareholders), and not give any value for
its development projects (too small to develop its projects alone). Rightly so,
in late-2012 major shareholders who have seen the value of their shares go
nowhere over the last decade shifted the company’s focus to developing the
Alberta plants while divesting the well-performing operating portfolio and coal
reserve. The company has stated it will not develop the two nat-gas projects solo
due to the binary nature of single project development, and will seek an
off-take or JV.
Maxim’s poor share price performance is explained by its
deteriorating return on capital (exhibit 1) – a function of peak market
acquisitions and inconsistent performance from its assets. After five years of muddling
through, Maxim is firing on all cylinders again with power prices in its key
markets reaching 2007-2008 levels, boosting return on capital employed back into
double digit territory. On a TTM basis Maxim has generated $53 mln in EBITDA.
Valuation. For simplicity sakes I’ve valued
Maxim on a multiples basis, using 8x pre-tax CF (5x for Milner) while adjusting
for cyclicality, debt and closure costs, and Summit’s NPV (exhibit 2). I’ve
tried to be conservative in my valuation leaving room for upside – the
multiples used maybe conservative for a predictable business; if the Alberta
power market remains tight, Milner could add an additional $0.20/sh per year; and
I’m only adding half of Summit’s NPV, which could provide another $0.78/sh. Whole,
Maxim’s portfolio should be worth at least $4/sh for 40% upside.
Conclusion. While I would love to tell you that
Maxim is a low-risk, high-uncertainty bet, I don’t think it falls into the
category. The high-uncertainty is courtesy of a tight-lipped regulatory inquiry
underway. The risk is provided by the fact that an acquirer with superior
knowledge has walked away (perhaps just looking for an escape route), and fines
that could be posed by a regulatory body set on sending a message (appendix B).
The difference between legitimate operations and illegal manipulation in the eyes
of FERC is centred on subjective notions of perspective and motivation. To be
comfortable with such risk, one would have to be certain of adequate compliance
procedures, proper incentives, and unquestionable integrity amongst Maxim’s leadership
team. I cannot make that call, perhaps other investors are more familiar with
the company’s culture are able to and take advantage of this opportunity.
The good news is that the market does not seem to be discounting
a negative FERC decision scenario. Prior to the announcement of the sales
agreement the stock was trading at $3.01, compared to $2.85 now. While I’m
hoping for a clean sheet, if the market continues to overlook FERC related
risk, investors should be able to pick up shares at an attractive price in any
outcome. I would just wait for the final decision from FERC.
Parry, in you're opinion do you see the FERC inquiry potentially leading to a fine of $ 50 million or greater?
ReplyDeleteIn my honest opinion, I have no idea. Very tough to say what will come out of this given the limited information the company has released. What we do know is that i) FERC doesn't just send out inquiries for fun, there is usually wrongdoing and a fine involved; and ii) the fines can be big, even for small companies. Best case scenario is that it is not a market manipulation case, and for the worst case, for some reason I have been using the $50 mln figure as well.
ReplyDeleteI think an even bigger turnoff could be Mr. Bobenic saying that if it was up to him, they would be adding assets instead of divesting (confusion, which there is plenty of in the company's history). I like the story a lot better with management trying to divest the operating assets and then monetize the development projects.
Thank you for the response. The reason I bring up a $50 million potential fine is because I think if it is anything less than that then there is still a lot of upside in regards to Maxim. The reason I believe this, and I dont think you mentioned it but in February of 2014 (two months after the sale fell through), Maxim became a major beneficiary of a Forward Capacity Market ("FCM") auction. Prior to the auction, Maxim’s powerplants received a rate of $2.95/kw per month. However, as a result of the auction, Maxim is
ReplyDeletelocked in to receive $7.025/kw per month, or a 230% increase commencing in 2017. I think this can easily bump up MUSA free cash flow near $20 million per year. If so a fine of less than $50 million can be absorbed through selling non core projects and adding on some debt to existing plants.
Great point, and that is a definite positive.
ReplyDeleteI found it tough to value this additional CF since if I'm not mistaken (which is quite possible), these are still one year auctions. So you could see new capacity entering the market in the future that could lower this fixed-capacity rate, and new build pricing will definitely entice additional capacity.
What this gives them is a golden opportunity. They are in a power market with tight supply. Adding capacity to the power market is usually a lengthy process and in the mean time existing capacity should be bid up. How much should that premium be? I don't think its that additional $10-$12 mln/year discounted back; but definitely more than the single year addition. What are your thoughts? How much of a premium do you think this adds to MUSA?
Nice summary of MXG - you should post more often!
ReplyDeleteThoughts on latest MXG news?
http://maximpowercorp.mwnewsroom.com/press-releases/maxim-power-corp-provides-an-update-on-the-federal-energy-regulatory-commission--tsx-mxg-201411040976902001
http://www.energychoicematters.com/stories/20141104e.html
Btw, where did you pull the nifty flow chart for the FERC actions in 2013, where it broke out how many were settled, for how much, etc? This seems close but not sure it has enough info?
http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/2013/11-21-13-enforcement.pdf
Thanks.