Hydroelectric Power Stations For Zero Down And No Monthly Payments



Warning: copy() [function.copy]: Filename cannot be empty in /home/finaecom/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mytube/mytube.php on line 220

Is it possible to buy an income trust with no money down and still own it free and clear in less than 7.5 years?

While browsing the Standard & Poors and DBRS rating pages looking for income trusts with strong stability ratings, I came across the power utility trust, Boralex Power Income Fund, which is rated SR-2(stable) and STA-2(low) respectively. You won’t find the typical income trust suspects. The fund doles out distribution using internal cash flow without eroding balance sheet (debt/equity = 0.30) or diluting share count. They own 10 power stations in Quebec and the state of New York:

  • 7 hydroelectric power stations (51% of total output)
  • 2 wood residue (33%)
  • 1 natural gas-fired cogeneration plant (16%)

These power stations have amazing longevity with a couple dating back prior to the First World War. Furthermore, each station has power purchase agreements ranging anywhere between 20 and 40 years. As long as water continues to flow on rivers and population continues to grow, Boralex will continue to electrify investors’ bank accounts. Isn’t this a simple antidote in an investment landscape whipsawed by assets-backed commercial papers and recession chatters?

The strong stability does come with a handicap, however; the trust has virtually no growth prospect, which is why a cheap entry price is so paramount. The trust traditionally trades between $9 and $10, and despite hovering around $9 recently, the 10% yield was simply not up to snuff to justify the lackluster growth. Not being deterred, I shelved the trust onto my watch list just in case bargain surfaces.

Lo and behold, the trust has since been constantly banging at my door screaming, “new 52-week low!” Even the Financial Webrings forum is picking up on the story.

Not wanting to pass up a good opportunity, I raided half a position on Friday at $6.60. You ready for this? With its annual distribution at 90 cents, the trust is yielding a generous 13.64%! Not only that, most of the distribution is in the forms of return of capital and dividend, and with only a ninth in income, the distribution is practically tax-free. Even with no distribution increases, the trust’s compounded return will still eclipse the broader market. In case you’re curious, I mortgaged my water dams with a margin loan, but this is more lucrative than buying a Vancouver property with no money down. Just for fun, I calculated it’d take 7.5 years to wave farewell to the mortgage without forking a single dime. That’s assuming a marginal tax rate of 30%, and a tax-deductible 6.25% interests from Interactive Brokers.

So why is the trust being punished? The answer likely lies in the unfavourable hydrology in the 3rd quarter. Hydrology is fickle science. Due to unusually low water level, their hydroelectric segment generated 22.8% less than historical average, even though that’s only for one quarter. It was only a year ago when the water current was exceptionally strong, while year-to-date, the segment is down only 6%.

In my opinion, investors are unjustly extrapolating this poor quarter well into future return.

The water dams look the same, smell the same, sound the same, and feel the same as yesterday, a week ago, a month ago, 10 years ago and will likely remain the same decades into the future. The only difference is they’re 40% cheaper than the 52-week high. Moreover, these hydroelectric stations represent only half the eggs in the basket. The other half is humming along just fine; the 2 wood-residue thermal power stations and a natural gas-fired cogeneration plant have revenues steaming 7.5% and 20.0% higher respectively.

Having said that, there is no free lunch here. The production isn’t guaranteed, and we don’t know if the 2011 income trust tax ruling will choke cash flow. In my opinion though, as long as the trust is held outside of RRSP, the after-tax distribution shouldn’t change much, but I won’t go into the math here. Since power trusts are generally considered stable and boring, coupled with Boralex’s conservative balance sheet and high ratings from S&P and DBRS, I feel the distribution is safe, and the higher yield offers a margin of safety in a rare event of a distribution cut.

 

Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

Reader Comments

Interesting find…I was aware of BLX as a utility, but with the trust trading right around book value, its an interesting investment. I might have to take a good look at this one, thanks JG :)!!!

If you find the price/book interesting, wait till you figure out how understated the book is.

Borelax has been depreciating their plants by about 3.6% a year - very aggressive rate for assets that should last over a century with proper maintenance.

Hi, nice site. Thank-you for your all your good work.
BPT.UN looks like something Warren Buffet would be buyying, and seems good even within an RRSP. Any comments if it would be in an RRSP…

Hi Grasshopper - Thanks for the comments.

I’m not familiar with your RRSP portfolio, but for me, it’s better to invest outside of RRSP because 91% of the distribution is return of capital (tax-free) and dividend (basically tax-free depending on tax-bracket).

Interesting post! I’ll have to take a look into this company further. I don’t think the Income Trust abolishments will hurt as bad now that the Canadian government is reducing corporate taxes to 15%.. that should help ease the pain for Income Trusts.

That’s a great point, Nabloid. I never thought of that. Another reason to pick up cheap and fundamentally sound income trusts.

Hi Mr. Jungle,

Great site. I stumbled upon here looking for commentary on Borelax and found many other interesting posts.

Questions for you EBITDA is positive for Boralex but their net income showed a net loss of $30 million. From what I can decipher, looks like income tax was much higher. Why is that? and really how does that affect Boralex to continue to pay distributions?

OK, i jumped the gun abit on posting my questions. I think (correct me if I’m wrong) but the net loss is due to future provisions of income taxes due to anticipated changes in the tax laws. Cash flow statement is strong. I’m only confused now by why Boralex is accounting for tax changes in 2011? would changes in 2011 affect this years earning?

IncomeGuy - Thanks for dropping by from the CB forum.

I’m not a tax expert, but I pretty sure the humungous deferred tax on their income statement is a mandate set by the government to provide
tax provision ahead of the 2011 income trust taxation legislation.

This is a non-cash charge, and as far as I can tell, BPT’s after-tax distribution should remain more or less the same.

Source: http://www.940news.com/nouvelles.php?cat=22&id=1102142
Falling U.S. water levels hurt bottom line of firms like Boralex Powerat 21:38 on November 2, 2007, EDT.

Ross Marowits, THE CANADIAN PRESS

MONTREAL - Falling water levels in the United States have helped to short-circuit the quarterly profits of some Canadian power companies.

Boralex Power Income Fund (TSX:BPT.UN) and Brookfield Asset Management Inc. (TSX:BAM) said they have been impacted by lower hydroelectric power generation.

Quebec-based Boralex said its third-quarter earnings declined mainly because of reduced power generation at two U.S. rivers where it has operations.

Net earnings for the quarter decreased to $1.5 million, or three cents a trust unit, from a $6.3-million profit a year earlier.

Sales fell to $19.8 million from $23.5 million, the Montreal-based power producer said Friday.

The U.S. installations generate about two-thirds of its total 90 megawatts of hydroelectric capacity

“The main factor behind this quarter’s performance is our hydro group, which is below average operational performance, is for the most part explained by lower water levels, especially in the U.S.,” Jean-Francois Thibodeau, the chief financial officer, said during a conference call with analysts.

The hydroelectric operations produced 34 per cent less electricity than in the third quarter of 2006 and 23 per cent less than the historical average. As a result, revenue dropped by $4.4 million to $6 million.

Strong water levels last year helped produce a 17 per cent excess in power generation, he told analysts. In the United States, this year’s generation was off by 35 per cent, compared to an excess of 42 per cent last year.

The situation was better in Canada, where hydro output declined by two per cent, largely because of the shutdown of its Forestville power station.

With little reservoir capacity, Boralex is heavily dependent on river flows to generate hydroelectricity.

“It’s a fact of doing business and owning run of river hydroelectric plants,” analyst Daniel Shteyn said in an interview.

Hydrology in Quebec wasn’t as bad as the U.S., suggesting it wasn’t a widespread problem and may be a seasonal anomaly.

“It really depends on which rivershed we are talking about.”

With its large reservoir system, Hydro Quebec said it has had a good year for water flows and doesn’t have any difficulties.

Ontario Power Generation said the diversity of its installations across Canada’s largest province has ensured its power production is doing well.

“Right now we are pretty much on track to average,” said spokesman John Earle.

It has benefited from near flood conditions in northwestern Ontario. That compares with much drier conditions last year.

Brookfield, which through a subsidiary partially owns Great Lakes Hydro Income Fund (TSX:GLH.UN), said its results were hurt by lower generation levels in its power generation operations because of abnormally low water levels, especially in New York.

Meanwhile, low water is causing ecological and economic problems on the Great Lakes, particularly for commercial shippers and recreational marinas.

Lakes Michigan and Huron are about 50 centimetres below their historical average levels for this time of year. Lake Superior hit a record monthly low in September.

Partially offsetting Boralex’s hydro results were increases in the wood residue segment, where revenues rose slightly to $8.1 million. The natural gas power station had $5.7 million in earnings.

Water levels aren’t the only challenge facing Boralex.

It is seeking a court injunction to prevent Bowater Canada from unilaterally terminating an agreement to operate a generating facility at its plant in Dolbeau, Que.

“We continue to vigorously contest this decision by Bowater to unilaterally invalidate the management contract of this plant and we do find their complaint unfounded,” Thibodeau told analysts.

A ruling is expected in a few weeks.

Published reports say Bowater is suing Boralex for $8 million.

An arbitration process that will impose a settlement is expected to take more than six months.

Meanwhile, Thibodeau declined to explain why a strategic review ended with the trust not being sold when four power trusts have concluded sales.

“The fund is continuously looking at its strategic alternatives,” he said in response to a question from an analyst.

Boralex Power is an open-ended trust that indirectly owns 10 power generating stations in Quebec and the United States, producing energy from rushing rivers, wood residue and natural gas.

On the Toronto Stock Exchange, its units lost 55 cents or 6.25 per cent to $8.25 in trading Friday.

[…] my original analysis on Boralex Power Income Fund: So why is the trust being punished? The answer likely lies in the […]