Stockwatch: This stock is fundamentally cheap

19th December 2017 10:25

by Edmond Jackson from interactive investor

Share on

At around 460p, the FTSE 250 shares of oil & gas engineering and construction services group Petrofac remain under a cloud as a Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation continues, mainly into the Unaoil bribery scandal. Yet this has not been enough to seriously damage winning/renewing contracts, as was feared when this news broke last May.

A pre-close trading update for the year to end-December 2017 cites trading in line with expectations, with a recovery in new order intake during 2017 securing $5.2 billion (£3.9 billion) of new orders.

"Tendering activity remains high, we continue to maintain our bidding discipline in competitive markets and we have a healthy order backlog," the company said, adding that former Anglo American finance director René Médori will replace longstanding chairman Rijnhard van Tets next year.

I'd drawn attention last May at 650p, making clear a bearish scenario if the chief executive ended up tarnished, yet the stock was worth following lest business was not badly affected.

So, in light of a "business as usual" narrative six months later, it's worth re-appraising Petrofac. If its boss does subsequently lose public credibility, then the group is exposed as a bid target, especially for dollar-based oil (service) groups able to exploit sterling's relative weakness.

Downgraded forecasts yet intrinsically cheap

Mind that during September to November analysts did downgrade forecasts significantly, which at first sight looks as if the company has guided down expectations then asserted "in line."

I'm comparing the consensus forecasts in Company REFS I used last May, with what's published there now: 2017 pre-tax profit is down by 18.4%, earnings per share (eps) by 12.6% and the dividend by 28.2%. The 2018 outlook was clipped respectively by 7.1%, 9.0% and 42.1%.

In the published information there was a subtle warning in the 30 August interims' outlook statement: "Group net profit for the full year 2017 is expected to be weighted to the second half of the year" which cynics - or realists - of guidance may interpret as a soft profit warning.

Otherwise the statement cited $2.7 billion of new orders and the narrative was as now: "tendering remains high, healthy order backlog" etc.

There was nothing in public releases to suggest why two brokers downgraded in September and another two in early November, according to REFS.

In both months, 'buy' or 'hold' stances were involved, with which I concur given a 12-month forward price/earnings (PE) multiple of 7.4 times and a prospective yield 6.4% covered at least twice by earnings - possibly a lot more by cash flow, given the strong record of cash flow relative to earnings (see table).

Admittedly, capex demands have varied, being strong in 2012 to 2014 then only a third of those annual amounts. But if Petrofac only roughly meets recent forecasts, it would still be ahead of 2014 to 2016 annual outcomes.

Net tangible assets per share were 96.1p per share as of last June. I disagree with the REFS' table figures stating e.g. 63.9p, having subtracted goodwill/intangibles and converted dollar to pound values.

An autumnal lull in contract awards?

On 5 September, Petrofac was awarded a €340 million with global energy group Gazprom for the development of onshore pipelines and a gas receiving terminal in Turkey; then a day later a $700 million contract for engineering, construction and site services on Sakhalin, Russia's largest island.

The company then did not see fit to disclose further contracts until 12 December: an $800 million contract with BP for a gas processing facility in Oman, which followed an initial $1.4 billion contract in early 2014, i.e. operations were underway, hence the relationship being less likely to be broken by the SFO investigation alone. BP's upstream chief executive said it's one that has "delivered". Petrofac has been involved with a large number of projects linked to BP, also in Oman.

Industry context looks supportive

Oil prices have crept up to a mid-$60 area, with better output discipline among OPEC members and a robust outlook for the global economy in 2018; also gas prices have strengthened only partly due to two European supply interruption issues.

Oil & gas services companies' prosperity tends to lag changes in commodity prices as they affect industry activity, although stockmarket expectations soon factor them in.

The Unaoil scandal has affected other oil services groups such as Wood Group, although, at 620p, this Mid 250 stock has recovered 11% from a mid-year low.

Wood has not seen fit to declare any suspension/resignation like Petrofac did in May when its chief operating officer stood down. This was interpreted as a compromise measure to address Petrofac's public credibility without also losing the chief executive, who is the group's founder (also with an 18.5% shareholding) and seen as vital to top-level client relations.

Ongoing strength in key operations

Looking for clues in the update's operations review, as to what may have contributed to broker downgrades, it's possible to deduce it from all three divisions. Manifestly, the smaller Integrated Energy Services side appears responsible, with operating profit guided to the bottom end of a $80-100 million range, while the main Engineering & Construction side (about three-quarters of group revenue/profit) has seen $4.1 billion new orders this year amid a high level of tendering, and the Services side (just under a quarter of revenue/profit) has seen $1.1 billion "awards and extensions".

To be picky, such numbers don't inform as to what client attrition may also be involved, to determine net revenues, although the backlog - work in progress - was $10.3 billion at end-November, "reflecting a recovery in new order intake, offset by progress on our existing range of projects". At the end of 2016 it was $11.7 billion.

This leaves whatever amount of fine, as the explicit financial risk, although the real issue is whether and what extent Petrofac's founder-chief executive Ayman Asfari ends up tainted by SFO conclusions.

In early September, Asfari was fined €300,000 for allegedly acting on inside information in 2012 by Consob, the Italian financial regulator.

This regulator claimed a previous chief executive of the Saipem oil company had informed Asfari of his resignation before it was announced, and Asfari had bought put options in Saipem shares, proceeding to make a five-fold gain.

He is also banned from any managerial or supervisory roles in Italian listed companies for 12 months; however, this sanction was administered without Asfari being notified of the charges hence able to defend himself, and he denies the allegations.

Petrofac - financial summaryConsensus estimates
year ended 31 Dec2012201320142015201620172018
Turnover (£ million)3,9384,0653,7984,4805,832
IFRS3 pre-tax profit (£m)483507104-21974.1
Normalised pre-tax profit (£m)469509187-143104298316
Operating margin (%)11.912.65.9-1.92.8
IFRS3 earnings/share (p)11612121.2-67.20.2
Normalised earnings/share (p)11212245.2-44.99.173.760.8
Earnings per share growth (%)14.39.1-63.0712-17.5
Price/earnings multiple (x)50.56.27.6
Historic annual average P/E (x)12.89.918.470.9
Cash flow/share (p)-57.5-13.3124131149
Capex/share (p)10510110535.435.1
Dividend per share (p)36.842.539.743.546.928.229.1
Dividend yield (%)10.26.16.3
Covered by earnings (x)3.13.01.10.22.62.1
Net tangible assets per share (p)199264290205217
Source: Company REFS

Short positions are mixed, but largest is reducing

Those short positions disclosed total 8.04% of the issued share capital; material enough to have depressed the price. Three of six positions have increased, but trading firms with the three largest positions are reducing them.

The behaviour of AQR Capital Management, 3.69% short as of 6 December, is frankly bizarre: they ran this position up to 4.2%, implying a circa £65 million down-bet on Petrofac, now reversing it, on little change in published information throughout. So I would not be distracted by any sense these big traders have better insight.

On fundamentals, risk/reward favours upside

Despite my concerns as to how guidance may have been imparted, when brokers downgraded last autumn, I'd agree this stock is fundamentally cheap.

The Unaoil story loses its impact, the longer Petrofac can assert "business as usual" and oil prices are also helping lift sentiment. Market price is still at least half what it was in May. Buy.

This article is for information and discussion purposes only and does not form a recommendation to invest or otherwise. The value of an investment may fall. The investments referred to in this article may not be suitable for all investors, and if in doubt, an investor should seek advice from a qualified investment adviser.

These articles are provided for information purposes only.  Occasionally, an opinion about whether to buy or sell a specific investment may be provided by third parties.  The content is not intended to be a personal recommendation to buy or sell any financial instrument or product, or to adopt any investment strategy as it is not provided based on an assessment of your investing knowledge and experience, your financial situation or your investment objectives. The value of your investments, and the income derived from them, may go down as well as up. You may not get back all the money that you invest. The investments referred to in this article may not be suitable for all investors, and if in doubt, an investor should seek advice from a qualified investment adviser.

Full performance can be found on the company or index summary page on the interactive investor website. Simply click on the company's or index name highlighted in the article.

Disclosure

We use a combination of fundamental and technical analysis in forming our view as to the valuation and prospects of an investment. Where relevant we have set out those particular matters we think are important in the above article, but further detail can be found here.

Please note that our article on this investment should not be considered to be a regular publication.

Details of all recommendations issued by ii during the previous 12-month period can be found here.

ii adheres to a strict code of conduct.  Contributors may hold shares or have other interests in companies included in these portfolios, which could create a conflict of interests. Contributors intending to write about any financial instruments in which they have an interest are required to disclose such interest to ii and in the article itself. ii will at all times consider whether such interest impairs the objectivity of the recommendation.

In addition, individuals involved in the production of investment articles are subject to a personal account dealing restriction, which prevents them from placing a transaction in the specified instrument(s) for a period before and for five working days after such publication. This is to avoid personal interests conflicting with the interests of the recipients of those investment articles.

Related Categories

    Trading tips and ideasUK sharesEurope

Get more news and expert articles direct to your inbox