Jump to content



Photo

Royalty Trusts


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#21 SilentOne

SilentOne

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 3,452 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 05:52 AM

Hi Karen,

It looks to me like the Tories are going to stumble through this whole energy trust thing. They did not think about the endgame. It will be interesting to see if the grace period (now 4 years) is extended for existing energy trusts.

cheers,

john

SINCLAIR STEWART and BOYD ERMAN AND STEVEN CHASE
Globe and Mail Update

TORONTO AND OTTAWA — The battered income trust sector is bracing for a potential crackdown on its ability to finance acquisitions by selling units, a move that could strangle growth and force many trusts to convert to a corporate structure long before a four-year moratorium is set to expire.

Finance Department officials, under siege by lawyers and trust executives demanding clarity on the issue, are working on new rules that could be published within the next two weeks, sources said.

While the guidelines aren't complete, bureaucrats have sparked concern by suggesting that, in some cases, trusts may not be able to increase their equity base by more than 15 per cent, according to lawyers working on behalf of trusts.

In other words, if a $100-million trust wanted to raise cash for a deal, it would be limited to selling or issuing just $15-million worth of new units — a far more stringent threshold than the industry had been expecting after Ottawa's recent blockbuster move to tax trusts.

Finance has sent a so-called “comfort letter” to at least one trust that was seeking guidance on a pending financing, in which it suggested the 10- to 15-per-cent range would likely be acceptable, sources said.

This range could create uncertainty for a company like Pengrowth Energy Trust, which was contemplating a purchase of assets from ConocoPhillips that would have required it to issue units equal to about 18 per cent of the trust's market value. Pengrowth chief executive officer Jim Kinnear declined to comment on any transaction or a comfort letter, other than to say his company has had correspondence with Ottawa.

Another transaction that may be on the bubble is Shiningbank Energy Income Fund's plan to buy most of the assets of Rider Resources Ltd. in a share swap that would increase Shiningbank's outstanding units by about 27 per cent, investment bankers said.

Trusts have been seeking clarity on how much growth they can pursue ever since Finance Minister Jim Flaherty stunned investors on Halloween with a proposal to clamp down on the trust sector by hitting it with a new tax.

While he said trusts would be permitted “normal growth,” he did warn that any “undue expansion” could cause Ottawa to revisit its policy. The question for many trusts, not to mention their lawyers, is what constitutes “normal?”

In a conference call organized by Canaccord Capital Inc., lawyers from Bennett Jones LLP in Calgary told clients that they have had feedback from Ottawa about the purported 15-per-cent limit. One of the lawyers mentioned the comfort letters, and said the dialogue has not been encouraging for the sector, according to people on the call.

The federal government has not set down precise rules for trust takeovers, leaving CEOs, lawyers and investment bankers to take their best guess at how to structure deals.

Bankers say they have numerous trusts that have been left in the lurch and unable to forge ahead with acquisitions or financings.

Sources in Ottawa say the government intends to put “reasonable” rules in place that allow trusts some flexibility over the next four years.

“The department has received several enquiries relating to this section of the backgrounder, and has received submissions or has met or will be meeting with several firms, or their representatives, on this issue,” Finance spokeswoman Suzanne Prebinski said.

Mr. Flaherty's spokesman said the government plans to announce the rules in the near future, but has made no decisions and is not giving trusts advance notice of what the new rules will be.

Finance is “doing some consulting and talking to some people in the industry, but they are not sharing information and no announcement has been made,” Dan Miles said.

“I am sure there's going to be some speculation out there about how the details will unfold but no decision has been made and we are in the process of finalizing those details.”

The fear of a restriction on financing is particularly acute in the oil patch, where some trusts depend on acquisitions to replenish a declining asset base and maintain their level of cash distributions.

“To most of these royalty trusts, that is a silver-lined wooden stake in their heart — just to make sure they have you, whether you are a vampire or a werewolf,” said Trinidad Energy Services Income Trust CEO Mike Heier.

For Trinidad Energy, which is a well-driller that has grown by acquisitions, such a tight limit would mean “we can't do anything. The smallest thing we're looking at is a third our size,” Mr. Heier said.

He said that means the only option for trusts is “to unwind. There's no staying status quo. They are intent on destroying the trusts.”

But because trust CEOs like Mr. Heier are still not sure of the tax implications of changing back to a corporation — it's unclear whether unitholders have to pay capital gains tax triggered by any change, for example — they feel boxed in.

“We don't have a way out until they give us some more clarity,” he said. “It's disgusting.”


"By the Law of Periodical Repetition, everything which has happened once must happen again and again and again-and not capriciously, but at regular periods, and each thing in its own period, not another's, and each obeying its own law ..." - Mark Twain

#22 SilentOne

SilentOne

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 3,452 posts

Posted 07 December 2006 - 05:38 AM

The News I have been Waiting for

As predicted, talk of a 10 year grace period is going to heat up. See my last post. The current government is in a weak position and will not be able to pass the proposed bill as it stands. Flaherty either bends and extends the grace period to get more MPs on side to vote for the bill, or the bill dies (and trusts will not be taxed as proposed). I love politics. NOT! :P

Still holding my income trusts bought in early/mid-November. Energy trusts positions include AET.UN, PEY.UN, FEL.UN, and SND.UN, while I also picked up YLO.UN. All are Toronto listed.

cheers,

john

National Post

Bloc wants income trust tax rules changes

Paul Vieira, Financial Post
Published: Wednesday, December 06, 2006
OTTAWA -- The Bloc Québécois, which initially supported Conservative government plans to tax income trusts, is demanding that existing trusts not face the proposed levy for at least 10 years — not four as the Finance Minister has proposed.

This is a potentially key development, as the minority Conservative government may need the support of the 50 Bloc MPs to get legislation through the House of Commons.

Pierre Paquette, the Bloc finance critic, said in an interview he has written to Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, asking for the change and is optimistic an agreement can be reached. The Bloc has voted in favour of the motion signaling Parliament’s intent to tax income trusts, but the enacting legislation has yet to be tabled.

While Mr. Paquette said the Bloc remains in favour of taxing trusts, the change it is proposing would help low-income investors recoup some of the "huge" losses they suffered in the immediate aftermath of Mr. Flaherty’s Oct. 31 bombshell.

"I think we have to make some move and it is possible to do," Mr. Paquette said, adding he has also written to his Liberal and NDP counterparts. "We are able to live with the existing income trusts for 10 years. We will lose a little tax revenue, but it will not be a danger to the income capacity of the government."

John McCallum, the Liberal finance critic, said his party was open to the Bloc’s proposal. "We’re completely at a loss why they chose four years as opposed to another 10," Mr. McCallum said. "But the Bloc, they initially voted with the government and now they want to make amends."

The United States provided 10 years to trusts before they faced higher tax rates. Australia, meanwhile, offered four.

However, a spokesman for Mr. Flaherty said changes are not in the offing. "The minister has been very clear on this issue. The announcement of Oct. 31 is final," Eric Richer said.

In that announcement, Mr. Flaherty said existing income trusts would face a tax on distributions starting in four years, or the 2011 taxation year, at a similar rate faced by share-trading corporations. Trusts that come to market after Nov. 1, however, would face the distribution tax immediately. This was meant to stem trust conversions of multibillion-dollar giants, and it appeared to have worked. Plans by Telus Corp. and BCE Inc. to convert to trusts have been dropped.

Furthermore, pension funds and foreigners — whose appetite for trusts helped drive the trust sector — will also face higher taxes on trust holdings.

The proposals have yet to be set out in a piece of legislation, that is expected before Christmas. Also to be released are guidelines under which existing trusts will have to operate until they are hit with taxes.

Income trust executives have lobbied to persuade Ottawa to make changes, but to no effect. But the Bloc’s new demand could change matters.

The Conservative government has 124 MPs, and would need an additional 30 MPs to be onside to ensure passage of legislation. The NDP has 29 MPs, while the Bloc has 54. There are two independent MPs.

Financial Post

pvieira@nationalpost.com

© Financial Post


"By the Law of Periodical Repetition, everything which has happened once must happen again and again and again-and not capriciously, but at regular periods, and each thing in its own period, not another's, and each obeying its own law ..." - Mark Twain

#23 SilentOne

SilentOne

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 3,452 posts

Posted 09 December 2006 - 08:57 AM

Diane Francis is a cool head. There will be no easy way out for the Tories.

cheers,

john

Trusts proposal must be recanted

Trusts proposal must be recanted

Diane Francis
Financial Post

Saturday, December 09, 2006


The word is that the Tories are scrambling to find a face-saving compromise after their $30-billion income trust mess.

But the facts are, there can be no compromise. The only sensible strategy is to recant the entire tax proposal and study the issue properly.

As constituted, it is indefensible. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's policy contains a giant inconsistency. He said he would leave REITs, or real estate income trusts, untouched. A REIT is an income trust for real estate.

REITs were presumably exempted because they are accepted structure and because they exist in most major economies.

And the reason they are accepted is because they make economic, stock market and business sense. Real estate is a commodity that is capital-intensive to acquire and exploit and that is also subject to the perils of price cycles, interest rate volatility and fickle equity markets.

So the flow-through, hybrid nature of an income trust meets most needs.

But Mr. Flaherty's glaring inconsistency is that the same arguments apply to energy and infrastructure income trusts, yet he did not exempt them.

Oil and infrastructure income trusts exist in most major economies because they make economic and business sense, as do REITs. So if REITs should be exempt, why shouldn't energy and infrastructure income trusts?

This topic was tackled by Ned Goodman, of Dynamic Funds and Dundee Financial, in a recent letter to the Prime Minister and Finance Minister:

"In the same way you have chosen to exempt REITs from this tax policy initiative, energy trusts should have been accorded the same treatment on similar grounds. Energy trusts are not a new phenomenon and operate on a somewhat similar basis to REITs. They are largely passive investments where a trust is structured to either: (i) acquire and hold royalty interests in conventional oil and gas, synthetic crude oil or mining properties, or

(ii) acquire and hold shares and/or debentures of a Canadian corporation that carries on a resource business," he wrote.

"Under either scenario, it is a passive investment not unlike the passive role of REITs. Similarly, infrastructure trusts which are clearly passive investments should be accorded like treatment. Therefore, on the same principle that was chosen to exempt REITs, we respectfully suggest that energy trusts and infrastructure trusts should be accorded the same treatment where their primary investment is in Canadian assets," he wrote.

In 1987, the Americans were not inconsistent and they exempted both REITs and their equivalent energy/infrastructure income trusts, which they call Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs).

"The U.S. public MLP market is a significant US$90-billion industry that supports energy and infrastructure businesses involved in exploration, development, mining, refining, transportation and marketing of natural resources," Tom Buchanan wrote to me. He is CEO of Provident Energy Trust, a $3.6-billion Calgary-based trust with assets in U.S. and Canada.

Washington recalibrated the MLPs in 1987 only after a careful review following conversion by some taxpaying business to flow-through vehicles like the MLPs. It was the same issue as here but the Americans were surgical in their reform.

"The existing MLP business trusts were given a 10-year transition period to revert back to corporations and the IRS [Internal Revenue Service] chose to exempt REITs and energy-based MLPs. This has created a very active, growth industry since 1987," he wrote.

In Canada, Flaherty's folly will sandbag the Canadian energy trusts vis a vis the MLPs and result in foreign takeovers of Canadian assets, Mr. Buchanan said.

My current fear is that the Tories will grab the Bloc Quebecois' suggestion for a 10-year delay in an attempt to save face, but this simply won't work. It's also not appropriate.

What should happen is very simple: Energy and infrastructure trusts should be exempt from any new tax, just as REITs are. They should be allowed to grow and flourish and new ones should be created.

The business income trust should be left alone pending an intensive study by people who really understand business and taxes. This may lead to action or not.

As for the energy sector, the damage will be permanent and long-lasting unless the Tories completely recant their intention as quickly as possible.

© National Post 2006


"By the Law of Periodical Repetition, everything which has happened once must happen again and again and again-and not capriciously, but at regular periods, and each thing in its own period, not another's, and each obeying its own law ..." - Mark Twain

#24 PorkLoin

PorkLoin

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 2,194 posts

Posted 09 December 2006 - 04:02 PM

John, good stuff. Regardless of what the future holds, the recent share price lows discounted and more than discounted the "bad news." To me this is a "bigger" version of all the scares that occurred along the way of the last 6 or 7 years. If the Cdn. gov't backs off, great, but even if not then I think the good trusts are compelling values, come what may. Best, Doug

#25 vitaminm

vitaminm

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 6,701 posts

Posted 09 December 2006 - 09:17 PM

Doug,

ERF

http://bigcharts.mar.../...me=8&freq=1

It's hard to get dividend and appreciation in stock same time.

Each time when you near dividend date the stock goes down.

Sometimes price of stock falls more than dividend you receive.

Have you ever consider buying puts to preserve principal?

Also you may sell covered calls.


http://finance.yahoo...ERF&k=45.000000

OIH/sell calls for monthly income

http://finance.yahoo...IH&m=2006-12-15
vitaminm

#26 PorkLoin

PorkLoin

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 2,194 posts

Posted 10 December 2006 - 12:58 PM

Posted Image

Hey Vitaminm,

Enerplus was one of the first two trusts I had, the other being Shiningbank. I held those two through thick and thin until just after Hurricane Katrina in late 2005. ERF went up more than Shiningbank, though SHN always was paying out more in dividends.

I'd added to my position in Enerplus in the summer of 2001, and let me tell you -- the decline from the high that year to the low in November was a big bummer. I was a long-term believer in oil & gas, though, and I just held.

You can see that Enerplus really had a nice steady share price appreciation into 2006. Lots of little scares, lots of little spike lows, but even from 2001 on it was a nice move from under $25 to $65 on the chart, paying good dividends the whole way.

Well, going from $65 to $45 is a big bummer too. Whew -- NASTY. If I could go back in time, I'd sell everything in July/August.

Now here we are and the shoe has fallen. ERF has recovered about a third of the big selloff this year. It's still yielding a little over 9.5% and for Enerplus that is a high dividend. It's one of the biggest, baddest trusts there is. The ones perceived by the market as higher-risk are yielding 2 or 2.5 times as much.

If we get the Cdn. gov't to back off, you're gonna see another big rally in the trusts. Maybe that is something to play for. I'm not counting on it, but remain largely invested. Didn't buy at the recent lows but had some limit orders in before the Plunge (that I thought were pie-in-the-sky unreachable) that all were filled. Did add some to existing positions in November. Getting a higher average yield now that before the Plunge (to say the least) but ain't no guarantee it's a good long-term investment.

My trust account took the biggest hit ever this year in terms of money. Percentagewise I'm not sure -- there were some nasty hits before, but always in the context of an overall bull in energy and an account that always recovered and went on to new highs.

This time we will see. I'm down 15.6% from the all-time high account value, reached last December and equaled this past summer. One year of static share prices will just about equal that 15.6% now, though, the dividends will do it.

Perhaps I'm lulled into complacency by belief in an energy bull that has gone away. I guess that's the worst-case scenario for me.

The Cdn. gov't relenting would be a windfall, and that obviously would be a big plus but I'm not counting on it. Meanwhile, BIG dividends are coming in every month, and that, to me, makes all the difference.


Best,

Doug

#27 PorkLoin

PorkLoin

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 2,194 posts

Posted 10 December 2006 - 01:29 PM

>>Have you ever consider buying puts to preserve principal?

Also you may sell covered calls.<<



M, I'm not really into that stuff. With options I've usually been a seller, not a buyer. I want that time value erosion going into my pocket, not the other bloke's.

(One success I had with buying options was with Copper puts, back in 1987. The stock market crash brought expections of economic slowdown/lower Copper prices, and I made like 1000%. Believe me, that was not the norm -- mostly I've lost money buying options and made money selling them.)

On selling covered calls, I like the idea. I can't always watch the markets, though. Sometimes I'm days without checking on things. I'm not looking to get out of the trust shares I own -- and I'm not saying that oil and gas won't be lower a year from now. My focus now is really the long term. I do think that five, ten, fifteen years hence my owning these shares will have paid off, from this point, much the same as uranium issues, though perhaps not as handsomely as U stuff.

A lot of the uranium shares I own were paid for by dividends from oil & gas royalty trusts. Doesn't matter, I know, and it will really only hurt us as investors/traders to get emotional about this stuff. But I can't help it, and really, don't want to. I like the game, and I like enjoying the game.


Best, and Merry Christmas!

Doug

#28 vitaminm

vitaminm

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 6,701 posts

Posted 10 December 2006 - 11:43 PM

DOUG. Thanks.
vitaminm

#29 SilentOne

SilentOne

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 3,452 posts

Posted 14 December 2006 - 04:51 AM

Flaherty, you ain't no Greenspan!!

Good Lord. :blink:

I highlight his closing words:

Asked if he was concerned about growth plans by some trusts, Mr. Flaherty smiled.

“No. I'm not. I'm not concerned,” he said.

“I get a kick out of people sort of anticipating what government might do or might not do.”




Trust expansion rules coming within days: Flaherty
STEVEN CHASE

Globe and Mail Update

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty yesterday shrugged off significant expansion plans unveiled by income trusts – announcements made despite the fact Ottawa has yet to decree how much these investment vehicles can grow over the next four years.

He also said he plans to release within days the rules that will govern how trusts can expand until they start being taxed in 2011.

Tired of waiting for Ottawa to clarify the rules on how much income trusts will be allowed to grow, some funds have forged ahead with plans that challenge the government to finally rule on what's permissible.

Quebec food distributor Colabor Income Fund announced Tuesday an acquisition and a financing that will increase its units outstanding by at least 27 per cent.

Add STEVEN CHASE to my e-mail alerts
The move flew in the face of signals from the government that growth of more than 15 per cent or so may be deemed “undue expansion,” a spectre the government raised in its announcement on Oct. 31 of the plan to tax trusts.

Asked if he was concerned about growth plans by some trusts, Mr. Flaherty smiled.

“No. I'm not. I'm not concerned,” he said.

“I get a kick out of people sort of anticipating what government might do or might not do.”


"By the Law of Periodical Repetition, everything which has happened once must happen again and again and again-and not capriciously, but at regular periods, and each thing in its own period, not another's, and each obeying its own law ..." - Mark Twain

#30 PorkLoin

PorkLoin

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 2,194 posts

Posted 17 December 2006 - 12:24 PM

Posted Image

Peyto reached its high about a month before Hurricane Katrina, and since has had over a 50% absolute retracement. It was a monumental move up into 2005, and it's been a wicked decline.


Posted Image

The share price decline has been enough for the dividend rate to be 9.4% currently -- historically quite high for Peyto. I see it as substantially a bet on the price of natural gas, which is by far most of Peyto's production.

I think the dividend is safe, and that even with no beneficial decisions by the Canadian government this is a good bet as a royalty trust. Some of the dividend will be sheltered as return of capital, when 2011 comes (or whenever the new rules actually take effect). Reserve life is long, production costs very low. I will be buying more next week.


Best,

Doug