The woodchips that will come onto the market
in the next few years from Timbercorp and Great Southern woodlots will be at
the behest of administrators and managers trying to wind up the MIS structures.
This will help suppress Gunns’ woodchip price already under stress from the
effects of the current global crisis which has seen all commodities suffer
price falls. Most commodities are in excess supply now so the rapid rise in
price in the future is unlikely.
Gunns is a different company than Timbercorp
and Great Southern. The latter two have been run by paper shufflers. Gunns has
more forestry experience. Gunns has more institutional support on its share
register which saw it able to raise $336 million in September 2008, a very
fortunate event when viewed with hindsight.
Gunns has a stronger balance sheet with debt
facilities available until 2012, and a more diverse revenue base. It earns
income not just from MIS sales but also from forest products. Its other
divisions, wine, construction and retail hardware are insignificant.
It’s not dependent on MIS sales although it
has benefited enormously from the practice. Getting MIS investors to raise
money essentially for and on behalf of forest companies has been an
unbelievable cash flow boon.
The CFMEU and their ilk, the Pied Pipers of
TCA’s Hamelin branch have acted as double agents removing risks from Gunns’
balance sheet by persuading their own members to assume disproportionate
burdens with plant and equipment finance arrangements in return for inadequate
contractual rewards from Gunns.
But Gunns is not without problems.
Back in 2007 Mr Gay acted as if kryptonite was
his only danger. The pulp mill was on the drawing board and swallowing Auspine
was seen as a mere formality. Gunns purchased all the shares in Auspine during
2008. The purchase price was $327 million, $269 million in cash and the balance
in Gunns shares at the then current value of $3.35. Auspine’s main assets at
the time were pine trees ($217 million), land and a few buildings ($228
million), and plant and equipment, mainly sawmills ($45 million). The bank debt
was $154 million. The difference between the value of the net assets acquired
and price paid for the shares was $29 million worth of goodwill.
But even outlaying $269 million of cash to
fund the Auspine purchase was too much. The institutions had to stump up $336
million in September to help repay bank debt. And the banks further insisted on
the sale of $173 million worth of recently purchased trees.
Auspine still exists, it’s merely a 100% owned
subsidiary of Gunns. The assets listed above are still on Auspine’s balance sheet.
Except for $173 million worth of pine trees sold to GMO Resources in March
2009. Gunns informed shareholders via Note 37 in their 2008 accounts that the
expected consideration was pre tax. This suggested tax is payable on the sale.
Indeed it is. On the excess of the sale price over the historical cost, not the
current book value.
When one looks at the balance sheet for
Auspine prior to its takeover, the historical cost of pine trees was only $7
million. Like MIS investors Auspine would have immediately expensed any
plantation establishment costs. The $7 million may be standing timber bought
elsewhere. It’s immaterial. Gunns valued these trees at $217 million but they
weren’t purchased per se. Gunns merely acquired the trees via the acquisition
of Auspine’s shares.
In its latest set of accounts Gunns has
deferred tax liabilities of $260 million. These have occurred mainly as a
result of tax on the unrealised increases in value of land and plantation
assets which accounting standards require in order for the accounts to be a
true and fair summation of an entity’s financial position. Tax is only actually
paid when an assets is sold, in which case a deferred tax liability becomes a
current tax liability. The tax chickens coming home to roost so to speak.
Notwithstanding that a company may be trying
to survive by selling assets at or even below current book value, the sales may
trigger a current tax liability. An unwelcome impost at a time when cash flow
is critical.
Hence when the trees were sold to GMO, the
proceeds were taxable. Just like any tree investor who sell trees, tax is
payable on the proceeds less any unclaimed costs. Income of $170 million means
tax of $50 million. Unless an offsetting deduction can be found.
The most obvious offsetting deduction will
arise if Mr Gay is unable to obtain finance and a joint venture partner for the
mill, and the Board decides not to proceed by 30th June 2009. It will then be
able to offset the mill establishment costs to date of $125 million against
other income. So far these expenses have been recorded in the balance sheet as
a capital expense.
Gunns canvassed the write off possibility in
Note 18 in the latest half yearly accounts when it said “If the project were
not probable, this would involve the expensing of a substantial proportion of
the $125.5 million included in capital work in progress at 31 December 2008
through the profit and loss.” The deductibility of the mill costs incurred to
date is covered in Division 40-I of the 1997 Tax Act. Immediate write off requires
Gunns to “abandon, sell or otherwise dispose of a project” for which the
capital work in progress exists.
To date Mr Gay has been happy to play a game
with his detractors by continually extending the time frame needed to find
finance and an equity partner. If he continues to do so beyond 30th June 2009,
Gunns will pay tax of $50 million on the sale of the Auspine trees.
It’s as if Mr Gay is sitting at a poker table
with a fast disappearing pile of chips in front of him (no pun intended)
calling everyone’s bluff, probably holding a pair of twos, although nobody’s
quite sure. He keeps his cards close to his chest. He talks all the time,
mainly provocative nonsense and unsubstantiated assertions. But come 1st July
2009 he’ll have to put up or shut up. He’ll have to chip in a further $50
million just to stay in the game. That’s the tax he’ll have to pay on the sale
of Auspine’s trees without the offsetting deduction for the abandoned mill
expenses. He will probably have to scrounge a loan for the $50 million.
Otherwise if he wants to claim a deduction for the mill costs to date he’ll
have to stop spruiking the project. Decision time is nigh.
The second hint of a problem was the cost of
the $336 million equity raising in Sept 2008. The cost was $18 million or just
over 5%. A high figure for an amount not underwritten by the brokers.
Third, Gunns arranged in December 2008 via an
ASIC registered prospectus, to raise $15 million in unsecured notes for working
capital. To date it doesn’t appear as if the prospectus has been activated. For
a company of Gunns’ size contemplating a $2 billion pulp mill, $15 million in
unsecured notes is an insignificant amount. Gunns hasn’t needed the extra
working capital yet as it has used its monopoly position to outsource a lot of
its working capital requirements to forest contractors and suppliers. What
options do the latter have? Another job?
Fourth, cash flow from operations (cash in and
out the door from operating, not necessarily profits) was a negative $4 million
in the latest 6 months report compared to a positive $35 million during the
same period last year. It’s hard to imagine the next 6 months will be positive
although there has been a reduction in finance costs. Cash flow from operations
in 2008 was a positive $70 million split evenly between the two halves of the
year.
Fifth, MIS sales will be down this year (some
estimates by as much as 90% on an industry wide basis) and other sales of
woodchips down by at least 15% (Gunns’ estimate in Feb 2009).
Sixth, Gunns has yet to experience any serious
default on loans to investors as have Great Southern and Timbercorp. Gunns’
tree growth rates are allegedly superior, but investors haven’t exactly been
flooded with information about their crops.
Seventh, Gunns in its 2008 report claims it
manages 150,000 hectares of hardwood plantations in Tasmania, and 50,000
hectares of pine plantations mainly in SA and Victoria. Being a good corporate
citizen, a further 45,000 hectares is voluntarily reserved.
But 95,000 hectares of the hardwood
plantations are leased to MIS investors and a further 33,000 hectares worth of
trees since sold to GMO. The MIS deal is that Gunns will pick up 5.5% of the
proceeds at harvest time, and the GMO deal is Gunns will have to pay market
price for the pine trees when they’re ready for processing.
There are no fortunes to be made with either
of these deals. Gunns has to look after the land, 128,000 hectares, with no
return until harvest time. This is what brought Timbercorp and Great Southern
undone. The land represents over half Gunns’ plantation land. And a lot of its
other plantations are the older, slower growing, poorer yielding plantations
inherited from APPM/AFH. So in this respect Gunns has similarities with
Timbercorp and Great Southern. Looking after crops owned by others. These costs
can only be met out of current income. And if current MIS income is down, then
the forest products business will have to assist. And if the forest product
income is down then?? Cash flow problems??
The land assets are considerable, but the
income derived is inadequate.
And eighth, in the latest half yearly accounts
Gunns suggested that once the proceeds of the tree sale to GMO were received,
Gunns’ gearing would be 32 %. It will rise if the mill costs are written off.
The Auspine goodwill ($29 million) appears to have been impaired by the new
owners and may have to be written off as well, which won’t help gearing levels.
If all this happens, then Gunns may well fall into the category of just another
MIS company, battling to survive, blessed however by the favourable deal with
Tasmanian taxpayers via Forestry Tasmania.
Institutional shareholders are likely to want
a definite decision by 30th June 2009 whether to abandon, sell or otherwise
dispose of the mill project. If any of these three options are not adopted,
Gunns will have to find $50 million to pay the ATO. A not insignificant amount
given their current position.
No comments:
Post a Comment