Finally had a chance to dig into $grin (Grindrod Shipping) financials for Q3.
If you are an investor and haven't read it yet, I highly recommend it. The format and info is different than Q2. Here's what I found interesting...
1/N
Starting out in the fleet table, there have been some updates QoQ. There's also lazy accounting as there are 7 LTCI (not 8 as stated).
What's New? 1. Charter-in Purchase Price and Daily Charter-in Rates 2. IVS Phoenix is now "owned" 2/N
IVS Phoenix falls into this unusual disclosure. 4 owned vessels had financing where they were "sold", and Grindrod has the right to acquire at a certain date.
These are owned as they have long term control, but important to note they are not on the balance sheet. 3/N
With that unusual disclosure in mind, we should be expecting an update soon on their 3 options expiring in 2021.
Martyn has stated Grindrod has an interest in selling non-eco, older handys at some point this cycle. I'd be curious if these 3 will be sold to generate cash.
4/N
Lots more info on charter-ins. In general, there are higher rates to extend annually, and these extensions vary from 2022 to 2026 depending on the vessel.
Note IVS Crimson Creek expires in Q2 '22 on a index-based contract. My guess is they buy this ship in Q1. 5/N
With charter-ins in mind, Q4's expected charter-in rate is $12,890/day, which is $32/day higher than Q3. I expect Q4 to be marginally higher (~$13.2k/day) based on their disclosures. 6/N
However, with all the focus on costs, they are being well managed.
Q3 was higher than Q1 and Q2, but expected with charter renewals and BSI-58 increases. And we now have better disclosures to project Q4+. 7/N
Here's where I get confused.
There's diluted earnings accounting for 863k shares. I've been looking through disclosures and haven't figured out where these come from. My guess is they are from the old FSP, but curious if anyone figured it out. 8/N
Looking at currently contracted Q4 TCE, Handys are 14% higher and Smax are 9% higher than Q3.
This is roughly 70% of Operating Days. The remaining 30% should be slightly lower based on how rates have moved, but I think we see Q4 ~10% higher than Q3. 9/N
At 10% higher than Q3, Q4 earnings would have profits at about $70m or $2.52/share with a dividend of ~$.76/share.
That would mean you'd be getting $4.81 EPS in Q3/Q4 from a stock trading at $13.70. Your yield would be $1.44 or roughly 11% for 2 quarters.
10/N
And for all the recent tourists in #drybulk predicting the end, here's a picture of current FFAs.
Braemar doesn't show BHSI, but you can see that rates are not "dead". Cal22 trades higher than YTD rates for Grindrod, which already have pushed the stock up ~200%. 11/N
So far in '21, $grin has advanced the most of the dry bulk stocks I follow. I suspect that'll happen again in '22.
They have pretty complex financials, and I wrote this thread to hopefully get some conversation started with #grintwit. Look forward to your insights! 12/N
Two last thoughts...
1. Q3 didn't include any drydocking updates😡Martyn please fix this for Q4! 2. Cash on hand is $78m for a company trading at $262m in a cyclical bull market. Come on people! Wake up - this is stupid cheap!
13/E
Wish I could edit. Should say *Q1 to be marginally higher.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you are selling $MEEC now, you are missing out on these potential outcomes: 1. Enhanced damages from the CERT trial 2. New supply contracts with 25-30 power plants
Both of these are easily worth $100m+ if successful. Will know by June for both outcomes.
Enhanced damages include the following: 1. Legal fees 2. Interest at 8.5% compounding quarterly 3. Treble damages (e.g. 3x the damages amount of $57m)
May 30 is the 1 day bench trial to have a ruling on CERT countersuits and enhanced damages.
If the judge awards enhanced damages, CERT will likely look to appeal and negotiate lower payout to waive an appeal.
If the judge does not award enhanced damages, CERT still likely to appeal.
Appeal doesn't seem to have a lot of merit from having followed the case closely.
As a stand alone issue, this share placement isn't horrendous. But it isn't a standalone issue.
For example, here's the Dakin agreement where MEEC is paying the CEO's private company $450k over 3 years for something never mentioned by the company.
MEEC has also issued millions in stock based compensation to mgmt while the stock price has been depressed.
20% dilution since Dec '19. And since then, they've lost $.21/share in EPS. This is in addition to salaries in the $400-500k/year for mgmt.
CERT is countering suing for the following: 1. Express License 2. Implied License 3. Inequitable Conduct
It is essentially an argument to invalidate MEEC's patent.
The following is the best summary of these arguments I could find. It seems like standard practice in patent law to argue these 3 items when you actually did infringe.
Very humbled to have been acknowledged for my ramblings about $MEEC. This has been the journey of my past year and the most exciting investment I've ever been apart of!
For folks new to the investment or curious where we stand today, here's a quick update ✏️✏️
MEEC owns the patent for SEA (Sorbent Enhancement Additive) technology involved in reducing coal emissions.
Their patented sorbent is the leading technology in reducing coal emissions. It is used by 200+ power plants.
The alternative to using MEEC's sorbent is to build expensive ($500m+) scrubbers. With the exception of very large power plants, this is not economical.
Yesterday's $MEEC filing I am hoping is the first of many updates resulting from their recent settlement.
As more positive information comes to light, I expect the share price to reflect the strength in revenue growth and balance sheet strength.
To start, I'm a bit disappointed in the filing at face value. The filing indicates licensing sales for the lifetime of the patent, which is August 22, 2025 per Google.
That's ~20 months of licensing revenues.
Rick repeated stated the biggest value from the litigation was not a lump sum payment and instead future revenues. There's been repeated commentary that the goal was to protect the patent beyond the lifespan of the patent.