Babcock stains a promising record - day five
Babcock stains a promising record - day five
Last spring I had the pleasure of watching a magpie raise her chicks five metres from my living room window. Apart from the rather amusing flying lessons, the expectant look the youngsters gave mum when she returned to the nest always made me chuckle. No thanks or appreciation, simply ‘what’s for dinner?’.
As the Babcock & Brown share price plummeted on 12 June, our research director Greg Hoffman would call out a new low every 10 minutes and look at me like a magpie chick waiting for a worm. After I told him I didn’t know it well enough too many times, he went off in search of alternatives.
All of the Babcock-related securities were down significantly. How about the unsecured notes (BNBG), he asked? Same problem. B&B Wind? Yeah, it’ a possibility but it needs to be cheaper. B&B Power? Alinta assets, no thanks. B&B Infrastructure? Hang on, doesn’t that own Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal? I worked on a bid for that at Macquarie – it’s a sensational asset. I’ll take a look.
Something simpler please
So, in the search for a simpler alternative unfairly tainted by the Babcock brush, I downloaded the latest annual report for Babcock and Brown Infrastructure (BBI). I was in for a shock.
This fund listed in 2002 with Dalrymple Bay as its only asset. In 2003, it bought interests in two power stations and a wind farm. In 2004, it added a New Zealand energy and gas business, a submarine cable linking power grids in the US and a gas transporter operating in the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Portugal and the UK. In 2006 it gobbled up PD Ports, WestNet Rail, NorthWestern Energy in the US, a Belgian water container business and failed in a bid for GasNet. In 2007 it teamed up with Singapore Power, B&B Power and B&B Wind in the highly competitive auction for Alinta and bought separate ports businesses in Spain, Belgium and Italy.
Phew. That was enough for me, I didn’t need to turn past page seven. Whatever happened to cheap German or Japanese property that no-one else wants?
When I read the prospectus in 2004, I grudgingly gave these overpaid bankers the benefit of the doubt. The case studies of investments they’d made included a bunch of German apartments where the rent more than covered the debt repayments and all maintenance costs, and Japanese property that was generating enough cash flow to do the same. Both asset classes looked unloved and cheap. They were also gaining valuable expertise in renewable energy – particularly wind – long before it became trendy and, at that point, I’d have been prepared to call it a somewhat impressive track record.
Not so good with others’ money
It was established with their own money, though. Since the float, Babcock has become the steward of more than $70bn of other people’s money and, as you’ve read above, its approach has been quite different.
That’s a shame (to say the least for the people whose money it is). Someone inside Babcock obviously has the skills to identify assets that are cheap. It wouldn’t have generated 70% profit growth a year but, with discipline and patience, they could have generated excellent long-term returns (imagine what they could be doing with a nice large pile of cash right now). If there’s to be a recovery it will require a return to the strategy that was once extremely successful.
Note: Babcock made an important announcement today regarding its debt facilities. We'll discuss it on day 7 - downside risks.
- Babcock
- babcock brown
- babcock brown infrastructure
- Babcock shares
- bbi
- bbp
- bbw
- financial analysis
- value investing
Custom Search 2

Comments
This appears to be a classic case of changing the incentives. Prior to listing the only incentive for staff was to maximise returns of the investments. Post float it has become about maximising fees at the expense of long term value. So the incentive to be selective in choosing investments has been reduced. This is very similar to observations on LPT and other fund managers made by II over recent years.
good point Matt C.
How do you think they should structure their fee income?
I wonder if it is possible to only pay them an outperfornce fee? ie with no fee on fund size or very minimal fund size fee?
I don't think there's a reason for these assets to be in a fund full stop. The individual assets could be listed themselves with their own internal management teams – it's difficult to see what value the manager adds once the asset has been bought.
Employ an investment banker to run your fund and you're going to struggle to come up with a system that works. Some sort of 50/50 arrangement maybe - any asset the manager buys for the fund they need to buy half themselves and leave it on their own balance sheet? You need to find a way to make the purchase price significantly more important than the fees, and that's not easy.
I think the point that Steve makes is totally spot on: The individual asset investments gain no benefit from the "Fund Managers" at all.
The Fund Manager (read staff) benefit from the management fee (based generally on "enterprise value" ie combination of equity and debt) . Just breeds greed, and highly leveraged and geared approach to fund management.
Thanks Steve always appreciate your insight
I can think of two options. One is as suggested not to list it separately by to hold the assets on the company balance sheet - this is effectively (to my limited understanding anyway) what was done prior to the float. All shareholders benefit when someone else comes along and offers to buy the asset back off them at a silly price. No different from value investing.
Second option if you really do want to set up separate satellite funds, which presumably have at least some management in place (you can see I have never even picked up a prospectus for one of these) would be to pay advisory fees to BnB purely on a fee for service basis, much like a financial adviser. In fact that would be a good idea for all fund managers, as the amount of capital you are managing does not change dramatically the amount of effort involved.
Thanks Matt
Set up financial services on a fee for service basis ie (like accountants charge an hourly fee) compared to be payed indirect and back door commisssions.
There is a senate enquiry there somewhere.
Post new comment