MAp's Dodgy Accounting
MAp's Dodgy Accounting

Anyone reading Friday's post about Jim Chanos proving me wrong will have noticed the ensuing debate about the merits, or lack thereof, of Macquarie refusing to value its assets at market value. Whatever you think of Macquarie Group's accounting principles, the situation in its infrastructure funds is several degrees worse. Consider this little example.
Copenhagen Airports owns two airports, Denmark’s main airline hub located 8km south of Copenhagen, and a smaller regional airport in Roskilde, host to one of Europe’s most popular music festivals.
The company is 53.4% owned by Macquarie Airports Copenhagen, 39.2% owned by the Danish Government and the remainder of the shares are listed on the Danish Stock Exchange. The shares traded last week at a price of 729 Danish Kroner (DKK), giving it a market capitalisation of DKK5.7bn (about $1.6bn).
If all of the shares are worth DKK5.7bn, then the Macquarie-related 53% must, according to the Danish stock market, be worth DKK3.1bn. Unfortunately, there is a slight problem with that somewhat logical conclusion: Macquarie Airports Copenhagen has a loan of DKK5.1bn against its investment. If the stock market value is the real value, not only is the equity in Macquarie Copenhagen worth nothing, but the lenders are underwater to the tune of a couple of billion Kroner.
Macquarie Airports (MAp), listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, owns half of Macquarie Copenhagen (the other half was sold to unlisted Macquarie funds last year). MAp’s board of directors doesn’t think its investment is worth nothing. In fact, they have its half stake on their balance sheet valued at $1.1bn, or DKK3.8bn.
They therefore think the full equity is worth DKK7.6bn and the whole of Macquarie Copenhagen DKK12.7bn (including its DKK5.1bn of debt). It’s an extraordinary difference of opinion. MAp’s directors think 53% of the airport is worth twice as much as the current market value for the entire company.
Someone, or everyone, has clearly lost their marbles.
For the record, the shares listed on the Danish stock exchange look exceptionally cheap. The airport has its troubles. One of its biggest customers, Sterling Airlines, went bust in October last year. And Scandinavian carrier SAS, which alone accounts for 46% of Copenhagen's revenue, is in the middle of an emergency capital raising in an attempt to stave off bankruptcy.
But the company still made DKK1.0bn in 2008, which was 24% down on the previous year but in line with the average since 2004. That puts it on a PER of 5.7. Its own debt burden (separate from the Macquarie Copenhagen debt) is relatively small – interest on the DKK3.1bn debt is covered more than 7 times by pre-tax earnings – which means it is well placed to deal with difficult economic conditions. And, even if SAS joins Ansett in the increasingly crowded hanger for failed airlines, another carrier is likely to pick up the slack. Copenhagen is, after all, a beautiful city that people want to visit.
If you're looking for exposure to the Danish Kroner, this looks like a very sensible place to park your cash. But what to make of MAp's valuation?
Useless. That's about the only way to describe it. It is a bizzare set of accounting principles that allows the directors of a listed company to 'value' their assets every year and report the difference as profit or loss. The accounts provide investors with none of the information they need to value the business themselves – revenue, margins, assets and the like – but simply expect us to have faith in the directors' numbers. We're not even told what the underlying earnings and future growth assumptions are – that would at least allow us to perform some reasonableness tests.
Fortunately both Copenhagen and Sydney Airport publish accounts of their own, so the MAp jigsaw puzzle can be put together reasonably well. But the accounting standards need to be changed so that these infrastructure funds can be properly analysed from their own audited accounts. As it stands, the annual reports aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
Custom Search 2

Comments
I'm not sure I fully agree with you Steve, MAp is not a LIC, so I don't see why it should have to mark-to-market its investments every time the share price changes (which also reflects just 7% of the company).
You're basically saying the stock market is the only correct valuation of an asset, which is fanciful I think. Yes I agree that revaluing your assets year after year and booking the subsequent change as a profit or loss is unrealistic, but I think you're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this one. If those few shares on the Danish stockmarket quadrupled in value overnight does that mean MAp's stake is worth 4 times as much now? I don't think so...
The problem could be solved by letting unrealised asset revaluations simply bypass the income statement and record it directly to shareholders equity or something.
I think we all agree that market value isn't perfect but it's a very slippery slope to start letting management value assets at whatever they think they're worth, irrespective of whether you take it through the P&L or not.
A much better solution would be to book the assets at cost and report MAp's share of the underlying airport earnings - wouldn't that give us the true picture of how much money it's making? At the very least they should include the airport earnings as a note to the accounts.
With all due respect I think you're barking up the wrong tree Steve. Just because the panic driven, petrified investors on the Danish stock market think it should be valued at a trashed price doesn't mean the assets are actually worth as little as that. If revenues and profits are holding up, why should the balance sheet value be impaired?
Look at my little favourite BBI. Current market cap for the entire company is circa $100M. So should the Directors revalue DBCT and all the other assets according to the uninformed panic driven stockmarket investors? Why should they? The auditors didn't think they should.
By the way, I sold the last of my Telstra and WOW shares and am completely cashed up to continue buying BEPPA. If Deutche Bank want to dump their holding at 5c, good luck to them. I gladly take more than a few off their hands.
Oh that's right, BBI has a truckload of debt. Well, they do value their assets at cost price plus cap ex less depreciation and that figure reveals NAV of $1.00 per BBI stapled security.
Makes BEPPA an even better investment doesn't it? Hope you've been sticking by your convictions and loading up. If you thought they were good value at 13c, then what are they at 5c?
I agree that there's a speculative opportunity in the BEPPAs Peter but do you really think those assets are worth what they're on the balance sheet at? At least BBI books them at cost, but most of those assets were bought at the absolute zenith of the debt bubble. We won't see financing that cheap again in our lifetimes - and that means people will never be able to pay the prices they paid again.
As for the auditors, are they the same auditors that signed off on Babcock and Brown's $6 book value?
Carrying assets at cost doesn't solve the problem either - what happens if MAp makes it through the GFC and in 50 years is still carrying the airport at cost?
I agree it's a slippery slope when management are able to value assets at whatever they think it is worth, but when you see how earnings can be manipulated through FIFO/LIFO, accruals and pre-payments etc etc, it all becomes a bit relative.
Yes I do think the assets are worth every penny that they are listed on the balance sheet at. That's why I think BEPPA is a steal. There has to be impairment of at least $3.1Bn before BEPPA are worthless.
I'll give you an example.
NGPL was BBI's latest asset bought in Nov 2007 and they paid 10.7x EBITDA. SecGas transacted in April 2007 at 14X EBITDA. I don't think BBI paid "over the top prices". Time will tell I guess. NGPL is performing very well.
I think they paid "overs" for the Alinta assets (which BEPPA are part of ..lol) but generally they have purchased at reasonable prices and have never re-valued UPWARDS.
Again the market rally strong today?
Why?
Does the market really believe that overvalued high debt companies with doggy accounting is the future?
I suppose for a fund manager with plenty of super cash they don't care it's not their money.
No way a fund manager would spend their own money on these dog stocks,still collect their super fees after shafting their super clients.
Every dog has his day. These fund managers have a habit of buying high and selling low. That's what happens when you are playing with other people's money and not your own.
Re BEPPA & BBI I think the banks have them by the nuts and as they do each deal they will take their pound of flesh reducing the value to Investors. I do think BBI has time on its side with low interest rates and a freeing of capital markets helping the sale process. It is noticable the number of companies trying to sell Assets yet the number of actual deals are few and far between. Sellers offering X and buyers wanting X less 30%. Still BEPPAs at 5c are worth a punt.
Look at NOD. Sold by two instos down to 15c. They finish their selling and the stock is back to 40c within weeks. Instos generally have no idea and that's an honest statement. They are dealing with clients' money, not their own, so their mistakes do not hurt their own wallets.
Agree. And what's more ridiculous is their management fee based on assets, not profits. Their remuneration is not tied to performance...so where is the incentive to perform? All you need is to pump money into marketing, wine and dine, to get more mandates. Nice gravy train to be on, should have taken statistics at uni....
A loosely-related quote, perhaps, from Edna Carew's book Westpac: The Bank that Broke the Bank (page 309 of my edition):
'By October 1991 the worth of commercial buildings in central Sydney was down by 40 per cent compared with its peak in late 1989 and early 1990. Westpac was exposed to property through a range of entities ... Westpac's board had chosen as a valuation method "intrinsic value" - that is, property values achievable in "normal" times, possibly within three to four years and not taking into account the time value of money. With this method, a property that was well located, producing income and likely to recover in value over a "reasonable" period was not marked down. However, the time-frame for the imputed recovery in the property market grew longer and longer, to the point where it became obvious that the bank was not taking a realistic view of its property exposure.'
Steve, FYI, the DKK is pegged to the EUR (at least within the very tight confines of an ERM), which means that getting exposure to the DKK is essentially the same as exposure to the EUR but with increased downside risk because pegged currencies can always collapse against their peg as their government loses the ability or political will to maintain the peg, but they will never rally.
Hi Steve
Have you seen the announced buyout of MCG? I;d love your thoughts on my take. http://www.fusioninvesting.com/2009/03/macquarie-group-limited-mqg-jumps...
"That ancillary transaction is great for MQG shareholders, but does it represent a two tiered offer?
$2.50 for the stapled security holders and $2.50 plus $56.5m plus $27m ( net present value of $4M a year for ten) for Macquarie. In dollar terms Macquarie’s cut appears to be $3.33. That’s a 33% premium for MQG."
It seems in keeping with the way Mac does things, but it has a whiff about it to me.
Cheers
PS Thanks for the reminder on OID, I keep intending to subscribe and I hear the recent issue is the best in a long time.
Post new comment