|Shares Out. (in M):||51||P/E||0.0x||6.1x|
|Market Cap (in $M):||937||P/FCF||0.0x||8.2x|
|Net Debt (in $M):||2,200||EBIT||0||650|
|Subject||Board members selling|
|Entry||04/04/2011 02:08 PM|
What do you make of directors selling stock (Brisback on 1/6; Longnecker on 2/17; Karow on 3/30)?
|Entry||04/27/2011 07:39 PM|
I was pretty surprised to see the short interest increase after the permit was granted, is anyone here short ATP?? Would really really love to hear what the thesis is? Is there some off balance sheet liability or something that nobody has brought up here yet?
|Subject||RE: RE: RE: ATPG Discussion from Other Topics|
|Entry||08/03/2011 04:02 PM|
They have less than $1 billion in proved developed reserves. Sorry for not being more precise. The sale value of PUDs offshore is a fraction of their pv-10 value. And actually, the likely sale value of offshore PDP reserves is less than their pv-10 value as well.
I'm not saying ATP is necessarily a bad way to bet on higher oil prices or increased drilling activity in the Gulf. I'm saying there is no margin of safety. If you tried to match assets and liabilities today, there would be a significant mismatch. What you need to believe is that management will successfully transition non-producing assets into producing assets. Given their high levels of leverage, volatile commodity prices, historical difficulty bringing projects in on time and on budget, and regulatory uncertainty, that should not be a foregone conclusion.
I would also suggest reviewing ATP's full operating history, comparing management guidance to actual performance. Yes, the company has successfully transitioned 2P reserves to 1P reserves. But they have also delivered projects years late, substantially over budget, and at lower-than-forecast production levels. And not just in the past year or so since Macondo, but over the life of the company.
Also, I agree that there is infrastructure value there, but how much is certainly a question. Especially if you are counting on ATP transitioning 2P reserves to 1P reserves, they will need to keep the infrastructure in place for a lot longer than they are anticipating. And, taking into account their operational track record, you may need to account for a lot lower residual infrastructure value.
|Subject||RE: Any new thoughts?|
|Entry||10/31/2011 11:23 AM|
It looks like they have a circa 90m funding gap in 2012. For a 500m market cap company that's substantial. They'd most likely need to tap equity markets to close it, or have a "restructuring event", either way the equity is not a buy here.
|Subject||bonds down 18% to 48|
|Entry||06/08/2012 10:16 AM|
Which, with the 1st lien, is about $9 / BOE.
PV-10 / 1st lien plus 2nd lien at market price = 3x, so in theory you're well covered. The company recently paid cash divs on its preferred stock.
|Subject||RE: RE: bonds down 18% to 48|
|Entry||06/08/2012 01:07 PM|
No, I don't account for all the senior claims, which are tough to tally up. I think it's a very interesting risk/reward because like you, I don't think they'll file; but if they do, I expect this security to end up with a very good (if not full) recovery over time.