2012 | 2013 | ||||||
Price: | 18.87 | EPS | $2.16 | $2.64 | |||
Shares Out. (in M): | 156 | P/E | 8.8x | 7.2x | |||
Market Cap (in $M): | 2,937 | P/FCF | 0.0x | 0.0x | |||
Net Debt (in $M): | 400 | EBIT | 537 | 658 | |||
TEV (in $M): | 3,337 | TEV/EBIT | 6.2x | 5.1x |
Sign up for free guest access to view investment idea with a 45 days delay.
We’re recommending a land drilling pair trade, long Patterson-UTI (PTEN) short Helmerich & Payne (HP). In the context of collapsing natural gas prices and concern over loosening supply/demand in the pressure pumping business in North America, PTEN stock has tanked on account of the lower quality of its rig fleet and its exposure to pressure pumping. HP has remained unscathed, opening a valuation disparity between the two companies that is unprecedented. While we recognize PTEN’s relative weaknesses, the market overreaction implies that we can buy PTEN’s drilling business at HP’s multiple and get the pressure pumping business (30% of PTEN’s EBITDA) for free. As this disparity becomes more apparent, we expect the valuation gap to close.
Business overview
PTEN and HP are the #3 and #2 players in the US land drilling market, after market leader Nabors. Out of 2,000 land rigs currently active in the US, PTEN and HP are each operating ~230 active rigs (excludes idle rigs).
There are two key differences between PTEN and HP. As the chart below shows, nearly a third of PTEN’s sales and EBITDA come from pressure pumping, a business in which HP is not involved. Pressure pumping makes sand, proppant, fracking fluid and cement flow down the well, as part of the shale fracturing process. The Big 3 in this business are HAL, SLB and BHI, and there are many independents, given the low barriers to entry to this booming business.
% of 2012E EBITDA
|
PTEN |
HP |
|
North Am land drilling |
70% |
91% |
|
Pressure pumping |
30% |
|
|
Intnl land drilling |
4% |
|
|
Offshore drilling |
5% |
||
Other |
1% |
The other key difference between PTEN and HP is the composition of their rig fleet. The shale oil/gas boom and the horizontal drilling process it involves have required more advanced and flexible land rigs, as the drilling process has become more sophisticated. It is fair to say that HP has been at the forefront of this trend, if not pioneering it, by designing and manufacturing hi-spec rigs that are best suited to horizontal and directional drilling. PTEN on the other hand has been more of a late comer: its deployment of hi-spec rigs is more recent, and it buys its rigs from NOV rather than designing/building themselves.
As a consequence of the above, HP’s existing fleet is arguably the most modern and capable in the industry: out of its fleet of 250 available rigs, nearly 230 are high-spec (AC drive, brand new SCR , or SCR with quick move capability). Demand for high-spec rigs is booming yet supply is still catching up, leading HP to hold industry-leading utilization rates above 90% in its US land fleet.
PTEN is rapidly modernizing its fleet, but still carries many legacy rigs that are ill-suited for horizontal drilling. Out of 300 available rigs, we would only consider about 100 “high-spec”. PTEN also owns 30 electric-powered rigs of decent capability, plus 170 mechanically-powered rigs that are at the bottom of the pyramid. PTEN’s fleet utilization rate is currently at around 74%, but this average comprises the top 100 rigs at over 90% utilization rate, while some of the oldest rig designs are below 40% utilization. PTEN has been retiring obsolete rigs or upgrading/retrofitting them when possible.
Note that there’s no standard industry definition of what a “hi-spec” rig is. Our definition comprises AC drive rigs, new SCRs with electronic drilling systems, and fast-moving SCRs. While an 1,500hp AC rig has a market value of $23mm and a conventional new SCR would cost you about $14mm, our “high-spec rigs” are all in high demand and over 90% utilized. Inferior rig types are typically worth under $7mm, and utilization rates drop as rig capabilities decrease. For reference, Goldman’s recent initiation report on the space does a nice job of describing the technicalities of the different rigs and maps out the fleets of both PTEN and HP.
As the hi-spec rig market has tightened, E&P companies have been increasingly willing to commit to 3+ year contract terms with pass-through clauses for most costs incurred (including labor, which accounts for 2/3rds of land drillers’ opex). Lower-capability rigs continue to operate mostly on a spot basis.
Valuation
HP has typically traded at a premium to PTEN over the past 5 years: on an EV/EBITDA basis, HP commanded an average 14% premium relative to PTEN. Based on consensus numbers, with PTEN at 2.9x and HP at 5.0x CY12 EBITDA, the current 75% premium is at historical highs (see the link below for an EV/EBITDA graph of each stock).
http://tinypic.com/r/2v2vdy9/5
PTEN |
HP |
|
Price |
$18.87 |
$61.71 |
Market cap |
2,937 |
6,637 |
Net debt |
400 |
-113 |
EV |
3,337 |
6,524 |
11E EBITDA |
963 |
1,075 |
12E EBITDA |
1,165 |
1,294 |
of which Pres pumping |
345 |
|
|
|
|
11E EV/EBITDA |
3.5 |
6.1 |
12E EBITDA |
2.9 |
5.0 |
|
|
|
11 P/E |
8.8 |
14.2 |
12 P/E |
7.2 |
11.8 |
Our bet is mostly on multiple convergence to historical levels rather than on big earnings surprises. We think this is reasonable considering that consensus has both companies growing EBITDA at a 21% rate in 2012. In our opinion, negative sentiment around PTEN’s pressure pumping business and older drilling rigs is so extreme that the market is ascribing zero or negative value to these profitable businesses.
If we trust consensus estimates to be accurate and we assume that the EV/EBITDA relative HP/PTEN premium returns to 14%, PTEN would have to trade up to 4.4x, implying 61% upside for PTEN and 30% over gross exposure for the trade. Alternatively, HP may converge to 3.3x and drop 37% from current levels, for an overall 18% return on the trade. We believe a 25% average target return is highly attractive for such a market-neutral trade, and we’re not even aiming for the stocks to trade at parity.
So what could go wrong that would justify the current valuation disparity? Admittedly, consensus numbers are not particularly pessimistic for PTEN, as they seem to expect no more than 200bps margin compression in pressure pumping and a stable legacy rig business. We’ve tried to figure out what type of scenarios would justify current valuation. A 14% HP/PTEN premium would imply PTEN trading at 4.4x 2012 EBITDA, which would in turn imply $758mm EBITDA in 2012. How do we get from consensus of $1,164mm EBITDA to $758mm? You really need to get creative here:
Of course, the above scenarios are very unlikely, particularly if unaccompanied by a serious impairment to HP’s business as well. All this goes to say that PTEN’s stock price reflects extreme levels of negativity that confer a very wide margin of safety to the trade.
Thesis
Risks
show sort by |
Are you sure you want to close this position PATTERSON-UTI ENERGY INC?
By closing position, I’m notifying VIC Members that at today’s market price, I no longer am recommending this position.
Are you sure you want to Flag this idea PATTERSON-UTI ENERGY INC for removal?
Flagging an idea indicates that the idea does not meet the standards of the club and you believe it should be removed from the site. Once a threshold has been reached the idea will be removed.
You currently do not have message posting privilages, there are 1 way you can get the privilage.
Apply for or reactivate your full membership
You can apply for full membership by submitting an investment idea of your own. Or if you are in reactivation status, you need to reactivate your full membership.
What is wrong with message, "".