SPAC, a view post QA

REMINDER/ DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL HIBISCUS OR ANY SPAC OR ANY SHARES. IT IS INTENDED TO EDUCATIONAL AND DISCUSSION PURPOSE WITH A VIEW TO PROMOTE MORE ANALYTICAL INVESTING AND LESS GAMBLING.
 
I decided to continue to share more of my understanding of SPAC due to the very encouraging responses I received on the previous two postings on SPAC, the first which discussed on the nature and understanding of SPAC and the second one which talked about the enigma of trying to grapple with the valuation of  SPACs.

I started by listing down all the SPAC in Malaysia again. While the imeediate number that came to my mind was 3, I stopped writing after the names Sona and Cliq. I hesitated to include Hibiscus as i recalled that it had completed its qualifying acquisition (QA).

The question that I had to answer was: was Hibiscus still a SPAC or should I now consider it as an oil and gas company? The answer to this question it only then would I be able to appropriately understand, assess and evaluate the company.

The first thing I checked was the Bursa Malaysia classification. Nope, Hibiscus is no longer classified as a SPAC. How about Bloomberg? When I checked on 7 June 2013, it is stated as Sector: Financials; Industry: Specialty Finance. Sounds like SPAC to me. Well now we have two different 'market experts' with two different opinions on the nature of the beast entity.

But the nature of the company is not as simple as a reclassification on the board. In the actual sense, it should be determined by its business model.

As I had argued in previous posting, I view a SPAC before the QA as a private equity fund. The question is whether post QA, does a SPAC cease to be a private equity company and become a normal operating company or does it continue to be a private equity company. The answer will change the perspective in which I view a SPAC, the risk assessment and the evaluation (some may say valuation).

Let me try to explain why. A private equity company makes money from buying, investing and finally exiting the investment. Cashing in from the dividends and proceeds of the sale of the investee company. It does not need to hold a majority stake as it is more interested in the ability to groom and sell the company later rather than managing and living of the profits and cashflow of the company. The proceeds of the sale of the initial investment will be used to find another acquisition which it will try to replicate the success with the initial investments. The value of the investment in the private equity will grow  based on the size of the assets it has and the quality of the private equity will depend on the liquidity or ability to convert those assets into cash.

A normal operating company, especially a normal operating company listed on an exchange has to have a business model and business operations that are in perpetuity. The operations must be on going concern basis and the company must have control over the assets (most importantly cashflow) and the business direction of the operations and assets, particularly when it comes to paying dividends. In other words, the company must have an identifiable core business. And to be listed, the core business must be able to satisfy the listing requirements of the exchange. If this is the business model, then the evaluation and valuation will be done on the fundamental of the company in the same manner as all the other companies operating in the same industry, which in this case the oil and gas industry with the likes of Yinson, SapuraKencana, UMWO&G, Bumi Armada and others.

So, where do I put Hibiscus as? As a private equity or a normal operating company? The only way I can objectively  put my mind at ease is to look at the equity guidelines of the Securities Commission Malaysia to see if Hibiscus would have made it as it is to the exchange.

Under 'Profit Test' an applicant needs to have a core business, defined as "the business which provides the principal source of operating revenue or after-tax profit to a corporation and which comprises the principal activities of the corporation and its subsidiary companies". Well, assuming we take the QA of Hibiscus as the 'core business', it may have passed this test if it provided the principal source of revenue and profit for Hibiscus. But that is only because Hibiscus bought and now owns 35% stake in Lime, which allowed for equity accounting. It does not come across as a typical core business in a normal IPO where ususally we would see the listing company owning 100% of the core business via direct ownership of the assets and operation or the operating company. Well, if not 100%, then a majority control is more familiar to us. In other words, no matter how big Lime grows into, the stake is only 35% (Lets not get into the RM20 million requirement and track record.)

Why is the majority control of core business is important to me? It is because if i were to treat the company as a perpetuity, I must have the comfort that it can determine the perpetuity itself, independently and without any hindrance. If I were to own less than 50% of a company, I have a much restricted rights and say on this matter. I am a minority shareholder. I mean if we were to put, size aside, the control over the core contributor of profit between Hibiscus and SapuraKencana, UMWOG or Yinson, we would able able to see the difference there.

Is it wrong? NO. Remember, the purpose i made this comparison is just to put the business model in the proper perspective according to my views. I do this so that I can try to make sense of the valuation and pricing of the shares of Hibiscus. The 35% stake in Lime has some value, and in some cases it could be more valuable than 100% of other company. 

However, lets assume all is good and lets take one common valuation indicator, the PE ratio. Based on the following, the PE for 2013 was 66.80 times! Really? That is way higher than SapuraKencana or even UMWOG, let alone the industry average of approximately 13 times.
Stock Price : 1.75 (2013-12-31)
EPS : 2.62
P/E Ratio: 66.80

How else could I make sense of all this? Well, another possible way for me to look at the price is to assume a different business model for the company.

A private equity model usually values the 'assets' on piecemeal basis. They are valued based on the a view to exit. From there, we would be able to arrive at the value of the private equity fund by adding on all the pieces of investments together. Interestingly enough, I stumbled upon a research report by a local institution that did exactly just that for Hibiscus: valuation based on the sum of parts. And the stock price of RM1.75 was within their range of estimated worth of the company.

Well, what is the takeaway here? Well, in my opinion, price is different from the value, as I have discussed previously. The demand for shares depends on the expectations of profits to be made from the movements of the shares and expectations are a function of how the investors view the company.

 If I had assumed that a SPAC post acquisition is a typical oil and gas company, I would have been baffled as to why the demand was so high compared to the fundamental of the company. However, it feels that the price makes more sense when I view the company as still a private equity venture: something that carries a high potential (hence expectations) together with an equally high amount of risk.

REMINDER/ DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL HIBISCUS OR ANY SPAC OR ANY SHARES. IT IS INTENDED TO EDUCATIONAL AND DISCUSSION PURPOSE WITH A VIEW TO PROMOTE MORE ANALYTICAL INVESTING AND LESS GAMBLING.