Emerge Energy Services vs. Hi-Crush Partners
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Emerge Energy Services vs. Hi-Crush Partners

on

  • 3,876 views

Which frac sand manufacturer is best: Emerge Energy Services or Hi-Crush Partners?

Which frac sand manufacturer is best: Emerge Energy Services or Hi-Crush Partners?

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,876
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
268
Embed Views
3,608

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

14 Embeds 3,608

http://www.fool.com 3531
http://www.barchart.com 26
http://m.fool.com 22
http://barchartjson.websol.barchart.com 16
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 3
http://mockup.www.fool.com 2
http://www.greenwichtime.com 1
http://www.beaumontenterprise.com 1
http://www.mysanantonio.com 1
http://172.24.228.203 1
http://www.seattlepi.com 1
http://www.chron.com 1
http://www.google.com.sg 1
http://www.slideee.com 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Emerge Energy Services vs. Hi-Crush Partners Emerge Energy Services vs. Hi-Crush Partners Presentation Transcript

    • EMES vs. HCLP
    • Buy Battle Determining which MLP to buy will come down to a few key metrics, management’s guidance for the future, and how these MLPs are working to execute their growth plan.
    • Yield Let’s begin with our first metric: Yield.
    • Yield 3.9%4.6%
    • Yield Historically, BOTH of these yields would be considered AVERAGE or LOW. Given many MLPs are sporting even lower yields right now, these two look good comparatively. Winner: EMES Let’s move on to the next metric.
    • MRQ Distribution coverage An MLPs distribution coverage ratio should always be greater than 1.0 times distributions paid. Credit rating agencies like Standard & Poor’s don’t give “bonus points” for higher coverage, but that could let investors know how much breathing room an MLP could have for distribution growth.
    • MRQ Distribution coverage 1.18x coverage Q1 DCF $17.4 million 1.1x coverage Q1 DCF $26.2 million
    • MRQ Distribution coverage This factor is a bit of a wash, both MLPs have adequate coverage. In theory, because $EMES is a variable rate MLP, it should never (ever) miss on coverage. Let’s move on to management’s guidance
    • Management guidance • Distributable cash flow: N/A • 2014 Distribution guidance: $3.80 to $4.00 • Distributable cash flow ~$100 million to $130 million • Distribution guidance: $2.30 to $2.50
    • Actual growth story: Emerge • 1 new mine coming online in 2014, in the permitting stage for two other new mines expected online late 2014 to early 2015 • Recently secured 4 new contracts, existing customer contracts continue to grow Quarter-over-Quarter* • Net income +32% • Distributable cash flow +13% • Distribution +13% *EMES does not have YOY data available for all metrics.
    • Actual growth story: Hi-Crush • Recent contract with C&J Energy Services, five- year supply agreement. • Recent contract with Halliburton, new long- term supply agreement that increases min. volume commitment. Year-over-Year • Net income +32% • Distributable cash flow +20% • Distribution +11%
    • Key takeaways • Metrics at both of these MLPs are in good shape by MLP standards • Growth is quite visible at both MLPs, and accelerating quickly BUT • Neither of these MLPs offers an impressive yield. If you need better income-generating ideas, grab the free report on the next page
    • Here are your better ideas