Last Wednesday, Berlian Laju Tanker sold USD 100 million five year convertible bonds with joint bookrunners J.P. Morgan and RS Platou Markets. The bonds were priced to sell with an attractive coupon fixed at 12% and come with a conversion premium of just 10% and a one time reset after six months. The modest conversion premium could well suggest that BLT and its advisors are looking for a more equity like transaction, which will help improve its leverage risk profile in the medium term, should the bonds be converted into shares.
The proceeds from the offering will be used for, among other things, investments in the expanding cabotage trade in Indonesia, based upon its long-standing relationship with Pertamina and other oil and gas operators in Indonesia. The proceeds may also be used to repay or redeem existing debt, including outstanding convertible bonds guaranteed by the company, and for general working capital. BLT needs fresh capital to cover a potential put on its outstanding USD 125 million convertible bonds in May 2010. As we understand from RS Platou Markets, these proceeds are not expected to be used for the on-going acquisition of Eitzen Group. Continue Reading
Written by:
carisk | Categories:
Asia,
Bonds | February 12th, 2010 |
Add a Comment
Berlian Laju Tanker (“BLT”)’s acquisition of Camillo Eitzen & Co ASA (“CECO”) may have hit a speed bump when its initial transaction structure, which involved the issuance of mandatory exchangeable bonds (“MEBs”), was rejected by the Indonesian market regulator. But we understand that the company and its advisor RS Platou Markets remain resolute and are working hard on an alternative plan. Since then, a series of developments have occurred that added uncertainty to BLT’s quest for CECO and we hereby provide a summary of these developments in chronological order.
On 1 October 2009, Eitzen Chemical ASA (“ECHEM”) reached an agreement with most of its lenders (all syndicate loans and most bilateral loans) on the restructuring of its bank debt. However, this was conditional upon a new equity issue of a minimum USD 100 million by November. ECHEM was in dire need of capital injection. Continue Reading
Last week it was dry bulk. This week, all the fuss seems to be revolving around the tanker market. A Wall Street Journal “Money & Investing” section cover story on the popularity of shorting tanker stocks drew some attention. As did a bearish report from R.S. Platou, a much-talked-about, products-focused IPO from Aries Maritime, positive reports form Jefferies and Banc of America and tanker stock coverage initiations from First Albany. So what, exactly, are the arguments going around, and of what should tanker market players and their financiers be aware? It’s still impossible to predict the future, but we can tell you what some of the competing arguments are.
R.S. Platou analyst Erik Andersen drew a lot of attention with his bearish report on shipping, particularly tankers. According to Mr. Andersen, the seasonality justification for low spot rates – which brokers say have dropped into the upper teens for VLCCs on some routes – is badly overblown. He notes that from 1997-2004, the average second quarter rate was about 37.5% lower than the average fourth quarter rate, completely out of order with the drop in rates from $147,000 in the fourth quarter of 2004 to $41,000 so far in the second quarter of 2005. However, this is still above the 8-year average second quarter rate of $35,000 – albeit with higher bunker prices – suggesting that perhaps the $147,000 was more of an anomaly than the $41,000 is a sign of a crash. Still, tanker fleet annualized growth figures of 6-7% compared to a comparable rate of 1% annually over the decade from 1993-2003 are somewhat ominous. Citigroup Smith Barney analyst Charles de Trenck noted how the current weak rates are making the tanker market the first among the shipping sectors to experience the pricing pressures derived from growing capacity. But on the bright side, Mr. Andersen did write that he does not believe tanker markets will weaken so much as to create a weak year for owners.
Analysts Magnus Fyhr and Douglas Mavrinac at Jefferies & Company have a much different take on the current market situation. They said in a report issued to reiterate their buy rating on Ship Finance International that they expect tanker demand to be firm on increasing OPEC production. Importantly, the analysts believe that incremental fleet growth of 21 MMdwt scheduled through the end of the year is likely to be absorbed by increased tanker demand.
Evincing similarly positive sentiments, analysts Daniel Barcelo, Philippe Lanier and Pierre Sargeant of Banc of America Securities issued a report on oil tankers optimistically titled “Hold On for the Summer Heat.” They note that a 5% tanker stock pullback over the past two weeks has been related more to Arabian Gulf VLCC market conditions than to the tanker industry as a whole, much of which has remained fairly strong. Additionally, they point out that the 450 vessel global VLCC fleet has grown by only two vessels so far in 2005, implying that softened rates could not be explained by supply buildup, but rather are a product of a reduction in Arabian Gulf export volume and a temporary buildup of available tonnage in the gulf. Analyst Craig Irwin of First Albany appears to agree, having this week initiated coverage on General Maritime, OMI and Arlington Tankers with a Buy rating. And a group of Asian investors that market sources say recently put their money into a very expensive $140 million VLCC newbuilding have put their money where their mouth is when it comes to predicting a strong VLCC market for years to come.
Much of Wall Street, however, seems to have sided with R.S. Platou on the more bearish side of the debate, as a widely disseminated article titled “Shorts Expect Tankers to Take On More Water” strongly suggests. Teekay, OMI, Knightsbridge and General Maritime are all being subjected to this phenomenon, with Frontline leading the pack. Investors are brazenly betting that tanker stocks will keep falling. Whether or not this will happen is hard to tell, though the practice certainly is not encouraging for those hoping to see their tanker investments appreciate.
