Macquarie model has one foot in the grave,
the other foot on a banana skin
August 1, 2008
Michael
West - The Sydney Morning Herald
IF THE Macquarie model is not dead, it
is surely comatose and dangling
upside-down with its claws superglued to
the perch.
Despite touting a glamorous
14% yield, the latest stapled
infrastructure float, BrisConnections,
has tanked 60% on its sharemarket debut.
The main reason is that people have
twigged to the financial engineer's lurk
of the manufactured yield. That is, they
now understand they are simply being
given back their own money after the
Macquarie machine had slapped the
structure together, raised debt with
their equity and stripped out the fees.
This one is an embarrassment for the
Queensland Government and the state's
largest fund, QIC, which is a major
shareholder. However, the Government
could boast, at a stretch, that it has
got its financing for the $5 billion
Airport Link project and that the fate
of BrisCon and its shareholders is
incidentally a matter for the private
sector.
After all, retail investors are said
to account for only 12% of the issue.
Much of the rest is lumped with the
underwriters, Credit Suisse, JPMorgan,
Deutsche Bank and assorted Macquarie
vehicles. Especially the latter.
It's a tad hard to tell from the
cluster of nominee companies on the
BrisCon top 20 shareholders list, but it
appears Macquarie in-house entities
account for 26%, or one-quarter of the
$400 million issue.
The two tranches to come will make
BrisCon a $1.2 billion issue but there
is a prospect that, unless the stock
bounces, investors will be reluctant to
throw good money after bad. If market
conditions deteriorate further it could
even go to zero with $2 still to pay.
"The BrisConnections IPO was fully
subscribed with the offer well supported
by leading domestic and international
institutional investors," said the press
release. No it wasn't. A monumental
overhang of perhaps half the float is
sitting there waiting to spill.
A miraculous recovery cannot be ruled
out. Since investors are required to pay
another $1 in nine months, though, and
yet another $1 in 18 months, this one
has the ring of the Norwegian blue
parrot about it.
Besides the willingness of the
promoters to stuff the overhang into
their own vehicles, another measure of
the brazen resolve it took to get this
float away was that, during marketing,
big toll-road operator Transurban
declared a restructure. It would no
longer adhere to the model of paying
distributions out of capital, said new
chief executive Chris Lynch. It was time
to deleverage.
Despite Transurban disavowing the model,
Macquarie pressed ahead.
If the
Airport Link project were such an
attractive investment proposition the
bank, having won the tender, would have
slotted the asset into Macquarie
Infrastructure Group.
Instead this is a structure designed
to produce cash today - $110 million in
fees - with unit holders in the BrisCon
trust taking the risk on the assets
tomorrow. Actual cash flow is years
away.
As is de rigueur in these offerings,
the traffic forecaster charged a king's
ransom for its advice. The expert in
question, Arup, snips $4.7 million for
making estimates without, one can
assume, any liability.
To give Macquarie its due, although
it has structured most of the toll-road
deals in the country, the two that have
gone belly up thus far for investors
have been Sydney's Cross City and Lane
Cove Tunnel projects - both put in place
by other financiers.
While the long-term viability of the
other projects will not be known for
years, the so-called Macquarie model of
listed infrastructure stocks is surely
pushing up the daisies - notwithstanding
the denials at last week's shareholder
meeting, and the strong inflows into its
unlisted vehicles.
Whether all these projects will be
viable in the longer term (BrisCon has a
45-year lease) is highly moot. For one,
the model was designed when the oil
price was $US25 a barrel and every
operator steadfastly refuses to disclose
the oil price assumptions in its
modelling. As do the Queensland , NSW
and Victorian governments.
Surely Andrew McNamara Queensland's
Minister for Sustainability, Climate
Change and Innovation, and his oil
vulnerability taskforce will be wanting
to know what his counterparts in
government - particularly Deputy Premier
and Infrastructure Minister Paul Lucas
and Transport Minister John Mickel -
have signed off on here. Not to mention
Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman, who
is a key proponent.
Given, yesterday was just one day in
the listed life of this trust, and the
likes of Macquarie Airports also had a
rough beginning with many a sceptic
lambasting the group for paying too much
money to buy Sydney Airport.
However, the sheer overhang in
BrisCon bodes poorly for the stock in
this environment of distaste for
complexity, leverage, high oil prices
and bear-market sentiment.
There is potential for renewable
energy to fuel cars and keep toll roads
ticking over, but evidence has recently
emerged that the cost of petrol is not
"inelastic", as they say, to demand for
motoring.
The traffic numbers for MIG's assets
such as the French APPR and Toronto's
407 have been flat, even in some cases
declining.
Until now, Queensland had a
superior track record in PPPs to the
southern states but now it is catching
up, or is that down? The Government has
declined to reveal its public sector
comparator (PSC) - a study that looks at
various options to fund infrastructure -
if indeed it did one.
Meanwhile the other toll-road in
Brisbane, Rivercity Motorway, is
travelling at 30¢, down 70% on its $1
issue price, albeit before investors
have taken their distributions from
capital along the way.
This week's revelations that the NSW
Government had been given strong advice
that its proposed metro rail line to the
north of Sydney would be a dud
demonstrate further that, when it comes
to splashing around taxpayers' money,
appropriate disclosure and transparency
are in order.
For a start, governments should bring
back the PSC test. It should be made
public so the public can debate the
merits of financing options.
The marvellous thing about these
deals for government is they can
breezily say they are getting vital
infrastructure built for nicks.
Indeed, Premier Anna Bligh remarked
a couple of months ago that the
complex road and tunnel project
worth $3.4 billion was a ''landmark
finance deal'' which would cost the
taxpayer just $47 million. Clearly
she hadn't factored in the billion
dollar cost of tolls to future road
users. Even so, the cost has now
blown out from $47 million - these
numbers are conveniently
''estimates'' until financial close
- to $267 million.
Then there is the $540 million in
land bank value and $270 million for
the Airport Drive flyover, which the
Government also agreed to fund, and
the next section of the northern
busway. All up the Queensland
taxpayer is up to $1.7 billion.
Fair enough, infrastructure has to
be paid for somehow but a lot more
transparency would not not go astray
and, right now, you'd hate to be a
taxpaying, toll-paying unitholder.