@BigJohn043 Also worked in both IB and consulting, albeit at A-list IB and B-list consulting. Have worked extensively with MBB and alums - no bueno. Your IB experience must have been quite a bit different from mine.
@bryan_johnson Can you just do an dispassionate analysis of what his style of corrosive negativity does to human health and longevity? I'm sure you've got data, studies and a corrective protocol...
@Energy_Tidbits The spread is narrower than that in practice as the terminals generally operate above nameplate. Feedgas loss for USGC liquefaction is usually modeled more like ~7%. Lower in the Arctic.
@crudechronicle It's an univestable sector in public markets. There are quality private operators - almost always more disciplined from a commercial and execution perspective. Not many clear angles to invest in them, although maybe more alongside/with them.
@CorneliaLake What's your background with E&C names? It's a garbage sector for a reason - don't be fooled by the backlog number.
Will take a look at the company your note and the company but I'm suspicious...
@Brad_Setser@darioperkins Where do you see the recently announced ~$550 bn in US projects fitting into this?
Presumably they will borrow in Japan, possibly using USD FX reserves, to make USD investment, with returns in USD over ~2-3 decades.
@musharbash_b Interesting idea but your financial analysis is not appropriate or suggestive of what you think it is. The fertilizer cos you mentioned are very capital intensive - metrics like ROCE, ROIC and ROE tell a more informative story.
It's capital cost at arbitrage. Deeply contracted, producing LNG infrastructure assets with predominantly fixed liquefaction fees can transact at 12x-14x EBITDA. On the other hand, trading multiples for Shell & Mitsubishi (mostly E&P, trading & downstream) are more like half that.
@TraderNorway The notes were issued at the Plaquemines level to refinance debt at the Plaquemines level. Does not cleanly reflect economics at the $VG parent level, which receives a narrow residual cash flow from contracted volumes and as a result has a very different credit/equity profile.
@Ethan_0502@tylermacro10 You should model it. I'm not as bearish on $VG as others, but the risks are real.
There's a good BofA credit research initiating coverage report from last month that provides effectively all the inputs to model VG w/ various sensitivities/scenarios.
@Ethan_0502@tylermacro10 The problem is that, in a severe stress scenario, distributions derived from contracted volumes at CP1, PL, CP2 to the $VG parent may not be sufficient to cover debt service and corporate costs. Especially if litigation claims are layered on top, and growth capex continues.
So was I. Trying to help you here. Type this into Grok:
"Detail the complete equity transaction history of the 407 ETR concession. Include: buyer, seller, % transacted, purchase price, implied EV, implied EV/EBITDA. Also include Ferrovial ownership % before/after each transaction."