PUMP will report 3Q19 results today AMC, bringing operational results back into focus (at least temporarily) after the internal review and related inquiries have dominated the narrative since Aug. On Oct 9th, PUMP announced the effectively utilized fleet count for 3Q was 25.1 (vs. 25.6 in 2Q) and guided to 18-20 fleets for 4Q (-26% at midpoint), with no other 3Q/4Q detail provided. Among peers that report/guide to similar effective utilization metrics, FTSI guided to a 26% decrease and legacy Keane guided to a ~23% decline. Figures for PTEN & LBRT depict deployed spreads based on commentary and are thus less comparable, which perhaps also skews the comparability of cited EBITDA/spread metrics. Tables within show 3Q/4Q consensus for PUMP, with figures for peers based on results/guides (or ests in the absence of guidance). We continue to see the market in somewhat of a ‘holding pattern’ on PUMP, with those currently involved leaning into the ~$630/HP valuation (limited downside?), and others waiting for clarity on the SEC review/mgmt re-org.
Search Coverage List, Models & Reports
Search Results1-10 out of 91
In this week’s CHOW, we take an early look at implied 2020 capex based on early E&P budgets thus far in 3Q earnings. E&P budgets are tracking down 19%, albeit based on a limited sample and weighed down by massive cuts by OXY, and to a lesser extent, CHK and EQT. We chart the spending data, and then map out OFS exposure to each respective E&P based on YTD frac activity and active rig counts.
Related to ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, Weatherford released updated revenue and EBITDA projections through 2022 earlier this month. Akin to its solvent peers, internal projections have been revised down since the mid-year update with North America weakness offsetting Int’l growth and reduced activity suppressing the uptake of new technology offerings. At the end of 2018, Weatherford thought $1B of EBITDA in 2019 was feasible given its then macro viewpoint. In June, the revised projections pushed $1B of EBITDA to 2021, and under the revised projections, EBITDA tops out at $950M in 2022. The company expects no net growth from activity through 2020, with the incremental growth instead driven by new tech offerings (capital light is trending across OFS). It’s also worth noting that there is not much downside from divestitures baked in, which may signal how tough it has been to sell non-core assets (especially when peers are also more inclined to sell).
Our initial APY OP recommendation and ‘top pick’ designation was based on secular growth drivers across both segments, especially in a weakening USL market. APY continues to grow P&A share in the Permian (having recently generated lift revenue with an IOC), but USL-driven DT destocking and sluggish E-Hemi pull-through of the lift portfolio has failed to offset ESP correlation to L48 frac activity. Encouragingly, rumblings of lift pricing pressure were largely dispelled on today’s APY call, which perhaps drove some incremental support among investors more dubious of further margin bleed into FY20. APY remains a differentiated OFS name (underpinned by margin stability), but the story appears as exposed to the hyper-cyclicality of USL activity as recent IPO names across frac and well servicing.
We expected that achieving guidance (issued in July) would be a stretch giving the ensuing context, but the magnitude of the miss (~9% rev/EBITDA) is still mildly surprising. DT was the main detractor due to aggressive inventory restocking which led to 65% decrementals, however companywide margins held up well (-46 bps q/q) given the circumstances and an $20M of annualized cost restructuring should help offset some margin pressure into YE. The 4Q guide wasn’t too bad (-6% rev/-13% EBITDA at the MP), but the fact that APY plans on issuing an update in early-December doesn’t inspire too much confidence (and speaks to the lack of visibility). Then again, its likely a safeguard against a repeat of 3Q.
CHOW – SLB vs. HAL tale of the tape (more robust review/charts within). SLB and HAL are up 9.2% and 7.5%, respectively, since SLB reported 3Q19 earnings last Friday BMO (HAL reported Monday BMO). The relative strength is somewhat surprising given what we perceived to be mostly neutral prints/calls, and a chunk of the outperformance can likely be attributed to both short covering and/or inordinately low expectations. Still, OFS will gladly take momentum regardless of the source in the current investing climate. Sustaining said momentum has proven to be the more difficult task. In this week’s CHOW, we revisit both sets of results and compare/contrast certain metrics and emerging themes. SLB’s quarter can be summarized as a modest beat and uncertain guide, while HAL modestly missed and issued surprisingly strong guidance. As it stands, much of our tactical positioning call for SLB over HAL into the 3Q print has been deferred to 4Q earnings and the ensuing reveal of SLB’s NAM land portfolio review. We still prefer HAL’s upside L-T.
CHOW – PE/JAG from the OFS perspective – Will E&P consolidation further squeeze service pricing in a lower growth USL environment? Within, we take a look at the rig/frac exposure at play in this week’s PE/JAG tie up, the conclusion being that legacy OFS suppliers for PE are likely to benefit at the expense of those working for JAG (understandably). However, given that PE takes a “squeeze the turnip” approach to service pricing and capital efficiency, we also believe that broader consolidation trends across E&P could further (and permanently) undermine the pricing power of a much more fragmented OFS contingent. While pumpers cite unsustainably low pricing, E&Ps purport continued unit cost tailwinds into FY20, a dislocation in messaging that could inevitably see bad OFS actors acquiesce to larger, post-merger operators in the Permian (unless the frac subsector also consolidates, in the face of low barriers-to-entry). We also observe a HAL/LPI case study which tells of a more amicable equilibrium between OFS, E&P, efficiency and more sustainable investment growth.
From an oil supply side standpoint, the only catalyst that matters is US shale. The LO/generalist market has largely given up on OFS, right before what we believe will be the most impactful structural shift in oil S/D in the past decade – one that benefits OFS, as it stimulates higher calorie int’l/offshore activity and serves as a bbl/$ tailwind for USL drillers and frac. 3Q OFS earnings will be dominated by SLB/HAL/BHGE on the E-Hemi, but equity markets will be looking to the Permian for early indication of the new normal for a ‘steadier state’ US shale complex.
CHOW – Div yields looking increasingly attractive. Where should OFS trade? As the OFS sellside collective (including us) prepares another round of earnings preview, we revisit our 2Q Preview in the context of rising div/FCF yields across OFS. We continue to see more consensus FCF stability vs. associated earnings revisions. With 1) clarity on FY20 NAM spending, 2) demonstrated margin stability despite a contracting NAM environment (aided by int’l tailwinds), and 3) further capex reductions in a broader shift to ‘capital-light’, we believe the S&P500 div yield bogey is tenable for an OFS sector that is both A) at subdued EPS power, and B) overly discounted in terms of near-term growth (or perceived lack thereof). Upside across coverage.
The Wolfe Utilities & Energy conference hosted several thematic, multi-sector panels, including US L48 productivity trends and the EV impact on long-term oil demand. The high-level conclusion is that the current oil supply setup is arguably the most bullish since 2011, while the demand framework is the most bearish in that same timespan. Our house view is that negative near-term demand trends could be beaten back by the lower supply picture, presenting a constructive oil macro set up. However, poor sector sentiment is unlikely to reverse in the near term with a soft global economic data stream.
- 1 of 10
- next →