Regime Change and Value: A Follow up Post on Aramco

In my post from a couple of days ago, I valued Aramco at about $1.65 trillion, but I qualified that valuation by noting that this was the value before adjusting for regime change concerns. That comment seems to have been lost in the reading, and it is perhaps because (a) I made it at the end of the valuation and (b) because the adjustment I made for it seemed completely arbitrary, knocking off about 10% off the value. Since this is a issue that is increasingly relevant in a world, where political disruptions seem to be the order of the day in many parts of the world, I thought that a post dedicated to just regime changes and how they affect value might be in order, and Aramco would offer an exceptionally good lab experiment.

Going Concern and Truncation Risks

Risk is part and parcel of investing. That said, risk came come from many sources and not all risk is created equal, to investors. In fact, modern finance was born from the insight that for a diversified investor, it is only risk that you cannot diversify away, i.e., macroeconomic risk exposure, that affects value. In this section, I want to examine another stratification of risk into going concern and truncation risk that is talked about much less, but could matter even more to value.

DCF Valuation: A Going Concern Judgment

The intrinsic value of a company has always been a function of its expected cash flows, its growth and how risky the cash flows are, but in recent decades a combination of access to data and baby steps in bringing economic models into valuation has resulted in the development of discounted cashflow valuation as a tool to estimate intrinsic value. Put simply, the discounted cash flow value of an asset is:

Extended to a publicly traded company, with a potential life in perpetuity, this value can be written as:

If you are a reader of my posts, it should come as no mystery to you that I not only use DCF models to value companies, but that I believe that people under estimate how adaptable it is, usable in valuing everything from start ups to infrastructure projects.  There is, however, one significant limitation with DCF models that neither its proponents nor its critics seem be aware of, and it needs to be addressed. Specifically, a DCF is an approach for valuing going concerns, and every aspect of it is built around that presumption. Thus, you estimate expected cash flows each year for the firm, as a going concern, and your discount rate reflects the risk that you see in the company as a going concern. In fact, it is this going concern assumption that allows us to assume that cash flows continue for the long term, sometimes forever, and attach a terminal value to these cash flows.

Truncation Risks

If you accept the premise that a DCF is a going concern value, you are probably wondering what other risks there may be in investing that are being missed in a DCF valuation. The risks that I believe are either ignored or incorrectly incorporated into value are truncation risks. The simplest way of illustrating the difference between going concern and truncation risks is by picking a year in your cash flow estimation, say year 3. With going concern risk, you are worried about the actual cash flows in year 3 being different from your expectations, but with truncation risk, you are worried about whether there will be a year 3 for your company. 

So, what types of risk will fall into the truncation risk category? Looking at the corporate life cycle, you will see truncation risk become not just significant, but is perhaps the dominant risk that you worry about, age both ends of the life cycle. With start ups and young companies, it is survival risk that is front and center, given that approximately two thirds of start ups never make it to becoming viable businesses. With declining and aging companies, especially laden with debt, it is distress risk, where the company unable to meet its contractual obligations, shutters its doors and liquidates it assets. Looking at political risk, truncation risk can come in many forms, starting with nationalization risk, where a government takes over your business and pays you nothing in some cases and less than fair value in the rest, but extending to other expropriation risks, where you still are allowed to hold equity, but in a much less valuable concern.

Since truncation risk is more the rule than the exception, and it is the dominant risk in some companies, you would think that investors and analysts valuing these companies will have devised sensible ways of incorporating the risk, but you would be wrong.

• The most common approach to dealing with truncation risk is for analysts to hike up the discount rate, using the alluring argument that if there is more risk, you would demand a higher return. The problem, though, is that this higher discount rate still goes into a DCF where expected cash flows continue in perpetuity, creating an internal contradiction, where you increase the discount rate for truncation risk but you do nothing to the cash flows. In addition, the discount rate that these analysts use are made up, higher just for the sake of being higher, with no rationale for the adjustment. With venture capitalists, this shows up as absurdly high target rates of 40%, 50% or 60%, fiction in a world where these VCs actually deliver returns closer to 15-20%. Discount rates are blunt instruments and are incapable of carrying the burden of truncation risk, and should not be made to do so.
• Some analysts take the more sensible approach of scenario analysis, allowing for good and bad scenarios (including failure or nationalization) but never close the loop by attaching probabilities to the scenarios. Instead, they leave behind ranges for the value that are so wide as to be useless for decision making purposes. 

My suggestion is that you use a decision tree approach, where you not only allow for different scenarios, but you make these scenarios cover all possibilities and then attach a probability to each one. In the case of a start up, then, your two possible outcomes will be that the company will make it as a going concern and that it will not, and you will follow through with a DCF, with a going concern discount rate, yielding the value for the going concern outcome, and a liquidation providing your judgment for what the company will be worth, in the failure scenario:

Since you have probabilities for each outcome, you can compute an expected value. If you do this, you should expect to see discount rates for companies prone to failure (young start ups and declining firms) be drawn from the same distribution as that for healthy companies, but the adjustment for failure will be in the post-DCF adjustments. Put more simply, you should see 12-15% as costs of capital for even the riskiest start-ups, in a DCF, never 40-50%, but your post value adjustments for failure and its consequences will still take their toll.

The Aramco Valuation: Bringing in Truncation Risk 

In my last post, I valued Aramco in a DCF, using three measures of cash flows from dividends to potential dividends to free cash flows to the firm and arrived at values that were surprisingly close to each other, centered around $1.65 trillion, for the equity. Note, though, that these are going concern values, and reflect the expectation that while there may be year to year changes in cash flows, as oil prices changes, management recalibrate and the government tweaks tax and royalty rates, the company will be a going concern and that it will not suffer catastrophic damage to its core asset of low-cost oil reserves. For many investors in Aramco, the prime concern may be less on these fronts and more on whether the House of Saud, as the backer of the promises that Aramco is making its investors, will survive intact for the next few decades.

DCF Valuation: Going Concern Risk

Reviewing my discounted cash flow valuations of Aramco, you will notice that I began with a risk free rate in US dollars, because my currency choice was that currency. I then adjusted for risk, using a beta for Aramco, based upon REITs/royalty trusts for the promised dividend model and integrated oil companies for the potential dividends/free cash flow models, and an equity risk premium for Saudi Arabia of only 6.23%, with a country risk premium of 0.79% estimated for the country added to the mature market premium estimated for the US. The end result is that I had costs of equity ranging from 4.82% for promised dividends to 8.15% for cash flows.

The biggest push back I have had on my valuations is that the cost of equity seems low for a country like Saudi Arabia, and my response is that you are right, if you consider all of the risk in investing in a Saudi equity. However, much of the risk that you are contemplating in Saudi Arabia is political risk, or put more bluntly, the risk of regime change in the country, that could have dramatic effects on value. In fact, if you remove that risk from consideration and look at the remaining risk, Aramco is a remarkably safe investment, with the safety coming from its access to huge oil reserves and mind-boggling profits and cash flows. The DCF values that I have estimated, centered around $1.65 trillion, are therefore values before adjusting for the risk of regime change.

Regime Change Concerns

If you invest in Aramco, you clearly have an interests in who rules and runs the country, since every aspect of your valuation is dependent on that assumption. If the House of Saud continues to rule, I believe that the company will be the cash cow that I project it to be in my DCF and the values that I estimated hold. If the Arab spring comes to Riyadh and there is a regime change, the foundations of my value can either crack or be completely swept away, with cash flows, growth and risk all up for re-estimation. In fact, to complete my valuation, I need to bring both the probability of regime change and the consequences into my final valuation:

Consider the most extreme case. If you believe that regime change in imminent and certain, and that the change will be extreme (with equity being expropriated and Aramco being brought back entirely into the hands of the state), my expected value for equity becomes zero:

If at the other extreme, you either believe that regime change will never happen, or even if it does, the new regime will not want to hurt the goose that lays the golden eggs and leaves existing terms in place, the value effect of considering regime change will be zero. The truth lies between the extremes, though where it lies is open for debate. I believe that there remains a non-trivial chance (perhaps as high as 20%) that there will be a regime change over the long term and that if there is one, there will be changes that reduce, but not extinguish, my claim, as an equity investor, on the cash flows. 

That, in an entirely subjective nutshell, is why I think Aramco's equity value is closer to $1.5 trillion than $1.7 trillion.  As with all my other valuations, I understand that your judgments on Aramco will be different from mine, but I think that the disagreements we have are not so much on the going concern estimates of cash flows and risk but on the likelihood and consequences of regime change. 

Democracies versus Autocracies

I am not a political scientist, but I have always been fascinated by the question of how political structure and economic value are intertwined. Specifically, would you attach more value to a company or project operating in a democracy or in an autocracy? The approach that I have described in this post to deal with going concern and regime change risk allows me one way of trying too answer the question. 

• Democracies are messy institutions, where governments change and policies morph, because voters change their minds. Put simply, a democracy generally cannot offer any business iron clad guarantees about regulations not changing or tax rates remaining stable, because the government that offers those promises first has to get them approved by legislatures, often can be checked by legal institutions and, most critically, can be voted out of office. Consequently, companies operating in democracies will always complain more about the rules constantly changing, and how those changing rules affect cash flows, growth and risk. 
• Autocracies offer more stability, since autocrats don't have to get policies approved by legislators, often are unchecked by legal institutions and don't have to worry about how their decision poll with voters. Companies operating in autocracies can be promise rules that are fixed, regulations that don't change and tax rates that will stay constant. The catch, though, is that autocracies seldom transition smoothly, and when change comes, it is often unexpected and wrenching.

In valuation terms, democracies create more going concern risk and autocracies create more worries about regime change. The former will show up as higher discount rates in a DCF valuation and the latter as post-DCF adjustments. While I prefer democracies to autocracies, there is no way, a priori, that you can argue that democracies are always better than autocracies or vice versa, at least when it comes to value, and here is why:

• The going concern risk that is added by being in a democracy will depend on how the democracy works. If you have a democracy, where the opposing parties tend to agree on basic economic principles and disagree on the margins, the going concern risk added will be small. In the United States, in the second half of the last century, both parties (Republicans and Democrats) agreed on the fundamentals of the economy, though one party may have been more favorable on some issues, for business, and less favorable on other issues. In contrast, if you have a democracy, where governments are unstable and the opposing parties have widely different views on the very fundamentals of how an economy should be structured, the effect on going concern risk will be much higher. 
• The regime change risk in an autocracy will vary in how the autocracy is structured and how transitions happen. Autocracies structured around a person are inherently more unstable than autocracies built around a party or ideology, and transitions are more likely to be violent if the military is involved in regime change, in either direction. In addition, violent regime changes feed on themselves, with memories of past violent meted out to a group driving the violence that it metes out, when its turn comes.

In summary, when you are trying to decide on whether a business is worth more in a democracy than in a dictatorship, you are being asked to trade off more continuous, going concern risk in the former for the more stable environment of the latter, but with more discontinuous risk. I have deliberately stayed away from using specific country examples in this section, because this argument is more emotion than intellect, but you can fill your own contrasts of countries, and make your own judgments. 

Conclusion

I have often described valuation as a craft, where mastery is an elusive goal and the key to getting better is working at doing more valuation. I am glad that I valued Aramco, because it is an unconventional investment, a company where I have to worry more about political risks than economic ones. The techniques I develop on Aramco will serve me well, not only when I value Latin American companies, as that continent seems to be entering one of its phases of disquiet, but when I value developed market companies, as Europe and the US seem to be developing emerging market traits.

YouTube Video


Blog Posts

1. A coming out party for an Oil Colossus: Aramco's IPO

Valuation Links

1. Aramco Valuation(s)

A coming out party for the world's most valuable company: Aramco's long awaited IPO!

In a year full of interesting initial public offerings, many of which I have looked at in this blog, it is fitting that the last IPO I value this year will be the most unique, a company that after its offering is likely to be the most valuable company in the world, the instant it is listed. I am talking about Aramco, the Saudi Arabian oil colossus, which after many false starts, filed a prospectus on November 10 and that document, a behemoth weighing in at 658 pages, has triggered the listing clock.

Aramco: History and Set Up
Aramco’s beginnings trace back to 1933, when Standard Oil of California discovered oil in the desert sands of Saudi Arabia. Shortly thereafter, Texaco and Chevron formed the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco) to develop oil fields in the country and the company also built the Trans-Arabian pipeline to deliver oil to the Mediterranean Sea. In 1960, the oil producing countries, then primarily concentrated in the Middle East, created OPEC and in the early 1970s, the price of oil rose rapidly, almost quadrupling in 1973. The Saudi Government which had been gradually buying Aramco’s assets, nationalized the company in 1980 and effectively gave it full power over all Saudi reserves and production. The company was renamed Saudi Aramco in 1988.

To understand why Aramco has a shot at becoming the most valuable company in the world, all you have to do is look at its oil reserves. In 2018, it was estimated that Aramco had in excess of 330 billion barrels of oil and gas in its reserves, a quarter of all of the world’s reserves, and almost ten times those of Exxon Mobil, the current leader in market cap, among oil companies. To add to the allure, oil in Saudi Arabia is close to the surface and cheap to extract, making it the most profitable place on oil to own reserves, with production costs low enough to break even at $20-$25 a barrel, well below the $40-$50 break even price that many other conventional oil producers face, and even further below the new entrants into the game. This edge in both quantity and costs plays out in the numbers, and Aramco produced 13.6 million barrels of oil & gas every day in 2018, and reported revenues of $355 billion for the year, on which it generated operating income of $212 billion and net income of $111 billion. In short, if your complaint about the IPOs that you saw this year was that they had little to show in terms of revenues and did not have money-making business models, this company is your antidote.

Aramco, Saudi Arabia and the House of Saud!
The numbers that are laid out in the annual report are impressive, painting a picture of the most profitable company in the world, with almost unassailable competitive advantages, investors need to be clear that even after its listing, Aramco will not be a conventional company, and in fact, it will never be one. The reason is simple. Saudi Arabia is one of the wealthier countries in the world, on a per capital basis, and one of the 20 largest economies, in terms of GDP, but it derives almost 80% of that GDP from oil. Thus, a company that controls those oil spigots is a stand in for the entire country, and over the last few decades, it should not surprise you to learn that the Saudi budget has been largely dependent on the cash flows it collects from Aramco, in royalties and taxes, and that Aramco has also invested extensively in social service projects all over the country. The overlap between company and country becomes even trickier when you bring in the Saudi royal family, and its close to absolute control of the country, which also means that Aramco’s fortunes are tied to the royal family’s fortunes. It is true that there will still be oil under the ground, even if there is a change in regime in Saudi Arabia, but the terms laid out in the prospectus reflect the royal family’s promises and may very well be revisited if control changed. Should this overlap between company, country and family have an effect on how you view Aramco? I don’t see how it cannot and it will play out in many dimensions:

1. Corporate governance: After the IPO, the company will have all the trappings of a publicly traded company, from a board of directors to annual meetings to the rituals of financial disclosure. These formalities, though, should not obscure the fact that there is no way that this company can or ever will be controlled by shareholders. The Saudi government is open about this, stating in its prospectus that “the Government will continue to own a controlling interest in the Company after the Offering and will be able to control matters requiring shareholder approval. The Government will have veto power with respect to any shareholder action or approval requiring a majority vote, except where it is required by relevant rules for the government.” While one reason is that the majority control will remain with the government, it is that it would be difficult to visualize and perhaps to dangerous to even consider allowing a company that is a proxy for the country to be exposed to corporate control costs. After all, a hostile acquisition of the company would then be the equivalent of an invasion of the country. The bottom line is that if you invest in Aramco, you should recognize that you are more capital provider than shareholder and that you will have little or no say in corporate decision making.
2. Country risk: Aramco has a few holdings and joint ventures outside Saudi Arabia, but this company is not only almost entirely dependent on Saudi Arabia but its corporate mission will keep it so. Put differently, a conventional oil company that finds itself overdependent on a specific country for its production can try to reduce this risk by exploring for oil or buying reserves in other countries, but Aramco will be limited in doing this, because of its national status.
3. Political risk: For decades, the Middle East has had more than its fair share of turmoil, terrorism and war, and while Saudi Arabia has been a relatively untouched part, it too is being drawn into the problem. The drone attack on its facilities in Shaybah in August 2019, which not only caused a 54% reduction in oil production, but also cost billions of dollars to the company was just a reminder of how difficult it is to try to be oasis. On an even larger scale, the last decade has seen regime changes in many countries in the Middle East, with some occurring in countries, where the ruling class was viewed as insulated. The Saudi political order seems settled for the moment, with the royal family firmly in control, but that too can change, and quickly.

In short, this is not a conventional company, where shareholders gather at annual meetings, elect boards of directors and the corporate mission is to do whatever is necessary to increase shareholder well being, and it never will be one. For some, that feature alone may be sufficient to take the company off their potential investment list. For others, it will be something that needs to be factored into the pricing and value, but at the right price or value, presumably with a discount built in for the country and political risk overlay, the company can still be a good investment.

IPO Twists
Before we price and value Aramco, there are a few twists to this IPO that should be clarified, since they may affect how much you are willing to pay. The prospectus, filed on November 10, sheds some light:

1. Dividends: In the ending on September 30, 2019, Aramco paid out an ordinary dividend of $13.4 billion, entirely to the Saudi Government, and it plans to pay an additional interim dividend of at least $9.5 billion to the government, prior to the offering. The company commits to paying at least $75 billion in dividends in 2020, with holders of shares issued in the IPO getting their share, and to maintaining these dividends through 2024. Beyond 2024, dividends will revert back to their normal discretionary status, with the board of directors determining the appropriate amount. As an aside, the dividends to non-government shareholders will be paid in Saudi Riyal and to the government in US dollars.
2. IPO Proceeds: The prospectus does not specify how many shares will be offered in the initial offering, but it is not expected to be more than a couple of percent of the company. None of the proceeds from the IPO will remain in Aramco. The government will redirect the proceeds elsewhere, in pursuit of its policy of making Saudi Arabia into an economy less dependent on oil.
3. Trading constraints: Once the offering is complete, the shares will be listed on the Saudi stock exchange and its size will make it the dominant listing overnight, while also subjecting it to the trading restrictions of the exchange, including a limit of a 10% movement in the stock price in a day; trading will be stopped if it hits this limit.
4. Inducements for Saudi domestic investors: In an attempt to get more domestic investors to hold the stock, the Saudi government will give one bonus share, for every ten shares bought and held for six months, by a Saudi investor, with a cap at a hundred bonus shares.
5. Royalties & Taxes: In my view, it is this detail that has been responsible for the delay in the IPO process and it is easy to see why. For all of its life, Aramco has been the cash machine that keeps Saudi Arabia running, and the cash flows extracted from the company, whether they were titled royalties, taxes or dividends, were driven by Saudi budget considerations, rather than corporate interests. Investors were wary of buying into a company, where the tax rate and the royalties were fuzzy or unspecified and the prospectus lays out the following. First,  the corporate tax rate will be 20% on downstream taxable income, though tax rates on different income streams can be different. The Saudi government also imposes a Zakat, a levy of 2.5% on assessed income, thus augmenting the tax rate. In sum, these tax rate changes were already in effect in 2018, and the company paid almost 48% of its taxable income in taxes that year. Second, the royalties on oil were reset ahead of the IPO and will vary, depending on the oil price, starting at 15% if oil prices are less than $70/barrel, increasing to 45% of the incremental amount, if they fall between $70 and $100, and becoming 80%, if the oil price exceeds $100/barrel.

A Pricing of Aramco
The initial attempts by the Saudi government to take Aramco public, as long as two years ago, came with an expectation that the company would be “valued” at $2 trillion or more. Since the IPO announcement a few weeks ago, much has been made about the fact that there seem to be wide divergences in how much bankers seem to think Aramco is worth, with numbers ranging from $1.2 billion to $2.3 trillion. Before we take a deep dive into how the initial assessments of value were made and why there might be differences, I think that we should be clear eyed about these numbers. Most of these numbers are not valuations, based upon an assessment of business models, risk and profitability, but instead represent pricing of Aramco, where assessment of price being made by looking at how the market is pricing publicly traded oil companies, relative to a metric, and extending that to Aramco, adjusting (subjectively) for its unique set up in terms of corporate governance, country risk and political risk. In the table below, I look at integrated oil companies, with market caps in excess of $10 billion, in October 2019, and how the market is pricing them relative to a range of metrics, from barrels of oil in reserve, to oil produced, to more conventional financial measures (revenues, earnings, cash flows):

Download spreadsheet

The median oil company equity trades at about 13 times earnings, and was a business, at about the value of its annual revenues, and the market seems to be paying about $23 for every barrel of proven reserves of oil (or equivalent). In the table below, I have priced Aramco, using all of the metrics, and at the median and both the first and third quartiles:

You can already see that if you are looking at how to price Aramco, the metric on which you base it on will make a very large difference: 

• If you price Aramco based on its revenues of $356 billion or on its book value of equity of $271 billion, its value looks comparable or slightly higher than the value of Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch, the largest of the integrated oil companies. 
• That pricing, though, is missing Aramco’s immense cost advantage, which allows it to generate much higher earnings from the same revenues. Thus, when you base the pricing on Aramco’s EBITDA of $224 billion, you can see the pricing rise to above a trillion and if you shift to Aramco’s net income of $111 billion, the pricing approaches $1.5 trillion. 
• The pricing is highest when you focus on Aramco’s most valuable edge, its control of the Saudi oil reserves and its capacity to produce more oil than any other oil company in the world. If you base the pricing on the 10.3 billion barrels of oil that Aramco produced in 2018, Aramco should be priced above $1.5 trillion and perhaps even closer to $2 trillion. If you base the pricing on the 265.9 billion barrels of proven reserves that Aramco controls for the next 40 years, Aramco’s pricing rises to sky high levels.

If you are a potential investor, the pricing range in this table may seem so large, as to make it useless, but it can still provide some useful guidelines. First, you should not be surprised to see the roadshows center on Aramco’s strongest suits, using its huge net income (and PE ratios) as the opening argument to set a base for its pricing, and then using its reserves as a reason to augment that pricing. Second, there is a huge discount on the pricing, if just reserves are used as the basis for pricing, but there are two good reasons why that high pricing will be a reach:

• Production limits: Aramco not only does not own its reserves in perpetuity, with the rights reverting back to the Saudi government after 40 years, with the possibility of a 20-year extension, if the government decides to grant it, but it is also restricted in how much oil it can extract from those reserves to a maximum of 12 billion barrels a year.
• Governance and Risk: We noted, earlier, that Aramco’s flaws: the government’s absolute control of it, the country risk created by its dependence on domestic production and the political risk emanating from the possibility of regime change. To see how this can affect pricing, consider how the five companies on the integrated oil peer group that are Russian (with Gazprom, Rosneft and Lukoil being the biggest) are priced, relative to the global average:
  

Russian oil companies are discounted by 50% or more, relative to their peer group, and while Saudi Arabia does not have the same degree of exposure, the market will mete out some punishment.

A Valuation of Aramco

The value of Aramco, like that of any company in any sector, is a function of its cash flows, growth and risk. In fact, the story that underlies the Aramco valuation is that of a mature company, with large cash flows and concentrated country risk. That said, the structuring of the company and the desire of the Saudi government to use its cash flows to diversify the economy play a role in value. 

General Assumptions
While I will offer three different approaches to valuing Aramco, they will all be built on a few common components.

• First, I will do my valuation in US dollars, rather than Saudi Riyals, since as a commodity company, revenues are in dollars and the company reports its financials in US dollars (as well as Riyal). This will also allow me to evade tricky issues related to the Saudi Riyal being pegged to the US dollar though the reverberations from the peg unraveling will be felt in the operating numbers. 
• Second, I will use an expected inflation rate of 1.00% in US dollars, representing a rough approximation of the difference between the US treasury bond rate and the US TIPs rate. Third, I will use the equity risk premium of 6.23% for Saudi Arabia, representing about a 0.79% premium over my estimate of a mature market premium of 5.44% at the start of November 2019. 
• Finally, rather than use the standard perpetual growth model, where cash flows continue forever, I will use a 50-year growth period, representing the fact that the company's primary asset, its oil reserves, are not infinite and will run out at some point in time, even if additional reserves are discovered. In fact, at the current production level, the existing reserves will be exhausted in about 35 years.

Valuation: Promised Dividends
While the dividend discount model is far too restrictive in its assumptions about payout to be used to value most companies, Aramco may be the exception, especially given the promise in the prospectus to pay out at least $75 billion in dividends every year from 2020 and 2024, and the expectation that these dividends will continue and grow after that. There is one additional factor that makes Aramco a good candidate for the dividend discount model and that is the absolute powerlessness that stockholders will have at the company to change how much it returns to shareholders. To complete my valuation of Aramco using the promised dividends, I will make two additional assumptions:

1. Growth rate: I will assume a long term growth rate in dividends set equal the inflation rate, and since this valuation is in US dollars, that inflation rate will be 1%.
2. Discount rate: Rather than use a discount rate reflecting the risk of an oil company, I will be one that is closer to that demanded by investors in REITs and oil royalty trusts, investments where the bulk of the returns will be in dividends and those dividends are backed up by asset cash flows.

The valuation picture is below:

Download spreadsheet

Based upon my assumptions, the value of Aramco is about $1.63 trillion. Seen through these lens, this stock is a dressed-up bond, where dividends will remain the primary form of return and there will be little price appreciation.

Valuation: Potential Dividends
The reason that dividend discount models often fail is because they look at the actual dividends paid and don’t factor in the reality that some companies pay out more than they can afford to do in dividends, in which case they are unsustainable and will fall under that weight, and some companies pay too little, in which case the cash that is paid out accumulates in the firm as a cash balance, and equity investors get a stake in it. While I noted that Aramco has signaled that it will pay at least $75 billion in dividends over the next five years, it has not indicated that it will cease investing and with potential dividends, you value the company based upon its capacity to pay dividends, rather than actual dividends.  In computing the potential dividends, I assumed that the company would be able to grow earnings at 1.80% a year, and be able to do so by continuing to generate sky high returns on equity (its 2018 return on equity was about 41%). However, the shift from promised dividends to potential dividends will also expose investors to more of the risk in an integrated oil company and I adjust the cost of equity accordingly:

Download spreadsheet

The value of equity, using potential dividends, is $1.65 trillion, reflecting not only Aramco’s capacity to pay much higher dividends than promised but also the higher risk in these cash flows.

Valuation: As a Business

When you value a business, you effectively allow for the options that the firm has to make changes to how much and where it invests, how it finances it business and how much it pays in dividends. One reason that this may provide only limited benefits in the Aramco case is that the company is significantly constrained, both because of its ownership and governance structure as well as its mission, on all three dimensions. Thus, it is likely that Aramco will remain predominantly a fossil fuel company, tethered to its roots in Saudi Arabia, is unlikely to alter its policy of being predominantly equity funded and its dividend policy is sticky even at as it starts life as a public company.  Following through with these assumptions, I assumed that the debt ratio for Aramco will stay low at 1.80% of overall capital, as will the cost of debt at 2.70%, in US dollar terms, based upon its bond rating. To get the reinvestment, I switch to using the return on capital of 44.61% that the company generated in 2018, as my base:

Download spreadsheet

Adding the cash and cross holdings and then subtracting out the debt and minority interests in the company yields an equity value of $1.67 trillion, that is close to what we obtained with the FCFE model, but that should not be surprising, given that the company has so little debt in its capital structure.

Final Valuation Adjustments
In summary, what is surprising about the valuations of Aramco, using the three approaches, is how close they are in their final assessments, all yielding values around $1.65 trillion. That said, there are three additional considerations that none of these models have factored in.

1. Political Risk: While these models adjust for country risk in Saudi Arabia, I have used the default spread of the country as a proxy, but that misses the risk of regime change, a discontinuous risk that will have very large and potentially catastrophic effects on value. While you may believe that this risk is low, it is definitely not zero. 
2. Upside limits: When you invest in any large integrated oil company, you are making a bet on oil prices, with the expectation that higher oil prices will deliver higher income and higher value. While that assumption still holds for Aramco, the royalty structure that the Saudi government has created, where the royalty rate will climb from 40% at current oil prices to 45% if they rise above $ 70 and 80% if they rise above $100/barrel will mean that your share of gains, as an equity investor, on the upside will be capped, dampening the value today.
3. Price setter/taker: While the largest publicly traded oil companies in the world are still price takers, Aramco has more influence on the oil price than any of them, as a result of Saudi Arabia's role in the oil market. Put simply, while the power of the Saudi government to set oil prices has decreased from the 1970s, it does continue to wield more influence than any other entity in this process.

The first two factors are clear negatives and should lead you to mark down the value of Aramco, but  the third factor may help provide some downside protection. Overall, I would expect the value of equity in Aramco to be closer to $1.5 trillion, after these adjustments are made. (I am assuming a small chance of regime change, but if you attach a much higher probability, the drop off in value will be much higher).

Aramco: To invest or not to?
Over the weekend, we got a little more clarity on the IPO details, with a rumored pricing of $1.7 trillion for the company's equity and a planned offering of 1.5% of the outstanding shares. That price is within shouting distance of my valuation, and my guess is that given the small size of the offering (at least on a percentage basis), it will attract enough investors to be fully subscribed. At this pricing, I think that the company will be more attractive to domestic than international investors, with Saudi investors, in particular, induced to invest by the company's standing in the country. It will be a solid investment, as long as investors recognize what they are getting is more bond than stock, with dividends representing the primary return and limited price appreciation. They will have no say in how the company is run, and if they don't like the way it is run, they will have to vote with their feet. If they are worried about risk, the research they should do is more political than economic, with the primary concerns about regime stability. The one concern that you should have, if you are a Saudi investor, with your human capital and real estate already tied to Saudi Arabia's (and oil's) well being, investing your wealth in Aramco will be doubling down on that dependence.

In case you care about my investment judgment, Aramco is not a stock for me for two reasons. First, I am lucky enough not to be dependent on cash flows from my investment portfolio to meet personal liquidity needs, and have no desire to receive large dividends, just for the sake of reaching them, since they just create concurrent tax burdens. Second, if I were tempted to invest in the company as a play on oil prices, the rising royalty rates, as oil prices go up, imply that my upside will be limited at Aramco.  Finally, it is worth noting that this company will be the ultimate politically incorrect investment, operating both as a long term bet on oil, in a world where people are as dependent as ever on fossil fuels, but seem to be repelled by those who produce it, and as a bet on Saudi royalty, an unpopular institution in many circles. As a consequence, I am willing to bet that not too many college endowments in the United States will be investing in Aramco, and even conventional fund managers may avoid the stock, just to minimize backlash. I don't much care for political correctness nor for investors who seem to believe that the primary purpose of investing is virtue signaling, and I must confess that I am tempted to buy Aramco just to see their heads explode. However, that would be both petty and self-defeating, and I will stay an observer on Aramco, rather than an investor.

YouTube Video


Spreadsheets

1. Aramco Pricing 
2. Aramco Valuation

-->

The Softbank-WeWork End Game: Savior Economics or Sunk Cost Problem?

Since my pre-IPO post on WeWork, where I valued the company ahead of its then imminent offering, much has happened. The company’s IPO collapsed under the weight of its own pricing contradictions, and after a near-death experience, Softbank emerged as the savior, investing an additional $ 8 billion in the company, and taking a much larger stake in its equity. As the WeWork story continues to unfold, I am finding myself more interested in Softbank than in WeWork, largely because its actions cut to the heart of so many questions in investing, from how sunk costs can affect investing decisions, to the feedback effects from mark-to-market accounting, and finally on the larger question of whether smart money is really smart or just lucky.

WeWork: The IPO Aftermath

It has been only a few weeks since I valued WeWork for its IPO, but it seems much longer, simply because of how much has changed since then. As a reminder, I valued WeWork at about $10 billion pre-money, and $13.75 billion with the anticipated proceeds of $3.5 billion added on. I also argued that this was a company on a knife’s edge, a growth machine with immense operating and financial leverage, where misstep could very quickly tip them into bankruptcy, with a table illustrating how quickly the equity slips into negative territory, if the operating assumptions change:

Download spreadsheet

Soon after my post, the ground shifted under WeWork, as a combination of arrogance (on the part of VCs, bankers and founders) and business model risks caught up with the company, and the IPO was delayed, albeit reluctantly by the company. That action, though, left the company in a cash crunch, since it had been counting on the IPO to bring in $3 billion in capital to cover its near-term needs. In conjunction with a loss of trust in the top management of the company, created a vicious cycle with the very real possibility that the company would implode. As WeWork sought rescue packages, Softbank offered a lifeline, with three components to it:

1. Equity Buyout: A tender offer of $3 billion in equity to buy out of existing stockholders in the firm to increase its share of the equity ownership to 80%. In an odd twist, Softbank contended that, after the financing, “it will not hold a majority of the voting rights… and does not control the company… WeWork will not be a subsidiary of Softbank. WeWork will be an associate of Softbank”. I am not sure whether this is a true confession of lack of control or a ploy to keep from consolidating WeWork (and its debt load) into Softbank's financials.
2. Added Capital: Softbank would provide fresh debt financing of $5 billion ($1.1 billion in secured notes, $2.2 billion in unsecured notes and $1.75 billion as a line of credit) and an acceleration of a $1.5 billion equity investment it had been planning to make into WeWork in 2020, giving WeWork respite, at least in the short term, from its cash constraints.
3. Neutering Adam Neumann (at a cost): The offer also includes a severing of Adam Neumann’s leadership of the company, in return for which he will receive $1 billion in cash, $500 million as a loan to repay a JP Morgan credit line and $185 million for a four-year position as a consultant. I assume that the consulting fee is more akin to a restraining order, preventing him from coming within sighting distance of any WeWork office or building.

Since that deal was put together, the storyline has shifted, with Softbank now playing the lead role in this morality play, with multiple questions emerging:

1. What motivated Softbank to invest so much more in a company where it had already lost billions? Some are arguing that Softbank had no choice, given the magnitude of what they had invested in WeWork, and others are countering that they were throwing good money after bad. 
2. With mark-to-market rules in effect at Softbank, how will accountants reflect the WeWork disaster on Softbank’s books? I think that fair-value accounting is neither fair nor is it about value, but the WeWork write down that Softbank had to take is a good time to discuss how fair-value accounting can have a feedback effect on corporate decision making.
3. Is Masa Son a visionary genius or an egomaniac in need of checks and balances? A year ago, there were many who viewed Masa Son, with his 300-year plans and access to hundreds of billions of dollars in capital, was a man ahead of his time, epitomizing smart money. Today, the consensus view seems to be that he is an impulsive and emotional investor, not to be trusted in his investment judgments. The truth, as is often the case, lies somewhere in the middle.
4. Since Softbank is a holding company, deriving a chunk of its value from its perceived ability to find start-ups and young companies and convert them into big wins, how will its value change as a result of its WeWork missteps? To answer this question, I will look at how Softbank’s market capitalization has changed over time, especially around the WeWork fiasco, and examine the consequences for its Vision fund plans.

Sunk Cost or Corporate Rescue!

In the years that WeWork was a private company, Softbank was, by far, the largest investor in the company. In August 2019, when the IPO was first announced, Softbank had not only been its largest capital provider, investing $7.5 billion in the company, but had also supplied the most recent round of capital, at a pricing of $47 billion. That lead-in, though, raises questions about the motives behind its decision to invest an extra $ 8 billion to keep WeWork afloat. 

• It’s a corporate rescue: There are some who would argue that Softbank had no choice, since without an infusion of capital, WeWork was on a pathway to being worth nothing and that by investing its capital, Softbank would avoid that worst-case scenario. In fact, if you believe Softbank, with the infusion, WeWork has a pre-money value of $8 billion, with the infusion, and while that is a steep write down from the $47 billion pricing, it is still better than nothing. 
• Good money chasing bad: The sunk cost principle, put simply, states that when you make an investment decision, your choice should be driven by its incremental effects and not by how much you have already expended leading up to that decision. In practice, though, investors seem to abandon this principle, trying to make up for past mistakes by making new ones. In the context of Softbank’s new WeWork investment, this would imply that Softbank is investing $ 8 billion in WeWork, not because it believes that it can generate more than that amount in incremental value from future cash flows, but because it had invested $7.5 billion in the past.

So, how do you resolve this question? As I see it, the Softbank rescue of WeWork may have helped it avoid a near term liquidity meltdown, but it has not addressed any of the underlying issues that I noted with the company’s business model. In fact, it has taken a highly levered company whose only pathway to survival was exponential growth and made it an even more levered company with constrained growth. In fact, Softbank has been remarkably vague about the economic rationale for the added investment and their story does not hold up to scrutiny. I do realize that Masa Son claims that “(t)he logic is simple. Time will resolve . . . and we will see a sharp V-shaped recovery,” in WeWork, but I don’t see the logic, time alone cannot resolve a $30 billion debt problem and there are enough costs in non-core businesses to cut to yield a quick recovery. At least from my perspective, Softbank’s investment in WeWork is good money chasing bad, a classic example of how sunk costs can skew decisions. To those who would counter that Softbank has a lot of money to lose and smart people working for it, note that the more money you have to lose and the smarter people think they are, the more difficult it becomes to admit to past mistakes, exacerbating the sunk cost problem. In fact, now that Softbank will have more than $15 billion invested in WeWork, they have made the sunk cost problem worse, going forward.

Accounting Fair Value

I understand the allure of fair value accounting to accountants. It provides them with a way to update the balance sheet, to reflect real world changes and developments, and make it more useful to investors. The fact that it also creates employment for accountants all over the world is a bonus, at least from their perspective. I think that the accounting response to Softbank’s WeWork mistake illustrates why fair value accounting is an oxymoron, more likely to do damage than good:

1. It is price accounting, not value accounting: In Softbank’s latest earnings report, we saw the first installment of accounting pain from the WeWork mistake, with Softbank writing down its WeWork investment by $4.6 billion and reporting a hefty loss for the quarter. The reason for the write-down, though, was not a reassessment of WeWork’s value, but a reaction to the drop in the pricing of the company’s equity from the $47 billion before the IPO to $8 billion after the IPO implosion. 
2. With Softbank supplying the pricing: If you are dubious about the use of pricing in accounting revaluations, you should even more skeptical in this case, since Softbank was setting the pricing, at both the $47 billion pre-IPO, and the $8 billion, post-collapse. As I noted in the last section, there is nothing tangible that I can see in any of Softbank’s numerous press releases to back these numbers. In fact, if WeWork had not been exposed in its public offering, my guess is that Softbank would have probably invested more capital in the company, marked up the pricing to some number higher than $47 billion and that we would not be having this conversation.
3. Too little, too late: As is always the case with accounting write-downs and impairments, there was very little news in the announcement. In fact, given that the write down was based upon pricing, not value, the market knew that a write off was coming and approximately how much the write off would be, which explains why even multi-billion write offs and impairments usually have no price effect, when announced. Incidentally, the accountants will offer you intrinsic valuations (DCF) to back up their assessments, but I would not attach to much weight to them, since they are what I call “kabuki valuations”, where the analysts decide, based on the pricing, what they would like to get as value, and then reverse engineer the inputs to deliver that number.
4. With dangerous feedback effects: If all fair value accounting did was create these write downs and impairments that don’t faze investors, I could live with the consequences and treat the costs incurred in the process as a jobs plan for accountants. Unfortunately, companies still seem to think that these accounting charges are news that moves markets and take actions to minimize them. In fact, a cynic might argue that one motivation for Softbank’s rescue of WeWork was to minimize the write down from its mistake. 

I am not a fan of fair value accounting, partly because it is a delayed reaction to a pricing change and is not a value reassessment, and partly because companies are often tempted to take costly actions to make their accounting numbers look better. 

Smart Money, Stupid Money!

I hope that this entire episode will put to rest the notion of smart money, i.e., that there are investors who have access to more information than we do, have better analytical tools than the rest of us and use those advantages to make more money than the rest of us. In fact, it is this proposition that leads us to assume that anyone who makes a lot of money must be smart, and by that measure, Masa Son would have been classified as a smart investor, and wealthy investors funneled billions of dollars into Softbank Vision funds, on that basis. I am not going to argue that the WeWork misadventure makes Masa Son a stupid investor, but it does expose the fact that he is human, capable of letting his ego get ahead of good sense and that at least some of his success over time has to be attributed being in the right place at the right time. 

So, if investors cannot be classified into smart and stupid, what is a better break down? One would be to group them into lucky and unlucky investors, but that implies a complete surrender to the forces of randomness that I am not yet willing to make. I think that investors are better grouped into humble and arrogant, with humble investors recognizing that success, when it comes, is as much a function of luck as it is of skill, and failure, when it too arrives, is part of investing and an occasion for learning. Arrogant investors claim every investing win as a sign of their skill and view every loss as an affront, doubling down on their mistakes. If I had to pick someone to manage my money, the quality that I would value the most in making that choice is humility, since humble investors are less likely to overpromise and overcommit. I think of the very act of demanding obscene fees for investment services is an act of arrogance, one reason that I find it difficult to understand why hedge funds are allowed to get away with taking 2% of your wealth and 20% of your upside.

Leading into the WeWork IPO, the question of where Masa Son fell on the humility continuum was easy to answer. Anyone who makes three hundred year plans and things that bigger is always better has a God complex, and success feeds that arrogance. I would like to believe that the WeWork setback has chastened Mr. Son, and in his remarks to shareholders this week, he said the right things, stating that he had “made a bad investment decision, and was deeply remorseful”, speaking of WeWork. However, he then undercut his message by not only claiming that the pathway to profit for WeWork would be simple (it is not) but also asserting that his Vision fund was still better than other venture capitalists in seeking out and finding promising companies. in my view,  Masa Son needs a few more reminders about humility from the market, since neither his words nor his actions indicate that he has learned any lessons. 

Softbank: The WeWork Effect

WeWork may have been Masa Son’s mistake, but the vehicle that he used to make the investment was Softbank, through the company and its Vision fund. As WeWork has unraveled, it is not surprising that Softbank has taken a significant hit in the market. 

Note that Softbank has lost more than $15 billion in value since August 14, when the WeWork IPO was announced, and much of that loss can be attributed to the unraveling of the IPO, and how investor perceptions of Masa Son’s investing skills have changed since.

The knocking down of Softbank’s value by the market may strike some of you as excessive, but there is reason that Softbank’s WeWork investment has ripple effects. Softbank may be built around a telecom company, but like Berkshire Hathaway, the company that Masa Son is rumored to admire and aspire to be, it is a holding company for investments in other companies. In fact, its most valuable holding remains an early investment in Alibaba, now worth tens of billions dollars. While Alibaba is publicly traded and its pricing is observable, many of Softbank’s most recent investments have been in young, private companies like WeWork. With these investments, the pricing attached to them by Softbank, in its financials, comes from recent VC funding rounds and their valuations reflect trust in Softbank’s capacity to pick winners and the WeWork meltdown hurts on both counts. First, investors are more wary about trusting VC pricing, especially if Softbank has been a lead investor in funding rounds, since that is how you arrived at the $47 billion pricing for WeWork in the first place. Second, the notion of Masa Son as an investing savant, skilled at picking the winners of the disruption game, has been damaged, at least for the moment and perhaps irreparably. The easiest way to measure how investor perceptions have changed is to compare the market capitalization of Softbank to its book value, a significant proportion of which reflects its holdings, marked to market:

Investors have been wary of Softbank’s investing skills, even before the WeWork IPO, but the write offs on Uber and WeWork has made them even more skeptical, as the price to book ratio continues its march towards parity, with the market capitalization at 123% of the book value of equity in November 2019. In fact, if you focus just on Softbank’s non-consolidated holdings, public and private, note that the market capitalization of Softbank now stands at 73% of the value of just these holdings, most of which are marked to market. Put simply, when you buy Softbank, you are getting Uber and Alibaba at a discount on their traded market prices, but before you put your money down on what looks like a great deal, there are two considerations that may affect your decision. The first is that the company has a vast amount of debt on its balance sheet that has to be serviced, potentially putting your equity at risk, and the second is that you are getting Softbank (and Masa Son) as the custodian of the investments. If you have lost faith in Masa Son’s investing judgments (in people and in companies), you may view the 27% discount that the market is attaching to Softbank’s holdings as entirely justifiable and steer away from the stock. In contrast, if you feel that WeWork was an aberration in an otherwise stellar investment picking record, you should load up on Softbank stock. As for me, I don’t plan to own Softbank! I don't like grandiosity and Masa Son seems to have been soaked in it.

YouTube Video

Blog Posts

1. Runaway Story to Meltdown in Motion: The Unraveling of the WeWork IPO
2. Sunk Costs and Investing