Seanergy Maritime (SHIP) – Financing Agreement Creates More Refinancing Clarity

Monday, July 6, 2020

Seanergy Maritime (SHIP)

Financing Agreement Creates More Refinancing Clarity

Seanergy Maritime Holdings Corp., an international shipping company, provides marine dry bulk transportation services through the ownership and operation of dry bulk vessels. Seanergy Maritime Holdings Corp. is the only pure-play Capesize shipping company listed in the US capital markets. Seanergy provides marine dry bulk transportation services through a modern fleet of 10 Capesize vessels, with total capacity of approximately 1,748,581 dwt and an average fleet age of about 9.8 years. The Company is incorporated in the Marshall Islands with executive offices in Athens, Greece and an office in Hong Kong. The Company’s common shares trade on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “SHIP” and class A warrants under “SHIPW”.

Poe Fratt, Senior Research Analyst, Noble Capital Markets, Inc.

Refer to the full report for the price target, fundamental analysis, and rating.

  • Letter of financing commitment secured. A commitment letter for a five-year financing with an existing lender has been secured to refinancing maturing debt. While details on pricing and amortization are limited at this point, the maturity date is expected to be July 2025. The goal of the new financing is securing longer term financing at a reasonable cost and lowering annual debt amortization. The new financing should also enhance financing flexibility.
  • June 30th maturity pushed out to July 31st. Secured debt of $30.1 million on the Geniuship and Gloriuship was due on June 30th. In order to finalize the terms and facilitate the closing of the new financing, the maturity date was …


    Click to get the full report.


This Research is provided by Noble Capital Markets, Inc., a FINRA and S.E.C. registered broker-dealer (B/D).

*Analyst
certification and important disclosures included in the full report. 
NOTE: investment decisions should not be based upon the content of
this research summary.  Proper due diligence is required before
making any investment decision.
 

Energy Sector in Rapidly Growing Indonesia

A Primer On The Indonesian Energy Industry

Indonesia has a long history of energy production, dating back to the first oil discovery in 1883.  Indonesia’s oil and gas output is contracting as aging fields, and project delays keep production levels below government targets.  The largest fields in Indonesia (Chevron’s Rokan PSC and Pertamina’s Mahakam block) are prime examples of the decline.  At the same time, demand is growing as the Indonesian economy continues to grow at a rate of twice the global average.  The result is a growing reliance on oil imports. A similar story can be told regarding Indonesian gas production and demand at a time when gas imports are being pressured by a more competitive LNG market.

 

The impact on the government is significant

The Indonesian government is reliant on the energy industry to support its budget.  Traditionally, the energy industry has contributed around 20% of revenues, but that number has fallen into the single digits in recent years in response to decreased production and lower energy prices.  Government officials are well aware of the risks it faces from decreased energy investment and is very supportive of future investments.

 

 

The Government is Responding.

Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) says existing contractors are losing interest in further exploration in Indonesia due to regulatory instability and an uncertain investment climate. The state oil and gas company, PT Pertamina, is working to reduce the red tape.  In addition, it has introduced a “Gross Split Scheme” that improves the economics of investing in new energy fields.  The Gross Split Scheme replaces Law No. 22, which allowed for cost recoveries but allowed investors recovery of costs but mandated government control of upstream and downstream activities.  The Gross Split Scheme will enable producers to earn higher returns if production levels surpass mandated levels or if energy prices rise.

What Does the Future Hold for the Energy Industry in Indonesia?

Forecasts call for the overall demand for energy to continue to grow at a rapid pace.  Indonesia’s population growth is 1.1%, and the GDP is growing at a 5.6% rate.  The government continues to pursue the expansion of the country’s electric grid, and that is resulting in strong energy demand.  Renewable energy will increase in importance as it will in most countries.  Projections show renewables largely eating into oil’s market share as coal and natural gas hold market share.

 

Source: www-pub.iaea.org

 

What does this mean for investors?

To support a diversified energy portfolio without becoming overly reliant on oil imports, Indonesia will need the oil industry to continue to expand.  It is supporting the industry but still somewhat wary of outside investors.  Local companies directly investing in Indonesian energy assets are in a good position to benefit from recent government changes.

Suggested:

Attend
Channelchek’s
Indonesia Energy Corp.(INDO)
Virtual Road Show on Wednesday July 8, 1:00PM EST

 

Sources:

https://www.reuters.com/article/indonesia-oil-gas-production/indonesias-new-law-to-take-years-to-reverse-oil-and-gas-output-slump-idUSL4N2AL0OF, Fathin Ungku, Reuters, February 24, 2020

https://www.pwc.com/id/en/energy-utilities-mining/assets/oil-and-gas/oil-gas-guide-2019.pdf, PWC, September 2019

https://www.indonesia-investments.com/business/commodities/crude-oil/item267, Indonesia-Investments,

https://theenergyyear.com/market/indonesia/, The Energy Year

https://www.trade.gov/energy-resource-guide-indonesia-oil-and-gas, International Trade Administration, 2020

https://www.iea.org/countries/Indonesia, iea, June 2020

https://www.esdm.go.id/assets/media/content/content-indonesia-energy-outlook-2019-english-version.pdf, Secretariat General National Energy Council, Indonesia Energy Outlook 2019.

Covid-19, Scary vs. Dangerous

Vacations, Viruses, and Vantage Points

My ex-wife would not get on a plane. She was certain, if we flew, she would die. Together we found other ways to make the planet our playground workarounds that might scare someone with alternative fears. We’d drive 1200 miles with no sleep, keeping pace with speeding 18-wheelers. Some weekends we’d bicycle the steep inclines in the Pennsylvania mountains. Summers we’d cruise for weeks at a time from as far north as Boston, to as far south as Cape May.  On these vacations, she was completely at-ease, paying no mind to the statistical risk, road conditions, sea conditions, or impossibility of stopping a speeding bike while descending down a mountain. She didn’t perceive any of these workarounds as potentially deadly. She would not, however, get on a commercial aircraft, “too dangerous” for her.

Distortion of risk in one’s mode of travel is not unusual.  As a person who models investment probabilities, I find this distortion of probabilities and others worth exploring.  We are now halfway through 2020, a year marked by fear and panic surrounding the dangers of Covid-19.  Measuring then categorizing the risk to health has been tricky; our increased understanding of the disease helps.

Covid-19 Concerns

The novel coronavirus that is the cause of this pandemic has been, for 130,000 Americans, deadly.  So, awareness and precautions for individual safety and the well-being of others are prudent. But, the risk of the average person dying compared with the perceived danger may not match. After all, we deal with much deadlier diseases every day without immersing ourselves in concern. We live with the idea that cancer, diabetes, and heart disease each kill far more people a day than coronavirus. Even snakes kill 137 people a day. We are not up in arms clamoring to stay inside until we eradicate snakes. So why is the Covid-19 reaction so extreme?  One answer is similar to fear of your plane crashing. When a plane does go down, the story is intensely reported by the media, traditional and social. This exposure causes the risks inherent in flight to feel very high and scary. We know by measuring actual cases that the danger of flight isn’t greater than being killed by, let’s say, the next mosquito we encounter. And yet, we don’t lock ourselves in our homes based on the death risk from mosquitos. Concern surrounding Covid-19  for some is that they will catch it and die. Others don’t want to be infected as they may spread it to someone else who may have a bad outcome. For others, the concern is that the danger or fear will dramatically alter their life, business, family, recreation, travel, etc. There are also people who fear that people they know are at great loss resulting from the reaction to perceived danger.

For now, the historically unprecedented lockdowns and economic sedation continue with very little argument. From discussions I have had, it seems that a significant portion of the population has come to believe that this coronavirus is one of the scariest things the human race has ever dealt with. It is definitely a little scary; it is, after all, it’s invisible, but is it dangerous? Could it be that a large portion of the population may be confusing “scary” with “dangerous.” They are not the same thing.

Covid-19 Dangers

There are four ways to categorize different realities. A situation can be:

  • Scary, but not dangerous
  • Scary and dangerous
  • Dangerous, but not scary
  • Not dangerous, not scary

COVID-19 continues to rank high in the scary category. I’m sure that the radio station I listen to is like many others throughout the country; it alerts me every 20 minutes of new cases. TV news, Facebook, and Twitter bombard us with relentless new case tallies without context. This magnified information, as with a single plane crash, impacts the population’s psyche. A Google search of the word “COVID-19” retrieves over 5.8 billion results. We’re surrounded by scary stories from those that are far too closer to home. To date, the virus has cut short the lives of a growing number of citizens. But is it very dangerous? On a scale of harmless to extremely dangerous, it would still fall into the category of slightly dangerous for by most definitions, (excluding the elderly and those with ill-health).

 

Google Trends

Approaching July 4th
weekend, Google Trends shows the term “Covid-19” being used 375% more than the
term “Independence Day.”

By comparison, there are more dangerous risks. Many give little thought to heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the United States, killing around 650,000 people every year, 54,000 per month, and 324,000 people at the 2020 mid-year mark. This qualifies as extremely dangerous. Yet, most people are not very frightened at all.

Lives are improved for those that can distinguish between fear and danger. It doesn’t matter if it is fear of getting on a plane or boat or unwillingness to leave one’s house during this health situation. Fear is an emotion; it’s a perception of risk. As an emotion, the most important facts often don’t enter an individual’s calculation. Media hype blurs reality even more.

What if the top analysts at FICO adopted much stricter standards because they felt (emotionally) lending suddenly became much scarier, even if trends and other metrics they follow didn’t support the fear?  This would impact the ability of borrowers to get loans, rates on loans, and the overall freedom of innocent people would change because a few people are scared, without supporting data. Imagine if an insurance actuary with a personal fear then grading the risk of something 1,000 times riskier than the measured data indicates. This would unnecessarily have a negative impact on the business and those seeking insurance. This is exactly what people have done regarding COVID-19: decisions based on fear and perception of danger even though data is now available.

Covid-19 Data

According to CDC data, 81% of deaths from COVID-19 in the United States are people over 65 years old, most with preexisting conditions. If 55-64-year-olds are added in, that number jumps to 93%. For those below age 55, preexisting conditions play a significant role, but the death rate is currently around 0.0022% or one death per 45,000 people in this age range. Below 25 years old, the COVID-19 fatality rate is 0.00008%, or roughly one in 1.25 million. Fear, not data, is impacting all industries and every aspect of life. For instance, the perceived danger is keeping schools and daycare centers closed. This makes it harder for mothers and fathers to remain employed and daycare centers to not close forever.

All human death is tragic. But are we allowing feeling scared to dictate decisions when it leads to taking resources away from areas that are more dangerous, but not as scary, and allocate them to areas that are scary, but less dangerous? At times, this is what is being done. Hospitals and medical practices have had to be very selective in the patients they treat; this is done to allow for beds, if needed, for Covid-19 patients, this has severely reduced surgical procedures. In the weeks following the first stat-at-home guidance, cervical cancer screenings were down 68%, cholesterol panels were down 67%, and diabetes blood sugar tests were off 65% nationally.

The U.N. estimates that infant mortality rates could rise by hundreds of thousands in 2020 because of the global recession and diverted health care resources. Add in opioid addiction, alcoholism, domestic violence, and other detrimental reactions from job loss and despair and the price of attributing excessive danger to the Covid-19 response can be viewed as unfortunate and even tragic.

Any benefits gained through this fear-based shutdown have massively increased dangers in both the short term and the long term. Every day that businesses are shuttered while people remain unemployed or underemployed, the economic wounds grow more deadly, and the scars more permanent. The loss of wealth is immense, and this will undermine the ability of nations around the world to deal with true dangers for decades to come.

Shutting down the private sector (which is where all wealth is maintained and created) is truly dangerous even though many of our leaders suggest we shouldn’t be scared to do it. Even stimulus plans are like a Band-Aid on a massive laceration, it may stop a tiny bit of the bleeding, but the wound continues to worsen, as it worsens, another inadequate Band-Aid is applied until you one day run out. Moreover, we are putting huge financial burdens on future generations because we are scared about something that the data reveal as far less dangerous than many other things in life. Putting this monstrous bill on the yet-to-be-born is an ethical decision that a country that stands against taxing the unrepresented should not take lightly.

Take-Away

Although there may be workarounds to the overblown fear that does not correlate to the risks in a given situation, unnecessary decisions compared to rational decisions are at best inefficient. A shutdown may change the pace of the spread of a virus, but it won’t stop it. A vaccine may immune us, an effective one may never be created. What then? In the meantime, we have entered a odd era, one in which fear overrides danger, and near-term risk creates long-term problems. More people are starting to come to this realization as the data builds. Hopefully, lessons are learned, and in the future, reality becomes the chief guide in steering decisions of this magnitude.  

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor

SuggestedReading:

Reconciling CoVID-19 with Statistics-101

Michael Burry Says Covid-19 Cure Worse than disease

Virtual Road Show Series – Channelchek

Enjoy Premium
Channelchek Content
 at No Cost

Sources:

Plane
Crash Fatalities

USCG
Boat Safety Statistics

How Safe is Commercial Flight

Cyclist Fatality Rate

Cancer Statistics

Coronavirus Death
Toll

How Many People Has Covid-19 Killed?

AHA Hospital Statistics

Amazon Prime Video’s Move To Go Linear

Traditional TV Stations Ready to Sign-off?

Amazon raised eyebrows in the broadcast and entertainment industry by posting job openings for a product manager and marketing personnel for linear broadcast TV content. What? Why does a subscription service that aggregates content, in some cases, original content, want to get into linear television? By the way, linear television is the traditional broadcast network model whereby viewers watch television programs, which air at specific times. Is this a shot across the bow of the broadcast television industry?

We think so. Amazon has signaled that it is interested in providing 24/7 streaming of sports, news, movies, award shows, special events, and TV shows, including live shows. Live content, including sports, news, and award shows, has been the domain of the traditional broadcast networks. While TV ratings have been on the decline for years, the traditional networks still aggregate very large audiences. But, Amazon has become such a powerful size that it may begin to compete for a slice of those viewers.

Take, for instance, the Academy Awards. Last year, 23.6 million viewers watched the Academy Awards show, but the number of viewers was half of the viewership in 2000. With the decline in ratings, Amazon could be in shouting distance to compete for rights to the show. To put this into perspective, Amazon Prime has 112 million subscribers, up nearly 18% from a year ago. According to Nielsen’s National Television Household Universe, there are 120.6 million TV homes in the U.S.

What does the move toward linear television say about the VOD (Video on Demand) subscription model? Could the next Academy Awards Show be on a streaming Amazon channel? Amazon appears to be moving toward a broader streaming model that goes beyond movies and episodic “TV” programming. In expanding content into live programming, news, awards shows, and sports, it broadens the appeal of its subscription service with robust and rich content.  Furthermore, it differentiates its service from the myriad of other subscription VOD services, which may have limited content offerings, mostly movies, for instance. Assuming that Amazon will be able to aggregate large audiences, it is possible that it will be successful in licensing sports contracts and award shows away from the traditional broadcast networks. As such, the strategy could be the means to keep its subscriber count growing. Is this a sign that free “over the air” programming is over? It is possible if Amazon is successful in obtaining licensing deals on marquee content, like the Academy Awards, or even the Olympics, away from the traditional networks.

Stay tuned…

 

Suggested Reading:

Weaning
America off Unemployment Insurance

Will There be an
Explosion of New Acquisitions?

The Limits of Government
Tinkering

 

Enjoy Premium Channelchek Content at No Cost

 

Sources:

Amazon Job Postings

Virtual Roadshows Are the New Normal

Self-Directed Investors Get Unexpected Benefit from Lockdown

The advantages of virtual roadshows and other virtual investor relations events are greater than anyone would have guessed prior to Covid-19. These events offer a high degree of flexibility, lower costs for all involved, allows for increased frequency of meetings, and much broader inclusion. With all the benefits, these virtual events should remain a staple of the business world long after the virus risk has passed.

Broader Inclusion

Up until earlier this year, executives regularly made the rounds traveling to major financial centers telling their corporations’ stories to potential investors. In order to get the most from their valuable time and travel costs, the number of cities visited was necessarily limited.  The typical roadshow stops may have included New York and Boston on the East Coast, Chicago in the Midwest, and Los Angeles and San Francisco on the West Coast.  The stops would never include small towns inside or outside the U.S. Now they present everyplace there is an internet connection, including your living room or mine, regardless of where we live. They can be attended by investors of any level that are interested. This is clearly positive for the presenting executive, but it is also a big win for the out-of-the-way professional asset manager – and also the self-directed investors who never would have been able to listen and ask questions of management before.

Saves Resources

Management can now be far more productive under the new process, where they’re no longer balancing travel and logistical issues. They can focus more on virtual meetings and interacting with investors from around the world. And since time is conserved by reporting from their home or office rather than catching planes from one meeting to the next, far more interactions can be had in fewer days. What’s more, the Interactions are often with people they would never have benefitted from meeting with in the past. 

Lower cost

Two executives traveling from the East Coast to the West Coast for a week of meetings could cost $10,000 or more. This takes into account flights, hotels, car rides, and restaurants. For the management of firms who regularly meet with investors, the cost adds up over the year. Under the new virtual roadshow model, the dollars that were wasted can now be more productive by going toward company-sponsored research or other priorities in the IR budget.

The cost of time out of the office is less of an exact measure, but could even be higher than what is spent on travel. Additionally, the time an executive is not away from home and family is also an intangible benefit. Time in transit can now be used toward more productive purposes at the company, with customers, or simply to rest and recharge.

Increased Flexibility

The pandemic has proven the importance for public companies to have a disaster recovery plan-B for investor communications.  Companies that had existing virtual capabilities in place or those that pivoted to them quickly have benefited from maintaining “face-to-face” contact during a period of heightened investor uncertainty.

Virtual roadshows are likely to remain the dominant means of meeting investors in-person, while traditional meetings are likely to be left for special circumstances. Both investors and executives understand the benefits of engaging in this way.

Take-Away

The need for management to maintain uninterrupted communications with investors has never been stronger as we manage through unprecedented disruption of businesses. The advantages to open communication is obvious. Executives can meet with more investors while their resources, including time and money, can be redeployed for greater gain. Companies waiting for conditions to change rather than adopting this technology or partnering with a firm that offers it are falling behind.

Investors, particularly those outside of the normal roadshow or conference centers, and self-directed investors that never received attention from management are the big winners. Virtual financial events place them on a more level playing field. This creates a situation where investors, companies, and the overall market is benefitting.

 

Suggested Reading:

Virtual Road Show Series – Channelchek

Will there be an Explosion of New Acquisitions?

 

Enjoy Premium Channelchek Content at No Cost

More Accurate than Polls to Gauge Election Outcomes

More Accurate than Polls to Gauge Election Outcomes

Many television pundits track polls to gauge which candidates are the front-runners in their race. However, as seen during the last Presidential election, the most commonly viewed polls are unreliable. This should not come as a surprise, if you think about it, in the months leading up to an election the pundits are using information that asks, “Who would win today?” Which is all polls accomplish. The answer they seek is, “Who would you vote for before being influenced by advertising?”  Advertising matters and the level of a campaign’s cash has highly predictive outcomes.

So, what do we know from past elections? How will this Presidential election play out? Will the House remain Democratic? Will the Senate remain Republican? Has the Trump train be derailed?  For higher predictive accuracy than polls, the first step in addressing these questions is determine who is ahead in fundraising.

 President Trump has a current total lead in cash on hand with $287 million versus Joe Biden’s campaign at $215 million. Here’s why these numbers are important.  Historically, the candidate with the most cash to spend on advertising comes out on top. Depending upon whether it is a House, Senate, or Presidential race, the candidate with the largest war chest wins between 83% and 97% of the time.  While current polling data suggests that Biden would win if the election were held today, this is not forward looking.  Future spending on advertising will dramatically increase for all candidates as we approach election day. It’s likely that the results from the polls will be altered in the upcoming weeks as candidates spend on advertising.

Critics of following the money may point to the anomaly with the 2016 contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Clinton was a fundraising machine while Trump was late to the fundraising effort, leaving him bested by Clinton. So, how did he beat the probabilities?  In short, the media. Trump may have been outmatched in funding by the Clinton campaign, however he received an unprecedented high rate of “free advertising” due to his constant news coverage. Media viewers are attracted to controversy, which Trump consistently offered. This resulted in media companies featuring him far more than his opposition so they would reap the benefits increased audience numbers. The spending on advertising on Presidential elections has increased 17% per year since 2000. Clinton mis-stepped not in lack of money spent, but by not spending in the advertising markets she thought she would carry. This allowed the eventual victor to win on the grassroots level by hosting rallies that drew media attention. Ultimately, it was the rallies magnified by the media that carried Trump to the White House.

Recently, former Vice President Biden has been narrowing the fundraising gap. Although the President remains on top with cash available, the $287 million cash pile has been acquired over the past three years; of that only $97 million was raised this past year. Biden has raised all his $215 million in this past year alone. Biden closing in on Trump’s cash war chest could be a troubling sign for the President. For this reason, it is not surprising that Trump has gone back to the playbook from 2016 and stepped up the attention grabbing rallies. Biden’s demeanor is less attention grabbing, for this reason it’s not surprising that he is running a virtual campaign. This lower media attention, both from a smaller war chest and less interested media, places the probability of a Trump over Biden victory very high.  The on-air minutes that will impact voters most, even if they don’t know it yet.

What about the House and Senate races? Following the money in Congress has even higher predictive ability. Currently, Democrats have raised $346 million versus the Republican’s $248 million for reelection races. This is important since 35 of the 100 seats are up for election in the Senate race. In the House of Representatives Republicans have raised $178 million outfunding the $74 million raised by the Democrats. For these reasons, we believe that the Democrats will maintain majority of the House, and likewise with Republicans in the Senate.

Election season, both local and national can increase advertising profits for media companies. Money and media time have a much higher predictive ability than polls. Polls tell you what people are thinking when they are taken. Money to be spent before election day and media exposure determines who the contest will go to on election day.

Suggested Content:

Can
the Market Continue to Defy Gravity?

Bush
Gives Trump an “F” – Jeb Bush Fireside Chat at Noble Investor Conference

Crisis
Management from the Oval Office

Enjoy Premium Channelchek Content at No Cost

Ely Gold Royalties (ELYGF)(ELY:CA) – Still Early Days in an Emerging Growth Story

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

Ely Gold Royalties (ELYGF)(ELY:CA)

Still Early Days in an Emerging Growth Story

As of April 24, 2020, Noble Capital Markets research on Ely Gold Royalties is published under ticker symbols (ELYGF and ELY:CA). The price target is in USD and based on ticker symbol ELYGF. Research reports dated prior to April 24, 2020 may not follow these guidelines and could account for a variance in the price target. Ely Gold Royalties Inc is an emerging royalty company with producing and development assets focused in Nevada and the Western US. It offers shareholders a low-risk leverage to the current price of gold and low-cost access to long-term gold royalties.

Mark Reichman, Senior Research Analyst of Natural Resources, Noble Capital Markets, Inc.

Refer to the full report for the price target, fundamental analysis, and rating.

    Gold prices continue to strengthen. Year-to-date, the gold futures price has increased 17.2% to close at $1,799.30 per ounce on June 30 and is up 12.7% since the end of the first quarter. In our view, the outlook for gold remains favorable based on U.S. and global monetary and fiscal policies that support gold as a store of value. Gold’s safe haven appeal has increased due to economic concerns caused by a resurgence of COVID-19 cases and geopolitical frictions, including China and Hong Kong. Ely Gold offers shareholders leverage to gold prices through its growing portfolio of long-term gold royalties.

    Early days in the Ely Gold Royalties growth story. Junior royalty companies generally offer greater growth and higher returns during their early years. Ely has announced 12 transactions in 2020 and has ample financial flexibility for additional …



    Click to get the full report.

This Company Sponsored Research is provided by Noble Capital Markets, Inc., a FINRA and S.E.C. registered broker-dealer (B/D).

*Analyst
certification and important disclosures included in the full report. 
NOTE: investment decisions should not be based upon the content of
this research summary.  Proper due diligence is required before
making any investment decision.