mankap Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 NTLS is getting back to EV/EBITDA multiple of 5. Very tempted to buy back again. NTLS can have EBITDA of $120m in 2016 with the shutdown of East region markets. Is the market getting worried of the interest rate hike on NTLS? Is the interest on NTLS debt fixed or floating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mankap Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 When I see SHEN, it is trading at 10x EBITDA. NTLS is trading at half the valuation of SHEN. SHEN does not carry much debt and will have synergies with combined operations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packer16 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 The net debt is close to $387m so with a $100m market cap you have an EV/EBITDA of 4.7x with an estimated 2015 EBITDA if $104 million. Transactions of a lesser network (LEAP) is 6.5x and traded comps (TMUS and S) of 8.9 to 9.2x EBITDA. So at any reasonable multiple will lead to nice upside. The debt is not due for a number of years so little re-fi risk. Packer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesmadison Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Packer: Can you provide back up on your net debt calc? I am using the following: LTD $518.4 STD $5.8 Cash ($103.4) Restricted Cash (2.2) Proceeds on Assets Held for Sale ($56) That gets $362.6 Are you adding back $25 for shutdown Eastern Region? If so, is that a swag or is there support? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mankap Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 I do not think they used all $56m to paydown debt. They might have used it for Capex. Packer - Are you assuming nTelos used portion of 56m to pay down debt. The the investor presentation, nTelos talks about accelerating Capex spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packer16 Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 My net debt calc was off by $10m so I get $377m. The debt level is the level you show less the $15m of contractual close down costs for 2015. The EBITDA level should offset the cap-ex so the net debt should not increase over the next year but not decline much either. The FCF will not arrive until 2016. Packer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Dufresne Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Attached is a revised version of lathinker's version of the model including NOL effects, normalizing EBITDA-Cap Ex to 20% of sales and including interest expense at LIBOR + 4.75% with a 1% floor. Packer Hi Packer, I am trying to reconcile the interest rates in the latest 10K and 10Q without success. The 10K indeed states that the Term loan is at LIBOR + 4.75% with a floor of 1%, for an effective rate of 5.75%, which you used in your model. However, in Note 7 of the 10Q (page 12), it states: The Company’s blended average effective interest rate on its long-term debt was approximately 6.3% for both the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. I cannot reconcile these two numbers - 6.3% and 5.75%. To the best of my knowledge LIBOR has been under 0.25% since 2013, so the Term Rate effective interest should indeed be 5.75% for both Q1 2014 and 2015. Also, when I take the average LT debt in 2014 (using 485 from end of 2013 and 520 from the end of 2014) and divide the interest paid in 2014 of 32.7m I get ~6.5% effective interest rate ... I am trying to understand what I am missing ... TIA, Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowlight Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Attached is a revised version of lathinker's version of the model including NOL effects, normalizing EBITDA-Cap Ex to 20% of sales and including interest expense at LIBOR + 4.75% with a 1% floor. Packer Hi Packer, I am trying to reconcile the interest rates in the latest 10K and 10Q without success. The 10K indeed states that the Term loan is at LIBOR + 4.75% with a floor of 1%, for an effective rate of 5.75%, which you used in your model. However, in Note 7 of the 10Q (page 12), it states: The Company’s blended average effective interest rate on its long-term debt was approximately 6.3% for both the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. I cannot reconcile these two numbers - 6.3% and 5.75%. To the best of my knowledge LIBOR has been under 0.25% since 2013, so the Term Rate effective interest should indeed be 5.75% for both Q1 2014 and 2015. Also, when I take the average LT debt in 2014 (using 485 from end of 2013 and 520 from the end of 2014) and divide the interest paid in 2014 of 32.7m I get ~6.5% effective interest rate ... I am trying to understand what I am missing ... TIA, Andy I'm not sure this is the case with NTLS, but generally the lenders on a term loan B will require the borrower to convert a portion of the loan, say 50%, to fixed rate debt via a back-to-back interest rate swap. This reduces the likelihood of default due to rising interest rates but creates a higher all in cost of debt for the borrower. Given that term loan B's are generally 7 year loans, the fixed rate portion would be meaningfully higher that the floating rate. I haven't read this section of the 10K but would be surprised if this wasn't a requirement from the lender group at loan origination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Dufresne Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Attached is a revised version of lathinker's version of the model including NOL effects, normalizing EBITDA-Cap Ex to 20% of sales and including interest expense at LIBOR + 4.75% with a 1% floor. Packer Hi Packer, I am trying to reconcile the interest rates in the latest 10K and 10Q without success. The 10K indeed states that the Term loan is at LIBOR + 4.75% with a floor of 1%, for an effective rate of 5.75%, which you used in your model. However, in Note 7 of the 10Q (page 12), it states: The Company’s blended average effective interest rate on its long-term debt was approximately 6.3% for both the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. I cannot reconcile these two numbers - 6.3% and 5.75%. To the best of my knowledge LIBOR has been under 0.25% since 2013, so the Term Rate effective interest should indeed be 5.75% for both Q1 2014 and 2015. Also, when I take the average LT debt in 2014 (using 485 from end of 2013 and 520 from the end of 2014) and divide the interest paid in 2014 of 32.7m I get ~6.5% effective interest rate ... I am trying to understand what I am missing ... TIA, Andy I'm not sure this is the case with NTLS, but generally the lenders on a term loan B will require the borrower to convert a portion of the loan, say 50%, to fixed rate debt via a back-to-back interest rate swap. This reduces the likelihood of default due to rising interest rates but creates a higher all in cost of debt for the borrower. Given that term loan B's are generally 7 year loans, the fixed rate portion would be meaningfully higher that the floating rate. I haven't read this section of the 10K but would be surprised if this wasn't a requirement from the lender group at loan origination. Lowlight - thanks for your answer - I refer you to Note 9 of the 10Q entitled Financial Instruments where the company states it has a single interest rate cap with a notional sum of 350m that caps LIBOR at 1% good until August 2015 - the company paid 0.9m for this swap which it purchased in Feb 2013 (see Note 10 to the latest 10K p. 58). I see nothing in the financial statements about a variable to fixed IR swap. Assuming the cap is good for 2.5 years, or 10 quarters it comes out to 90,000 USD per quarter. Given that Interest payments per quarter are roughly 8m I do not think the cost of the cap explains the difference. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowlight Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 I will take a look at the 10K. The credit agreement certainly allows them to enter into a swap but i couldn't quickly locate the section that would compel them to hedge a portion of the interest rate risk. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwy000 Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Andy - typically the upfront fees and expenses on debt are capitalized and then amortized into the interest expense over the life of the loan (and then written off as a one time non-cash expense if the LAN is repaid early). Could that be the difference? I haven't looked at the Q but do they detail "Cash paid for Interest" and "Cash paid for taxes" anywhere (usually right below the financial statements. That may be more aligned with the 5.75% figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Dufresne Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Andy - typically the upfront fees and expenses on debt are capitalized and then amortized into the interest expense over the life of the loan (and then written off as a one time non-cash expense if the LAN is repaid early). Could that be the difference? I haven't looked at the Q but do they detail "Cash paid for Interest" and "Cash paid for taxes" anywhere (usually right below the financial statements. That may be more aligned with the 5.75% figure. Thanks for the reply! Having looked at what you suggest, the 10K and 10Q only increase the gulf between the 5.75%, 6.3% and the effective interest. The company states in the 10Q that it would classify such expenses as you mentioned in Other Expense in the income statement (top of p.22 of the 10Q): Other expense includes interest expense on debt instruments, corporate financing costs and debt discounts associated with the repricing and refinancing of our debt instruments and, as appropriate, related charges or amortization of such costs and discounts, changes in the fair value of our interest rate cap and other items such as interest income and fees. It does not say whether this would then be classified in one of the two subsections being Interest Expense and Other Expense, Net. If we assume only the first, then all the charges, including what you suggested would already be included in my calculations so this should not be the source of the difference; however, if these charges were to be included in the latter subsection, this would only mean the effective interest is higher as the expenses are higher - e.g., for 2014, these extra charges were roughly 1.1m, bringing the total interest expense to 33.8m for an average debt of 502.5m, or a 6.72% effective rate. I am sorry I am being "annoying" but given the high debt-load here and the fact that in 4 years' time they will need to pay of the bulk of it (or refinance), I want to know how much of the CFO will be left as FCF to decrease leverage, re-institute the dividend or buy back shares ... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arden Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Attached is a revised version of lathinker's version of the model including NOL effects, normalizing EBITDA-Cap Ex to 20% of sales and including interest expense at LIBOR + 4.75% with a 1% floor. Packer Hey Packer, thanks for the idea, Has the company published an outlook for EBITDA or earnings beyond 2015? What assumptions are you using in modeling the results beyond 2015? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simple Investor Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Great question and I am interested. It looks like they are using 518.4 as average debt for 1st qtr 2015. At 5.75% its at 29.78mm Add in the 3.7m that is being amortized and we are getting close. From page 12 In connection with the refinancing, the Company incurred approximately $3.8 million in creditor and third party fees, of which $3.7 million was deferred and is being amortized to interest expense over the life of the debt using the effective interest method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packer16 Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I think we will not get a precise calculation as the balance could be changing over the period we are looking at. There are some close calculations. If you use the cash interest you can get close to 5.75% but with a changing balance that is not precisely known, it impossible to get an exact number. Packer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packer16 Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 The company does not publish a post 2015 outlook other than showing a reduction of G&A expenses. Given the current Western market momentum, I would expect the EBITDA level to grow modestly (3 to 4% per year) given the G&A expense reduction. Packer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kab60 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Writeup on SA - free for a couple of days: https://www.google.com/url?q=http://seekingalpha.com/article/3323015-i-found-ntelos-in-the-liquidation-bin-a-misplaced-stock-with-30-percent-upside&sa=U&ved=0CBQQFjAFahUKEwjlk6Gww-DGAhWBbtsKHWNDCkg&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNGhbmNp_HXJaM4VbaPUIzUg03rD-g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kab60 Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I'm considering whether I should quit my job and start daytrading Ntelos instead. This stock is moving like a beast. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investor-man Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I'm considering whether I should quit my job and start daytrading Ntelos instead. This stock is moving like a beast. :) Heh, it's got nothing on Taeyong E&C preferreds. That thing is roller coaster! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombgrt Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I'm considering whether I should quit my job and start daytrading Ntelos instead. This stock is moving like a beast. :) Heh, it's got nothing on Taeyong E&C preferreds. That thing is roller coaster! That's insane. Very illiquid? Anyway, I sold 10% of position just now for more AIQ. Basically half of what I bought a few days ago for another 30% gain. Probably shouldn't have because the stock is skyrocketing again before earnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 more volatility today this time down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbrock77 Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Tied to Sprint weakness? https://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=s&ql=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CONeal Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Earnings are tomorrow so hopefully things are going well on the business side and they are continuing to execute the plan. Trying to trade this would be a nightmare b/c you're eating steak or spam with the swings from day to day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mankap Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Pretty good 2Q results. Net debt at $377 m. Reiterated guidance for 2015. EBITDA for 2015 between 100 and 108 m. At mid point EV/EBITDA is 4.82. Best part is operations are improving. Churn is at the lowest and they are adding subscribers. LTE rollout is more than half way through. My guess is we should start seeing lower capex in 2017. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kab60 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Yep, looking good. Ebitda grew a tiny bit. If they can keep this level they should reach 110m Ebitda FY2015 versus 100-108m guided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now