mcf - hundreds
cubic feet (North America, Henry Hub). Inflation
assumed at 2% a year.
* Gazprom has big exposure to one country
only - Russia
** proposed
It has to be
noted that dividends were paid when the
oil price was $100 USB/bbl for Brent crude, while share prices dropped since
then. This resulted in elevated % for all but Gazprom & Rosneft.
For an energy company the most vital
source - it is the mineral base it has and the replacement ratio. It depends how long the company could sustain its production at
current rate. We cannot possible predict what the replacement ratio is going to
be tomorrow.
*ExxonMobil & Chevron has approximately 20% of the booked
reserves as shale gas. A lot of producers struggling to make any money,
developing shale gas and oil. Shell has
about 10% reserves in it.
** BP is overexposed to USA and has
potentially very expensive resolution in US courts for long time. As an indication, the company was forced to
pay over $ 1bn for study on the damage done, which BP is not allowed to
see. The company will be milked for a
long time.
It is clear how big companies are trying
to balance oil and gas production in the oil equivalent, making it always the
same. There is several main drivers: hedge the risks, as with LNG market
growing, the prices are getting exceedingly volatile and aggressive. At the moment
this only noticeable on the balance sheets and
households in Asia. In the long
term Western Europe and USA will feel at as well, if decide to witch to LNG
market, or their suppliers will. Difference between domestic natural gas prices
in the USA and in Asia are four times.
Some people have
conceived fallacy where that the USA and EU are perfect 10 with the rest of the
world is zero on a legal sanctity rating scale. Former General Motors (GM) bond
holders and Fannie Mae (FNMA) stock holders might argue whether the US is as
legally pure as we like to believe.
The tens of
billions of dollars being extracted out of financial institutions by the
Department of Justice for alleged financial wrongs, especially since many were
forced by the government to acquire the risky assets (Bank of America (BAC),
Countrywide Credit, etc.), could arguably be described as a government
“shakedown.” Yet very few are willing to equate this to what goes on in other
countries and even fewer in the investment business seems to incorporate this
sort of risk for U.S. companies in their investment decisions. BP unveiling
story is another controversial example.
In 2007
ExxonMobil (XOM) had revenue 3.8x higher than Gazprom (OGZPY), net income 1.5x
higher and a market cap 1.5x higher. I.E., their P/E multiple was THE SAME as
Gazprom. Today, Exxon’s market capitalization is 5x higher than Gazprom’s,
despite net income and free cash flow being are almost the same and dividends
are 1.5x lower per share.
Note: This is not a financial or investment advice.
You need to look at personal circumstances and consult a registered
professional before making an investment decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment