Display:
Buffett in $4.7bn deal for Constellation

Warren Buffett has made his first move in response to the latest round of credit market turbulence by agreeing to buy $4.7bn Constellation Energy Group, a US power company whose shares have been hammered over fears of a lack of liquidity in its commodities trading business.

MidAmerican Energy, a holding company of energy assets that is majority-owned by Mr Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, agreed on Thursday to buy Constellation for $26.50 a share - at less than half the company's market value a week ago.


Buffet is a freaking genius, as usual. Constellation has about 9000 MW of which 5500 is nuclear. Located in the US Northeast!!! The nuclear plants alone should be worth about $15-20 billion... And he gets them for less than $5 billion.

But EdF holds 9,5 % of Constellation energy...

EDF set to launch bid for US group

EDF of France is planning to go on the offensive to protect its foothold in the US with an offer for Constellation Energy, the electricity utility that agreed on Thursday to a $4.7bn (€3.2bn) takeover by billionaire investor Warren Buffett.

The board of the French utility agreed in an emergency meeting on Friday to back a joint bid with a US partner, as required under US regulations.


So who'll win, the worlds richest man and shrewdest investor, or the most powerful utility in the world, supported by the financing power of the French state?

No matter what this is a major league f*ck-up by the Constellation management who has lost one of the most promising companies in the US for chump change. All because of a stupid business model which resulted in a exposure of $120 million to commodities contracts with Lehman, which in turn led to rumors and violent speculation against the company.

Why the company didn't ask for a capital injection from its shareholders instead of selling it to Buffet I have no idea.

And imagine I did some research on this company a year or two ago to see if I should buy some shares because the generation portfolio is just beautiful. Thankfully I bought Exelon instead.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sat Sep 20th, 2008 at 07:42:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nothing to do with Lehman and everything to do with Financial "Innovation":
"These companies don't go bankrupt because of losses, they go bankrupt because of a lack of cash," Shimko said. "They could be making a billion dollars on trades, but if they can't post collateral it will all unravel."

Constellation's worries started last month not so much because of instability in its business but because of questions about how much the company would have to set aside if its credit soured. When executives said they had underestimated collateral requirements in the event of a credit downgrade, S&P promptly reduced the company's rating, from BBB+, saying the revelation showed "a lapse in the company's risk management and control process."

The downgrade required Constellation to post about $106 million in additional collateral with its trading partners.

(Source: Baltimore Sun)

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Sep 20th, 2008 at 08:04:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is it so freaking hard for management to understand that utilities should generate power, not pretend to be brokers?

If they want to do that stuff they should quit their jobs and start working for an investment bank (if there are any left).

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sat Sep 20th, 2008 at 08:08:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Anyone wanna bet that the first things Buffet/EdF does when the company is bought is to close down the energy trading section...

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sat Sep 20th, 2008 at 08:11:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
EDF does trading too. It's part of the business, in the world as it is today. It just requires risk management and doing only what you actually understand.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 at 03:41:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think Constellation understood the instruments they were trading - what they didn't understand was the need to set aside enough cash to increase their collateral in case of a credit downgrade, which apparently is also what took AIG down.

This is interesting because counterparty risk is relatively well understood, but the risk of yourself being downgraded seems not to be.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 at 05:22:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Trading is needed, but what I meant is that it won't be the main business anymore, instead an instrument for hedging rather than profit.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 at 10:03:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's the part with the biggest cash flow. The error was not to set aside enough collateral.

Also, as long as Constellation operates in "liberalised" energy markets (US, UK), they have to have an energy trading section.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 at 05:24:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Power companies generally need to engage in a bit of futures trading to keep their costs stable. At some point some idiot decides that rather than a way of hedging their exposure to price risks, it should be a source of profits, and they turn into leveraged traders, with all the dangers that involves.  
by MarekNYC on Sat Sep 20th, 2008 at 08:40:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In these discussions I always like to quote from the standard textbooks of the field. For instance, to get anywhere near a job dealing with derivatives you have to convince people that you have read Hull's Options, Futures and Other Derivatives. I built a diary around an extended quotation from it called This Should Never Have Happened. There I quoted from the Lessons for Financial Institutions. But there are also Lessons for nonfinancial corporations:

  • Make sure you fully understand the trades that you are doing
  • Make sure a hedger does not become a speculator
  • Be cautious about making the treasury department a profit centre
And lessons for all users of derivatives

  • Define risk limits
  • Take the Risk Limits Seriously
  • Do not assume you can outguess the market
  • Do not underestimate the benefits of diversification
  • Carry out scenario analysis and stress tests
The issue is that if a competitor eschews all these sensible practices they can undercut you and drive you out of business the old-fashioned way before they go out of business in a bang of their derivative portfolio. So once one competitor starts flouting risk standards, the whole sector goes to the dogs, and normally it then becomes a question of who is better capitalised when the shit hits the fan.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 at 07:08:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When executives said they had underestimated collateral requirements in the event of a credit downgrade, S&P promptly reduced the company's rating, from BBB+, saying the revelation showed "a lapse in the company's risk management and control process."

Constellation says "we're not in a good position to face a downgrade by S&P" and S&P, on hearing this says "okay, I'll downgrade you".

Is S&P stupid?

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 at 07:21:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is S&P stupid?

Well judging on how relentlessly positive they've been about organisations who have heavily invested in securities that have been little better than toilet paper, if that then you'd have to say you've good evidence to say yes.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 at 07:41:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Stupid is as stupid does.

S&P got into a heap of trouble following the Enron crack-up by not looking past the companies financial (mis-) statements to the underlying reality.  So to avoid that mistake they are going to quickly down rate companies on the edge and by down rating those companies they drop their debt rating below 'investment grade.'  Once that happens insurance companies & etc. are forced to sell the paper, driving the interest rates of that paper up, increasing the cost of the debt, & so on through the downward spiral making the ratings downgrade a self-fulfilling prediction.

Which "proves" the ratings system "works."  (For a low value of "proof" and "works.")

I, for one, sit back and marvel at the asininity of it all.
 

by ATinNM on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 at 08:05:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Credit ratings should be taken out of the centre of financial regulation, which is where they have been put over the past few years.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 at 09:14:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You don't think having private companies effectively setting determining the global interest rate schedule is a good idea?  As we all know the Unobservable Foot¹ of the Market does just fine.  Look at the US and UK for proof.

¹  My humble suggestion for updating the 'Invisible Hand' metaphor.

by ATinNM on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 at 09:33:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, it is an atrocious idea. Almost as bad as personal credit rating.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 at 01:23:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Doesn't Buffet have a large position in S&P? Or was it Moodys?

</tinfoil hat>

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 at 10:04:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
EDF decided to not bid. Not sure why. But they are certainly showing a lot of reasonable restraint in potential take-overs, given what you'd expect from a cash-rich State-owned utility...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 at 03:42:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A bit strange... From my completely unprofessional view Constellation is an order of magnitude more attractive than British Energy. Especially considering the (very low vs. very hig) price, the quality of the generation portfolio (high vs. mediocre) and the fact that Constellation has the UniStar joint venture with EdF, which Areva is to sell an EPR.

I think Buffet just was faster and more nimble than EdF.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 at 10:08:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nuclear energy is heavily political and government related. I would suppose that EDF is more confident of getting a political hearing in London than in the US...

Plus, BE is really a real estate deal (ie sites already approved for nuclear plant construction), not a purchase of existing assets.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 at 02:21:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series