Imark
Forumer storico
Minimo 50k... secondo me, tutto considerato, un 8% lordo è meno di quanto dovrebbe offrire... La società è quotata negli USA, per cui attraverso i 10-Q la puoi seguire trimestre per trimestre con facilità...
Sono pesantemente levereggiati e andrebbe visto cosa hanno in programma di fare negli anni a venire ... sono anche grandi utilizzatori di strumenti finanziari che consentono di accrescere l'indebitamento, e randomicamente ho visto che non hanno avuto problemi nell'emettere titoli di debito di questo tipo durante l'anno ... questo il quadro della situazione fatto da Moody's a fine gennaio 2009, ma andrebbe aggiornato.
Moody's assigns Ba3 to Chesapeake Energy senior unsecured notes; stable outlook
Approximately $14.5 billion of debt and credit facilities affected
New York, January 28, 2009 -- Moody's Investors Service assigned a Ba3 (LGD 4; 69%) rating to Chesapeake Energy's (CHK) pending $1 billion offering of senior unsecured notes due 2015. Moody's also affirmed CHK's Ba2 Corporate Family Rating (CFR), its SGL-3 Speculative Grade Liquidity rating, and its other existing debt ratings but changed the LGD statistics to LGD 4; 69% from LGD 4; 62%. Net note proceeds will repay secured borrowings under CHK's $3.5 billion secured borrowing base bank revolver.
The rating outlook remains stable pending Moody's normal annual review of CHK's year-end 2008 results and 10-K, including the standard FAS 69 disclosures. The review will cover the reserve risk mix, components of finding and development costs and any implications for the future, net book and adjusted leverage after several forms of asset monetizations, as well as an update on CHK's prospects for leverage reduction, asset monetizations, and containing capital spending.
The ratings are supported by CHK's strong natural gas and oil price hedging coverage for 2009, the work CHK has done to strengthen its credit and liquidity profile, and continued sound production trends. The degree of strengthening in hand will be more fully gauged after full year-end results are available. Nevertheless, after a year of many strategic transactions (major joint ventures, asset sales, equity and debt offerings, and four volumetric production payments), CHK has improved its operating risk profile, fortified its liquidity, and reduced its 2009 production growth target, and capital spending budget.
CHK also reports that it has removed a large proportion of its knock-out hedge portfolio, albeit at a cost, removing the risk that a large proportion of production could end up unhedged if certain minimum natural gas price points were penetrated. As long as CHK remains leveraged and in aggressive expansion mode, a hedging program that does not include knockouts or similar features would be supportive to the ratings.
CHK also sustained its track record of debt conversions to equity, converting $765 million of convertible debt to common equity during fourth quarter 2008.
One major factor incorporated into CHK's ratings and stable outlook is its goal of restraining capital spending to within cash flow. In CHK's formation of three major drilling joint ventures, in which it sold minority working interest positions in some of its most promising plays, CHK considerably reduced its drilling risk and its capital needs. It may also have improved the odds that its 2009 reserve replacement costs would be materially lower than its elevated 2008 replacement costs. The joint ventures were formed in three areas CHK views to be core intermediate term growth engines: the Haynesville Shale, Woodford Shale, and Marcellus Shale/Appalachian Basin.
In forming the drilling joint ventures, CHK shed major risk exposures and spending obligations. At a time when it was already fully leveraged for the rating, and natural gas and oil markets were expected to remain cyclically weak, CHK faced multiple proportionally large and highly capital intensive unconventional resource developments.
The ratings are restrained by very full leverage for the ratings, a highly challenging and uncertain sector outlook, weak natural gas prices (especially at the wellhead level in key basins widely discounted from benchmark natural gas prices), a reduced pool of unpledged reserves with which to cushion against the risk of negative borrowing base redeterminations, elevated reserve replacement costs, a penchant for aggressive growth and large strategic transactions, and a highly complex financial structure.
Nevertheless, these transactions have positioned CHK strongly with a very large highly diversified drilling inventory and ample opportunity to improve basin efficiencies, in multiple major plays, adding to its strong core positions in those basins.
As of September 30, 2008, CHK fully drew down its $3.5 billion secured corporate revolver as a precaution at a time of elevated risk in the banking sector. Its subsequent forth quarter joint venture and volumetric production payment transactions added to its resulting large cash balance. Moody's believes CHK is soundly covered on its bank revolver covenants.
CHK's ratings or outlook are not affected by its announced $1.7 billion full cost ceiling test write down. Neither book fixed assets nor net worth factor into Moody's rating methodology for independent exploration and production companies (E&P's).
Moody's utilizes operating performance, leverage, volumetric scale, and diversification measures that encapsulate E&P's total capital outlays, the reserve and production response to that capital reinvestment, the combined unit economics of production and reinvestment, and leverage on a range of reserve, production, and free cash flow measures.
Moody's last rating action for CHK dates from May 20, 2008, at which time we assigned ratings to its new senior unsecured note and contingent convertible senior unsecured note offerings, affirmed CHK's ratings, and moved its rating outlook to stable from negative. The principal methodology used in rating CHK was the Global Exploration and Production (E&P) rating methodology which can be found at OpenDNS in the Credit Policy & Methodologies directory, under the Ratings Methodologies subdirectory. Other methodologies and factors that may have been considered in the process of rating CHK can also be found in the Credit Policy & Methodologies directory.
Chesapeake Energy is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
