Great Scifi Movies You May Have Missed in 2016 (But Shouldn't Have)

http://ift.tt/2fz9rSM


It’s a holiday weekend, which probably means you have some down time. What better activity, while you’re digesting that leftover Turkey, than catching up on some of 2016's best scifi and fantasy films ?

The films below are currently available to stream (or to buy on Blu-ray) and had a relatively small or unsuccessful release, so we’re guessing you missed at least some of them. Most importantly, they’re good! .

Synchronicity

This ultra small scifi mind-bender is one of those films that you watch and immediately want to dissect. It’s about a group of friends who create time travel and then get paranoid about people attempting to steal it. Or have they already? Read more about it here.

Lazer Team

The team behind Rooster Teeth crowd-sourced this surprisingly polished and funny movie about a group of regular guys who split up elements of an alien super suit that makes its wearer invincible. For a movie as small as this is, you’ll be surprised how good it looks.

Southbound

This horror anthology tells multiple stories that dive into lots of weird, creepy places, all in a vast, desert wasteland. Come for the creepy cults, stay for the awesomely-designed creatures and gross-out surgery. Read more about it here.

The Witch

The Witch isn’t a fast or flashy movie, but it sucks you in with its realism and eventually knocks your socks off with its climax. It’s terrifying and ballsy if you just give it a chance to cast its spell. Read our review.

10 Cloverfield Lane

This movie was a decent sized hit at the box office but, in case you missed it, you should check it out. It’s about a young woman who is mysteriously locked in a bunker and told the world is ending around her. Great performances and a killer ending make this one worth your while. Read our review and more here.

Midnight Special

Midnight Special is a film very much made in the mold of ‘80s scifi, with a little more heart and modern effects. It’s about a boy with special powers and the people who are ready to give their lives to get him where he needs to be. Read our review and more here.

The Lobster

Imagine a world where, if you don’t have a significant other by a certain point in your life, you are discarded and turned into an animal. That’s just part of this weird, hilarious, and subversive film. Read our review.

Hardcore Henry

The world’s first, wholly POV action film is light on story and character but heavy on incredibly impressive visual effects and stunts. You are put into the eyes of a cyborg on a mission to save the woman he loves and, holy crap, the things you’ll see are insane. Read our review and about the making of the film here.

Elstree 1976

This fascinating documentary follows several actors who played teeny, tiny roles in a movie you may have possibly seen before, by the name of Star Wars. It certainly has its lulls, but the best parts make it worth watching. Read our review.

High-Rise

The messed up exploits of an apocalyptic apartment building are the subject of this visceral thriller starring Loki, a.k.a Tom Hiddleston. Read our review.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows

Yes, for real. This movie, of course, got a huge release but bombed horribly. Which sucks because it’s lightyears better than the crappy first film. If you had any interest and skipped it, we highly recommend righting that wrong. Read our review.

Swiss Army Man

A man stranded on a deserted island is ready to kill himself when a dead body washes up on the beach. What follows is a weird, funny but ultimately uplifting tale of a man, a corpse, and what simply companionship can do for the human spirit. Read our review.

Kubo and the Two Strings

Again, this movie also got a pretty wide release but audiences, for the most part, didn’t show up. It just came out on Blu-ray and it’s a gorgeous, exciting adventure you’ll be glad you took. Read our review and about the making of the movie here.



from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

Be Very Skeptical of Stolen Election Claims

http://ift.tt/2fRFHo8


When one candidate loses a close election, it’s pretty common for his or her supporters to come up with some reason why the election was “stolen.” It happened for Democrats after John Kerry lost the 2004 presidential race, it happened for Republicans after Norm Coleman narrowly lost a 2008 Senate race in Minnesota, and it’s happening again for Republicans now that Pat McCrory appears to have lost this year’s North Carolina governor’s race. These claims are generally judged to be baseless.

So when you read Gabe Sherman’s New York magazine report that “a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers” is urging Hillary Clinton’s campaign to request recounts because they believe “they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked” in Donald Trump’s favor … well, then you should take a deep breath and look at the evidence that’s actually presented.

And there’s not much. In fact, there’s a grand total of one specific claim from this analysis that’s reported in Sherman’s piece, sourced to an anonymous person briefed on a recent call in which this group made its case to Clinton campaign bigwigs:

  • “The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000.”

But this alone proves nothing. For one, it’s quite possible that electronic-voting machines were more often used in counties that were already more likely to support Trump — for instance, counties with lots of low-education or rural white voters who strongly supported Trump across the whole country. Indeed, back-of-the-envelope insta-analyses by Nate Silver and Nate Cohn suggest this is the case, though it’s hard to rebut claims that haven’t been made publicly.

Further reasons for skepticism:

  • The swing toward Trump in Wisconsin was part of a swing toward him across the whole Midwest — including Iowa and Minnesota, two states next to Wisconsin that are demographically similar to it, and which both use only paper ballots counted by machines that are not connected to the internet.
  • Michigan also uses paper ballots, so there would have to be manipulation of a different sort going on there. The article doesn’t shed light on what evidence there might be regarding Michigan (and Pennsylvania — to change the Electoral College outcome, major fraud would’ve had to have happened in all three states).
  • According to Sherman, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and the campaign’s top lawyer Marc Elias were given all this data five days ago. They have apparently done nothing with it, even though the deadlines to request recounts in states are approaching quickly. That seems to suggest they did not view the analysis as credible.

So … be skeptical. Maybe this group of “prominent computer scientists and election lawyers” is sitting on more persuasive evidence than this. If so, they should post it publicly and let their claims be analyzed, rather than letting vague rumors swirl. But you definitely shouldn’t believe a vague, fantastic-sounding claim about a stolen election unless serious, solid evidence emerges to back it up, and independent experts validate how that evidence is being analyzed.

Update: One of the computer scientists mentioned, J. Alex Halderman, has now posted his views on Medium. They are much less dramatic than the secondhand account in New York magazine. “Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong,” he writes. But he argues that since hacking is possible, it’s simply prudent to conduct a recount in close states where there’s a paper trail, which is reasonable enough.


Want to rig a presidential election? Good luck.



from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

Decrypted: I Think We’ve Got Westworld All Figured Out Now

http://ift.tt/2gjTLoS

Enlarge (credit: HBO)

This week’s Westworld, “Trace Decay,” finally made me a believer in all the fan theories. (Spoilers ahead.)

Yes, there are multiple timelines. Yes, at this point, anyone could be a robot. The only thing left to do is play this show like a game and test every theory until it’s proven wrong. My guest this week, game developer Jane McGonigal, agrees. McGonigal is the author of two books, Reality Is Broken and SuperBetter, which are about how gaming can improve our real lives. And she has a lot of thoughts about the gameworld of Westworld, plus a theory you’ve probably never heard before.

Topics discussed: why the MIB is really looking for the maze (he wants a game with consequences), what makes the gameplay in Westworld so unsatisfying (there’s no Minecraft element to it), Jane’s so-crazy-it-just-might-work theory about who the MIB really is (and what the maze really is, too!), how many timelines are floating around inside Dolores’ head (yes, we are finally coming around to the multiple timeline idea), whether it’s cheating on your partner if you have sex with a robot (it’s more complicated than you might think), how many people are actually robots (it could be everybody), Maeve’s incredible new story-changing abilities (she’s the ultimate gamer now), the tragedy of loops (and the horror of memory), how Westworld invites viewers to interact with the series like it’s a game (and stay up late reading theories on Reddit), and whether there’s something inherently limiting about the Western story (maybe we’re about to see Futureworld soon?).

Read 4 remaining paragraphs | Comments

from Ars Technica UK http://ift.tt/2glkGQU



from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers: Value Stock With Growth Opportunity

http://ift.tt/2gz9TX2

Company Overview

Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers, Inc. (NYSE:RBA) is an industrial auctioneer specializing in selling heavy equipment in auctions on-site and online. RBA provides a variety of convenient services to make buying and selling equipment easier. The operation also includes in-house financing, shipping, refurbishing, and insurance. Those services enable bidders and buyers around the world effortlessly exchange equipment. RBA's business segments include construction, transportation, agricultural, material handling, mining, forestry, petroleum, marine and other industries. This report will cover the following objectives:

  • Evaluate the potential implication of the acquisition of IronPlanet on RBA's competitive advantage;
  • Examine the potential impact of the recent presidential election on RBA;
  • Review the past and future industry specific trends and their impact on RBA; and
  • Analyze RBA's financial performance in the third quarter, and its current valuation from a relative and absolute model perspective.

Horizontal Acquisition of IronPlanet For $758.5 Million in Cash

This acquisition provides RBA the opportunity to elevate the capabilities and scalability of the business in the form of revenue and cost synergies, and network effect. RBA's executive management expects annual cost synergies of $20 million by 2018, and tax synergies of $100 million once the transaction is closed. IronPlanet is a global brand with unique technology that provides online buyers and bidders a world class inspection system, "IronClad," before they finalize the transactions. This unique B2B technology gives the company an opportunity to earn commission revenues from the inspection process, and from the actual sale without physically moving any equipment. The acquisition of IronPlanet gives RBA the opportunity to benefit from extending its reach to customers outside their current geographic and demographic range. For example, RBA will be able to extend its reach to new geographic areas, such as Africa where RBA doesn't have physical equipment yards.

The primary rationale for the acquisition of IronPlanet is the fact that 50% of RBA's revenue in the last year came from online auctions and services. IronPlanet is the most dominant player in the online heavy equipment auction and inspection marketplace. The integration of IronPlanet's successful online platform, and creating a multi-channel selling point in a one-stop shop can turn RBA to an attractive value stock with significant growth prospects. RBA will have the opportunity to take advantage of the shifting technological forces in the industry to increase its customer switching cost, which correspond in a better competitive advantage and wider economic moat. Another benefit of the online marketplace is that you don't need to hold inventory on hand, which is the riskier part of the business since it's associated with high upfront costs.

Based on the following assumptions (2016 Q3 earning call slide):

  • RBA's current market value is $3,990 million (as of 11/17/16);
  • Projected PV of synergies $120 million;
  • Gross market value of IronPlanet is $956 million (earning call slide); and
  • The acquisition will be in cash only for $758.5 million, and the number of shares will remain at 108 million.

The expected price post-acquisition will be $39.88 per share ($3,990 + $956 + $120 - $758.5 = $4,307.5 million post-acquisition market value, divided by 108 million shares equals $39.88 per share).

It's important to mention that four years ago, RBA's previous executive management tried to develop an online platform by acquiring EquipmentOne, but was unsuccessful in efficiently integrating the company into their eco-system. Recently, it had to record an impairment charge against the asset, even though the segment reported its first positive quarter in the context earnings. According to the CEO, Ravichandara K. Sailgram, it took him over a year to make people believe in his strategy, and only now finally we start seeing some positive results from the EquipmentOne segment. As he emphasized in the earning call, "the first two years were a complete organ rejection, but after I [Sailgram] joined the team it took me a full year to make people believe in the multi-channel strategy." It took time for management to understand that the online sales process is completely different, and this learning curve may help them to integrate and utilize the acquisition of IronPlanet more effectively into their eco-system. EquipmentOne is analogous to the daily marketplace of Iron Planet. According to the earning call, RBA will be able to keep all the executive team from IronPlanet and utilize their 15 years of experience to integrate the two operations together. The company has identified that sales integration is pivotal for the succession of this acquisition.

The acquisition will also provide RBA the ability to have weekly unreserved auctions on a global scale, which can put positive pressure on volumes that will translate to expanded profitability margins and revenues. In regard to market share, RBA is already a leader in the industrial auction market, and if the transaction gets approved by the Department of Justice, RBA will be able to expand its market share and gain significant competitive advantage in this niche market. The deal is expected to close by the first or second quarter of 2017 (IronPlanet is one of the biggest online auctioneers in the heavy equipment segment).

The Election of Donald Trump for President and The Risk of Voiding Existing Trade Agreements

It is too difficult to say what the impact of the recent election of Donald Trump will be on NAFTA and other international trade agreements. Since RBA is a Canadian company, and the majority of its revenues is earned in the United States and Canada (approximately 85%), it is important to consider the risk of unfavorable future trade policies as a threat that can negatively impact RBA's operation. On the other hand, it is important to see some positives in the promises of Donald Trump to spend close to $1 trillion on infrastructure over his presidency. If this comes true, we might see an increasing demand for construction equipment, which is a segment that was already performing pretty well in the United States YOY, according to RBA's earning call. The Canadian prime minister Trudeau made similar promises, and his economic strategy will include increased spending on infrastructure instead of moving toward negative interest rates. Based on the statements made by both leaders regarding infrastructure spending, we can anticipate that RBA's top and bottom line will significantly benefit if they will fulfill their promises.

The Transportation, Agriculture, and Oil Industry

The company faces some difficulties in the transportation equipment industry. The freight business has declined due to oversupply, and declining demand (mainly driven by oil). RBA's management identified the trend and decided to take a very cautious approach by reducing the amount of inventory contracts they underwrite. Holding inventory is considered to be the riskier part of RBA's business model due to high upfront costs and commitments to a certain amount of inventory that might not meet demand. Instead, management is utilizing their EquipmentOne platform, which provides lower profit margins, but enables the company to facilitate smarter and safer operation.

In the agriculture sector, the Canadian market has a bright spot, but recent weather and harvest trends may impact buyers' behavior negatively in the future. According to the earning call, some of the issues that the Canadian Ag sector is facing are increased replacement cost of new equipment due to unfavorable currency fluctuations. This trend can create an opportunity for RBA to increase the number of auction participants that look for a cheaper used equipment on one of its platforms. The acquisition of Kramer Auctions, a Canadian privately owned company, will help RBA overcome some of the potential challenges and capitalize on the positive sentiment in the Canadian Ag market. Kramer Auctions is a leading Canadian agricultural auction company with a strong presence as a market leader in central Canada. In the United States, on the other hand, there is an excess supply of agricultural machinery, as well as weakening demand due to low commodity prices. Those trends in the United States put negative pressure on agricultural equipment prices and volumes.

Over the past two years, the oil industry suffered from a serious decline in oil prices and demand, but there is hope that President-elect Donald Trump will promote pro-oil policies that can help stabilize the industry. Stabilizing the oil industry can have significant benefits for RBA. First, it can help re-establish demand and prices for oil and gas exploration equipment. Second, it can increase demand for construction equipment due to the infrastructure work needed to build certain pipelines. Third, it can help stabilize supply and demand forces in the freight industry.

Financial Performance Analysis for Q3 (10-Q)

Gross auction proceeds for the quarter were $999 million, which is 12% higher from the same period last year. SG&A for the period came at $69 million, which is 19% higher from the same period last year. The increase in SG&A doesn't correspond to the goals RBA's management laid out in the second-quarter earnings call regarding more effective cost control policies that will reduce SG&A expenses. In the earnings call, the CEO claimed that the increase was due to some bonuses that were given in 2015, and in his opinion, the cost control policies that they are implanting will start paying off by the first quarter of 2017. From a GAAP perspective, the company had few one-time expenses. Those expenses included $4.7 million acquisition related cost and $28.2 million impairment charge against EquipmentOne.

The impairment charge against EquipmentOne is puzzling since it was the first quarter that the segment provided positive profit numbers, as well as an increase of 39% in volume and 5% increase in revenues for the segment. According to the CEO, this was an accounting decision that had to be made based on the previous assumptions, and has no impact on their [executive management] view for the future scalability potential of EquipmentOne by expanding to the European market.

To provide a better picture of the performance in Q3, I excluded one-time expenses of $4.7 and $28.2 million from the reported EPS. On an adjusted Non-GAAP basis, EPS was $0.20, which is a 5% increase from the same period last year. In my opinion, the acquisition of IronPlanet will help increase the EPS growth rate to 7% in the long run based on the potential synergies, scalability, and network effect that it will provide.

On a GAAP basis, operating cash flow increased by more than a 100% to $126 million, which is not in line with the decrease in operating income based on comparable periods. The impairment charge in the current quarter may contribute to inflated earnings in the fourth quarter of 2016 or even in the next fiscal year on a GAAP basis. Since it's a non-cash expense, investors should take it into account when evaluating future solvency and profitability ratios.

Gross profit margins expanded to 88.55%, which is consistent with the average gross profit margins when comparing the last ten quarters. I expect margins to expand in the long run if the acquisition of IronPlanet is approved due to the increase in commission base revenue stream without increasing inventory levels. Operating income margins on a comparable basis expanded to 27.3% in comparison to the same period last year. Those margins are still below the average operating margins that RBA had in the past ten quarters, but if the cost control policies appear to be effective, the company can restore or even surpass its historical operating income margins. The company also acquired the Ritchie Bros. Financial Services (RBFS) unit in an equity-based transaction, and RBFS contributed $0.01 to EPS this quarter. From my perspective, this is more of logistical consideration. Since RBFS operated as an SPV, and its financials had to be consolidated with RBA, the parent company.

Regarding volumes, the number of consignors that sold equipment through the various RBA sale channels increased by 18%. The number of registered bidders increased 14%, and the number of buyers increased by 16%. Overall auction volume increased by 6% in comparison to the same period last year. The increased volume mitigates the impact of lower pricing power in some of the other segments.

Valuation

From a relative valuation perspective, the company is on track to earn approximately $560 million in revenue for the year, which is a 10% growth on an annual basis. My expectations are that annual EPS excluding one-time items for the year will be at $1.33 (5% growth rate from $1.27 as of 12/31/15). Based on the EPS assumption and the current price per share of $36.99, the leading P/E ratio is currently at 27.8X. The current leading P/E is higher than my justified leading P/E ratio of 27X, which is based on the following assumption:

  • Required return of 9%;
  • Earning growth of 7% (the earning growth projection is based on the assumption that the IronPlanet acquisition will be approved by the Justice Department); and
  • Dividend payout ratio of 53% ($0.68 dividend per share/$1.27 2015 year end EPS).

This is also above RBA's five-year average leading P/E that is 27.71X.

For my absolute valuation, I decided to use the two-stage DDM (Dividend Discount Model). This model is appropriate since RBA is a mature company with a stable payout policy, and RBA's management continuously emphasizing, including in the last earnings call, that growing dividends in line with earnings is their number one priority. Based on the following assumptions:

  • Current dividend per share of $0.68;
  • Dividend per share will grow at 7% per year (same as the earnings growth assumption) for next four years; and
  • A required return of 9% (same assumptions for the terminal value at the end of year four).

The FVPS is $36.38, which is below the current market price per share of $36.99 (as of 11/17/16).

Conclusion

As we can see based on the two different valuation methods, the stock is currently slightly overvalued, and this might not be the optimal entry point. In the long run, RBA's growth prospects seem to be pretty bright assuming the acquisition will be approved. It has a solid track record of paying dividends, and it appears that management invests its resources in the right places by acquiring new growth opportunities. The potential risks and benefits that come with the recent election of Donald Trump should encourage management to prepare for any possible outcome. RBA is in an excellent position to capitalize on some potential opportunities, such as the increase in spending on infrastructure, and should mitigate the potential risks associated with Trump's statements regarding NAFTA and other trade agreements.

Disclosure: I am/we are long RBA.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

SeekingAlpha


from Seeking Alpha Editors' Picks stocks http://seekingalpha.com
via IFTTT

Alien life could be so advanced it becomes indistinguishable from physics

http://ift.tt/2fYzDHf

Perhaps Arthur C. Clarke was being uncharacteristically unambitious. He once pointed out that any sufficiently advanced technology is going to be indistinguishable from magic. If you dropped in on a bunch of Paleolithic farmers with your iPhone and a pair of sneakers, you’d undoubtedly seem pretty magical. But the contrast is only middling: The farmers would still recognize you as basically like them, and before long they’d be taking selfies. But what if life has moved so far on that it doesn’t just appear magical, but appears like physics?

After all, if the cosmos holds other life, and if some of that life has evolved beyond our own waypoints of complexity and technology, we should be considering some very extreme possibilities. Today’s futurists and believers in a machine “singularity” predict that life and its technological baggage might end up so beyond our ken that we wouldn’t even realize we were staring at it. That’s quite a claim, yet it would neatly explain why we have yet to see advanced intelligence in the cosmos around us, despite the sheer number of planets it could have arisen on—the so-called Fermi Paradox.

For example, if machines continue to grow exponentially in speed and sophistication, they will one day be able to decode the staggering complexity of the living world, from its atoms and molecules all the way up to entire planetary biomes. Presumably life doesn’t have to be made of atoms and molecules, but could be assembled from any set of building blocks with the requisite complexity. If so, a civilization could then transcribe itself and its entire physical realm into new forms. Indeed, perhaps our universe is one of the new forms into which some other civilization transcribed its world.

These possibilities might seem wholly untestable, because part of the conceit is that sufficiently advanced life will not just be unrecognizable as such, but will blend completely into the fabric of what we’ve thought of as nature. But viewed through the warped bottom of a beer glass, we can pick out a few cosmic phenomena that—at crazy as it sounds—might fit the requirements.


Also in Aliens  

A rocket powered by kerosene and liquid oxygen and carrying a scientific observatory blasted off into space at 10:49 p.m., March 6, 2009 (by local calendars and clocks). The launch came from the third planet out from a G-type star,...READ MORE

For example, only about 5 percent of the mass-energy of the universe consists of ordinary matter: the protons, neutrons, and electrons that we’re composed of. A much larger 27 percent is thought to be unseen, still mysterious stuff. Astronomical evidence for this dark, gravitating matter is convincing, albeit still not without question. Vast halos of dark matter seem to lurk around galaxies, providing mass that helps hold things together via gravity. On even larger scales, the web-like topography traced by luminous gas and stars also hints at unseen mass.

Cosmologists usually assume that dark matter has no microstructure. They think it consists of subatomic particles that interact only via gravity and the weak nuclear force and therefore slump into tenuous, featureless swathes. They have arguments to support this point of view, but of course we don’t really know for sure. Some astronomers, noting subtle mismatches between observations and models, have suggested that dark matter has a richer inner life. At least some component may comprise particles that interact with one another via long-range forces. It may seem dark to us, but have its own version of light that our eyes cannot see.

In that case, dark matter could contain real complexity, and perhaps it is where all technologically advanced life ends up or where most life has always been. What better way to escape the nasty vagaries of supernova and gamma-ray bursts than to adopt a form that is immune to electromagnetic radiation? Upload your world to the huge amount of real estate on the dark side and be done with it.

If you’re a civilization that has learned how to encode living systems in different substrates, all you need to do is build a normal-matter-to-dark-matter data-transfer system: a dark-matter 3D printer. Perhaps the mismatch of astronomical models and observations is evidence not just of self-interacting dark matter, but of dark matter that is being artificially manipulated.


Or to take this a step further, perhaps the behavior of normal cosmic matter that we attribute to dark matter is brought on by something else altogether: a living state that manipulates luminous matter for its own purposes. Consider that at present we have neither identified the dark-matter particles nor come up with a compelling alternative to our laws of physics that would account for the behavior of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Would an explanation in terms of life be any less plausible than a failure of established laws?

Part of the fabric of the universe is a product of intelligence.

The universe does other funky and unexpected stuff. Notably, it began to expand at an accelerated rate about 5 billion years ago. This acceleration is conventionally chalked up to dark energy. But cosmologists don’t know why the cosmic acceleration began when it did. In fact, one explanation with a modicum of traction is that the timing has to do with life—an anthropic argument. The dark energy didn’t become significant until enough time had gone by for life to take hold on Earth. For many cosmologists, that means our universe must be part of a vast multiverse where the strength of dark energy varies from place to place. We live in one of the places suitable for life like us. Elsewhere, dark energy is stronger and blows the universe apart too quickly for cosmic structures to form and life to take root.

But perhaps there is another reason for the timing coincidence: that dark energy is related to the activities of living things. After all, any very early life in the universe would have already experienced 8 billion years of evolutionary time by the time expansion began to accelerate. It’s a stretch, but maybe there’s something about life itself that affects the cosmos, or maybe those well-evolved denizens decided to tinker with the expansion.

There are even possible motivations for that action. Life absorbs low-entropy energy (such as visible light from the sun), does useful work with that energy, and dumps higher-entropy energy back into the universe as waste heat. But if the surrounding universe ever got too warm—too filled with thermal refuse—things would stagnate. Luckily we live in an expanding and constantly cooling cosmos. What better long-term investment by some hypothetical life 5 billion years ago than to get the universe to cool even faster? To be sure, it may come to rue its decision: Hundreds of billions of years later the accelerating expansion would dilute matter so quickly that civilizations would run out of fresh sources of energy. Also, an accelerating universe does not cool forever, but eventually approaches a floor in temperature.

One idea for the mechanism of an accelerating cosmic expansion is called quintessence, a relative of the Higgs field that permeates the cosmos. Perhaps some clever life 5 billion years ago figured out how to activate that field. How? Beats me, but it’s a thought-provoking idea, and it echoes some of the thinking of cosmologist Freeman Dyson’s famous 1979 paper “Time Without End,” where he looked at life’s ability in the far, far future to act on an astrophysical scale.


Once we start proposing that life could be part of the solution to cosmic mysteries, there’s no end to the fun possibilities. Although dark-matter life is a pretty exotic idea, it’s still conceivable that we might recognize what it is, even capturing it in our labs one day (or being captured by it). We can take a tumble down a different rabbit hole by considering that we don’t recognize advanced life because it forms an integral and unsuspicious part of what we’ve considered to be the natural world.

Life’s desire to avoid trouble points to some options. If it has a choice, life always looks for ways to lower its existential risk. You don’t build your nest on the weakest branch or produce trillions of single-celled clones unless you build in some variation and backup.

Maybe there’s something about life itself that affects the cosmos.

A species can mitigate risk by spreading, decentralizing, and seeding as much real estate as possible. In this context, hyper-advanced life is going to look for ways to get rid of physical locality and to maximize redundancy and flexibility. The quantum realm offers good options. The cosmos is already packed with electromagnetic energy. Today, at any instant, about 400 photons of cosmic microwave radiation are streaming through any cubic centimeter of free space. They collectively have less energy than ordinary particles such as protons and electrons, but vastly outnumber them. That’s a lot of potential data carriers. Furthermore, we could imagine that these photons are cleverly quantum-mechanically entangled to help with error control.

By storing its essential data in photons, life could give itself a distributed backup system. And it could go further, manipulating new photons emitted by stars to dictate how they interact with matter. Fronts of electromagnetic radiation could be reaching across the cosmos to set in motion chains of interstellar or planetary chemistry with exquisite timing, exploiting wave interference and excitation energies in atoms and molecules. The science-fiction writer Stanisław Lem put forward a similar idea, involving neutrinos rather than photons, in the novel His Master’s Voice.

That’s one way that life could disappear into ordinary physics. But even these ideas skirt the most disquieting extrapolations.

Toward the end of Carl Sagan’s 1985 science-fiction novel Contact, the protagonist follows the suggestion of an extraterrestrial to study transcendental numbers. After computing to 1020 places, she finds a clearly artificial message embedded in the digits of this fundamental number. In other words, part of the fabric of the universe is a product of intelligence or is perhaps even life itself.

It’s a great mind-bending twist for a book. Perhaps hyper-advanced life isn’t just external. Perhaps it’s already all around. It is embedded in what we perceive to be physics itself, from the root behavior of particles and fields to the phenomena of complexity and emergence.

In other words, life might not just be in the equations. It might be the equations.


Caleb Scharf is an astrophysicist, the Director of Astrobiology at Columbia University in New York, and a founder of yhousenyc.org, an institute that studies human and machine consciousness. His latest book is The Copernicus Complex: Our Cosmic Significance in a Universe of Planets and Probabilities.


This article was originally published on Nautilus Cosmos, in November 2016. 



from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

Implant Sciences: A Bankruptcy Liquidation Promising A 6-Month Return Of 140% Even Before Potential Upside From The Auction In December

http://ift.tt/2g4WX63

Company Overview

Implant Sciences Corp. (OTCPK:IMSCQ) ("the Debtors" or "the Company") makes systems and instruments for the detection of trace amounts of explosives and also drugs and harmful chemicals. Its products are used by the military, Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection as well as other government and commercial entities such as ports and freight-handling companies. The Company declared bankruptcy on October 10, 2016, by filing under Chapter 11 in Delaware. It has agreed to sell substantially all of its assets to L-3 Communications Holdings (NYSE:LLL) for $117.5mm and the assumption of a large amount of its non-financial liabilities. LLL will be the stalking horse bidder in a 363 auction to be held on December 12th if any additional qualifying bids are received by December 8th and the sale hearing will be held December 16th.

Investment Thesis

IMSCQ has traded OTC for years, has almost no institutional ownership and just a $9mm market cap currently. So it is no surprise that this has fallen below the radar of most funds. Based on our liquidation analysis, the equity recovery should be no less than $0.15 which is a 46% low case return from the current trading price of $0.10. In our expected case, recovery is $0.24 which is a return of 140%. Our high case liquidation value is $0.30 and the return is 200%. This is even before the auction, which if there is another bidder, it would be all incremental upside that goes to shareholders. The Company's low share count makes the upside leveraged with just a $25mm increase needed to double our expected case recovery. The time frame to a payout is also very short and we hope to see a distribution as early as February which would make for some phenomenal IRRs. Additionally, if the $116mm NOL (and $82mm in state NOLs) could be utilized that would add $0.07-0.14 to our recovery assuming the standard valuation of 5-10% of the nominal NOL amount. However, we do not think this management team is the group to lead that effort taking into account their past track record. We would consider supporting someone else with a value background if they came in to look for ways to utilize the NOL. In fact, other than L-3 pulling their bid for some reason such as violation of the material adverse change clause which we view as very unlikely, the biggest downside in our opinion would be if shareholders voted to allow the current management team to complete their desired acquisition of Zapata Industries SAS ("Zapata"). Management would need 67% of shareholders to vote in favor of a bankruptcy plan that involved completing the deal and we believe a significant portion of the shares have turned over from the original individual shareholders to funds like ours which are looking to maximize value.

Situation Overview

IMSCQ filed for bankruptcy on October 10th and with the immediate backing of the US Trustee, an equity committee was formed on October 24th which is a good sign that the equity will have some support against management. However, the members of that committee are all long-time shareholders and we worry there may be some "true believers" who are willing to give management a long leash and possibly approve the Zapata acquisition. Brown Rudnick, LLP ("Brown Rudnick"), which is the equity committee's counsel, says that they are all very familiar with the business, which is of little value when it is getting sold, but one has some bankruptcy experience and another is a lawyer. Still, this is not as comforting as it would be if funds with distressed experience were running the committee. Brown Rudnick did say they think the committee is skeptical of the acquisition right now without learning more of the facts but just examining the messages boards it seems many shareholders are mesmerized by the hype surrounding Zapata's business.

Since going public in 2000, IMSCQ has never turned a profit. In IMSCQ's fiscal year ending June 2015, they did $13mm in revenue and lost $12mm in EBITDA. In FY ending in June 2016, IMSCQ did $53mm in revenue and was about EBITDA break-even which means revenue grew 308%. Since the Company has never had positive EBITDA, this also represents a remarkable achievement for them. In March 2015, IMSCQ received an IDIQ contract with the TSA for up to $162mm of equipment and services. In September 2016, which means we have yet to see any benefits from this order yet, the TSA ordered $71.3mm of additional equipment under that same task-order. However, the US government was responsible for only 39% of 2016 revenue which means that over $30mm in revenue came from foreign governments and commercial sources which in it of itself represents tremendous growth.

Since the business is being sold at auction to LLL, an analysis of the business is not important to our thesis except to the extent that other defense companies may find it desirable and want to top LLL's bid. Adoption by the TSA seems to have sparked sales and possibly will attract interest from other companies. IMSCQ claims that theirs is the only equipment on the market which does not have a radioactive ion source for detection and can perform real-time protection, which makes their product much more desirable because of the restrictions on using radioactive instruments especially when scanning passengers at an airport, for example. However, management states in the declaration supporting the 363 motion that the marketing process began in August 2015 and 63 parties were contacted yet only 3 made an indication of interest. The Debtors thought that only 2 of those indications of interest represented realistic valuations. Additionally, Chardan Capital Markets LLC ("Chardan") which is the Debtors' financial advisor put out a press release with the Company requesting any indications of interest to purchase IMSCQ. LLL also has a history of making somewhat overvalued acquisitions of small companies with promising technologies which other defense majors do not normally do. However, Brown Rudnick believes that this may have been a half-hearted marketing process with possibly a pre-ordained outcome of selling to LLL and this possibility should be explored in court. The Company may also have been marketed as a going concern in the $0.60-1.00 range in which it was trading over the last year. One competitor has made a telephonic appearance in court so far: OSI Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:OSIS) which has a $1.6B EV. Another large competitor, Smiths Group PLC (SMIN LN) of the UK with a GBP6.7B EV, just bought another competitor from Safran SA (OTCPK:SAFRF) in April for $710mm. It is somewhat suspicious that the price LLL is paying is just enough so that IMSCQ management can complete their preferred deal with Zapata. Also, Chardan is a very small investment bank so maybe they didn't get full exposure to possible acquirers for their client. It is certainly possible, therefore, that there is an overbid and we hope there is one but we do not think the chances of it are very high. Success fees for Chardan their other financial advisor would be 2.25% of the $117.5mm and 3% of a Dip loan which are both way too high.

Chardan also did a very poor job of soliciting interest to provide a DIP loan. Initially, the secured lender, various funds associated with Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund LP ("Platinum"), agreed to provide the loan in May 2016 but backed out in August. LLL was approached but they declined. Chardan only went to 3 other parties between August and the October 10th filing date and the party they picked was of course headed by the former CEO of Chardan who still owns a significant equity stake in the boutique bank. Needless to say, the terms were egregious. The equity committee opposed the DIP and another lender, Tanner Partners, came in to replace the ex-Chardan CEO. However, the terms are not much better: the interest rate is 12% and the default rate is 24%. Fees are $35k for origination and a $425k exit fee minus any interest paid. Altogether it was a net savings of $300k in fees. These terms are for a maximum term of 6 months and a likely term of 2 months if the current auction schedule holds. The loan amount is $8mm which is 15x over-collateralized by LLL's bid. LLL is also not some fly-by-night private company whose financials are largely unknown or some Chinese company where regulatory approval or intent to actually close is in question. LLL is an S&P 500 company with a $10.8B market cap. Based on a two-month payback period, the IRR for this loan would be 41% compared to two-month LIBOR of 0.67%.

The acquisition of Zapata does not sound like any great opportunity to us but just an attempt by management to continue running a public company and paying themselves large salaries. Zapata has nothing to do with explosives or narcotics detection but instead sells backpacks and boards ("Flyboard 3.0" and "Jetpack 1.0" hydro-flyers) that one sometimes sees at beach resorts that shoot water downwards allowing the person to fly above the water a few dozen feet connected by a hose. This business does around $8mm in revenue and $2mm in EBITDA according to IMSCQ investor relations. However, IMSCQ says that this is not the business they are interested in but instead the ancillary business of Flyboard Air which is a product still in development. The Flyboard Air is a jet-powered board which allows the user to fly and hover for up to 20 minutes with a 10k ft ceiling and provides 12 ft/sec of lift according to the claims of Zapata. Videos of the founder using a prototype sometimes go viral. They expect this technology to be used for military applications as well as larger platforms to transport personnel and materiel. These businesses are both pre-revenue but management is basically asking shareholders to trust them even though we are in the midst of bankruptcy of the last business they ran. We do not think their track record supports giving them another chance. Also, the only point of reorganizing would be to utilize the $116mm NOL which you can't do if the business you're buying not only has no cash flow but needs significant R&D dollars. IMSCQ also does not have the capital resources to support a start-up business like this which is likely to burn cash for many years until/if the product becomes commercially viable and will probably lead to another bankruptcy eventually. The price being paid is also ridiculous: $15mm in cash plus 60% of the total outstanding shares of common stock ($5.8mm value currently) and 50mm 4-year warrants to purchase stock at $1.50 (which has a Black Scholes value of $3.5mm). There is also a break-up fee of $350k but from our conversations with investor relations, it sounds like the Letter of Intent is not finalized and/or management believes there are ways to get out of the deal without paying the breakup fee. The president of IMSCQ also has an agreement with IMSCQ that says if the transaction if not consummated or he is not hired by the new company then he is owed $300k. Employment agreements with senior management say that they are entitled to change of control payments of 12.5% of equity value. It is items like this that make us think that this is a sub rosa plan and many of these actions have been orchestrated to force shareholders to accept the Zapata acquisition. We believe these types of claims would likely be struck down by the court as either preferences or just invalid. Needless to say, we think the conservative course of action is to liquidate at more than double the current market value of the company rather than blowing it all on another speculative venture. Shareholders are lucky to be getting anything.

Another source of recovery may be actions against Platinum who is the lender of IMSCQ's $84.2mm in loans and pre-petition accrued interest. Brown Rudnick believes that there may be grounds to pursue equitable disallowance remedies against Platinum based on pre-petition actions that may have driven IMSCQ into bankruptcy. We don't know how far those theories would go with a judge since we did not see anything glaring when we read the history but you never know. It seems like there were some actions which were not disclosed to the public. Also, Platinum is in bankruptcy itself after being accused of fraud, bribery and rigging a bondholder vote and is under multiple federal investigations. As they have their hands full, they may take a haircut just to make any additional trouble go away. Additionally, Platinum and IMSCQ renegotiated and amended the terms of the loans many times before bankruptcy with the most recent one falling in the 90-day preference period. Any fees paid for these amendments and waivers may be able to be clawed back. Platinum also has conversion rights for a couple of its loans. They'd get 66.1mm shares if Platinum converted their $5.3mm March 2009 debt at $0.08/share and 36.8mm shares if they converted $7mm of the 2012 note at $0.19/share. In total they'd control 60% of the stock if they converted all their debt. However, they have an agreement with IMSCQ to limit their total ownership percentage to 4.99% to protect the NOL from a Section 382 limitation and the ability to convert debt in bankruptcy has mixed case law so it may be contestable if they even tried.

Most recently on Oct. 26th, Brown Rudnick was able to successfully push back the auction to mid-December instead of late November. They were also able to reduce the break-up fee from $7mm to $3.5mm and expense reimbursement to $1.5mm and the initial overbid to $3mm with a $1mm increment beyond that. In addition to the $117.5mm in cash that LLL will be paying they are also planning to assume a lot of the pre-petition trade debt, contracts with their associated cure amounts up to a $1.5mm limit and accrued expenses. These total $10.5mm based on the 6/30/16 balance sheet. We haven't been given an updated number. But LLL is also taking nearly all of the current assets and cash which had a value of $14.8mm on 6/30/16. That implies net working capital of $4.3mm but if at closing net working capital is not $9.5mm the difference is payable to LLL with any overage going to the IMSCQ estate. We don't know if that is a realistic number or it is just a way to make the $117.5mm seem higher than it is. One worrying feature is that the APA includes avoidance actions as an asset LLL is acquiring. This smacks of management trying to protect themselves and Platinum and we aren't sure if that has been changed in the revised bidding order.

We expect the sale will close in the days after the sale is approved. Once the cash is in the estate we expect management will put forth a plan probably in early January with their proposed use of the proceeds: the Zapata acquisition in all likelihood. However, management also seems like they are going to attempt to solicit votes on an acquisition of Zapata in December at a shareholders meeting they have announced which we think will be disregarded by the court. If the disclosure statement is approved by the court in late January we could see a vote in February with the transaction shortly thereafter. If less than two thirds of shareholders vote to approve the plan, then it is back to the drawing board and IMSCQ investor relations says it will respect shareholders' wishes and liquidate. If management can be convinced to follow through on that promise and distribute the proceeds to shareholders, it could happen as soon as April or May if that plan is put forth by management and approved. Management could stall however and they would have up to 18 months from the filing date of exclusivity when only they could file a plan which they could use to look for alternative transactions while continuing to pay themselves. There could be various ways to fight that kind of delay though. With the help of the US Trustee and the judge, a trustee could be requested which would remove management from control and if a trustee is denied then an examiner is automatically appointed which could investigate management's past actions. Or a conversion to Chapter 7 could be requested where a liquidation would take place almost immediately.

Valuation

This is almost free money because the retail investors that largely make up the shareholder base do not know how to value a company in bankruptcy or are just exhausted after years of holding it and are taking the loss or are scared by the bankruptcy process.

Excluding the NOL, the only asset that really matters is the cash from LLL. We estimate this as $115.2mm in our low case to $119.9mm in our high case which reflects possible differences in net working capital. On the liability side, the Debtors have provided us with some handy tables of excluded assets and liabilities. The balance sheet date is from 6/30/16 however. They show that $80.4mm is debt and there is $1.4mm of payables and $8.8mm of accrued liabilities. On a table with a further breakdown, we see that $7.7mm of those accrued liabilities is accrued interest. The Debtors have provided a different chart with indebtedness as of 9/30/16 with $10.7mm in accrued interest and $73.5mm in loan principal which we have factored into our liquidation analysis on the liability side already. We don't want to double count so we remove that $7.7mm. Adding up the 30 top creditors (with the 30th top creditor having a claim of just $44k), we come up with an updated payables number of $5.5mm which is higher than the 6/30/16 figure so we use that. The Debtors have requested $3.4mm of these claims be paid as critical vendors and which they have included in their 13 week DIP budget. Therefore, we add the $8mm in DIP principal which includes the $300k in origination fees and add the difference between the $5.5mm pre-petition claims and the $3.4mm in requested critical vendor claims to our liability side. We also know what professional fees are expected to be during the 13 week DIP period and they average about $600k per month. Since this is the time during the case with the most activity and work, we expect this number will drop maybe by half or more in January. Therefore, we have assumed $1.2mm in additional professional fees which should give the Debtors enough time to eventually pay a distribution in the spring. Adding all this up gets us to $0.24 per share in our mid case which is a 140% return and a 473% IRR assuming a 6 month payout. Since there is a lot of leverage here to what claims and net working capital finally work out to, there is risk but we think an $18mm distribution or $0.15 is the low case for equity recovery and that would have to be cut by a third to lose money on this position. Again, none of this assumes and overbid which would just be gravy for the equity.

Risks

  • Shareholders vote to consummate the Zapata acquisition.
  • Management loses the Zapata vote and then fights the equity committee for the 18 months exclusivity period hurting IRRs but still giving us a good return.
  • Net working capital comes out lower than expected and based on 6/30/16 net working capital, it would be a $0.07 detrimental swing.
  • Non-assumed payables come in higher than expected.
  • LLL pulls their bid due to IMSCQ tripping the MAC clause for some reason.

Excluded Assets and Liabilities in the LLL APA (as if the transaction occurred in the past):

DIP Cash Flow Forecast:

Zapata Hydro-Flyers and Air Jet Craft (in development) Products:

Disclosure: I am/we are long IMSCQ.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.



from Seeking Alpha Editors' Picks stocks http://seekingalpha.com
via IFTTT

Goldman Reveals Its Top Trade Recommendations For 2017

http://ift.tt/2g10p5u

Last November, when Goldman released its list of Top trade recommendations for 2016, we had one simple recommendation: "the best trades for 2016 will be to... do the opposite of the Top 6 trade recos" for obvious reasons. Less than three months later, following a dramatic swoon in the market following the China reserve liquidation scare of late 2015 and early 2016, Goldman capitulated and closed out 5 of its 6 top trades at a loss.

Fast forward to today, when the time for Goldman to unveil its "top trades" for 2016 has come again. In a report by Francesco Garzarelli, Goldman presents "the first six of our recommended Top Trades for 2017. These trades represent some of the highest conviction market expressions of the economic outlook we laid out in the latest Global Economics Analyst and the related investment themes we discussed in our Global Markets Analyst."

Summarized, the 6 trades - which are largely a thematic recap of Goldman's top failed trades for 2016 - are the following:

  • Top Trade #1: Transatlantic economic divergences and political risks: Long US$ vs GBP and EUR
  • Top Trade #2: RMB weakening: Long $/CNY
  • Top Trade #3: Earning the ‘good carry’ in EM, hedging the China (and CNY) risk: Long BRL, RUB, INR and ZAR, short KRW and SGD
  • Top Trade #4: Long EM equities with insulated exposures to growth: Long Brazil, India and Poland, FX un-hedged
  • Top Trade #5: The 'reflation' theme broadens: Long 10-year US$ and EUR inflation
  • Top Trade #6: Long equity-like 'carry' with little duration risk through dividends: Long EURO STOXX 50 2018 dividends

Goldman, still smarting from the egg on its face from its last "top trade" recos, prefaces the current edition of best ideas by hedging that the level of uncertainty has never been this high:

It is an unusually uncertain time in which to outline our strategic markets views and recommend a first batch of Top Trades for 2017.

 

  • In the US, the unexpected outcome of the Presidential elections has kicked off a debate as to whether the economic policies under Mr Trump’s tenure will support aggregate demand (via lower taxation and higher public spending on infrastructure) or ultimately stifle potential output (through protectionism). Also more uncertain is what the response of the Federal Reserve might be given that the economy is already operating close to full capacity. The FOMC will have the first opportunity to eventually adapt its policy guidance to the new scenario when it next meets on 14 December. A clearer picture of the new Administration's economic plans will only be available early next year.
  • In Europe, investors are waiting to hear from the ECB on 8 December, specifically on how much longer, at what pace and under which modalities the central bank intends to continue conducting asset purchases. The ECB’s bond buying programme, alongside the BoJ's, has been a significant force behind the decline in the term premium across developed markets, and has kept EMU spreads largely in check. Changes to the stock and flow of the central bank buying could have repercussions on how the Euro area asset complex, including the single currency, perform entering the new year, and beyond. The result of the Italian referendum on constitutional reform, scheduled for 4 December, is also under the spotlight. Investors' anxieties over this poll and its potential political repercussions have increased since the Brexit vote in June.
  • The OPEC meeting on 30 November will be important for the near-term inflation outlook and for Emerging Markets. There are several moving parts affecting the oil supply outlook: producing countries’ incentives not to comply with the agreed production cuts, the Trump Administration’s energy policy and its stance towards Iran, and the cost efficiency gains of US shale producers.

In formulating our market views and the trade ideas listed below, we build on our economics team's central outlook for the economy and for policy, summarised in the Global Economics Analyst, 'A Catalyst for Tighter Fed Policy', 16 November 2016, and seek to exploit asymmetries in potential pay-outs resulting from the level of risk premium embedded into asset prices.

 

For example, we still find it harder to envisage economic scenarios where the risk premium on inflation and nominal bonds will return to the depressed levels it reached this past Summer.

Similarly, one of our strong views at this juncture is that both the ECB and the BoJ will try to counter a premature increase in domestic rates stemming from higher policy uncertainty in the US, and continue to offer their respective Treasuries ample 'fiscal space'. Similarly, we expect the Fed to proceed cautiously when increasing real policy rates given that inflation is just returning to target rate after undershooting it for several years, and in recognition of the international spill-overs of its actions. This has important implications for our moderately constructive views on Emerging Markets and Metals

So, with these considerations in mind, below are Goldman's first six recommended Top Trades for 2017. As the bank notes, "some of them are a continuation of themes already in play in the second half of this year, others are new."

Top Trade #1: Transatlantic economic divergences and political risks: Long US$ equally weighted against EUR and GBP, with a basket indexed to 100, a target of 110 and a stop at 95. Annual carry on this basket is 1.3%.

A building theme in global markets is the populist shift in politics, as evidenced by the Brexit vote in the UK and the recent US elections. In the US, events have moved in a USD-positive direction, between the rising likelihood of fiscal stimulus, more protectionism and immigration controls, all of which add up to a more inflationary mix and tighter-than-otherwise monetary policy setting. In Europe, ongoing uncertainty over the Brexit process will likely weigh on the Pound, while the slew of elections, including the Italian political fallout after the constitutional referendum on 4 December and general elections in France, Germany and the Netherlands, will weigh on the EUR (Exhibit 3). 

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, divergence in growth and inflation has continued to play out, giving an underlying boost to the Dollar (“Dollar Reset”, FX Views, 10 November 2016). Markets are debating where populist forces are stronger and more negative – in the UK or the Euro area. Either way, they are material and we think it is best to split the difference, in essence taking out moves in EUR/GBP. Our first Top Trade consists of going long US$ versus EUR and GBP equally weighted. The position is indexed at 100 with a target of 110 and a stop at 95. As part of this, we are revising our GBP/$ forecast lower to 1.20, 1.18 and 1.14 in 3-, 6- and 12-months from 1.20, 1.21 and 1.25 previously. This is consistent with our analysis that Sterling needs to fall around 20-40% from pre-Brexit levels (Exhibit 4). We have kept our call for EUR/$ parity on a 12-month horizon unchanged.

The principal risk to this trade is a premature tapering from the ECB, which could cause EUR/$ to rally, but this is not something we anticipate given the difficult political calendar and the fact that the ECB will want, in our baseline case, to shield European rates from the increase in their US counterparts. A risk is also that the triggering of Article 50 is delayed, which could buoy Sterling. That said, UK Prime Minister May has if anything strengthened her rhetoric on this since the US election and her political fortunes are closely tied to moving forward on Brexit at this point. As a result, even if a delay occurs, we think the course is ultimately set.

We forecast GBP/USD at 1.14 and EUR/USD at parity at end-2017

Sterling remains overvalued based on our models

 

Top Trade #2: RMB weakening: Long $/CNY: Long $/CNY via the 12-month NDF, currently at 7.07, for an initial target of 7.30 with a stop at 6.75.

Since the extreme bearishness on the RMB early in 2016, sentiment has relaxed considerably and many clients seem to be focused elsewhere. As we have argued before (“No Easy Fix to the RMB Problem”, FX Views, 2 June 2016), the fundamental dilemma of China's currency regime is that, in an environment of a rising Dollar, keeping the CFETS basket stable requires $/CNY to move higher meaningfully, which carries the risk that capital outflows re-escalate (Exhibit 5). Given the re-pricing in Fed hiking expectations, which are still well short of our US economists' forecast, we think it is important to establish hedges at the current juncture, even if hedging costs have risen somewhat from just a few weeks ago (Exhibit 6). Hence, we recommend as our second Top Trade to be long $/CNY via the 12-month NDF. Indeed, our impression is that, despite the sharp move in the Dollar since the US election, market interest in hedging RMB downside is still low, partly because RMB downside hedges failed to pay off early in the year. We think this is notable because asymmetry in the response of RMB to Dollar strength has been pronounced (“Downside RMB Asymmetry”, FX Views, 28 October 2016), making the decision to hedge even more relevant at the current juncture. With this in mind, we are revising our $/CNY forecast higher to 7.00, 7.15 and 7.30 in 3-, 6- and 12-months from 6.70, 6.80 and 7.00 previously, which we established in July. We are also revising our longer-term forecasts to 7.60 and 7.65 for end-2018 and end-2019 (from 7.30 previously) and establishing a new 7.70 forecast for end-2020. As our new forecast reflects, our base case is one where the $/CNY fix continues to grind higher, driven by domestic pressures and in the context of a stronger Dollar (“The US election’s potential impact on Asian markets”, Asia Views, 10 November 2016), rather than a sudden and sharp depreciation. But even under this scenario, our forecasts are meaningfully higher than the forwards. One risk to this view is in some ways that the Dollar rallies too far too fast, causing the Fed to shift dovish in a replay of 2016. But we think the monetary policy landscape has shifted from earlier this year, so that a dovish shift at the Fed is now less likely, all things equal. At the same time, our $/CNY higher forecast is predicated largely on our expectation that Dollar strength can extend (“Dollar Reset”, FX Views, 10 November 2016). If the Dollar were to fall instead, that would present a serious risk to the trade. But we think the hurdle for the Dollar to outright weaken is substantial.

Capital outflows from China are expectations-driven

 

Top Trade #3: Earning the ‘good carry’ in EM, hedging the China (and CNY) risk : Long an equally-weighted basket of BRL, RUB, INR, ZAR versus short an equally-weighted basket of KRW and SGD, with an entry level of 100, total return target of 114 and stops at 93. The expected return, including approximately 7% carry (on an annual basis) and 7% price return, is around 14%.

Our third recommended Top Trade exploits the fact that there are a number of 'good carry' candidates in EM FX space: BRL, RUB, INR, ZAR – countries where external balances have strengthened materially, inflation is on a declining trajectory, the 'carry' in real terms is generous and there are prospects of stronger growth in the year ahead.

The ‘Trump tantrum’ of the past week has also seen meaningful pressure on many of these high-yielding currencies, providing more attractive entry points. In all four cases, our 12-month forecasts are meaningfully stronger than forward market pricing. Specifically, relative to spot, we have the most appreciation in $/ZAR (12-month forecast of 13), reflecting that it has been one of the laggards to the global re-balancing story, but has now seen a clear narrowing in the current account deficit in recent quarters. There is more limited room for appreciation relative to spot levels in the other three currencies (our 12-month forecasts are 62 for $/RUB, 3.40 for $/BRL and 68.5 for $/INR). But all three should be more resilient to a modest further extension of the increase in US bond yields given the more compelling domestic dis-inflationary stories in each case.

The countries represented on the long side of our FX basket also have more limited exposure to US trade/demand risks if the protectionist rhetoric from President-elect Trump is transformed into action. Risks emanating from gyrations in crude oil should also be relatively well diversified, given that both India and South Africa are net oil importers, while Russia and Brazil are oil exporters.

On the short side of the trade, we recommend KRW and SGD – two low carry Asian currencies. While rate risk is front-and-centre of EM investor concerns at the current time and has affected high-yielders with heavy positioning, in the medium term the risks related to the unwinding of the Chinese debt build-up, and the depreciating CNY that goes alongside that, is probably the more systematic risk.

Korea has a high export similarity to China and is therefore exposed to the weakening trend in the CNY, which we expect to extend, as discussed above. There are also independent reasons for a weaker currency. Given the need to undertake difficult corporate restructurings in Korea against the backdrop of subdued global trade, a weaker Won is likely to be a key part of delivering easier financial conditions. And in the case of Singapore, the NEER basket has large weights in MYR, CNY and JPY – all of which we expect to weaken beyond forwards, and the low level of domestic inflation means that we continue to expect SGD to trade on the weak side of the band.

A basket of 'good carry' stories in EM (BRL, RUB, INR, ZAR)

 

Top Trade #4: Long EM equities with insulated exposure to growth: Long Brazil, India and Poland equities (BOVESPA, NIFTY, WIG) FX-unhedged, with an entry level of 100, for a target return of 120 and a stop of 90.

We remain positive on the EM ex-China growth recovery story heading into 2017 and see a good entry point in expressing this view via EM equities. After a long two-year stretch of poor EM corporate profit data (EPS have fallen continuously from $101 in Q2 2014 to $68 in Q1 2016), EM earnings have finally bottomed and are making a tepid recovery (forward EPS currently stand at $73). The improvement so far has been largely generated by commodity-related companies, but we expect a transition to domestic-facing sectors in coming months, largely because financial conditions have eased during most of this year. Furthermore, EM equities have just dipped below our macro measure of ‘fair value’ (841 vs. 860) for the first time since February, suggesting that valuation has once again become a positive factor for taking un-hedged EM equity exposure.

In contrast, we remain wary of China growth risks emanating again as we enter 2017 and are accordingly averse to taking deep cyclical exposure in EM equity over the medium term. Similarly, the US election has created an air of uncertainty over US trade policy, which could directly impact a number of EMs with high US sales exposure, such as Mexico, Korea and Taiwan, as well as China.

Looking across the EM equity spectrum, we find that Brazil, Poland and India offer an ‘insulated exposure’ to the EM growth recovery story, without being particularly exposed to China growth or US trade policy. While Brazil is often characterised as a China-growth proxy, the country's equity market has shifted meaningfully in its composition in recent years (commodity companies make up 25% of current market cap today vs. 52% at the beginning of 2010), distinguishing itself from most its Latin American peers. In EMEA, there are a number of idiosyncratic stories (Russia and South Africa) where we are keen to take FX exposure, but we find less valuation support (South Africa) and little domestic exposure (Russia) in the equities there. Rather, it is Poland that has been the laggard, particularly when compared with the strong performance of European cyclicals. We recognise that Poland is geared towards the political situation in both Europe and Russia, and Polish banks have come under pressure as a result of the high contribution to social programmes. But with a positive growth momentum and insulation from both China and US policy shocks, we expect some catch-up room there.

In Asia, both India and ASEAN equities offer strong domestically-exposure growth stories; however, we find ASEAN to be much more interest rate sensitive, and would shy away from that exposure in the near term. Indian equities have had a strong run since 2013, and while we believe the majority of the rally is behind us, we continue to see a positive risk/reward relative to other Asian equities that are heavily China-exposed. We are conscious of potential near-term volatility from recent policy announcements in India, but have put a wide stop-loss that should cushion downside risk and allow for outperformance.

Improvement in earnings seen broadly across EMs

Top Trade #5: The 'reflation' theme extends and broadens: Long US 10-year US TIPS 'break-even' inflation at an entry level of 1.90%, with an initial target of 2.30% and stop at 1.60%, and long Euro 10-year inflation via swaps at an entry level of 1.25%, with a target of 1.60% and a stop at 1.00%.

‘Reflation’ already features as one of our top investment themes for this year, and one of our 2016 Top Trades recommended last November was meant to capitalise on the view ('long US 10-year break-even inflation'). As things turned out, the fortunes of the Top Trade were mixed at best. The China-led risk shakeout during the first quarter, and subsequently the Brexit 'policy shock' in June, affected the pricing of spot crude oil and longer-dated nominal yields, both depressing inflation forwards. The market price of inflation did start moving higher since the Summer, and is now around 40bp above where we recommended the trade a year ago.

We think there is scope for the 'reflation' trade to perform better in 2017 for a combination of factors. First, thanks to base effects from energy components, headline CPI inflation will rise entering 2017 across the major advanced economies, and this could influence inflation expectations positively. Second, with 'austerity' now in the rear-view mirror, the onus of stimulating demand appears to be shifting from central banks towards the fiscal authorities. We forecast a relatively large, synchronised support to GDP growth from the public sector in Japan, China, the US and Europe. Only part of this will go to expand potential output, with the bulk potentially stoking inflationary pressures. Third, the major central banks have been aiming for inflation to run at/above their 2% target for some time to compensate for the undershooting in recent years. With this objective, the ECB, BoE and BoJ are all creating more 'fiscal headroom' for their respective Treasuries through large-scale purchases of government bonds. We expect these purchases to continue throughout 2017. In this context, we think that greater attention will be given by both the BoJ and the ECB to prevent an excessive flattening of their respective nominal term structures of rates. This should allow the inflation forwards to expand.

A ‘Global’ Factor (oil price) explains 50% of headline inflation dynamics

With these considerations in mind, our fifth Top Trade for 2017 consists in being long both US$ and EUR 10-year inflation. We like the US leg of the trade because expansionary fiscal policies in an economy already operating close to full capacity will likely push up domestic price and wage inflation. Along with our dovish views on the ECB, there are two more reasons why we like the EUR leg of this trade: (i) the potential for EUR to depreciate in line with the views of our FX strategists should push up the inflation risk premium in EUR inflation swaps and (ii) we are starting from a very pessimistic skew in inflation expectations in the Euro area, underscored by the inflation options market assigning a 70% chance of CPI staying below 1% over the next 5-years.

There is clear systemic risk to the trade relating to the evolution of the general economic outlook. Unlike in 2016, we think that the downside risks from commodity prices are lower thanks to base effects and better valuations in the complex.

Long-dated US inflation is normalising from historically cheap levels

Top Trade #6: Long equity-like 'carry' with little duration risk through dividends: Long EURO STOXX 50 2018 dividends: Long EURO STOXX 50 2018 dividends (BBG: DEDZ8 Index) equity-like 'carry' with little duration risk; target 125, now at 112 (12% unfunded return), stop at 105.

Dividend swaps, as a hybrid between credit and equities, currently appear attractive in a cross-asset context. We forecast a high 'carry' compared with other assets, which reflect both fundamental risks and supply/demand imbalances from structured products issuance (for details, see Dividend Swap Monitor: Dividends in multi-asset portfolio: high carry hybrid between credit & equity, 14 November 2016). Our sixth Top Trade recommendation consists of going long EURO STOXX 50 2018 dividends for a potential 12% unfunded return. 2018 dividends are based on 2017 fiscal year earnings and thus uncertainty should decline over the course of 2017 (consider that 70-80% of dividends are usually announced during the European dividend season at the end of Q1). While we do not expect strong earnings growth in Europe next year, current implied dividend growth for 2018 is only -4%, which leaves a buffer for disappointment. European equities have been stuck in their ‘fat and flat’ range in 2016 – they have struggled to make new highs owing to a lack of earnings growth, while elevated valuations have more frequent drawdowns due to political and policy shocks. This has resulted in poor Sharpe ratios for equities, a scenario that looks set to continue in 2017. Despite little earnings growth in 2016, EURO STOXX 50 2017 dividends delivered a return of 6% with a volatility of 7% YTD.

The beta of EURO STOXX 50 dividends increases with time until maturity, and really longer-dated (2020+) trade-like equities – but shorter-dated dividends – have offered better attractive risk-adjusted returns and have traded more similar to credit. With less time until maturity and when getting closer to the dividend season (Q1 2018) the so-called ‘pull-to-realised’ effect lowers both the beta and volatility. As a result, shorter-dated dividends are less driven by changes in equity valuations and more closely linked to underlying earnings and cash flows – they become more comparable to a credit investment. As a result, dividend swaps, especially shorter-dated dividend swaps, offer better asymmetry than equities but better returns than credit with less duration risk.

Structural excess supply of dividend risk is contributing to the attractive risk premium for dividends – banks own dividend risk usually around 5-7 years forward as a result of structured product issuance (capital guaranteed products, reverse convertibles, autocallables). Lower bond yields have driven more demand for autocallables in recent years, which has resulted in more dividend supply. And with regulatory and risk budget constraints, banks are usually keen to reduce that risk. This results in a discount, which is larger for longer-dated dividends. The latter, however, tend to have a higher 'beta' and sell off more in equity corrections when banks are forced to de-risk. As a result, we prefer shorter-dated dividends to generate more attractive risk-adjusted carry. During the GFC and the Euro area crisis, 1- and 2-year forward dividends also traded with a higher beta due to illiquidity. But, in recent years, investor demand has increased for shorter-dated dividends. Liquidity and trading volumes in dividend markets have improved materially with dividend futures – EURO STOXX 50 dividend futures open interest and traded volumes have stabilised at healthy levels.

There are fundamental risks and mark-to-market risks related to this Top Trade. Fundamental risks are mainly related to the prospect of dividend cuts, in particular for the banks and oil sectors, which are two of the largest dividend payers in the EURO STOXX 50. Our 'bear case' scenario for EURO STOXX 50 2018 dividends is close to 100, which is equivalent to a 50% cut of dividends for both those sectors. And until we get closer to the dividend season, they are likely to trade with a beta of 0.4-0.5 to EURO STOXX 50, which could drive mark-to-market risk. In our asset allocation we are Underweight Europe for 3-months due to the uncertainty over ECB policy (the next meeting is on 8 December), widening Euro area periphery yields, as well as political risks into next year (see GOAL: Reflation, equity/bond correlation and diversification desperation, 14 November 2016). As a result, near-term volatility in both European equities and EURO STOXX 50 dividends could pick up. But we think that, eventually, the ECB will extend QE and anchor yields again. Also, we would recommend hedging the currency in this trade.

EURO STOXX 50 2018 offers relatively attractive risk-adjusted carry

 

* * *

Finally, and the reason why it is difficult to take Goldman's predictions seriously, here is Goldman's own explanation why its last set of top trades ended up being a debacle

Our 2016 Top Trades in Review

 

This year was admittedly not a good year for our Top Trade recommendations. After a relatively healthy start in November and December, five of our eight Top Trades hit their stop-loss between mid-January and February, when a sharp correction ran across risk assets, volatility and cross-asset correlations increased, and liquidity dried up. Only two of the eight Top Trades (long US mortgages and long EM exporters vs EM banks) ultimately returned a potential profit. An additional two Top Trades (long US inflation and long US HY Oil & Gas hedged against crude) would have turned out to be ultimately profitable. That said, the mark-to-market losses incurred should the stop-losses not have been triggered would have been higher at first.

 

As we discussed when launching these investment ideas last November, 'energy' featured as a prominent risk factor running through most of the exposures (e.g., long 'break-even' inflation, long US banks, long currencies of oil exporting countries). The considerable volatility in crude oil (the front WTI contract traded between US$26 and US$51 per barrel over the past 12 months) negatively affected the potential returns. The best performing trade was long US Commercial Mortgages, opened in May. The worst performing asset was the MXN, which was part of a basket of currencies on which we recommended going long.

 

Performance of Recommended Top Trades for 2016

* * *

Trade accordingly: i.e., fade Goldman as always.



from Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/qouXdu
via IFTTT

Golub Capital - A BDC That Is Safer Than A REIT?

http://ift.tt/2fACCIU


Ask the typical investor if a BDC can be safer than a REIT - and the average investor will reply with two questions: (1) What is a BDC (or Business Development Company)? And what is a REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust)? Ask an informed income investor - and the reply is probably "no way." This article will supply data that suggests the opposite answer is correct. At the same time, this article will supply the just reported calendar Q3-16 earnings metrics for Golub Capital BDC (NASDAQ:GBDC). Doing both tasks in the same article causes some significant topic shifts during this article.

Why should anyone be interested in this comparison? First - because the yields on the lower risk Senior Secured Floating Rate BDCs are so low, they tend to fall off the radar for many BDC investors. Second - it is probably the case that the mind of the average investor reading this could use some calisthenics when it comes to risk assessment. But be forewarned - I am not certified in mental calisthenics, so you are in some danger of spraining a neuron.

I am going to start with the year to date numbers for BDCs and for Healthcare REITs:

BDCs 11-16-16

Yield in the spreadsheet below is based on the Q4-16 'regular' dividend. Spreadsheet header abbreviations: Div = dividend; EPS = earnings per share; LTM = last twelve months; YTD = year to date. The dividend to EPS ratio is a measure of dividend safety. Due to calendar and fiscal years failing to overlap, I also include a dividend to the sum of the last four quarters of NII - in the Div/NIIltm column. After the Price/NAV ratio, the next column displays the percent change in price YTD. The next display price change plus YTD dividends accrued on the payment date - not the earned date.

For the last four columns - the first measures the percentage change in the 2016 EPS projection since the beginning of the year; the second measures the change in the price target since the beginning of the year; the third measures the change in the Q4-16 dividend from the Q4-15 dividend; and the last measures the change in NAV between Q3-16 and Q3-15. Special dividends are not included in this data. ARCC, FDUS, MAIN and TCPC have paid special dividends on a near regular schedule.

FULL has converted to Great Elm Capital Corp. and trades as GECC. On 8-05 AINV cut its dividend from $0.20 to $0.15/quarter. On 8-09 MCC cuts its dividend from $0.30 to $0.22/quarter. On 9-22 CPTA announced a 17% cut in its dividend to $0.13/month. On 11-02 HRZN cut its dividend from $0.34 to $0.30/share. On 11-09 TCRD cut its div to $0.27/share. On 11-09 CMFN announced a Q1-17 cut in its div to $0.25. I have temporarily encoded this as the Q4 div.

Share Price Div/ Div/ Div/ Div/ Q2-16 Price YTD Percent Change LTM % LTM % Last3yr Last 3Yr
___The_Company_name_and_stock_ticker___ 1-01 11-16 Yield EPS16 EPS17 NIIltm NAV NAV NAV Price Pr+Div EPS Target DivChng NAVChng DivChng NAVChng
Alcentra Capital Corporation (NASDAQ:ABDC) 11.60 11.42 11.91 87.2 93.2 86.8 9.9 13.69 0.83 -1.55 10.17 9.09 -8.20 0.00 -8.24 na na
American Capital Senior Floating (NASDAQ:ACSF) 9.83 11.75 9.87 92.8 99.1 94.6 8.8 13.20 0.89 19.53 31.33 1.63 -10.54 0.00 -2.44 na na
Apollo Investment Corporation (NASDAQ:AINV) 5.22 6.00 10.00 71.4 89.6 77.6 8.6 6.95 0.86 14.94 26.44 0.00 -14.93 -25.00 -11.24 -25.00 -15.44
Ares Capital Corporation (NASDAQ:ARCC) 14.25 15.52 9.79 96.8 93.8 95.4 9.2 16.59 0.94 8.91 16.91 -1.26 -5.28 0.00 -1.19 0.00 2.53
BlackRock Capital Investment (NASDAQ:BKCC) 9.40 7.28 11.54 102.4 96.6 80.9 10.0 8.38 0.87 -22.55 -13.62 -18.81 -26.25 0.00 -21.39 -19.23 -2.56
CM Finance Inc. (NASDAQ:CMFN) 10.02 9.45 10.58 68.5 87.7 68.5 8.4 11.86 0.80 -5.69 4.29 15.87 -26.67 -27.95 -13.11 na na
Capitala Finance Corp. (NASDAQ:CPTA) 12.08 12.08 12.91 85.7 90.7 82.4 9.9 15.68 0.77 0.00 9.69 -5.21 -14.95 -17.02 -13.08 -17.02 Infinity
Fidus Investment Corporation (NASDAQ:FDUS) 13.69 16.12 9.68 108.3 96.9 97.9 10.0 15.58 1.03 17.75 26.30 -13.77 -0.87 0.00 3.04 2.63 -3.36
Fifth Street Finance Corp. (NYSE:FSC) 6.38 5.67 12.70 98.6 96.0 102.1 8.8 8.15 0.70 -11.13 -2.66 -5.19 -19.79 0.00 -9.44 -37.37 -17.68
Fifth Street Senior Floating Rate (NASDAQ:FSFR) 8.57 9.02 9.98 103.4 97.8 100.2 8.2 10.99 0.82 5.25 13.13 -12.12 -6.86 0.00 -9.25 12.50 Infinity
Franklin Square Investment Corp. (NYSE:FSIC) 8.99 9.85 9.06 101.4 102.5 95.5 9.5 9.42 1.05 9.57 19.49 -12.00 -10.46 0.00 -2.28 na na
Full Circle Capital Corporation (FULL) 2.47 2.67 15.73 120.0 85.7 113.7 11.7 3.59 0.74 8.10 20.85 -16.67 2.18 0.00 -10.25 -54.55 -55.18
Gladstone Investment Corporation (NASDAQ:GAIN) 7.67 8.10 9.26 98.7 98.7 102.5 7.6 9.84 0.82 5.61 13.75 5.56 6.06 0.00 8.73 25.00 14.42
Garrison Capital Inc. (NASDAQ:GARS) 12.17 9.00 15.56 95.9 101.4 86.6 11.2 12.53 0.72 -26.05 -17.42 -7.01 -25.43 0.00 -16.02 0.00 -14.08
Golub Capital BDC, Inc. 16.63 17.77 7.20 100.0 100.0 104.0 8.0 15.96 1.11 6.86 12.63 -3.76 2.79 0.00 1.01 0.00 5.03
Gladstone Capital Corporation (NASDAQ:GLAD) 7.31 7.99 10.51 100.0 100.0 94.3 10.6 7.95 1.01 9.30 17.92 0.00 -10.61 0.00 -12.25 0.00 -7.56
Goldman Sachs BDC (NYSE:GSBD) 19.00 22.10 8.14 85.7 88.2 79.3 9.7 18.58 1.19 16.32 25.79 1.94 -4.74 0.00 -4.52 na na
Harvest Capital Credit (NASDAQ:HCAP) 11.73 12.89 10.47 95.7 97.1 82.8 9.8 13.75 0.94 9.89 19.38 -0.70 -3.39 0.00 -3.64 0.00 -7.68
Share Price Div/ Div/ Div/ Div/ Q2-16 Price YTD Percent Change LTM LTM
___The_Company_name_and_stock_ticker___ 1-01 11-16 Yield EPS16 EPS17 NIIltm NAV NAV NAV Price Pr+Div EPS Target Div NAV
Horizon Technology Finance Corp. (NASDAQ:HRZN) 11.73 10.86 11.05 82.8 100.0 81.4 9.6 12.44 0.87 -7.42 1.02 2.11 -13.56 -13.04 -10.76 -13.04 -10.88
Hercules Capital (NASDAQ:HTGC) 12.19 13.54 9.16 100.8 93.9 102.0 12.6 9.86 1.37 11.07 18.70 -6.11 4.50 0.00 -1.60 0.00 -4.26
KCAP Financial, Inc. (NASDAQ:KCAP) 4.07 3.94 15.23 111.1 122.4 102.5 11.0 5.45 0.72 -3.19 11.55 -18.18 -16.23 -28.57 -13.90 -40.00 -33.86
Main Street Capital Corporation (NYSE:MAIN) 29.08 36.09 6.15 99.6 95.7 100.9 10.3 21.62 1.67 24.11 30.47 -5.11 1.82 2.78 -0.78 15.62 12.77
Medley Capital Corporation (NYSE:MCC) 7.52 7.85 11.21 91.7 95.7 84.0 9.0 9.76 0.80 4.39 13.16 -21.95 -20.52 -26.67 -11.27 -40.54 -23.33
Monroe Capital Corporation (NASDAQ:MRCC) 13.09 14.98 9.35 83.8 87.5 85.6 9.7 14.42 1.04 14.44 22.46 3.73 2.78 0.00 1.48 2.94 -1.89
New Mountain Finance Corp. (NYSE:NMFC) 13.02 13.75 9.89 100.0 97.8 96.8 10.2 13.28 1.04 5.61 13.44 -4.90 -5.80 0.00 -3.28 0.00 -7.55
OFS Capital Corporation (NASDAQ:OFS) 11.48 13.57 10.02 97.1 90.7 87.7 9.3 14.67 0.93 18.21 27.09 -5.41 2.61 0.00 1.45 0.00 0.00
Oak Hill Advisors (NASDAQ:OHAI) 3.80 2.95 16.27 129.7 111.6 107.9 10.4 4.61 0.64 -22.37 -9.74 -13.95 0.00 0.00 -31.30 -25.00 -47.43
Prospect Capital Corporation (NASDAQ:PSEC) 6.98 7.83 12.77 97.1 101.0 96.0 10.4 9.60 0.82 12.18 24.00 0.98 -15.36 0.00 -5.60 -24.48 -10.26
PennantPark Floating Rate Capital (NASDAQ:PFLT) 11.25 13.19 8.64 111.8 99.1 128.5 8.3 13.75 0.96 17.24 25.60 0.99 -2.68 0.00 -1.43 5.56 -1.65
PennantPark Investment Corp. (NASDAQ:PNNT) 6.18 7.56 14.81 108.7 113.1 107.4 12.5 8.94 0.85 22.33 40.45 1.98 -7.66 0.00 -8.96 0.00 -14.29
Saratoga Investment Corp. (NYSE:SAR) 15.42 19.48 8.42 73.5 80.8 80.6 7.3 22.39 0.87 26.33 34.31 14.36 -7.50 13.89 -0.13 na na
Stellus Capital Investment (NYSE:SCM) 9.64 11.51 11.82 100.7 100.0 110.2 10.0 13.57 0.85 19.40 29.98 1.50 -0.31 0.00 -0.37 0.44 -10.14
Solar Capital Ltd. (NASDAQ:SLRC) 16.43 20.57 7.78 94.1 87.9 96.2 7.4 21.72 0.95 25.20 34.94 -2.30 2.22 0.00 0.93 0.00 -3.97
Solar Senior Capital Ltd. (NASDAQ:SUNS) 14.90 16.21 8.70 92.2 99.3 99.9 8.4 16.78 0.97 8.79 18.26 8.51 1.52 0.00 -1.64 0.00 -8.16
Medallion Financial Corp. (NASDAQ:MFIN) 7.04 3.28 30.49 128.2 138.9 56.7 8.8 11.41 0.29 -53.41 -42.76 -39.06 -40.26 0.00 0.35 8.70 12.19
Triangle Capital Corp. (NYSE:TCAP) 19.11 18.45 9.76 110.4 94.7 94.2 11.7 15.33 1.20 -3.45 3.61 -28.82 -8.43 -16.67 -0.97 -16.67 -5.12
TCP Capital Corp. (NASDAQ:TCPC) 13.93 16.46 8.75 95.4 92.3 91.4 9.7 14.84 1.11 18.16 25.92 -7.93 0.41 0.00 -1.72 0.00 -1.34
THL Credit, Inc. (NASDAQ:TCRD) 11.70 9.73 11.10 76.6 83.7 73.8 9.1 11.84 0.82 -16.84 -9.91 0.71 -17.22 -20.59 -9.13 -20.59 -10.00
TICC Capital Corp. (NASDAQ:TICC) 6.08 5.99 19.37 246.8 232.0 279.7 17.7 6.54 0.92 -1.48 12.83 -33.80 -31.25 0.00 -16.26 0.00 -32.92
TriplePoint Venture Growth (NYSE:TPVG) 11.96 12.20 11.80 101.4 94.7 105.7 10.7 13.44 0.91 2.01 11.04 -15.48 -23.88 0.00 -7.44 na na
TPG Specialty Lending (NYSE:TSLX) 16.22 18.44 8.46 91.8 90.7 88.6 9.9 15.78 1.17 13.69 23.30 1.19 0.93 0.00 1.02 na na
WhiteHorse Finance (NASDAQ:WHF) 11.48 11.30 12.57 98.6 98.6 98.0 10.5 13.48 0.84 -1.57 10.80 0.00 -12.86 0.00 -8.73 0.00 -11.10
Sector Average 11.39 100.9 9.9 0.92 4.73 14.40 -5.46 -9.16 -6.09
With the 10-Treasury at 2.22% and sector average yield on Q4 dividends at 11.39% - the spread is 917 bps.
The cap-weighted ETF BDCS has a price change of 6.90% year to date - with dividends its total return is 15.77%.
The SPY or S&P 500 ETF is 6.87% year to date. - and with unreinvested dividends is 8.44% year to date.

Health Care REITs Q4-16

Yields are calculated on Q3-16 dividends. The Dividend/FFO ratio uses the 2016 FFO projection. The percent change columns measures the changes since the beginning of the year. LTM (last twelve month) dividend growth uses Q3-16 minus Q3-15 normalized dividend/share divided by Q2-15 dividend.

LTM FFO growth uses Q2-16 minus Q2-15 normalized FFO/share divided by Q2-15 normalized FFO. LTM FAD growth does not use quarterly numbers - but the 2016 midpoint of the yearly guidance compared to the 2015 actual. VTR had a downward adjustment to its dividend and operating metrics when it spun off CCP. CHCT and MRT are too new and too small to be currently included in my coverage.

Share Price 2016 FFO Estimate Div/ Div/ Percent Change LTM Growth
Company_name_and_ticker 1-01 11-16 1-01 11-16 Yield FFO FAD Price Pr+Div 16 FFO Target Div FFO FAD
Care Capital Properties (NYSE:CCP) 30.57 23.47 3.12 3.04 9.71 75.00 77.29 -23.23 -17.63 -2.56 -15.44 0.00% -9.2% -1.7%
CareTrust REIT (NASDAQ:CTRE) 10.95 13.62 1.06 1.10 4.99 61.82 58.62 24.38 30.59 3.77 -0.81 6.25% 8.0% 13.7%
Physicians Realty Trust (NYSE:DOC) 16.86 17.99 1.13 1.01 5.00 89.11 104.65 6.70 12.04 -10.62 19.67 0.00% 4.8% 1.2%
Welltower (NYSE:HCN) 68.03 63.01 4.62 4.54 5.46 75.77 86.00 -7.38 -3.59 -1.73 -0.95 4.24% 5.5% 3.9%
Health Care Properties (NYSE:HCP) 38.24 29.32 3.20 2.75 7.84 83.64 84.87 -23.33 -18.82 -14.06 -19.79 1.77% -6.3% 0.7%
Healthcare Realty Trust (NYSE:HR) 28.32 28.81 1.67 1.62 4.17 74.07 75.00 1.73 4.91 -2.99 19.49 0.00% 7.7% 5.3%
Healthcare Trust of America (NYSE:HTA) 26.96 27.79 1.62 1.61 4.32 74.53 84.51 3.08 7.53 -0.62 23.95 3.45% 5.3% 2.2%
LTC Properties (NYSE:LTC) 43.14 45.30 2.97 3.06 4.77 70.59 77.98 5.01 9.18 3.03 11.92 0.00% 14.9% 6.5%
Medical Properties Trust (NYSE:MPW) 11.51 12.37 1.35 1.27 7.44 72.44 75.41 7.47 15.46 -5.93 11.88 4.55% 6.7% 3.4%
National Health Investors (NYSE:NHI) 60.87 70.25 4.90 4.87 5.12 73.92 82.38 15.41 21.32 -0.61 20.43 5.88% 6.1% 8.7%
Omega Healthcare Investors (NYSE:OHI) 34.98 28.94 3.22 3.38 8.29 71.01 78.95 -17.27 -10.41 4.97 -5.58 9.09% 13.0% 8.2%
Sabra Healthcare REIT (NASDAQ:SBRA) 20.23 21.33 2.24 2.28 7.88 73.68 75.00 5.44 11.67 1.79 2.06 2.44% 15.1% 4.7%
Senior Housing Properties (NYSE:SNH) 14.84 18.17 1.86 1.89 8.59 82.54 86.19 22.44 30.32 1.61 29.98 0.00% 4.4% 11.0%
New Senior Investment (NYSE:SNR) 9.86 9.82 1.32 1.30 10.59 80.00 99.05 -0.41 7.51 -1.52 -8.97 0.00% -8.3% 1.9%
Universal Health Realty Income (NYSE:UHT) 50.01 55.20 2.90 3.03 4.71 85.81 85.25 10.38 14.28 4.48 0.00 1.56% 4.1% 8.9%
Ventas (NYSE:VTR) 56.43 60.58 4.20 4.12 4.82 70.87 80.66 7.35 11.24 -1.90 18.73 0.00% -11.9% 1.4%
Average 6.48 75.93 81.99 2.36 7.85 -1.43 6.66 2.12% 3.7% 5.0%
The cap-weighted Dow Jones REIT ETF RWR has a price change of -2.10% year to date - with dividends its total return is -0.13%.
The-cap weighted Vanguard ETF VNQ has a price change of -0.29% year to date - with dividends its total return is 0.67%.
The Cohen & Steers 'Realty Majors' ETF ICF has a price change of -3.33% year to date - with dividends its total return is -1.45%.

The specific companies I will be comparing are SNF Health Care REITs OHI and SBRA to Floating Rate Senior Capital BDCs GBDC, PFLT and SUNS.

The current yields for SNF Health Care REITs OHI and SBRA are 8.29% and 7.88%. They have LTM dividend growth of 2.44% and zero. The current yields for the Floating Rate Senior Capital BDCs GBDC, PFLT and SUNS are 7.20%, 8.64% and 8.70%. None have dividend growth based on the regular dividend - but GBDC will pay a special dividend this year that results in "total" dividend growth.
Given that the "yield + dividend CAGR" numbers are close to equal - the risk needs to be close to equal.

At this time, I will report the numbers on Golub - and return to the REIT to BDC comparative task toward the end of the article.

What GBDC Earned

Golub Capital BDC reported for calendar Q3-16 Net Investment Income of $17.228 million ($0.3215/share). With Total Investment Income of $34.503 million ($0.6439/share) - the NII/TII ratio was 49.93%. GBDC's Net Increase in Net Assets Resulting from Operations was $16.099 million ($0.3004/share) due to $1.129 million of realized and unrealized losses. The NAV was $15.96 compared to $15.88/share last quarter. Over the last twelve months, there has been $0.11 added to NAV due to issuance of shares; twelve cents added from realized gains and four cents subtracted from unrealized losses.

The consensus earnings projections from Yahoo Finance:

Current Qtr. Next Qtr. Current Year Next Year
No. of Analysts 5 5 5 1
Avg. Estimate 0.32 0.32 1.28 1.28
Low Estimate 0.31 0.31 1.27 1.28
High Estimate 0.32 0.32 1.28 1.28
Year Ago EPS 0.32 0.32 1.28 1.28
Revenue Estimate Current Qtr. Next Qtr. Current Year Next Year
No. of Analysts 4 4 4 1
Avg. Estimate 33.38M 34.11M 136.72M 150.4M
Low Estimate 32.63M 33.62M 128.49M 150.4M
High Estimate 34.34M 34.59M 142M 150.4M
Year Ago Sales 30.5M 30.76M 127.87M 136.72M

Earnings per share were in line with projections while Total Investment Income beat the projection by over a million. GBDC had both a public and private share offering during the quarter. Those new funds were deployed quick enough to boost total earnings. But that earnings boost was offset by the growth in new shares. My earnings metric spreadsheets for GBDC:

Q3-16 Q2-16 Q1-16 Q4-15 Q3-15 Q2-15 Q1-15 Q4-14 Q3-14 Q2-14 Q1-14 Q4-13 Q3-13 Q2-13 Q1-13
Realized & Unrealized Gains -1.129 2.404 -2.691 5.640 3.989 3.083 4.107 0.615 5.322 1.206 0.737 1.577 -0.130 0.657 1.857
Realized & Unrealized Gains/share -$0.0211 $0.0467 -$0.0524 $0.1099 $0.0778 $0.0611 $0.0871 $0.01314 $0.1131 $0.0257 $0.0168 $0.0364 - $0.0032 $0.0177 $0.0571

The spreadsheet above is an important data set for setting risk assessment. GBDC has had positive gains in 12 of the last 15 quarters. We also know from data in the 10-K (and also reported above) that GBDC has had "twelve cents added from realized gains and four cents subtracted from unrealized losses" over the last twelve months.

I want to make two quick notes on issues that could merit a long explanation. First - both Golub and Ares appear to capture "accelerated amortization of upfront fees" in the realized and unrealized gains line of their earnings while most BDCs include that line with interest income. This results in superior performance on gains while net investment income is under reported. Second - I will use similar spreadsheets on Omega and Sabra to show their history over the last 9 quarters on gains.

For BDCs - I show the change in per share numbers because the change in the gains is the dominant influence in NAV change. I show the change for REITs in terms of percent of revenues because the difference in this line helps explain significant variations in REIT cap rates.

And with those potentially overly brief notes - I will move on to more of the Golub numbers.

Q3-16 Q2-16 Q1-16 Q4-15 Q3-15 Q2-15 Q1-15 Q4-14 Q3-14 Q2-14 Q1-14 Q4-13 Q3-13 Q2-13 Q1-13
Fee Income 0.614 0.060 0.474 0.300 1.382 0.080 0.595 0.208 1.282 1.042 0.021 1.000 x 0.594 0.839
Total investment income 34.503 32.106 30.762 30.500 33.552 30.410 28.461 27.545 30.658 28.029 25.260 25.579 22.816 22.268 20.096
Fee income percent of total 1.78% 0.19% 1.54% 0.98% 4.12% 0.26% 2.09% 0.75% 4.18% 3.72% 0.08% 3.91% x 2.67% 4.17%

Q3-16 Q2-16 Q1-16 Q4-15 Q3-15 Q2-15 Q1-15 Q4-14 Q3-14 Q2-14 Q1-14 Q4-13
Total investment income 34.503 32.106 30.762 30.500 33.552 30.410 28.461 27.545 30.658 28.029 25.260 25.579
Net investment income 17.228 15.885 16.868 14.999 15.481 15.205 13.754 14.557 14.850 15.073 13.352 13.260
Investments @ fair value 1.661 1.629 1.612 1.528 1.530 1.571 1.423 1.401 1.348 1.325 1.254 1.180
Wt Av Share Count 53.583 51.514 51.383 51.303 51.260 50.491 47.175 47.121 47.068 46.986 43.755 43.285
TII/share $0.6439 $0.6232 $0.5987 $0.5945 $0.6545 $0.6023 $0.6033 $0.5845 $0.6513 $0.5956 $0.5773 $0.5909
NII/share $0.3215 $0.3084 $0.3283 $0.2923 $0.3021 $0.3011 $0.2916 $0.3089 $0.3155 $0.3208 $0.3050 $0.3063
NAV/share $15.96 $15.88 $15.85 $15.89 $15.80 $15.74 $15.61 $15.55 $15.55 $15.44 $15.41 $15.23
Wt Av Yield 7.8% 7.6% 8.0% 8.2% 8.0% 8.4% 7.9% 7.8% 8.2% 8.3% 8.0% 8.6%

Almost all BDCs report what I have called in prior articles their PWAY or Portfolio Weighted Average Yields. I have the expectation that in the herd of reported numbers in the release, this important metric is often overlooked. I want to quote from the Golub earnings release the source of this metric to assist you in finding it in other BDC releases:

"For the three months ended September 30, 2016, the weighted average annualized investment income yield (which includes interest and fee income and amortization of capitalized fees and discounts) and the weighted average annualized income yield (which excludes income resulting from amortization of capitalized fees and discounts) on the fair value of income producing investments in the Company's portfolio were 8.5% and 7.8%, respectively."

This number is a "big deal" - and here is why:

The Correlation of Weighted Average portfolio yield to BDC yield and weeding out ACSF, FULL, KCAP, OHAI, SAR, MFIN and TICC
The following companies had weighted average yields at or under 9%: FSFR, GBDC, PFLT and SUNS. Their average yield is 8.63%.
The following companies had weighted average yields between 9% and 10%: CMFN, FSIC, MAIN and MRCC. Their average yield is 9.81%.
The following companies had weighted average yields between 10% and 11%: AINV, FSC, NMFC, SCM, SLRC, TCPC, TCRD and TSLX. Their average yield is 10.42%.
The following companies had weighted average yields between 11% and 12%: ABDC, BKCC, GARS, GSBD, PNNT and WHF. Their average yield is 12.42%.
The following companies had weighted average yields over 12%: CPTA, FDUS, GAIN, HCAP, HRZN, HTGC, PSEC, TCAP, TICC and TPVG. Their average yield is 12.05%.

If one wants an explanation of why one BDC has a yield of x and another has a yield of y - look at the differences in the PWAYs along with differences in the NAV change trend and dividend coverage. There are investors who have trouble using metrics in arriving at a valuation assessment. It is my perception that you are lost if you do not use the numbers. The numbers above are evidence of how strong an explanation one can get from fairly simple data.

And now for the final Golub spreadsheet:

Q3-16 Q2-16 Q1-16 Q4-15 Q3-15 Q2-15 Q1-15 Q4-14 Q3-14 Q2-14 Q1-14
Debt 684.700 856.325 833.930 802.602 813.250 823.463 754.822 715.030 697.539 723.564 590.372
Debt/share 12.7783 16.6232 16.2297 15.6443 15.8652 16.3091 16.0050 15.1743 14.8198 15.3996 13.6292
Debt/share to NAV 80.06% 104.68% 102.39% 98.45% 100.41% 103.62% 102.50% 100.16% 95.30% 99.74% 88.51%
Interest expense 7.141 7.019 6.833 6.731 6.657 6.142 6.017 5.694 5.987 5.609 4.540
Interest expense/share 0.1333 0.1363 0.1330 0.1312 0.1313 0.1216 0.1277 0.1208 0.1272 0.1194 0.1037
Interest expense/TII 20.70% 21.86% 22.21% 22.07% 19.84% 20.20% 21.14% 20.67% 19.52% 20.01% 17.97%
Annualized Int exp/Debt 4.17% 3.27% 3.28% 3.35% 3.27% 2.98% 3.19% 3.18% 3.43% 3.10% 3.08%
PWAY - Int exp/Debt 363 bps 432 bps 472 bps 485 bps 473 bps 542 bps 471 bps 462 bps 477 bps 520 bps 492 bps

I have the expectation that the ending amount of debt understates what would be the weighted average amount of debt for the quarter. And the "weighted average" number would be the one that correlated to the interest expense. So I would have the expectation that the calendar Q4 "annualized interest expense to debt ratio" to return to the low threes.

Golub has relatively low cost debt. For example - none of the Senior Capital BDCs use baby bonds as a source of funds. And the cost of debt correlates to the NII/TII ratio. The NII/TII ratio is a valuation metric. The third grouping messes up the appearance of the correlation. But the correlation is still easy to see with this hick-up.

The Correlation Between NII/TII Ratios and Price/NAV Ratios and weeding out FULL, KCAP, OHAI, SAR, MFIN and TICC
The following had LTM NII/TII Ratios over 60%: ACSF, BKCC, GSBD, MAIN and SUNS. Their mean price to NAV [where par = 100] is 112.37%. Their mean P/E is 11.12.
The following had LTM NII/TII Ratios between 53% and 60%: ABDC, CMFN, GARS, NMFC, PFLT, TCAP, TCPC, TCRD, TPVG and TSLX. Their mean price to NAV ratio is 95.96%. Their mean P/E is 9.16.
The following had LTM NII/TII Ratios between 50% and 53%: AINV, FSIC, GLAD, HTGC, MRCC, PNNT and SLRC. Their mean price to NAV ratio is 102.63%. Their mean P/E is 9.61.
The following had LTM NII/TII Ratios between 46% and 50%: ARCC, FDUS, FSFR, GBDC, HCAP, HRZN, OFS, PSEC and WHF. Their mean price to NAV ratio is 91.66%. Their mean P/E is 9.68.
The following had LTM NII/TII Ratios under 46%: CPTA, FSC, GAIN, MCC and SCM. Their mean price to NAV ratio is 78.85%. Their mean P/E is 8.35.

GBDC does not score well on the NII/TII metric. But you were informed earlier in this article that GBDC probably understates its NII. An understated NII messes with the NII/TII ratio.

And now we are about to have one of the dramatic topic shifts of which you were forewarned. I am about to get back to the comparison of GBDC to the SNF REITs. BDCs report changes in their realized and unrealized gains. REITs report portfolio impairments. So we do not have apples to apples numbers. But I expect we still have fruit to fruit numbers:

OHI Omega Health Care Investors Q3-16 Q2-16 Q1-16 Q4-15 Q3-15 Q2-15 Q1-15 Q4-14 Q3-14 2Yr Average
Revenues 224.638 228.824 212.879 210.512 201.974 197.711 133.420 131.321 130.665 per quarter
Impairments 17.275 45.421 39.682 10.619 1.743 12.889 5.980 0 2.102
Impair/Revenue Ratio 7.69% 19.85% 18.64% 5.04% 0.86% 6.52% 4.48% 0 1.61% 7.19%

SBRA Sabra Health Care REIT Q3-16 Q2-16 Q1-16 Q4-15 Q3-15 Q2-15 Q1-15 Q4-14 Q3-14 2Yr Average
Revenues 64.488 74.249 62.559 66.772 59.934 55.586 55.572 55.711 43.984 per quarter
Impairments + Provision 1.370 223 32.334 6.237 2.489 2.972 1.144 600 0
Impair/Revenue Ratio 2.12% 0.30% 51.69% 9.34% 4.15% 5.35% 2.06% 1.08% 0 8.45%

The value of the stuff that GBDC owns is roughly flat over time - and has relatively low quarterly oscillations. The value of what OHI and SBRA owns is falling over time and has high quarterly oscillations.

The cost of the debt that GBDC has is in the threes. The S&P credit rating is AAA or AA depending on the debt issue.

The annualized interest expense (68.316 time four) to debt (4433) ratio for OHI is 6.16%. The S&P credit rating for OHI is BB.
The annualized interest expense (15.794 time four) to debt (1205) ratio for SBRA is 5.24% - and SBRA reports that its average cost of debt is 4.55%. The S&P credit rating for SBRA is BB-.

Based on those metrics alone, GBDC is much safer of an investment than OHI or SBRA. The S&P says so. The financial market that sets the cost of debt says so. But... there is one more key metric that matters:

The payout ratio for the GBDC dividend is close to 100% of NII or net investment income. The payout ratio leaves no room for earnings shortfalls - and there is nothing retained for forward dividend growth.

The FFO or Funds from Operations payout ratios for OHI is 71.01% and for SBRA is 73.68%. There is room for earnings shortfalls and there is sufficient funds retained for forward dividend growth.

Is GBDC a buy?

GBDC sells at a yield of 7.20% compared to a PWAY of 7.8%. I would like to see a yield that is closer to the PWAY. But given the relatively good NAV trend, I understand why there is a premium. Add to that, the special dividend is not included in the yield calculation. GBDC is roughly fairly valued. PFLT and SUNS look to be the better values in the asset class at this time.

On the other hand, most BDC investors are using borrowed opinions to make their investment decisions - and those borrowing opinions may not be informed by the importance of such things as the gravitation pull of the PWAY to influence the yield of the equity. If that is the case with you - then you need to own one of the Senior Secured BDCs.

I would go so far as to say that if you own multiple BDCs and do not have one of the three (GBDC, PFLT or SUNS) in your portfolio, then you are not investing right. You are taking more risk than average. And you are in danger of having more "imploding income" than average.



from Seeking Alpha Editors' Picks stocks http://seekingalpha.com
via IFTTT

Amazon’s Alexa will be able to send texts for AT&T customers starting tomorrow

http://ift.tt/2gkVjla

AT&T just announced that beginning tomorrow, its mobile customers will be able to compose and send text messages using Amazon’s Alexa assistant. So if you’ve got an Echo, Echo Tap, or Echo Dot somewhere in the house, you can ask Alexa to “have AT&T text” a contact’s name (Alexa can store up to 10), followed by your message. You’ve got to take that first step of adding people to the skill before Alexa can do anything; you can’t just call out the name of anyone in your contact list, for example.

AT&T claims it’s the first carrier to offer an Alexa skill for SMS, and naturally the company sees it being most useful “if you’re in a hurry or busy with your hands.” The website with all the specifics on this feature isn’t live yet, so it’s not clear whether Alexa reads your spoken message back to you before firing it off to the recipient. Maybe stick with your phone for the important texts, but having Alexa as a relay for the everyday stuff sounds pretty convenient. As always, standard text messaging and data rates apply, and AT&T’s fine print says “content of texts sent by AT&T are determined by Alexa’s reading of your voice commands.” That’s another way of saying if Alexa completely misunderstands you and blows up a conversation, it’s all Amazon’s fault.



from The Verge http://ift.tt/oZfQdV
via IFTTT