BROOKFIELD ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD (BAM) 2016 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Welcome to the Brookfield Asset Management Q1 2016 conference call and webcast.

(Operator Instructions)

The conference is being recorded.

(Operator Instructions)

I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Andrew Willis, Senior Vice President, Communications. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Operator, and good morning. Welcome to Brookfield's first-quarter webcast and conference call. On the call today are Bruce Flatt, our Chief Executive Officer; and Brian Lawson, our Chief Financial Officer. Brian will start this morning discussing the highlights of our financial and operating results in Q1. Bruce will then talk about our market outlook and Brookfield's approach to investing. After our formal comments, we will turn the call over to the operator and take your questions.

(Caller Instructions)

At this time, I would remind you that in responding to questions and in talking about new initiatives and our financial and operating performance, we may make forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to known and unknown risks, and future results may differ materially. For further information I would encourage you to review our annual information form and our annual report, both of which are available on our website.

Thank you. And I'll now turn the call over to Brian.

Thanks, Andy. Good morning, and thank you for joining us this morning.

The year is off to a strong start, led by significant growth in our asset management results as well as improvements across a number of our businesses. And our success in closing $25 billion of capital for our most recent series of funds has us extremely well-positioned for continued growth. Funds from operations for the quarter totaled $703 million compared to $557 million in the 2015 quarter. Breaking this down, we recorded $491 million of FFO from operating activities -- that's up 25% over the prior quarter -- and $212 million from disposition gains, and that's up from $162 million. Net income was $636 million, or $0.23 per share. Net income benefited from the improved operating results and continued increases in the value of our property portfolios, which gave rise to $352 million of fair value gains. We did, however, record a higher level of appraisal gains in 2015, which is the principal reason for the higher level of net income -- $1.4 billion booked in that quarter.

So, turning to our asset management results, fee-bearing capital was $104 billion at the end of the quarter, up $11 billion over the last 12 months. And subsequent to quarter end, capital raised in our private funds added an additional $10 billion of fee-bearing capital, bringing the total to $114 billion; and increased our annualized fee revenues and target carry to nearly $2 billion. The increases in fee-bearing capital came from a final close on our $9 billion flagship property fund, along with commitments of approximately $12 billion to our latest infrastructure fund and more than $3 billion to a private equity fund. All in all, our latest series of funds totaled $25 billion in capital. And that's the largest amount of investable capital that we've raised for one series yet.

We are targeting an additional $6 billion of capital in our current marketing efforts, which also include three niche funds. In all our strategies we are seeing the vast majority of investors in the last generation of funds coming back as participants in our successor funds. And at the same time, our capabilities to put this capital to work and manage the assets has never been stronger in terms of our global scale and operating capabilities. And we're a wide range of attractive opportunities. To that end, we've already invested or committed more than half of the capital in that $9 billion property fund I mentioned that we just closed.

The growth in our fee-bearing capital led to a 71% increase in fee-related earnings, which totaled $185 million in the quarter. In addition to fee-related earnings, we also generated $137 million of carried interest. Over the last 12 months the total was $304 million, and that increases our cumulative carried interest that is yet to be recognized to $795 million. We do defer the recognition of this carry in our financial statements until the funds are substantially monetized, which will likely take several years.

So I would like to just take a moment to explain how the increase in fee-bearing capital should impact future FFO. The metric that we think best represents this potential is that, that I mentioned earlier, our annualized fee base and target carry. Again, as I mentioned, that now stands at nearly $2 billion. So the annualized fee base consists primarily of the base management fees that we are contractually entitled to earn, based on the fee-bearing capital in place at any point in time, along with incentive distributions and other fees. And based on the total of $114 billion of current fee-bearing capital, the total fee base amounts to nearly $1.2 billion, and has more than tripled over the past five years. Because most of our capital is in either perpetual or 10-year or longer funds, this is a very reliable source of earnings.

The other impact comes from our potential to earn carried interest in our private funds, which represents effectively our share of the investment returns of a fund. As I mentioned a moment ago, we do not record carry as income in our financial statements until the amounts are substantially finalized, which is typically not known until the fund is wound up. Now, this differs from a number of managers who accrue carry in the results on an ongoing basis. So given this lack of comparability and the fact that our fund terms are typically 10 years or longer, as I mentioned, we use what we call target carry to give a sense of the potential.

We currently have $26.3 billion of fund capital that is eligible to earn carried interest. And we estimate that if we achieve the target returns for each fund, we would accrue nearly $800 million of carry each year on a simple straight-line basis. The reality is that the actual returns tend to lag in the first few years of any fund until the capital gets invested and our operating plans get implemented. But we think this metric gives an idea of how we are building up the potential returns in the business. So if you take that $1.2 billion of the annualized fee revenues plus that $800 million of target carry, that is the $2 billion I have been referring to.

So, moving now to our operating businesses -- FFO from our Property Group was $161 million. That's up 33% from the previous year. The increase reflects contributions from new leases on buildings in Lower Manhattan and improving results at our shopping mall portfolio, in addition to earnings from recent acquisitions. We sold a number of properties in the quarter at very strong valuations, which gave rise to that $212 million of realized disposition gains I mentioned earlier.

Our Renewable Power Group produced FFO of $68 million compared to $81 million a year ago. Here we benefited from water levels in North America that were above historic averages. And the inflows in our South American portfolios were higher than last year as well. We also saw contributions from newly acquired assets, such as our hydroelectric facilities in Colombia. These gains, however, were offset in the quarter by the impact of lower prices, particularly on spot market power sales in the US Northeast, which were impacted by the unusually mild weather and low natural gas prices.

The Infrastructure Group contributed FFO of $71 million. That's up 25% for the same period last year. The increase reflects contributions from recently acquired assets, such as our communications infrastructure network in France and our US pipeline business, and our share of a $13 million distribution from our toehold investment in Asciano, an Australian port business. But we also had strong growth across the existing businesses, 11% on a constant-currency same-store basis. In our Private Equity Group we had FFO of $61 million, essentially unchanged from the prior year. A number of our industrial investments in our US residential business picked up nicely. However, we did see lower results from our residential operations in Alberta and Brazil.

Finally, the Board of Directors declared a quarterly dividend of $0.13 per share, payable at the end of June, unchanged from first quarter of this year.

So that sums up our results for the quarter. And I will now turn the call over to Bruce.

Thank you, Brian, and good morning everyone. This morning I thought I would cover four topics, and then Brian or I would be pleased to take questions.

Starting off, I'll briefly highlights our views on the current market environment, then give you a little bit of update on fundraising, picking up on the larger trends from where Brian left off. And I'll also just mention Brookfield Business Partners.

As we all know, the first quarter was marked with volatility in the markets. Stock sold off, largely on concerns of a slowdown in global growth, but then bounced back as those fears seemed to dissipate. It's understandable to get caught up in short-term movements in stock prices. But I guess we continue to emphasize and believe that the way to create long-term wealth is to acquire assets at attractive valuations and run them like we are going to own them forever.

For all the noise you hear right now about the headwinds for stocks, our view is that the markets are pretty good. Not great; but overall, conditions are positive for most companies. Rates remain very low. North American banks have never been in better shape. As a result, liquidity is excellent, with a few exceptions in specific industry. Corporate balance sheets across North America -- again with a few exceptions -- are very strong. And companies are expanding. Certain sectors, of course, such as commodities, are facing challenges, or regions such as Brazil. And that's creating opportunities for value investors.

Turning to fundraising -- as Brian mentioned, against the backdrop of low interest rates and the volatility in stock markets, we believe our real asset strategies have significant appeal, in particular for institutional investors. Property, infrastructure, and private equity are excellent places to commit capital for those investors with long liabilities, such as pension plans and sovereign wealth funds. We spent the last decade building out our global scale in all of our businesses. And it has allowed us to be heading to close $30 billion of capital for our current round of funds.

There has been a great deal of discussion related to capital withdrawals from wealth funds, including those in the Middle East. And is often the case, the story can get obscured by the headline. Sovereign fund assets actually increased in the quarter to approximately $6.5 trillion. And while the pace was slower than recent years, the funds are so large today -- and that's really the most important part of that, is that they're so large that merely compounding capital annually without regard to inflows or outflows is upwards of $300 billion a year added to the funds. As a result, while there are some exceptions, we don't see sovereign funds flowing their investments in real assets any time soon, for various factors. At the moment, we continue to see significant support from all of our groups of investors in North America, Europe, the Middle East, and in particular in Asia, where we've seen increased fundraising over the last year.

Turning to investing -- investing our capital, we continue to find many great opportunities to put money to work. Each opportunity focuses around one or more of our three competitive advantages, which, to reiterate those three are: size of our capital, our global scale, and our operating capabilities. In addition, we've always found that one of the best ways to avoid mistakes in growing a business is to start slow and grow very methodically. That's what's carried us from owning one office building to more than 150; one hydro plant to more than 200 power facilities. And the goal of our management teams is to set growth strategies in each of the businesses and then be relentless about growing those businesses, but only when it makes sense to financially do so. In every business we build, in every country we enter, we've found that the way to make the fewest mistakes is to build incrementally; and we try to never use the word transformation.

Finally, today I'll make a couple of comments on Brookfield Business Partners. We expect the shares with the symbol BBP to be separated from Brookfield and into your hands by the end of the quarter. We believe we have now almost completed all the regulatory requirements to achieve this and should be able to accomplish that timeline. This will be a special dividend to shareholders of Brookfield Asset Management of approximately $500 million, just depending on how the shares trade afterwards, which is approximately $0.50 a share. We would recommend you keep your shares, as we think we will be able to build this business in the longer term with some great businesses in the Company. But if it doesn't fit your profile, you can sell your shares in the market, and therefore you can consider it a special cash dividend this year from the Company.

Post spinoff, Brookfield will still own approximately 75% of BBP. Over time our ownership may be diluted, as BBP issues shares to fund its growth. But for a while, like when we have spun off other entities, we expect to provide financial support to ensure that this Company has the resources to grow. Starting off, BBP will own a portfolio of industrial and services businesses that are currently part of our Private Equity Group. Most of the businesses are leaders in their sectors, such as our construction business, home building, energy, and resources. The portfolio is increasing in size and scale. And as we continue to grow each of the businesses, we'll also look for add-on acquisitions for each and other types of businesses that would be additive to Brookfield Business Partners.

The permanent capital base this Company will have will broaden the spectrum of investment opportunities that we think we'll be able to do in our Private Equity Group. And we believe this should present us with opportunities going forward. We believe BBP will be a very attractive investment and it can be a home for some great companies that we have, and also that we hope to acquire in the future.

Operator, that concludes my remarks. And we'd be now -- I will turn it over to you to take questions, if there are any.

Thank you.

(Operator Instructions)

Cherilyn Radbourne, TD Securities.

Thanks very much, and good morning.

So you are in the later stages of completing a very successful round of fundraising. And I'm curious -- if we were to look at the distribution of your private fund capital by geography and by investor type, how has that evolved versus what it looked like when you raised your second flagship funds?

I'd say, over the years -- and I won't refer to any specific fund -- but over the years our capital originally mostly started in Canada and in the Middle East. And that was because we didn't have track records of funds -- even though we had an investment track record, we did not have track record of funds. So I'd say that we now have a obviously significant track record in the funds that we have for 10 years. And therefore a much more significant amount of our capital comes from US institutional plans than it did in, say, Fund 1.

And probably the second biggest change over the years has been that Asian institutional investors have continued to put money into real assets and into funds and into investments outside of Asia. So those commitments have been growing. Probably both because our name is known and our relationships are better, but also because there is more significant amounts of capital coming from those types of groups today.

Great. And my second question is, you've already invested over 50% of the commitments to your latest property fund, which is remarkable. I wonder if you could just comment on some of the larger transactions that have gone into the fund? And what that pace of investment implies in terms of when you could start fundraising for a successor fund?

Just in general, what we do with a fund is that we start fundraising. And once we have a first close, and sometimes before that, we'll commit to transactions in a fund. And we just did the final close. By the time we had done all the fundraising, we were about probably 35% or 40% invested and we're now approximately 50% invested. When you're at 75% or 80% invested in a fund you can then start fundraising for a successor fund. And what it's meant to do is that there is a continuity of investing as opposed to having a period of time when you don't have capital to invest for institutions. So I suspect by mid-2017 we'll have invested the monies in that fund.

Specifically, two transactions that are in the second real estate fund, I think you will have seen us to do multifamily transaction in the United States, which was a significant transaction that we bought multifamily apartments. We bought a hospitality business in the UK called Center Parcs. We bought seven office buildings in Rio and Sao Paulo. And we bought a self-storage company in the United States recently, as well as a land lease business for a manufactured home communities in the US. So it's a pretty diverse portfolio. On top of that, we always have office and retail developments that we're doing along with our business that go into that fund on a more opportunistic basis. So it's a pretty broad group of investments we've made within the fund.

Thank you. That's my two.

Bert Powell, BMO Capital Markets.

This is Adel Kanso on behalf of Bert Powell.

My first question -- we have seen certain competitors also being active in fundraising to pursue assets that are backboned to the economy. Would you say there are more competitive pressures today on the type of assets that Brookfield is bidding for? Do you see that impacting the yield or return investment moving forward? For example, a CPbIB came for Asciano and now bidding for assets in Peru and other regions?

Yes, and first I'd start off by saying there's always lots of competition in the world for everything, and we have to be good at what we do, and try hard every day to accomplish getting the returns we get. So it's never easy -- point number one. Point number two is, we try to focus on transactions that we have a competitive advantage with. And I guess we try to focus on three things: number one is -- and often people have heard us say this, but it is size of capital. We have more money than most people who invest in transactions, and that just allows us to do things which a lot of others can't do just because the size of the transaction. We bought the Colombian hydro company recently for $5 billion. And there just weren't too many people that could fund $5 billion to do that transaction. So size helps us eliminate ourselves from the crowd, or separate ourselves from the crowd.

The second one is, we're in 30 countries in the world and we have operating people, investment people in all of them. That allows us to move our money into funds which are global, to the places where there is a lack of capital. And that usually helps us get returns and differentiates us from others. And maybe the most important that we see is our operating capabilities, is third. And it allows us to do types of transactions which might be perceived as something that others can't do. But we have a lot of people to be able to work on the transactions afterwards -- or if we make mistakes to work ourselves out of the issues that we have. And so those operating capabilities of 50,000 people we have in the business give us a tremendous advantage.

So I'd say those three things are always what we're focused on, trying to differentiate ourselves in transactions.

Thank you.

And my second question: over the past year, Brookfield has been less active in pursuing opportunities in Canada relative to other countries. Given the current economic backdrop in Canada's resource sector, is Brookfield looking to deploy more capital in Canada in the near term? And are you finding an increasing number of opportunities at attractive valuations? And are those opportunities more so in infrastructure, renewable, or property?

As most people would know, about 10% of our overall business is in investments in Canada. We have very large businesses in Canada. But just given the scale of Company and investments that we have, there's not as many opportunities in Canada as there would be, for example, in the United States. Despite that, I'd say that Canada is a great place to invest. And we always would look to find investments in Canada. But there is a lot of money in Canada looking for investments. Therefore, it is always difficult.

On the other hand, now that the markets are a little bit different for commodity producers, I think there will be more opportunity that will come about, and it could be in all of the four sectors that we operate in. I'd say I'd savor more investments in the next few years than there have been in the last few in Canada.

Okay. That's my two questions. Thank you.

Alex Avery, CIBC.

Thank you.

Bruce, on previous calls you've always talked about Brazil in a pretty favorable light -- have a lot of confidence there. There's been a new chapter in that saga yesterday with the suspension of the President. Can you give us a sense of whether that's part of your expectations, or if anything has changed there? And also a sense of, if you've seen a change in recent months in terms of competitions for assets in Brazil?

I'll try to answer your question. I'm not sure where to start. I would say, firstly, that it's been a tough market in Brazil over the last couple of years. The economy is under severe stress. And on top of that, all of the political upheaval has been difficult for business in the country. So it's been tough. And interest rates are high and foreign investments low as the country have been low. So it's been a tough market.

Despite that, I'd say we still believe that it is a great long-term country to invest in. It has an enormous resource backing, a big middle-class population. It has, and has proven over the last while, to have a judiciary that's separate from the government. And those are all good things that will adhere to the long-term value proposition in the country.

As a result of that, we've been putting significant amounts of money into Brazil and will continue to do so. And you will not see a quick turn in Brazil. But we think it's probably bottomed and is getting better in a number of the businesses -- in particular any business related to exports in the country. And the country's currency came off and the export businesses are doing very well. And we've seen that in the numbers of a number of our businesses in the country.

Despite all that, it's not going to turn quickly. But on the other hand, the opportunities to invest capital are very attractive. And they either fit in two categories -- there are opportunities which would never become available before, but are now available. Or second, at values which you would have never had before. Or a combination of the both. So we think it's a good market. But we will continue to be prudent with how much capital, in relation to how much we deploy, putting into the country.

Okay. And then just secondly on China. You've been studying that market and investing on a selective basis for a little while. There is a lot of capital coming out of China currently. And just wondering, how you think about China? Do you see medium-term target in terms of percentage of assets that you might want to put into that market?

We continue to selectively invest into China, and we will. And when we find the right opportunities, we'll put money in. We never set targets as to how much money we should have in any area. We're more opportunistic than that. And therefore we really don't have any goals. I'd say over the next 10 years, odds favor we'll have more capital invested in China, but we don't have any target as to how much it would be.

The one thing that we are seeing is very significant amounts of capital being invested from China to other more developed markets. And again, the story gets confused because most people interpret that, that's people taking money out of China and wanting to have it out of China. And that's possible -- some of the money is that. But a lot of it is that the institutions in the country have been encouraged to invest outside of the country. And they are starting to go from -- they initially were 0% outside the country, for example, in the insurance companies; then it was 3%, now they're allowed 15% foreign investments.

So a lot of it is just them, like North American institutions, which used to have prohibitions on that they could only invest in their own country -- for example, Canada institutions could only invest in the country -- now they are, I think, totally unrestricted. They can invest 100% outside the country. China now has gone from 0% to 15%. You may never see it at 100%, but that will continue to increase over time. And the size of the amounts of money is very significant in these institutions. So I think we will see that for the next 25 years until the life insurance market starts to pay out as opposed to monies coming in and sovereign wealth funds are needed elsewhere.

Okay, that's great. Thank you.

Andrew Kuske, Credit Suisse.

Thank you. Good morning.

You have a pretty unique business model when we compare it to a lot of the other alternative asset managers, because you've the public LPs and then obviously the private capital side of things. And so, as your private business continues to gain fundraising momentum, which you've clearly demonstrated more recently, how do you think about the pace of growth of the public LPs compared to that private business?

I guess I would just say that we set those entities up to own the assets that we had on the balance sheets at the time, and to fund our portion of the growth in the LPs going forward. And we can dial up and down the commitment we make to the private funds based on the capital that they have available. And we can also recirculate assets on the balance sheet. And all of the entities -- with the exception of BBP that isn't in existence yet -- but the three entities that we have are all self-sustaining entities. So they can recirculate capital on their own balance sheets to make commitments to anything that we do. And if we need to go from 40% commitment to 25% because that is in their own capital needs or sources, we can do that on the next fund.

So we have the flexibility to be able to grow those entities in the fashion we need to, with really a goal of their sole objective is to earn a decent return on capital and pay a relatively high FFO payout to their LP investors. So we continue to do that. And I think they are well situated to be able to help us with everything we're doing.

Okay, that's very helpful.

And maybe a bit more nitpicky question as it relates to the relationships between BAM and one of the LPs: just on the power marketing business that's still held within BAM -- and obviously it's part of the counterparty relationship with BREP -- is BREP at the size now where that business would really make sense to be at REP as opposed to sitting on BAM's balance sheet; and just being -- obviously in the current market environment being a bit of a loss-maker, minor, but still a bit of a loss maker?

Yes, I would just say we set it up originally the way it was set up because we wanted to ensure that the BREP as an LP had a stable source of income, and we believe long term in the power markets. I think, given that the power prices have been low on the marginal power that we sell without contracts, and therefore we're taking losses on that right now, it's probably not the time you would ever consider that. But what we probably will do longer-term is put a lot of long -- put the rest of the power into long-term contracts. And then it's possible we could just assign those contracts down to the Company and get off that trading business.

So it's possible we do that in the future. We don't have any intention of doing anything today. And we have to make sure that all the shareholders of BREP want it and it was the right thing for them to do. So we're -- I guess we're open to it in the future. But I want to make sure it is right for everyone.

Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you.

(Operator Instructions)

Mario Saric, Scotiabank.

Thank you, and good morning.

Bruce, I wanted to come back to the discussion on Asia. Clearly, going from 10% of the LP base to 33% over time is pretty material. I think, as Alex mentioned earlier on, your committed capital to the region historically hasn't been overly material, while it's growing. And then only now are LP investors expanding outside of Asia. You mentioned brand recognition as being important. Just curious if you can elaborate, or go through how you think you've achieved that brand recognition in Asia, and where it might go going forward?

I would just say our brand recognition still has a long way to go in Asia, because we don't know that many people. It is a lot more than it was 10 years ago, and a lot more than it was 5 years ago. The second thing I would say is, we have relationships with most of the large institutional clients in the region. And as we bring them one fund, we then have brand recognition to keep coming back to them the second, third, and fourth time. So that builds on itself.

And I'd say we're working on a lot of the institutions there. And what's happening is, both the pie is widening -- meaning they're used to be 10 large insurance companies in China and there will eventually be 35 or 50 of them, and therefore you'll just have more entities to talk to. But secondly, the sums of money that they have to deploy are growing dramatically, both in the sovereign plans in each of the countries. But, for example, in the insurance plans -- because the insurance plans in Asia, and particular in China, have a very -- they did not used to have insurance. So they have a very young population who are starting to put money into insurance plans. And they're not paying out yet. So they need money to invest for the next 30 years and start paying out 30 years from now. So we have a big effort on continuing to build that bar of resources there. On the investment side, that's a separate item, but in particular on the fundraising side.

Got it, okay.

And then my second question is just with respect to capital deployment risk. We've touched on some of the topics already. Clearly, you've been very successful in ramping up the fundraising business. Your flagship funds are getting twice the amount of capital that the predecessor fund has received. But along with that comes having to deploy $25 billion as opposed to $12.5 billion. Clearly, you have a competitive advantage in terms of size and global scale. But internally how do you think about the risk on deploying $25 billion versus $12 billion at acceptable returns?

I would make the comment -- and this is all dangerous to say -- but I would say that, as the Company has gotten bigger, we've built out the systems and the risk management within the organization. And we think it's easier today to deploy larger amounts of capital than it was before on smaller amounts of capital. And it's just the competition's smaller. When the competition is smaller you can do things which you otherwise wouldn't be able to do when you're competing in a transaction with 35 people bidding for something. And so I'd say we don't really see any issues in deploying larger amounts of money. In fact, I could probably make the opposite argument to you.

Okay. Thank you.

This concludes the question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Andrew Willis for closing remarks.

Well, thank you for being part of the Q1 call. And we look forward to updating you at our Annual Meeting in June and after the next quarter. Thank you.

This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating, and have a pleasant day.