Delek US Holdings Inc (DK) 2020 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good morning, and welcome to the Delek US Holdings Second Quarter 2020 Financial Results. (Operator Instructions) Please note, this event is being recorded.

I would now like to turn the conference over to Blake Fernandez, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Good morning. I would like to thank everyone for joining us on today's conference call and webcast to discuss Delek US Holdings' Second Quarter 2020 Financial Results. Joining me on today's call is Uzi Yemin, our Chairman, President and CEO; Reuven Spiegel, EVP and CFO; and Louis Labella, EVP & President of Refining; as well as other members of our management team. The presentation materials used during today's call can be found on the Investor Relations section of the Delek US website.

As a reminder, this conference call may contain forward-looking statements as that term is defined under federal securities laws. Please see Slide 2 for the safe harbor statement. In addition to reporting financial results in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or GAAP, we report certain non-GAAP financial results. Investors are encouraged to review the reconciliation of these non-GAAP financial measures to comparable GAAP results, which can be found in the press release, which is posted on the Investor Relations segment of the website. Our prepared remarks are being made assuming that the earnings press release has been reviewed, and we're covering less segment and market information than incorporated into the second quarter release.

On today's call, Reuven will review financial performance; I will cover capitalization, liquidity and guidance; Louis will cover operations and CapEx; and then Uzi will offer a few closing strategic comments.

With that, I will turn the call over to Reuven.

Thank you, Blake. On an adjusted basis, for the second quarter of 2020, Delek US reported a net loss of $111 million or $1.50 per share compared to net income of $98 million or $1.27 per diluted share in the prior year period. Our adjusted EBITDA loss was $85 million in the second quarter of 2020 compared to a $211 million income in the prior year period. Adjusted results include $75 million of after-tax headwinds or $1.02 per share. This is comprised of an after-tax other inventory and purchase product loss of $92 million, realized hedging losses of $104 million after tax, partially offset by a fixed price crude benefit at our Tyler Refinery of $85 million after tax. Lastly, adjusted results reflect a reversal of the $36 million tax headwind disclosed in the first quarter of 2020. I would point out that the other inventory and purchase products mentioned are separate from the LCM inventory impacts that are already excluded from adjusted results.

On Slide 4, we provide the cash flow waterfall. In the second quarter of 2020, we had negative cash flow of approximately $169 million from continuing operations, which include working capital detriment of $363 million. Within working capital is $130 million of income tax credit, where we expect to receive the cash in the first part of 2021. Finally, cash capital expenditure in the quarter were $15 million.

With that, I will turn it over to Blake.

Thanks, Reuven. Before discussing the balance sheet, I would like to highlight some additional disclosure in the press release this quarter. Details of other inventory and purchase product impacts are highlighted within the verbiage of each business segment and broken down by refinery within the refining segment. Page 10 outlines the details of both realized and unrealized hedging by segment. Finally, I would like to point out that the Gulf Coast 5-3-2 benchmark illustrated on Page 13 has been changed from our high sulfur diesel to ultra-low sulfur diesel for the distillate component of the equation. This benchmark better aligns with our product yields and sales. Hopefully, this increased transparency will provide better visibility into the underlying performance of the business.

With that, we'll move to Slide 5, which highlights our capitalization. We ended the second quarter with $849 million of cash on a consolidated basis and $1.6 billion of net long-term debt. Excluding debt at Delek Logistics of $979 million, we had net long-term debt of approximately $627 million at June 30. Moving to Slide 6, we provide third quarter guidance for modeling. We remain confident that we will meet or exceed the full year guidance provided on last quarter's conference call for $100 million in operating and overhead cost reductions.

With that, I will now turn the call over to Louis to discuss our operations and CapEx.

Thanks, Blake. During the second quarter, our total refining system crude oil throughput was approximately 266,000 barrels per day. Our niche market locations continue to support running at higher utilization rates versus the industry. In the third quarter of 2020, we expect crude oil throughput to average between 230,000 to 250,000 barrels per day or approximately 80% utilization at the midpoint.

On Slide 7, I want to highlight our capital spending. Capital expenditures during the second quarter were $15 million. We remain confident we will hit our full year 2020 capital guidance of approximately $250 million. Recall, CapEx excludes the JV investments like Red River as well as the Wink to Webster connector where financing will be provided by the joint venture. The 2020 capital program is broken down by segment, as outlined in the slide. I would point out that roughly 81% of the full year capital program was completed in the first half, leaving minimum outlay for the balance of the year. Next, I will turn the call over to Uzi for closing comments.

Thank you, Louis, and good morning, everybody. Our strategic transition toward a business model with more stability and predictability is well underway. Our midstream investments are coming to fruition and should lead to progressively improving performance over the coming quarters. Our diversified portfolio continues to provide the resilience during this period of weak refining margins with the logistics and retail segment generating a contribution margin above $80 million collectively.

The outlook for these businesses remains robust despite macro volatility and strong logistics performance supports our 71% ownership in DKL. Delek has a long history of being nimble, and we remain agile in terms of managing our costs and capital spending to manage the prevailing macro environment. We're committed to maintaining a strong balance sheet with ample liquidity and are well positioned to withstand macro volatility. We're maintaining our quarterly dividend payment of $0.31 per share.

With that, operator, can you please open the call for questions.

(Operator Instructions) Our first question today comes from Neil Mehta with Goldman Sachs.

Maybe, I guess, the first question would be your perspective on M&A. Recognizing there's a lot that you can't say here. CVI made some comments on their call yesterday. But your thoughts on consolidation in the industry, whether there's a need for it and whether you see Delek playing a role in it?

Well Neil. First, if the industry is ripe for consolidation, I think we're approaching that point. I don't know that we are there yet. But I think that we're approaching that point, especially in light of some assets closures, if you will, that several people or many people understand that there should be some differences, if you will, in the marketplace. So I think we're approaching that point. In regard to Delek playing a role in it, all along, in times like that, we need to keep our eyes open for the opportunities that exists in the marketplace. And so that's -- for us, something that the reason we maintain this strong balance sheet. And also, we feel good with the fact that the 2 other segments that we have, both retail and midstream are performing well. That allows us to feel strong about ourselves.

No. I appreciate that. I guess the follow-up is just on working capital in the quarter. It was a big number. There is a tax -- deferred tax item, I think, embedded in that. Can you just talk a little bit about working capital, how it reverses? And then talk about the tax as well? And how we should be modeling that?

This is Reuven. The number of working capital of negative $363 million is comprised of 3 major: number one is a $200 million noncash LCM reversal; the other one is $130 million increase in tax receivable, which we expect to get in the first half of 2021. But I'll pause that for a second -- I'll pause here for a second. In the first quarter, we had $60 million of tax receivable. The $130 million is the change in the second quarter, which makes the total $190 million. Of the $190 million, $160 million is federal tax and $30 million is various state taxes that we expect to get in the first half of 2021. And in addition to that, there is a $36 million increase in inventory for SPR.

Our next question comes from Benny Wong with Morgan Stanley.

Hello, can you hear me?

Well go -- we can hear you now, Benny. Go ahead.

Sorry about that, having some issues here. I just wanted to get your update on the midstream business and your outlook there. I know you and your team has been really focused on growing that business. But just curious in terms of, again, your updated views on what the business environment might look like coming out of this downturn? And is there anything new we need to think about as you guys move towards your targeted EBITDA growth there?

Well first, we said all along over the last 24 months that we want to create more stability to Delek US earnings power. And we provided, I think, we demonstrated that this quarter with midstream being around $65 million EBITDA. We did say that the outlook continues to be positive and we expect to improve that number over the next few quarters. And then, obviously, we have the Wink to Webster idea that sits right now at Delek US. We have several avenues now with several agreements that we can take there from different points. We will have the ability to do -- to take that from Midland or Cushing all the way to the Gulf. So we continue to look at that strategically, and we continue to think that we need to provide more stability to our earnings power. So for us, and we said that all along, $400 million EBITDA over the next 3 years, is our target. We've set $370 to $390 million. I think it would be a pleasant surprise, we think about $400 million. We don't see any reason why we won't be on track to achieve that.

Okay. I appreciate those thoughts, Uzi. Second question is around your retail business. You had a pretty strong quarter in terms of margins and merchandise sales. Just wanted to get a sense of the factors you're seeing driving that. How does that compare to July? And do you expect those trends to kind of continue into the third quarter?

We did see double-digit in the quarter. July is -- I'm going by memory, I think it's like 9% same-store sales. We mentioned that in the past, several components, first, the fact that people sit at home and they go out, so they go in and out to convenience stores. I'm sure you heard it from our peers. Second, in our areas, the big boxes don't operate anymore 24 hours. So after hours, business is picking up or picked up -- has picked up. And the third component is people really don't want to stand in line outside big boxes. So they prefer to do their shoppings, at least in our areas, in and out. So these are the 3 reasons.

Great. And do you see these trends still persisting? Or do you think it's just more of an isolated event that would change as we kind of get past this COVID whatever the time frame would be?

We are in unusual times. It's hard to predict. Do I think that we can sustain towards 13% over same-store sales, probably not. But I think people are changing their behaviors a little bit. So I expect over the next 2, 3 years to have strong merchandise sales in the stores. Again it's hard to predict, but if I need to guess.

Our next question comes from Manav Gupta with Crédit Suisse.

Uzi, so back in '16, you had a good retail business, making $60 million, $65 million in EBITDA. In comes COPEC, offers you 9x, you take it and you sell it. The multiples today are much higher. I'm just trying to understand, can history repeat itself? You don't need the cash. Last time you needed it to close Alon, but the multiples are higher than they were even last time and you've built this business out. So is there a possibility history repeats itself there?

We're looking at that business always or every business. We are focusing now on continue to build the business more, but we're always open to a discussion around multiples. And we're very proud, Manav. I think I mentioned that to you with the fact that between retail and midstream, we are approaching $82 million, $83 million EBITDA for the quarter. So these are higher multiple businesses. You see it in the DKL performance. And if an opportunity to get high multiple comps, then we will look at it very carefully.

Great. And, Uzi, a quick follow-up. A lot of progress was being made on Krotz. In fact, I think last quarter Krotz was your best-performing asset. This quarter, it's gone a little other way. I'm just trying to understand, was it all onetimes? Like Krotz was doing really well until this quarter. So if you could tell us what happened with Krotz this particular quarter?

Manav, it's Avigal. So there are 2 elements, those numbers. First, offset between physical loss and contribution gain that we called out in the reconciliation. I think you got the answer from Blake on that. And the second, Krotz sales are based upon bulk and we have seen higher value in Q1 and some small gap in Q2. So that explains the offset that you see.

Our next question comes from Ryan Todd with Simmons Energy.

As maybe I start out one on strategy. As your business model continues to transition towards more stable cash flow, can you talk about priorities for the use of that cash? In particular, how we should think about the dividend, sustaining the dividend in the near-term and longer term growth?

That's a great question. First, it is correct. We want to create more stability around our earnings. In the past, we used to be known based on differentials. And I think that what we're trying to do is to continue to increase that stability. Speaking about the dividend, we got a lot of questions about the dividend during the quarter. Obviously, what -- the reason we chose to continue with the dividend is that the outlook for both midstream as well as retail is very bright and -- or bright. And we didn't see a reason to punish our shareholders over weakness in the refining. Now obviously, if the weakness in refining continues, then we will look at that. Especially in light of, like you just said, other opportunities that exists in the marketplace.

Okay. So I guess if this weakness -- the weak operating environment were to persist, then there could potentially be a change in dividend policy? Is that...

That's something that we look at it every quarter. So I don't know that we necessarily need to make a decision now or making enough that we don't have a decision. We do need to look at it every quarter. We look at dividend as something that is -- versus buyback something that is much more long term. And as Reuven said, we have $850 million on the balance sheet plus the tax credit of, call it, $130 million. So that's something that we will look at it every quarter.

Okay. Maybe if I could follow-up with one on the current environment utilization. I mean, with cracks that are still relatively soft. And capture trends -- as we think about capture trends in the third quarter, we still have relatively narrow differentials, and the contangos, not what it was during the second quarter. Can you help us frame the relative competitiveness of operating in third quarter versus 2Q? And what that could mean for your utilization rates in the second half, given you were pretty strong in the second quarter?

Ryan, this is Louis. So yes, Ryan, you said it. So the Midland differential, it does not exist. So we're anticipating 80% utilization in Q3 mainly to keep up pace with demand in our local markets. And also, we want to make sure we focus on not building any inventory, right? So we want to stay competitive with that.

And Ryan, this is Blake. I'll chime in. On the capture side of things, there's not a lot of things that are going to change quarter-to-quarter necessarily. As you know, in the prevailing environment, it's a low-margin environment, it makes it a little difficult on capture because you have some fixed cost components. So as a percentage, that hurts you. But the one uplift we should get going into next quarter is Krotz. Avigal already mentioned the impact of bulk versus ratable sales, but we are restarting the FCC unit there. So you should see an improvement in gasoline yield. And so in theory, you should see a little bit of uplift in capture at Krotz, which potentially could serve as a little bit of a buffer for any compression in contango and Midland. So hopefully, that helps.

Our next question comes from Phil Gresh with JPMorgan.

Just want to follow-up on Ryan's question just around the third quarter and the lower utilization comment that you made. Is it just spread out across the refineries or any area in particular were to be lower? And then just with the OpEx guide that looks sequentially higher, I'm just trying to understand what drove it down so much in the second quarter? And just as you think about the sustainability of the cost savings that you've outlined, where do we stand with that?

So 2 different questions, Phil. The first one around utilization. For the most part, we are running Big Spring full and the rest based on the economic situation and the LP. But you can assume, from a modeling standpoint, that Big Spring is running full. In regard to OpEx, I'm sure Blake would love to take that call -- that question.

Yes, so at the end of the day, we're going to stick with our $100 million reduction in OpEx and G&A year-over-year. If you -- we obviously have 2 quarters in the bag, and we have guidance for 3Q. So if you take the midpoint of guidance for 3Q and you extrapolate that to 4Q, you can see that we're well on our way. Theoretically, it could almost be $125 million, but we're not going to change guidance. We want to be conservative. So I think the main messaging on the full year basis is we're delivering on what we said, and we feel very comfortable we're going to meet that. To your question specifically on 2Q and the ramp-up to 3Q, there's a couple of different components in there. One is just some deferral of maintenance activity from 2Q that's going to restart into 3Q. There is the restart of the FCC unit that I mentioned across, so there's some costs around that. And then there's a couple of renewables plants that are coming back online. So we do have some incremental costs. But like I say, even at the 3Q level extrapolated to 4Q, we're going to exceed the cost guidance on a full year basis.

Okay. Got it. Second question is just another capital allocation one. As we look at 2021, perhaps it's a little bit early, but just any initial thoughts on potential capital spending levels next year? And Uzi, you had mentioned at our conference, not too long ago, you were talking about renewable diesel as a potential investment opportunities. So I just thought I would see any latest thoughts you have on that.

Okay. So these are 2 different questions. It depends on the macro-environment. If the macro-environment stays the way it is, we'll trim it down. If it -- for next year, I mean. If we -- if things will improve, and honestly, we don't believe that this year, they will improve dramatically from where they are now. But next year, there's a chance that they'll improve, then we'll open it up.

In regard to renewable diesel, we mentioned that in the past, we cannot talk about unfortunately because of some disclosure issues we have with our partners. But we do have an option to buy 1/3 of renewable diesel that another company builds now as part of our Bakersfield deal. That is an option for nominal amount and I'll leave it to that. As we work our disclosure issues with our partners, we'll be happy to provide you for more details. But we do have an option to buy into -- for a nominal amount into a renewable diesel plant in California.

Okay. Just on your '21 CapEx, I mean, can you give us an order of magnitude of the flexibility you would have year-over-year, if the environment continue to be challenged?

We can swing, no problem, between $75 million to $125 million.

Our next question comes from Brad Heffern with RBC Capital Markets.

I'll start off just on DKL. So obviously, the units have come back almost all the way from the trough. So I'm wondering if that sort of reiterates your commitment to that as a sort of separate vehicle? Or whether you still think that the performance there needs to improve sort of for a tab value for DK?

That's a great question. The units have performed very well, but still, the yield is pretty high. Our cost of capital is below 12%, so while MLPs in general were out of favor, like any other vehicle with the energy sector, we performed pretty good. It's funny though that we increased our EBITDA almost 5x and the units are around where they were 5 years ago. So that's something that we'll need to look at it carefully in the future. I do believe that eventually, something needs to give. And not all MLPs need to be traded at 12x or 14x or 16x yield. And when the time comes, then we need to look at it strategically. It is something that we are very proud that DKL has performed as well as it did.

Okay. Great. And I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on the Gallup closure. I know it's obviously pretty far to the west, but does it have any impact on the product or crude sourcing side of the business for Big Spring?

Well first, the closure itself, you probably need to ask Marathon. Does it have an impact on us in the Big Spring area? Well we sell, as you know, products to New Mexico out of Big Spring. So that helps. We are in an environment, as you know, of utilization around between 75% and 80%. That's not something that is a surprise to anybody. So closure of a small refinery like this in today's market doesn't mean much. But in the future, and certainly, I think that there should be other closures. They add up and when market comes back, we will see the impact.

Our next question comes from Theresa Chen with Barclays.

I guess my first question, as a follow-up to Brad's question on the Gallup closure, Uzi, I'd like to pick your brain about the macro-environment as we are firmly in the second half. How do you see refining economics evolving from here in terms of getting cracks and margins better, getting back into the right inventory range. Is it a question of additional closures or tweaking utilization further across the industry? What are your thoughts here?

Well first, Theresa, these are really good questions, but I'm not sure we have the answer completely. I'm just going by the history. If we look at what happened in 2008, it was a combination. Now the magnitude of 2008 wasn't anywhere close to what we see here. I think that there should be -- we think there should be more closures of refineries. I think that if people -- everybody came into this down cycle with a lot of cash. So it will take a little more time as people realize that there should be more closures. I think that right now, we're talking about, so far, 5 refineries that were shut either permanently or are not operating. I think that there should be probably a few more that will be shut. And at the same time, demand should come back. Now do I expect this to happen over the next 3 months? Probably, not. I think that we were in this environment for a little bit, maybe 2, 3 quarters and that's something that we all need to be disciplined as an industry to handle.

Got it. And then in terms of your long-term strategy to high-grade your earnings and provide more cash flow stability by transitioning incrementally to midstream. So currently, your projects are primarily from a supply push perspective. And many midstream operators as well as refining competitors have given commentary shying away from that, just given the volatility upstream. As you go forward and develop further projects down the line, are you still looking at a primarily supply push strategy? Or are you focused more on demand pull side of things?

Well obviously, many things changed over the last 6 months. So we -- while we continue to be committed and we should be committed to more stability in our earnings and not to be the proxy for the Midland differential. At the same time, we need to be mindful to the changing market. So I don't know that I can articulate now a long-term strategy. That's what we are doing right now. We are committed to long term stability. At the same time, want to make sure that when the market comes back and the market will come back. I've been here long enough to see it every time when it's such doom and gloom, all of a sudden, something happens. So when the market comes up, we're here to capture that. I don't know that I can articulate, in this call, long-term strategy especially in light of the change in the market vis-à-vis the questions you asked.

Okay. And then maybe just one quick housekeeping one for me. So on the Krotz asset, the quarter-over-quarter uptick in the other products to almost 19,000 barrels per day, was that just related to building intermediates as you turned down some of the downstream units? Just any color on what is going on there and how should that trend going forward?

Why don't we do this, Theresa. Instead of us trying to answer it on the fly, Blake will take it off-line with you. And obviously, if it's important to everybody, we'll publish it.

I'll follow-up with you, Theresa.

Our next question comes from Doug Leggate with Bank of America.

This is Kalei on for Doug. I guess my first question is really on your cash balance. It's still very strong here. I'm wondering if there's any plans to deploy that strategically? Or should we think about that as insurance for the duration of this pandemic?

Kalei, that's a good question. We always said that between $800 million and $1 billion, there were -- this is where we are comfortable. We don't know how long this trend will last. We have been into it now, what, 5 months. So I don't know that we necessarily feel that we are -- we have too much cash. At the same time, if opportunities show themselves, then there's no reason to believe that we won't act.

Okay. For my follow-up question, I just want to get your updated thoughts on the crude differential structure, given that U.S. producers seem to be acting a little bit more disciplined. And obviously, there is a supply shock because of the pandemic. What's the view on Midland Cushing going forward?

I think for the next year or 2, it will stay around 0. And Brent-TI, it's now $3, I think, it will probably widen a little bit maybe to $3.50 to $4, but nothing much here.

And for my last question, I just want to ask about the retail business. So Delek has a strong record of managing this business, why not step in into it a little bit more aggressively? It seems like the store count is down from when you guys took it on from Alon.

It is, but just remember that we are building megastores. So when we divest 10 stores, we build a store that makes 10 times that volume. So we are trying to modernize our stores, and it shows in the earnings and probably will continue to show in the earnings that these NTI's new stores are performing very well for us.

And why not accelerate its growth?

That's something that we're looking at very carefully. We need to balance between retail, midstream, returning cash to our shareholders. These are all the things that we try to do.

Our next question comes from Matthew Blair with Tudor, Pickering, Holt.

Uzi, could you talk about the contribution from asphalt in Q2? Was that a bright spot with lower crude prices?

Matthew, yes, I don't have any hard numbers to give you, but what I would just tell you is the stickiness in those margins, and a lot of that is sold on a contracted basis. So when you see a collapse in crude prices, you do tend to see a nice uptick in the margin for asphalt. At the end of the day, the bulk of our exposure there is El Dorado, and I think to a certain extent, Big Spring as well. So it was definitely additive to the overall picture.

Sounds good. And then, Uzi, you mentioned a few times you expect more refinery closures. How are you thinking about the competitiveness of Krotz in El Dorado just given this low demand environment? Are you pretty confident those refineries will stay up? Or is that something that you're looking at right now?

That's a wonderful question. First of all, I'm sure that Big Spring and Tyler are doing good. Now you asked a great question about both El Dorado and Krotz, so let me take them one by one here. El Dorado, we invested a lot of money in that refinery. It's now very reliable. We just need to remember that El Dorado will get some of -- around 20% of this production from -- or 20% of its crude from local production, which we buy it at a deep discount. If we can get these producers to produce a little more, which we're trying to do, then El Dorado will be as competitive as Big Spring. We just need to work on it a little more. And I think we have a plan, and don't be surprised if we'll execute on that plan over the next few quarters, especially in light of crude coming up above $40. That's one thing.

Second, in Krotz. In Krotz, we have a project that we're not ready to disclose just yet. It's not a lot of money, we're looking at something over there that can increase the competitiveness of the refinery. We just need to remember that all these 4 refineries are light sweet refineries. And they all got hurt during this time when producers stopped producing. But now as they come back, if we assume that what comes out of the -- what comes into the market is light sweet barrel then these refineries will be competitive. Do I think that any of them is a candidate for closure at this point? I don't think so.

Our next question comes from Jason Gabelman with Cowen.

I had 2 questions. First, on the Red River expansion project, I believe that started off now, and I know there's some logistics EBITDA that you get from that expansion. But I think in the past, you had discussed potential for also some commercial earnings from that expansion with a wider Cushing Midland differential. Given that the Cushing Midland differential has come in, is there still earnings potential from that expansion above whatever the fixed fees are in that pipeline? And I have a follow-up.

Jason, it's Avigal. So as you all know, the business model of refineries rely on optionality and flexibility. And over the time, Red River optionality and flexibility to get -- to source more cushion will pull itself into the capture rate in the refining. We do not need to measure that over the Midland Cushing differential as we see now, but over time, it will present a very nice capture rate within refineries.

Okay. Got it. And then the second question, you've mentioned M&A opportunities a few times. I'm just wondering within the 3 business segments that you operate in, where do you see opportunities or where are you most eager to expand between refining, midstream and retail, if at all? And specific to refining, are there specific regions that you think are most opportunistic for you guys?

Jason, that's a good question, but it depends on -- if you are a buyer or a seller. And M&A opportunity exist in all these 3 segments, we just need to make sure that we create enough value for our shareholders, and I'll leave it to that.

This concludes our question-and-answer session. And then I would like to turn the call back over to management for any closing remarks.

Well I appreciate everybody's good questions this morning. Appreciate our management and executives around the table with me here. I think everybody is doing a great job in these times. I'd like to thank you, investors and analysts, for your interest in our company. I'd like to thank the Board of Directors for their trust in us. And mostly, I'd like to thank each one of the employees that during this time stayed safe and healthy and made this company what it is. Have a great day, stay safe. Thank you.

The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.