Further Thoughts On Issues Raised By Energy Transfer Partners Holdco Transaction

ETE: Energy Transfer Equity  Energy Transfer Equity logo
ETE
Energy Transfer Equity Energy Transfer Equity

Submitted by Ron Hiram of Wise Analysis using our Trefis Contributors tool

The structure and series of transactions undertaken are complicated and I did not catch an error with respect to an acquisition’s purchase price prior to publishing my prior article on this topic. In addition to bringing up the issue that management has not explained the price being paid by ETP for 60% of Holdco, my intent was to elicit help from readers who can shed light on the appropriateness of the price. Based on reader comments, the prior article may have come across as too judgmental. For that and for the errors made I apologize.

My revised analysis regarding ETP Holdco Corp. (“Holdco”), the entity formed by ETP and its general partner, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (ETE), in 2012 to own the equity interests in Southern Union Company (“SUG”) and Sunoco, Inc. is set forth below. I would welcome corrections provided by readers.

Relevant Articles
  1. Beating S&P500 BY 11% YTD, What To Expect From Travelers Stock?
  2. Up 50% Over The Last 12 Months, Is Hyatt Stock Still Attractive?
  3. Capital One Stock Gained 44% In The Last 6 Months, What’s Next?
  4. Up 8% Year To Date As 5G Gains Traction, What’s Next For Verizon Stock?
  5. Up 32% In The Last 12 Months, Where Is BNY Mellon Stock Headed?
  6. Rallying 30% YTD, What’s Spurring The Rally In Applied Materials’ Stock?

Energy Transfer Partners L.P. (ETP) paid $5.3 billion for Sunoco Inc. Sunoco’s interests in Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P. (“SXL”) plus $2 billion in cash were carved out and retained by ETP and were thus not transferred to Holdco. However, in place of the carved-out assets ETP contributed 90,706,000 of its Class F units to Holdco. The Class F Units are entitled to 35% of the quarterly cash distribution generated by ETP and its subsidiaries other than Holdco, subject to a maximum cash distribution of $3.75 per Class F unit. Once ETP assumes full ownership of Holdco it will own its own Class F units and can effectively cancel them. At the end of the day, ETP will have paid $5.3 billion for Sunoco and, after it assumes full ownership of Holdco, will end up with 100% of the Sunoco assets (or the benefits from them). I therefore see no related-party transfer price issue with respect to Sunoco.

ETE paid $5.4 billion for SUG. It sold a portion of the SUG assets (the Citrus dropdown) to ETP for $2 billion and will be paid a further $3.75 billion by ETP for the remainder of the assets once ETP assumes full ownership of Holdco. ETP, for its part, will have paid $5.75 billion for SUG, a small total consideration delta when compared to the. $5.4 billion paid by ETE.

As far as I can tell, Holdco retains the benefit of all SUG asset dispositions (e.g., the economic value of the Philadelphia refinery business) that was contributed out of SUG into a joint venture with the Carlyle Group, the sale of SUG assets to Laclede Group for $1.035 billion, the SUG assets sold to Regency Energy Partners L.P. (RGP). Therefore the benefit of these transactions will accrue to ETP and do not impact the total consideration delta.

At ETP’s current distribution rate of $0.89375 per quarter, I calculate ETE’s IDR to be $0.52 per unit. The number of ETP units to be issued is ~48 million ($2.35 billion at an assumed price of ~$49 per unit). The value of the IDRs forgone by ETE is roughly $25 million per quarter. ETE is waiving 12 full quarters (8 at 100% and 8 at 50%). Even if we ignore time value of money, this amounts to only ~$300 million, a figure that can explain the total consideration delta.

I hope, but am not certain, that I understand the price being paid by ETP. It would be helpful to see an explanation forthcoming from management. My conclusion remains – preference for ETE over ETP.