by winston » Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:04 am
The management of Ezra Holdings Limited (Ezra) would like to respond to the following points in the aboveâ€mentioned report.
• Poor Earnings Guidance
Ezra has always prided itself in open communications with our investors. A quick check with a couple of analysts showed that they are comfortable with the guidance given by management. We have both inâ€house and external investor relations contacts who respond as quickly as they can to all investor queries.
Ezra has won several awards in the past for good corporate transparency and investor relations practices and continues to keep an open communications channel with the investing community.
• Charter Hire Rate
As Ezra owns and operates a fleet of offshore support vessels with differing capabilities ranging from 4,200 bhp to 18,000 bhp, management usually guides on a blended daily average rate. Management felt that this would serve as a helpful ‘earnings’ guide as there are no published average charter rates for AHTS and AHT operating outside of the North Sea.
Our latest US$104 million worth of term contracts with charter periods ranging from 1 to 7 years, announced on 20 October 2008, are 10â€15% higher on average, which is in line with the industry norm.
Rates for specific vessels depend on several factors, including nature of job, urgency of the hire, location, duration, size and level of equipment required. It is therefore incorrect for the analyst from Citi Investment Research to compare our blended
average rate with the charter hire rate of a specific vessel in his recent report on Ezra.
• Exceptional Items
Ezra’s management has consistently provided a detailed breakdown of our exceptional items, and the FY08 results announcement was no exception. We have also been upfront on the reasons for these items. It is therefore regrettable that this sort of detailed disclosure should have created even more anxiety only to this analyst.
For FY08, there are only six detailed breakdowns to our exceptional items which, we believe, cannot be described as a ‘long list’ as referred to in the report. We would also like to clarify that the provision for foreseeable losses of US$3.1 million and the loss on the disposal of vessels held for sale of US$2.8 million is not because of a passed on cost inflation at the yards as written in the aboveâ€mentioned report. As we explained earlier, it is largely due to the negative currency impact which resulted in the higher building cost vis a vis the contracted sale price lockedâ€in two years ago in 2006.
• Higher Funding Cost
The report states that a number of Ezra’s bankers are trying to invoke the “market disruption clause†on its long term CAPEX financing. We would like to clarify that the majority of our bankers have, in fact, not indicated any intention to invoke the
market disruption clause. In addition, we do not expect an acrossâ€theâ€board increase of the “less than 200 bps†highlighted in the report.
• Charter Duration
In our latest announcement on new contracts awarded, we said that the charter periods for the 4 vessels ranged from 1â€7 years. The minimum 1â€year period is the industry definition of a period charter and Ezra always has contracts which range
from 1 year to as long as 20 years, depending on vessel type, location and nature of the project.
We believe that our growing recurrent earnings base and our ability to continue to clinch new contracts supports the view that demand from the offshore oil & gas market is still relatively firm.
By Order of the Board
Submitted by David Tan Yew Beng, Company Secretary on 23 October 2008 to SGX.
It's all about "how much you made when you were right" & "how little you lost when you were wrong"