Monday, June 25, 2018

Angola Is in Talks With Majors to Boost Oil Output by 2020

LISTEN TO ARTICLE 2:37 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

Angola is targeting an increase of about 250,000 barrels a day in oil output by 2020 and is already in discussions with oil majors Exxon Mobil Corp. and Equinor ASA to achieve this, said Sonangol’s Chairman of the Board Carlos Saturnino.

New energy legislation and more favorable investment terms have already spurred interest from international operators, including Chevron Corp. and Total SA, he said in an interview in Vienna.

Angola is working to roll back a sizable drop in its oil production this year due to technical problems at the country’s mature fields and an inability to lure international operators. The country is currently producing 1.55 million barrels a day, Saturnino said, down from an average of 1.65 million barrels a day over the past year.

The decline in the West African nation’s industry was a key part of the debate last week between the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies. Angola is one of those countries that’s cut deeper than required under a 2016 accord, but also has limited ability to participate in the immediate output increase the group agreed on Friday.

Saturnino said Angola’s average crude production will rise next year to no less than 1.673 million barrels a day -- around 123,000 barrels a day above current levels.

Exxon Mobil is now in discussions to enter into a memorandum of understanding for a new investment in the existing Block 15, Saturnino said. Exxon has requested to study new acreage, and has put forward a new proposal to sign an MoU for new blocks, he said.

Meanwhile, Eldar Saetre, president of the newly-named Equinor, will travel to Angola’s capital, Luanda, on July 26 to sign a memorandum to operate a block, Saturnino said -- without saying which field.

He added that Angola plans to have direct negotiations with international operators and may consider holding a new oil and gas bidding round before 2019. Sonangol is currently in the midst of a restructuring and presented a plan to Angola’s government two weeks ago to privatize some of its subsidiaries, he said.

Angola’s output fell in April to 1.5 million barrels a day, the lowest since January 2014, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The nation’s crude loadings for August will fall to the lowest in a decade, at 1.33 million barrels a day, according to data released by Sonangol.

The IEA expects Angola’s production capacity to edge up to 1.65 million barrels a day by the end of 2018 when Total’s $16 billion Kaombo project starts up. Output at the ultra-deep-water field is expected to peak at 230,000 barrels a day, the agency said.

Sunday, June 24, 2018

Your Energy Investing Questions, Answered

Listeners, you wrote in, and we're answering.

In this week's episode of Industry Focus: Energy, host Sarah Priestley and analyst Taylor Muckerman go through a grab bag of questions from listeners. They explain the issues surrounding Permian Basin production, why investors might want to check out midstream company Enterprise Products Partners�(NYSE:EPD), a few important things to know about oil services companies Halliburton�(NYSE:HAL) and Schlumberger�(NYSE:SLB), and what might become of the beleaguered offshore industry.

They also take a look at the upcoming OPEC meeting: what outcomes different countries will probably want, what could come of the meeting, and when we'll know more.

A full transcript follows the video.

This video was recorded on June 21, 2018.

Sarah Priestley:�Welcome to Industry Focus, the show that dives into a different sector of the stock market every day. Today, we're talking Energy and Industrials. It's�Thursday, the 21st of June, and�we're going to be answering some listener questions. I'm your host, Sarah Priestley, and joining me in the studio is Motley Fool Canada Premium analyst, Taylor Muckerman. Taylor, welcome to the show.

Taylor Muckerman:�Glad to be here.

Priestley:�[laughs]�You seem�really pumped to be here.

Muckerman:�I am! If�only they could see it.

Priestley:�I know, if only they could see how enthusiastic we are this morning. We have had a flurry of emails with some�fantastic oil and gas-related questions for us to tackle. As you are the resident expert, I thought that you could help us out.

Muckerman:�I love questions much more than corrections.

Priestley:�[laughs]�Yeah,�you and me both. The first question that we had was around problems of getting oil out of the Permian Basin. For�anybody listening, the Permian Basin is a�sedimentary basin in Western Texas. Try saying that after a few drinks. It covers about 250 miles wide and 300 miles long. It's pretty unique geology structure and it makes it really easy to extract oil and natural gas from, so�it can operate at lower prices than�other fields. We've seen it operate even in pretty low prices, like even $26 a barrel, I think they were still pumping.�

After a hundred years of production, it's expected to reach�record volumes this year. But, there is a bit of a problem in that frackers are becoming a victim of their own success. What do you think?

Muckerman:�This area�continues to be a wash in oil. You're talking about the Midland Texas area, which is the unofficial capital of the Permian Basin. The unemployment rate there is 2.1%. Everybody has a job, almost, in Midland Texas, and high-paying jobs along with that, because they just can't find enough truckers, enough roughnecks, which are actually working on the fracking equipment. You're seeing six-figure salaries for these truckers and other ancillary services. Home sales are thriving, home prices are thriving, all�because this is the hottest basin and has been the hottest basin in U.S. oil and gas for some time now.�

You looked at almost 2,000�horizontal well permits approved in the first quarter of this year, up 22% from the previous quarter. Even with this backlog of oil that�can't find its way to the Gulf Coast, drillers are�still trying to drill and paying quite highly for�the workers that are able to come down and do the drilling.�Even�private companies are making their presence felt.�I think I read that over 50% of permits in 2016�went to the top ten shale producers in the region. That's down to about a third now. Private drillers going from 20% of the permits up to 25% of the permits, so�everyone is getting in on the action.�

A little bit of that has to do with public companies�going out and saying, "We're going to pull back on spending�because of the downturn." But clearly,�activity is still thriving and the pipelines just can't keep up. You see a huge gap in price�between Midland Texas oil and Western Texas intermediate, and even more of a gap between international brent crude because this takeaway capacity just hasn't been there. They're building more, but it's not coming online�within the next six months. You're looking at a year, two years. Then, the export facilities in Texas and Louisiana, not really expanding as they need to until 2020 at the earliest.

Priestley:�Yeah,�as you said, some producers having no outlet, especially for the natural gas that they're bringing out, so in a lot of cases, they're flaring it.

Muckerman:�Oh, yeah, natural gas price, especially, yeah.

Priestley:�And that's capping their output, too, because of the regulation around how much they can do that. But,�interestingly, Anadarko CEO R. Walker said on a recent conference call that the pipeline�shortages are creating the haves and have-nots based on who already has established contracts. He was talking about that from their perspective. He said, "We're working hard to be among the haves by proactively aligning our production growth with midstream and downstream solutions."

But it's this crazy situation where they can get it out of the ground now in a�very cost-effective way, but they can't move it to the refiners and to the liquid natural gas export centers, where it's natural gas, in a cost-effective way. They're talking about bringing rail online.

Muckerman:�Yeah, rail and trucks, and they're saying most incremental production. So, any additional production will need to travel via truck or rail,�costing upwards of $15 a barrel in additional transportation costs.

Priestley:�You mentioned that a few pipelines are coming online. Two�that are notable,�Phillips 66 and Enbridge�together are building the Grey Oak Pipeline. That should move about three million barrels per day to Houston. As you said,�that doesn't come online until the second half of next year. Then, the�Cactus II pipeline is being built by�Plains All American Pipeline, and�that's going to go to Corpus Christi. That's�not coming online until the third quarter of next year. We know, with what we're seeing with some of the timelines for the pipelines�that are meant to be coming online now, that might get pushed out by a quarter or two, most likely.

Muckerman:�Yeah. Then, once it gets to places like Corpus Christi, they're having bottlenecks because the ports aren't big enough for some of the ships that�Chinese and European customers like to import oil on, which they call the very large crude carriers, VLCCs, talking about two million barrel supertankers. The expansions in Corpus Christi and Brownsville, Texas aren't expected until 2020.

Priestley:�What's�the big liquid natural gas export hub that's in Georgia? Is that coming online soon?

Muckerman:�I'm�drawing a blank on the name, but you have the huge one in Sabine Pass in Louisiana, and then another one from Cheniere Energy coming online in Louisiana. I'm drawing a blank on the Georgia one.

Priestley: I think we've talked about it on the show before.

Muckerman: Dominion has Dominion Cove export facility here on the East Coast, should be coming online at some point soon for liquefied natural gas. That'll help get some�Marcellus natural gas off the coast. But, yeah, the Permian driving down natural gas prices and oil prices in Texas,�because they're just producing too dang much.

Priestley:�It'll be�interesting to watch, over the next two years,�how we level out that production increase�and transport capacity around there, and what that does to the market as a whole.�

We've talked�before about midstream companies, and a lot of the questions that we've had are around midstream companies, one in particular around Enterprise Products Partners, ticker EPD. They're an American natural gas and crude oil pipeline company. Enterprises as a $60 billion market cap company, so it's a big company. It has exposure�not just to pipelines but to ports,�storage, processing and even shipping via tanker ships. It's actually�one of the largest master limited partnerships in the U.S. An MLP basically combines the tax benefits of a partnership with the�liquidity of a publicly traded company. If�we went into this, it would be a whole show, but if you want more�information on it, we do have a really good article that I can send you, so�feel free to email us at industryfocus@fool.com. Back to EPD, it provides mainstream�services to the oil and gas industry. They�mostly focus on processing, transporting, and storing natural gas liquids. Interesting company.�

And as I said, we've talked about pipelines before, we've�talked a lot about natural gas and how that market is really changing. Interesting. The�headline news for the next couple of years is that it won't be hiking distributions to�quite the same degree that we've seen in the past. That's the big�attractive thing with these MLPs, is really their yield. It has an attractive yield. It's�6% at the minute. But we're talking low single-digit increases for the next two years as they try and�improve their cash position and actually use that cash inflow to fund growth, rather than funding externally,�which I think is smart.

Muckerman:�Yeah, self-funded growth. You can't argue with that, especially if you can keep a yield of around 4-6%. That's a�pretty nice payout in today's market, with some organic growth, if they can pay it themselves. Nice exposure to the Permian. Plenty of opportunity for excess takeaway capacity, if they can provide it.

Priestley:�Yeah. They have two�major expansion projects that they're in the midst of right now. One is a $4.9 billion�recently completed growth project. Another one, which is $5.3 million, I think, expansion is under construction. I feel like we repeat ourselves all the time, but all of these expenditures will generate reliable cash flow income because they have such long-term contracts. I think�pretty much all of EDP's capacity is locked up in fairly long-term contracts.

Some investors have shied away from the company, given its open admission that it's going to pull back a little bit on distributions, but�actually, it makes a lot of sense. I think they're aiming for 50% internally funded expansion projects. Compared to competitors, it just means that they won't dilute.

Muckerman:�Yeah, you won't be issuing shares or paying a lot of interest.

Priestley:�Yes. And to me, it really indicates -- you've been studying this whole industry for so long now, you will have seen this -- that they've learned a lot from 2014 and 2015.

Muckerman:�Yeah. How long they remember it is yet to be seen, but it's certainly nice to see that, five years in, it's�still top-of-mind. To some people.

Priestley:�[laughs]�Yes, to some people in the industry. So, yes, we were asked a question about EPD. Definitely think it's worth a look at the minute. However, if�distribution growth is something that's more important to people listening, then you might be better off looking for a midstream partnership like MMP,�Magellan Midstream Partners. They're targeting 8% distribution growth in 2018. They have a lower yield, it's about 5%,�but it's an appropriate conservative investment for people. But, yeah, I'm�actually very much in the camp that this is a pretty good move for EPD.

Muckerman:�Yeah,�seems like it. Just remember, it's an MLP, so additional tax forms and considerations will apply in most cases. Just a little asterisk there. But, certainly a company that's worth considering if you like the space.

Priestley:�Yeah.�In�a great email, we were asked about oil services companies, particularly Halliburton and Schlumberger. They're the biggest rivals,�I would say, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Muckerman:�Yeah, they're two of the top three.

Priestley:�We'll�talk about Halliburton first, ticker HAL. One of the first oilfield services companies in the world, and has a reputation for being the best wellbore engineering�company. I think it still maintains that title. The company's founder, Erle Halliburton, pioneered the process of wellbore�cementing in the early 1920s, would you believe.

Muckerman:�I will.

Priestley:�[laughs]�Though they�operate across the world, I think they operate in about 60 or 70 countries,�65% of their revenue comes�North America. So they're heavily invested in�North America. They made a big�strategic bet on shale. I remember you telling me about this 20 years ago. They've�invested a ton in the market, which has been a double-edged sword for them, because they've been there for the boom but they've also felt the pain on the other side.�They had a respectable profit for the first quarter of this year, 34% increase despite issues in Venezuela that are affecting their bottom line.�

Mixed feelings,�it seems like, from analysts toward�Halliburton at the minute. They've made a lot of investments to try and be competitive with�Schlumberger. They've got a lot of organic growth, and they have really strong exposure to shale. I guess, for me,�it's really how you interpret that exposure to shale.

Muckerman:�This company is, I think, No. 3 in terms of the size. It was Mo. 2�until GE took over Baker Hughes and their energy businesses combined. Schlumberger is No. 1 and�Halliburton No. 3. They're mirror images. Schlumberger has the international exposure, Halliburton has the domestic exposure here in North America.�

It seems like�things are really clicking here.�They�say that their fracking horsepower, which is what they consider the available fracking equipment that they have in�North America, is fully supplied. They're�running at full capacity for the frack fields here in North America. They see some improvement internationally. I talked about, in the previous segment, 2,000 permits for wells in the Permian Basin in the first quarter alone. Plenty�potential action out there, and still a lot of wells to be fracked that have already been drilled. That's where Halliburton really holds their�specialty. A lot of backlog out there available for this company that has rebounded decently over the last couple of years.

Priestley:�I think the biggest difference I've noticed in people's perception between Schlumberger and Halliburton is the integrated services. People see that Halliburton hasn't really focused on these integrated services, which�people are seeing as being very efficient and a cost benefit to the oil producers. I've started on the Schlumberger section. [laughs] They're often seen as best-in-class, and their bread and butter has really been understanding oil and natural gas�reservoirs and the most efficient way to drill those. But it's also pioneered directional drilling, which was pretty important.

Muckerman:�Yeah, still is. That really was one of the key technologies to light this fuse of the frack boom. That and fracking combined is why we've seen the U.S. flood the world with oil.�

Priestley:�This�company, compared to Halliburton, is really focusing on reducing cost per barrel. I mean, Halliburton is, too, but the way that they're tackling this,�I think it's called SPM.

Muckerman:�Yeah, that's where they actually take a stake�in the production side of things. Halliburton does not do that, I don't believe. But, yeah, definitely, reservoir description and management are a key portion of that business.

Priestley:�They're at a very high P/E at the minute, there's a lot of confidence in the company. They beat�estimates three out of the last four earnings. I think the bullish�sentiment really is around that SPM and around the�integrated services and how much they can offer oil service producers through that. They also spend more on research and development than any other of these companies. They're already feeling the benefits of that.

Muckerman:�Yeah, and through acquisitions. A lot of that R&D is�focused on offshore, as well. OneSubsea was the partnership that they have after they acquired a couple of companies that focused on offshore. So, some nice upside there if offshore oil�ever comes back to life.

Priestley:�I was going to ask you; do you think that we will start to see offshore come back online? If so, what price do you think we need to be at?

Muckerman:�Yeah,�at some point, unless other countries catch the fracking craze,�which it seems like they might. Fracking can be taken internationally. A lot of frackable oil available out there. It just depends on the takeaway capacity, the infrastructure, the buy-in�from governments. If China or Argentina ever get their act together�when it comes to fracking, or�other countries as well, but�those two, certainly, in particular, you could see offshore oil continue to get pushed out on the timeline.

Priestley:�Then,�as you mentioned, obviously, we have Baker Hughes, a GE company, as a sort of looming competitor for both of these, only strengthened for the moment by its GE involvement. We'll see how that all plays out.�

The next thing to talk about is,�tomorrow is the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC's bi-annual meeting in Vienna, Austria. The next day, they will hold a meeting with non-OPEC petroleum exporting countries, namely Russia. That's OPEC-plus, I think.

Muckerman:�Yeah, OPEC-plus.

Priestley:�Very different global environment to the one that they have previously met under. The oil glut is�somewhat reduced. Prices have risen, and�even some countries like Venezuela are struggling to meet their allocations. New�sanctions on Iran mean that their�output is essentially going to be capped by their lack of a customer. Some members�really want to keep production low and prices high.�Iran has come out and said that's exactly what they're seeking. Others are�looking for an increase. They way that I see it, there are three options. They can keep it as is. Venezuela, Iran and Iraq, I think, all favor that. Keep�production as is but relax compliance. Or, increase.�I think it's rumored that the Saudis favor an increase right now.

Muckerman:�Yeah,�they announced this morning, Thursday morning, that they want to increase,�collectively, a million barrels per day. Ahead of the meeting.

Priestley:�Oh,�wow, breaking news. [laughs]�

Muckerman:�Yeah, already laying down the gauntlet ahead of the meetings,�publicly saying that they want to increase OPEC production --�or supply, because they could already be producing it and then just storing it -- by�a million barrels per day.

Priestley:�Which is definitely an increase, but I feel like the market can handle looking at some of the projections, a million barrels per day.

Muckerman:�Yeah,�they say without it, you could see a supply crunch in the back half of the year, early 2019. There are�some different incentives here. Whether or not they actually do see a supply crunch, who knows. But if that's the case, sure, let's have it. We�can't get our oil to market because we don't have the pipelines. They can.

Priestley:�Yeah,�absolutely. We should have some more news on that next week. It's�fascinating to watch that all play out. A�lot of people are attributing the recent price rises to OPEC, and undoubtedly that contributed, but�there are a lot of other factors that go into this whole mish-mash, too. But, yeah, pipeline stocks.

Muckerman:�Russia beat Saudi Arabia five to nil in the World Cup, so maybe that'll have some leverage, in terms of who gets to release what oil.

Priestley:�[laughs]�Yeah, I'd love to see the soccer jokes going on at OPEC. That's it from us today. If you would like to get in touch, please feel free to do so. As you can see, we definitely appreciate listener questions. We like to answer them. Please feel free to email us at industryfocus@fool.com, or tweet us on Twitter @MFIndustryFocus.

As always, people on the program may own companies discussed on the show, and The Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against stocks mentioned, so don't buy or sell anything based solely on what you hear. Thank you, as always, to Austin Morgan for mixing the show. For Taylor, I'm Sarah Priestley, thanks for listening and Fool on!

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Lump Sum or Annuity? How to Make the Right Pension Choice for You

Having enough income in retirement is a primary concern for everyone approaching the end of their careers. Social Security offers monthly income to most Americans after they retire, and for many, the only other potential source of support during retirement comes from the savings that they've managed to squirrel away over the course of their careers. However, some workers still have access to pension benefits through their work, and the additional financial support that a pension can provide in retirement can make the difference between being comfortable in your retired years or struggling to make ends meet.

One of the most important choices that workers who have pensions through their jobs have to make is what to do with their pension benefits after they retire. Many pensions offer workers the choice either to take a lump-sum payout of their accumulated benefits at retirement, or to accept regular monthly payments that typically last at least for the remainder of their lives. In some cases, annuity options that pensions offer can also include benefits for a surviving spouse after the worker passes away. Making the best choice for your own personal situation requires taking a close look at the exact provisions of your own pension plan, but the factors you'll generally have to take into consideration are similar no matter what specific pension plan provisions apply to your case.

Employee Pension Plan booklet next to a calculator.

Image source: Getty Images.

How lump-sum pension distributions became an option in the first place

Historically, pension payments almost universally took the form of monthly payments. This arrangement matched up well with the expectations of both employers and employees. Retired workers were able to use expectations about pension income to budget what their financial resources would be in retirement, taking monthly income and allocating it against their expected monthly expenses after they stopped receiving an ordinary paycheck. Meanwhile, for employers that had assumed the responsibility of providing for the financial well-being of their workers after the end of their careers, the opportunity to space out payments over the course of their retirees' lifetimes was more financially manageable than having to come up with vast sums of money immediately upon a worker's decision to retire.

However, in managing pension plans, companies took on a substantial amount of risk. Company pension plans had to make sure to invest in such a way that the money they set aside to cover future pension obligations would grow enough to cover those future payments. That left them vulnerable to financial market risk, because if the investments they had chosen to provide the growth necessary to fund future pension payments proved insufficient, employers would have to come up with additional cash as needed to pay benefits. In addition, if the assumptions employers had made about life expectancies of their retirees proved to be incorrect, then the pension plans would suffer the consequences of adverse mortality risk and have to make payments over a longer period of time than they had initially accounted for. That put further pressure on pension plan finances.

As a consequence of these risks, companies started to seek ways to control or eliminate the potential adverse impacts on their pension plans. The shift away from traditional pension plans toward employer-sponsored 401(k) defined contribution plans stemmed in large part from this desire, as 401(k) plans essentially shifted the burden of investment responsibility from the employer to its workers. Employers could simply choose whether to make contributions toward their workers' retirement savings through profit sharing or matching contributions, and then leave it to each worker to decide how best to invest their retirement accounts.

However, that only solved the potential problem of pension-related risk for future workers. In order to reduce the risk associated with current workers from whom companies didn't have the right to take away pension benefits entirely, companies started to offer lump-sum buyouts of pension obligations, either to newly retiring workers immediately upon retirement, or to existing pension recipients based on their then-current age and monthly payments.

This required the company to come up with a large amount of upfront cash, because the lump-sum payout would include the present value of expected monthly pension payments extending years or even decades into the future. However, once the employer and employee had agreed to terms, and the employer had made the lump-sum payout, there was no longer any risk for the employer to bear. That was beneficial for most employers, especially because their shareholders would typically accept one-time hits to earnings associated with mass buyouts of pension rights as extraordinary items with a generally positive impact on the long-term prospects of the business.

What annuity options do pensions typically offer?

If the idea of a regular annuity payment appeals to you, then the next step is to assess the specific annuity options your pension plan will offer you. It's important to understand that the annuity options a pension plan offers are typically much different from what you would be able to get if you went to a private insurance company and asked about annuity products. In particular, if you're expecting to get access to things like fixed deferred annuities, fixed indexed annuities, variable annuities, or other more exotic types of annuities and insurance products, you probably won't have much luck. As you'll see later, you'll have the option to consider such products on your own if you decide to take a lump-sum payment from your pension and then invest the pension proceeds, but don't count on your employer to offer every annuity product imaginable within the pension plan itself.

Most annuity options closely resemble the options you'd get from a single-premium immediate annuity. The simplest is the single-life option, where you agree to receive monthly payments for as long as you live. Once you pass away, payments stop, whether that happens the month after you retire, 50 years later, or anywhere in between.

Workers who are married often prefer to make provisions to ensure that their spouses will receive financial support even after the worker's death. Joint-and-survivor annuity options can meet the needs of these workers, as they give you the ability to receive payments that will last as long as either you or the person you name as your beneficiary remain living. You'll receive the payments as long as you live, and if your beneficiary outlives you, then the pension plan will make future payments to the beneficiary through the beneficiary's lifetime. In some cases, you can specify whether the payment your surviving beneficiary receives will be equal to the full amount of what you received while you were living, or will be reduced to reflect lower expenses for the survivor compared to what a couple would need. For example, a pension might pay you $1,000 until your death, and then pay $500 to your designated beneficiary, while another option might let the beneficiary get the same amount you did.

Finally, some pensions give you the right to ensure that the annuity will pay out over a certain period regardless of how long you live. For instance, if you elect a single-life annuity with a 10-year period-certain option, then if you passed away four years after you started collecting payments, your beneficiary would be able to get the remaining six years' worth of monthly benefits. In this example, if you lived longer than 10 years after retiring, the beneficiary wouldn't receive anything upon your death.

The challenge with all of these options is that your choice affects how much you'll get monthly. A single-life annuity with no period-certain option will generally give you the largest monthly payment. If you add a beneficiary under a joint-and-survivor option, the monthly payments you'll get will be less, because the expected joint life expectancy will be longer than your life expectancy alone. Similarly, adding a period-certain option will also reduce your monthly payment, because it eliminates the risk that you'll die soon after retiring and end up costing the pension plan a relatively small total amount of lifetime benefits.

The payment amounts workers receive from a pension can also vary greatly, both from plan to plan at different employers, and within a given plan depending on the worker's age and years of experience at retirement. Your plan's particular benefit formula will give you the details on what to expect, including the base amount and the impact of choosing other annuity options on the amount you receive.

Pros and cons of choosing annuity options

Picking an annuity option has a number of advantages. You can rely on the pension to provide regular income on a predictable schedule for the rest of your life, no matter what happens to your financial situation, and no matter what happens with the financial markets. You're not responsible for making any investment decisions, as the pension plan retains the responsibility for coming up with enough money to pay out whichever annuity option you selected.

However, there are risks involved with a pension annuity. You only have the right to monthly payments, so you can't get advances on future amounts from the pension plan. That can be problematic if you have an unexpected major expense, as you'll be faced with the unattractive option of having to borrow to pay the amount upfront, and then repay the loan as you receive future annuity payments.

There are also tax impacts of choosing an annuity pension payout. Typically, all of your monthly pension payment will be taxable. As we'll see later, that's better than paying tax on a lump sum all at once, but it's not necessarily as good as what can happen if you take a lump sum and use smart tax planning to manage it. Nevertheless, with broadly spread-out payments over your lifetime, taxes on an annuity payout that's fairly close to what you received in pay during your career will typically create a similar tax situation to what you saw when you were working.

How lump-sum pension distributions work

Lump-sum pension distributions are completely different from annuities. With this method, your employer simply makes a one-time payment to you. In exchange, you agree that you won't receive anything else from your employer and give a release from any further liability related to pension obligations.

The calculation of the actual lump-sum amount is somewhat complicated, but it generally depends on two things: the size of monthly payment you would have been entitled to receive had you chosen the pension annuity option, and the current prevailing interest rates at the time you elect to take the lump sum. In general, the lower the interest rate, the greater the lump-sum payout will be.

Arguably the most critical thing about taking a lump-sum distribution is how you arrange to receive the amount of the lump sum. The smarter move in nearly every case is to arrange to have the pension distribution rolled over into an IRA. That way, you can preserve the tax-deferred nature of your pension, only paying taxes on amounts as you withdraw them from your IRA.

However, you also have the choice to have your employer pay the amount directly to a regular taxable account. In that case, you'll typically owe tax on the entire lump-sum amount in the year you receive it. Often, the lump sum will be large enough that it can have a dramatic impact on the amount of tax you owe, pushing you into a higher tax bracket and creating an excessively large tax bill.

In general, there's little reason not to roll over a lump-sum distribution into an IRA. Doing so gives you maximum flexibility, as by the time you retire, you're generally eligible to take as large of a withdrawal from your IRA as you want without penalty. Meanwhile, if you choose not to take all of your money out, it can keep growing on a tax-deferred basis.

Pros and cons of choosing a lump-sum pension payout

The biggest advantage of taking a lump-sum pension payout is that you have complete control over the entire amount you receive. You can invest it in whatever way you like, choosing assets that have the potential to grow rather than simply paying a fixed monthly payment for the rest of your life. That's particularly important if you fear the possibility of high inflation, which can dramatically reduce the purchasing power of your annuity-based monthly pension payment. Although Social Security benefits are adjusted for inflation, most pension payments aren't.

In addition, having access to a lump sum lets you handle major financial emergencies more effectively. It might not be ideal, but you at least have the option of tapping into a substantial portion of your investment capital all at once, avoiding having to take on debt to pay a large expense.

However, there are definite negatives to a lump sum as well. Many people aren't comfortable taking on the responsibility of investing a large amount of money, and if you make mistakes, there's no guarantee the lump sum will be enough to last you the rest of your lifetime. Also, if you're not careful about managing taxes appropriately, then you can overestimate the after-tax value of what you'll have left of the lump sum to spend. That can be a rude awakening later in retirement, when it's too late to adjust accordingly. Most importantly, you have to have the discipline not to spend your money too quickly. Otherwise, you can find yourself running out of your lump sum too soon.

An option to get the best of both worlds

Finally, some people like the idea of splitting the difference, getting access to a partial lump sum while also guaranteeing some monthly income. There are a few pension plans that will give you the ability to get reduced monthly pension payments in exchange for a partial lump sum that's only a fraction of what the full lump-sum distribution would be. That can be the best of both worlds, granting you the flexibility of a lump sum while still preserving extra monthly income in a pension payment.

Even if your plan doesn't give you this option, you can always create an equivalent monthly payment by taking part of your lump sum and investing it in an immediate annuity. This insurance product uses a calculation that's basically the reverse of what a pension plan uses in calculating a lump sum, taking the amount you invest and coming up with an equivalent monthly payment. Just be advised that what an insurance company will pay you in an immediate annuity won't be as much as what a monthly payment from your pension plan would be, because insurers can take risks like your health status into account, things pension plans don't account for.

An example

To see how this might work, let's look at an example. Say that you're single and 65 and retiring from your job after spending 30 years with your current employer. You most recently made $60,000 a year and are entitled to a pension equal to 50% of your last year's pay. That works out to $2,500 a month from your pension, and you also expect to get $1,500 from Social Security every month. Your employer has also offered to pay you a lump sum of $300,000 if you want to give up your monthly pension payments.

If you take the $2,500 per month, then when you do the math, you can calculate that you'd need to live 10 years in order to get to a total of $300,000. That's less than half the IRS projection of 21 years of life expectancy for the typical 65-year-old. If you have health conditions that suggest you could fall well short of that life expectancy, then taking the lump sum would make more sense. For instance, if you pass away after just five years, then you'd only have received a total of $150,000, and your heirs would miss out on fully half of the lump sum amount you could have received.

Conversely, if you take the lump sum, you can invest it in a way that will generate income and investment gains. If you assume a total return of 7.5% per year, a $300,000 portfolio would generate $22,500 in annual returns, working out to $1,875 per month. That's close to but not quite as much as the $2,500 pension payment, and it's of course subject to the risk of much worse investment returns during your retirement years.

In this example, there are good reasons why different people might come to different conclusions about the best thing to do. However, if your company offered a much larger lump sum -- say, $600,000 -- then it would almost certainly make sense to take it. If the amount were much lower -- perhaps $150,000 -- then you'd almost never want to take the lump sum over the monthly pension payments.

The right pick for you

There's no one-size-fits-all answer for whether a lump sum or a monthly payment will work better for you. But in general, the more you have in other retirement savings, such as IRAs, the less need you have for the flexibility a lump sum can provide, and the more useful an added monthly pension can be. If you have no other savings beyond Social Security and your pension, on the other hand, having a lump sum offers a lot more flexibility in the event of unexpected big expenses.

A lot depends on your temperament. Some retirees love the idea of managing their own investments and ensuring that they leave a legacy for their loved ones, and if you're one of them, a lump sum can give you a much better opportunity to build up savings that will give your family a leg up financially. Other retirees find investing a burden, preferring to leave it to their former employer. Monthly pension income is a lot easier to budget for, even if it doesn't give you the same options in every circumstance.

You owe it to yourself and your family to make sure your pension works as hard as it can for you. You must consider carefully which pension options to choose, because once you've made your choice, it's generally impossible to change your mind. By knowing your own preferences about whether you want to be responsible for investing your retirement savings or would rather leave it in the hands of the pension plan, you'll be best able to make a choice you can live with for the rest of your life.

Friday, June 1, 2018

Top 5 Casino Stocks To Own Right Now

tags:NGVC,PUK,MPWR,EL,PKX,

Wynn Resorts (WYNN) soared nearly to the top of the S&P 500 today after Morgan Stanley argued that the casino stock had the potential to double.

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Wynn Resorts�gained 4.8% to $104.30 today, while the S&P 500 finished little changed at�2,373.47. At 2:45, Wynn was easily the top performing stock in the S&P 500, only to be surpassed by Citrix’s (CTXS) late day surge.

Morgan Stanley’s Thomas Allen and team explain how Wynn could double:

Our AlphaWise work on Google search data and separate analyses of market trends suggest the Street is too low on WYNN’s Macau market share gains. Our base case implies 20% upside; bull case, the stock could double.

Consensus forecasts WYNN to essentially not grow Macau market share over 4Q16, despite the Aug ’16 opening of Wynn Palace (which increased WYNN’s room capacity by 170%) and the general view that the benefit from the property has been disappointing so far. We see upside to WYNN’s market share supported by (1) analysis of Google search trends, (2) current market dynamics and WYNN actions, and (3) the performance of WYNN��s first Macau property

Top 5 Casino Stocks To Own Right Now: Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage, Inc.(NGVC)

Advisors' Opinion:
  • [By Lisa Levin] Gainers Biostar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: BSPM) shares rose 35.8 percent to $3.00. Commercial Vehicle Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVGI) shares surged 32 percent to $8.94 after reporting upbeat Q1 earnings. Carbon Black, Inc. (NASDAQ: CBLK) gained 29.6 percent to $24.62. Carbon Black priced its IPO at $19 per share. California Resources Corporation (NYSE: CRC) shares rose 26.8 percent to $32.70 following upbeat Q1 earnings. Pandora Media, Inc. (NYSE: P) gained 25 percent to $7.185 after reporting strong quarterly results. Medifast, Inc. (NYSE: MED) shares climbed 23.7 percent to $122.87 after the company reported strong Q1 results and raised its FY18 guidance. Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage, Inc. (NYSE: NGVC) rose 23.2 percent to $8.4999 after reporting Q2 results. Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTLA) gained 22.2 percent to $41.27 after the FDA approved the company's Andexxa, the only antidote indicated for patients treated with rivaroxaban and apixaban. Shake Shack Inc (NYSE: SHAK) rose 22.2 percent to $57.955 after the company reported upbeat results for its first quarter and raised its FY18 guidance. Atomera Incorporated (NASDAQ: ATOM) jumped 19.7 percent to $6.12 after reporting Q1 results. Super Micro Computer, Inc. (NASDAQ: SMCI) rose 16.4 percent to $21.00 after reporting strong preliminary results for the third quarter. Titan International, Inc. (NYSE: TWI) shares rose 16.4 percent to $12.21 following Q1 earnings. Integer Holdings Corporation (NYSE: ITGR) shares gained 14.9 percent to $63.75 following Q1 results. Control4 Corporation (NASDAQ: CTRL) shares climbed 14.5 percent to $23.98 folloiwng strong Q1 results. B&G Foods, Inc. (NYSE: BGS) climbed 12.6 percent to $25.40 after reporting Q1 earnings. HMS Holdings Corp (NASDAQ: HMSY) shares gained 10 percent to $19.59 after reporting upbeat quarterly earnings. Viavi Solutions Inc. (NASDAQ: VIAV) rose 7 percent to $10.09 following Q3 r
  • [By Shane Hupp]

    Get a free copy of the Zacks research report on Vitamin Cottage Natural Grocers (NGVC)

    For more information about research offerings from Zacks Investment Research, visit Zacks.com

  • [By Lisa Levin] Gainers Biostar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: BSPM) shares jumped 29.86 percent to close at $2.87 on Friday. Commercial Vehicle Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVGI) shares gained 28.87 percent to close at $8.75 after reporting upbeat Q1 earnings. Mexco Energy Corporation (NYSE: MXC) gained 27.02 percent to close at $5.4744. Carbon Black, Inc. (NASDAQ: CBLK) climbed 26 percent to close at $23.94. Carbon Black priced its IPO at $19 per share. Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTLA) rose 25.64 percent to close at $42.44 after the FDA approved the company's Andexxa, the only antidote indicated for patients treated with rivaroxaban and apixaban. Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage, Inc. (NYSE: NGVC) rose 23.19 percent to close at $8.50 after reporting Q2 results. California Resources Corporation (NYSE: CRC) shares gained 22.45 percent to close at $31.58 following upbeat Q1 earnings. Atomera Incorporated (NASDAQ: ATOM) gained 22.31 percent to close at $6.25 after reporting Q1 results. Medifast, Inc. (NYSE: MED) shares jumped 22.27 percent to close at $121.46 after the company reported strong Q1 results and raised its FY18 guidance. Jerash Holdings (US), Inc. (NASDAQ: JRSH) gained 20.86 percent to close at $8.46. Pandora Media, Inc. (NYSE: P) rose 19.83 percent to close at $6.89 after reporting strong quarterly results. Shake Shack Inc (NYSE: SHAK) rose 18.01 percent to close at $55.95 on Friday after the company reported upbeat results for its first quarter and raised its FY18 guidance. Super Micro Computer, Inc. (NASDAQ: SMCI) rose 17.73 percent to close at $21.25 after reporting strong preliminary results for the third quarter. Schmitt Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ: SMIT) rose 17.41 percent to close at $2.36. Titan International, Inc. (NYSE: TWI) shares gained 16.78 percent to close at $12.25 following Q1 earnings. Integer Holdings Corporation (NYSE: ITGR) shares rose 14.23 percent to close at $63.40 following Q1 result
  • [By Logan Wallace]

    Ahold Delhaize (OTCMKTS: ADRNY) and Vitamin Cottage Natural Grocers (NYSE:NGVC) are both consumer staples companies, but which is the better stock? We will contrast the two businesses based on the strength of their earnings, valuation, risk, institutional ownership, profitability, analyst recommendations and dividends.

Top 5 Casino Stocks To Own Right Now: Prudential Public Limited Company(PUK)

Advisors' Opinion:
  • [By Stephan Byrd]

    Here are some of the news headlines that may have effected Accern’s rankings:

    Get Prudential alerts: Zacks Investment Research Lowers Prudential (PUK) to Hold (americanbankingnews.com) Financial wellness program popularity rises among employers, up 63 percentage points in two years (markets.financialcontent.com) FY2018 EPS Estimates for Prudential (PUK) Reduced by Jefferies Group (americanbankingnews.com) Jefferies Group Weighs in on Prudential’s FY2020 Earnings (PUK) (americanbankingnews.com) ValuEngine Downgrades Prudential (PUK) to Hold (americanbankingnews.com)

    Shares of PUK stock traded down $0.02 during trading on Tuesday, hitting $51.56. 141,455 shares of the stock traded hands, compared to its average volume of 198,097. The firm has a market cap of $66.49 billion, a PE ratio of 13.79, a PEG ratio of 1.34 and a beta of 1.55. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.39, a quick ratio of 0.03 and a current ratio of 0.03. Prudential has a 52-week low of $44.49 and a 52-week high of $55.36.

  • [By Ethan Ryder]

    Prudential (NYSE: PUK) and Reinsurance Group of America (NYSE:RGA) are both finance companies, but which is the superior stock? We will contrast the two companies based on the strength of their analyst recommendations, earnings, valuation, dividends, risk, profitability and institutional ownership.

  • [By Ethan Ryder]

    ValuEngine lowered shares of Prudential (NYSE:PUK) from a buy rating to a hold rating in a research note issued to investors on Wednesday morning.

    Several other analysts have also recently issued reports on the stock. Zacks Investment Research upgraded shares of Prudential from a hold rating to a buy rating and set a $57.00 target price on the stock in a research note on Tuesday, March 27th. Berenberg Bank cut shares of Prudential from a hold rating to a sell rating in a research note on Thursday, March 29th. Finally, Citigroup cut shares of Prudential from a buy rating to a neutral rating in a research note on Wednesday, April 25th. One equities research analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, three have issued a hold rating and two have given a buy rating to the company. The stock currently has an average rating of Hold and an average price target of $57.00.

Top 5 Casino Stocks To Own Right Now: Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.(MPWR)

Advisors' Opinion:
  • [By Shane Hupp]

    Get a free copy of the Zacks research report on Monolithic Power Systems (MPWR)

    For more information about research offerings from Zacks Investment Research, visit Zacks.com

Top 5 Casino Stocks To Own Right Now: Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (EL)

Advisors' Opinion:
  • [By Logan Wallace]

    Est茅e Lauder Companies (NYSE:EL) – Investment analysts at Piper Jaffray lifted their FY2018 earnings estimates for shares of Est茅e Lauder Companies in a research report issued on Wednesday, May 2nd. Piper Jaffray analyst E. Murphy now forecasts that the company will post earnings per share of $4.43 for the year, up from their previous forecast of $4.38. Piper Jaffray has a “Buy” rating and a $152.00 price target on the stock. Piper Jaffray also issued estimates for Est茅e Lauder Companies’ Q4 2018 earnings at $0.52 EPS, Q3 2019 earnings at $1.35 EPS, Q4 2019 earnings at $0.53 EPS, Q1 2020 earnings at $1.46 EPS, Q2 2020 earnings at $1.96 EPS, Q3 2020 earnings at $1.52 EPS and FY2020 earnings at $5.58 EPS.

  • [By ]

    "I was mulling over just this concept," Cramer continues, "until we got quarterly earnings last week from Est茅e Lauder Cos. (EL)  . The company's results seemed like a throwback to the good old days, where you got genuine growth through innovation, share take and emerging markets."

  • [By Motley Fool Staff]

    The Industry Focus�team concludes its discussion of�Ulta Beauty (NASDAQ:ULTA)�with a look at the company's tight margin structure -- from the cost of running physical stores -- and how that stacks up against profitability at fellow skincare and cosmetics leader Est茅e Lauder�(NYSE:EL).

Top 5 Casino Stocks To Own Right Now: POSCO(PKX)

Advisors' Opinion:
  • [By Max Byerly]

    Media coverage about POSCO (NYSE:PKX) has trended somewhat positive on Saturday, according to Accern Sentiment Analysis. The research firm scores the sentiment of news coverage by analyzing more than twenty million blog and news sources. Accern ranks coverage of public companies on a scale of negative one to positive one, with scores closest to one being the most favorable. POSCO earned a news sentiment score of 0.22 on Accern’s scale. Accern also gave news headlines about the basic materials company an impact score of 46.5366586800129 out of 100, meaning that recent news coverage is somewhat unlikely to have an impact on the company’s share price in the near future.