Seeking Alpha

David Allen

View as an RSS Feed
View David Allen's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Clean Energy Fuels - Misinformation And Facts [View article]
    I do not believe this article or many of the comments are accurate or helpful in describing what is actually a very complicated situation.

    There are a number of assertions that people make that are plainly false. For example:

    * False: CLNE is going to lose if CNG is chosen over LNG. True: CLNE is going to lose if there isn't a transition to natural gas (but nobody seems to believe there won't be a transition). True: CLNE won't win as big if LNG fails to develop as a widely used as a transportation fuel.

    * False: CLNE can't sell CNG profitably. True: CLNE has been selling CNG primarily thusfar and CLNE has been unprofitable, however CLNE's losses have occurred because they have been investing tremendously in LNG not because they can't sell CNG profitably.

    * False: CNG rapid fuel technology is going to eliminate the need for LNG. True: CNG rapid fuel technology is accelerating the conversion of many vehicles to CNG fuel. LNG is further behind in its adoption rate. But CNG rapid fueling does not eliminate the need for the LNG option; CNG tanks add a considerable weight factor to trucks and CNG fast fueling is going to be much more expensive in vast areas of the country where access to high pressure natural gas lines and/or adequate electricity is problematic.

    * False: Truckers have already decided that CNG is better than LNG. True: Truckers are implementing CNG at a faster rate because of wider availability of CNG, but LNG usage is also moving up the adoption curve.

    This is a good interview of the Raven Transport CEO about his firm's frustrations in implementing LNG trucks:

    Raven Transport is based in Ohio and so isn't necessarily representative of long haul truckers, but the article makes it clear that a) it's difficult and not necessarily profitable for a trucking company to implement LNG now, b) that these difficulties are likely short-term and especially problematic for the trucking companies that go first, and c) long-term, LNG will be an important trucking fuel.

    I've done my research on CLNE and I am long and strong. I hope others will recognize that the road to natural gas as a transportation fuel is going to take a few more years and is not without challenges, but the oversimplistic bear arguments that SA has been publishing recently are just that: oversimplistic.
    Feb 21, 2014. 09:15 AM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels Likely To Rally Strongly Through Year End [View article]
    Paterno: 400 million gallons delivered is a ridiculous assertion. In a previous article (now embargoed to the Pro section), I provided detailed analysis concluding that CLNE would achieve positive cash flow (including interest on debt) at 130 million. The company has hinted in its last quarterly profit that they are nearing positive "adjusted EBITDA".
    Oct 12, 2014. 07:07 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels' (CLNE) CEO Andrew Littlefair on Q2 2014 Results - Earnings Call Transcript [View article]
    Fabulous quarter! I also appreciate knowing that they are not able to announce all the LNG truck purchases that fleets are making... as a shareholder, I had been getting a little nervous reading press releases that only added up to relatively small number of trucks. It is exciting to now know that there are 280 fleets each with somewhere between a half dozen and several dozens trucks fueling at CLNE stations.

    I also found it newsworthy that they aren't opening stations until there are at least 20 trucks committed to refueling there.

    It seems like we are getting very close to profitability. With their really astonishing growth rate, annualized revenues now at $400 million, and impending profitability, it is hard to imagine that the market cap of CLNE won't grow rapidly from its current $800 million to several billions over the next couple of years.
    Aug 8, 2014. 01:31 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Portfolio Recovery Associates: The Numbers Simply Don't Add Up [View article]
    This article makes a number of erroneous calculations and assumptions.

    First, the collections/purchase price percentage analysis is wrong because the author fails to consider the total amount being purchased. For example, if year 1 collections/purchase price percentage were 333% and year 2 they were 200%, this article claims this would be a bad thing. But actually, if year one collections were $3 million on debt purchased for $1 million (a percentage of 333%) and year two collections were $10 million on debt purchased for $5 million (a percentage of 200%), the actual profit would have increased by $3 million! This article says "More expensive debt means more leveraging and less earnings." This is flat wrong. And, in truth, PRAA profits have been increasing despite the collections/purchase price percentage declining.

    Second, it is misleading to sum the collections/purchase price and then report the average as though it means something. The average should be weighted. I won't go through the math, but this is basic statistics.

    Third, the article does not take into account the recent European acquisition.

    Fourth, the article does not mention or report that historically, PRAA has collected more than they estimate in their receivables.
    Jun 23, 2014. 12:54 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • No Fundamental Improvements At Clean Energy Fuels [View article]
    Wow, I'm amazed that anyone can have a negative take on what's happening to CLNE. 10,000 trucks at 20,000 gallons per year means that at least 200,000,000 additional gallons of natural gas fuel will be consumed by trucks powered by Westport's 12 liter engine each year. CLNE is positioned to capture a substantial percentage of this; let's be conservative and say half (most LNG and some CNG). With a margin of $0.30 per gallon, this drives $30,000,000 to CLNE's bottom line -- without even taking into account all the other growing natural gas sales CLNE has.

    The real question is how big will the long haul natural gas business be? If it's 10,000 new trucks each year, CLNE profits from this segment of their business would grow $30 million this year, $60 million next, $90 million the year after. However, if the growth accelerates CLNE could be generating hundreds of millions of profits just from this segment within several years.

    Currently, CLNE has a market cap of about $800 million -- if this growth occurs, CLNE stock should be north of $50. If it doesn't occur, CLNE should be north of $20. I don't comprehend at all how an intelligent investor can make a negative projection.
    May 14, 2014. 11:31 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Infrastructure Improvements And NGV Adoption Can Take Clean Energy Fuels Higher [View article]
    While critics of CLNE say things like "CLNE bet the farm on LNG", they often ignore that it will take only a small number of LNG fueled trucks to generate a positive return on CLNE's investment. The equivalent of 13,000 LNG trucks fueling at CLNE, each consuming an average of 20,000 gallons annually, would double CLNE's current natural gas deliveries and push their cash flow into the positive -- even including their expensive interest on debt. Considering there are well over 200 thousand new class 8 trucks sold every year, even the most pessimistic critics must concede that this number is going to be reached within a few years. CLNE is almost certainly on the road to profitability.
    Sep 15, 2014. 10:36 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: The Battle Of Bears Versus Bulls [View article]
    This article focused on the next 30 months. There is near zero likelihood that there will be significant LNG price competition within this timeframe. CLNE has the LNG market for trucks virtually to itself. Only Shell has announced they're developing LNG retail locations and 1) Shell is not nearly as well positioned to compete for trucking business as CLNE due to CLNE's deal with the leading truck stop company and 2) two competitors in the business will effectively be an oligopoly and oligopolies don't engage in price competition.

    I also doubt that LNG price competition will squeeze margins much even within five years.
    Aug 11, 2014. 11:10 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ABB: Should You Still Buy At $25? [View article]
    Thank you for your thoughtful article. However, I would differ from your analysis in two ways.

    First, ABB is more narrowly focused than you've implied in your piece. They do not have a broad range of businesses, as the so-called "comparable" companies that you've used.

    A second and related point is that ABB has potential for exponential growth that a conglomerate doesn't have. For example, they are the only company in the world that has a DC circuit breaker; if electrical utilities or countries begin investing in the infrastructure to update their electrical grids, a DC transmission system offers substantial opportunities for enhancement and huge opportunities for ABB. Another example is ABB's leadership in factory automation; a recovery in manufacturing infrastructure will return a disproportionate benefit to ABB.
    Dec 13, 2013. 03:41 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Natural Gas And Commercial Transportation: The Hatching Egg [View article]
    Great article. Thank you!
    Mar 25, 2013. 10:56 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Update: Westport Innovations Slashes 2014 Forecasts [View article]
    Grammar and spelling are legitimate issues. When an author writes poorly, it is confusing, distracting, and calls into question the thought process of the author.

    There are parts of this article that are so poorly written it is hard to discern the meaning. I've already pointed out why one of the three summary bullet points doesn't make sense, so let's consider another: "Investors must continue avoiding the stock until a sustainable turnaround is at hand." How can there be a turnaround if investors must avoid the stock? How is a sustainable turnaround different than an unsustainable one? And, if a turnaround is "at hand" does that mean it's about to happen or that it's already happened? Anyone who thinks about this article and tries to figure out what it really means will have their brain explode.

    This article is unclear, poorly written and devoid of value. It is reasonable for people to comment on this. It is shameful that SA publishes rubbish like this.
    Oct 2, 2014. 12:50 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: The Battle Of Bears Versus Bulls [View article]
    Once again, nonsense. The database referenced defines "HD" as both Class 7 and Class 8 trucks. So those following the suggested exercise will find fueling stations designed for trash haulers and other Class 7 trucks that are obviously not going to be appropriate for Class 8 trucks (which are the primary target of CLNE's LNG stations). The same website has a map of LNG stations which, as near as I can tell, exactly matches what CLNE has been reporting: 57 total LNG stations now operational in the U.S. It is not the case that only Upside is telling the truth while CLNE and Westport and others are all lying; the opposite is reality.

    Despite the efforts of some to confuse investors with misinformation, CLNE has steadfastly and honestly reported exactly which stations they have opened. I hope nobody is fooled by people like Upside.
    Aug 14, 2014. 09:20 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels' CEO Discusses Update of Natural Gas for the Trucking Industry Conference (Transcript) [View article]
    Lots of great information here. Hard to believe that CLNE, already generating half a billion of revenues and with the potential to being selling many billions within a few years, is today on sale at $9.60 and a market capitalization of only $856 million!
    Feb 10, 2014. 03:45 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Memo To Intel Bulls: You People Are Dead Wrong [View article]
    Wow, lots of heat in your arguments but the substance is a little light. You hammer over and over how much Intel is spending on R&D, implying that it's futile, but where's the analysis? Simply saying Intel "will not topple" ARM and Qualcomm doesn't help an investor evaluate whether this is true. Similarly, stating that the mobile market will inevitably decline isn't very helpful... the sun will ultimate burn out, but I'm not going to let that impact my investing strategy.

    Ultimately, the factors most relevant to Intel's value are how much will the pc market decline and what will Intel's share of the mobile market be. I am no expert on these subjects, but my reading on the subject persuades me that the pc market isn't going to decline forever -- it will level off at some point -- and that Intel's mobile chips are pretty darn competitive. This article doesn't seem to shine any further light on these topics, so I don't find it very helpful.
    Sep 10, 2013. 12:22 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Update: PRA Group Q3 Earnings [View article]
    Your article mentions the uncertainty created by the regulatory environment, but skips the opportunities. It is true that uncertainty in the regulatory environment has slowed the transfer of debt to companies like PRAA. However, this same uncertainty is shrinking the number of competitors that PRAA has -- and new regulations will make it harder for new competitors to enter the market. The net result is that resolution of the regulatory issues, which will happen, will leave PRAA in a distinctly advantageous position with increasing amounts of debt available for purchase and fewer options for those selling this debt.

    It is also important to note that this third quarter was the first to partially incorporate the benefits of the European acquisition. The fourth quarter will be the first full quarter which includes Europe.

    I would agree with your analysis that the past quarter was a "meh" -- not bad, but not great either. I think you have missed, however, the "wow" opportunity that PRAA has going forward.
    Nov 12, 2014. 10:21 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels Likely To Rally Strongly Through Year End [View article]
    In CLNE's most recent quarter, they delivered 68.6 gge which was up 22% from deliveries one year ago. Annualized, 68.6 gge is 274.4 (68.6 x 4 = 274.4). At a 22% growth rate, it will take less than two years to exceed 400 gge (274.4 x 1.22 x 1.22 = 408.4). At September 30, 2014, CLNE had cash on hand and short-term investments of $265.1 million. Through the first nine months of 2014, CLNE operations consumed $56.4 million. Thus, at their current burn rate, CLNE has sufficient cash to last 3.5 years (265.1/[56.4/.75]) -- but, of course, as they deliver more gallons, their burn rate will fall... so actually they have five or more years of cash available.

    You are absolutely positively wrong, paterno. 400 million gge is not "a very long way off"; it is probably about two years off. And it is not "much longer than their cash burn permits" -- they have plenty of cash.
    Oct 30, 2014. 05:27 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment