The article “The tsunami of structural change.” generated a high-level discussion by several financial analysts in three different countries, the main points of which I have summarised below …….
Why do it?
The key element in the article was that the structural separation of telcos is beginning to make sense to the financial market also.
Some of the analysts identified some problems up front, as did I. While it makes sense to go down the structural separation path, it is not going to happen overnight, mainly because it is such a radical evolution.
- Shareholder perspective: Shareholders are not pushing the idea of structural separation – they remain fearful that it could lead to lower profitability.
- Incumbent management perspective: Top management would lose their integrated – various parts of the incumbent would have to be managed truly independent and, in time perhaps be split.
- From a politician’s perspective, however, it would be relatively easy to proceed when confronted with a simple chart that demonstrates the link between broadband penetration/investment and competition. Furthermore it would provide a long term solution to the recurring telco debates.
- From a regulator’s perspective: Separation would lead to easier, more stable regulatory configurations. Possibly however the regulator would lose power as they would have to largely give up regulating customers interaction and just focus on maintaining an open network (which would be great).
Unleashing untapped values
One of the analysts argued ‘Why would you not push the thinking to its next level?’
From a financial perspective, utilities are often assessed on book value of equity (or, in more sophisticated instances, replacement book value), plus possibly some premium, depending on the returns allowed and growth perspectives.
Symmetrically, utility regulators favour total separation of network and end services, and essentially compute network prices to achieve a specified rate of return on book value.
Obviously, looking at things this way may reveal that many telcos are still overvalued as against their (replacement) book value. Could this be the reason nobody is keen to take the argument to its logical conclusion?
Structural separation doesn’t necessarily mean lower profitability for the telcos – actually the impact cannot be confidently accessed today. Neither does lower profitability necessarily lower market valuations anyway. If the financial marketplace more confidence than today in the sustainability of the income stream and understand better the various regulated and non-regulated components, they may reward the telcos with higher P/E and P/B ratios. With a clear and separate focuses on core business such as infrastructure and retail digital media, these changes could thus produce the opposite effect.
As has been discussed many times over the last decade, telco and media businesses require different business skills and different business cultures.
I don’t know any telco that has ever successfully become a media company. Thus, the media assets in for example Telstra Australia get marginalised by a company that has spent the last 100 years porting voice calls. These assets in the hands of some smart media people will create a much higher value. That value will never be created or accurately reflected within a telco company.
BT first cab of the rank
So far BT provides us with the only precedent we can rely on, and its regulated asset value differs considerably from its depreciated book value. Its regulated asset base is a touch over £11bn, whereas the value of these assets under IFRS is closer to £8bn, representing a discrepancy of almost 50%.
Unfortunately, since no one else has disclosed their regulated asset bases (nor provided the value of last-mile assets under IFRS within their fixed asset register) it is hard to know whether this is the case throughout the rest of Europe.
Ireland an even more interesting case
As I mentioned in my initial analysis, Ireland is currently the country to watch.
One of the questions being asked by the national carrier Eircom is just where do you separate the network? Once the network is split off there is more transparency, and arguably transfer pricing is removed. Some contend that in a more openly competitive model the sum of the parts doesn’t work, as the retail operations suffer margin implosion.
In those circumstances this same argument would play out in Australia with Telstra.
Thus, if the CAN was put into a regulated infrastructure trust (that is, the bottleneck component of the network) and the remainder was separated (that is, at the exchange), a much more powerful business would result – and one that would not (arguably?) constitute a natural monopoly.
Watch out for New Zealand
Equally interesting is that in Ireland the process of structural separation is not a regulatory activity because private equity will make it happen. This could also apply to the situation in New Zealand. Because there is a good chance that private money will acquire and separate the assets it is unlikely that either the New Zealand Government or Telecom management will bite that bullet.
Babcock and Brown Capital is a shareholder in Telecom NZ, so once Ireland, the ‘test case’, has been completed it will only be a matter of time before they look at the New Zealand situation.
I also mentioned the interest of Macquarie Bank in structural separation. They looked at Australia and Hong Kong and I am sure there will be other countries on their list as well.
Australia has been put on notice
Australia is one of the few other countries where the government has made moves in this direction, but, government policies there are often far too weak – and the regulator does not have power to act upon structural issues.
In Australia T3 was a lost opportunity, basically a missed shot in front of an open goal. However structural separation will eventually happen in Australia also, but it will most likely take longer in comparison with our trading partners, due to the incumbent’s usual delaying tactics.
I estimate it will take at least five years, but, you never know, Sol Trujillo might already be in discussion with some of the experts in the financial market, establishing what his options are.
Other financial consideration
To make it even more complex, the regulated utility is often just one component of a myriad other businesses.
Looking at it in another light, one of the analysts argued that 6.5x EV/EBITDA is not overvaluing a company that has a national presence and an instantly recognisable brand etc.
Some of the financial calculations indicate that telco assets more closely resemble utilities, and should therefore attract higher multiples than the consolidated group currently applies. Telco valuations remain heavily penalised by regulatory uncertainty – there is nothing worse than being a utility without being able to offer the financial stability of a utility.
Others, like myself, have tried to convince some of the parties involved that the network should become a regulated utility with a regulated return, sufficient to incentivise ongoing capex. If that were to happen the regulator, the voting public (asset remains in regulated structure and even with some government stake) and every political party would be HAPPY.
A massive win win win win!!
Create new digital media companies
The rest of the bits can be sold off. For many years I have been advocating in Australia the privatisation of Sensis, Foxtel and BigPond; now owned or dominated by Teletra. Combine them and create a formidable digital media company.
Another of the analysts suggested that shareholders could be allowed to choose the parts they want to own, or whether they want exposure to just one part (network, mobile, media assets, etc). That would have made shareholders happy, because the sum of the parts is always greater than the whole.
How to proceed?
The most important factor in a strategy like this is to start with a robust and simple long-term regulatory framework in the telecom arena, particularly in comparison with those that exist in other utility areas such as gas, water and electricity.
Paul Budde
PS
The analysts are keen to continue this debate, so your comments are welcome.
See also:
Global – Analysis – Industry – Structural Separation
Global – Industry – Regulatory – Privatisation, Structural Separation
Australia – Operational Separation of Telstra
Tweet This Post