SEACOR's Fabrikant: "We're very unhappy ..."

any Seacor hands have any comments to add to this?

[B]SEACOR’s Fabrikant: “We’re very unhappy …”[/B]

APRIL 30, 2013 — “We are very unhappy with our results for both this quarter and the fourth quarter of 2012,” said Charles Fabrikant, Executive Chairman of the Board, as SEACOR Holdings Inc. (NYSE: CKH) reported results for its first quarter that included a net loss for the quarter of $10.9 million, or $0.55 per diluted share.

Mr. Fabrikant, said the disappointing results resulted primarily because of four factors: a large seasonal swing in revenues and expenses that negatively impacted SEACOR’s lift boat business; reduced barge activity levels for its inland group’s dry cargo fleet; an impairment charge for two harbor tugs; and poor results from its ethanol investment.

“We believe the outlook for offshore activity in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico is positive, however,” he said, “and we are also evaluating various paths to return our ethanol operation to profitability.”

HIGHLIGHTS FOR THE QUARTER

Offshore Marine Services

Operating income was $5.2 million on operating revenues of $124.0 million compared with operating income of $19.3 million on operating revenues of $141.1 million in the preceding quarter.

In the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, operating revenues were $2.5 million lower in the first quarter. Time charter revenues for the company’s liftboat fleet were $8.2 million lower primarily due to the seasonal downturn for that fleet. The decrease was partially offset by increased time charter revenues of $5.5 million for the company’s anchor handling towing supply vessels primarily due to increased utilization in support of platform supply activities. The number of out of service days attributable to drydockings increased by 292, or 230 percent, during the first quarter. Utilization was 73.7 percent compared with 77.1 percent in the preceding quarter and average day rates increased from $14,404 to $15,119 per day. As of March 31, 2013, the company had one vessel cold-stacked in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.

In International regions, excluding the contribution of the wind farm utility vessels, operating revenues were $13.2 million lower in the first quarter. In Mexico, Central and South America, time charter revenues were $5.6 million lower, primarily due to an increase in out-of-service days attributable to drydocking activity and weak spot market conditions in Brazil. In Asia, time charter revenues were $5.1 million lower, primarily due to the sale of a vessel to one of the company’s joint ventures and lower utilization following the conclusion of a term charter for a vessel operating in Sakhalin. Time charter revenues were lower in other geographical regions primarily due to weaker market conditions and the weakening of the pound sterling against the U.S. dollar. Utilization was 83.2 percent compared with 88.9 percent in the preceding quarter and average day rates decreased from $12,372 per day to $10,942 per day.

Operating expenses were $1.4 million lower in the first quarter. Personnel expenses and the cost of fuel, lubes and supplies were lower consistent with reduced utilization levels and fewer days in the quarter. These reductions were partially offset by higher drydocking expenses primarily due to an extensive drydocking program during the seasonal downturn of the liftboat fleet. During the first quarter, drydocking costs were $11.2 million compared with $7.3 million in the preceding quarter. The number of out-of-service days attributable to drydockings was 645 days compared with 323 days in the preceding quarter.

Administration and general expenses were $4.6 million lower in the first quarter primarily due to additional compensation expenses incurred during the preceding quarter arising from the acceleration of restricted stock awards originally scheduled to vest in 2013 and 2014.

In the first quarter, the total number of days available for charter for the company’s fleet, excluding wind farm utility vessels, decreased by 408 days, or 4 percent primarily due to fewer days in the quarter. Overall utilization, excluding wind farm utility vessels, decreased from 83.0 percent to 79.0 percent and overall average day rates, excluding wind farm utility vessels, decreased by 3 percent from $13,306 per day to $12,878 per day. Time charter operating data by vessel class is presented in the table included herein.

Inland River Services

Operating income was $3.3 million on operating revenues of $50.1 million compared with operating income of $8.9 million on operating revenues of $66.5 million in the preceding quarter. First quarter results included $0.7 million of gains on asset dispositions compared with $1.4 million in gains in the preceding quarter. Operating results for the pooled hopper barge fleet were lower in the first quarter primarily due to weak demand for barge freight as a consequence of lower grain exports resulting in idling a portion of the fleet. United States grain exports are not currently competitive in the global market.

Shipping Services

Operating income was $3.8 million on operating revenues of $46.5 million compared with operating income of $5.7 million on operating revenues of $46.3 million in the preceding quarter. Operating results for petroleum transportation were $3.1 million higher in the first quarter primarily due to less out-of-service time and lower drydocking expenses. Operating results for harbor towing and bunkering were $5.4 million lower in the first quarter primarily due to higher repairs and maintenance and drydocking expenses, and an impairment charge of $3.0 million for two harbor tugs. Operating results for short-sea and liner transportation were $0.4 million higher primarily due to improved operational efficiencies and lower repairs and maintenance expenses. Equity in losses in both quarters were primarily attributable to losses in the company’s Jones Act liner transportation joint venture.

Ethanol and Industrial Alcohol

Ethanol and Industrial Alcohol reported a segment loss of $3.3 million on operating revenues of $32.8 million compared with a segment loss of $2.2 million on operating revenues of $42.3 million in the preceding quarter. Operating results in both quarters were negatively impacted by higher corn prices.

Other

Other reported a segment profit of $2.4 million during the first quarter primarily due to a gain on the sale of real property. In the preceding quarter, segment loss included equity in losses of $9.2 million primarily due to the one-time recognition of deferred tax liabilities on the deconsolidation of non-deductible goodwill upon the contribution of O’Brien’s Response Management Inc. in exchange for an equity interest in Witt O’Brien’s LLC.

Capital Commitments

As of March 31, 2013, the company’s unfunded capital commitments were $151.8 million and included: 14 offshore support vessels for $106.1 million; seven inland river tank barges for $15.0 million; five inland river towboats for $12.7 million; four harbor tugs for $7.4 million; and other equipment and improvements for $8.0 million. In addition, the company notified a lessor of its intent to purchase two harbor tugs currently operating under capital leases for $2.6 million. Of these commitments, $97.8 million is payable during 2013 with the balance payable through 2015. Subsequent to March 31, 2013, the company committed to purchase additional equipment for $49.7 million.

As of March 31, 2013, the company held balances of cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash, marketable securities, construction reserve funds and Title XI reserve funds totaling $557.2 million.

Why isn’t Fabrikant more aggressive in the GoM for Christ’s sake? Even those Guidy neanderthals at Harvey Gulf Marine are eating his lunch in the Gulf!

We picked up quit a few long time Seacor hands this past year. All positions from AB to Master, something must be up over there.

I hate to generalize but every seacor boat I dealt with last time I was down the gulf was a goddamn hassle. Hope it’s just those isolated boats, or specific crews.

Nothing is really up over here. That’s kind of the problem. Bought the lift boats. Think we have to new supply boats coming out this year. Think they are 220. Still a good place to work just not sure what the big plan is

I smell lay off coming…

What? It’s their MO every time they have a bad quarter.

[QUOTE=“groessleriv;107684”]Nothing is really up over here. That’s kind of the problem. Bought the lift boats. Think we have to new supply boats coming out this year. Think they are 220. Still a good place to work just not sure what the big plan is[/QUOTE]

I’m sorry to say this, but I would not be happy to hear about brand new 220s coming out. That is a good shelf boat, but not much more than that.

[QUOTE=“Jemplayer;107698”]I smell lay off coming…

What? It’s their MO every time they have a bad quarter.[/QUOTE]

Which would suck since they have been hiring

Hiring and lay offs are driven by need and cash flow. (There is a big difference between cash flow and “profits.”)

If they have business, they need people to do the work, and have cash flow to pay them with, so they must hire.

If they don’t have business, then they don’t need as many people, and cannot afford to pay them, so they must lay people off.

Their MO during a boom ought to be different than during a bust.

My question is: Why would a company as big and well established as Seacor, NOT be building new generation boats — like all of their large competitors?

Seacor is more of a holdings and investment company than a true boat company. Just look at what they buy and when…

What’s strange is that in the late 90’s it was a battle between SEACOR and ECO for big dog bragging rights and for intents and purposes SEACOR was winning that contest! Fabrikant built for that time were the biggest and baddest anchor boats yet for the GoM with the V class but today those boats are all little pipsqueaks and they have done very little with regards to building deepwater OSV’s instead putting their money in the McCall fleet of little supply and big crewboats which is all fine and good but doesn’t win them any bragging prizes. Like I said, even HGM is eating SEACOR’s lunch these days along with ECO, HOS and OCLLC. Even GOL is building bigger boats than SEACOR is these days. Does SEACOR really have any real deepwater plan moving forward?

Why on earth did Fabrikant miss the bus like he did? Was it all to sit and wait for someone to fall on their face and swoop in for easy and cheap pickins? That ain’t gonna happen now in today’s boom market and didn’t even happen when the moratorium was in effect which if any of the OSV companies were going to crash it was then! Now it is purely playing catch-up for Fabrikant and the cost to play is getting higher every year so unless he has some serious big bucks in his back pocket to spend he’s gonna have a tough time getting anywhere.

Oh well…so it goes in the big show. Some teams got’s the right moxie and some teams don’t got squat!

.

[QUOTE=c.captain;107775]What’s strange is that in the late 90’s it was a battle between SEACOR and ECO for big dog bragging rights and for intents and purposes SEACOR was winning that contest! Fabrikant built for that time were the biggest and baddest anchor boats yet for the GoM with the V class but today those boats are all little pipsqueaks and they are done very little with regards to deepwater OSV’s instead putting their money in the McCall fleet of little supply and big crewboats which is good but doesn’t win any prizes. Like I said, even HGM is eating SEACOR’s lunch along with ECO, HOS and OCLLC. Even GOL is building bigger boats than SEACOR is these days.

Why on earth did Fabrikant miss the bus like he did? Was it all to sit and wait for someone to fall on their face and swoop in for easy and cheap pickins? That ain’t gonna happen now in today’s boom market and didn’t even happen when the moratorium was in effect which if any of the OSV companies were going to crash it was then! Now it is purely playing catch-up for Fabrikant and the cost to play is getting higher every year so unless he has some serious big bucks in his back pocket to spend he’s gonna have a tough time getting anywhere.

Oh well…so it goes in the big show![/QUOTE]

Seasor built some decent size anchor vessels, but were outdate as soon as they hit the water with those traction winches. Absolutely no flexibility for ultra-deepwater as majors moved to synthetic moorings. Another bad decision that cost them a market share.

[QUOTE=anchorman;107783]Seasor built some decent size anchor vessels, but were outdate as soon as they hit the water with those traction winches. Absolutely no flexibility for ultra-deepwater as majors moved to synthetic moorings. Another bad decision that cost them a market share.[/QUOTE]

I hear none of those boats even does anchor work in the Gulf anymore and are just odd supply vessels.

That and the fact that it’s virtually impossible to mount an ROV on those boats. The diesel electric Bender boats addressed that, but they are pure compromise anchor handlers.

They have feel behind the time except for the crewboats. The and crew boats are the only boats working. The anchor and supply boats set idle by all the time. A lot of factors involved why they ain’t making the big profits. Way to many to list on here for sure.

[QUOTE=boats67;107867] A lot of factors involved why they ain’t making the big profits. Way to many to list on here for sure.[/QUOTE]
\
All the same…list them please. We crave the enlightened dialog here and anything not bashing KP or SUNY is most very welcome!

[QUOTE=c.captain;107884]\
All the same…list them please. We crave the enlightened dialog here and anything not bashing KP or SUNY is most very welcome![/QUOTE]

Considering that those Seacor anchor boats have 4 16-645 E7 turbo EMD’s I can only imigane how much fuel they burn on a tow, running ahchors probably won’t be so bad. Just because of that they have a hard time competting with any of the newer AHTS’ that probably burn 25% less fuel. EMD’s are good engines but they do like there fuel.

One of the rumors I have heard for years, is that those boats never finish an anchor job. They always break down and have to go in for repairs. I think they have serious issues with the winches or handling equipment, not necessarly the engine’s. I have known several people that have worked on them. I also hear that the 4 new anchor boats (the bender hulls) they built are so cheap made they are almost unsafe to even run anchors. They call them the flex class, because they flex so bad in the middle trying to pull an anchor out of the mud. Not a very good rep is the rumor on the street.

[QUOTE=ChiefRob;107894]Considering that those Seacor anchor boats have 4 16-645 E7 turbo EMD’s I can only imigane how much fuel they burn on a tow, running ahchors probably won’t be so bad. Just because of that they have a hard time competting with any of the newer AHTS’ that probably burn 25% less fuel. EMD’s are good engines but they do like there fuel.

One of the rumors I have heard for years, is that those boats never finish an anchor job. They always break down and have to go in for repairs. I think they have serious issues with the winches or handling equipment, not necessarly the engine’s. I have known several people that have worked on them. I also hear that the 4 new anchor boats (the bender hulls) they built are so cheap made they are almost unsafe to even run anchors. They call them the flex class, because they flex so bad in the middle trying to pull an anchor out of the mud. Not a very good rep is the rumor on the street.[/QUOTE]

they just seem to be missing the boat on the whole GoM show in every way. Boats too small, the wrong winches, shitty construction. Amazing that they could eat it so badly!

Sound familiar? Running the domestic side of their business right into the shoals like Turdwater did 15 years ago.

.One thing Seacor did well for some time was getting contracts for Standby vessels in various areas around the globe. They seemed to like that model for two simple reasons: 1. Very easy on the equipment, 2. They could get a fairly lengthy contract. Seacor actually owns very few of the boats (bigger supply vessels) as their model is different than most OSV companies. They like to get a contract and design for a vessel and then commence construction. They then go to a large bank/investment/equity firm and look for someone to buy the vessels upon completion of construction. Seacor then leases the boat back for the length of the contract, at a set monthly/daily rate and have the option to extend if needed. When times are bad they can simply play out their contract and then give the vessel back to the bank and move on. The (2) Seacor boats sitting under the Amelia bridge are a product of this as their contract in California ended. I believe they are 220’s and Bank of America wants $8.5 MM the last I heard but the price was supposed to be reduced. It’s actually not a bad model from a financial liability side but isn’t great for sustaining long term growth.

They do build some nice advanced crewboats but I can’t seem to understand why they are letting this, and other, booms pass them by when it comes to OSV’s.

I’m fairly positive the 220’s your talking about are Master Boat hulls, Just another Callais boat.