Recs

16

Under the Microscope in China: L&L Energy

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

Editor's note: This article has been updated to correct the assumptions about current production levels at L&L Energy's four operating mines. The Fool regrets the error.

The more investors learn about widespread fraudulent practices occurring within China's corporate realm, and particularly as the pressure applied by short-sellers forces companies under the microscope, the burden of satisfying investors that operations in China are reported accurately and transparently has landed squarely upon the shoulders of each individual company that is called into question.

Following a relentless 65% collapse from the stock's 52-week peak, the time has come to place Seattle-based L&L Energy (Nasdaq: LLEN  ) -- a small-cap operator in China's bustling coal industry -- under the Foolish microscope. As an impartial observer with no investment in the stock, I seek only to assist readers in performing their own due diligence on a stock that combines an enticing growth story with some visible red flags. After presenting my own findings, I will then share the company's written responses to my research questions to ensure all our bases are covered. As always, however, you will have the final word by discussing your own assessment of the risks and potential rewards.

The enticing growth proposition
L&L Energy's principal growth strategy, within what is truly a booming global market for coal to fuel China's seemingly insatiable demand, hinges upon the acquisition of small-scale coal mining operations at a time when small independent operators face an official state mandate to ramp up annual output to a minimum of 300,000 tons. While absorbing and expanding several newly acquired mining operations in China's Yunnan and Guizhou provinces simultaneously, L&L Energy continues to amass a vertically integrated presence in the region that includes coal washing, coking, and wholesale services.

Bolstering the forecast expansion of output from the company's four operating mines, L&L has secured 1 million tons of "super compliant" thermal coal supply from the Bowie mine in Colorado, which will be shipped to the port of Zhanjiang and blended with L&L's own product to enhance overall pricing. In a related move, L&L Energy is also conducting a feasibility study for a proposed coal blending and distribution facility at Zhanjiang.

As you can see, L&L energy has a lot of irons in the growth fire all at once, such that successful execution on just a few of these initiatives could conceivably drive some meaningful momentum going forward. L&L Energy reports that each of its four operating mines presently yields about 150,000 tons per year and that all four will ultimately double in scale to produce 300,000 tons per year (for a targeted combined capacity of 1.2 million tons). Meanwhile, the company's coal washing and other vertically integrated operations appear to be driving some nice revenue growth of their own, with the recently formed, 98%-owned Tai Fung joint venture in Yunnan province forecast to generate $81 million in annual revenue.

As terrific as this growth story looks on paper, and as deeply undervalued as the shares may prove to be if the company can deliver on its aggressive growth targets, the first order of business is for the stock to break free from the intense selling pressure that has presently ensnared all manner of U.S.- and Canadian-listed stocks with operations in China.

Particularly after Sino-Forest came under the market's microscope earlier this month for questions relating to its reported timber holdings, the sell-off has spread to companies that offer little cause for concern. For Yongye International (Nasdaq: YONG  ) , it took a $50 million private-equity investment from Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS  ) to reverse a painful decline. Silvercorp Metals (NYSE: SVM  ) CEO Rui Feng laments: "People got very emotional and started to dump everything related to China." For L&L Energy, the challenge is to restore confidence among "shell-shocked" Western investors through utter transparency, a specific road map and timeline for achieving stated growth objectives, and by delivering the goods in the form of rising income. Fortunately for L&L Energy, to date that income growth has indeed served to corroborate the underlying growth story.

Where the red flags begin
Without seeking to belabor a set of issues that have been raised elsewhere, and may indeed have contributed to the stock's painful retreat, these facts are nonetheless relevant to an investor's process of due diligence.

During the years before the company began operating in China's coal industry in 2006, founder and CEO Dickson Lee got himself into a bit of hot water with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Lee was fined $65,000 and was suspended for a period of one year from the National Association of Securities Dealers for a series of allegations relating to the sale of stock in one of L&L Energy's several corporate predecessors. Securities regulators of four U.S. states issued cease and desist letters to L&L Financial Holdings relating to allegations that included a failure to disclose to investors that 35% of gross proceeds were awarded as commissions to L&L's investor relations executive, and (specific to the state of Washington) the unauthorized sale of securities. Because Lee was both a CPA and a registered securities broker at the time, I think it's fair to interpret those events collectively as a cause for some concern.

L&L Energy's executive vice president of U.S. operations, Clayton Fong, served the administration of President George H.W. Bush in multiple capacities, but it is the manner in which he was ousted as CEO of the National Asian Pacific Center on Aging in 2009 that commands our Foolish attention. John Quoc Duong, then-chairman of that organization's board, told The Seattle Times: "We lost confidence in this person to lead the organization." He told another publication: "We concluded that a number of his actions and conduct fell short of the standards we set in our policies and bylaws." Further details regarding what may have precipitated that decision were not uncovered in the course of my research.

Gene Michael Bennett, whose role as director and audit chairman for China Shen Zhou Mining and Resources (AMEX: SHZ  ) was cited by Absaroka Capital Management in March as "part of the reason why we initially got concerned" about that company, spent three short months as CFO of L&L Energy before resigning in May of 2008 to pursue a doctoral degree. Alleged inconsistencies in Bennett's biographical record, along with alleged failures to comply with his audit committee's own rules, have not helped that company's cause. Although Bennett's tenure at L&L Energy was brief, and just because some executives were accused of having done sketchy things in the past doesn't mean they are doing them at L&L currently, but if an unfortunate pattern begins to emerge among some of the executive personnel associated with L&L, that is not likely to aid the company's efforts to distinguish itself perceptually from high-profile disaster stocks such as Puda Coal (AMEX: PUDA  ) and Longtop Financial (NYSE: LFT  ) . Helping to counteract the above-noted issues, however, former U.S. Secretary of Transportation and Secretary of Commerce Norman Mineta serves as vice chairman of L&L's board, while former director of the U.S. Mint Edmund Moy serves as vice president for corporate infrastructure.

Getting to the heart of the matter
More troubling than the matters discussed above, I detected throughout my examination of the company a pattern of peculiarities, inconsistencies, and vague rhetoric that undermined my own personal confidence in the underlying story. For starters, we have the vague set of core competencies that L&L Energy frequently touts, epitomized by this gem from the company's website: "L & L possesses the analytical skills to improve coal mining standards in China, giving L & L a competitive edge in the industry." I have good analytical skills ... perhaps I should start my own coal company.

Elsewhere, the company has stated: "The application of U.S. mining management and safety practices is a strategic advantage for L&L in China." Since the company acquired its first coal mining operations in 2008, has never operated a mine in the United States, and has painfully little to offer in the way of prior coal-industry experience among senior management, that claim also strikes me as something of a stretch. Subsequently, while reviewing the company's corporate presentation (see Page 22 of this PDF), I found troubling from a safety standpoint the image of a miner dumping the contents of a coal car over a precipice with no apparent use of safety apparatus.

Looking into the numbers for L&L Energy's coal reserves, things get even more confusing. The website claims 60 million tons of coal reserves, while its corporate presentation counts only 38.2 million tons. The website previously made mention of a development property called Tian-Ri with coal reserves of 53 million tons, but presently neither the website nor the presentation make mention of the project at all. L&L Energy currently estimates reserves at the Ping Yi mine at 13.5 million tons, which is a very far cry from the 31 million tons claimed in a 2009 press release.

The numbers do not get much clearer on the production front, either. The corporate presentation is clear in establishing recent baseline production at each of the four mines at about 150,000 tons per year, for about 600,000 tons before the targeted expansion to 1.2 million tons (300,000 tons per mine). However, in an April 2011 interview with Dave Gentry of public-relations firm RedChip Cos., L&L CEO Dickson Lee described current production at the Ping Yi mine of 450,000 tons, 300,000 tons at DaPing, and about 500,000 tons total at the remaining two mines. So current production volume for L&L Energy apparently lies somewhere in the margin between 600,000 tons and 1.25 million tons, and the absence of production volume data within L&L Energy's most recent earnings statement makes it difficult to track the progress of that expansion in a timely way. I encourage L&L Energy to offer investors increased clarity on current volumes and the progress of ongoing expansions in future filings..

Click here for Part 2 of this discussion, in which you will find answers from L&L Energy to several of the questions that arose over the course of my examination of the company. In the meantime, consider this timely advice from money manager Arthur Salzer: "Before you buy a company operating in China, due diligence above and beyond what you would perform on a Western company is needed." To aid in that process, researchers with the Motley Fool Global Gains team have traveled once again to China to pinpoint the companies that survive their collective scrutiny; and it's not too late to receive free email dispatches for the remainder of their trip.

The Steve Jobs Betrayal
You may already know that in the final year of his life, Jobs revealed a stunning betrayal — and told his biographer, "I will spend my last dying breath... and every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong." What was it that made Jobs so irate — and why could it make a few in-the-know investors some major profits over the coming months and years?

Enter your email address below to find out what made Jobs so enraged!

Fool contributor Christopher Barker can be found blogging actively and acting Foolishly within the CAPS community under the username TMFSinchiruna. He tweets. He owns shares of Silvercorp Metals. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On June 16, 2011, at 1:26 PM, mcej1979 wrote:

    Just for your edification regarding the most “questionable” comment you made regarding production.

    The interview was done on April at the mines (not the date they bought them or historical production comments). We were there – for three weeks on site at the mines. Dickson quoted current status or production they are targeting. He did not mention a specific date as this was ad hoc interview done in April and was based on current production, not historical.

    You made statements of each mine at 150,000 tons. That is completely absurd as those dates are not consistent – at times you are comparing 2008, to 2011 and 2010 to 2011…. You are comparing apples to oranges and is flat out sloppy and I believe was done to manipulate the stock, draw attention and create viewers for yourself as we all know negative statements in the current market draws viewers.

    I EXPECT A RETRACTMENT OF THE ARTICLE IMMEDIATELY. This need for retraction is based off the same data you referenced, yet you took what best justified your negative comments versus facts!

    DaPuAn – Acquired in 2008. At time that time when they acquired they said it was producing 150,000 tons. (Chris Barker takes this as currently). They clearly state that they are targeting 300,000 of production and applying for greater expansion as well. I would assume this desire and aggressive expansion plan takes place monthly.

    SuTsong – The also acquired in 2008. Was producing 90,000 tons, they very quickly expanded it to 150,000 tons. They state they are expanding to 300,000 tons. That means they “are” expanding. They state as of the date of production they are expanding to 300,000 tons. Using historical production to compare Dickson’s comments of current production is ludicrous.

    These two mines Dickson said they production roughly 500,000 tons currently. So DaPuAn at 300,000 tons and SuTsong between 150,000 to 300,000 would tie out pretty consistently to his approximate 500,000 ton comment.

    Ping Yi – they acquired in 2010. When they acquired it was producing 150,000 tons. They have been aggressively expanding this mine and built a large wash plant there. Its targeted to produce 300,000 tons per the presentation, but per the interview Dickson stated they are looking to now expand that to 450,000 tons. Which is not unheard of given they are plowing all money back into the mine and we saw the expansion on the ground.

    DaPing – They just bought it in 2011. Historically it produced 150,000 tons. In the presentation and per Dickson’s interview they are targeting 300,000 tons.

    Total production he mentioned as of that date was roughly 1.25 million (this was a broad interview statement) as of the interview date, but his statements are consistent and were highly accurate per all materials you quoted. The only inconsistency was your article which was not accurate.

    Please explain where what they said was inconsistent per your article where you made claims that are historical as far back as a few years…..

  • Report this Comment On June 16, 2011, at 3:48 PM, mcej1979 wrote:

    As we have always stated due diligence and skepticism is key, but also reporting factual information is key as well. We believe Chris Barker at the Motley Fool did neither and is attempting to drive viewership by being controversial and is just flat out bad at interpreting or understanding data. With all public data we believe we have answered all his questions that he used to negatively attack the Company based on non factual statements or clearly biased statements. We will focus on what we believe is important. We have asked for a retraction of the article and hopefully it is honored as it is factually incorrect, sloppy and we believe questionable in its integrity.

    Our statements within this article are ours and should not be construed as any statement by the company and may or may not be factual per the SEC documents. We recommend anyone looking at the company should rely on public SEC filings. All our responses can be obtained in the public domain and are purely the opinion of the author.

    Statement one: Gene Bennett

    Gene Bennett was employed by LLEN for I believe a little less than three months. I asked Dickson of this involvement and he said they did not get along and it was a short lived relationship where by Gene left the Company (per the SEC filings). He said that is all he wishes to say but that they did not see eye to eye on many things. He also mentioned he had very little involvement in the Company and did not make any substantial decisions within the Company during his involvement.

    This is amusing we are alleging anything questionable about LLEN for an individual that the individual and the Company parted ways from in 2008 after a very very short stint…. If we took this approach we would have trouble finding any company in the world to invest in.

    Funny that people bring this up as I believe the fact that he is not involved in LLEN is a good thing. Shouldn't a company be rewarded for no longer being involved with a person of questionable record, especially after a very short stint?

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Statement Two: The author is naively pointing out only the senior executive’s qualifications in coal.

    I am pretty sure Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway does not fly the jets at Netjets, or that he does not write the insurance contracts at Geico. Let’s be clear, I am not calling Dickson Lee Warren Buffett, but I am saying that Dickson is filling his team (employees, advisors, consultants, etc.) with qualified and talented coal executives and employees on the ground in China as well in the U.S.

    Anyone that visits the company on the ground in China and meets their full team, as we have, will see that the LLEN’s team and their JV and partnership employees have many years of experience in coal and are very talented individuals. LLEN Executive team, made of U.S. Citizens, brings a lot of common business sense to the equation. We have seen many improvements in the quality of the operations and progression of their business. Simple business decisions such as adding shifts, improving equipment standards, building structural support outside and inside the mines goes a long way to improving production and consistency of production. Also vertically integrating the operation gives LLEN the ability to have better negotiating power with its customers, potential acquisitions, etc. Simple business decisions that add value to any organization be it a clothing retailer, an insurance company or a coal miner.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Statement Three: Coal Safety and Safety Apparatuses

    I have been an investor and very active participant in coal mines in the past in the United States. I have been all throughout the Appalachia region and have seen many coal mining operations and coal washing plants. I have lived for months on end in a double wide trailer while visiting these mines to ensure I saw the day to day of a coal mining operation. One thing I have never seen is coal safety apparatuses worn at the mines or the wash plants, despite being high above the ground at times, as Chris Barker claims should be worn. I am sure LLEN will take the suggestion if it would benefit their employees, but I would invite Chris to the Company or to Kentucky to see a coal mining operations, before he becomes a coal mining safety inspector.

    Despite Chris’s desires I believe LLEN should stick to improving the safety of inside the mines in terms of structural support and training of coal safety standards for its employees. Structural support in underground mining is very important and in china many smaller mines have inadequate support. LLEN immediately focusing on improving this standard at mines they buy makes a lot of sense to us as your people and employees are your assets and you must ensure you protect them in the mine shaft.

    I applaud the consolidation efforts within in China for this very reason as safety is very important.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Statement Four: Mine Reserves

    Chris is once again comparing apples to oranges. Quoting tons they claim on their site and on their presentations. The reserves they quote on their presentation are from their producing mines. The one on the website is from non producing and producing mines at the time. Ultimately if anyone wants an accurate calculation regarding the reserves they should read SEC filings and not rely on Chris Barker for such analysis as clearly he is flawed in ability to differentiate time periods and what is actually being stated. LLEN is very clear about their reserves in their filings with the SEC which is what should be relied on. I as an investor have asked LLEN to update their website and improve their Site. I hope they take such a suggestion when they get time from building the business to do so.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Statement Five: Production Questions.

    The interview was done on April at the mines (not the date they bought them or historical production comments). My team was there – for weeks on site at the mines. Dickson quoted current status or production they are targeting. He did not mention a specific date as this was ad hoc interview done in April and was based on current production, not historical or as of the date they bought the mine.

    MF made statements of each mine at 150,000 tons. That is completely absurd as those dates are not consistent – at times you are comparing 2008, to 2011 and 2010 to 2011…. You are comparing apples to oranges and is flat out sloppy and I believe was done to manipulate the stock, draw attention and create viewers as we all know negative statements in the current market draws viewers.

    I EXPECT A RETRACTION OF THE ARTICLE IMMEDIATELY. This need for retraction is based off the same data they referenced, yet they took what best justified your negative comments versus facts!

    DaPuAn – Acquired in 2008. At time that time when they acquired they said it was producing 150,000 tons. (Chris Barker takes this as currently). They clearly state that they are targeting 300,000 of production and applying for greater expansion as well. I would assume this desire and aggressive expansion plan takes place monthly.

    SuTsong – The also acquired in 2008. Was producing 90,000 tons, they very quickly expanded it to 150,000 tons. They state they are expanding to 300,000 tons. That means they “are” expanding. They state as of the date of production they are expanding to 300,000 tons. Using historical production to compare Dickson’s comments of current production is ludicrous.

    These two mines Dickson said they production roughly 500,000 tons currently. So DaPuAn at 300,000 tons and SuTsong between 150,000 to 300,000 would tie out pretty consistently to his approximate 500,000 ton comment.

    Ping Yi – they acquired in 2010. When they acquired it was producing 150,000 tons. They have been aggressively expanding this mine and built a large wash plant there. Its targeted to produce 300,000 tons per the presentation, but per the interview Dickson stated they are looking to now expand that to 450,000 tons. Which is not unheard of given they are plowing all money back into the mine and we saw the expansion on the ground.

    DaPing – They just bought it in 2011. Historically it produced 150,000 tons. In the presentation and per Dickson’s interview they are targeting 300,000 tons.

    Total production he mentioned as of that date was roughly 1.25 million (this was a broad interview statement) as of the interview date, but his statements are consistent and were highly accurate per all materials quoted. The only inconsistency was MF's article which was not accurate.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1508170, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/26/2012 9:13:14 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 11 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,454.83 -74.92 -0.60%
S&P 500 1,317.82 -2.86 -0.22%
NASD 2,837.53 -1.85 -0.07%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

5/25/2012 4:00 PM
LLEN $1.69 Down -0.02 -1.17%
L & L Internationa… CAPS Rating: **
SHZ $1.03 Up +0.18 +21.23%
China Shen Zhou Mi… CAPS Rating: *
SVM $6.05 Up +0.08 +1.34%
Silvercorp Metals… CAPS Rating: ***
YONG $2.94 Down -0.04 -1.34%
Yongye Internation… CAPS Rating: ***
LGFTY.PK $0.00 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Longtop Financial… CAPS Rating: *
MS $13.25 Down -0.06 -0.45%
Morgan Stanley CAPS Rating: ***
PUDA.PK $0.10 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Puda Coal, Inc. CAPS Rating: ***

Advertisement