QinetiQ Group
Written by
QinetiQ Group |
Competitive evolution continues |
Pre-results update |
Aerospace & defence |
18 April 2016 |
Share price performance
Business description
Next event
Analyst
QinetiQ Group is a research client of Edison Investment Research Limited |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
QinetiQ’s pre-close statement highlighted that the company is on course to achieve full year expectations. In addition to contract wins, the statement also highlighted the key outcomes from the Single Source Regulations Office (SSRO) baseline profit rate review. While this provides a level of certainty in the short term, further development of the rate for outer years is yet to be finalised consistent with management’s guidance for a moderation of margins in EMEA Services, as modelled in our forecasts. With results due on 26 May, we expect the group to further articulate its strategic evolution to enhance customer focus and competitiveness.
Year end |
Revenue (£m) |
PBT* |
EPS* |
DPS |
P/E |
Yield |
03/14 |
782.6 |
101.2 |
13.8 |
4.6 |
16.2 |
2.1 |
03/15 |
763.8 |
107.8 |
15.2 |
5.4 |
14.7 |
2.4 |
03/16e |
776.6 |
105.5 |
15.4 |
5.7 |
14.5 |
2.5 |
03/17e |
784.0 |
103.9 |
15.5 |
6.0 |
14.4 |
2.7 |
Note: *PBT and EPS are normalised, excluding amortisation of acquired intangibles, exceptional items and share-based payments.
Pre-close highlights on track to deliver
QinetiQ delivered a strong set of interims in November even during the uncertainty surrounding the election and SDSR, while the £50m buyback provided further evidence of the group’s clear approach to capital allocation with excess cash returned to shareholders. The pre-close statement reaffirmed that the group is on track to deliver to expectations with contract announcements in EMEA Services and trading as expected in Global Products.
Unpicking the SSRO pricing outcome
The SSRO’s pricing review was announced by the UK Secretary of State for Defence on 14 March which will see the baseline rate set at 8.95% vs the current 10.6%. This will apply to new and renewed contracts between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017 after which a further evolution of the methodology will be used to develop the profit rate in future years. It is important to note that the rate is a starting point: average achieved industry rates were 12.48% in FY15 and we estimate that QinetiQ has c £450m of single source contracts. Many of these are structured under long-term agreements which roll on average every three to four years. As a result, we feel it will take time for the effect of any changes to be felt.
Valuation: Strong cash generation supports view
With full year results due in May that are likely to present an evolution of the strategy in line with the key priorities outlined by Steve Wadey at the interims, our positive investment case remains rooted in the continued strong cash-generative nature of the group. This provides QinetiQ with options for value creation and a clear capital allocation policy designed to kick-start organic growth while returning excess capital when appropriate. Our support service-based fair value is 237p/share.
Pre-close highlights continued progress
QinetiQ’s pre-close statement at the end of March highlighted that the group continues to deliver a resilient performance despite ongoing pressure in Global Products and the uncertainty caused by the SSRO pricing methodology debate. The group highlighted that trading was as anticipated and several new contracts had been won since the interim results in November across both divisions:
■
EMEA Services: Continued its performance as outlined in the Q3 statement in February with performance in line with expectations and some de-scoping and delays continuing. The company announced a five-year follow on contract in Australia, with rolling extensions up to 15 years, to provide aircraft structural integrity services to the Australian Defence Force. This follows on from the UK Cyber and Training business contracts with Motorola Solutions to provide monitoring, assessment and assurance services in support of the delivery of the UK Emergency Services Network and the £153m five-year renewal from the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) for aircraft engineering support announced alongside the interim results.
■
Global Products: Trading in Global Products also continued as expected with several smaller wins announced through the half. This included further small robot and survivability orders for both US and overseas customers as well as a strategically important Optasense order to protect c 2000km of pipeline. Once the contract is completed, it will be the world’s largest distributed fibre sensing project with half of the $30m project contracted to Optasense. We believe that these contracts, coupled with the small backlog increase at H1, are a signal that the significant revenue decrease witnessed in the division is coming to an end.
Government reviews continue to influence strategy decisions
Circa 90% of group revenues are generated in the UK, while 66% of group revenues were derived from the MoD in H1, therefore the group is influenced by the outcomes of government policy reviews. With the SDSR released at the end of November 2015 and the outcome of the Single Source Responsibility Office (SSRO) pricing review released in March, two areas of potential short-term uncertainty for QinetiQ’s EMEA business have passed.
SDSR broadly neutral
The UK’s SDSR was broadly neutral for the group in our view with a number of specific commitments that could be seen as supportive and some others that were less so. Overall, we view the SDSR as broadly neutral for QinetiQ, largely due to its position across a broad range of programmes, and partly due to the fact that although priorities have been articulated, the detailed workings of the effects are likely to take some time to work through.
SSRO pricing review clarity, for now
Potentially with more of a direct effect, the SSRO’s pricing review was announced by the Secretary of State for Defence on 14 March 2016. This concluded that there will be a single baseline profit rate for single source defence contracts of 8.95% (vs 10.6% this year in 2015/16). This rate applies to new or renewed qualifying contracts signed from 1 April 2016 to March 2017. The Secretary for State also announced that the SSRO will further develop the methodology used to calculate the baseline profit rate over the next year for future years. We believe there are several important points that this raises:
■
Baseline clarity for FY17. With the uncertainty surrounding methodology and the potential impact having dragged on through FY16, the announcement provided clarity for the baseline rate in FY17 around which QinetiQ can plan. The baseline rate is simply the starting point for negotiations which are then adjusted for influences such as risk, etc. As highlighted in the SSRO’s Q&A regarding the baseline methodology approach, the average profit rate agreed during 2015/16 was actually 12.48% vs the baseline of 10.6%. We note that it is also possible to achieve a higher rate than agreed at contract signing by reducing costs and improving efficiency, a key strength of QinetiQ.
■
Applies to new or renewed qualifying contracts. As stipulated by the SSRO, the new baseline profit rate is applied to new or renewed qualifying contracts. Qualifying Defence Contracts (QDC) are those for goods or services for defence purposes, those that are not the result of a competitive process and that are for more than £5m, although the principles are likely to apply to all single source defence contracts. Within QinetiQ’s business there are c £450m of single source contracts, several of which are long-term partnership agreements, the largest of which, the c £200m pa LTPA, is renewed every five years with the last five-year period agreed in February 2013. Overall, we estimate that on average, the single source element of the group’s revenue will be renewed every three to four years, which gives an indication of the rate at which new baseline profit changes could take effect. In the short term, QinetiQ generally starts the beginning of the year with between 70-80% of that year’s revenues already in the order book; hence the effect would lag the contract rate changes.
■
Further methodology to be agreed. The SSRO has also been tasked with developing a proposal for multiple baseline rates for adoption in 2017/18 depending on the activity type being undertaken. With the baseline profit methodology based on a comparison with a group of international defence companies, this may prove difficult in circumstances whereby unique capabilities exist. There will be further consultation so further uncertainty is likely into 2017 and beyond regarding the actual outcome.
Financials: Continued resilience despite margin pressure
We have updated our financials marginally, reducing our 2016 forecast and adding a 2017 forecast that demonstrates the ongoing strength of the group. Exhibit 1 below highlights our divisional and group forecasts for both FY16 and FY17. They reflect a stable performance with EPS benefitting from the ongoing £50m share buyback initiated at the time of the interims:
Exhibit 1: Edison's divisional and group forecasts of QinetiQ
Y/end March |
FY14 |
FY15 |
Growth (%) |
FY16e |
Growth (%) |
FY17e |
Growth (%) |
EMEA Services |
|||||||
Sales |
607 |
625.6 |
3.1 |
635.0 |
1.5 |
638.8 |
0.6 |
Operating profit |
86.7 |
93.0 |
7.3 |
87.6 |
-5.8 |
86.2 |
-1.6 |
Margin (%) |
14.3 |
14.9 |
+60bps |
13.8 |
-110bps |
13.5 |
-30bps |
Global Products |
|||||||
Sales |
175.6 |
138.2 |
-21.3 |
141.6 |
2.5 |
145.2 |
2.5 |
Operating profit |
27 |
18.3 |
-32.2 |
18.4 |
0.6 |
18.2 |
-1.4 |
Margin (%) |
15.4 |
13.2 |
-220bps |
13.0 |
-20bps |
12.5 |
-50bps |
Group |
|||||||
Sales |
782.6 |
763.8 |
-2.4 |
776.6 |
1.7 |
784.0 |
1.0 |
Operating profit |
113.7 |
111.3 |
-2.1 |
106.0 |
-4.7 |
104.4 |
-1.6 |
Margin |
14.5 |
14.6 |
+10bps |
13.7 |
-90bps |
13.3 |
-40bps |
Net Interest |
-12.5 |
-3.5 |
-72.0 |
-0.5 |
-85.7 |
-0.5 |
0.0 |
Underlying PBT |
101.2 |
107.8 |
6.5 |
105.5 |
-2.1 |
103.9 |
-1.6 |
Adjusted tax |
-11.4 |
-11.8 |
3.5 |
-14.8 |
25.4 |
-15.1 |
2.0 |
Underlying tax rate (%) |
11.3 |
10.9 |
-2.8 |
14.0 |
28.1 |
14.5 |
3.6 |
Underlying profit after tax |
89.8 |
96.0 |
6.9 |
90.7 |
-5.5 |
88.8 |
-2.1 |
Average shares in issue (m) |
651.7 |
630.9 |
-3.2 |
588.5 |
-6.7 |
573.4 |
-2.6 |
Underlying EPS (p) |
13.8 |
15.2 |
10.4 |
15.4 |
1.3 |
15.5 |
0.4 |
Source: Edison Investment Research
Priorities articulated, strategy evolution likely in May
At the interim results, CEO Steve Wadey laid out his key priorities for the group and we believe that results in May are likely to provide more of an evolutionary rather than revolutionary update on the strategy. Several key areas of priority were highlighted for further improvement to enhance customer focus and competitiveness:
■
Business winning. With order performance remaining muted, business winning is key to drive future growth. Improved business development capabilities were highlighted both in the UK and internationally, an area we feel that QinetiQ is only just beginning to tap in earnest. In particular, a clear understanding of customer requirements in a changing and demanding defence environment is required and programmes have been developed to enhance this. In addition, strategic campaigns will be corporately led to ensure that the best teams from across the business are deployed.
■
Core competencies supporting growth. With a wide range of competencies across the group, many of which are unique, there are several opportunities to link not just to traditional defence customer requirements but also into adjacent industries. Key areas such as Space and Security which are currently nascent businesses are expected to be developed further.
■
Investing in the future. To support organic growth, QinetiQ launched an internal R&D programme to control the investment in organic capabilities to develop the most appropriate solutions and services that are both innovative and competitive. This programme was also put in place to ensure that such development is aligned with customer needs and that investment matches the corporate capital allocation priorities. As such, targeted M&A could be undertaken.
■
Operational excellence. While focused on optimising profit in the short term, longer-term productivity and efficiency will enable the group to better compete in terms of competitiveness. To enable this, an integrated business planning process is being implemented as part of the management process which will match effective delivery and efficiency with longer-term strategic needs. Supporting this, a leadership community of the top 100 leaders was also created to meet monthly and ensure targets are being met and focus is maintained.
Allied to these more operational measures, there was also a very clear capital allocation policy which continues to guide the group in its decision making. This clearly prioritised:
■
Investment in organic growth
■
Bolt-on acquisitions where there is a technological and strategic fit
■
Maintaining a strong balance sheet
■
Maintaining a progressive dividend
■
Returning any excess capital to shareholders as shown by the £50m share buyback announced at interims
We expect that the FY15 results due on 26 May will likely highlight how QinetiQ has progressed in its strategic evolution and demonstrate the initial benefits from some of the programmes initiated during the CEO’s first year. While we anticipate that market conditions remain challenging, we also feel that the combination of operational focus, strong balance sheet and alignment of capabilities with emerging defence and security threats position QinetiQ to provide a solid foundation for future organic growth.
Valuation supported by continued cash generation
With significant balance sheet flexibility and a clear capital allocation priority, we continue to view QinetiQ as supported by its strong underlying cash generation capability. While margin pressures remain and management has flagged the potential for some working capital reversal, we forecast that QinetiQ will generate some £135m of free cash flow over the next two years. Exhibit 2 below highlights the peer group with which we compare QinetiQ.
Exhibit 2: Relative peer valuation and financial metrics
Year |
Share price |
P/E FY16e |
P/E FY17e |
EV/EBITDA FY16e |
EV/EBITDA FY17e |
Div yield FY16e |
Div yield FY17e |
FCF yield FY16e |
FCF yield FY17e |
ROCE FY16e |
ROCE FY17e |
||
Serco |
Dec |
97.1 |
46.2 |
24.9 |
11.7 |
11.7 |
0.0% |
0.0% |
7.0% |
6.8% |
9.0% |
6.3% |
|
Babcock |
Mar |
987.0 |
13.3 |
12.2 |
10.1 |
9.4 |
2.6% |
2.9% |
-1.9% |
0.7% |
15.7% |
0.0% |
|
WS Atkins |
Mar |
1385.0 |
13.8 |
12.0 |
7.7 |
6.8 |
2.8% |
3.0% |
4.5% |
3.2% |
35.6% |
0.0% |
|
Capita |
Dec |
1065.0 |
13.5 |
12.8 |
11.1 |
10.6 |
3.2% |
3.4% |
5.7% |
6.5% |
6.9% |
57.7% |
|
G4S |
Dec |
196.4 |
12.8 |
11.8 |
8.2 |
7.9 |
4.8% |
5.0% |
6.4% |
6.2% |
1.0% |
23.6% |
|
Cubic Corp |
Sep |
40.8 |
21.7 |
13.8 |
10.8 |
8.7 |
0.6% |
0.9% |
-3.9% |
-4.4% |
3.0% |
10.3% |
|
Avg (support services) |
15.0 |
12.5 |
9.6 |
8.7 |
2.8% |
3.0% |
2.2% |
2.4% |
12.4% |
||||
Ultra Electronics |
Dec |
1780 |
13.0 |
12.4 |
10.5 |
10.1 |
2.7% |
2.9% |
5.5% |
6.1% |
7.9% |
27.4% |
|
Chemring |
Oct |
140.25 |
12.3 |
10.6 |
6.7 |
6.2 |
2.3% |
2.6% |
2.7% |
5.0% |
7.8% |
0.0% |
|
Kongsberg Group |
Dec |
137.5 |
16.6 |
14.5 |
8.4 |
7.7 |
3.5% |
3.8% |
6.1% |
7.2% |
12.1% |
15.4% |
|
Cobham |
Dec |
205.2 |
10.9 |
10.2 |
8.3 |
8.3 |
5.7% |
5.9% |
7.6% |
8.9% |
-3.7% |
17.1% |
|
Avg (defence subcontractors) |
13.2 |
11.9 |
8.5 |
8.1 |
3.6% |
3.8% |
5.5% |
6.8% |
6.0% |
15.0% |
|||
QinetiQ |
Mar |
224.3 |
14.5 |
14.5 |
8.6 |
8.5 |
2.5% |
2.7% |
6.0% |
6.0% |
28.8% |
28.3% |
|
Average (combined) |
14.2 |
12.3 |
9.1 |
8.4 |
3.1% |
3.4% |
3.6% |
4.4% |
9.6% |
16.8% |
|||
Source: Bloomberg. Note: Prices as at 14 April 2016.
We believe that using the support service peer group multiples continues to provide an appropriate measure due to the visibility, cash generative nature and relative strength of the core group. Exhibit 3 below highlights the range of fair value approaches utilising our FY16 forecasts.
Exhibit 3: Fair value ranges based on relative peer ratings (FY16 basis)
(p) |
Support service |
Defence contractor |
Combined |
P/E |
231 |
204 |
219 |
EV/EBITDA |
242 |
222 |
233 |
Average |
237 |
213 |
226 |
Source: Edison Investment Research
Our support service methodology yields a fair value of 237p/share. With short-term clarity achieved regarding the SSRO pricing consistent with guidance from management, we feel that the FY15 results in May should provide a further catalyst as CEO Steve Wadey expands on his initial priorities.
Exhibit 4: Financial summary
£m |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016e |
2017e |
||
Year-end 31 March |
IFRS |
IFRS |
IFRS |
IFRS |
IFRS |
||
PROFIT & LOSS |
|||||||
Revenue |
|
|
1,327.8 |
782.6 |
763.8 |
776.6 |
784.0 |
Cost of Sales |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
||
Gross Profit |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
||
EBITDA |
|
|
200.7 |
144.9 |
135.6 |
130.5 |
129.1 |
Operating Profit (before amort. and except.) |
|
|
168.7 |
113.7 |
111.3 |
106.0 |
104.4 |
Intangible Amortisation |
(14.0) |
(3.4) |
(2.8) |
(2.4) |
(2.4) |
||
Exceptionals |
(275.1) |
28.4 |
1.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
||
Other |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
||
Operating Profit |
(120.4) |
138.7 |
109.5 |
103.6 |
102.0 |
||
Net Interest |
(16.6) |
(12.5) |
(3.5) |
(0.5) |
(0.5) |
||
Profit Before Tax (norm) |
|
|
152.1 |
101.2 |
107.8 |
105.5 |
103.9 |
Profit Before Tax (FRS 3) |
|
|
(137.0) |
126.2 |
106.0 |
103.1 |
101.5 |
Tax |
3.8 |
(16.0) |
12.0 |
(14.8) |
(15.1) |
||
Profit After Tax (norm) |
122.9 |
89.8 |
96.0 |
90.7 |
88.8 |
||
Profit After Tax (FRS 3) |
(133.2) |
110.2 |
105.3 |
88.3 |
86.4 |
||
Average Number of Shares Outstanding (m) |
650.5 |
651.7 |
630.9 |
588.5 |
573.4 |
||
EPS - normalised (p) |
|
|
18.9 |
13.8 |
15.2 |
15.4 |
15.5 |
EPS - (IFRS) (p) |
|
|
(20.5) |
16.9 |
16.7 |
15.0 |
15.1 |
Dividend per share (p) |
3.8 |
4.6 |
5.4 |
5.7 |
6.0 |
||
Gross Margin (%) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
||
EBITDA Margin (%) |
15.1 |
18.5 |
17.8 |
16.8 |
16.5 |
||
Operating Margin (before GW and except.) (%) |
12.7 |
14.5 |
14.6 |
13.7 |
13.3 |
||
BALANCE SHEET |
|||||||
Fixed Assets |
|
|
626.7 |
439.4 |
366.3 |
372.7 |
378.3 |
Intangible Assets |
348.2 |
185.5 |
122.5 |
120.9 |
118.5 |
||
Tangible Assets |
241.4 |
233.8 |
229.6 |
237.6 |
245.6 |
||
Investments |
37.1 |
20.1 |
14.2 |
14.2 |
14.2 |
||
Current Assets |
|
|
554.1 |
597.7 |
376.6 |
382.6 |
388.6 |
Stocks |
25.5 |
19.8 |
18.5 |
21.5 |
24.5 |
||
Debtors |
285.6 |
252.6 |
159.2 |
162.2 |
165.2 |
||
Cash |
240.4 |
322.2 |
184.3 |
184.3 |
184.3 |
||
Other |
2.6 |
3.1 |
14.6 |
14.6 |
14.6 |
||
Current Liabilities |
|
|
(486.6) |
(437.2) |
(372.5) |
(379.3) |
(381.4) |
Creditors |
(484.6) |
(435.0) |
(370.6) |
(377.4) |
(379.5) |
||
Short-term borrowings |
(2.0) |
(2.2) |
(1.9) |
(1.9) |
(1.9) |
||
Long-Term Liabilities |
|
|
(255.7) |
(221.8) |
(72.3) |
(61.5) |
(72.2) |
Long-term borrowings |
(171.3) |
(154.1) |
(0.1) |
7.7 |
(5.0) |
||
Other long-term liabilities |
(84.4) |
(67.7) |
(72.2) |
(69.2) |
(67.2) |
||
Net Assets |
|
|
439 |
378 |
298 |
315 |
313 |
CASH FLOW |
|||||||
Operating Cash Flow |
|
|
257.5 |
141.4 |
138.9 |
105.2 |
104.8 |
Net Interest |
(35.0) |
(10.5) |
(35.4) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
||
Tax |
(1.6) |
2.9 |
9.0 |
(5.0) |
(10.0) |
||
Capex |
(17.9) |
(18.2) |
(24.8) |
(30.0) |
(30.0) |
||
Acquisitions/disposals |
3.2 |
(2.6) |
71.7 |
27.4 |
0.0 |
||
Financing |
(0.4) |
(0.5) |
(106.8) |
(55.3) |
(40.0) |
||
Dividends |
(20.1) |
(26.8) |
(31.7) |
(34.0) |
(37.0) |
||
Net Cash Flow |
185.7 |
85.7 |
20.9 |
8.3 |
(12.2) |
||
Opening net debt/(cash) |
|
|
122.2 |
(74.0) |
(170.5) |
(195.5) |
(203.8) |
HP finance leases initiated |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
||
Other |
10.5 |
10.8 |
4.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
||
Closing net debt/(cash) |
|
|
(74.0) |
(170.5) |
(195.5) |
(203.8) |
(191.6) |
Source: Company accounts, Edison Investment Research
|