Entering text into the input field will update the search result below

Phillips 66: Q2 Results To Show, Once Again, Weak Chemicals Margin

Jul. 24, 2023 4:00 PM ETPhillips 66 (PSX)ASH, COP, CVX, ENB, ENB:CA, FMC, MPC, OLN, VFFSX, VFIAX, VFINX, VLO, VOO6 Comments
Michael Fitzsimmons profile picture
Michael Fitzsimmons
20.41K Followers

Summary

  • Phillips 66's upcoming Q2 results (due out Aug. 2) are likely to show continued weakness in its Chemicals Segment.
  • The company's long-term strategy to diversify away from its Refining Segment by investing in its Midstream & Chemicals Segments has not delivered the expected mid-cycle returns.
  • Despite successful midstream growth investments, mid-cycle Chemicals margins have been extremely disappointing.
  • The good news is that new CEO Mark Lashier is making headway on improving Refining margin: RIN-adjusted market capture in Q1 was 93%, up from 84% in the previous quarter.

Travelers In The West Hit The Road Flocking To Destinations To Witness Monday"s Eclipse In Totality

George Frey

In my last Seeking Alpha article on Phillips 66 (NYSE:PSX), I highlighted the company's significant investments over the past few years to grow its Chemicals Segment - primarily through Chevron Phillips Chemical ("CPChem"), the 50/50 joint venture with Chevron (

This article was written by

Michael Fitzsimmons profile picture
20.41K Followers
Technology stocks, ETFs, portfolio strategy, renewable energy, and O&G companies. Primary goal is growing net-worth. I typically allocate a portion of my own portfolio and devote some of my SA articles to small and medium sized companies offering compelling risk/reward propositions. I am an Electronics Engineer, not a qualified investment advisor. While the information and data presented in my articles are obtained from company documents and/or sources believed to be reliable, they have not been independently verified. Therefore, I cannot guarantee its accuracy. I advise investors conduct their own research and due-diligence and to consult a qualified investment advisor. I explicitly disclaim any liability that may arise from investment decisions you make based on my articles. Thanks for reading and I wish you much investment success!

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of PSX, VOO, ENB, COP either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

I am an electronics engineer, not a CFA. The information and data presented in this article were obtained from company documents and/or sources believed to be reliable, but have not been independently verified. Therefore, the author cannot guarantee their accuracy. Please do your own research and contact a qualified investment advisor. I am not responsible for the investment decisions you make.

Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Recommended For You

Comments (6)

k
Learning this is a trading stock.
Michael Fitzsimmons profile picture
@kevn1111 - yes, I suppose most commodity based companies are, although that doesn't do much for the long-term shareholder that has significant gains (and therefore significant cap gains tax exposure). Which is why the big foray into Chemicals and the lack of decent mid-cycle margin has been so dissapointing. After all, that was exactly what the strategy to grow Midstream & Chemicals was all about - to smooth out the historically typical cyclicality of the Refining Segment. However, we PSX shareholders got instead was a big slug of their capital going to massive global petchem projects that have had terrible returns due to the fact that Exxon and state actors like China the Mid-East companies were doing the same thing. That led to over-capacity and, well, awful mid-cycle returns. Unfortunately, as pointed out in the piece, it looks like this is going to continue for a few more years, which is why it is even more disappointing that PSX has already committed ~$3 billion in cap-ex to two brand new massive global petchem projects. Sigh. I can't believe these CEOs and executives get paid unGodly salaries and bonuses to make these kind of decisions. But, I guess at the end of the day, perhaps the growing chemicals volumes is likely a metric in the executive bonus plans that will drive their compensation even higher (even though ordinary shareholder returns will obviously suffer as a result). That's my take. Otherwise, I simply can't understand what in the world they are thinking. I mean you would think they would wait for the last two massive chemical projects would start returning even a small decent return before embarking on yet more massive capacity expansions. Just makes no sense at all to me.
Jay Adam profile picture
why should a refining and chemical company waste money on wind and solar, a bussiness they know nothing about. If they want to spend money, they should stick to what they know and return money to the investors. Then the investors can decide, wether they want to do wind or solar or something else.
Michael Fitzsimmons profile picture
@Jay Adam - obviously, I have the total opposite view: why would PSX continue to waste money on two new large scale global petchem projects when the big projects they have already finished are still delivering terrible returns due to global over-capacity?

Further, as I pointed out in the piece, the reason to invest in wind, solar, and battery backup is clearly not to "waste money", but to get returns that would be superior to what the Chemical Segment has been delivering over the past 5-years.

As for "not knowing anything about" wind, solar, and battery backup I am continually surprised O&G investors keep buying this line from O&G company CEOs who use it as an excuse to continue being part of the problem (i.e. global warming) instead of part of the solution. Newsflash: solar, wind, and battery backup projects really are no longer overly "complicated". In fact, compared to building very expensive, complicated, and long-term petchem/refining/midstream projects, they are a breeze. Further, there are a number of ways in which O&G companies could invest - one would be to partner with a strong utility company like NextEra (which left its coal centric peers in the dust and became the largest utility company in the U.S. by heavily investing in wind and solar ...) and simply provide capital for a piece of the action and let them manage the project.

Another reason to invest in solar, wind, and battery backup is to reduce the shareholder risk of PSX's refining assets. As I like to point out, 10 million EVs were sold last year. Consider, if each one replaced an ICE vehicle that got 20 mpg and was driven 10,000 miles per year (relatively conservative metrics), that means those EVs replaced what otherwise would have been demand for 5 billion gallons of gasoline last year. And, the EV transition is accelerating - with expectations that global sales will reach 14 million this year, and greater than 60% of all new vehicle sales by 2030.

So, if you don't buy the returns argument, and you don't care about the environmental argument, then it seems to me that if you are a PSX shareholder like me, you have to wonder about the long-term consequences of the EV transition and what happens to global refining capacity as demand peaks, and then drops.
r
Great Company that is shareholder friendly!
Michael Fitzsimmons profile picture
@rockjcp - not sure PSX's total returns over the past 5-years (see chart in article) merit the description of "great", but I do agree that PSX has been shareholder friendly as the dividend has grown from:

2013: $1.33
2022: $4.20 (estimated)

Maybe if mgt tried a lil 420 they'd stop blowing so much shareholder capital on large-scale global petchem plants. Note that despite all the money mgt has plowed into growing the chemicals segment over the past 5-years, adjusted EBITDA last year was only $1.4 billion, actually less than it was in 2019: $1.5 billion. Any way you look at that, it is a pitiful return. As I mentioned in the piece, PSX would have been better off pouring that money into wind, solar, and battery backup and at least achieving decent midstream like returns. I fear the $3 billion PSX has already committed to spend on the two new CPChem plants will be more of the same. Bottom line: shareholders pay the CEO and executive mgt team a ton of money to manage shareholder capital, and PSX has arguably dropped the ball (big time) on its massive spending on growing chemicals. I guess it's all about growing PSX's volumes to make the executive bonus plans payout more (whether or not that actually achieves strong total returns for ordinary shareholders ...or, in this case, not). I am surprised more PSX (and Chevron ... and Exxon ...) shareholders don't object to this. At least Engine #1 got Exxon to slow down their massive cap-ex overspend on such projects. I guess that is some progress. Very surprised PSX and Chevron have not done likewise.
Disagree with this article? Submit your own. To report a factual error in this article, . Your feedback matters to us!
To ensure this doesn’t happen in the future, please enable Javascript and cookies in your browser.
Is this happening to you frequently? Please report it on our feedback forum.
If you have an ad-blocker enabled you may be blocked from proceeding. Please disable your ad-blocker and refresh.