Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (54099)	6/28/2014 8:59:26 AM
From: E_K_S	2 Recommendations Recommended By Mattyice work4ever Respond to of 78590

Re: MLP's and QE The two major factors that affect MLP's are (1) distribution coverage and (2) Growth. I suggest you look at mlpdata.com specifically (1) "Yield to CAGR" and (2) "Yield to Coverage". The Fed's sustained QE has made the cost of capital at historical low levels. This is/was supposed to stimulate investment in several ways but has also distorted the normal flow of capital. The basic market pricing model for MLP's is their distribution yield to their unit holders. In order to generate these growing FCF's, MLP's must invest huge amount of capital into future projects. That's good as long as the cost of capital is low. Marginal projects become sour when the cost of capital increases and suddenly distributions must be cut and/or more MLP units must be sold (dilution) to pay down debt. As long as your "Yield to Coverage" is above 1x, distributions s/d be safe but future growth in distributions may slow down (this effects current and future MLP price). Therefore, you want to look at the Yield to CAGR specifically the 3 year chart. The links above provide you a graphical view of most all MLP's and where they stand in this battle for yield, coverage and growth. When you run you mouse over the red dots, you get the current status of these variables. As QE begins to tapper, then stopped and the real interest rates begins to move higher, BOTH MLP growth should fall, distribution yield should fall and MLP market prices should fall. The question is by how much and which ones will be impacted the most. It all about debt and how much leverage they use in building out their operation(s). On top of that, MLP's that are commodity driven could be impacted even more as changes in commodity prices must be factored into their pricing model. My bet is the FED will take their time and move slowly as they begin to normalize interest rates. The marginal MLP's will drop in price first and may be merger and/or acquisition targets for the larger and more financially stable (less leverage) operators. Some MLP's will even go BK. The key is to own operators with good solid assets, that are located in growth areas, have a real estate footprint that connects to prime distribution channels and have future expansion projects that can be completed with JV partners w/o significant use of debt (and/or leverage). In the mean time, the MLP investor is obtaining a historical high rate of return (when compared to the "real" interest rate). For me that is the value proposition. This will end when interest rates normalize, so be sure to scale back your exposure by owing only the highest quality (and most liquid) operators as the FED normalizes rates. I expect this to take several years (5-7 years) so there s/d be plenty of time to manage your MLP basket accordingly. EKS

To: Elroy who wrote (54099)	6/28/2014 2:05:28 PM
From: Bart Hoenes	1 Recommendation Recommended By E_K_S Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78590

Well, ETE is the general partner (yld 2.6%) and ETP is the "MLP" (yld 6.6%). In general, the yield of the partnership is higher than the general partner's yield, but the general partner will generally have higher growth in share price. See share price growth comparison: finance.yahoo.com Energy Transfer Partners (NYSE: ETP ) and its general partner Energy Transfer Equity (NYSE: ETE ) are excellent choices for those seeking secure, high and growing yields. The key to understanding the investment thesis behind Energy Transfer Partners is scale. This is not so much a single MLP or company but an intricate empire with total enterprise value of $90 billion: Energy Transfer Equity is general partner to Energy Transfer Partners, Sunoco Logistics Partners, and Regency Energy Partners.Energy Transfer Partners also owns 32.2% of Sunoco Logistics Partners as well as IDR rights. Energy Transfer Partners recently acquired Susser Holdings Corporation, the general partner of Susser Petroleum Partners (now Energy Transfer Partners owns 50% of Susser's limited units and 100% of gp and IDR rights) for $1.8 billion.In a joint venture, Energy Transfer Partners and Energy Transfer Equity own Energy Transfer LNG, which operates a Lakes Charles, Louisiana LNG regasification and storage facility for the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG). All told, the Energy Transfer empire consists of 61,900 miles of pipelines, 42 storage and export terminals, 25 processing facilities, and 6,400 gas stations. Energy Transfer Equity founder and Chairman, Kelcy Warren is not anywhere close to done with his empire building. In 2010 and 2011 he orchestrated $13 billion in acquisitions and just recently came close to a $15 billion to $17 billion acquisition of Targa Resources (which fell through at the last minute).

To: Elroy who wrote (54099)	6/28/2014 8:22:29 PM
From: Spekulatius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78590

I don't deal with MLP business that own relatively short lived assets and/or need continued Capex to keep running. This is the reason why I don't deal with transports (relatively short lived assets), E&P (need continued drilling to replace reserves) or refineries (high maintenance Capex, volatile earnings). As for non-energy LP's, asset managers like OAK or ARES are worthy of consideration, since they require little capital retention and can distribute the majority of their income. OAK has an excellent reputation and track record for example and a distribution yield of almost 8%. Disadvantage: their business can dwindle quickly if they lose assets (most likely due to poor investment performance).