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: Graham Osborn who wrote (55551)	6/27/2015 6:14:12 PM
From: E_K_S	Respond to of 78740

Re: MLP's I continue to sell several of my MLP's because I think I can get equivalent growing dividend streams from qualified dividend payers and/or high yield corporate bonds in the same sector. I think one of the big issues yet to hit the newer MLP's is if management has estimated the correct current & future maintenance fees especially as the the asset utilization grows to fill capacity. There is not much room for error when you have long term contracts w/ fixed fee pricing and find that older over utilized facilities and gathering equipment must now be replaced in the out years. This will result in distribution cuts and/or the fixed fee terms can be increased based on actual amounts expensed over the contract term. Investors typically go into these deals w/ expectations of growing distributions (even juiced w/ IDRs). I own one MLP (CMLP) that was merged w/ it's sister MLP (CEQP) just to get rid of the IDRs. The GP was the largest unit holder and was able to do this as they controlled the majority of the unit(s). Their explanation was this provided the operation w/ a more efficient use of capital, increases current & future distribution coverage and provided a larger amount to invest into new Capx projects. Therefore, the value proposition can change significantly especially if the 'packaged' MLP contains understated maintenance fee schedules, IDRs that can be taken away from the unit holder at the GP's own discretion and/or higher asset utilization results in LOWER net FCF because equipment breaks down.. Buyer beware! FWIW, I still prefer to own the GP and did start a small position in OKE for that reason. EKS

To: Graham Osborn who wrote (55551)	11/19/2015 7:54:52 PM
From: Spekulatius	1 Recommendation Recommended By gizwick Respond to of 78740

Bought some WPZ today at $31. 11% distribution yield while their bonds are BBB rated. Even if the growth prospects are slim, this is a decent return, unless they cut he distribution. WPZ owns some of the best assets in the pipeline business, the Transco trunk pipeline. This core asset allows the company to build ancillary assets for NG and NGL liquids. I also have buy orders out for ETP and I started to buy back the OKE shares that I sold at $36.5. SE is another one I would like to own and lower prices. I think it is good way to build up a high yielding portfolio in MLP and pipeline stocks now. The infrastructure is certainly needed and even though the low prices are a risk cantor, there is a demand pull as well to get the cheap gas to where it's needed.

To: Graham Osborn who wrote (55551)	2/9/2016 4:32:59 PM
From: Graham Osborn	Respond to of 78740

It's interesting to resurrect our old MLP analysis including WPZ in hindsight (something I have tacitly avoided doing for my Canadian E&P picks btw ;)). For me the most interesting part was how the link between MLPs and oil prices finally emerged. I've gotten very jaded on both "retirement vehicles" (401ks, IRAs, variable annuities..) and "retirement securities" (MLPs, Fidelity bond funds..). My grandfather is in his late 90s and has received a ~$2000/ mo pension from his time as state superintendent (I think) for past 30+ years.. those were the days. Now decent pensions are zebras and even my college fund was wiped out just prior to distribution in the 08 debacle.