Raymond James raised Energy Transfer Partners L.P. (ETP:NYSE - commentary - research - Cramer's Take) to a strong buy from outperform, and raised Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. (KMP:NYSE - commentary - research - Cramer's Take) to outperform from market perform, saying both are undervalued. Shares of ETP rose $1.06, or 3%, to $35.38, KMP increased 80 cents, or 1.6%, to $51.04.
Billyjoe, I was trying to earn your respect, but I will now have to live with that failure.
I've heard the wasting asset refrain before particularly about Canroys. Everything is a wasting asset, including us. A growth rate slow down in 2012 doesn't bother me. EOT (End of thread)
the only way they've overcome the huge 50% bogey is by buying high cash flow wasting assets. if KMP buys an old oil field and pumps out the last few million barrels from the field, KMP will be able to generate dcf for a few years if you ignore depletion. but that is a wasting asset. in 2012, when the field falls of a cliff, kmp is still stuck with the debt but no cash flow to service it.
don't even try to justify investing in KMP as if it were anything more than an elaborate ponzi scheme. nobody else on this board bothers to. I have more respect for the people who buy kMP because its going up than somebody who tries to put a wedding dress on the horny gorilla.
Your criticism of kmp's structure is again a criticism of all mlp's. Maybe you don't believe that GP's should get 25% either.
I agree with you that a really high cost of capital would impede the growth of mlp's and increase the risk reward ratio. But the GP split comes only off of profit so if there is no DCF from a project, the cost of the capital is still 6% reducing the risk of the investment from what it would have been if it had been the 12% you suggest. In other words KMP and any other MLP are not at any disadvantage for the reasons you give.
Personally, I do agree a 50% split will slow down DCF growth for KMP and all other MLP's in the long run. But KMP management has overcome this disadvantage with so many positives for the future that it shouldn't be an issue for quite awhile IMHO.
"The reason cost of capital will not double is because the cost is not the same as the return. "
yes that's right. it's not the same as a horny gorilla either. what could that possibly mean?
I disagree. BJR is not a moron. HE IS very opionionated and he states his opinion. Some people see a glass half filled with liquid and say "I've have a half a glass of water. Aren't I lucky". Billy says "I only have half a glass of water, where did it go?" It's just a difference of how one sees it. Yahoo has a Ignore filter./K
The reason cost of capital will not double is because the cost is not the same as the return.
End of story!
Maintenance capex appears reasonable in relation to other mlp's maintenance capex ratio to assets.
Billyjoe, what else you got.
I don't see why it's obvious. if units are sold at 6%, and half the cash flow goes to GP, then the cost of capital is 12%. a pretty high bogey.
I don't have the interest or time in explaining everything to you. just look at the total level of maintenance capex, compare it with the total asset size (and the growth in assets), and ask if that is a reasonable level.