No MLP would be buying maps in the first place.
The fact that MLPs pay much of the cash flow as distributions and have to issue debt or equity for growth means they are much more disciplined in use of funds compared to c-corps.
Your argument is moronic. When did you ever hear of MLPs doing anything like that? Since you have no real arguments you apparently can do no better than post unrealistic and stupid hypotheticals.
I am tired of your moronic and dismissive arrogant nonsense.
You really should go back to school.
It is relevant and I explained what Jack explained.
No one is talking about OXF or any particular MLP but just the difference in rights between MLPS and C-corps. LLCs were also discussed with those VNR slides.
If you do not like what reality is, and need some confirmation before you can understand why it is that way....ask Jack to help you understand that also.
It is VERY CLEAR.
It has nothing to do with what anyone has achieved.
It is only a clear comparison that Jack explained very well that demonstrated that MLP unitholders have no equal rights to a c-corp when they are needed to get a remedy...like the return of those maps....
For example, you as an MLP unitholder would be stuck & still be reading those old maps.
Totally irrelevant and Jack apparently agrees since he recently tends to invest primarily in MLPs with precisely that attribute that you say he warns against. OXF management have the least integrity of all. Right from before the IPO there were articles warning that it was a shady deal and that it should never have gone public at that price as distributions and valuation would be unsustainable.
Your example doesn't hold water anyway because what have CHK activist shareholders been able to achieve with respect to CHK? Nothing substantive. Big deal, he had to buy back the map collection but he and the corrupt board are still running things and destroying shareholder value. Pretty stupid example you came up with.
I do not keep raising it.
You asked what CHK has to do with it and I explained that in the case of CHK (a C-corp) Jack was kind enough to explain that the shareholders can bring a shareholder derivative lawsuit to recover from misdeeds of the CEO as they did with the map collection,....and not so with MLPs.
It is directly relevant because, as Jack explained (and he is a lawyer, so he would know) that the unitholders of MLPs do not have equivalent rights as their C-corp or LLC shareholder/unitholder friends.
That was also discussed with links to presentation slides from VNR and LINE which compare MLPS to LLCs.
I am not argueing, so your comment about what you called the weakness of my arguement is blatant misinformation and just another one of you adhominum attacks.
That is what you do when you can't think of any reasoned response.
If there is any doubt, just re-read some of your posts.
After a while it is very clear that your attack-mode or personal smears are your way of telling everyone that you are just wrong, yet stubborn.
The people at Alerian who manage the index do not sell financial products.
There are various ETFs/ETNs which put Alerian in their name but they are unaffiliated and thus not relevant.
Just like there are all sorts of S&P 500 based ETFs, but the people who manage the index are not selling them.
This seems a hard concept for you to grapple with, that an index and an ETF are not the same thing, and that an index is not a 'fee-laden financial product' (not a financial product at all, in fact - just an index). Is the S&P 500 a fee-laden, financial product? Is the DJIA a fee-laden financial product?
.Ok more obfuscating chatter to cover your profound ignorance of the subject at hand. Expected.
Basically as you will not provide that data or link you do not know. Could not do the calculation yourself or with the help of the whole monkey troop as RRbs demonstrated publically.
Further this is an undiversified portfolio or ‘index’ which sellers of ‘financial’ products included a BETA with an MPT explanation which was misapplied and therefore just wrong.
No the DOW has three sectors. The SP500 was meant to broaden it out even further. Then we have all sorts of baskets by company size or geographical local or both. There might be heavy concentrations of industries within an index but nothing like MLPs.
While the folks selling you fee laden product use the term index in their sales puffing, ethical organizations like Vanguard will typically use the term sector fund or ETF. Gold, energy just like MLP.
Your antics have been entertaining to night. I got this image of you as the gender bending dummy sitting on the Gurus lap mouthing his sales routine. But actually deluded into believing your were in control. Believe me a good salesman will put almost anything on his lap if it makes rain.
"Certainly an index that is at least 50% pipes is not a diversified portfolio. Nor is every company being tied defacto to energy, diversification."
Hey, dummy, it's the Alerian MLP index. In case you hadn't noticed, most MLPs are energy, especially pipes and midstream. You want them to put google in an MLP index?
All your other insights are meaningless - this is an index not a ETF or financial product. As before, it seems you confuse the Alerian index with various ETFs which have been based on it but which are not affiliated with Alerian in any way. You might as well criticize the DJIA for not including companies which are not in the Dow. What's the point of criticizing an MLP index for only including MLPs? I suspect you got your quotes from the website of some ETF not the Alerian index since the index does not have 'holdings'.
Ok mysterious X factor. Enough of this foolishness. Where are the links to the easily down load monthly data for LINE and this thing which this silly thing you are always babbling about?
Please provide the links.I do not wish to waste time on your dodges.Provide me the numbers you clain can be down loaded and I will do the math. YOu can check it by plugging it into excel.
What I read is the top five holdings are all pipes and make up 41.2% of the 'index'. Nice diversification - not.
"“Beta is a measure of the systematic risk of a portfolio and is calculated against the S&P 500 on a monthly basis. Adjusted market capitalization and shares outstanding are adjusted for public float. Adjusted market capitalization figures under “Current Constituents” are in millions of dollars. Data is taken as of April 30, 2012”
BETA is a measure of correlation for individual equities to a diversifed index. However, it is only a theoretical measure of systematic risk within fully diversified portfolios.
Certainly an index that is at least 50% pipes is not a diversified portfolio. Nor is every company being tied defacto to energy, diversification. Therefore accepting unsystematic risk renders the theoretical ability of BETA to measure systemic risk, useless before we begin.
So their ‘disclosure’ is misleading and actually dangerious. This theory used as they do is not a proper measure of either type of risk. Obama getting re-elected and allowing the radical EPA to follow through on the insane methane capture rules would take this index down and misapplied BETA theory is not going to help.
You are again incorrect, but that is already to be expected from you.
You call these irrelevant. LOL.
What does CHK have to do with anything? You are either bluffing or maybe you really can't remember....or, more likely just do not want to remember.
There was another point that you kept posting about repeatedly that Jack explained in detail that you did not like,since it revealed the conflict of interest in MLPs.
That went on for a long time and you just kept denying reality.
Eventually a comparison was made to a shareholder derivative lawsuit that was won by CHK shareholders which caused the map collection to be repurchased by the CEO who had sold it to the company.
...starting to clear that foggy memory?
Sound a little more familiar or do you also need the links like your buddie who also likes to selectivly forget an assortment of things?
The point was made, and later confirmed that not only did Jack explain the conflict of interest in MLPs, and then the postings from the VNR slide presentations comparing LLC to MLPs, slides from Linn Energy comparing LLC to MLP structures, and comments by Jack & others on the greater rights in C-corps shareholders than MLP unitholders.
It was discussed that MLP unitholders would have no rights like their C-corp shareholder buddies and would have still been reading those antique maps since they do not even have the same rights or ability to bring a shareholder derivative lawsuit to recover from such behavior.
Oh, remember now?
Or, do you also need the links to the discussion with Jack's commentary.
Even though Jack was clearly right, you just kept saying that he was wrong (repeatedly).....kinda like now with your problem about Mr. Rockov's statement that Linn Energy retured almost 200% of the Alerian index.
Want to hear it again at the 36 min mark in their CC?
No, you just want to repeat yourself alot and add in some adhominum attacks, like always.
You are the one with the problem.
Go ask someone for help with your misunderstanding on this point.
You are just stubborn again like you were last December.
You do this each time you are wrong on a point...it becomes everyone else error instead of what is clearly yours.
If you do not like calling Linn, and what he said is untrue as you said repeatedly, why haven't you contacted the SEC and discussed it?