Hedgeye is issuing a negative report on TEP/TEGP arguing that their distributions will go to zero in 2020. They issued the announcement yesterday, which caused a selloff, and are issuing their "report" and conference call on the 26th.
Ed, I have a bunch, but several in the Invesco family, which used to be Van Kampen. Blackrock, Putnam, Nuveen and PIMCO also sponsor many. I've avoided the PIMCO ones because they tended to trade at a premium to NAV and why pay $1.10 for $1 worth of assets when you can buy that at 0.90 or 0.95. The CEF connect website has a bunch of info as far as historical discount/premium to NAV and the amount of UNII and ratings etc. I have VCV, VGM, VMO, NPV, NTC, VKI, PMO, VKQ, IIM PMM FMN and MUH. Some have higher discounts to NAV, and some have slightly higher yields. Don't trust the yahee info on the yields -- you have to calculate it yourself.
They have rallied tremendously over the last year or two, but if you believe the economy will continue to weaken, they should continue to perform well, but may be vulnerable to a correction especially if the Fed raises rates. VGM took a tumble the other day under its 50 dma and is now fighting to retake it.
Talk about revisionist history. Chegerar,you are the king of revising history. Let's rewind the tape. First, as is clearly set out in the proxy of the APL merger with NGLS, the Cohens were first approached by Kinder. Then they were approached by several other midstreams MLPs. There was a feeding frenzy for acquisitions and the sector was hot. Yes, they got a pretty good deal from TRGP/NGLS, who themselves were a potential target from ETE/ETP. But you are also forgetting that the merger price was off of the highs that APL had earlier reached. And you are also conveniently forgetting that (1) the Cohens' overpaid for at least one of the acquisitions in South Texas and (2) the distribution growth at APL had flattened out, contrary to previous projections by the Cohens.
Second, you are completely wrong about the sale to Chevron. In that case, the Cohen's had messed up their hedging at APL and ended up in a situation where they had to sell the most profitable part of the old APL to Chevron in order to pay down their bank debt (sound familiar). They also had to suspended APL's distribution which caused the price to collapse into the single digits. That was a good thing for me because I was able to buy some APL when they finally paid down the debt enough to reinstate the distribution.
If Cohen had the best crystal ball, he would have sold ARP and ATLS at the top of the market to some other e&p MLP, but he ran it into the ground. He also wouldn't have bought the properties they did at the top of the cycle. The cycle will eventually turn and the remnants of ARP/ATLS may return in some form or another with the Cohen's at the helm and no doubt you will be back to say they were geniuses with more revisionist history of how ARP survived due to the Cohen's.
Are you related to them or are you an i.r. mole?
Ed, since Sarge has me on ignore (his loss) he may have missed the item on the Hedgeye attack on TEP/TEGP. They supposedly released their analysis this morning and that is likely pressuring the stocks.
Bob, I wonder what the rationale is for the upgrade on VNR. They got their line of credit slashed and have to repay principal before they can even pay their junior bonds. Wonder if Stiefel is just trying to get a client out.
For an accountant and long time investor, I am amazed at how DH doesn't seem to understand very simple finance topics. Banks are levered more than 10 times so a 25-50 bp increase in their yield on investments should raise their gross margins by 2.5 to 5%. Similarly, mREITs depend on making a spread between their cost of funds (which is tied to repo rates) and the yield on their investments, which they lever up 6-8 times. While they hedge their borrowing costs, those hedges have a spread (e.g. profit for the bank taking the other side of the hedge) and have to be continually added as they roll off over time. Anything that cuts into their spread, is going to hurt their earnings which hurts their divies.
If there actually is a rate hike (and that's still a very big if), I think the harm to mREITs is greater than the good for banks and BDCs because this will likely be the last rate hike for the year, and banks and BDCs need both strong loan growth and increasing rates to really get the momentum going. mREITs were already at thin margins -- this is not a case where their spreads were at 4% and will be cut to 3.5%.
Also the GP announced they were buying shares. Technically, since the plunge on the dividend cut, the stock has been basing. MACD turning up. Might be worth a gamble, however before a 3 day weekend when the market is waiting with baited breathe on Yellen, it might be worth waiting till Tuesday.
Ed, I bought the preferred of another Zell company, EQC. It's an office REIT and Zell has been selling off some properties. I think they have some NOLs so they weren't paying common divies, so that's why I bought the preferred.
Yes the gold miners index which NUGT is based on (symbol $GDM on stockcharts) is sitting right on the 50 dma after declining some 11%. There doesn't look to be any support until another 15% down, which would send NUGT off a cliff since it is a 3x ETF. GLD also looks like support is giving way, although the downside doesn't look as bad. Maybe DUST is the play for now.
Also read an article that said that excess reserves are down, as they were going into the Dec hike. Maybe Lucy won't pull the ball out this time.
Gambler, with respect to CELP, there are times when the market does not understand a company or when it is too small to attract any attention. The market can be inefficient and that can create opportunities and all of us like to think that we are seeing the view correctly and it is the market that is wrong. This happens a lot with high dividend stocks because many times retail investors become too enamored chasing yield. Look how many times it has happened with stocks discussed on this board. I think the market is concerned with CELP's distribution and the fact that the parent is supporting the distribution by making concessions. There are also subordinated units and the market may be concerned that once those convert, the current distribution will be cut. I don't know the terms on when the subs convert so this could be overblown. When in doubt, the chart can offer some info on the stock. It looks like it is in a downtrend, meaning that it is going to need some catalyst to turn it up. Money can be made buying stocks in a downtrend that reach support and bounce, even if the bounce is only temporary. Sometimes there are just easier names to play. GL
I am also baffled by this market. On one hand, the big money has been selling for something like 17 or 18 weeks, but the averages have stayed up. The economy is still on the weak side, but probably not as weak as in Q1. If corporations can't increase revenues, then they will resort to cutting jobs in order to improve margins. Shopping over the weekend, I was amazed at how many sales I saw on summer clothes and it's just the beginning of the summer season. Usually, you don't see sales until mid-way thru. That can't be a sign of strength.
Despite money coming out of the market, that doesn't mean the market will go down because those flows could always reverse and money managers who are trailing the indices could always try to play catch up. I bought some Fidelity Biotech a few weeks back just in case the market moved up in a blow-off top like we had back in 2007. There are some parallels to that time. We are starting to see ads for 3% mortgages. Back then, "everyone" knew we were in a bubble, but the Fed was somehow keeping everything up, until it couldn't.
What horse hockey! If big money is still buying, then why do all the stats show outflows from all the "big money" groups (pension funds, institutional and private). DH is just making up facts. He said the same thing in 2007, that there was no other place for money to be invested. The market averages have been kept up by corporate buybacks and by the central banks (it's no secret that the Japanese central bank has bought equities including REITs and ETFs and the Swiss National Bank owns millions of shares of Apple).
As for relative risk reward, again DH doesn't use any metrics to define what the risk reward is. But there are many legendary investors like Jeremy Grantham who use the expected return metric to define this risk reward. What they are saying is that with the S&P p/e ratio near all time highs over 20, the risk does not favor equities. There are plenty of articles that show the history of corporate earnings, p/e ratios, corporate margins, price to sales ratios, debt to GDP etc. all of which show that when these metrics get to the point where they currently are, that the market historically has had negative returns.
And it's just dumb to measure the return on Treasuries by the coupon which DH seems to do when he says the max return is 2%. Anyone can look up the recent returns on Treasuries, but it is elementary math that when rates fall, the return on Treasuries can be much greater than the coupon. On a 2% coupon, if rates fall to 1%, the gain is going to be much more than 2%. That is before you consider that most investments are levered up. How does DH think that mREITs can produce double digit returns while holding mortgages with 3% coupons? This guy was an accountant?
If DH was correct in his thinking, then there would never be any market declines in history because the argument can always be made that the market will bounce back after the selling is done, so no point in selling now. I think that's called a syllogism (william?).
Just a point on NYMT and the insider purchase by the President. This is the new president who owned Riverbanc, the company that NYMT just purchased. I doubt it was part of the buyout that the president was required to purchase NYMT shares and NYMT does not seem to have a requirement that its officers own a certain % of stock. Also, I do not believe the acquisition of Riverbanc was a stock for stock deal, so this probably isn't a strategy to defer capital gains. More likely, the President got a huge windfall from selling his company to NYMT and he had to put the money somewhere so why not in his new employer.
Stagg, we have seen several times how that did not work out. JF's purchase of SDRL shares and John Walker, CEO of EVEP are just two that I can think of off the top of my head. The dividend is set by the Board upon a recommendation by management. I'm not sure of NYMT's schedule for when they announce their next divy, but if he knew that it was going to be the same as last time and he bought on that basis, that would be insider trading, so I doubt he would want to risk that. There are very tight controls on the windows when insiders can purchase company stock and insiders often have to be cleared by the general counsel before they can purchase stock.
bob, the unemployment rate calculation includes the participation rate, so it is very possible for there to be less jobs created and still have the unemployment rate go down as long as the participation rate keeps shrinking like it has during this whole "expansion." Don't even get me started on the "birth-death" model that the Labor dept uses to estimate jobs created.
There's been a fair amount of commentary about how the employment statistics are out of line with the tax withholding statistics being reported to the Treasury. Withholding amounts have been declining at the same time that jobs were supposedly increasing.
However, none of this seems to matter as long as the market stays up. The great question is can it stay up indefinitely or will some straw eventually break this camel's back. The longer it continues the harder it is going to believe that any straw could break the camel's back.
JK, I think most of us who follow the economy know that it has been weakening for some time. The problem is that the market has not declined during this time that the economy and corporate earnings have turned down, which makes people question whether the relationship between the economy and the market still exists. Some say that you can't have a market decline until the Fed raises rates (the old 3 steps and a stumble refrain) or that you can't have a decline until there is capitulation. Some even argue that this is a goldilocks environment in which stocks can still go up because there is no better alternative. Although the analogy may not fit perfectly, we heard similar arguments before the housing bubble burst. We even heard Bernanke said subprime was contained. Further, buying the dip has worked ever since we had the first dip after the first recovery from 666 in March 09. So even if we get a dip, it could be just another dip buying opportunity. I've read many articles that have reviewed all of the major market time periods since 1900. There are periods in which the stock market and economic metrics were similar to today's levels and stocks did decline. The one difference is the Fed and what they may do to try to keep the market up. QE did keep stocks up and we have seen other central banks try negative interest rates so there can be no doubt that the Fed would not give up at this stage even if they feel nostalgic for a return to how it used to be. There is talk that helicopter money would be one of the next steps to try to jumpstart the economy should we go into a recession.
More in next post.
I looked at the chart from 04-08 to see if there were any similar patterns to today's chart action. There were some similarities and some differences. Currently, we have a had a period in which the market has gone sideways and appears to be on the brink of rolling over. Back in 08, we had a double top and then a break of the upward channel that had existed for the length of the advance, followed by a failure to regain that upward channel. It appears that we may have broken the upward channel that has existed since 09 (of course this depends on whether the chart settings give an accurate picture). We won't know if that break of the channel is significant until the market fails to regain that upward channel. I have been looking at the S&P so I haven't checked other indices to see if they confirm similar action or whether one index leads the others. I know some people don't believe in the predictive value of charts, but since the economic metrics and other stock metrics don't seem to be predicting a change in the market, I think it is worth looking at the charts to see if anything can be gathered. Some will say if you look hard enough you will see whatever it is that you want to see. That may be true in part, but is that any different from people saying that the market always goes up as it has during the last 100 years? What if the next 100 years are different than the first 100. No one will be around to say that the previous theory was later disproved in the next 100 years.
Keebon, part of the problem is that the statistics, however they are derived, may not be as useful as they once were. There's nothing that measures quality of employment in the employment numbers. And while some financial media may dive into the numbers and all the different subparts, the nonfinancial media doesn't have the time or the audience to question whether the unemployment rate is even a metric worth following anymore without also discussing the participation rate etc. It's similar to how they invented new baseball statistics to better measure a player's performance to supplement some of the other stats.