Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Atlas Resource Partners, L.P. Message Board

breakem1 48 posts  |  Last Activity: 6 hours ago Member since: Nov 11, 1998
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • well LRE is trading at over a 5% discount to the conversion of shares so im buying LRE despite my belief VNR will have sub 1 coverage for 1Q.....2Q will be a different story with coverage over 1.1X as will 2016 so i think getting thru credit redeter and 1Q results will act as catalysts to focus on better coverage going forward. Oh an NGAS has fallen 15% since it was near that $18 price so that may explain why its not here now.

  • Reply to

    Effect of merger on VNR for 2016

    by griffin.mungus 14 hours ago

    On 28M in units converted to VNR shrs would be about $21M in CF need to cover the $1.40 distribution which is factored in above so the extra $10 is on top of this as LRE CF would cover the distribution and then some....

  • Reply to

    Effect of merger on VNR for 2016

    by griffin.mungus 14 hours ago

    Well right off bat they said $2M can be spent to operate LRE in G&A vs $10M being spent now so there is at least $8M in savings right there. The impact of the service agreement with Lime being eliminated maybe on top of that as is accounting/public cos saving which im sure are significant too. On top of this is refi the debt which will add to this. So adding $10M to distributed CF of $130M VNR alone isnt peanuts and will boost coverage by 5-10% in my view......

  • Reply to

    $14

    by respectall160 Apr 20, 2015 1:14 PM
    breakem1 breakem1 Apr 20, 2015 2:26 PM Flag

    And dont forget valuations are so stretched tied to private equity raising billions in C Corp space that LGCY without a real GP is a pushing it to acquiring quality assets that are accretive. MEMP or VNR has the luxury of cherry picking cause of hedging and cost structure, coverage etc so keep that in mind. LGCY MUST buy something and soon or 2016 is no way seeing $1.40 in divy

  • breakem1 breakem1 Apr 20, 2015 12:49 PM Flag

    true but this is a high risk gamble hoping for $70 oil next year or higher else it does work......dont u think they owe investors that much honesty? They know full well what bet they are making cause they simply have no other choice. They should have cut the divy to $1.00 like the street expected to be safe and leave more room. It just shows you the poor judgement here.

  • breakem1 breakem1 Apr 20, 2015 9:01 AM Flag

    I will add the borrowing base even if asset prices recover will decline in 2016 by some 10% so with inflated asset prices of E&O cos running at a premium to LGCY own at over 8X EV/EBITDA making an acq is even more difficult that would be accretive. Further there available liquidity in 2016 would be only $200M leaving little rm to operate so an acq may not be even possible at that size.

  • With Liquidity down to $570M and updated hedges in 2016 little changed i dont see $1.40 being maintained at all in 2016.....even with a $300M acq coverage wont be adequate. Mgt isnt being honest at all here by cutting distrinbutions to $1.40 only to inevitable cut again even if prices recover to $65 and $3.70...there is no way its sustainable and this irresponsible temporary cut to me is desperation to keep unit price up. All these idiots see to be doing is HOPING prices rise back into 70s as thats their only card left......

  • breakem1 breakem1 Apr 17, 2015 1:51 PM Flag

    i agree 100%

  • Reply to

    $14

    by respectall160 Apr 13, 2015 10:02 AM
    breakem1 breakem1 Apr 15, 2015 9:22 AM Flag

    the challenge for LGCY is for it make an acquisition to even think about $1 divy next year....the issue is that E&P assets are so inflated now that its difficult to make it work for them on a multiple basis so they are sort of stuck. If no acq on $65 Oil next year the divy would need to be cut to at least $0.80 which it may anyway. If so 6.5% yield will result in a stock decline of 10-20%......so that is why i think the stock has stalled its too expensive even if all the pieces fall into place.

  • Reply to

    Cohen Crawls Under Rock?

    by bullmkt2013 Apr 14, 2015 9:10 AM
    breakem1 breakem1 Apr 14, 2015 3:23 PM Flag

    well ARP does need a new CEO promoted from within they need a new strategy and structure period. Is Dan willing to make changes to reduce the cost of capital here to grow? The latest preferred round made it perfectly clear to mgt whatever they have been doing isnt working...

  • Reply to

    A Warning to all

    by breakem1 Mar 24, 2015 8:29 AM
    breakem1 breakem1 Apr 9, 2015 2:51 PM Flag

    And rch the use of swaps in 2015 protect them some on NGAS but in 2016 & 2017 it shifts to 3 way collars which protect them much less.....

  • Reply to

    A Warning to all

    by breakem1 Mar 24, 2015 8:29 AM
    breakem1 breakem1 Apr 9, 2015 2:34 PM Flag

    and ill repeat most of VNRs NGAS is sold out west where there exists huge oversupply...30% above 5 yr average vs east 25% below...so it only stands to reason that the differentials for VNR will get hit hard in 1Q & 2Q......i dont hold a position in VNR and i am only trying to help.

  • Reply to

    A Warning to all

    by breakem1 Mar 24, 2015 8:29 AM
    breakem1 breakem1 Apr 9, 2015 2:12 PM Flag

    $70 oil and $3.70 NGAS in 2017 coverage is

  • Reply to

    Secondary?

    by djpicoman Apr 9, 2015 11:43 AM
    breakem1 breakem1 Apr 9, 2015 1:20 PM Flag

    Why would MEMP use GS thugs who are pushing oil to $30 is the real question. Mgt needs to wake up...GS is a shill shop for the Fed.

  • Reply to

    Secondary?

    by djpicoman Apr 9, 2015 11:43 AM
    breakem1 breakem1 Apr 9, 2015 12:46 PM Flag

    Parent needs liquidity and MEMP wants to keep theirs for the 2H firesale.....simple as that......if were MEMP i would preserve liquidity vs buying $100M in own stock as there will be plenty of accretive assets coming

  • Reply to

    UEO MIDSTREAM

    by chit3522 Apr 2, 2015 4:14 PM
    breakem1 breakem1 Apr 7, 2015 10:24 AM Flag

    one $65 OIl $ $3.15 NGAS in 2016 as hedges roll off coverage with a 6.5X EBITDA acq for $500M will be 1.11 at $2.00 per share......i dont know what sell side guys are smoking on their assumptions on an acquisition. I should note they sold midstream at 11X 2016 EBITDA...C corp EBITDA cos are trading at 5-14X with cost like pXD will very high quality assets on top end and NGAS assets at lower end. So how can sell side only assume an acq be only slight accretive in 2016 is flat out wrong. It will be significantly accretive. I have $51M in contribution from an acq that replaces $38M of mid stream contribution to boot. Midtream was expected grow 50% or to $57M so the dope analysts in my view arent even assuming an acq to exceed that contribution nor am i to be conservative. All the sell side has coverage under 1 as a result. It is likely that mgt will acq an asset that will exceed the EBITDA contribution of mid stream or why else under go the sale in first place i ask? Flat out wrong assumptions.......

  • breakem1 by breakem1 Apr 2, 2015 11:20 AM Flag

    You had sell side analyst adjust estimates earlier in week to reflect latest prices raising concern for 2016 divy cuts.....not that current price curve is right mind you but that explains some of the price disrepancy. Meanwhile the discrepancy between E&P C corp valuations and E&P MLPs continues to diverge. Screening it on this years EV/EBITDA traditional cos are trading at 8-12X while MLPs 6-8.5X. This has never happened before! MLPs cause of lower risk and higher yield have traded at a 30-60% premium historically and now its reversed which shows you how sentiment has gone negative. Now some of that maybe tied to anticipation of ALL MLPs eliminating their 2016 divys but i see that that highly unlikely at this point except for BBEP & LRE.......thus i think the MLPs are 20-30% at least undervalued......they catch up soon///

  • Reply to

    Down on a day when oil was up

    by avecennui2000 Apr 1, 2015 7:58 PM
    breakem1 breakem1 Apr 2, 2015 11:19 AM Flag

    You had sell side analyst adjust estimates earlier in week to reflect latest prices raising concern for 2016 divy cuts.....not that current price curve is right mind you but that explains it. Meanwhile the discrepancy between E&P C corp valuations and E&P MLPs continues to diverge. Screening it on this years EV/EBITDA traditional cos are trading at 8-12X while MLPs 6-8.5X. This has never happened before! MLPs cause of lower risk and higher yield have traded at a 30-60% premium historically and now its reversed which shows you how sentiment has gone negative. Now some of that maybe tied to anticipation of ALL MLPs eliminating their 2016 divys but i see that that highly unlikely at this point except for BBEP & LRE.......thus i think the MLPs are 20-30% at least undervalued......they catch up soon///

  • Reply to

    A Warning to all

    by breakem1 Mar 24, 2015 8:29 AM
    breakem1 breakem1 Mar 26, 2015 11:16 AM Flag

    I should add if you looked at EIA NGAS storage report too that NGAS is way oversupplied in west and much less so in east..guess where VNR sells most of its NGAS...WEST so their differentials could be hurt too...........

  • Reply to

    A Warning to all

    by breakem1 Mar 24, 2015 8:29 AM
    breakem1 breakem1 Mar 26, 2015 11:14 AM Flag

    Idiot they will report this and next qt with sub 1.0X coverage.....at $50 oil and $2.70 NGAS even with hedges they wont have 1.0X coverage...im not here to bash...i have a detail models on all E&P names and all i have to do is plug in price and see where they are at with hedges.....

ARP
9.06+0.01(+0.11%)Apr 21 4:01 PMEDT