except it's not true.
If you have a margin account, read your brokerage agreement.
Focus on the part about hypothecation.
So long as you have a margin balance your shares can be loaned - putting a GTC does nothing.
In practice however I have often had my units of royalty trusts borrowed by shorts, but never once have any of my MLP units been loaned (thank goodness). Whether the brokerages tend to avoid loaning partnership units, I'm not sure however I can say it doesn't happen often.
"so if NRGY are worth 9.89, do you feel at a later time the share price will match that???????????"
That is not what he said. Note the part about .432052
Facts haven't changed, only your ignorance of them has lessened a bit. I explained to you the facts months ago (prior to the last lower distribution) but you wouldn't believe them. Now you are slowly coming around.
"value of the assets"
this is the part you don't understand. If you bothered to actually look up the definition rather than post about it over and over you would find that it means precisely what cmeng said it does below. Your understanding of "value of assets" is not the definition as applied to book value. Think about why it is called 'book value' and not current value or something like that. Book value refers to the valuation carried on the company books which is the price paid for the assets minus depreciation and depletion, exactly as you have been told. Since this is the definition you will find in any investment glossary, it's bizarre that you claim it is not the 'standard' definition.
It's a Canadian corporation so, of course, tax is withheld on dividend paid into taxable US brokerage accounts. The tax can be recovered as a credit when you do your tax return however.
Sorry for making an assouttayou. Don't remember what it was about or on which board.
Since I scan so many boards quickly I often forget who are the good guys and who are the ones deserving of scarcasm. As you know, I tend not to like silly questions.
I do have a position in ARP, acquired when it first went public. Am also in APL which is my largest position by virtue of buying at very low prices in 2008/9. Since I follow many MLPs, I am not following details of ARP's acquisitions in depth. They seem to be accumulating assets at favorable prices which bodes well for future cash flow. Others here are more knowledgeable on the specifics of the acquisitions.
Suggest you would get better discussion on the KMP board. It's been discussed there before.
I only just became a KMP owner for the first time recently via my CPNO holdings.
Consensus is, yes, KMR is a better deal if you don't care about getting distributions in cash.
But there's no guarantee that discount will ever narrow or close.
Your post has nothing to do with what was being discussed.
The brokerages are raising margin maintenance requirement on LINE (my broker raised from 25% to 40%). And if people are extended on margin (use of margin is currently at record levels), raising the maintenance requirement results in forced selling. Nobody implied that Hedgeeye, Barrons or other shorts are extended on margin - you made that ludicrous assertion yourself just so you could refute it.
Typical norris - make up a stupid assertion, pretend someone else suggested it, just so you can try to look smart by refuting it.
CEP has been generating taxable income for the last few years (unitholders owe taxes on their K-1 due to significant box 1 income bigger than deductions), but they have distributed nothing since May 2009. Instead all their income went to paying down debt.
In the vast majority of cases, MLPs do pay a distribution but there is great variation in how much of DCF they pay, so even without the border cases which pay nothing at all, the original poster was still clearly wrong to suggest they pay ALL their income (let alone are required to). Some pay out most of their distributable cash flow, some pay out considerably less than their distributable cash flow. And then there's those like LINE who pay out more than their distributable cash flow ;-)
Look at the schedule of distributions they have published.
April revenues are being distributed in mid July,
May in mid August, etc.
They publishes a table showing that for all the distributions July 2013-March 2014.
It was published in the press release where they announced the switch to monthly distributions (which was around the time of last earnings announcement). I'd guess it's on the website too, but haven't checked.
In general it would result in more selling pressure as some people may have to sell some of the position to get back within allowable margin limits. However the rally of the last 2 days may have taken some of that pressure off as the rising price increases the margin limit.
2013 will be the same total, however in the year you sell your position you will receive one month's less distributions than you would have before due to the extra month between the production quarter and the distribution record and payment date. It went from 45 days to 75 days and that deprives you on one distribution in the year you sell.
You may not think it's a big deal, but how can this management be trusted when they do things like that and try to hide it in a transition to monthly payments? Would you take the same attitude if they decide to just skip a distribution or two in future? It is effectively the same.
It may be arguing over nickels (actually a few hundred dollars based on my position), however management here has purposely done some tricks to deprive unitholders of a distribution and obscured it in the transition to monthly.
There was no reason that the transition to monthly also had to shift the payment dates back by a month to 75 days after the end of the month when it used to be 45 days.
This is a reason to be distrustful of management who seems to be doing all sort of aggressive things to improve their balance sheet, withthe latest one being directly at the expense of existing unitholders.
Since people here don't seem to mind being cheated, I am continuing the argument with LINE themselves. If I end up prevailing and you all get an extra month's distribution, I assume these people who don't care will pass along that month's payment to me.
Not sure who you're talking to but the important date in the example were the 2014 record dates, so who is the dunce? You are looking at the wrong year. My example was correct with respect to ex-dates, but the exact dates are not critical - it was just an example, the same pattern holds true for other dates. It should be obvious that when the record date is shifted back by one month as they have done (payable date moved from 45 days after end of quarter to 75 days after end of month, with record and ex-dates a couple of weeks earlier), that existing holders from before the transition will lose one month of distribution over the life of their investment. It's obvious dummy because your sell date whenever it is will miss one more monthly distribution than before due to the record and ex-dates being shifted back by a month.
As for public school education, well I have higher degree from Stanford so my education was OK. 4.0 grade point average too.