Exactly, the distribution goes down next year because that's when the covenant is reduced to 5 times EBITDA, but why didn't they just say that then? Because they don't want to admit that ATLS needs the money from the distribution, or why else wouldn't they buy back debt trading at such a large discount? They aren't anxious to buy back debt because they have no separate money to do it -- something would have to give.
Sometimes it takes owning a stock over a longer period to begin to appreciate the subtle "misses" from guidance and projections and the promises from one quarter to another that are quickly swept under the rug. When I owned ARP, I did not appreciate the influence of their rising debt and their debt covenants. That's why I have repeatedly mentioned that there was no advance warning of the 50% cut that occurred in March 2015. They didn't even mention that they were getting close. Contrast that with EVEP, who I have been critical of for different reasons, and their recent warning that their distribution is in jeopardy.
My "obsession" is only because posters like you continue to view things with rose-colored glasses and keep misstating facts like saying they are 100% hedged. Name one item that I have lied about? You can't. You say oll will recover next year like it is a fact when it is just your opinion, but does that make you a liar? Your post makes no sense. Like I could influence the trading in a stock with my posts on a message board. It is you who has nothing to offer this board other than your opinions and accusations.
Because that would have caused the stock to tank to $2 and these guys think that if they give out some hope that there will be a distribution, then enough retail will hold on, and some may even bottom fish, to keep the share price up. But of course, people aren't stupid and they sell first and ask questions later. This is why a company's past pattern and practice is important. Ever since they botched the Utica sale, no one (should) believe anything they say about the future.
moretree, I have seen you post on several boards. You seem to understand the sector, probably better than I do. There are a lot of posters, call them yield chasers or bottom fishers or know-nothings, but they are clueless and won't admit it, so that presents a challenge to debunk all of their myths for continuing to hold. It's not a matter of wishing others lose money, but to point out, like I have also done with EVEP, that management will always try to convince unitholders to hold on, when selling would have been the better course.
No mention of a decision on the borrowing base redetermination. During the last call they said the date was Nov 1. I wonder if the banks were waiting to get the Q3 numbers. They can't be happy that the debt is up to 5.2 to 1 and they had the chutzpah to pay out $10mm in distributions to unitholders.
Debt to EBITDA Is now 5.2 to 1, up from 4.5 to 1 last quarter (in Note 5 for the challenged). I thought Eddie said they were "a little overleveraged" and that they would fix that. Also, they still owe $21.6mm for the Eagle Ford acquisition due 12/31/15.
It's knew info for the accounting-challenged who thought the "book value" of units in the $7 meant that the shares should be trading at $7.
You must be the same person as science _ on his mind, since you both don't seem to know math or accounting.
That hedge portfolio value goes first to pay off debt, then the GP (which is got a negative value) and then preferred holders before the common units get anything left over. Oh, and BTW, the balance sheet shows that $146mm of it is in the current asset side, meaning that it will be burning off.
Each time they pay a distribution that is not supported by cashflow, some of that hedge value leaves the company.
You seem (and are) stupid, not knowing the difference between GAAP and tax. The reason it matters is because of dummies like you who base their investing on book values.
Well what you say is true, but don't forget that they bought these assets with a bunch of debt, not to mention issuing units at a much higher price. That debt didn't go away. The assets are worth less because the income that they are producing is much less. Obviously, that could change. But they need income to pay their debt. If the debt keeps going up, then the bankers turn off the distribution to unit holders. And we have seen what happens to an MLP's unit price when the distribution is suspended.
It's only stupid because that's what you must believe. We're still waiting for you to calculate the book value of each unit. Can't do the math?
Don't confuse GAAP loss with losses for tax purposes. You won't know what their tax loss until you get the K-1. GAAP and tax are calculated differently. Impairments often are book adjustments and since there is no disposition of a property, there might not be a loss for tax purposes.
Then why was their production down and the price they received down for their nat gas from the prior quarter? Great, nat gas may be the way of the future, but if you can't produce more or sell it for more, it won't matter.
Who invests in a stock based on book value? It is a meaningless, one time snapshot that can change. But since you are the expert, why don't you look at the partner's capital table and explain what you think it is.
Except the distribution isn't just calculated using the DCF. That's why an understanding of their debt covenants is important and while they may have enough room to make it through another quarter, the distribution will most likely be cut again.