But don't be surprised if the Fed comes to the rescue again with a no more rate hikes forever pledge. Then DH can tell us how the market goes up because of emerging markets or corporate earnings.
Trading down. Probably finds support and I doubt it goes lower than the low 90's if it even gets that low because of the buyback. But while cheaper than it was today, probably not enough of a reason to step in and buy it without some better news on their next products. There is a little bit of a head and shoulders, but I think the buyback keeps the stock price from falling too far. Probably takes the S&P down because of the weighting it has in the index.
And like clockwork here is the coward DH to punch and run behind the ignore button, name calling while attempting to act like he is a saint because he would never point out if anyone made a bad call never mind if someone posted something that mr. Know it all didn't agree with. What happened to that kinder gentler DH who wasn't engaging in negative attacks because of his health. I guess that doesn't apply to taking pot shots at me. Now look I got poor sick DH upset that he just had to put his two cents in again and remind everyone what a bad poster I am to dare challenge anyone's view(read DH's view).
Sure they are Stagg. We don't care how well you are doing because we are not in competition with you. and no one has the same financial situation or risk tolerance as you do. You can bragg about your winners, but you can't escape your losers and the list is growing. Posting 1 month Total Returns does not make you Warren Buffet or Jimmy Buffet.
Well if I kept anyone out of AVACF, which Stagg was pumping until I brought it up, then I considered that a contribution. You actually were in it and lost money and probably would have stayed in it if Stagg kept pumping it.
Next up is Avance, another one of your pumps that u would have kept pumping had I not shed some light on it. Last Week you bragged about a one day gain on the Brazilian fertilizer company without stating its total return since u bought it. It's called selective disclosure and you are the master.
But last week you were bragging how well CLPL was doing for you and making fun of "naysayers." So let's add CLPL to list of high yield stocks that have not turned out well.
Well they bought the convertible preferred shares in ATLS last year before the &%$ hit the fan, so that's what it says. This is not a new purchase as you seem to imply. ATLS owns the GP interest in ARP and that is still going to be worth something when ARP restructures its debt.
Really how misleading are you trying to be?
Another misleading post (not your first time). The Cohens (along with Cooperman) bought these convertiible preferreds last year (not today as you suggest). They converted them to common. I seem to recall that Cooperman had converted his earlier and then dumped the common. I haven't pulled the terms of the convertible preferred, but maybe they had a time limit to convert. At any rate, this may mean nothing and you as the poster have the duty to be more forthcoming.
Good for you JK. I welcome your posts. It's always good to discuss new areas and new names I think the main difficulty with some of your picks is that they need more explanation. It seems you come at these names from a technical view but yet there seems to be a growth reason that is causing you to expect them to move. Don't be afraid to expand on your posts. There's a fine line between discussion and pumping. We are seeing more and more new posters and the discussion has expanded well beyond SFL, shippiing and high yield stocks.
Many of the major indices are weighted toward the well-known names that we all know, which also happen to be the some of the most expensive and overvalued stocks. So mutual fund managers can still stay invested in names that offer better value at current levels. The net effect is that the big averages could decline as mutual funds rotate out of the overweighted names in indices. DH is fond of saying that the market goes up over the long term, but it also has regular periods of decline which are caused by selling of the names that are overweight in the averages. The concept of Expected Return is a key component to how institutional investors invest and by most measures the Expected Return is close to zero (and it may be negative) for the next several years.
I would probably avoid both until they have restructured. At present, there is probably little equity value until they restructure their debt. Many e&p MLPs are going to be forced to restructure so the ones that don't will have too high a debt burden when compared to the ones that do restructure it.
When you buy a lottery ticket, at least you know the odds and the ticket price. With the common in many of these names, you don't know the odds. My experience is that the common usually gets hosed and many times so does the preferred. The bonds probably make out better but you have to know which ones and what the right price is.
Finally, I don't know the reputation of the management team running VNR, but the Cohens who run ARP are not oil and gas people. They are financiers who learned how to syndicate tax shelter investment partnerships. Even though I made money on a rebound in their midstream unit APL, they almost blew that up.
We talked about CEQP yesterday. It's digesting some of its big gain yesterday and possibly making for a good entry point as the dividend is now more secure and provides a double digit yield with the chance for further stock price gains. However, an article on s.a. warned about possible adverse tax consequences if you are opening a new position now. There is likely to be gain from their sale of assets to the joint venture and previous cancellation of debt income from buying back discounted debt, which may offset the income received from the distribution. Longer term holders may have losses to offset these gains, but a new holder may not get the benefit of those. It might make sense to wait until the new j.v. is closed before establishing a position. How partnerships establish tax basis for their unitholders is a mystery. For some MLPs, if you buy any time during the month, your tax basis is established at the 1st of the month.
I think what beversgt is saying is that if they sell the hedges to pay down the revolver than their EBITDA is going to be less going forward and potentially trip the Debt to EBITDA covenant. You would have to see how much their EBITDA is impacted with hedges vs without.
JK, I don't know, but I could see either of two scenarios. On one hand, there have been some big earnings misses and some of those stocks are correcting. Palestone mentioned how the utilities got whacked and they had been leading the market up. The market seemed a little heavy and toppy today, but one day does not a selloff make even if UBS has pointed out some divergences, lower new highs etc. Also, it is anecdotal, but many posters on our board seem almost giddy with their recent tremendous gains. They seem complacent instead of wary and few seem to be talking about taking profits. Even Gambler is bullish!
On the other hand, it has been a fool's errand to try to call an inflection point with this market. The old "bad news is good news" seems to be working again for the market and the Fed talking heads are there whenever the market hits a bump. Oil didn't collapse after the failure of the DOHA talks. So I could also see one more push to highs. I'm still watcing HYG to see if it indicates upcoming weakness. So far, it has been holding up.
SBUX reported record earnings but is selling off 4% afterhours. It was probably due to take a breather after running from $35 to 62 over the last 1+ year. They still looked to have great growth ahead of them. If I'm doing the fibonnaci retracement levels correctly, they could find support in the low $50's.
SBUX has started to show up on many dividend growth portfolios. While the yield is only 1.31%, they increased it 25% last year. While not the fare for most on this board, any younger investors might want to consider an opportunity to get into SBUX even though it was already a 64 bagger since 1993.
First you have to understand that the Cohens are not oil or gas men, but are financiers (read their bios). They got their start in banking and REITs and syndicating partnerships. They are not petroleum geologists. Most of their money is in the GP entity, ATLS, and they are taking a bath there too. As financiers, the goal is to lever something up as much as you can because that produces the most return to the sliver of equity that they owned at the GP level, and the GP is always even more levered to the performance of the MLP.
They are not alone in messing up the supply and demand of oil and nat gas, although their hedges are better than many MLPs. As financiers, they are used to working with banks and bondholders in distressed situations, and while the value of their equity in the GP is lost for now, they now how to resurrect themselves. They know that the banks want to see them (as opposed to the common holders) survive and live to play again because the banks make a ton of fees off of them doing deals and providing financing. In any restructuring, the common, preferreds and unsecured bonds will get wiped out, and the banks who own the secureds will wind up with equity, but there will be a piece of equity for management (to make up for what they lost) plus some management contracts. If oil and nat gas prices recover, they'll bring it public again and the banks, underwriters and management will provide financing and sell stock and bonds again. So it's not a case that they want to purposefully push this into BK, but rather that is the option to give them the best chance to start over and take even more money out once the cycle turns.
JR, that's about the third time I've read you make that statement about their debt and I have corrected you several times. Suggest you read the 10k and look at the year-end earnings release to see where they stand. They have over $1.5b in debt and EBITDA at 261. That ratio is much bigger than the 3 you keep quoting, and so I conclude that you are deliberately trying to mislead people.
And if you have followed their history, don't expect to receive a warning from management that they are all of a sudden in violation of their covenant. Just like in early 2015 when they cut the divy by 50% and then in Nov when it was reduced to 1 cent.