Sorry, but this is the same DH who said that Apple should be selling for over $150 last summer. I'm sure anyone could find the post in the hundreds of his comments on every topic. Apparently, he didn't see the market saturation issue last year, but now, after Apple has given back over $35 and it's an issue, Captain Obvious is here to tell us what everyone knew all along.
Look at the balance sheet. It's all there. Debt of around 1.679b and assets nearly the same, but in the equity column, the common equity is negative because the preferreds have the first call on it.
I don't think EVEP's hedges are that good. The only thing EVEP had going for them is that they sold their midstream unit last year for several hundred million and paid off their credit line with the proceeds. Then they used the credit line to overpay for some acquisition from their parent. I'm surprised it isn't below $1.
Just to be clear, I'm not the one thumbing you down William. On a separate note, you mention the negativity in the political and economic level. This is something that Todd Harrison (former head of Cramer's hedge fund) and sponsor of the financial website Minanyville used to write about. Harrison commented that there is a connection between the general feeling in the world and how the market reacts, and it's easy to see that when people are feeling more optimistic, they buy stocks, and when they aren't optimistic, they don't. There were many other good tidbits on that site before Harrison sold it. I think the environment in the Fall is likely to get even more negative as the economy continues to struggle.
It's been a long time coming, but I hate to remind anyone who is considering adding NRZ in this area, that the stock is now well overbought with the RSI at 80. And while it has been a while, we always have to remember the risk of an SPO. I don't know if they mentioned that on the earnings call, but the stock was a bit lower then and they inevitably will do an SPO to enable the next large acquisition. I'm still holding irrespective of the overbought condition and the risk of an SPO.
Ah, Bob, but you have to do the math. TEGP currently pays 84 cents. A 50% increase in the next two years would bring that to $1.89. On a $26 stock, that yield on cost would be 7% and the stock price would most likely move up so that the future yield would be in the 4% range again (or about 4$7). Remember, compound returns always win.
I've mentioned TEP and TEGP before. TEP owns the Pony Express pipeline and just bought part of the REX pipeline. They just announced updated guidance to reflect the REX acquisition. TEP is guiding to 20% distribution growth over the next couple of years and TEGP is guiding for double that.
Bob, I don't think the distinction is between "investor" and "trader." While many have long term holdings that they don't trade (like your ED position), I see a lot of trading from most of the posters. I think the point JK is trying to make is that there will likely be better value opportunities later after a price correction. It happened with most of the MLPs that many of us thought we bought for the long-term and that many of us ended up selling. There are really few "one decision" stocks even for income investors because sometimes the income story does change.
Probably due in some part to the disclosure that gold is Soros's number one position. But gold is just a relic. It's not like it's Apple stock. LOL!
BTW, NUGT traded much higher than $120. Almost anyone can see that on a chart. These triple and triple inverse ETFs can really move when they get the trend behind them.
Bob, like many of us, DH can be very opinionated and very sure of himself. He is very knowledgeable and is able to express his thoughts very well and he raises many points and offers the opportunity to discuss many serious topics about the market. I think this is very important and more useful than a board in which posters just brag about which of their holdings were up that day. However, he is not always correct and sometimes engages in a little revisionist history. When I disagree with DH (which is often, but note that he and I both favor muni bond CEFs), I like to offer the flip side of the view with some of the facts/history that DH either ignores or does not know. Now it is unfortunate that DH could not stand to debate (and couldn't take the hint that bragging about one's finances on a message board where nothing can be verified is boorish (thanks William)) and chose to slander me and hide behind the ignore feature, like the bully that he can be.
I note that you have never admonished DH for his attacks on me, but yet you have admonished me several times now for responding to DH's posts. While my responses to DH can be a little snarky and I may have gone over the line one or two times, they were in response to the unprovoked attacks that I have received.
I also note that you have said anything to DH when he recently has attacked JK (in the string above) or Gambler (for taking a position in TVIX). Both of them are big boys and can defend themselves, but it does seem a little inconsistent that you can't seem to find your voice to express your displeasure when DH goes over the line.
Bob, no one is forcing you to read my replies to DH. I'm sorry that you don't like my tone or the topics that I am responding to.
I have to laugh at how much energy DH expends to talk either JK or gambler out of being bearish. His sole argument seems to point at history but without really looking at history, for if DH really knew the history he would know that there have been 20 year secular bear markets. Sure he points to a 100 year chart but who is going to live for 100 years. DH loves to tell people how he handled his account during the last crisis but he doesn't disclose many of his trades except for the winning ones. At one point he was heavy into MLPs but has admitted he sold many of those which begs the question why. If he is so adept at reading markets, did he sell those before oil dropped and now since many of them have rebounded did he buy them back? I clearly remember DH telling us before the crisis that emerging markets would lead the way and when they failed it would be corporate earnings. Now that corporate earnings have declined for several quarters he tells us that markets will not drop much because money has no place to go. But does he know that so much of the market is leveraged. I keep going back to the period before the crisis and DH didn't see the collapse coming nor did he go 100% long after. So while no one knows when this bull will end, why should we believe him.
I lost about 20% in total on LNCO/LINE, not including dividends, which probably cut the total loss to less than 10%. I was not among the early kool-aid drinkers on LINE, but bought after it had plunged as a result of the SEC investigation. Then I switched LINE for LNCO because of the better tax situation. Luckily, I sold this one relatively quickly after the Saudis failed to cut production in Nov 2014. Other e&p's I was not so quick to cut loose.
I do believe Stagg when he says he made money on this and other e&p names. He was warning about it early and that's part of the reason that the bulls on the LINE board did not like him.
There's a lesson to be learned from LINE. When too many people are on one side of the boat, all it takes is a little wave to capsize the boat.
JK, I don't think that property or equity REITs are cheap. I think they are benefiting in part from rotation and the money may be flowing into them now because they are about to get their own index and then all of the index funds will have to buy those stocks to achieve the proper weightings. There are so many different types of property REITS, and while most depend on a good economy in some way, there are others like in the digit, storage and medical space that are less correlated to consumer consumption.
JK, there have been numerous articles about money flows being negative for several weeks (i.e. out of stocks) from private equity, institutional and hedge funds. BofA/ML produces a weekly update. Of course, every sale means that someone has to be buying and the candidates for buying are 1) corporations buying back their own stock, 2) retail or 3) central banks. BTW, flows have been going into REITs which could mean that no one expects the Fed to raise rates.
And for the record, this is what DH said on April 15:
"GL Huff. For what it's worth, I see this AAPL breakout above the pennant formation to have left some support in its wake. Thinking of making a play here myself."
That doesn't look like he was calling it a "nasty" pennant formation, but instead looks like he was saying Apple had support. DH should change his moniker to "John Kerry" -- I was for Apple before I was against it. LOL!
While DH is correct about the list of reasons why it wouldn't be prudent for the Fed to raise rates, he is wrong about the stock market not being one of them. If he has bothered to read any of the interviews with Bernanke or former Fed governor Fisher, he would know that the "wealth effect" was one of the Fed's main goals. How else to explain that every time the market goes down, they trot out some Fed governor to say that they won't raise rates, but every time the market is up, rate hikes are "back on the table."
I disagree. If you can't get your financials filed on time, that means something negative has changed. If the change was positive, they could have filed on time and then followed up with an 8-K to announce the positive change with a pro forma. I guess we'll see, but I wouldn't trust the Cohens based on their past shenanigans with ATLS filings.
The 10Q is late. It was due May 10. Not being able to file your financials on time is viewed as a bad sign because it usually means that there are negative changes (i.e. impairments, further writedowns etc.). If the news was positive, they could have filed on time and then filed an 8-k explaining the good news.
I'm not an accountant or an SEC reporting person, but I wouldn't trust the Cohens based on their previous code of conduct. And in case you don't know the history, for the parent ATLS, they filed an SEC report in Feb 2015 saying they would pay a divy of 55 cents per year, while at the same time ARP was in negotiations over their credit agreement that would result in the cut in ARP's distribution by over 50%, which resulted in the IDRs paid to ATLS being cut to zero. ATLS then suspended their divy for all of 2015. They basically lied in their SEC report.
The 10Q is late. It was due 40 days after the quarter which would have put it at May 10. They just made a filing saying why it is late