One of the problems with writing calls on a high-div security is that because the option-pricing model adjusts for future dividends, call prices are relatively low and put prices are relatively high, compared to other stocks with similar price volatility. So the premium for selling calls is much lower relative to the risk of it being called away. so IMO the risk/reward is skewed in favor of either buying calls or selling puts.
Royalty income was $13.3 million. Deduct the $1.5 million in expenses, you get $11.8 million. The rest is income from hedges that is going away. Divide $11.8 million by 39 million units, you get $0.30/unit for distribution for regular units, and zero for the sub units.
The next 4 distributions are likely to be something like $0.50 (supported by 2 months of hedging), $0.30, $0.21, $0.20 = $1.21, once the sub units convert to regular units in January, so from 2016 your quarterly distribution will be $0.18-$0.20, declining every quarter as production drops. There is no doubt that price will drop steadily into 5's by end of year or so -- current price of $7, less the next couple of distributions.
Obviously of course if oil price rises sharply there is upside from there, but if you want upside it has to rise enough -- and keep rising -- to outweigh the falling production.
"Subordination still in affect for 4 more Q's resulting in payouts of .61,.56,.54 and .53 for a total of $2.24" The sub units will not support distributions that high -- at current prices, you're looking at maybe $0.30. All the subordination means is that those units won't get anything, and the regular units get all the cash flow. But with almost 40 million regular units, there's no way they're earning $20 million+ in cash flow when last quarter they only had, what, $13 million? As you note, though, the next distribution will be at least partially shielded by the last hedges.
EQM is already priced like a high-growth GP, so I suppose it makes sense that the GP would get priced like a hot biotech or internet company. It's funny to see so many GPs coming public the same week that Williams is buying theirs in. I will say that the EQ assets have to be really attractive as an acquisition candidate for one of the bigger MLPs, but at what price?
Will maintain distribution at current levels for the year...
Which is another way of saying that 2015 distributions will be 21% higher than 2014 ($2.70 vs $2.23). If that's what's happening during the *down* cycle, IMO that tells you right there that this is a great business that you want to own a share of.
I'm guessing that a lot of the EMES action today is short covering by folks who shorted last week before earning announcement and now are just routinely covering after the news. Daily action in all of these sand companies seems dominated by day traders, more so than most other MLPs.
This stock doesn't have anything to do with Blackstone the big wall street firm (BX). This is "Black Stone" -- two words -- not associated with Blackstone at all. At least I'm pretty sure -- that was one of the things I specifically tried to figure out in the prospectus.
I did the same thing. I was reading the prospectus last night was didn't think 5% yield was high enough, considering that it seemed likely that all of it would be taxed as ordinary income. Really like the basic business though and suspect it might be great in an IRA if it works out tax-wise. I think it will bottom quickly in next day or two as all the disappointed would-be "flipper" clear out.
How much of this Is really OHI-specific? HCN, HCP, O are all also down 2-3%. Obviously someone wasn't thrilled by earnings, but looks like general sector weakness too. Ho hum...
I don't think they're even reading the Moody's release. Obviously they missed this part:
" Moody's analysts said that proppant companies' ability to quickly respond to customers' supply and cost efficiency needs will be vital in the coming year, noting U.S. Silica (Ba3, stable), Fairmount Santrol (B1, stable) and Hi-Crush (B2, stable) as companies well-positioned to increase market share as the sector continues to go through a down cycle."
EMES paid out $5.09 in last 4 quarters, so while they are reducing 1st quarter dist by 29%, for full year they are guiding for 40% reduction. Ouch...
What's surprising is that they are signalling even lower distributions for future quarter -- if they're paying out $1 in first quarter but guiding for $3 for full year, that's only $2 over next three quarters, so you're looking at a quarter distribution of $0.50-$0.60 by end of year. Most companies would do one large cut now and get it over with.
This is exactly the flip side of the frustration every HCLP shareholder felt last year watching EMES rocket higher 2X or 3X HCLP. This is what we all told ourselves, that HCLP was the more conservative play and in a downturn EMES would get hit harder, so hopefully that is what we will see -- HCLP being able to maintain distribution because they have been managed more conservatively, and we made the right choice after all. But I still think we will get punished in sympathy and $40 will not happen any time soon.
"It's still $1. "
If they're guiding for $3 for full year, that means more cuts to some -- $1 for first quarter means only $2 more over next three quarters. They paid out $5.09 last 4 quarters, so a cut to $3 is 40%.
fwiw, another 17% distr increase announced by MMP today.
MMP is the absolute gold standard for growth. The number that separates MMP from every other MLP is that they haven't issued new shares in something like TEN YEARS -- *all* of their growth has been internally financed, which is why they grow distribution +15% every single year. IMO the difference in the stock price is simply that EPD is so heavy into NGLs which is a softer business in current commodity environment than MMP, but of course buying it now gives you the upside when growth resumes. MMP bought all of BP's storage assets in Cushing for a song a couple years ago post-Macondo, how much money are they making on them now with every tank in Cushing overflowing? But I don't think you can go wrong buying EPD here either -- buying great companies at the bottom is what you're supposed to do.
Both companies have also benefited greatly from buying in their GP -- IMO you should strongly consider limiting your choices to those that either don't have a GP, or are a GP, if you want to focus on best-of-breed.
"That translates to a 14% annualized return on their total assets under management "
That's about what we got last year when you add in the special div.
The best thing about them IMO is that by the time they mature, hopefully bond yields in general will be (finally) higher, so they look like a nice way to park cash for four years waiting for rates to rise. I usually like to buy longer-term investment-grade bonds, but of course haven't been doing much of that last couple of years. I think SSW's credit profile for next 4 years is pretty solid with the new ships coming on line and current contract status of the rest, so I'm a lot more comfortable with these than other junk bonds.
Could that be a cap gain if they sold a large position? Not sure if cap gains are considered part of NII.
another bounce back from exactly $40 this afternoon... I bet if we get another dist increase, we'll break right through. The 15th is about when it should be announced.
This article from Seeking Alpha explains it well:
"The intention behind the fund is excellent: simplify the often complicated process of owning MLPs by applying an ETF wrapper to the broad asset class. However, AMLP is not the right vehicle for the majority of investors, and it represents one of the rare cases when buying the ETF structure makes very little sense.
Legally MLPs can make up only 25% of a portfolio registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Most mutual funds and ETFs are structured this way. To get around this issue, AMLP is actually structured as a corporation that pays income tax: Before return is passed on to the investor, it must be taxed at the corporate level. Although AMLP's prospectus expense ratio is 0.85%, its gross expense ratio (which accounts for these tax liabilities) is almost 5% as of September. As a result, AMLP has lagged its index significantly. Over the past year AMLP lagged by 10%, and since inception it trailed by a shocking 40%. The upside? When MLPs are down, AMLP declines less because it can reverse some of the deferred tax liabilities it has accrued. For all but the most risk-averse yet desperate-for-yield investors, this downside protection is not enough to make up for the fund's structural issues."