Seeking Alpha

Dan Plettner

View as an RSS Feed
View Dan Plettner's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Firsthand Technology Value: Buy At $21 Now And Get About $28 Worth Of Fast-Growth Tech And IPO Stocks [View article]
    The following reflects on the pillars for my KIPO reasoning:

    http://bit.ly/1kQI9Es

    I will consider to cover KIPO at Seeking Alpha with the drill-down detail and factual nuances to which you've alluded. Obviously Seeking Alpha has an institutional readership, handily capable of following rigorous data.
    Apr 11 11:45 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Firsthand Technology Value: Buy At $21 Now And Get About $28 Worth Of Fast-Growth Tech And IPO Stocks [View article]
    I should start by disclosing I'm long both SVVC and its antithesis among those BDCs focused on the pre-IPO asset class (KIPO).

    This particular piece is rather naive on the merits and (de)merits of SVVC though. For pre-IPO exposure for intrinsic (manager) returns, KIPO is the only choice long term... price and business discipline rather than fads... Price protection in many cases. And, historical NAV accretive stock buybacks! In contrast, SVVC's use of cash and corporate governance tactics are quite obviously focused on maximizing billable assets under management. The advisory contract provides the rationale. SVVC's long term performance showcases the effect.

    The only justifiable reason to own SVVC rather than an intrinsically superior peer is the belief that the observed Activism in SVVC will yield benefits to all public shareholders. (Activism Piggybacking)

    And speaking quite honestly, a positive outcome for all SVVC shareholders is far from a slam dunk. SVVCs disinterest in its own shareholders may be a worse weakness than its portfolio management. They appear content to burn the house down rather than reduce billable assets under management. Investors who aren't privy to Activism would be misguided to own SVVC rather than KIPO. Intrinsically, the difference is night and day.
    Apr 10 11:32 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Kayne Anderson MLP Investment: Offering Demonstrates Conflicted Interest, Timely News In CEFs [View article]
    Dear "du4sloop"

    "Mr. Market" may prove your best bet to be right. I wish you well.

    Respectfully Yours,
    Dan Plettner
    Jul 15 02:43 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Kayne Anderson MLP Investment: Offering Demonstrates Conflicted Interest, Timely News In CEFs [View article]
    Dear "bsorge"

    It does appear logical for reasons you note when folks particularly minimize their turnover in individual MLPs (in contrast to MLP focused CEF or ETF products).

    Respectfully Yours,
    Dan Plettner
    Jul 15 02:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Kayne Anderson MLP Investment: Offering Demonstrates Conflicted Interest, Timely News In CEFs [View article]
    Dear "johnbian8309"

    I do not feel that I have the particular competency to provide a useful insight to your inquiry about whether a CEF's public follow on offering price is likely to serve as a near term floor.

    I'd certainly encourage any expert of imperial data regarding follow on CEF offerings at a similar premium and scale to provide useful input to your inquiry. In my view, the relevant data sample size would be unlikely to warrant my confidence in any conclusion.

    Humbly yours,
    Dan Plettner
    Jul 15 02:36 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Kayne Anderson MLP Investment: Offering Demonstrates Conflicted Interest, Timely News In CEFs [View article]
    Dear "tinman"

    I'm curious, if/when you do your due diligence on BIF, to what do you estimate the expense ratio for the current year will compute?

    Respectfully Yours,
    Dan Plettner
    Jul 15 02:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Kayne Anderson MLP Investment: Offering Demonstrates Conflicted Interest, Timely News In CEFs [View article]
    Dear "bsorge"

    I agree with you regarding what is/isn't demonstrated by the relative valuation. Based on the tax implications of CEFs/MLPs that are focused on MLPs, I would argue the ongoing nature of the tax inefficiency is one contributor suggestive the appropriateness of market discounts.

    CEFs are generally "permanent capital" for their Adviser once the shares are issued. That permanent capital generality can change if/when shares trade at significant discount over long periods of time and Activist Investors take an interest. Such is not the case in any MLP focused funds right now. Rather, MLPs are a hotbed for Advisers to raise capital.

    Over the decades ahead, it will be interesting to see how "Mr Market" values MLP focused CEFs.

    Regardless, I genuinely wish you well in your holding. While I happen to be short based on my objective opinion, my position is certainly small enough that I'd be very content to see you and all the investors in the security do well.

    Respectfully Yours,
    Dan Plettner
    Jul 13 02:54 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Kayne Anderson MLP Investment: Offering Demonstrates Conflicted Interest, Timely News In CEFs [View article]
    Dear "mi2positive"

    The article was submitted to Seeking Alpha on Thursday, July 11. The article was published by Seeking Alpha's editors on Friday, July 12. Relative valuation (premium/discount) for a CEF commonly and constantly changes.

    Regarding the tax liability / structural performance inefficiency I already addressed that question in response to "NoBob's" comment.

    Respectfully Yours,
    Dan Plettner
    Jul 13 02:44 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Kayne Anderson MLP Investment: Offering Demonstrates Conflicted Interest, Timely News In CEFs [View article]
    Dear NoBob

    My compliments for bringing up other topics highly relevant to KYN. This is actually a topic that is relevant to Closed End or ETF Funds that are focused on MLPs.

    Some folks may look at the tax liability of the fund as something that could or would go away someday. Such seems to be your vantage point. Other folks who are choosing to invest in MLPs use them as part of overall tax planning and wealth management.

    The fact is that Closed End Funds or ETFs that are focused on MLPs have to account for tax liability. This is discussed in detail within other articles I've written here that discuss MLP focused CEFs. That tax liability can and should continue growing. The tax inefficiency of owning MLPs within focused CEFs and ETFs does not end. So, I see CEFs and ETFs as a very inefficient way to invest in MLPs. My MLP focused holdings are direct ownership in individual MLPs.

    Respectfully Yours,
    Dan Plettner
    Jul 13 02:36 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Alpine Funds: Skiing Down Another Cliff 31 Months Later [View article]
    Dear Guardian3981

    We all have made investments or things we classified in our minds as investments which we later regretted. Me too.

    All any of us can do is learn from it. In learning, one of the challenging things is to assess specifically what to learn.

    I remember losing a lot of money betting against Krispy Kreme when it was a high flier with absurd valuations. My assessments were right on, but before Mr Market proved me right the pain of losing got unbearable for my size position. From that I needed to learn being right in the long term doesn't mean you are going to be right in the short term and to consider my position allocations with greater humility.

    I also recall losing what was a fortune to me at the time in a technology stock called Compuserve. From that, I needed to learn humility as to investing in securities where I didn't really have particular insight into the security.

    Emotionally, it can be difficult for people to identify where they need first to be humble to identify and improve on whatever caused them to make a trade or investment they regret.

    Your words demonstrate as humbled. I am guessing you have since embraced the problem was not general exposure to risk assets. Perhaps you can identify now all the problems and the signs of the problems and have learned the degree of research necessary to avoid the likes of AOD/AGD. Some others may outsource the making of choices at all. Or they may start using index funds. Either way, I congratulate you on choosing to reflect. It takes a strong person to do so.

    Respectfully Yours
    Dan Plettner
    Jan 25 10:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Greater China Fund And JF China Region Fund: Assessing Plausible Outcomes [View article]
    Dear Bern

    You should be discussing the prospect of what to do with your shares with your Financial Advisor who knows the details of your accounts.

    I am tendering my shares.

    If GCH goes into liquidation, it will take a bit longer for shareholders who desire to exit at/near NAV to do so. And, the only choice shareholders would have is whether to wait for the liquidation or sell (likely at a small discount) before actual liquidation. I would be shocked if the tender were oversubscribed and liquidation efforts failed.

    Respectfully Yours
    Dan Plettner
    Jan 25 09:41 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Closed-End Investor's Thesis on Distribution Variances and Allianz's Funds [View article]
    A couple months after I wrote the article you are commenting on, Allianz tripled the distribution at NFJ, which I was long. The declaration date was 12/21/10. It now trades around a 6-7% discount.

    So, with regard to NFJ, Allianz addressed the issue after the article was written.
    Jan 24 03:58 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Alpine Funds: Skiing Down Another Cliff 31 Months Later [View article]
    Dear gd39

    Respectfully, the "Overdosing on Financial Engineering" writing 39 months ago did not take 3 years to demonstrate as relevant. Over the course of less than 10 days, AOD and AGD had dramatically cut their distributions *a first time*. When Alpine did, AOD market prices went from then recent 30%+ premiums to discounts *a first time*.

    What happened in the last week was a 2nd set of distribution cuts. Perhaps you could say it took three years for the market to reflect the initial observations as relevant twice.

    As noted in this piece, trading swings are anticipated. After Alpine skiid down the latest massive slope, week-to-week peaks and valleys are no surprise. If you and your 8% care to offer the world a perspective of which way it'll go next week, feel free. I don't claim to be that wise.

    Respectfully Yours,
    Dan Plettner
    Jan 24 12:33 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Alpine Funds: Skiing Down Another Cliff 31 Months Later [View article]
    Dear Oiainc

    I'm not a Financial Advisor and please understand I do not intend to give advice. I intend only to be transparent about whether I see a decent opportunity by my own standards in the marketplace. I do not.

    At AODs approximate 15% current discount and AGDs approximate 5% discount, neither motivates me to consider owning these particular funds today. Based on my contemplation, I do not see a plausible catalyst in sight for supply and demand recalibration at a more favorable relative valuation.

    While I do not see fit to short either today, my best guess is that a washout in the shareholder base of each is more likely than not to precede any eventual improvement.

    I should note that AGD getting back to a premium someday would not shock me. It is a much smaller fund and it would not require as many shareholders or speculators (warranted or not) to again cause it.

    Overall, I find it appropriate to look at situations with humility and discipline. While I might guess the discounts of AOD and AGD both drift considerably wider long before either gets meaningfully better... the combination of conviction and magnitude in my own assessment obviously has not motivated me to currently be short either one. I have been wrong many times before and I will surely be wrong many times again.

    For the benefit of AOD and AGD shareholders, I hope I am wrong regarding the next move on these.

    Respectfully Yours,
    Dan Plettner
    Jan 24 11:23 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Firsthand Tech Value Fund: SolarCity, Facebook And Other Offerings Gone Bad [View article]
    To be clear, the model to which you refer is owned by Covestor, not me. I merely license my data relating to Covestor.

    But I'm curious, are you suggesting that somebody needs to have paid more for SVVC to assess why Mr. Market is valuing it at less than 80 cents on the dollar? Would you argue I am anything less than fully rational about why it is trading at its deep discount? Would you argue that anything less to governance changes to address shareholder value can have longstanding affects on its deeply depressed market value relative to NAV?

    SCTY being valued on SVVC's books at more than double what its IPO would be priced at (less than a quarter later) affected the management fee SVVC's Advisor gets for the position on the period by more than double. I have not argued whether FBs latest trend is more or less of an impact on the NAV. In all funds, constituent securities can go up or down. The one thing every fund's stewards have control of is whether to serve shareholder value with risk-free actions like buying back stock or open-ending if Mr. Market showcases that management is value-destructive.

    Respectfully Yours
    Dan Plettner
    Dec 14 09:05 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
309 Comments
310 Likes