Seeking Alpha

Dan Plettner

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Dan Plettner's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The Kayne Anderson Midstream / Energy Fund IPO: A Marketing Achievement? [View article]
    There is a recently published piece on FEN here on Seeking Alpha as an "Investment View":

    seekingalpha.com/artic...

    The linked document from FEN's secondary quotes "From time to time, the Fund will modify its estimates and/or assumptions regarding its deferred tax liability as new information becomes available."To the extent the Fund modifies its estimates and/or assumptions, the NAV of the Fund will likely fluctuate." Actual Portfolio Differences and the extent to which MLPs are used may be worthy of observation.

    As "Iowadawg81" noted fund allocation could be relevant, at least in comparison.of the extent to which MLPs with tax advantaged distributions characteristics are used as portfolio constituents.

    FEN factually is treated as a C-Corporation, whereas such treatment is intended to be avoided by KMF. The construct of KMFs prospectus makes reference to the prospect of adverse tax treatment as a risk.

    It may be inappropriate to believe that either of these products can be easily assessed.... especially by novice's who might lack clear explanations from the Fund Company's and/or the brokers who place shares.

    So, waiting to look at deployment is something that might benefit from an attention to contextual relevance as to what is being looked at, in each.

    Respectfully Yours,
    Dan Plettner
    Nov 25 09:51 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Kayne Anderson Midstream / Energy Fund IPO: A Marketing Achievement? [View article]
    In respect to executives at Kayne Anderson who are surely well entitled to speak their mind, I want to go out of my way to make clear what are my opinions, in relation to what their "intent" and "risks" are as described in their prospectus, to which I've linked, and will again provide here:

    www.sec.gov/Archives/e...

    To be clear, KYE and KMF intend to be treated as Registered Investment Companies ("RICs") unlike AMLP and MLP focused mutual funds or Closed-End Funds "generally". Their own assessments of the risks to that intention are disclosed in the prospectus of each. My perspective is that if such single security funds prove to be truly focused on the current hotbed of MLPs into which they appear to have been marketed, they are likely to account for a tax burden just like AMLP and Closed-End Funds that do not claim to intend to avoid being treated as C-Corporations.

    I think it would be very helpful to the public for Kayne Anderson to press release a detailed discussion of structural (in)efficiencies and various possibilities. Such may address a challenging balancing act with the demand into which the fund appears to have been marketed, and risks involved in the fund's intentions.

    Please know my assessments of "likely" and "general" here in the section which begins "Apparent" are my opinions and although I believe my assessment of "general" may be widely held by peers, none of these opinions are conclusory statements of fact.
    Nov 24 08:29 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Energy Income and Growth Fund: Long Term Qualitative Observations of C-Corporation MLP Vehicle Suggests 'Dip' Perception Is Illusory [View article]
    Please be aware that the disclosure section was edited by Seeking Alpha editorial. The editorial decision should not be interpreted to convey that I felt that no author disclosure was appropriate. Likewise, this comment should not be interpreted to convey any judgment of Seeking Alpha editorial. Editorial decisions are not mine to make, nor do I desire to have the editor's numerous roles or responsibilities. Other portions of my voice were also edited by the editor.
    Nov 24 12:31 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Kayne Anderson Midstream / Energy Fund IPO: A Marketing Achievement? [View article]
    Please be aware that the disclosure section was edited by Seeking Alpha editorial. The editorial decision should not be interpreted to convey that I felt that no author disclosure was appropriate. Likewise, this comment should not be interpreted to convey any judgment of Seeking Alpha editorial. Editorial decisions are not mine to make, nor do I desire to have the editor's numerous roles or responsibilities.
    Nov 24 12:27 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Korea Equity Fund: Activism Candidate Climbing a Wall of Worry [View article]
    Please note that the title was modified by Seeking Alpha in the editorial/publishing process. I did not call KEF a "Candidate"
    Nov 23 04:11 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Short-Selling PIMCO Global Stocks Plus and Allianz's Inconsistent Distribution Policy [View article]
    With appropriate respect for you, I should have specified "writing approach", and not risked my assessment thereof as being confused as an assessment of your market or trading "approach". At any rate, I thank you for the merited dialogue and apologize for failing to be more specific.
    Nov 23 02:53 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Short-Selling PIMCO Global Stocks Plus and Allianz's Inconsistent Distribution Policy [View article]
    Dear Richabe,

    I respect your approach but I think it has hazards in its focus on technical terms rather than broader competency for Closed-End Fund perspective. Let me ask you a some very simple questions, not addressing what might be legally at least tenable in technical definitions and lawyer speak, but perspective of Closed-End Funds, what they are assumed to do, and how those Closed-End Funds were marketed.

    Do shareholders of PGP and NFJ generally have reason to expect similar distribution performance to the extent controlled by overlapping distribution governance?

    Do shareholders of PGP and NFJ generally have reason to expect similar NAV performance to the extent controlled by overlapping distribution governance?

    Do shareholders of PGP and NFJ generally have reason to expect self-liquidation vs capital growth profiles to the extent controlled by overlapping distribution governance?

    Is there any reason to suspect a larger distribution for PGP than NFJ is more sustainable without sacrificing the sustainability of principal, and is that highly relevant to the distribution governance of the funds?

    Should shareholders of NFJ be made to bear dramatically alternate adverse relatively market valuations for generally similar products alongside Allianz’ unique benefit of illusory “value” in open end funds similarly branding to PGP alone?

    Do shareholders of PGP know via disclosure the extent to which their fund may in effect be a peer of the Cornerstone Funds, which clearly discloses some self-liquidation tendencies and risks of a shrinking asset base?

    CEF competent, sensible answers to these questions may or may not be related to why Allianz' refused to discuss the issues with me at all.

    Respectfully Yours
    Dan Plettner
    Nov 23 01:27 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Energy Income and Growth Fund: Long Term Qualitative Observations of C-Corporation MLP Vehicle Suggests 'Dip' Perception Is Illusory [View article]
    "Weatherman" is absolutely correct. The partial participation inefficiency inherent to the C-Corporation structure of MLP focused ETFs, CEFs, and Mutual Funds affects both the upside and downside. The downside effect is fundamentally constrained though.

    There are always limits to tax liabilities to potentially take off the C-Corp product's books. And, unlimited tax liabilities to potentially add to the C-Corp product's books. I've planned to write about this narrow topic in greater detail because it has more significant relevance for some C-Corp products (ETFs, CEFs, Mutual Funds) than others.

    Respectfully Yours,
    Dan Plettner
    Nov 23 11:32 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Energy Income and Growth Fund: Long Term Qualitative Observations of C-Corporation MLP Vehicle Suggests 'Dip' Perception Is Illusory [View article]
    Dear “Weatherman”

    It is an absolute pleasure to welcome your comments, well-spoken and focused on merits as you understand them. Thank you.

    I don’t challenge your implicit underlying assumption that the “point” or reason people use MLPs are the tax-advantaged distributions. This is part of the reason that I find the ETNs to exist only as a “me too” product of the Asset Management industry.

    But why sacrifice the NAV performance in asset class participation by choosing a C-Corporation wrapper to attain those distributions. Do you conclude other than such constituting a tremendously inefficient investing decision? Or, are you of the opinion that at some point in time the C-Corporation entities merge with other C-Corporation entities having offsetting losses to unlock an NAV inefficiency? I’ve evaluated that prospect and find it highly unlikely

    The governance observations made here (yours as well) may all be worthy of observation within a group of what I believe to be highly structurally inefficient products. Please know that I am short an alternate CEF investing in MLPs, not FEN. I merely avoid FEN altogether. I thank you for holding me to high standards in your appraisal (and criticism inherent to your additional perspective).

    Respectfully Yours
    Dan Plettner
    Nov 23 10:39 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Short-Selling PIMCO Global Stocks Plus and Allianz's Inconsistent Distribution Policy [View article]
    Dear “RichAbe”

    You may be confusing topics of Distribution Governance with Mechanics and Assignment of Portfolio Management to sub-entities.

    You might find my prior comment (Nov 22 01:18 PM) a highly relevant read for your own contemplation. It had been compelled by another respected reader whose prior assumptions were very similar to your own.

    There appears to be a broad misunderstanding of the Governance role and the similarities in how these products were/are marketed based on the Portfolio Manager’s branding. I don’t question the variation in mechanics and portfolio instruments, but that is not the issue.

    I believe there is a myth to be dispelled between mechanics of portfolio management and distribution governance. Thus, I will consider to write on that topic before covering catalysts in great detail. Given Allianz’ Pimco’s general appearance as “untouchable”, perhaps the myth needs to be discussed in focused merit. Thanks for your comment, as always.

    Respectfully Yours
    Dan Plettner
    Nov 23 10:26 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • CEF Weekly Review: Death by 1,000 Cuts [View article]
    Important to the character of who is evaluating me...

    1 piece written by "Joe Ecqome" and now hosted in two alternate locations. The citation has been falsified on only one:

    joeeqcome.web.officeli...

    seekingalpha.com/artic...
    Nov 22 10:00 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Just One ETF: A Deep-Discounted CEF With Cash and Insider Backing [View article]
    The article to which "Gruber" links has been edited post-facto in its opening citation. It now begins "Shareholder activists has been blogging...his case had merit"

    The original article (with opening citation not changed to instead credit "Activists") is available on Seeking Alpha, where no self interested person who wishes he never credited others could falsify it:

    seekingalpha.com/artic...
    Nov 22 09:46 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Observing Claymore's Dividend & Income Fund Among Narrow Closed-End Fund Calls [View article]
    For reasons not understood by me, Seeking Alpha editorial edited the "Gruber" comment, caching (hiding) its tone and lack of objective origin. This is a contrasting censorship experience to my merited objective critiques on multiple contributions from one “contributor” whom Gruber followed at the time the comment was made (“Joe Ecqome”).
    Nov 22 09:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Eaton Vance Risk Managed Diversified Fund: A Deep Look at a Recently Discounted Market Price [View article]
    For reasons not understood by me, Seeking Alpha editorial edited the "Gruber" comment, caching its tone and lack of objective origin. This is a contrasting censorship experience to my merited objective critiques on the one "contributor" whom Gruber has historically followed.
    Nov 22 09:26 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Fiduciary / Claymore MLP Opportunity Fund: A Hazardous Mean Reversion Candidate [View article]
    (Facetious/ Sarcastic tone is intentional)

    Dear Gruber,

    You mean a security I want no long or short position in, went up in a down market? I must be quite the fool. Clearly if it outperformed on a market price basis for one day, I am an idiot for it not being my favorite security of all.

    Gruber, your entire comment history is comprised of critiquing me and attempting to provide testimonials for the work of "Joe Ecqome". A number of your comments have been edited (without my request) by SA editorial in such a manner that they now on the face would appear to an uninformed reader as less lacking in objectivity.

    Feel free to comment on my work anytime, Gruber. I would ask that Seeking Alpha not edit your comments to make you appear sane.

    Respectfully Yours,
    Dan Plettner
    Nov 22 09:22 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
313 Comments
310 Likes