Seeking Alpha

Dan Plettner

View as an RSS Feed
View Dan Plettner's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • 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
  • Short-Selling PIMCO Global Stocks Plus and Allianz's Inconsistent Distribution Policy [View article]
    I today received privately a query/comment stimulating high level discussion about the comparison between NFJ and PGP. Having respect for, but no business relationship with the other party, I found myself unable to respond to them directly in spite of my respect for them. They are more than welcome to discuss the topic with me here, publicly where I do not have to be concerned with holding myself out as an Investment Advisor to them. (I am not a Registered Investment Advisor).

    In short, the query observed the different securities between PGP and NFJ, and stimulated specific discussion of the difference between portfolio composition and mechanics in contrast to the product(s) investing purpose. Whether mechanically selling equity calls or in substance generally relinquishing some of the Fund NAV’s broad market upside to generate distributable revenue (generally managed, but tax-advantaged Return of Capital “ROC”), the funds are substantially marketing to suit the same investor purpose, in my opinion.

    I do not question whether the choice of mechanics between PGP and NFJ’s approaches are different. Rather, I have observed that within the type of product purpose the Distribution Governance within the same Governance umbrella is hugely different. Despite sharing the same performance profile, and similar performance prospects based on effectively sacrificing and achieving similar upside/downside, and serving similar purpose, NFJ’s distribution governance has chosen to make it among the lowest yielders among the group. PGP’s distribution governance has (in my opinion) chosen to make it a peer of the Cornerstone Funds in terms of distribution management (effectively, slow, self-liquidation).

    Also, I would expect that it is to Allianz' benefit that it focuses on the differentiation between mechanics rather than the similarity in profile and purpose. Their open-end fund marketing may enjoy a benefit of maintaining the perceived value associated with a sibling Closed-End trading at a premium.

    My perspective should not be assumed to be the broad understanding of these funds. In fact, I don’t think it is. Also, to be clear, Allianz refused discussion on these topics so I am not speaking on their behalf as to the purpose either of these funds serve. I also am not a regulator, judge, or jury. I offer no conclusions about Allianz' business tactics. All I can speak to is my understanding of their purpose based on my experience in the CEF space.

    There appear to be several adjacent topics to this piece, which SA published as an “Investment View”. Perhaps there are more than one follow up contributions to write here, one discussing potential catalysts, one discussing the difference between a fund’s mechanics and general profile.

    Dan Plettner
    Nov 22 01:18 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Fiduciary / Claymore MLP Opportunity Fund: A Hazardous Mean Reversion Candidate [View article]
    Although the compliments are never necessary, thank you for the kind words, Ron. Whatever the subject, I contemplate your appraisals very seriously because I respect your work and voice.

    Although Ron is far more accepting of the inefficiencies with the MLP focused ETNs than I am, Ron's observations on the ETF "AMLP" are among the best work that I've read on Seeking Alpha.

    Broadly, I think there is much merit to Ron's contributions. I respect his voice, process, and observations. Below, are links to two of Ron's pieces on AMLP worth particular observation. Both were also recognized by SA editorial and published as "Investment Views":

    seekingalpha.com/artic...

    seekingalpha.com/artic...

    Respectfully Yours,
    Dan Plettner
    Nov 22 09:52 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Short-Selling PIMCO Global Stocks Plus and Allianz's Inconsistent Distribution Policy [View article]
    Dear Frogmatic:

    Thanks for your well merited comment. The relevance inherent to your question is not lost on me.

    Given the complexity of the observations here, I’ve decided to consider writing about catalysts in follow up coverage. Please know that how and when I offer my observations and perspectives is my choice. I am not in Seeking Alpha’s employ. I do respect “Frogmatic” for bringing up the deficiency; clearly it would be a deficiency for anyone who is unfamiliar with catalysts to act aggressively on the notion of a silly unjustified valuation.

    To other readers, “Frogmatic” makes a great point. In the absence of understanding or anticipating the probability of catalyst(s), it is generally dangerous to speculate against anything, especially a fund where the valuation facts should be considered well observed.

    Respectfully Yours,
    Dan Plettner
    Nov 22 09:42 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Short-Selling PIMCO Global Stocks Plus and Allianz's Inconsistent Distribution Policy [View article]
    Dear "Mike T"

    I am sorry that my comment to “rheimerl” did not provide you with a current short thesis on AOD in my name, to which it would appear you feel entitled. With respect, I am not going to be demonstrating my current thesis on AOD in the comments of an article about PGP. AOD was discussed merely in context here.

    As I said before, my position in AOD is disclosed because AOD is discussed in the context of this article. Since SA published a June 22 “Investment View” on AOD, I closed a position and opened a new position. I do recognize that I my current in depth perspective of each of the Alpine Funds is not readily available to the SA community. As time allows, I am interested to provide my current in depth perspective on all the Alpine Funds in detail consistent with my own content standards. That will not be in an article comment in an alternate SA “Investment View.”

    Best wishes to “Mike T” and to all who have long positions in any of the securities in which I’m short. I’ll do what I believe to be objective in spite of my kind regards to those with alternate perspectives to my own. As “Mike T” alluded, its “Mr. Markets” judgment matters, not mine.

    Respectfully Yours,
    Dan Plettner
    Nov 21 09:40 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
309 Comments
310 Likes