Be Here Now's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/902946/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/1443901/comments?source=feed#comment-18990491 18990491
My explanation did not call out the distribution, it simply looked at the beginning and ending capital account. The difference is: +new units, +-current account increase(decrease), -distributions. My K-1 for EPD shows +new units (I bought more during the year), - current account decrease, - distribution. If I had not bought more units during the year, the net change in my capital account would have been negative by the amounts of the current year decrease and the distribution.

I also do not understand what the 'current year increase (decrease)' represents. According to the naptp, the distribution is ROC (until basis hits zero). http://bit.ly/yb1qPX]]> Sat, 18 May 2013 19:38:46 -0400
My explanation did not call out the distribution, it simply looked at the beginning and ending capital account. The difference is: +new units, +-current account increase(decrease), -distributions. My K-1 for EPD shows +new units (I bought more during the year), - current account decrease, - distribution. If I had not bought more units during the year, the net change in my capital account would have been negative by the amounts of the current year decrease and the distribution.

I also do not understand what the 'current year increase (decrease)' represents. According to the naptp, the distribution is ROC (until basis hits zero). http://bit.ly/yb1qPX]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1443901/comments?source=feed#comment-18990091 18990091
There is a way you can estimate when your basis hits zero. Look at your latest K-1, section L, your capital account analysis. The Ending capital account amount is a good approximation of your basis at year end. If you did not buy additional units during the year, the difference between the Beginning capital account and Ending capital account is the annual decrease in your capital account. Project that annual decrease into the future and you will have an idea of when your capital account, and therefore your basis, will hit zero. This will also tell you the amount by which you will need to increase your capital account, and therefore your basis, in that future year if you want to keep your basis above zero.]]> Sat, 18 May 2013 19:05:22 -0400
There is a way you can estimate when your basis hits zero. Look at your latest K-1, section L, your capital account analysis. The Ending capital account amount is a good approximation of your basis at year end. If you did not buy additional units during the year, the difference between the Beginning capital account and Ending capital account is the annual decrease in your capital account. Project that annual decrease into the future and you will have an idea of when your capital account, and therefore your basis, will hit zero. This will also tell you the amount by which you will need to increase your capital account, and therefore your basis, in that future year if you want to keep your basis above zero.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1033841?source=feed#comment-18989811 18989811
http://bit.ly/10MHc5h]]> Sat, 18 May 2013 18:50:50 -0400
http://bit.ly/10MHc5h]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1443901/comments?source=feed#comment-18984981 18984981
Owning LNCO does not put you in the pipeline segment. LINE/LNCO is exploration and production, not pipeline.]]> Sat, 18 May 2013 13:56:07 -0400
Owning LNCO does not put you in the pipeline segment. LINE/LNCO is exploration and production, not pipeline.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1444591/comments?source=feed#comment-18984601 18984601
That is certainly a requirement. But do you consider doing the opposite - falsifying it? That is, marshalling counter arguments to show it to be false? One needs to do this to counter the human tendency for confirmation bias.]]> Sat, 18 May 2013 13:40:49 -0400
That is certainly a requirement. But do you consider doing the opposite - falsifying it? That is, marshalling counter arguments to show it to be false? One needs to do this to counter the human tendency for confirmation bias.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1443291/comments?source=feed#comment-18963271 18963271 Fri, 17 May 2013 17:15:11 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1443291/comments?source=feed#comment-18957091 18957091
This is one risk I am not willing to take.]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 15:06:24 -0400
This is one risk I am not willing to take.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1438401/comments?source=feed#comment-18884351 18884351
http://bit.ly/17xPLYZ]]> Thu, 16 May 2013 01:47:05 -0400
http://bit.ly/17xPLYZ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1436751/comments?source=feed#comment-18883421 18883421 Thu, 16 May 2013 00:49:45 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1428501/comments?source=feed#comment-18854051 18854051 http://seekingalpha.co...]]> Wed, 15 May 2013 12:19:48 -0400 http://seekingalpha.co...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1428501/comments?source=feed#comment-18795691 18795691 Tue, 14 May 2013 00:14:30 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1428761/comments?source=feed#comment-18779991 18779991
DLR payout ratio (of FFO) is 57%. AVB payout ratio is 36%, but that is down from 156% in 2009, after which it dropped its dividend for 3 straight years. Again, I don't think it is a valid comparison to look at FCF with a REIT.

Finally, look at the FFO history of AVB vs DLR. AVB has been a roller coaster, DLR is steadily up to the right. To my way of thinking it is AVB that is not a sleep-well-at-night REIT, but DLR is.]]> Mon, 13 May 2013 16:19:08 -0400
DLR payout ratio (of FFO) is 57%. AVB payout ratio is 36%, but that is down from 156% in 2009, after which it dropped its dividend for 3 straight years. Again, I don't think it is a valid comparison to look at FCF with a REIT.

Finally, look at the FFO history of AVB vs DLR. AVB has been a roller coaster, DLR is steadily up to the right. To my way of thinking it is AVB that is not a sleep-well-at-night REIT, but DLR is.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1428761/comments?source=feed#comment-18776191 18776191
GAAP valuation measures are not the standard financial metics for REITs. You need to look at Funds From Operations (FFO).]]> Mon, 13 May 2013 15:18:36 -0400
GAAP valuation measures are not the standard financial metics for REITs. You need to look at Funds From Operations (FFO).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1418081/comments?source=feed#comment-18773951 18773951
I like your strategy and use it myself. There are always pricing anomalies that you can look for and benefit from. There have been several such instances this year that I have taken advantage of, some to augment existing positions, another to start a new position. I offer these to give you an idea of what I look for.

First is LO. In February LO was hit by concerns that it would essentially be run out of business due to the possibility that menthol would be banned from cigarettes by the FDA. The price dropped from the low 40s to 38, but menthol was not banned. This was a repeat of the same scare from several years earlier, and nothing came of it then either. Price stabilized at 38, with yield slightly above 5%, and that is where I started a position.

Second and third are two stocks that are both being hit by bear raids - LINE/LNCO, and DLR. I have taken advantage of their temporary mis-pricing to the downside to add to my positions.

I could not have done any of this if I did not keep some dry powder handy at all times. I am willing to be less than 100% invested because my experience has shown that Mr Market can be counted on to offer bargain prices, if you are prepared to wait and are alert when opportunities are presented.]]> Mon, 13 May 2013 14:37:14 -0400
I like your strategy and use it myself. There are always pricing anomalies that you can look for and benefit from. There have been several such instances this year that I have taken advantage of, some to augment existing positions, another to start a new position. I offer these to give you an idea of what I look for.

First is LO. In February LO was hit by concerns that it would essentially be run out of business due to the possibility that menthol would be banned from cigarettes by the FDA. The price dropped from the low 40s to 38, but menthol was not banned. This was a repeat of the same scare from several years earlier, and nothing came of it then either. Price stabilized at 38, with yield slightly above 5%, and that is where I started a position.

Second and third are two stocks that are both being hit by bear raids - LINE/LNCO, and DLR. I have taken advantage of their temporary mis-pricing to the downside to add to my positions.

I could not have done any of this if I did not keep some dry powder handy at all times. I am willing to be less than 100% invested because my experience has shown that Mr Market can be counted on to offer bargain prices, if you are prepared to wait and are alert when opportunities are presented.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1408061/comments?source=feed#comment-18770421 18770421 Mon, 13 May 2013 13:23:47 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1427651/comments?source=feed#comment-18770291 18770291 Mon, 13 May 2013 13:20:15 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1428761/comments?source=feed#comment-18765451 18765451 Mon, 13 May 2013 11:48:33 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1427651/comments?source=feed#comment-18750931 18750931 Mon, 13 May 2013 02:22:57 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1427651/comments?source=feed#comment-18750841 18750841 Mon, 13 May 2013 02:10:27 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1427651/comments?source=feed#comment-18726661 18726661 Sun, 12 May 2013 04:59:03 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1019801?source=feed#comment-18723731 18723731
I have been watching the trading in GLD since that downside gap. It looks like the gap was just barely filled on April 29. For several days before and after that date, traders attempted to drive GLD above the gap and failed. It now looks like the momentum is to the downside.

My own personal prediction is that GLD is headed for a test of the April 15 low.]]> Sat, 11 May 2013 22:58:55 -0400
I have been watching the trading in GLD since that downside gap. It looks like the gap was just barely filled on April 29. For several days before and after that date, traders attempted to drive GLD above the gap and failed. It now looks like the momentum is to the downside.

My own personal prediction is that GLD is headed for a test of the April 15 low.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1418301/comments?source=feed#comment-18632101 18632101
Thanks for your thoughtful refutation of the Barron's bear raid article. I bought more today, increased the number of units owned by 50% and reduced my average cost.]]> Thu, 09 May 2013 13:01:23 -0400
Thanks for your thoughtful refutation of the Barron's bear raid article. I bought more today, increased the number of units owned by 50% and reduced my average cost.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1418301/comments?source=feed#comment-18631201 18631201 http://bit.ly/15sXOqb]]> Thu, 09 May 2013 12:45:20 -0400 http://bit.ly/15sXOqb]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1412521/comments?source=feed#comment-18607111 18607111
No matter where you look, all investments have risk.]]> Wed, 08 May 2013 22:12:14 -0400
No matter where you look, all investments have risk.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1399981/comments?source=feed#comment-18491801 18491801 Mon, 06 May 2013 10:27:29 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1402541/comments?source=feed#comment-18491421 18491421
This is the URL for the KMR dividend: http://bit.ly/vVgWWe]]> Mon, 06 May 2013 10:20:31 -0400
This is the URL for the KMR dividend: http://bit.ly/vVgWWe]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1402541/comments?source=feed#comment-18489201 18489201 Mon, 06 May 2013 09:42:52 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1402541/comments?source=feed#comment-18481981 18481981 Mon, 06 May 2013 02:10:04 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1400551/comments?source=feed#comment-18467081 18467081
FAST Graphs shows massive positive FCF per share, much more than the dividend.

Morningstar shows consistent large negative FCF per share, caused by massive capex, much greater than operating cash flow.

I'll stay away for now.]]> Sun, 05 May 2013 14:20:12 -0400
FAST Graphs shows massive positive FCF per share, much more than the dividend.

Morningstar shows consistent large negative FCF per share, caused by massive capex, much greater than operating cash flow.

I'll stay away for now.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1402541/comments?source=feed#comment-18462571 18462571
"So why does one yield more than the other?"

That is a good question. There have been many conjectures on SA, but nobody really knows.

In the several years that I have owned KMR, its discount to KMP has all but completely disappeared. And nobody knows why. I am not complaining.

"And does that mean that KMR is not only more tax efficient, but a better value at the current market price?"

It is more tax efficient for me, and while it still sells at a discount to KMP, it is a better value for me. Others may differ.]]> Sun, 05 May 2013 12:04:05 -0400
"So why does one yield more than the other?"

That is a good question. There have been many conjectures on SA, but nobody really knows.

In the several years that I have owned KMR, its discount to KMP has all but completely disappeared. And nobody knows why. I am not complaining.

"And does that mean that KMR is not only more tax efficient, but a better value at the current market price?"

It is more tax efficient for me, and while it still sells at a discount to KMP, it is a better value for me. Others may differ.]]>