|
|
Market Stats Prior Updates Mar Feb Jan 2006 Updates Dec Nov Oct Sept Aug July Jun May Aprl Mar Feb Jan 2005 Updates Dec Nov Oct Sept Aug July Jun May Aprl Mar Feb Jan 2004 Updates Dec Nov Oct Sept Aug July Jun May Intro |
You will have to scroll your way more than half way down this page to see the metric update. I start the page with most of the spreadsheets you see in the monthly updates. They are included so one does not need to flip to another page while viewing this data. Well . . at least I want to check to spreadsheets when reading the quarterly predictive metric stats - to see the patterns in the spreadsheets that were hiding in the data all along. And the results from the first quater indicate that there was newbie money coming into the sector. Why else would the lower analyst rated stocks have higher unit price appreciation than the better rated stocks? [And I think the analyst do a pretty good job in their ratings.] Why else would MLPs with lower CAGRs have equal unit price appreciation as those with higher CAGRs? During Q1, those MLPs that failed to increase their distribution had larger unit price appreciation than those that raised their distribution [but under 2%]. Only those MLPs with distribution increases over 2% outperformed the non-distribution increasers. In Q1, even the higher yielding MLPs had a higher total return than the lower yielding MLPs. And the MLPs had larger unit price appreciation than the GPs! I am pretty dang sure those trends are unsustainable - and all are signs that yield chasing newbie money dominanted the secotor's unit price changes during Q1. With the sector averaging slightly over 10% unit price appreciation, which MLPs failed to participate in the gains and why? They were APL, EROC, RGNC, XTEX and USS. And the first spreadsheet, which includes the changes in the EPS estimates, tells why. They all had significant decreases in their 2007 EPS estimates. Which MLPs did significantly better than average? BWP, MMP, MWE, VLI and WPZ. Again the first spreadsheet, which includes the changes in distribution, probably tells why. They all [with the exception of VLI] had distribution increases of more than 2%. Why didn't all the MLP's with higher distribution increases significantly outperform? Look at their yields [and EPS revisions]. It appears that the newbie money was not much attracted to MLPs yielding less than 5%. And that trend would also explain the underperformance of the GPs. |