Scalper1 News
Summary CEF investors are often attracted by the high yields in this space. SRV’s anomalously high yield and premium provided a ripe recipe for disaster. This article identifies three warning signals that investors could have heeded before the devastating event. The date is Dec. 22nd, 2014. With oil prices collapsing around you, you decide that now would be a good time to dip your toes in an MLP close-ended fund [CEF]. You read Stanford Chemist’s just-published article entitled ” Benchmarking The Performance Of MLP CEFs: Is Active Management Worth It? “, where he recommended, among five MLP CEFs yielding 5.43% to 6.85%, the Tortoise Energy Infrastructure Corporation ( TYG ) due to its strong historical total return and outperformance vs. the benchmark Alerian MLP ETF ( AMLP ). But the 5.43% yield of TYG and the 6.25% yield of AMLP are a bit low for your tastes. You decide to invest in the Cushing MLP Total Return Fund ( SRV ) with a whopping 14.02% yield , more than double that of the other two funds. With twice the yield, you might expect twice the return, right? Fast-forward to today. You have lost half of your investment. The following chart shows the total return performance of SRV, TYG and AMLP since Dec. 2014. SRV Total Return Price data by YCharts What happened to SRV? As with some other high-profile CEFs profiled recently, what transpired with SRV in early 2015 was a distribution cut that triggered a massive collapse in premium/discount value. As can be seen from the chart below (source: CEFConnect ), SRV slashed its quarterly distribution by 68%, from $0.2250 to $0.0730 in 2015. Amusingly, after paying one quarter of its reduced distribution, SRV cut its distribution again by 26%, while simultaneously changing to a monthly distribution policy (perhaps to make the second distribution cut less obvious!). Taken together, the overall change from a distribution of $0.2250/quarter to $0.0180/month represented a 84% reduction for SRV holders. (click to enlarge) The distribution cut was accompanied by a massive reduction in premium/discount value, from some +30% to -10%, as can be seen from the chart below. This explains the severe underperformance of SRV vs. TYG and AMLP since Dec. 2014. (click to enlarge) Obviously, hindsight is always 20/20. But I believe that there were some warning signs that SRV investors could have heeded before the disastrous event. Lesson #1: Consider historical performance While historical performance is no guarantee of future results, the past return of a CEF can give an indication of the management’s competency in running the fund. The 3-year total return to Dec. 2014 (the hypothetical start date of this exercise) shows that even before the distribution cut had occurred, SRV had been severely underperforming TYG and AMLP on a total return basis. SRV Total Return Price data by YCharts On a price-only basis, the underperformance of SRV becomes even more visually striking. SRV data by YCharts The above charts indicate that the high distribution paid out by SRV has prevented it from growing its NAV, despite the bull market in MLPs. Even when total returns are considered, SRV still lagged TYG and AMLP in the three years to Dec. 2014. Lesson #2: Premium/discount matters! As investors in the Pioneer High Income Trust (NYSE: PHT ) (see here for my previous article warning of PHT’s expanding premium) and more recently, the PIMCO High Income Fund (NYSE: PHK ), have found out , a high starting premium simply increases the amount that a fund can fall when adversity strikes. On Dec. 22nd, 2014, SRV’s premium/discount had stretched to a massive +28.4%. In comparison, TYG’s premium/discount was -6.1% at the time. The following chart shows the 3-year premium/discount profiles for SRV and TYG. (click to enlarge) The chart above shows that in the two years leading to Dec. 2014, SRV’s premium/discount expanded from around +15% to over +30%. On the other hand, TYG’s premium/discount declined from +15% to around -10% over the same time period. Does it make any sense to you that the perennial underperformer SRV was immune to the MLP sell-off that began in the summer of 2014, while the benchmark-beating TYG was not? No, it doesn’t make any sense to me either. In fact, SRV’s premium continued to expand even while the oil crash was already well underway. My only explanation for this was that retail investors were enamored with SRV’s high yield and pushed up its market price relative to its NAV. CEF expert and Seeking Alpha contributor Douglas Albo frequently laments the “Insanity of CEF Investors.” I believe that this example qualifies. Lesson #3: Beware of yields that seem too good to be true On Dec. 22, 2014, SRV yielded 14.02% with a premium/discount of +28.4%, meaning that its yield on NAV was even greater, at 18.00% (!). Meanwhile, TYG yielded 5.43% with a premium/discount of -6.1%, giving a NAV yield of 5.10%. Given that both funds employ similar leverage (around 30%), and are investing in essentially the same universe, how can SRV be yielding more than three times on its NAV compared to TYG? It just doesn’t make any sense. Simply put, SRV’s yield was way too good to be true. Summary I believe that there were several warnings signs that could have allowed investors to avoid SRV before the calamitous distribution cut in early 2015. These were [i] a poor historical performance, [ii] a rising premium (while other and better funds in the same category witnessed premium contraction), [iii] a yield that seemed way too good to be true. My main regret is not being able to identify this short opportunity for readers, and/or warn existing holders to exit the fund beforehand. Nevertheless, I hope that this article will help investors pick out similar warning signs in their existing or potential CEF investments to allow them to take action earlier. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Scalper1 News
Scalper1 News