AMLP Fails Its Investors Again

SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
AMLP Fails Its Investors Again


Last week the Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP) announced a reduced quarterly distribution. Regular readers know that AMLP has been a rich source of material for this blog. Launched in 2010 when MLPs were synonymous with pipelines, it was designed to offer exposure to midstream energy infrastructure without the K1s that so many investors and their accountants dislike.  

Today MLPs represent about a third of the sector’s market cap. The narrow base of potential buyers has persuaded many former MLPs to convert to conventional c-corps, so as to be attractive to a much wider investor base. It also didn’t help that MLPs cut their dividends in half from 2015-20 – not the way to treat the traditional holders who were high net worth US taxpayers seeking stable income.  

AMLP’s recent 3.5% distribution cut is especially odd because it’s against the prevailing trend. Dividend hikes are becoming the norm, including at: Magellan Midstream (1%), Oneok (2.1%), Enterprise Products Partners (5.3%), Williams Companies (5.4%), Cheniere (19.7%), Targa Resources (42.9%) and Energy Transfer (54%). 

Since its 2010 launch through the end of June, AMLP has returned 2.61% versus its benchmark of 5.02%, a big underperformance for a passive ETF. Taxes are a big reason why. Alps, the fund’s advisor, has had to make two downward revisions to its NAV in the past year, both the result of recalculating the fund’s tax liability. AMLP is a corporate taxpayer, at least when it has unrealized gains on its portfolio. This unusual concession is necessary to jam MLPs into a ‘40 Act fund, which makes it a non-RIC compliant ETF.  

Because MLPs represent a declining share of the pipeline sector, AMLP’s number of holdings has been shrinking. They’re down to 14, and if Oneok’s acquisition of Magellan Midstream goes through that’ll knock them down to 13. They have an overweight to petroleum products – crude oil pipeline operator Plains All American is their biggest holding. They are underweight natural gas names, because most of them converted to c-corps. We prefer natural gas exposure over crude oil because it has a more robust growth outlook. Oil is primarily used in transportation.  

AMLP is also overweight smaller names, because there are so few MLPs to choose from. Crestwood (CEQP) is a 5.3% position, whereas it’s only 0.42% of the market as defined by the American Energy Independence Index. AMLP, ostensibly a passive ETF, has a 12X market weight position in CEQP because it has so few choices. 

Although global crude oil demand recently touched a record 103 million barrels per day, it is in the crosshairs of governments around the world adopting policies to reduce CO2 emissions. Natural gas is America’s biggest source of electricity generation at almost 40% and is used in many areas that solar and wind can’t serve, such as petrochemicals and fertilizer production. AMLP holders are unwittingly concentrating their exposure in the riskier part of the sector, because that’s where MLPs are.   

AMLP investors don’t just endure the drag of corporate taxes on the fund’s NAV versus its benchmark; they also face the uncertainty that those taxes have been calculated correctly. Last November (see AMLP Trips Up On Tax Complexity) and then again three months ago (see AMLP Has Yet More Tax Problems), Alps suffered the ignominy of disclosing a reduced NAV because of tax complexity. The two adjustments taken together wiped out the last three quarterly distributions.  

It’s unclear why AMLP’s distribution has dropped. Perhaps they have discovered yet more errors in their tax calculations. It remains the biggest ETF in the sector at $6.7BN, evidence that lethargy outweighs critical analysis among its holders. The characterization of its distributions as largely a return of capital used to appeal – this is common among MLPs because the tax code allows them to depreciate their assets even though their ability to generate earnings is growing. In effect MLP investors pay taxes on their distributions when they sell, at which point there’s a deferred income tax recapture. AMLP has in the past incorporated this appealing feature. 

However, this year its distributions have all been classified as income, meaning that taxable accounts have a tax liability this year. The changed nature of AMLP’s distributions coincides with the two NAV restatements, so it’s possible the tax analysis Alps has carried out is responsible. So AMLP now offers declining distributions wrapped in a vehicle that is taxed as a corporation, has restated its NAV twice in a year and no longer offers tax deferred distributions. If your financial advisor still holds AMLP in your account, you might want to see how much of this he really understands.  

We have three funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Inflation Fund


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
AMLP Fails Its Investors Again

Important Disclosures

The information provided is for informational purposes only and investors should determine for themselves whether a particular service, security or product is suitable for their investment needs. The information contained herein is not complete, may not be current, is subject to change, and is subject to, and qualified in its entirety by, the more complete disclosures, risk factors and other terms that are contained in the disclosure, prospectus, and offering. Certain information herein has been obtained from third party sources and, although believed to be reliable, has not been independently verified and its accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. No representation is made with respect to the accuracy,  completeness or timeliness of this information. Nothing provided on this site constitutes tax advice. Individuals should seek the advice of their own tax advisor for specific information regarding tax consequences of investments.  Investments in securities entail risk and are not suitable for all investors. This site is not a recommendation nor an offer to sell (or solicitation of an offer to buy) securities in the United States or in any other jurisdiction.

References to indexes and benchmarks are hypothetical illustrations of aggregate returns and do not reflect the performance of any actual investment. Investors cannot invest in an index and do not reflect the deduction of the advisor’s fees or other trading expenses. There can be no assurance that current investments will be profitable. Actual realized returns will depend on, among other factors, the value of assets and market conditions at the time of disposition, any related transaction costs, and the timing of the purchase. Indexes and benchmarks may not directly correlate or only partially relate to portfolios managed by SL Advisors as they have different underlying investments and may use different strategies or have different objectives than portfolios managed by SL Advisors (e.g. The Alerian index is a group MLP securities in the oil and gas industries. Portfolios may not include the same investments that are included in the Alerian Index. The S & P Index does not directly relate to investment strategies managed by SL Advisers.)

This site may contain forward-looking statements relating to the objectives, opportunities, and the future performance of the U.S. market generally. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of such words as; “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “should,” “planned,” “estimated,” “potential” and other similar terms. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, estimates with respect to financial condition, results of operations, and success or lack of success of any particular investment strategy. All are subject to various factors, including, but not limited to general and local economic conditions, changing levels of competition within certain industries and markets, changes in interest rates, changes in legislation or regulation, and other economic, competitive, governmental, regulatory and technological factors affecting a portfolio’s operations that could cause actual results to differ materially from projected results. Such statements are forward-looking in nature and involves a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, and accordingly, actual results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements or examples. None of SL Advisors LLC or any of its affiliates or principals nor any other individual or entity assumes any obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, subsequent events or any other circumstances. All statements made herein speak only as of the date that they were made. r

Certain hyperlinks or referenced websites on the Site, if any, are for your convenience and forward you to third parties’ websites, which generally are recognized by their top level domain name. Any descriptions of, references to, or links to other products, publications or services does not constitute an endorsement, authorization, sponsorship by or affiliation with SL Advisors LLC with respect to any linked site or its sponsor, unless expressly stated by SL Advisors LLC. Any such information, products or sites have not necessarily been reviewed by SL Advisors LLC and are provided or maintained by third parties over whom SL Advisors LLC exercise no control. SL Advisors LLC expressly disclaim any responsibility for the content, the accuracy of the information, and/or quality of products or services provided by or advertised on these third-party sites.

All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that any specific investment will be suitable or profitable for a client’s investment portfolio.

Past performance of the American Energy Independence Index is not indicative of future returns.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
1 reply
  1. Elliot Miller
    Elliot Miller says:

    As the owner of units in individually selected and researched MLPs I cannot understand why anyone would invest in a fund such as AMLP.
    And it is a good bet that MPLX will increase its distribution this year as well as the others listed.


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.