Absolutely

No, it’s included and will be available as of tomorrow. You can find more on the changes announced today here: https://www.investingdaily.com/wealth-society/articles/38058/special-announcement-stephen-leeb-joins-investing-daily/

Yes, we’re expanding our mandate in order to give me more flexibility and increase our appeal to subscribers. Which part makes you unhappy, and why?

I think that at some point we have to concentrate on the current site instead of the old one, and the tables don’t contain information you can’t easily find elsewhere at any rate; I can make some suggestions on that score if you would like. What’s not going away in three months is my availability on the new site to answer questions about any of the MLPs now in the portfolio.

I rang the bell at the bottom in February 2016 for MLPs and we’ve done better than OK since, so this isn’t about our attitude to MLPs as much as it’s about the opportunities we haven’t been covering. I hope you will give this a fair shot.

I get what they’re doing and I can’t really blame them. This is a business and they’re trying to make money. When something is so out of favor like energy right now, the only way to stay afloat is to expand into other categories. In a way this is good for MLP investors because sentiment is so low things can only improve, and they will.

I remember Porter Stansberry once saying that they couldn’t give away a high yield newsletter during the great recession when it was obvious to anyone with two brain cells that a killing was to be made so he shut it down. The spread at that time was 15%, which is absurd.

I would just point out that even expert rifle marksmen do better when given the widest possible choice of targets. Like any business, we have to balance revenue with expenses. But just because I now get to write about other securities in addition to MLPs does not diminish my expertise in MLPs and does not make my research and recommendations inherently less valuable, I strongly believe.

I had the same question so I just reviewed the portfolio for Income Millionaire. The only information on the new portfolio page is the name of the security, advice (which is buy for all of the securities), dividend yield, and price. There is no indication whether the investment is conservative, growth, or aggressive. In addition, there is no buy limit. To say the least, there is almost no information on this page.
It looks like about half of the best buy list for MLP Profits made it to the new portfolio. In his alert of 05/23/17, Igor did briefly address some of the reasons some companies were included or excluded. Most interesting was how FUN which was only a hold for MLP Profits was included in the new portfolio.

No, there’s just a single portfolio and as of now 27 recommendations

Good morning.

You can find the Income Millionaire site here: https://www.investingdaily.com/income-millionaire/.

You can also navigate to the site by clicking on the “myInvestingDaily” dropdown menu at the top left of your screen.

If you have any trouble accessing the site, please reach out to our customer service team at 800-832-2330.

Excellent summary on where we stand. Bob. Neither APU nor SPH are kind enough to provide distributable cash flow and coverage numbers, but just looking at their most recent filings each had enough net income and depreciation over the last six months to cover their distributions with room to spare, despite the volume hit from the second-warmest winter on record. Not sure what to make of the increase in accounts payable at both, but assuming it’s not a long-term program since it wasn’t flagged by either partnership. Both have proven that they can defend their unit margins over time. I think the difference is that APU’s penny-per-unit distribution increase was a signal that the payout is safe, while SPH is hinting to the contrary. I note that on the most recent conference call the CEO said ” we will be evaluating additional measures to help restore our balance sheet strength, improve our distribution coverage and further enhance our liquidity position.” And, responding to a followup question about what these deliberations might entail, “what the right target distribution coverage to provide adequate cushion [given] the potential for further softness and demand.” On the other hand the price is down so much that a 33% distribution cut pushing down the yield to 10% might actually provide relief. In any case. on the basis of its cash flow generation rather than whatever distribution it chooses to pay SPH still looks cheap, and I’m not that worried yet about winter getting abolished by global warming.

I appreciate your giving the new service a chance, Tom. I would respectfully suggest that your portfolio’s performance has been more a function of when the purchases were made relative to the oil price crash rather than the quality of my advice relative to that given by my predecessors, but you’re of course entitled to your opinion on that, the quality of the new service, and everything else.

Thanks so much, Joy. Appreciate the kind words and glad to have you on board.

Thank you for your kind words and vote of confidence. I wouldn’t want to recommend anything anywhere without doing the same diligence as with MLPs here, and I think you’ll see that reflected in the coverage. Thanks again.

Consol didn’t make the cut for the new portfolio, though its affiliated MLP CNNX did. Consol is clearly going to require higher gas and coal prices to work as hoped, but I’m not giving up by any means. It’s in my extended family’s retirement portfolios, so I will continue to track it and please feel free to reach out with any questions. I also see my colleague Robert Rapier has retained it among The Energy Strategist’s current recommendations.

Nothing’s really changed with AMID since my recommendation beyond persistent weakness in the sector and oil prices; it remains an aggressive but attractive play in a turn in prices and sentiment, I believe. I obviously won’t continue to issue further alerts and opinions on the old portfolio, but in reviewing it thoroughly for this piece the sells on CVI and FELP were the only changes I felt were warranted.

They’re a bit different in that DKL has a big refinery logistics component while DCP is entirely a gas gatherer and processor so much more leveraged to energy prices and drilling activity. DCP is also much larger, of course. But with DKL still committed to 10% distribution growth and DCP still on pause DKL would be my preference. DCP also has a sponsor issue still in that it doesn’t have a single committed one.

I’d prefer IM but I’ll be checking here as well.

I’m sorry to hear abou this, Kent. I’ve tried to make clear that I’ll still be covering MLPs closely and fielding questions on the legacy recommendations beyond the three months that this site will be up, but it’s true I’ll be writing about other sectors as well. In any case, thanks so much for your patronage and time and kind words.

Hi Jim,

I would urge you to give the new Income Millionaire portfolio a chance. It includes the best of the best MLPs from the most recent MLP Profits Best Buy list as well as international and closed-end fund plays that have seriously outperformed MLPs of late. And please let me know what you think of the new portfolio and the related posts, of course.

Income Millionaire 😉

I mentioned in response to another ETE comment that I’d be shocked if a judge took an active pipeline out of service; there’s no precedent for that and I don’t expect this judge to set one. As for crude, the market is oversold and I would counsel patience with it as well as MLP investments. Oil’s priced below the cost of marginal production again, and that won’t last.