4 Things Hedgeye Got Wrong

Yesterday, Hedgeye analyst Kevin Kaiser released a 45-page report suggesting that investors avoid or actively short the various securities of Kinder Morgan. Kaiser is a 26 year-old former Princeton hockey star, and to his credit the report is long, with lots of detail, well-written, and superficially convincing. However, it's full of faulty logic, incorrect assumptions, and a general sense of hubris. Most specifically, Kinder Morgan is not "starving" its assets, the pipelines are safe, its energy business isn't a secret, and limited partner investors aren't stupid.

If you're not familiar with Kinder Morgan and its four related companies, get up to speed with Kinder Morgan for Beginners by Fool Aimee Duffy. Also, one stylistic note: when I refer to "Kinder Morgan," I'm referring in general to the companies various entities. When I'm referring to a specific entity, I'll use the stock symbol -- KMI for Kinder Morgan, Inc (NYSE: KMI  ) , KMP for Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP (NYSE: KMP  ) , EPB for El Paso Pipeline Partners (NYSE: EPB  ) , and KMR for Kinder Morgan Management (NYSE: KMR  ) . 

1. Kinder Morgan is not "starving" its assets
In his report, Kaiser alleges that "Kinder Morgan's high-level business strategy in its pipeline segments is to starve the assets of routine maintenance expenses and capex..." That along with calling Kinder Morgan a "house of cards" seems to imply that the company is letting its pipelines breakdown. That's simply not the case. KMI spent $2.6 billion on capital expenditures over the past year. That seems a reasonable amount to maintain and grow $35 billion in net property, plant, and equipment.  And, Kasier's main quibble -- how capital expenditures are classified, either as maintenance or expansion -- doesn't particularly worry me. He thinks that more should be classified as maintenance, and he alleges that Kinder Morgan purposely mis-classifies investments to benefit the general partner versus the limited partner.  I'm not sure if this is true -- others have suggested that its a strategic choice, not a mis-classification. Perhaps, Kinder Morgan finds it more cost effective to replace pipelines than to repair them. But, in the end, its just an issue of how profits are divided between Kinder Morgan's various entities, which is a well-known and common issue in the master limited partnership (MLP) industry. In short, there's no reason to think the company is holding back on investment and letting its pipelines rust. 

2. Kinder Morgan pipelines are not unsafe
Building on his notion that Kinder Morgan isn't keeping up its assets, Kaiser alleges that its pipelines and facilities are unsafe. He cites a number of specific examples of leaks or accidents that involved Kinder Morgan, some going back a decade or more. His premise seems to be, because there have been accidents, Kinder Morgan is an unsafe operator. What he fails to do is put those accidents in context.  Kinder Morgan is the largest mid-stream energy company in the United States, and accidents are not totally avoidable in the industry. Kinder Morgan actually has a significantly above average safety record based on gas pipeline incidents per 1,000 miles. And, Kinder Morgan's operations are monitored by regulators, including various state agencies and the  U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). According to KMI's 10-K and PHMSA's online enforcement database, the company doesn't have any major safety issues. Regulators don't always get it right, and keeping pipelines and facilities safe is important. But, PHMSA is certainly more qualified to judge pipeline safety than Kaiser. And, Kinder Morgan seems in good standing with PHMSA. 

3. Investors are well-aware of Kinder Morgan's oil production business
Kaiser points out correctly that Kinder Morgan is also an oil and gas producer. And, again correctly in my opinion, he asserts that because oil production is a cyclical business, it deserves a lower relative valuation that Kinder Morgan's steadier infrastructure business. Then he makes a rather odd assumption that investors are unaware of Kinder Morgan's interest in energy production. Thus, he states that investors are overvaluing Kinder Morgan. I find this a bit ridiculous for two reasons. First, Kinder Morgan has widely disclosed its interest in energy production. You can read about it in the Kinder Morgan's fact sheet, investor presentationsor SEC filings.  Second, energy production is only a small part of Kinder Morgan's cash flows. If you look at projected 2013 earnings before depreciation, depletion and amortization (DD&A) by segment, KMI is forecasting that oil production will only be 14% of its business. For KMP, the same number is 18%. EPB is 100% natural gas pipelines. Note those numbers do exclude certain items, but it puts the oil business in context. It is small component of Kinder Morgan, which generates most of its business through pipelines and terminals. 

4. Limited partner investors are not naive and unimformed
As part of his larger argument that the general partner, owned by KMI, is taking advantage of limited partners, he asserts that KMP is primarily owned by retail investors.  According to CapIQ, that's true -- ownership of KMP is 73% public investors. He then implies only uninformed retail investors would be naive enough to invest in KMP. This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of MLPs. Most MLPs are owned by individual investors for structural reasons. Tax treatment and ownership rules make it difficult, foolish, or impossible for many institutions to invest in MLPs. Thus, it's only natural that KMP is primarily owned by individuals. And, its because of tax treatment and ownership restrictions on institutions, not because "dumb money" retail investors are being hoodwinked. If fact, numerous institutions have expressed interest in investing. To meet that need, a special security was created -- KMR. Its shares are pari passu  with KMP with the same distribution, except KMR's distribution is paid in additional shares instead of cash. No K-1 is required, and there is no unrelated business income tax (UBTI).  As you might expect, KMR is majority owned by institutions.  

Foolish Bottom Line
Don't put too much stock in this latest bit of research from Kevin Kaiser and Hedgeye. It's slickly packaged and full of confident assertions, but the conclusions miss the mark. It seems like a typical Wall Street tactics -- use hype and salesmanship while skimping on substance. In truth, the Kinder Morgan companies are well-managed, boast solid assets, and will play a big role in meeting America's future energy infrastructure needs. Of course, it has its risks, like higher interest rates, frozen credit markets, or changing regulations. 

Record oil and natural gas production is revolutionizing the United States' energy position. Finding the right plays while historic amounts of capital expenditures are flooding the industry will pad your investment nest egg. For this reason, the Motley Fool is offering a comprehensive look at three energy companies set to soar during this transformation in the energy industry. To find out which three companies are spreading their wings, check out the special free report, "3 Stocks for the American Energy Bonanza." Don't miss out on this timely opportunity; click here to access your report -- it's absolutely free. 

 


Read/Post Comments (7) | Recommend This Article (23)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On September 12, 2013, at 6:16 PM, jad9000 wrote:

    Keven Kaiser should go be a hockey coach as he's a total hack as an analyst - not to mention the collusion going on between him, hedge funds and Barrons to bring down Linn and Breitburn. He needs a little visit from the SEC and the FBI to explain himself. Whether it's stupidity or something more nefarious is almost irrelevant.

  • Report this Comment On September 13, 2013, at 1:01 AM, mr091468 wrote:

    Perhaps someone who's lives have been financially ruined by Kasier's inept statements ought to pay a visit to his office. Lots of folks have been ruined in LNCO and LINE as well as KMI.

  • Report this Comment On September 13, 2013, at 7:01 PM, gt7255 wrote:

    Playing hockey might imply brain damage, but everyone who's had to sit through an ivy-league game of any sort knows the 1st rule: Nobody gets hurt. His collusion in destroying market cap at Linn and Breitburn leads me to believe he's just somebody's rube in market manipulation. In contrast, Richard Kinder's career history proves him to be one of the most trustworthy CEOs in American industry.

  • Report this Comment On September 13, 2013, at 9:00 PM, dstb wrote:

    Was he really a hockey "star"? I mean it's Princeton for crying out loud.

  • Report this Comment On September 13, 2013, at 11:00 PM, TMFWillSommers wrote:

    It's all relative and depends on your definition of star. Obviously, he's not in the NHL right now. But he played on the team for four years, scoring goals, producing assists, etc... He was named a Captain in his Senior year. He also accumulated a few awards, including one for his dedication to training in the off-season (as voted on by his teammates). So, in terms of Princeton hockey, it seems like he was a pretty good player. Here's my source for all of this:

    http://www.goprincetontigers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=...

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2013, at 2:02 PM, kbyrne6 wrote:

    I haven't read Kaiser's report but with regard to your first point I understood his point to be that if maintenance capex is understated, then distributable cash flow is correspondingly overstated. And distributable cash flow is the metric used by MLPs instead of GAAP earnings.

    You seem to be saying maintenance capex or new asset capex is all the same, but that is ignoring the impact on distributable cash flow.

  • Report this Comment On September 16, 2013, at 12:51 PM, TMFWillSommers wrote:

    Hi kbryne6 -

    Thanks for reading the article. Perhaps this article will address your concern.

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/09/16/it-isnt-kin...

    Regards,

    Brendan

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 2635089, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 4/21/2014 12:44:07 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement