Nope, not a product with a M* rating, but an investment approach I'm considering: small percentages of various MLP's to purchase when they are near buy price according to M*.

In all this would be 20% of my portfolio (Portfolio Aim: mainly income, capital appreciation at or a little bit above inflation would be fine. Very buy and hold in philosophy -probably won't ever touch the principal -at least for a very long time).

So feel free to rate my allocation mix, which has some Josh Peter-pick income growers mixed in with some dull money spinners. I've also allocated across regions and pipeline ect. types:

 

1.0% APU  

1.5% BPL

1.5% EDP

1.5% ETP

2.5% KMP

2.0% MMG

1.0% MMP

1.0% OKS

1.0% PAA

2.0% NS

1.0% SHL

1.0% SXL

2.0% XTEX

1.0% XTXI

=20%

 

Thoughts?

What might you add or subtract from this list? 

 

 

 

[quote user="kittydog2"]

1.5% EDP

2.0% MMG

[/quote]

Are you really referring to Enterprise (EPD, not EDP) and Magellan Holdings (MGG, not MMG)?

Regards.

Cliff 

.....As You wrote 'em. Dyslexia is a tragic thing!

I know you too are a MLP fan, so would really value your thoughts. 

 

'Fan' it is said is short for 'fanatic.'  Guess I qualify.

I'm doing a bit of analysis on your listing and I'll get back to you soon.

Regards.

Cliff 

What an interesting list.  I've been struggling recently with how to add some MLP/Royalty Trusts without sacrificing diversification.  I had looked at BPL and PBT.  Thanks for this - I'll put them into my study grid & get back to you.

Anyone considered SPH to compliment APU? I in turn like TPP because of their diversified approach....pipelines and now a water transport of commodities.

Mariner.....

What about the tax consequences?? - see this M* article:
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=203288 

I'm in an IRA - I don't want to be taxed.

The best way to go may be a closed end fund like MTP.  It owns all the key MLP's.  I believe it is considered a stock so it would not have the tax issues for a retirement account.  I own it.

Mitchelg

[quote user="kittydog2"]

So feel free to rate my allocation mix, which has some Josh Peter-pick income growers mixed in with some dull money spinners. I've also allocated across regions and pipeline ect. types:

 
1.0% APU  

1.5% BPL

1.5% EDP

1.5% ETP

2.5% KMP

2.0% MMG

1.0% MMP

1.0% OKS

1.0% PAA

2.0% NS

1.0% SHL

1.0% SXL

2.0% XTEX

1.0% XTXI

=20%

 [/quote]

Kitty

The bottom line is I like your approach because . . . . well, because that's what I did.  I decided I liked the businesses of the pipeline MLPs and I liked their business model (no double taxation) and I liked the cash return.  I wanted to be heavily invested in MLPs but I wanted to minimize company-specific risk so I purchased more than a few.

It's interesting that you titled your post 'Index Fund' because there already is an index.  You can view the constituents and the history of the index at www.alerian.com.  The Alerian MLP Index consists of 50 companies - not all strictly pipelines - an average holding of 2% each.

By way of comparison, you listed 13 companies (actually 14 but I'm ignoring SHL because I don't know what it is) that are in the index.  Your 13 companies comprise 51.7% of the index weighting.  The overall market performance of your 13 companies is probably going to wind up pretty close to the Alerian index.

I computed the weighted yield of your 13 companies - it's 6.13% on yesterday's closing prices.  The yield of the Alerian index is 6.90%.  The weighting of your 13 companies is a little heavier than the index toward the general partner entities with lower but growing distributions (like Magellan Holdings MGG and the Crosstex entity XTXI).  I expect that your distribution growth rate will exceed that of the overall index . . . . but you're taking on a bit more risk of a distribution cut because of the nature of the compensation deals between the limited partner entity and the general partner.

I found it interesting that you allocated twice the amount to the Magellan GP, MGG, than you did the Magellan limited partner entity MMP but only half as much to the Crosstex GP, XTXI, as you did the Crosstex limited partner entity XTEX.  Were you swayed by Josh's personal holdings? 

As for me, I hold 19 entities for about 32% of my total - an average holding of 1.68%, not that much different than what you're thinking.  My current yield on the 19 is 6.62% vs. the 6.90% index yield and the recent growth of distributions has been just a tad over 7%.  My 19 make up 63.4% of the Alerian index so my market performance is about the same.  (The index is down 1.50% YTD and my 19 are down 0.64%.)

My largest three holdings are Magellan MMP and MGG at 6.5%, Kinder Morgan KMP and KMR at 5.2% and Oneok OKS at 2.6%.

The largest three components of the Alerian index are Kinder Morgan KMP and KMR at 16.0%, Enterprise EPD at 10.6% and Plains All American PAA at 5.7%.

I also looked at the ratio of current price to Morningstar fair value for your 13 companies.  If you bought them all today in equal proportions you'd be buying at 84.7% of fair value.  According to Morningstar, the best values today are NuStar NS, Energy Transfer ETP, Plains All American PAA and Crosstex XTEX.

I've just assumed that you're contemplating this commitment in a taxable situation.  I estimate that, if you were to commit $100,000 to these 13 companies that you will receive distributions over the next 12 months of $6,130 and that you will owe about $153 federal tax on that distribution.  (OK, I can't be that precise but you know what I'm saying . . . . )  

Regards.

Cliff 

 

 

 

My tax accountant says she does it on turbo-tax. You read the numbers off the form they send you and input them. I paid no extra charge over my regular return for this service. Last year, I had 8 MLP's and only one (APU) failed to send the info on time. A call to investor relations sorted that one out in two minutes. There's a web page that has all the tax info for most of the MLP's and when they're going to have it ready, I'll try to find it again.

 According to my tax person and Josh Peters, these investments should not be in a retirement account.

Thanks, Cliff, I am a medium-level knowlege investor and am just starting to allocate in this asset class. And yes, I've been swayed a bit by Josh Peters in my picks. He's not the be all and end all, but he's a good place to start for someone like me.

For my investment strategy, I don't mind giving up some yield today for a faster than average-growing income stream tomorrow. In the Josh-model, I'd call myself 70% harvester, 30% builder, even though I live off my investments.

A couple of more questions, if you don't mind:

-Can you explain the difference in risk between being a limited partner and general partner in getting paid my distribution? Is this distinction mentioned in the M* analysis's?

-How can you comfortably allocate a third of your money to just one sector? Aren't you afraid that Ben Graham will rise up from the grave and throttle you?

(My income portfolio model: 15% banks, 15% Oil, 15% Utilities, 15% REIT's, 20% decent yielding consumer, pharma, industrials, and telecoms, 20% MLP's)

-I think these MLP's are all reasonable choices, but did I leave anything out? I never thought of Shale for a single moment before, but now I realise that I can't live without it in my portfolio.

And thanks to all for participating. It's great to share knowlege without someone trying to sell me a variable annuity.

[quote user="kittydog2"]

A couple of more questions, if you don't mind:

-Can you explain the difference in risk between being a limited partner and general partner in getting paid my distribution? Is this distinction mentioned in the M* analysis's?

-How can you comfortably allocate a third of your money to just one sector? Aren't you afraid that Ben Graham will rise up from the grave and throttle you?

[/quote]

To make it real simple (actually it really is simple), the limited partner (LP) entities and the general partner (GP) entities typically have a deal.  The deal goes like this:

The LP entity says, "Hey, GP, run this business exceedingly well such that I get a handsome return on my investment.  If you do that, then I'll agree that you get a very high percentage of all the cash flow after I get my handsome return."

The GP entity says, "You got it!  I like incentives.  It's the American way."

It's really a leveraged situation for the GP - that's what I mean by a bit more risk.  The LPs get the first chunk of cash flow and give up some of the upside above an agreed-upon amount.  When the numbers are going up, everyone is happy and the GP's share is growing very rapidly and so are your GP distributions.  BUT, if the cash flow drops down to or below that certain amount, the GP gets whacked first while the LP maybe isn't affected at all or maybe just a tad.

One of my personal metrics is the ratio of investments in GP entities to LP entities - long term I think the GP entity total returns are going to be terrific, but I'm mindful that they would be the first to cut their distribution in a downturn.

How can you comfortably allocate a third of your money to just one sector? Aren't you afraid that Ben Graham will rise up from the grave and throttle you?

Allocating a third of the total to pipeline MLPs was primarily a diversification move for me - until I did that I had 100% invested in one company.  And since Ben Graham didn't help me make it, I didn't figure I owed him any explanation.

Regards.

Cliff 

 

 

"According to my tax person and Josh Peters, these investments should not be in a retirement account."

Thanks for that.  I want to participate, but I guess I'll do it in mutual funds.

Kitty,

 

Instead of buying units in each of the individual partnerships, have you ever considered investing in one of the closed-end funds that cover this area?  You would have instant diversification, professional management, decent yield, and would not have to deal with the tax hassle of multiple K-1s.  Instead, you have a single form 1099 and could hold the CEF in a retirement account if you wanted.  You may also be able to purchase the CEF at a discount to NAV.

 There are several CEFs available in this niche area.  MTP was already mentioned.  Some of the others to consider are KYN, TYG, FMO, and FEN.  I chose FMO at the time I purchased because it was selling at the largest discount to NAV.  I have been happy with the purchase.  It is up almost 11% for YTD.  I hold this in my Etrade account, with dividends reinvested (you have to request the DRIP).

 Take care.

[quote user="bubbygator"]

"According to my tax person and Josh Peters, these investments should not be in a retirement account."

Thanks for that.  I want to participate, but I guess I'll do it in mutual funds.

[/quote]

 

You can hold the MLP closed-end funds in a retirement account.  I hold FMO in both an individual 401k and a taxable account.  You can also choose to have dividends reinvested.  This is, in my opinion, one of the best ways to invest in MLPs.

 

Kittydog... I like your index idea... actually am thinking about adding a few more of those names... we curently only own five of them.

I have almost the same question as Cliff.... Why the different weightings?  We pretty much equal weight all our stocks.  This got me to thinking how you ended up with your allocations.

Stats

I see that some people have mentioned MLP CEFs.  I've been looking into pipelines a bit lately, and studying some of the CEFs for this sector.  It seems to me that the problem with the CEFs is they are so expensive.  Even with their leverage, and in some cases even  a discount to NAV, you end up with a significantly lower yield.

Most of the funds have very little turnover, and most hold the same companies, often in large amounts (Kinder Morgan, for example is often 8-10% of the whole portfolio, other names are the same too).  The investment universe for this sort of investment is very limited in the first place, so it's not like these places have analysts combing through thousands of stocks.   Bottom line is the funds seem to charge quite a hefty fee for doing very little. 

Definitely the CEFs provide for more convenience, but it seems like you pay for it with about a 1% lower yield.  If I am missing something, please correct me, because I would like to know.  This is just the line of reasoning I have come to from the little bit of research I have done. 

Nagorak,

 I appreciate the comment.  Investing in CEFs vs MLPs directly, in my opinion, depends on your situation.  While I dislike paying expenses as much as anyone, the CEFs offer much convenience, especially with the ability to hold them in a tax deferred account.  As a business owner in a partnership, I have enough headaches with taxes already.  I used to own a few MLPs and CanRoys directly and the amount of paperwork was a nightmare.  Dividend reinvestment is also a convenient feature for those of us still accumulating.  Further, many of the CEFs grow their dividend every quarter. 

Generally speaking, these entities are quite volatile.  I use to the volatility to my advantage, adding to my positions when the price drops and / or the discount to NAV widens.  I've watched these entities for a while.  If you can catch a steep discount to NAV, you will likely have yourself a nice total return.  If I had to chose today, I would probably go with MTP.  It is selling for a nice discount to NAV with a dividend yield of 8.24% (higher than most of the MLPs).  I bought FMO at 10+% discount to NAV and have had a nice return (~11% YTD) considering the current market.

Finally, these investments fit my personality.  I don't like buying individual stocks.  I'm far too analytical.  I will not buy a company unless I completely understand it.  I would need to know everything about the company, about its competitors, about its management, etc.  While I would love doing the research, I don't have the time available.  I prefer to pay a manager to do that for me.

Thanks and take care.

 

Nagorak-

There is also the Exchange Traded Note, BSR, that is based on the Alerian Select MLP Index. The ER is 0.85%, not cheap compared to most ETFs, but that may be acceptable to you. It has the same tax reporting advantages as the CEFs.

ETNs do have some credit risk, and this one is linked to the credit quality of Bear Stearns.  I purchased BSR the Monday after the weekend announcement of the Bear Stearns bailout, so my experience with this ETN is very short term, but so far so good.

Alerian Link 

-dale 

 

Yah, I found ETN's as well, (based on the previous mention of Alerian) & thought they would be a great idea.  But reading about them scared me - they're just another way for investment banks to make money using your unsecured money... there is nothing "owned" in ETN's - just an off-the-books IOU from BS or LB.

....Against my religion. Kill me instead.

If I have $500K invested, that's $5K -for what?

Figure on 2 hours a month fighting to stay awake reading M* pipeline reports to keep on top of my holdings (where I'm killing time anyway anyway), and a big two hours a year getting those no-brainer tax forms to my accountant.  For five grand?

A note about my list: I read every pipeline report and surfed alerian.com. Then I re-read a little bit of my fave Energy Book, "Future Energy". And those seemed to be the safest, best ones.  

Cliff, how do you figure on only owing the fed-gov, $158 dollars on $6,200? In the Josh tax model, he gives a 20% tax rate on these items.

 

[quote user="kittydog2"]

....Against my religion. Kill me instead.

If I have $500K invested, that's $5K -for what?

Figure on 2 hours a month fighting to stay awake reading M* pipeline reports to keep on top of my holdings (where I'm killing time anyway anyway), and a big two hours a year getting those no-brainer tax forms to my accountant.  For five grand?

[/quote]

 Hello Kitty,

I'm not trying to start an argument, just trying to be helpful.  The beauty of buying at a discount to NAV is that you can get MORE yeild.  I just checked and MTP is selling at about a 9% discount to NAV and yielding 8.28%.  This 1 to 2% MORE yield than the individual MLPs.  You end up buying more shares of stock (or units in the case of MLPs) for your dollar.  I'll take the additional yield any day.

Good luck with your investments, whatever you decide. 

[quote user="kittydog2"]

Cliff, how do you figure on only owing the fed-gov, $158 dollars on $6,200? In the Josh tax model, he gives a 20% tax rate on these items.

[/quote]

I computed your weighted average yield on the 13 MLPs to be 6.13% - so you'd get distributions of $6,130 on an investment of $100,000.  When you get done inputting those K-1s and TurboTax stops whirring (or your tax person gets done overcharging you), your actual taxable income is probably going to be in the 10% range of your distributions (based upon my experience) - in this case, $613.

I assumed a 25% tax rate for you, estimating your taxes on a dollar yield of $6,130 to be $153.

I don't understand what you mean by Josh's '20% tax rate on these items.'  Is it possible that he's estimating your taxable income at 20% of the distribution instead of my 10% estimate?  Even so, taxes would be nicely deferred on 80% of the distribution you receive.

I usually look at cash returns on an after-tax basis, so that would be another consideration in holding MLPs directly or through a CEF - another piece of the trade-off puzzle.

Regards.

Cliff

Kitty,

 If you haven't already, check out this paper from www.dimeoschneider.com, concerning MLPs:

http://www.dimeoschneider.com/research/documents/EngergyInfrastructureMLPs_000.pdf

The last few pages discuss some of the benefits of holding MLPs through CEFs.  Here is a snip:

"Closed-End Fund Tax Treatment
For investors who own MLP closed-end fund shares in IRAs or other tax qualified accounts, taxes are a non-issue (and UBTI is avoided). However, for those who own the closed-end funds outside a tax qualified account, there are some additional potential tax benefits as compared to owning the MLP units outright. For one, the vast majority of the income paid out to investors is considered a “non-dividend distribution” and is not taxable. In 2005, for example, the Kayne Anderson MLP Investment Company (KYN) paid a $1.495 per share dividend (~6% of the January 1, 2005 share price). Only 9% of this dividend (or $0.1309) was considered a qualified dividend (making it taxable at the 15% rate). The remaining 91% of the dividend (or $1.3641) was not taxable, but reduced the cost basis for an eventual capital gains distribution when sold (currently 15% long term capital gain tax upon sale). Had one owned the underlying MLPs outright, the non-taxable component of the dividend would be treated as deferred income, meaning that it would eventually be taxed when sold at the income tax rate (potentially 35%)."

 You can also track the performance of the funds against the index:

http://stockcharts.com/charts/performance/perf.html?$AMZ,KYN,TYG,FMO,FEN

The funds track the performance of the Alerian index well, often outperforming.

One thing I noticed when looking at MTP is that it is not a straight MLP investment fund.  It seems to engage in some sort of sale of "forward contracts".  Perhaps this explains the somewhat higher yield of the fund?  Not really understanding exactly what the fund's strategy entails, I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with that option. 

BSR does look appealing to me, though I do still wish the expenses were a bit lower.   

One thing I am still trying to get my head around is exactly what determines the return of capital rate on an MLP CEF.  For example, both TYY and TYG have very similar portfolios yet one received a great deal more taxable income than the other. I wonder if anyone can offer an explanation for this difference. 

I also noticed that most MLP CEFs appear to be corporations rather than RICs, with the exception of those that invest in Canadian issues since they can pass on the foreign tax credit.  I assume this is for tax reasons, but perhaps someone can explain the benefits of being treated as corporations in a bit more detail. 

....would fill a book, hopefully one with a forward by Cliff.

BUT, a quick look at KYN, mentioned above, reveals it (not that they were hiding the fact) to be an investment company that invests in pipeline stocks. It's that level of vagueness and Enron-ness that makes me nervous -quite possibly, needlessly.

I don't trust my ability to suss out the tax implications and sort through what they're doing. I do wonder why they're not covered by M*. I'm hardly an M* cultist, but the universe of stocks deemed worthy of coverage here seems like a good place for a conservative type like myself to pick from.

Learning the nuts and bolts of the MLP asset class and making the small bets among 4 and 5 star-rated M* picks at 85% of fair value price or below? That's where I want to be.

Gonna look at some closed-end funds with an open mind, but I think it is indeed a small world of Pipelines and I'll bet everyone's buying the same 10-15 of them.

Following their lead, stiffing them on fee's, holding and not having to trade for redemptions ect. seems like the way to go, given that I have sufficient funds for diversification.

I am again appreciative of this fantastic forum. Every time I get great advic here, I like to make a charitable donation in the honor of all you great people -the Int'l Red Cross, this time. 'Looks like they are going to be having a busy year.

I'll be back with my final picks tomorrow.   

 

[quote user="Nagorak"]

One thing I noticed when looking at MTP is that it is not a straight MLP investment fund.  It seems to engage in some sort of sale of "forward contracts".  Perhaps this explains the somewhat higher yield of the fund?  Not really understanding exactly what the fund's strategy entails, I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with that option. 

BSR does look appealing to me, though I do still wish the expenses were a bit lower.   

One thing I am still trying to get my head around is exactly what determines the return of capital rate on an MLP CEF.  For example, both TYY and TYG have very similar portfolios yet one received a great deal more taxable income than the other. I wonder if anyone can offer an explanation for this difference. 

I also noticed that most MLP CEFs appear to be corporations rather than RICs, with the exception of those that invest in Canadian issues since they can pass on the foreign tax credit.  I assume this is for tax reasons, but perhaps someone can explain the benefits of being treated as corporations in a bit more detail. 

[/quote]

Nagorak, 

I understand the caution regarding MTP and forward contracts.  The BSR exchange traded note is not my favorite.  The safety of your investment is tied to Bear Sterns solvency.  Also, you are getting hit with a lower yield.  BSR is yielding  5.61%.  One note about expenses.  I'm note sure Morningstar has completely accurate expenses reported on the CEFs.  Some of reported expenses on Morningstar seem to include the cost of leverage and some do not.  For example, M* has TYYs expense ratio at 4.64%.  ETFConnect has TYYs management fee at 0.95%, other expenses at 0.14%, and total expenses at 1.09%.  Tortoise Capital's webiste list management fees at 0.95%.

The difference between the taxable income from TYY and TYG is likely do the turnover rates.  TYY is 15.45%.  TYG is 3.80%.

Regarding the corporate structure of the CEFs vs RIC, I am not completely sure.  From my readings a while back, if I recall correctly, I think it has to do with the percentage of the portfolio dedicated to private equity.  If you the visit the Kayne Anderson and Tortoise websites, you will see that each of the funds can invest a portion of the portfolio in debt securities, preferred stock, and common shares of private energy companies / illiquid securities.  KED and TTO are the firms' private equity funds, and thus have to devote a much larger percentage of the portfolios to private energy companies (and a smaller percentage to the publicly traded companies).  This gives the small investor access to alternative investments usually available only to larger institutions.

I've been watching these BDCs since before inception.  They are kicking off some good yields.  I have been considering putting my toe in the water.

Take care. 

 

[quote user="kittydog2"]

BUT, a quick look at KYN, mentioned above, reveals it (not that they were hiding the fact) to be an investment company that invests in pipeline stocks. It's that level of vagueness and Enron-ness that makes me nervous -quite possibly, needlessly. 

Gonna look at some closed-end funds with an open mind, but I think it is indeed a small world of Pipelines and I'll bet everyone's buying the same 10-15 of them.

Following their lead, stiffing them on fee's, holding and not having to trade for redemptions ect. seems like the way to go, given that I have sufficient funds for diversification.

[/quote]

Kitty,

CEFs do not have to trade for redemptions.  That is one of the main differences between CEFs and OEF.  The CEFs trade like stocks.  When you buy a CEF (unless you are buying at the IPO) you are buying shares from another person.  You will rarely ever have to worry about asset bloat with a CEF as you would with an OEF.

 A friend of mine who is an investment advisor calls CEFs "one the investment worlds best kept secrets."  Because they trade like stocks, brokers rarely push them because there is less money in it for the advisor.  Only during an IPO for a CEF does an advisor make money over the cost of a trade, generally a percentage the client does not see. One of the only things I don't like about CEFs are that they tend to be more volatile due to a percentage of the portfolio being leveraged.

I am glad you are keeping an open mind regarding the MLP CEFs.  Cliff computed your weighted average yield on the 13 MLPs to be 6.13%.  All of the MLP CEFs have current yields greater than this.  If I were looking for income, I certainly would consider one or more of the CEFs.  My next purchase will be either KED or TTO.

In addition to my self managed Etrade account, I have a managed account with Smith Barney and have access to all of the research.  SB covers many CEFs. I'm not exactly sure why M* does not.

Good luck with your investments. 

"My next purchase will be either KED or TTO."

Alpha, I have a very small position in TTO.  You're absolutely right, it's a vehicle that allows an investor like me to have a piece of something that normally I could not touch.  At the current price - and with an annualized 8.6% yield - I'm thinking of adding a bit more.  I consider it more of a 'dessert investment' for me - not the real red meat and 'taters.

Regards.

Cliff

[quote user="Nagorak"]

One thing I noticed when looking at MTP is that it is not a straight MLP investment fund.  It seems to engage in some sort of sale of "forward contracts".  Perhaps this explains the somewhat higher yield of the fund? 

[/quote]

I was unaware of MTP until a few days ago.  Just for kicks, I took a look at it.  And, by the way, I'm not anti-CEFs.  I've held a few for specific purposes for quite some time and am quite happy that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing.

What appears to explain the "somewhat higher yield of the [MTP] fund" is that the denominator part of that calculation has dropped precipitously since the fund debuted.

The actual weighted average yield of the MLPs it holds - and there are some really good ones - is about what you would expect.  6.44%.

When it came out in June of '07, some investors paid $20.00 a share.  Only $19.10 of that was actually invested.  The sharks kept ninety cents.

So, 6.44% times $19.10 is $1.23.  They actually are paying out at the rate of ten cents per month - $1.20 annually, although they haven't hit the one year mark yet.

If the sum total of the funds investments and forward contract activity had merely stayed even, the $1.20 payout would be a yield of 6.3% on the $19.20 actually invested.

But, IQ Advisors, the creator of this thing, have managed to take some people's twenty dollar bill and turn it into two eight dollar bills.  That's the NAV - $16.  Because the market - surprise, surprise - has some inkling that this isn't exactly the way a money machine is supposed to work, the actual market price is down around $14.70.  The initial premium has turned into a significant discount.

During a ten month period when the underlying MLP investments (in this CEF) had a total return of negative about 3% (about 9% negative appreciation and a 6% distribution), this thing had a total return of negative 22%.  So, yes, this thing does now have a yield on market price of greater than 8%.  The way it's going it will soon be yielding 10%, then 12%, then . . . .

Forward contracts.  Derivatives.  Gimmicks.

Regards.

Cliff

 

Hi alpha_male,

You said, 

  " I have a managed account with Smith Barney and have access to all of the research.  SB covers many CEFs. I'm not exactly sure why M* does not".

I have brokerage account at Smith Barney.I am unable to find their research of CEFs.

Could you please help me how to locate that info over at Smith Barney web site.

The broker I have at Smith Barney was  unable to find it also.

I would appreciate your help.

Thanks