I'm not understanding the part about taxing that you find not to be within easy reach. There may be a lot I don't know about, myself. What I do know and regard as all-important is that an MLP must divest itself of 90% of its net at a minimum or it will be taxed like any other corporation.
Usually I do all sorts of background checks on principal officers of any company where I've got a lot at stake. In the case of CEQP, I know I told you I first learned of it in a piece at SA by Tim Plahn. He is a resident expert when it comes to research at "Investor Alley." I bought a subscription a few months back---cost me $39. I took a chance on CEQP---1,000 units with a CB of $10.46 figuring---if I find it doesn't work out, the compounding of errors will stop here. It's more than doubled, though.
Plahn also pushes hard on NRZ. I've owned it for several years, inheriting it through a spin-off from NCT (Newcastle). When I saw Plahn's accuracy right in front of me, I added to my tiny NRZ position. I'm ahead 20% now, I think it's about twice what it was before I read this thoughts and research on the stock.
Much of my trading/investing success derives from recognizing trading patterns. I have a peculiar numerical ability---my brain records numbers and will retain the image in my mind for years if I choose. Close investor friends often will ask me how many shares of a pick they have in the case of a stock we hold in common---when they're away from home and their phones won't process as mine will. That odd facility gives me immense leverage.
This morning I knew when ALDW came flying out of the gate that we're at the start of a field of momentum about to begin. Momentum and volume were too pronounced to be dismissed yet early on something told me not to trust what was going on. I predicted in the early going we might wind up (down? lol) at $9.50---just marginally ahead. It was strictly a numbers thing for me, not brainiac science. Yet it proved to be on target.
In building my large positions, it's always about numbers and trading patterns for me. I don't rely on charts as a rule although they often corroborate my own findings and that's comforting.
So in the end, my approach will be born out---if at all---by very distinct trading patterns, an occasional phenomenon such as we saw today in NGL, only to be proved substantive in the days or weeks to follow. I think it would be safe to say that what I do is comparable to that which a savant might do. In the case of the savant, people would insist he's brilliant. In my case it's really just an odd ability to retain numbers, it's highly unlikely that it's connected to smarts. I've also had perfect pitch throughout my life. There's a distinct correlation between an ability to record pitch patterns and recognition thereof---much as happens with numerical recollection. And I'm always studying language---again, a direct correlation is evident.
