Tag Archives: income

3 Best ETFs To Consider When Looking For Passive Income

Summary Investors who pursue income should consider income ETFs. ETFs have the advantage of buying a portfolio of one’s favorite stocks in a single buy. Here is the list of my top three income ETFs. The week after Labor Day continued to be highly volatile. The high volatility was seen both in intra-day trading as well as the day-to-day change in sentiment. This is how the trading board ended up on Tuesday: And this is how it looked at the end of the following trading day: While traders and short-term investors are waiting to see where the markets are going to trend in the coming future, the long-term investors should look for opportunities to achieve their long-term goals. By taking advantage of the recent fear and stocks selloff, long-term investors’ goals can be achieved even earlier than the original plan. One way to do it is to put buy orders of your favorite stocks and buy those each separately. An alternative way is to buy an ETF. The advantage of an ETF is that it can give the investor an exposure to a bunch of stocks, sectors or indexes without the commotion (and the commissions) of individual stock picking. There are investors who are seeking to generate passive income by holding U.S. large cap blue chip stocks. The ETF market possess several opportunities for this type of investor. To find the best list of top income ETFs, I started with the full list of large cap value equity ETFs using etfdb.com, and from that initial list carved out the income ETFs. The list of the 29 income ETFs can be found here . In order to narrow down the list, I filtered out high management expense ratios, leaving in only ETFs that charge less than 0.4% per year. This filter allowed to narrow down the list to 16 ETFs. Since I was looking for high-income ETFs, the next step was to filter out the ETFs with the lowest dividend rate. My benchmark was the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ) which is a good representative of the S&P 500 index. SPY’s current dividend yield is at 2.06%, hence I used that as my dividend rate cutoff. Following this filter, I was left with a list of 11 ETFs: iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF (NYSEARCA: DGRO ) WisdomTree Equity Income ETF (NYSEARCA: DHS ) WisdomTree LargeCap Dividend ETF (NYSEARCA: DLN ) WisdomTree Total Dividend ETF (NYSEARCA: DTD ) WisdomTree Dividend ex-Financials ETF (NYSEARCA: DTN ) iShares Select Dividend ETF (NYSEARCA: DVY ) iShares Core High Dividend ETF (NYSEARCA: HDV ) ALPS Sector Dividend Dogs ETF (NYSEARCA: SDOG ) PowerShares S&P 500 High Dividend Portfolio ETF (NYSEARCA: SPHD ) Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF (NYSEARCA: VIG ) Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (NYSEARCA: VYM ) The profile of this list can be found in this table: The next step was to assess the dividend growth history. DGRO paid dividends only since September 2014, hence due to its short history it was taken off the list. The next two tables summarize the ETFs’ yearly dividend since 2010 and the year-over-year dividend change percentage: Most of the ETFs were found to have high swings in the year-over-year paid dividend. Though most of the years the dividends have risen, there are years of dividend reduction. An income investor will pursue a growing dividend ETF and only three managed to increase their dividends since 2010: DVY, HDV and VYM. (click to enlarge) If I had to choose the single best ETF, it would have to be HDV . HDV delivers the highest annual dividend yield (3.94%) and carries a low expense ratio (0.12%). Its top holdings include an impressive list of blue chip cash machines like Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM ), Verizon (NYSE: VZ ), Pfizer (NYSE: PFE ), Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ ), General Electric (NYSE: GE ), Philip Morris International (NYSE: PM ), Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG ), AT&T (NYSE: T ), Chevron (NYSE: CVX ) and The Coca-Cola Company (NYSE: KO ). In total, the ETF has 76 different holdings. The top 10 holdings account for 58% of the HDV’s investment allocation. DVY and VYM hold similar top 10 holdings in their lists and have higher diversification and a larger number of total holdings in their portfolio. Conclusions: An investor looking for an income stream based on U.S. best of breed blue chip companies, but would like to avoid accumulating these stocks separately, should consider one of these three ETFs: DVY, HDV or VYM. Based on this study, my favorite is HDV but each should do his own due diligence. Happy investing. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Additional disclosure: The opinions of the author are not recommendations to either buy or sell any security. Please do your own research prior to making any investment decision.

Investing While Guarding Against Extensive Vertical Losses

Summary Portfolio Manager and economist John Hussman warns that “extensive vertical losses” can follow a partial recovery from a correction similar to our recent one. One way to remain invested while guarding against extensive vertical losses is with the hedged portfolio method, which we outline here. We also present an example of a hedged portfolio designed for an investor with $200,000 who is unwilling to risk losses greater than 20%. Hussman Says We’re Due On Twitter (NYSE: TWTR ) earlier this month, the pseudonymous Florida-based trader StockCats shared the following chart, first posted a year earlier: The next day, the creator of the image, portfolio manager, Stanford Ph.D., and former finance professor John Hussman responded: In his next weekly market commentary (“That was not a crash”), Hussman updated his bearish sentiment: The market decline of recent weeks was not a crash. It was merely an air-pocket. It was probably just a start. Actual market crashes involve a much larger and concerted shift toward investor risk-aversion, which doesn’t really happen right off of a market peak. Historically, market crashes don’t even start until the market has first retreated by 10-14%, and then recovers about half of that loss, offering investors hope that things have stabilized (look for example at the 1929 and 1987 instances). The extensive vertical losses that characterize a crash follow only after the market breaks that apparent “support,” leading to a relentless free-fall that inflicts several times the loss that we’ve seen in recent weeks. If you were certain Hussman was right that the recent correction has just been an “air pocket,” and we’re due for worse, then an appropriate course of action might be to get out of the market. But as strong a case as Hussman makes, he’s been making a similar one for years. And even he doesn’t go so far as to predict exactly when he expects we’ll get the crash we’re due to get. So we’re left with the question of how to invest given the uncertainty of whether the long bull market will resume or we’ll soon be faced with Hussman’s ominous “extensive vertical losses.” Dealing With Uncertainty One way to deal with this sort of uncertainty is to invest in a handful of securities you think will do well, and hedge against the possibility that you end up being wrong. That approach is systematized in the hedged portfolio method, which we detailed in a previous post (“Backtesting The Hedged Portfolio Method”). One advantage of the hedged portfolio method is that it can accommodate a broad range of risk tolerances. Below, we’ll recap how you can build a hedged portfolio yourself (or for a client), and present an example of a hedged portfolio created for an investor with $200,000 to invest who can’t tolerate a drawdown of more than 20%. Risk Tolerance, Hedging Cost, And Potential Return All else equal, with a hedged portfolio, the greater an investor’s risk tolerance – the greater the maximum drawdown he is willing to risk (his “threshold”) – the lower his hedging cost will be and the higher his expected return will be. An investor who is willing to risk a 20% drawdown is in good company. Several years ago, in one of his earlier market commentaries , portfolio manager John Hussman had this to say about 20% drawdowns: “An intolerable loss, in my view, is one that requires a heroic recovery simply to break even… a short-term loss of 20%, particularly after the market has become severely depressed, should not be at all intolerable to long-term investors because such losses are generally reversed in the first few months of an advance (or even a powerful bear market rally).” Essentially, 20% is a large enough threshold that it can reduce the cost of hedging, but not so large that it precludes a recovery. Constructing A Hedged Portfolio The process, in broad strokes, is this: Find securities with high potential returns (we define potential return as a high-end, bullish estimate of how the security will perform). Find securities that are relatively inexpensive to hedge. Buy a handful of securities that score well on the first two criteria; in other words, buy a handful of securities with high potential returns net of their hedging costs (or, ones with high net potential returns). Note that when creating a hedged portfolio for an extremely risk-averse investor, such as in this case, the second criteria (“inexpensive to hedge”) will outweigh the first (“high potential returns”) because it may not be possible to hedge the securities with the highest potential returns against such small declines. Hedge them. The potential benefits of this approach are twofold: If you are successful at the first step (finding securities with high potential returns), and you hold a concentrated portfolio of them, your portfolios should generate decent returns over time. If you are hedged, and your return estimates are completely wrong, on occasion – or the market moves against you – your downside will be strictly limited. How To Implement This Approach Finding securities with positive potential returns For this, you can use Seeking Alpha Pro , among other sources. Seeking Alpha articles often include price targets for long ideas, and you can convert these to percentage returns from current prices. But you’ll need to use the same time frame for each of your expected return calculations to facilitate comparisons of expected returns, hedging costs, and net expected returns. Our method starts with calculations of six-month potential returns. Finding Securities That Are Relatively Inexpensive To Hedge For this step, you’ll need to find hedges for the securities with positive potential returns, and then calculate the hedging cost as a percentage of position value for each security. Whatever hedging method you use, for this example, you’d want to make sure that each security is hedged against a greater than 4% decline over the time frame covered by your potential return calculations. Our method attempts to find optimal static hedges using collars as well as protective puts. Buying Securities That Score Well On The First Two Criteria To determine which securities these are, you may need to first adjust your potential return calculations by the time frame of your hedges. For example, although our method initially calculates six-month potential returns and aims to find hedges with six months to expiration, in some cases the closest hedge expiration may be five months out. In those cases, we will adjust our potential return calculation down accordingly, because we expect an investor will exit the position shortly before the hedge expires (in general, our method and calculations are based on the assumption that an investor will hold his shares for six months, until shortly before their hedges expire or until they are called away, whichever comes first). Next, you’ll need to subtract the hedging costs you calculated in the previous step from the potential returns you calculated for each position, and sort the securities by their potential returns net of hedging costs, or net potential returns. The securities that come to the top of that sort are the ones you’ll want to consider for your portfolio. Fine-Tuning Portfolio Construction You’ll want to stick with round lots (numbers of shares divisible by 100) to minimize hedging costs. Another fine-tuning step is to minimize cash that’s left over after you make your initial allocation to round lots of securities and their respective hedges. Because each security is hedged, you won’t need a large cash position to reduce risk. And since returns on cash are so low now, by minimizing cash, you can potentially boost returns. In this step, our method searches for what we call a “cash substitute”: that’s a security collared with a tight cap (1% or the current yield on a leading money market fund, whichever is higher) in an attempt to capture a better than cash return while keeping the investor’s downside limited according to his specifications. You could use a similar approach, or you could simply allocate leftover cash to one of the securities you selected in the previous step. Calculating An Expected Return While net potential returns are bullish estimates of how well securities will perform, net of their hedging costs, expected returns, in our terminology, are the more likely returns net of hedging costs. In a series of 25,412 backtests over an 11-year time period, we determined two things about our method of calculating potential returns: it generates alpha, and it overstates actual returns. The average actual return over the next six months in those 25,412 tests was 0.3x the average potential return calculated ahead of time. So, we use that empirically derived relationship to calculate our expected returns. Example Of A Hedged Portfolio Here is an example of a hedged portfolio created using the general process described above by the automated portfolio construction tool at Portfolio Armor . With that tool, you just enter the dollar amount you are looking to invest (in this case, $200,000) and the largest drawdown you are willing to risk (your “threshold” – in this case, 20%), as in the image below, and the tool does the rest. Note that we left the “tickers” field blank above, because, in this case, we’re going to let the site pick all of the securities for us. But you can also start with your own investment picks when using this tool. We shared an example of that in a recent article (“Building a Bulletproof Stock Portfolio”). A couple of minutes after clicking the “create” button above, we were presented with the portfolio below, which was generated with data as of Friday’s close. Worst-Case Scenario The “Max Drawdown” column in the portfolio level summary shows the worst-case scenario for this hedged portfolio. If every underlying security in it went to zero before the hedges expired, the portfolio would decline 18.92%. Negative Hedging Cost Note that, in this case, the total hedging cost for the portfolio was slightly negative, -0.01%, meaning the investor would receive a few dollars more income in total from selling the call legs of the collars on his positions than he spent buying the puts. Best-Case Scenario At the portfolio level, the net potential return is 15.16%. This represents the best-case scenario, if each underlying security in the portfolio meets or exceeds its potential return. A More Likely Scenario The portfolio level expected return of 6.10% represents a more conservative estimate, based on the historical relationship between our calculated potential returns and actual returns. Each Security Is Hedged Note that in the portfolio above, each of the four primary underlying securities – Abiomed (NASDAQ: ABMD ), BofI Holding (NASDAQ: BOFI ), Expedia, Inc. (NASDAQ: EXPE ), and Sketchers, USA (NYSE: SKX ) – is hedged with an optimal collar capped at its potential return, and Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN ) is hedged as a cash substitute, with its cap set at 1%. Hedging each security according to the investor’s risk tolerance obviates the need for broad diversification, and lets him concentrate his assets in a handful of securities with high net potential returns. Here’s a closer look at the hedge for one of these positions, ABMD: As you can see in the first part of the image above, ABMD is hedged with an optimal collar with its cap set at 21.92%, which was the potential return Portfolio Armor calculated for the stock: the idea is to capture the potential return while offsetting the cost of hedging by selling other investors the right to buy ABMD if it appreciates beyond that over the next six months. The cost of the put leg of this collar was $3,600, or 9.42% of position value, but as you can see in the image below, the income from the short call leg was $2,600, or 6.80% as a percentage of position value. Since the income from the call leg offset some of the cost of the put leg, the net cost of the optimal collar on ABMD was $1,000, or 2.62% of position value.[i] Note that, although the cost of the hedge on this position was positive, the hedging cost of this portfolio as a whole was slightly negative . Why These Particular Securities? As of Friday, all of these securities ranked among the top six names in the site’s universe when ranked by potential return net of hedging costs. Possibly More Protection Than Promised In some cases, hedges such as the ones in the portfolio above can provide more protection than promised. For an example of that, see this instablog post on hedging the iPath S&P 500 VIX ST Futures ETN (NYSEARCA: VXX ). Hedged Portfolios For Even More Risk-Averse Investors The hedged portfolio shown above was designed for a small investor who could tolerate a decline of as much as 20% over the next six months, but the same process can be used for investors who are more risk averse. We presented an example of that in a recent article (“An Alternative To Cash For Risk-Averse Investors”). Note: [i] To be conservative, the net cost of the collar was calculated using the bid price of the calls and the ask price of the puts. In practice, an investor can often sell the calls for a higher price (some price between the bid and ask) and he can often buy the puts for less than the ask price (again, at some price between the bid and ask). So, in practice, the cost of this collar would likely have been lower. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

NextEra Energy Partners: Strong Yieldco With Considerable Upside

Summary Solid base of long-term, stable cash flow-producing electricity generation assets. Strong partnership sponsor willing to step up with equity contributions when required to grow the dividend. Currently priced at an attractive level due to the market’s over-reaction to acquisition and financing of natural gas pipeline assets. NextEra Energy Partners (NYSE: NEP ) is a limited partnership formed and sponsored by NextEra Energy (NYSE: NEE ), with the sponsor maintaining approximately three quarters interest in the underlying operating company. NextEra Energy Partners focuses on the acquisition of energy projects, primarily in the renewable space, with long-term stable cash flows. These stable cash flows are then levered in order to generate a high rate of return in a sustainable long-term dividend. The company’s primary focus is a collection of renewable energy assets currently under long-term power purchase arrangements in eight states and one Canadian province. These assets currently have capacity to generate 1,923.2 megawatts of energy, approximately 84 percent from wind generation. This will be further expanded by 149 megawatts of wind generation from the Jericho assets being purchased from its sponsor, which will be discussed later along with the partnership’s recent developments. Also in terms of recent developments for further discussion, the company has recently acquired substantial natural gas transmission pipeline assets. In terms of forward guidance, NextEra Energy Partners has indicated that it expects to generate $400-440 million in adjusted EBITDA for 2015, increasing to $580-620 million of adjusted EBITDA in 2016, primarily on the back of the NET Midstream acquisition, which we’ll cover along with some other recent developments. This should leave the company with approximately $170-190 million in cash available for distribution in 2016. The partnership has currently set its target distribution to $1.23 per share annualized at the end of year, reflecting an increase to approximately $0.3075 per share quarterly or a dividend yield, based on the September 10 closing price, of 4.7 percent. From a long-term perspective, the company expects to continue to grow this dividend at an average annual growth rate of 12-15 percent. As a note to investors, the partnership expects its distributions to be treated as though they are dividends received from a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. This income will be reported on a 1099-DIV form. While we’re not in the position to offer expert tax advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors, we believe this is certainly an easier-to-understand tax structure than many partnerships out there, albeit perhaps trading off some of the benefits. Recent Developments In NextEra Energy Partners’ second-quarter release, the partnership announced that they had entered an agreement to acquire NET Midstream, an owner and operator of natural gas pipelines located in Texas. This operation maintains 3.0 billion cubic feet per day in ship or pay contracts, with an average life of 16 years, and, according to NextEra Energy Partners, an average investment-grade counterparty credit. Current growth and expansion projects are expected to grow this contract volume by an additional 1 billion cubic feet per day upon completion. The pipelines, in particular, look to be a relatively high-quality asset, with a current capacity of 4 billion cubic feet per day, which could later be expanded to 5 billion cubic feet per day. The primary shipment of gas on these pipelines is from the Eagle Ford shale gas region into Mexico. Additional volumes served include volumes from the ENSTOR Katy Hub to residential consumers and industrial users in the Houston area, and additional volumes supplied to the city of Corpus Christi, Texas. The acquisition of NET Midstream is expected to provide $145-155 million in 2016 adjusted EBITDA, and by 2018, following the completion of the expansion projects, up to $190-210 million in EBITDA. On a whole, this isn’t really an exciting acquistion from a purely cash flow accretion standpoint, but it does offer some diversification to the partnership’s energy infrastructure business at little dilutive cost. Overall, we’re pretty neutral to the acquisition, but the impact the financing has had on the stock price has driven our current short-term excitement about the stock. One further smaller acquisition announced by the company is the Jericho wind assets being purchased from the partnership sponsor NextEra Energy. The Jericho wind project is a 149 megawatt installation in Ontario, Canada. This transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter due to Canadian tax rules. Both of these acquisitions have created substantial financing needs for the company. In order to raise the money required to complete these acquisitions, NextEra Energy Partners has put in place the following as announced in the August 31 conference call: Raising $600 million of non-amortizing 2-5 year NextEra Energy Partner debt. Issuing $200 million of NextEra Energy Partnership units to the public. NextEra Energy slowing its rate of ownership dilution by investing $700 million in NextEra Energy Partners on the same terms as the public unit issuance. In beginning the execution of this financing plan, on September 10, NextEra Energy Partners confirmed the issuance of 8,000,000 common units at a price of $26 per unit to the public in an underwritten deal. On the same terms, NextEra Energy has agreed to purchase $702 million in common units at the same price via a private placement. This would complete the equity issuance portion of the capitalization plan, setting up the company to complete the transactions. Raising $900 million in equity for the partnership on September 10 certainly puts the firm in a relatively healthy position in terms of financing these new acquisitions. In fact, management suggested in the August 31 conference call that they are affirming their 2015 through 2018 guidance based on this financing plan, with the difficult piece now squared away in the equity financing. Positives Opportunity to get in at an attractive price: Although the current financing was telegraphed by the company in late August, the market responded negatively to the deal yet again, with the partnership falling 7.65 percent in Thursday’s trading following the announcement. The company is down 40 percent over the last three months from its highs in early June, and is now priced extremely attractively, with a high but easily sustainable, and even growing, dividend. We believe that the recent price moves have been partially macro-driven and do not reflect a material change in the future prospects of the firm. Also, it’s worth keeping in mind that the partnership’s sponsor had no concerns about stepping up in a big way to buy additional units at this price. This should be comforting that those closest to the operational realities of this firm are putting their dollars on the line. While not exactly comparable to insider buying from executives or directors, this is, in our books, a vote of confidence in the assets being purchased and the ongoing dividend sustainability of the firm. Multiple Jurisdiction Exposure: One of the risks facing independent power producers is regulatory and political change in specific jurisdictions. While, on balance, the push towards greener or renewable energy sources has been strong in most North American and European jurisdictions, the costs of these green energy programs are beginning to mount. By having assets in eight different states and an additional 516 megawatts of capacity (following the Jericho acquisition) in Canada, the partnership has effectively hedged exposure to political change in any one jurisdiction. Long-term Stable Cash Flows: According to the partnership’s 2015 European investor presentation , the firm is sitting on an average capacity-weighted remaining contract life of 20 years. Given that the majority of counterparties are investment-grade rated or better, these long-term, stable cash flow projects provide the underlying support to the partnership’s dividend. Strong Sponsor in NextEra Energy: The partnership’s sponsor in NextEra Energy is certainly one with many advantages. Through maintaining a majority ownership stake in the partnership, NextEra Energy is certainly engaged in the success of the venture. Further, the company’s expertise is directly applied to the operations and management of the partnership through its controlling interest in the general partner. The other advantage of the partnership’s relationship with the parent is the potential future stream of cash flow-generating assets that it could acquire from a trusted developer. NextEra Energy has 1,766 megawatts of contracted wind development coming onstream over the next few years, and another 1,417 of contracted solar development. These offer potential assets for the partnership to purchase for the purposes of expanding its cash flow available for distribution at potentially attractive rates. NextEra Energy also announced a new dividend policy in its second-quarter presentation, reflecting a more aggressive stance. Without management’s confidence in the underlying performance of NextEra Energy Partners, this new dividend strategy by the parent would be risky and ill-advised. We believe that this shows confidence in the ability of NextEra Energy Partners to distribute the required cash to sustain its sponsor’s own dividend policy. Risks Access to Capital Markets: Continued access to capital markets at attractive rates is more or less required to sustain growth in any “yieldco” type of company. With the firm paying out much of its free cash flow to investors, any incremental acquisitions are generally financed with a mix of equity and debt. In the event that capital markets are unwilling to provide additional financing due to macro conditions or particular developments within the firm, the growth trajectory can be severely impacted. In the case of NextEra Energy Partners, its sponsor does seem willing to put up additional capital when required, as illustrated by its over $700 million commitment to additional equity for the NET Midstream acquisition. Pipeline acquisition could fail to achieve EBITDA projections: With the current commodity price collapse, natural gas shipments on these assets could potential fall, or the company could fail to obtain contracts to fill the addition 2 billion cubic feet per day of capacity coming onstream with the NET Midstream assets. Failure to reach its EBITDA projections on this acquisition could make this deal look extremely dilutive in the future. However, we believe even with this factored in, there isn’t considerable further downside to the share price, as the market seems to have already taken a very skeptical view of this transaction. In context, the pipeline assets will comprise approximately a quarter of the firm’s 2016 EBITDA. Valuation We approach the valuation of NextEra Energy from a few angles, but we’re primarily focused on that cash flow available to equityholders. We’re comfortable with the mid-range of the company’s projection following the closing of its equity financing, with $180 million in cash available for distribution in 2016. The expected growth rate, potentially fueled by a pipeline of currently in development project acquisitions from the sponsor, of 12-15 percent per year put forward by management also seems reasonable. At the current share price of $26.18 (as at September 10), and assuming a 12 percent growth rate in cash flow available to equity interests, this would suggest an equity cost of 24 percent, which is far in excess of what would be reasonable for a company with this kind of stable, long-term cash flow. This is determined on a basic FCFE calculation using the cash available for distributions and adjusted on a per share basis, based on the share count, giving consideration to the September 10th announcement. By comparison, Brookfield Renewable Energy Partners LP (NYSE: BEP ) is currently priced at a roughly 16 percent equity cost on a lower 9 percent growth target (per the company’s materials ), and targets a 15 percent return on equity on its investments. If NextEra Energy Partners was priced at an 18 percent return on equity (to give effect to a smaller, less diversified portfolio), with a 12 percent growth rate, we’d be looking at a share price of approximately $50 per share. This would be our one-year target on this stock, and we believe this is a still a conservative valuation providing a great return to equity investors. This isn’t entirely unfounded in past performance either, as the company traded at these levels earlier in the year on the same basic cash flow fundamentals. This further reflects our thesis that the current market price is not driven by cash flow realities, but by market sentiment and overreaction to this recent acquisition and financing. And all of our valuation is priced without any substantial upside to the NET Midstream acquisition, which the company indicates could be another $45-55 million in incremental EBITDA beyond the initial 12-15 percent growth target included in our valuation. Summary Overall, we believe that NextEra Energy Partners currently offers a very compelling valuation for a portfolio of long-term cash flow-generating energy infrastructure assets. The current market reaction to the financing arrangement for its NET Midstream and Jericho acquisitions seems to be considerably overdone, and the stock is current available at a substantial discount to other players in the space. With a solid and competent sponsor in NextEra Energy, this “yieldco” would fit nicely in a portfolio of dividend-paying stocks, providing a solid, growing dividend into the future. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.