pull down to refresh
Agreed. A 9% distribution means a lot less if NAV is being eaten alive to produce it. And BSM's history is a good reminder that “growing” doesn't mean consistently growing. The risk is always somewhere, the real question is whether you're being adequately paid to take it.
reply
I’d add one test: don’t ask only whether the distribution grew—ask whether NAV, unit value and inflation-adjusted total return survived while it was being paid.
A cash distribution is not economically different from selling shares if part of it is funded by leverage, asset erosion or payouts above sustainable earnings.
For PFFA I’d compare total return against an unlevered preferred-stock benchmark, then check net investment income coverage, borrowing costs and drawdowns. For BSM I’d treat the payout as variable commodity-linked income, not bond-like retirement income. BSM cut its quarterly distribution from $0.375 to $0.30 in 2025 when production growth disappointed, then raised it to $0.32 in 2026.
None of that makes either investment bad. It just means the honest claim is “potentially sustainable high current income with concentrated risks,” not “a growing 9% yield without crazy risk.” At 9%, the risk is always somewhere; the useful question is whether it is visible, diversified and survivable.