OPPENHEIMER STEELPATH MLP INCOME FUND

Transcription

1 STEELPATH MLP INCOME FUND MLPDX (A shares), MLPZX (Y shares), OSPMX (I shares) 4Q 2017 COMMENTARY AS OF 12/31/17 Oppenheimer SteelPath MLP Income Fund Class A, Y and I Shares Average Annual Total Returns as of 12/31/17 Oppenheimer SteelPath MLP Income Fund (Class A shares without sales charge) 4Q17 1-Year 3-Year 5-Year Since Inception -4.37% -8.59% -6.88% 0.53% 2.45% Portfolio Managers Stuart Cartner Since 3/2010 Brian Watson, CFA Since 3/2010 Client Portfolio Managers Chuck Anderson Chad Potter, CFA Oppenheimer SteelPath MLP Income Fund (Class A shares with sales charge) Oppenheimer SteelPath MLP Income Fund (Class Y shares) Oppenheimer SteelPath MLP Income Fund (Class I shares) N/A Alerian MLP Index Total Return (AMZ) S&P 500 Index Morningstar Energy Limited Partnership Category Average Average Industry Experience 25 years Morningstar Percentile Rank and Ranking: Energy Limited Partnership Category Class A shares based on Total Return 4 83% 86/108 37% 37/90 Returns for periods of less than one year are cumulative and not annualized. 54% 25/43 89% 9/10 Due to the passage of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 on December 22, 2017, SteelPath MLP Income Fund had a oneday reduction to its net deferred tax asset which reduced its net asset value by 2.4%. The performance data quoted represents past performance, which does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Fund will fluctuate so that an investor s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than the original cost. Current performance and expense ratios may be lower or higher than the data quoted. For performance data current to the most recent month-end, visit oppenheimerfunds.com or call CALL OPP ( ). Fund returns include changes in net asset value with dividends and capital gains reinvested. Class A and Y shares were launched 3/31/10. Class I shares were launched 6/28/13. Class A shares include the 5.75% maximum sales charge where indicated. Class Y and I shares are not subject to a sales charge. Returns do not consider capital gains or income taxes on an individual's investment. Generally, I shares are only available to institutional investors and can only be purchased with a $1 million initial investment. Y shares are not available to all investors. See prospectus for details. The net expense ratio reflects that the Advisor has contractually agreed to limit fees and/or reimburse expenses (excluding certain expenses) until at least 3/30/18, however, the Fund s Board of Trustees may terminate or amend this arrangement prior to that date. The Manager can be reimbursed by the Fund within three years after the date the limitation an/or expense reimbursement has been made by the Manager, provided that such repayment does not cause the expenses of any class of the Fund to exceed the limits described in the notes to the fee table in the prospectus. The net expense ratio is also net of deferred income tax expense, if applicable, which represents an estimate of the Fund s potential tax liability. This expense may vary from year to year. Because the Fund's deferred income tax expense is excluded from the expense cap, the Fund's net expense is increased by the amount of this expense. A change in the estimate of deferred tax liability could result in a loss to net asset value. The majority of distributions have been classified as return of capital which reduces the investor s adjusted cost basis. See the prospectus for details. OppenheimerFunds is not undertaking to provide impartial investment advice or to provide advice in a fiduciary capacity. Not FDIC Insured May Lose Value Not Bank Guaranteed Annual Expense Ratios: Class A Shares: Gross: 3.56, Net: 3.44, Net expense net of deferred Income tax expense: 1.37 Class Y Shares: Gross: 3.31, Net: 3.19, Net expense net of deferred income tax expense: 1.12 Class I Shares: Gross: 3.08, Net: 3.08, Net expense net of deferred income tax expense: 1.01

2 Market Overview For the fourth quarter of 2017, master limited partnerships (MLPs), as measured by the Alerian MLP Index (AMZ), were down 2.9% on a price basis and generated a 0.9% total return loss, or including the impact of distributions. For context, the broader market, as measured by the S&P 500, gained 6.1% on a price basis and 6.6% on a total return basis. The AMZ ended the year with a total return loss of 6.5%, as compared to the S&P 500 s 21.8% total return proved to be a year of contradiction for the midstream energy sector. Over the year, underlying fundamentals generally improved as firming commodity prices supported producer customers, healthy demand followed improved economic conditions and U.S. petroleum and natural gas exports continued to expand. On average, midstream EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) grew consistently during 2017 and we believe continued improvement is likely. For example, in 2017, first quarter EBITDA was 1.6% higher than the fourth quarter of 2016, second quarter EBITDA grew a modest 0.1%, and the third quarter figures were up another 5.1% (fourth quarter results are expected in February and March). Further, a number of individual midstream operators executed corporate actions to improve leverage metrics, reduce cost of capital concerns, and mitigate project risk. Contradictorily, midstream equity prices struggled over much of the year. In fact, despite December s rebound, midstream equity prices exited the period at historically low levels and trading multiples. Midstream subsectors experienced variable performance over the fourth quarter of On average, the Marine and Diversified subsectors provided the best performance over the quarter, each of which had underperformed earlier in the year. Conversely, the Propane and Petroleum Pipeline subsectors generated the weakest returns as each subsector had certain constituents with particularly negative stock performance driven by actual or anticipated distribution reductions. For the year, the Marine and Gathering and Processing subsectors provided the best performance, while the Diversified and Propane subsectors lagged. Third quarter midstream operating performance was reported during the period and was, on average, better than expectations with EBITDA, or Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization, coming in 2.4% higher than consensus estimates and 5.1% higher than the second quarter of Midstream entities announced 38 distribution increases, three reductions, and 29 distributions that were unchanged from the second quarter. Approximately $5.0 billion of new midstream equity was issued over the quarter via marketed transactions, including one initial public offering, and we estimate an additional $1.0 to $2.0 billion was issued through at-themarket programs in which primary units trade into the market anonymously throughout the normal trading day. We estimate MLP-focused investment vehicles, including closed-end funds, open-end funds and index-linked products, experienced approximately $1.0 billion of inflows over the quarter. This imbalance of visible equity supply and demand likely partially contributed to the sector s relatively weak performance over the period. MLP capital investment over the quarter included approximately $11.0 billion of announced asset acquisitions and we estimate $5 to $6 billion of organic capital spending. New midstream project opportunities to alleviate localized capacity constraints, meet demand from new industrial capacity, and fulfill export demand remain abundant, particularly in premier basins such as the Permian, Midcontinent, and Appalachia as well as Gulf Coast port, refinery, and petrochemical facilities. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil priced at the Cushing hub ended the quarter at $60.42 per barrel, up 17% from the end of the third quarter and 13% higher than the year-ago period. The spread between Brent crude, a proxy for international crude prices, and WTI ended the quarter close to $6.50 per barrel, remaining wider than recent normalized levels of $1 to $3 per barrel. Similar to last quarter, while the Brent-WTI spread is wider than normal, it is similar in magnitude to the spread between crude oil priced along the U.S. Gulf Coast and WTI. Importantly, this inland differential provides an arbitrage opportunity for industry participants with midstream capacity from inland basins to the Gulf Coast and is supportive for midstream providers seeking to contract new capacity, principally from the Permian basin. In fact, late in the quarter, Enterprise Products Partners (EPD) was close to placing its new Midland-to-Sealy crude oil pipeline into service and announced plans to convert an NGL pipeline to crude oil service, a private operator announced plans to proceed with the construction of a Permian to Corpus crude oil pipeline that is expected to begin service in 2019, and both Plains All American Pipeline (PAA) and Buckeye Partners (BPL) launched binding open seasons for their respective new Permian to Corpus crude pipelines. 2

3 Henry Hub natural gas spot prices ended the quarter at $2.96 per million British thermal units (MMbtu), up 3% from the end of the third quarter but 20% lower than the year ago period. Natural gas priced in certain areas of Appalachia rose substantially, boosted by additional pipeline capacity and colder than normal temperatures driving local demand. For example, natural gas pricing near Leidy, PA exited the period at approximately $2.50 per MMbtu, up from a mere $0.76 per MMbtu at the end of the third quarter. Natural gas prices in the Permian basin (Waha) also improved over the quarter, exiting the period at a premium to Henry Hub as compared to the widerthan-normal basis spread discounts seen in recent periods, driven by late season winter weather. Given the growth expectations for Permian sourced natural gas, negative basis differentials are likely to return, incenting new infrastructure construction. Notably, Kinder Morgan (KMI), DCP Midstream (DCP), and Targa Resources (TRGP) announced final investment decision ( FID ) on their joint Gulf Coast Express gas pipeline connecting the Permian basin to Corpus Christi, TX, which is expected to be placed into service in late Natural gas liquids (NGL) priced at Mont Belvieu ended the quarter at $32.99 per barrel, up 6% from the end of the third quarter and 14% higher than the year-ago period. Ethane was the only component of the NGL barrel with prices that weakened over the period, as several ethane crackers remained offline during the period following Hurricane Harvey, moderating demand. Frac spreads, a measure of natural gas processing economics, strengthened over the quarter to settle at $0.52 per gallon, up 7% from the end of the third quarter and 43% higher than the year-ago period. Generally, the greater the frac spread, the greater the incentive for producers to seek natural gas processing capacity. The backwardated structure (in which future prices are lower than near-term prices) of the crude oil futures curve steepened over the period as near-term pricing rose handily while longer-dated prices rose only modestly. The near-to-medium term backwardation of the natural gas futures curve moderated over the period as pricing for nearer-dated contracts declined more than longer-dates. Generally, for any commodity, a backwardated futures market acts to deter storage by removing the ability for traders to purchase and store the commodity today to sell at a higher hedged price in the future. Generally, providers of storage services prefer a contango market (in which future prices are higher than near-term prices) and, therefore, market structure over the period became increasingly negative for contracting available crude storage, while remaining generally unfavorable for longerterm natural gas storage. Please note, though we routinely review the pricing environments for the major energy commodities in our commentaries, we do so primarily to provide investors a more nuanced understanding of the broader energy markets. However, we choose to seek to exploit the logistical needs surrounding these products primarily through energy infrastructure MLPs that we believe are not overly exposed to changes in these prices. Over the quarter, the ten-year U.S. Treasury Bond yield increased by seven basis points to end the period at 2.41%. The MLP yield spread at quarter-end, as measured by the implied yield of the AMZ index relative to the 10-year Treasury, widened by seven basis points to 5.35%. The long-term average (2000-4Q2017) spread is 3.62%, which continues to suggest that 10-year treasury rates could increase materially before this spread approached its historical average. At period-end, the AMZ s indicated yield was 7.76%. Over the fourth quarter of 2017, REITs and utilities posted total returns of 1.5% and 0.7%, respectively, versus the AMZ s 0.9% loss. Price stability for these yield-oriented sectors likely reflects the relatively tame interest rate environment over the period. Although MLPs are often associated with interest rates, given the yield-oriented return component, energy market idiosyncrasies over the period appeared to exert a stronger influence on midstream equities. In observing the sector s underlying business drivers, we believe midstream equity valuations are attractive and sector participants have improved their positioning for the future. While the AMZ is above the cyclical low, it sits at levels present before the oil shale production renaissance. Further, the massive, and expensive, buildout of pipelines and other infrastructure needed to accommodate the new shale production also appears to be moderating, reducing the need for large amounts of fickle external capital. With a new year upon us, and many of the technical issues waning, we believe the stage is setting for a realignment of business and equity fundamentals, positioning the sector well for long-term investors seeking an attractive blend of current income, moderate growth, and, presently, attractive valuations. 3

4 Performance Attribution The most significant contributors from fourth quarter performance included: 1. NGL Energy Partners LP (NYSE: NGL) Contribution: 0.89% 5 NGL units outperformed over the period after reporting solid operating results and executing asset sales that improve the partnership s balance sheet leverage. NGL holds a differentiated, diversified portfolio of midstream assets including: Retail Propane, Liquids, Crude Oil Logistics, Water Services, and Refined Products, and maintains attractive distribution coverage and healthy cash flow growth prospects. 2. DCP Midstream LP (NYSE: DCP) Contribution: 0.37% 5 DCP units outperformed over the period after reporting strong distribution coverage and executing a preferred equity offering that is expected fund its 2018 capital program without the need for common equity issuance. DCP s robust portfolio of natural gas processing assets is expected to benefit from the significant improvement in natural processing margins driven by recent strength in natural gas liquids pricing. 3. Crestwood Equity Partners LP (NYSE: CEQP) Contribution: 0.35% 5 CEQP outperformed over the reporting period after reporting another quarter of strong operating results and distribution coverage. Additionally, the partnership executed non-core asset sales that are expected to improve leverage and fund its 2018 capital spending budget. The most significant detractors from fourth quarter performance included: 1. NuStar Energy LP (NYSE: NS) Contribution: -1.49% 5 NS underperformed over the period following a smaller than anticipated preferred equity raise and management comments at an investor conference that suggested a distribution cut at was under consideration as part of a broader strategic review aimed at addressing the partnership s elevated leverage and inadequate distribution coverage. While NuStar s new Permian assets are poised to benefit from increasing activity driving cash flow growth, we believe its general partner, NuStar GP Holdings, LLC (NYSE: NSH), is actively reviewing the partnership s structure, including a potential roll-up transaction that would consolidate the entities and remove the incentive distribution rights. 2. Genesis Energy LP (NYSE: GEL) Contribution: -0.63% 5 GEL units underperformed over the period on continued negative investor sentiment related to the acquisition of the trona-based exploration and production businesses of Tronox Limited. Although the acquisition was accretive to distributable cash flow per unit and GEL s leverage, the assets acquired were not traditional midstream assets and not well understood by MLP investors. We expect improving sequential quarterly results as new projects recently placed into service demonstrate increased utilization and contribute to operating results. Additionally, the newly acquired trona business, while not a traditional midstream asset, brings a very stable margin profile that is expected to generate consistent future cash flows. 3. Buckeye Partners LP (NYSE: BPL) Contribution: -0.52% 5 BPL underperformed over the period as market participants expressed heightened concerns related to recontracting risk, elevated leverage, and the partnership s ability to grow its distribution following recent strategic acquisitions. BPL s portfolio of strategic, long-lived, infrastructure generates highly-stable, fee-based cash flows. Despite the recent headwinds, the partnership maintains distribution coverage above 1.0x, supportive business fundamentals, and manageable external capital needs. 4

5 Yields by Asset Class 9.00% 8.00% 7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 7.89% 4.54% Sector Attribution Analysis 5 4th Quarter 2017 (as of 12/31/17) 3.70% 3.58% 1.83% 2.41% 0.00% AMZ REITs BBB Utilities S&P Yr Treasury Source: Bloomberg. Data as of December 31, 2017 and is calculated using the most recent annualized distribution. MLPs are represented by the AMZ Index. Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) are represented by the FTSE NAREIT Equity REIT Index. BBB Bonds (BBB) are represented by the U.S. Corporate Bond BBB yield. Utilities are represented by the Dow Jones Utilities Index. 10-Year Treasuries are represented by the U.S. Treasury Bond 10-year yield. S&P 500 Index is an unmanaged capitalization-weighted index of 500 stocks listed on various exchanges. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Top Ten Holdings by Issuer 5 4th Quarter 2017 (as of 12/31/17) Energy Transfer Partners LP 10.2% Sunoco LP 7.5 Buckeye Partners LP 5.8 Genesis Energy LP 5.3 DCP Midstream Partners LP 4.9 NuStar Energy LP 4.7 Enlink Midstream Partners LP 4.7 NGL Energy Partners LP 4.0 Crestwood Equity Partners LP 3.9 Enbridge Energy Partners LLC 3.7 MLP Income Fund Alerian MLP Index Attribution Analysis Average Weight Return Contribution to Return Average Weight Return Contribution to Return Sector Allocation Stock Selection Total Effect Coal Diversified Exploration & Production Gathering & Processing Natural Gas Pipelines Petroleum Transportation Propane Shipping Cash Totals Contribution to return is based on absolute stock performance in the portfolio. Attribution methodology notes: The analysis includes equity investments only and provides analysis of the effects of several portfolio management decisions, including allocation and security selection. All attribution effects are computed daily, linked through time, and do not reflect fees, expenses or transaction costs. The total returns displayed for the Fund and Benchmark do not capture the effect of daily cash flows and intra-day trading activity, and may be further impacted by pricing differentials, therefore they are subject to reasonable variance from the Fund s and the Benchmark s actual return. Past performance does not guarantee future results. 5

6 Sector Commentary The MLP space, as measured by the Alerian MLP Index (AMZ), lagged crude oil prices again over the quarter, with the AMZ ending the period down 0.9% while the West Texas Intermediate oil contract rose 16.9%. While more index constituents generated positive performance over the period than did not, the magnitude of underperformance and the respective index weights of the weaker performers pulled the index average into negative territory for the period. Outperformers Marine partnerships outperformed the AMZ over the fourth quarter. The subsector s outperformance likely reflects improved commodity prices and rising U.S exports of crude oil, liquefied petroleum gases ( LPGs ), and liquefied natural gas ( LNG ). Diversified partnerships also performed well, reflecting improved energy fundamentals and recent corporate actions that improved leverage metrics, reduced cost of capital concerns, and mitigated project risk. Underperformers Propane partnerships exhibited the weakest performance for the quarter after leading the space last quarter. The subsector s average return was weighed down by idiosyncratic balance sheet issues among two constituent partnerships. Petroleum Pipelines partnerships also lagged over the period as several subsector members stock performance was impacted by actual or anticipated distribution reductions. 6

7 SPECIAL RISKS Investing in MLPs involves additional risks as compared to the risks of investing in common stock, including risks related to cash flow, dilution and voting rights. The Fund s investments are concentrated in the energy infrastructure industry with an emphasis on securities issued by MLPs, which may increase volatility. Energy infrastructure companies are subject to risks specific to the industry such as fluctuations in commodity prices, reduced volumes of natural gas or other energy commodities, environmental hazards, changes in the macroeconomic or the regulatory environment or extreme weather. MLPs may trade less frequently than larger companies due to their smaller capitalizations which may result in erratic price movement or difficulty in buying or selling. MLPs are subject to significant regulation and may be adversely affected by changes in the regulatory environment including the risk that an MLP could lose its tax status as a partnership. Additional management fees and other expenses are associated with investing in MLP funds. The Fund is subject to certain MLP tax risks. An investment in the Fund does not offer the same tax benefits of a direct investment in an MLP. The Fund is organized as a Subchapter C Corporation and is subject to U.S. federal income tax on taxable income at the currently effective statutory tax rate as well as state and local income taxes. The potential tax benefit of investing in MLPs depend on them being treated as partnerships for federal income tax purposes. If the MLP is deemed to be a corporation, its income would be subject to federal taxation at the entity level, reducing the amount of cash available for distribution which could result in a reduction of the fund s value. MLP funds may accrue deferred income taxes for future tax liabilities associated with the portion of MLP distributions considered to be a tax-deferred return of capital and for any net operating gains as well as capital appreciation of its investments. This deferred tax liability, if applicable, is reflected in the daily NAV and as a result a MLP fund's aftertax performance could differ significantly from the underlying assets even if the pre-tax performance is closely tracked. The Fund is classified as a non-diversified fund and may invest a greater portion of its assets in the securities of a single issuer. 7

8 DISCLOSURES Past performance does not guarantee future results. 1. The Alerian MLP Index is a float-adjusted, capitalization-weighted index measuring master limited partnerships, whose constituents represent approximately 85% of total float-adjusted market capitalization. Index performance is shown for illustrative purposes and does not predict or depict performance of the fund. The index is unmanaged and cannot be purchased directly by investors. 2. The S&P 500 Index is a capitalization-weighted index of 500 stocks intended to be a representative sample of leading companies in leading industries within the U.S. economy. Index includes reinvestment of dividends but does not include fees, expenses or taxes. Index performance is shown for illustrative purposes and does not predict or depict performance of the fund. The index is unmanaged and cannot be purchased directly by investors. 3. Source: Morningstar, Inc. 12/31/2017. The Morningstar Energy Limited Partnership Category Average is the average return of the mutual funds within the investment category as defined by Morningstar. Returns include the reinvestment of distributions but do not consider sales charges. The Morningstar Energy Limited Partnership Category Average is shown for illustrative purposes only and does not predict or depict the performance of the Fund. 4. Source: Morningstar, Inc., as of 12/31/2017. Morningstar ranking is for Class A shares and ranking may include more than one share class of funds in the category, including other share classes of this Fund. Ranking is based on total return as of 12/31/2017, without considering sales charges. Different share classes may have different expenses and performance characteristics. Fund rankings are subject to change monthly. The Fund s total-return percentile rank is relative to all funds that are in the Energy Limited Partnership category. The highest (or most favorable) percentile rank is 1 and the lowest (or least favorable) percentile rank is 100. The top performing fund in a category will always receive a rank of Holdings, sector and country allocations are subject to change, do not constitute recommendations by OFI SteelPath, Inc., and are dollar-weighted based on assets. Attribution analysis is a process used to analyze the absolute return (often called contribution) and the excess return (often called relative return) between a portfolio and its benchmark. The total effect measures both the allocation effect to a sector as well as stock selection within a sector. Shares of Oppenheimer funds are not deposits or obligations of any bank, are not guaranteed by any bank, are not insured by the FDIC or any other agency, and involve investment risks, including the possible loss of the principal amount invested. These views represent the opinions of OppenheimerFunds and are not intended as investment advice or to predict or depict the performance of any investment. These views are as of the close of business on December 31, 2017, and are subject to change based on subsequent developments. The Fund s portfolio and strategies are subject to change. Total returns do not show the effects of income taxes on an individual s investment. Taxes may reduce an investor s actual investment returns on income or gains paid by the Fund or any gains realized if the investor sells his/her shares. This material is provided for general and educational purposes only, is not intended to provide legal or tax advice, and is not for use to avoid penalties that may be imposed under U.S. federal tax laws. OppenheimerFunds is not undertaking to provide impartial investment advice or to provide advice in a fiduciary capacity. Contact your attorney or other advisor regarding your specific legal, investment or tax situation. Before investing in any of the Oppenheimer funds, investors should carefully consider a fund s investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. Fund prospectuses and summary prospectuses contain this and other information about the funds, and may be obtained by asking your financial advisor, visiting oppenheimerfunds.com or calling CALL OPP ( ). Read prospectuses and summary prospectuses carefully before investing. Oppenheimer funds are distributed by OppenheimerFunds Distributor, Inc. 225 Liberty Street, New York, NY OppenheimerFunds Distributor, Inc. All rights reserved. CO January 19,