Brookfield. MLPs are down more than 50% from the August 2014 high, near the largest drawdown in the history of the sector.

Transcription

1 Brookfield Why MLPs, and Why Now? Public Securities Group By several measures, MLPs are more attractively valued today than they have been in many years. Yet concerns over low oil prices and the challenges facing U.S. energy producers have left many investors on the sidelines. Our view is that these challenges, while valid, are widely misunderstood, and in some respects, overblown. In fact, we see a wide gap between the perceptions and the realities of energy industry headwinds, which has set the stage for significant investment opportunities. With this issue of, Brookfield's Public Securities Group puts this backdrop into perspective, as we make the case that now is the time to invest in midstream energy. That said, not all companies in this universe carry the same level of risk, based on factors such as basin exposure, the mix of products they transport, contract structures and counterparty risk. In our view, identifying the best opportunities requires an actively managed approach to security selection, using an in-depth fundamental research process. Setting the Stage - The Evolution of Midstream Energy To fully assess the opportunity at hand, it helps to understand how the midstream energy sector has evolved over the past decade. Much of the pipeline infrastructure in the U.S., now operated by master limited partnerships (MLPs), was originally constructed by major integrated energy companies. But over time, many companies realized that it was more cost-effective to outsource these activities than to do them in-house. Many of the assets were spun off to standalone midstream energy companies, such as MLPs, which could serve multiple producers and end users engaged in the business of moving commodities efficiently to market, often with a lower cost structure. In the years of recovery after the financial crisis, MLPs flourished amid the tailwinds of low borrowing costs, technological advances driving the growth of exploration and production (E&P) companies and high commodity prices. The rapid rise of U.S. oil production buoyed the demand for new infrastructure, which many operators financed by raising new debt and equity. However, the growth outlook quickly changed in 0. With the first leg down in oil prices, the market justifiably revalued MLPs in the absence of a growth premium. Then, during the latter half of 05, oil prices collapsed amid mounting global supply, and MLPs declined in tandem. In our view, these conditions have set the stage for today s opportunity to invest in MLPs, which are now down more than 50% from the highs of August 0. Table of Contents: Setting the Stage The Evolution of Midstream Energy Today s Industry Headwinds How We Separate the Perceptions from the Realities The Dynamics of Global Energy Supply and Demand Where Do We Go from Here? Exhibit - The Anatomy of a Market Decline Tailwinds: low interests rates & production growth April 0 Crude price falls: growth is reduced Strong fears as oil prices collapse Page What Valuations Tell Us About MLP Opportunities Why Active Management Matters Now More than Ever Key Takeaways Why MLPs, Why Now and Where to Invest? 00 Jan-0 Dec-0 Oct- Aug- Jun-3 May- Mar-5 Jan- Source: Factset as of February 0 based on the performance of the Alerian MLP Index. MLPs are down more than 50% from the August 0 high, near the largest drawdown in the history of the sector.

2 Today s Industry Headwinds How We Separate the Perceptions from the Realities As highlighted in Exhibit on the previous page, MLP equity prices have moved in lockstep with the precipitous decline in crude oil even though lower prices for the commodity have had a minimal effect on midstream energy operating cash flows. We can only conclude from the magnitude of this downdraft that the real relationship between oil prices and midstream energy profitability is widely misunderstood. With the collapse of oil prices, investors have become preoccupied with the potential impact of E&P bankruptcies, closed public capital markets for financing new projects and declining oil volumes. While these factors present valid market headwinds, we see a wide gap between the perceptions and the realities of how they impact MLP cash flows. As these issues are better understood by the market, we believe that MLP valuations will move higher towards more normalized levels. Further upside could be realized as oil prices recover. The section below puts our views on the perceptions and realities of these headwinds into perspective. Headwind #: Low oil prices are driving E&Ps into bankruptcy. The Reality: Contrary to market perceptions, E&Ps at risk of bankruptcy comprise a relatively small portion of energy producers, most of which are operating in higher-cost or lowerquality basins. The lion s share of E&Ps, which make up the primary customers of MLPs, have managed to weather the collapse of oil prices without turning to bankruptcy protection. Recognizing that midstream energy activities are essential to E&P operations, few producers have renegotiated contracts to transport their production. Those at risk of bankruptcy, (which represent less than 0% of U.S. crude oil production, based on our estimates), have also continued to honor their contracts with MLPs. Even companies in the midst of bankruptcy proceedings are likely to pay on their contracts, since nearly all will continue to operate under the protection of bankruptcy laws, in these cases, and MLPs are likely to be deemed critical vendors. We expect that many of these distressed assets will be purchased by private equity and well-capitalized integrated energy companies, which have been waiting in the wings and have the ability to deploy substantial capital. We anticipate that the at-risk producers they acquire will eventually emerge better capitalized, with a lower cost of capital, and be poised to resume production growth. Exhibit - Debt/EBITDA Remains Near 0-Year Averages.5x 5.0x Headwind #: MLP access to capital markets has diminished. The Reality: Significant amounts of private market capital have been raised, and there are signs that public equity markets are reopening; on the debt side, most companies do not appear over-leveraged, relative to historical levels. While access to capital is well below historical norms, we have begun to see signs that public equity markets are reopening, particularly to what we believe to be healthier MLPs with good assets. Recent examples include $350 million raised by Shell Logistics (SHLX), and the $00 million sale of Antero Resources (AR) investment in Antero Midstream (AM). But far more significant is the nearly $ billion of private capital raised through preferred equity issuance over the past three months. 3 We expect these trends to continue, along with a rise in private equity forming joint ventures with MLPs on new projects. Another positive sign is the $0 billion of public equity raised by E&Ps during the first quarter of this year. In our view, this capital not only strengthens the financial position of these MLP customers, but it also suggests that the market s appetite for equity is returning. While debt markets were widely available to MLPs from 0 to 0, we believe that today s higher yields have greatly reduced new issuance. But even when these markets were open, most MLPs did not overleverage their assets. In fact, leverage relative to EBITDA (Earnings before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) is only slightly higher today than the 0-year average, and it is also in line with infrastructure assets outside of the energy sector. Furthermore, near-term debt maturities (within the next 8 months) represent less than 0% of total debt outstanding. These metrics, illustrated in Exhibits and 3 below, suggest that i) accumulated leverage of MLPs is manageable, and ii) MLPs have laddered maturities effectively. We believe that the period of capital spending in excess of cash flows experienced from 0 to 05 is now over. Based on our research, 0 Despite open debt markets, MLP leverage has increased only slightly over the last decade, and near-term maturities are limited. Exhibit 3 - Debt Maturing Over the Next 8 Months Represents Less Than 0% of Overall Debt $3.5B Total Debt Outstanding $.B Matures in 07 $9.B Matures in 0 Historical Average (00-05) Current as of /3/5 Source: Bloomberg, as of March 0 and Factset as of December 0 Source: Bloomberg, as of March 0 and Factset as of December 0

3 3 capital expenditures will be about 5% lower than in 05, and will likely decline even further in 07. This view mirrors consensus forward estimates on capital expenditures by the constituents of the Alerian MLP Index, as highlighted in Exhibit below. With the reduced need for large-scale new infrastructure, and the expectation that most capital needs can be met with internally generated cash flow, we believe that MLP reliance on capital markets will diminish. We believe that reduced capex and increased cash flows will close the funding gap. Exhibit - MLPs Expect Lower Capital Expenditures in 0 and 07 ($) Capex / Operating Cash Flows 5,000 0,000 35,000 30,000 5,000 0,000 5,000 0,000 5, E 07E Capex Operating Cash Flows Capex Exceeded Cash Flows Lower capital needs can be more self-funding Source: FactSet as of /3/05. Reflects the constituents of the Alerian MLP Index. Headwind #3: Decreasing crude oil volumes are likely to impact MLP cash flows significantly. The Reality: The decline in crude oil revenues represents only a small portion of MLP cash flows. In our view, investors are overly concerned about the impact of declining oil volumes. So far, U.S. production levels have maintained a slightly rising-to-flat trajectory, even though oil prices have declined about 0% over the past 8 months. These trends are illustrated in Exhibit 5. of overall MLP cash flows. To this point, MLPs also transport refined products such as gasoline and jet fuel for transportation, natural gas to heat homes and fuel industrial demand, and the natural gas liquids needed to make chemicals. Each of these commodities has its own unique supply and demand dynamic, which will contribute meaningfully to the MLP growth outlook. We anticipate further growth in MLP throughput from projects recently brought on line after years of development. In short, we don t expect MLPs to be seriously impacted by a less than 0% reduction in anticipated volumes in 0 from a business representing less than 5% of revenues. Exhibit - MLP Cash Flows by Product Type Crude Oil Storage 5% Refined Products 5% NGLs 9% Crude Oil 3% Natural Gas 8% Source: Bloomberg and Brookfield Investment Management. Data reflect cash flows of the Alerian MLP Index as of February 0. Less than 5% of MLP cash flows are attributable to crude oil transportation. Importantly, even though the prices for MLPs and crude oil prices have become more correlated, the outlook for future cash flow growth has not deteriorated in lockstep with commodity price declines. This view is supported by consensus forward estimates of 0 cash flow by MLP constituents shown in Exhibit 7. Notably, these projections are only about % below peak levels in 0. Exhibit 7 - Forward Estimates of 0 Cash Flow Growth for Alerian MLP Index Constituents Exhibit 5 - Crude Oil Prices and U.S. Oil Production Trends $5 $0 Reduced % from peak in oil prices, but still growing,000 0 $35,000 0 $30 U.S. Crude Production (mb/d) 0,000 9,000 8,000 7,000,000 5, WTI Crude Price ($/bbl) $5 $0 $5 $0 $5 Cash Flows per Share ($) Estimates as of 8/0,000 3, E 07E,000 0 Dec-09 Nov-0 Sep- Jul- Jun-3 Apr- Feb-5 Dec-5 U.S. Crude Production WTI Crude Prices Source: Bloomberg as of December 05. While we do expect U.S. crude oil production to decline in 0, MLP cash flows, in the aggregate, could actually grow from 05 levels. The reason is that crude oil transportation represents only a modest portion Source: Brookfield Investment Management; FactSet. As of /9/0. Reflects the constituents of the Alerian MLP Index. While we do expect crude oil production to decline, in aggregate, industry estimates suggest that MLP cash flows could grow from 05 levels.

4 The Dynamics of Global Energy Supply and Demand Where Do We Go from Here? The oversupply of global oil markets is moderate. The supply overhang in global oil markets currently represents about % of the world s annual production. From here, we expect new supply growth to be moderate. One reason for our belief is that today s low pricing environment has curtailed drilling activities worldwide. Importantly, even when oil prices were much higher and companies and countries had more money to invest, the world failed to grow production from new discoveries for more than a decade, outside of North American shale basins and Canadian Oil Sands. As a result of the current underinvestment, we expect global inventories to decline in support of a more balanced global supply situation. The global demand for oil will continue to grow. History shows that the global demand for oil has grown in each of the past 5 years, other than in the depths of the financial crisis. Our view is that oil demand, which is consumer-driven, will continue to rise, even if global GDP grows moderately at just -3%, as currently projected by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). 5 This view is consistent with recent Energy Information Agency (EIA) projections, which call for global demand to grow by. million barrels per day in both 05 and 0, following growth of.3 million barrels per day in 05. Importantly, current EIA estimates suggest that the current overhang of global supply (.9 million bpd) will reduce to 0. million bpd in the third and fourth quarters of this year. Also of note is that the estimates highlighted in Exhibit 8 below are far less reliant on economic conditions in China, which represent about 5% of the anticipated increase in demand during 0 (versus about 55% of global demand growth from ). In its place, this year s demand from India is expect to exceed that of China for the first time. Exhibit 8 - The Rebalancing of Global Oil Supply and Demand Q 0 Q 0 Q3 0 Q 03 Q 0 Q 0 Q3 05 Q 0 Q 07 Q 07 Implied stock change and balance (right axis) (million barrels per day) World production (left axis) (million barrels per day) Source: EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook April 0 Global oil markets could move back into balance by 07. Midstream energy companies would benefit as global supply and demand begin to rebalance. In combination, we expect these global trends for supply and demand, coupled with a flat-to-stable pricing environment, to bring oil markets back into balance by 07. From there, the continuation of moderate demand growth could quickly tip this newfound balance into an undersupplied situation. Under these conditions, the U.S. would be uniquely positioned to grow production, given the flexibility of shale producers to bring lowcost production on line quickly. In contrast, conventional production generally requires large-scale capital commitments and long lead times to begin wells on line. We expect midstream energy companies to benefit from these trends, particularly the gatherers and processors positioned close to the wellhead. What Valuations Tell Us About MLP Opportunities We believe that MLP valuations are exceptionally attractive on an absolute basis, and also relative to the global listed infrastructure universe more broadly. As shown in Exhibit 9 below, MLPs are trading at a price-to-cash-flow multiple of 8.x, which is near the lows of the financial crisis. At the same time, they are trading at about 9.9x the ratio of Enterprise Value (EV) to EBITDA, a commonly used valuation metric for infrastructure securities. Notably, this level is significantly below the valuations of global infrastructure assets more broadly, which trade at about.0 x EV/EBITDA. Exhibit 9 - MLP Valuations are Hovering Near the Lows of Absolute valuations near lows Price-to-Cash-Flow Multiple Nov-07 Jul-09 Mar- Oct- Jun- Mar- Alerian MLP Index Historical Average, - +/ Std. Dev. Source: FactSet and Brookfield Investment Management as of 3/0 reflecting the longest available dataset. Represents median valuation metrics based on forward months analysis derived using the constituents of the Alerian MLP Index. Note: P/CF (Price/ Cash Flows per Share), EV/EBITDA (Enterprise Value/Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization). Brookfield Investment Management cannot warrant that P/CF or EV/EBITDA levels will meet historical percentages shown above. Earlier in this report, we made the case that markets misunderstand the true impact that low oil prices have on midstream energy profitability. In fact, it has been far less severe than widely perceived. As markets begin to understand this reality, we expect today s low valuations to move higher towards more normalized levels, similar to those of other infrastructure assets. Further upside should unfold as oil prices recover to levels leading to the return of growth to the energy complex. Why Active Management Matters Now More than Ever Our case for active management is driven by some of the structural flaws we see in allocating to MLPs through passive structures, such as funds that mirror an index. One such flaw is the high concentration of market capitalization in just a few large companies. Consider the Alerian MLP Index, in which three companies represent 0% of the market capitalization of the index and the top 0 constituents represent about 5%. The index also contains non-traditional MLPs several of which are actually E&Ps. Also among the constituents are some business models we would characterize as risky, along with some companies at risk for dividend reductions or financial distress..8x 8.x Relative valuations at a significant discount EV/EBITDA Multiple.0x EV/EBITDA Global Infrastructure Historical Average 9.9x EV/EBITDA Alerian MLP Index Current

5 5 Exhibit 0 highlights the wide dispersion in the valuations of MLP subsectors. While all of these segments appear inexpensive relative to historical levels, there are materially higher valuations for two of these groups, based on per-unit price-to-cash-flow multiples. Exhibit 0 - Valuations of Midstream Energy Subsectors P/CF x Drop- Downs 0.9x Refined Products 7.x 7.0x 7.0x Large Cap Diversified Crude Oil Source: Brookfield Investment Management research and estimates; FactSet for the trailing five-year period as of /0. Represents median valuation metrics based on a forward -month analysis derived using the constituents of the Alerian MLP Index. Note: EV/ EBITDA (Enterprise Value/Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) and P/CF (Price/Cash Flows per Share). Brookfield Investment Management cannot warrant that EV/EBITDA or P/CF levels will meet historical percentages shown above. Natural Gas.x Gathering & Processing Current Historical Average +/- Std. Dev. Historical Average +/- Std. Dev..8x Average.8x Average There is wide dispersion in the valuations of various MLP subsectors. In our view, investors are paying too high a premium for the perceived safety of distribution growth from companies that are engineering growth through dropping-down assets to their MLPs. One reason is that many of these companies are backed by sponsors in the refining industry. While the refiners have performed relatively well during the down-cycle, they may not continue to do so, given the inherently volatile nature of their margin-based operating models. Another area of concern lies in the valuations of some long-haul crude pipelines. We do not believe that regional pricing differentials, which have collapsed in the wake of lower commodity prices, will return, even as crude prices recover and supply growth is restored. Moreover, the near-term expansion plans of many E&Ps have been significantly reduced, which only heightens the risk that producers will choose not to renew expiring contracts with long-haul pipelines. These roll-offs could be significant, given the shorter contract length of 5-0 years for pipelines. Similar dynamics have already played out in U.S. natural gas pipelines, as we highlight in the case study below. Case Study The Rise and Fall of Natural Gas Pricing Differentials: 'What is Past Could be Prologue for Long-Haul Oil Pipelines We believe that the path of long-haul oil pipelines will mirror what has already played out in U.S. natural gas markets. Our case study looks back to the first nine months of 008, when sharply rising prices for natural gas spurred strong production growth. At that time, there was a shortage of pipeline capacity in some basins, which drove significant differentials between pricing at the wellhead and at regional trading hubs. Based on our research, pipeline companies built out significant capacity, typically locking in 0-year contracts with producers. But as the capacity came to market, the undersupply of pipelines turned into an oversupply, and the discount required to sell near the wellhead was pushed to the marginal cost of transport, which is quite low. While pipelines were initially protected by their take-or-pay contracts, their revenues declined as the contracts rolled off. This decline led to a significant re-rating in the value of the assets, only magnified by challenging basin conditions impacted by declining commodity prices. In the charts below, we highlight the rise and fall of natural gas price differentials in two, major natural gas formations: the Green River in Colorado and the Marcellus in Pennsylvania. While it is unlikely that the regional differentials described above will return, many pipelines in these regions were able to repurpose their operations to evolve with changing basin dynamics. In some cases this involved reversing the flow of the pipeline to maximize throughput; they could transport production from a new basin to a trading hub. But the operations of pipelines built for uneconomic basins have remained challenged. As investors, we believe there are valuable lessons to be learned from this case study. To fully understand a pipeline s long-term value is to understand the geology of each area. This can determine whether a region is over-piped or under-piped and how production can evolve over time. Exhibit A: The Rise and Fall of Natural Gas Pricing Differentials Green River (Colorado) Marcellus (Pennsylvania) Dec-07 Oct-08 Aug-09 Jun-0 Apr- Feb- Dec- Source: Bloomberg as of December NGRMKERN Index NG Comdty Dec-07 Oct-08 Aug-09 Jun-0 Apr- Feb- 3 0 NGNECNGO - Index - NG Comdty -3 -

6 At the other end of the midstream energy spectrum, the market seems to perceive that the gatherers and processors MLPs that control the first mile of pipeline from the wellhead face the highest degree of risk. The rationale is that pipelines closest to the wellhead would be most affected by a slowdown in drilling activity. Our view is that the long haul pipelines actually carry more risk because of today s oversupplied conditions. While customers have many choices when transporting hydrocarbons over long distances, they only have one option at the wellhead. In short, the gatherers & processors control the molecule. At this time, we believe that these assets, operating in the field gathering system in close proximity to the wellhead offer potential investment opportunities. We also favor gas processing plants and some crude pipelines and terminals, as highlighted in Exhibit. But within these groups, it is important to use the lessons learned from our natural gas case study above, by identifying opportunities that operate in favorable basins, with solid counterparties. Key Takeaways Why MLPs, Why Now and Where to Invest? Throughout out this paper, we have made the case for MLPs as a component of a diversified infrastructure allocation. They are not only attractively valued versus non-energy peers, but are also extremely attractive relative to the historical valuations of the asset class. But some sectors are much better positioned than others for the long-term investor. Our key takeaways are summarized below. Why MLPs? They are critical assets in the production and marketing of hydrocarbons. Midstream energy companies are critical vendors that transport hydrocarbons from the producer to the end-market user. As such, they provide essential services, similar to those of other non-energy infrastructure assets. But they also have some distinct advantages, based on the perpetual lives of the assets, low levels of regulation and prospects for delivering attractive returns on capital. Why Now? They are inexpensive relative to history due to transient issues. We believe that MLP valuations are attractive, both on an absolute basis and in relation to other types of infrastructure assets. These dynamics have been based in large part on the perceived correlation between commodity prices and MLP cash flows. As demonstrated throughout this report, our research suggests that the real impact of oil prices has been far less severe. Once this reality is understood by the market, we believe that valuations will return to more normalized levels. Where to Invest? We offer four simple guidelines. As active managers, our strategy is to uncover opportunities with the potential to balance today s risks with the best potential upside as valuations re-rate towards more normalized valuations. In some respects, our views are contrary to current market sentiment. For example, we believe that some businesses, widely perceived as safe havens in a challenging market environment, may not be the best choices for the long-term investor. Similar to other managers, we evaluate the risks associated with basin exposure and the quality of operations but we don t just delve into the operations of MLPs. We use Brookfield s broad scope of expertise to assess the health of MLP customers, from the E&P producers to the downstream recipients of production. We also delve into the mix of products they transport, as some have better growth prospects than others. We point to four simple guidelines for allocating to midstream energy, based on the insights shared throughout this report. Four Simple Guidelines for Allocating to Midstream Energy:. Focus on Gatherers & Processors: Since their pipelines are the closest to the wellhead, they cannot easily be replaced.. Invest in Resilient Basins: In the current commodity environment, we believe that the Marcellus/Utica, Permian and DJ/Niobrara will see growth, even in the face of declining overall volumes. 3. Emphasize Quality: We believe it is important to choose midstream companies with customers that are well-capitalized and are lowcost producers.. Favor Natural Gas: We have a bias towards natural gas where the demand growth story is still intact, driven by factors such as industrial demand, power plant conversions and the potential for LNG and Mexican export. Exhibit : Where We see Opportunity in the Value Energy Chain Gas Pipeline & Storage Power Plant Natural Gas Gas Processing Plant Natural Gas Stream Petrochemical Plant Oil & Gas Well NGLs Field Gathering System Within the MLP Investment Universe Outside Investment Focus Crude Pipeline & Terminals Refinery Oil

7 7 The Brookfield Difference: A Distinct Vantage Point for Assessing Energy Infrastructure Brookfield s perspective on the MLP market is unique, relative to our peers. Brookfield s Public Securities Group is a part of Brookfield Asset Management, a global asset management company with approximately $50 billion of Assets under Management. Brookfield also invests directly in real estate and infrastructure, including energy-related pipelines and storage facilities. The investment team s affiliation with its peers owning and operating direct real assets provides a unique macro-level vantage point for seeking out opportunities in midstream energy securities. Additionally, the investment team responsible for investing in energy infrastructure brings unique perspectives to the investment process, including diverse areas of expertise ranging engineering, legal, regulatory, private equity, fixed income and equities. The team s investment activities are guided by a process that looks deeply into the various parts of the value chain from upstream oil and gas exploration & production, to transportation, storage and distribution to end-user consumers. Disclosures Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. While every care has been taken in the preparation of this document, Brookfield Investment Management Inc. does not make any representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any statement in it including, without limitation, any forecasts. Opinions expressed herein are current opinions of Brookfield Investment Management Inc. and are subject to change without notice. The mention of specific securities is not a recommendation or solicitation for any person to buy, sell or hold any particular security. Any outlooks or forecasts presented herein are as of the date appearing on this material only and are also subject to change without notice. There is no guarantee that the specific securities held were profitable or will be profitable. This document has been prepared for the purpose of providing general information, without taking account of any particular investor s objectives, financial situation or needs. The quoted benchmarks within this presentation do not reflect deductions for fees, expenses or taxes. These benchmarks are unmanaged and cannot be purchased directly by investors. Benchmark performance is shown for illustrative purposes only and does not predict or depict the performance of any investment. There may be material factors relevant to any such comparison such as differences in the volatility, and regulatory and legal restrictions between the indices shown and the strategy. Investments in global listed infrastructure will be subject to risks incidental to the ownership and operation of infrastructure assets. Such risks include risks associated with general economic climates (for example unemployment, inflation and recession); fluctuations in interest rates and currency; availability and attractiveness of secured and unsecured financing; compliance with relevant government regulations; environmental liabilities; various uninsured or uninsurable unforeseen events; infrastructure development and construction and the ability of the relevant operating company to manage the relevant infrastructure business. These risks, either individually or in combination, may cause, among other things, a reduction in income, an increase in operating costs and an increase in costs associated with investments in infrastructure assets, which may materially affect the financial position and returns of specific investments and the client accounts generally. Foreign securities involve special risks, including currency fluctuations, lower liquidity, political and economic uncertainties and differences in accounting standards. The Alerian MLP Index is a composite of the 50 most prominent energy master limited partnerships ( MLPs ) calculated by Standard & Poor's using a float-adjusted market capitalization methodology. The index is disseminated by the New York Stock Exchange real-time on a price return basis (NYSE: AMZ) and on a total-return basis (NYSE: AMZX). Forward-Looking Statements Information herein contains, includes or is based upon forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws, specifically Section E of the Securities Exchange Act of 93, as amended. Forward-looking statements include all statements, other than statements of historical fact, that address future activities, events, or developments, including without limitation, business or investment strategy or measures to implement strategy, competitive strengths, goals, expansion and growth of our business, plans, prospects and references to future our success. You can identify these statements by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. Words such as anticipate, estimate, expect, project, intend, plan, believe, and other similar words are intended to identify these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements can be affected by inaccurate assumptions or by known or unknown risks and uncertainties. Many such factors will be important in determining our actual future results or outcomes. Consequently, no forward-looking statement can be guaranteed. Our actual results or outcomes may vary materially. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. The valuations of MLPs in the Alerian MLP Index are attractively valued relative to history according to the ratios of price-to-cash flow and enterprise value-to-ebitda. See Disclosures section on page 7 for more information. 3 Source: Bloomberg Source: Bloomberg 5 Source: International Monetary Fund as of April 0; five-year estimates call for GDP growth of.% in 0 rising to 3.% in 00. Source: EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook, April 0 7 Currently, the Public Securities Group (Brookfield Investment Management) has approximately $ billion of AUM invested in energy-infrastructure related equities, and $. billion of AUM in aggregate. An investment in MLPs involves risks that differ from a similar investment in equity securities, such as common stock, of a corporation. Holders of equity securities issued by MLPs have the rights typically afforded to limited partners in a limited partnership. As compared to common shareholders of a corporation, holders of such equity securities have more limited control and limited rights to vote on matters affecting the partnership. There are certain tax risks associated with an investment in equity MLP units. Additionally, conflicts of interest may exist among common unit holders, subordinated unit holders and the general partner or managing member of an MLP; for example a conflict may arise as a result of incentive distribution payments. Additional management fees and other expenses are associated with investing in MLPs. Additionally, investing in MLPs involves material income tax risks and certain other risks. Actual results, performance or events may be affected by, without limitation, () general economic conditions, () performance of financial markets, (3) interest rate levels, () changes in laws and regulations and (5) changes in the policies of governments and/or regulatory authorities. Investing in MLPs may generate unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) for tax-exempt investors both during the holding period and at time of sale. This material is provided for general and educational purposes only, and is not intended to provide legal, tax or investment advice or to avoid legal penalties that may be imposed under U.S. federal tax laws. Investors should contact their own legal or tax advisors to learn more about the rules that may affect individual situations. FOR INSTITUTIONAL USE ONLY 0 Brookfield Investment Management Inc.