HScreen · EPD

EPD · Enterprise Products Partners L.P. 13d old

conviction3

coverage tierT3-PRIMARY-COMPLETE

horizon12 months

Return distribution probability-weighted scenarios, never collapsed to a point

-11%25%

+14%53%

+28%22%

EV +10.83%

why these probabilities: All legs built forward from EV/EBITDA on the 38.76 price (2026-08-18), where the state file's 10.46x EV/EBITDA on FY2025 metrics implies ~USD 11.2bn EBITDA against USD 83.9bn market cap and USD 33.5bn debt principal. Distribution of 2.205/unit trailing (5.7%) is added to every leg since it is paid in all three. BASE — the market's expectation, delivered. Consensus (fmp:/stable/analyst-estimates, as_of 2026-08-19) has FY2026 revenue +12.8% / EPS +11.6% and FY2027 revenue +5.4% / EPS +9.6%, which is period-consistent with management's own guide of modest 2026 EBITDA growth then ~10% in 2027. Assume ~8% EBITDA growth to ~USD 12.1bn over the horizon on a flat 10.5x: that is ~+11% on the unit, but the dated street price target is 41 consensus / 40.5 median = only +5.8% on price, i.e. the street pays a slightly lower multiple than the growth it forecasts. Base takes the midpoint of those two, ~+8% price, +5.7% distributions = +14%. This is anchored TO consensus, deliberately; we have no model, no management access and no channel checks, so a competing revenue forecast here would be a noisier copy of the street's. BULL — growth materially above the market: ~13% EBITDA growth to ~USD 12.7bn, requiring the 2027 ~10% guide beaten as the two new Permian gas plants and the ramp of 2025-completed assets land ahead of plan (EPD/EPD_2026Q2.json:27 discloses >USD 700m of incremental growth cap

not built — options-implied distribution on the same axis, with the KL number and where the disagreement sits
needs: desk-options implied bands (v1.4 Part 4a) — activates at 60% coverage; currently 33%

Visibility how far ahead this name can be seen

not built — visibility score
needs: visibility_score.py

Trust how much weight this name's own record can carry (credibility Z)

not built — credibility
needs: credibility.py

Sizing survival-first size (half-Kelly) vs the enforced ladder

ladder (enforced)3%

kelly-derived (report-only)0.22%

divergence2.78pp

inputsEV(ann) 10.83% · σ 13.76 · Z

Payout durability does the distribution survive a downturn?

PASS

DPS trajectoryprogressive

interest cover now4.9x

interest cover at FORWARD rates4.23x

Falsifiers what would prove this wrong

The distribution is durable and rising through the horizon, funded from retained DCF rather than markets
2027 adjusted EBITDA growth of approximately 10% over 2026 is delivered, driven by fee-based cash flow off assets already commissioned
The ATEX rate reset is not materially EBITDA-negative at the partnership level
Leverage returns inside the stated 2.75-3.25x target band as large projects complete
Discretionary free cash flow of approximately USD 1bn for 2026 is held despite growth capex increases
Petrochemical operations (PDH, octane enhancement) do not deteriorate further from already-missed on-stream expectations

Conflicts surfaced, never netted out (T4)

Consensus is Buy — 34 buy, 9 hold, 2 sell across 45 covering analysts — while our probability-weighted expected return of 10.8% over 12 months sits marginally BELOW the street's like-for-like implied total return of ~11.	medium
The revision tape is UNAVAILABLE, not flat-as-a-finding. estimates_query.py drift returns n_up 0 / n_down 0 / breadth 0.0 / median_move null on both EPS and revenue over a 365-day window, and the outliers function return	high
The consensus series and management's own trajectory disagree in shape. Consensus shows FY2025 revenue -8.3% then FY2026 +12.8%, and FY2029 -3.1% / FY2030 -0.9% revenue declines with EPS still growing +3.3% / +7.6% — an	medium
Our valuation score of 5 is in tension with management's own disclosure that the unit trades at a record discount to C-corp comparables — an analyst put the gap at "a record high above anything I can recall" and manageme	medium
Consolidated leverage of 3.3x net is above the company's own stated target of 3.3x plus or minus 0.25 (2.75-3.25x range), disclosed by management as being above target because of large-project capex. This conflicts with	medium
Four of the five signal desks do not exist, so the cross-checks that would either corroborate or attack this thesis have not been run. Specifically: options_implied is null on every anchor row for both legs, so the stron	high

The case against independent adversary, different model family (P6) weakened

Version history from the research record

archived versions3

archived	hash	bytes
2026-08-17T10:34:17	e25e5b46a089	35,668
2026-08-19T05:54:53	47203ba67b08	62
2026-08-19T08:32:01	339ee56dcfe9	36,771

What changed in the latest version

-	API call failed after 3 retries: HTTP 502 — 502 Bad Gateway
+	ticker: EPD
+	as_of: 2026-08-19
+	coverage_tier: T3-PRIMARY-COMPLETE
+	analyst: analyst-aisemi
+	model_producer: claude-opus-5
+	rubric_v: v1
+	provenance:
+	produced_by: analyst-aisemi
+	produced_at: 2026-08-19
+	evidence_pack: build_evidence_pack.py EPD 2026-08-19T06:34:23Z
+	price_basis: 38.76 USD as of 2026-08-18 (fmp:/stable/profile?symbol=EPD)
+	inputs:
+	- state-files/EPD.json (state_file_build.py 2026-08-18T18:06:59Z)
…	diff truncated

Rendered from canonical artifacts only (T1) — no terminal database exists. Every figure is read from the system's own files at render time; where an artifact is missing the panel names the dependency rather than showing an empty box. No execution path exists anywhere in this interface (T5), not even a link.