s
Abstract
This case study examines Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (EPD) and MPLX LP (MPLX) as two structurally compelling, income-generating master limited partnerships (MLPs) operating in the United States midstream energy sector. Against the backdrop of the S&P 500’s pronounced valuation premium and the relative underperformance of dividend-oriented equities, both EPD and MPLX offer distributions yielding 6.8–8.0% as of early 2026, supported by fee-based, contract-backed cash flows insulated from commodity price volatility. The study further evaluates implications for Singapore-based investors, including withholding tax exposure, access mechanisms, and strategic relevance given Singapore’s expanding role as a global LNG trading hub and its dependence on piped and liquefied natural gas imports.
- Introduction
The post-pandemic equity market has been characterised by a pronounced concentration of returns in large-capitalisation technology stocks. The S&P 500’s one-year total return of approximately 14.1% as of late 2025 stood in stark contrast to the comparably modest performance of dividend-focused equity instruments, including midstream energy MLPs, whose one-year total return (inclusive of distributions) has lagged despite demonstrating superior income characteristics. This divergence creates what contrarian analysts have framed as a structural mispricing: high-quality income assets trading at discounts to intrinsic value while growth-oriented, low-yield equities trade at historically elevated multiples.
Within this context, midstream MLPs — entities that own and operate energy infrastructure such as pipelines, processing plants, storage terminals, and export facilities — represent a distinctive asset class. Their revenues are predominantly fee-based, derived from long-term contracts that are not directly tied to underlying commodity prices. This structural characteristic renders them more analogous to regulated utilities or real estate investment trusts than to commodity producers, yet they are frequently priced as though they carry similar risk profiles to upstream energy companies.
This case study focuses on two specific entities: Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (NYSE: EPD) and MPLX LP (NYSE: MPLX). Both are among the largest North American midstream operators by enterprise value, and both have demonstrated consistent, growing distributions over extended periods. The paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 establishes the theoretical and market context; Sections 3 and 4 provide individual company analyses; Section 5 presents a comparative valuation framework; and Section 6 addresses the specific implications for Singapore-based investors. - Market Context: The Dividend Underperformance Paradox
2.1 The S&P 500 Valuation Premium
The S&P 500 index entered 2026 at historically elevated valuations, with a forward price-to-earnings ratio well above long-run averages, driven in large measure by the outperformance of mega-capitalisation technology constituents. The index’s trailing three-year total return of approximately 75.9% has substantially outpaced dividend-focused instruments. Enterprise Products Partners, for instance, delivered a three-year total return of approximately 63% over the same period — creditable in absolute terms but lagging the benchmark, a reality that has dampened sentiment toward the MLP sector despite strong underlying fundamentals.
This divergence partially reflects investor preference for capital appreciation over income in a low-inflation environment, as well as structural headwinds from rising interest rates (which historically compress yield-spread appeal) and the complexity associated with MLP tax reporting requirements (Schedule K-1 forms). However, as interest rate expectations moderate and the AI-driven technology rally raises concerns about concentration risk within passive equity portfolios, the relative value proposition of high-quality income assets is receiving renewed attention.
2.2 Global Natural Gas and LNG Tailwinds
The macroeconomic backdrop for midstream energy infrastructure is strongly supportive. According to the International Energy Agency’s Gas 2025 report, global gas demand is projected to grow at nearly 2% annually through 2026, with the Asia-Pacific region accounting for approximately half of all incremental demand growth through 2030. The IEA specifically anticipates Asian LNG imports rising by 10% in 2026, following a period of price-induced demand suppression in 2025 when spot LNG prices remained elevated.
The United States is positioned as the pivotal supplier in this demand expansion. U.S. LNG exports reached a record 11.9 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) in 2024, with the EIA projecting growth to 14.9 bcfd in 2025 and 16.3 bcfd in 2026, underpinned by new liquefaction capacity at projects including Plaquemines LNG and Corpus Christi Stage 3. North American natural gas pipeline infrastructure — the core operating domain of both EPD and MPLX — is experiencing what one analyst characterised as its largest one-year capacity expansion since 2008, with a $50 billion investment cycle underway in the Permian Basin alone.
Data centre expansion, driven by artificial intelligence workloads, constitutes an additional demand catalyst. Electricity demand from AI compute infrastructure is projected to represent up to 12% of U.S. power consumption by 2030, translating directly into sustained natural gas demand for gas-fired generation. MPLX has explicitly incorporated data centre-adjacent natural gas demand growth into its forward strategic planning.
Indicator 2024 Actual 2025 Estimate 2026 Forecast
U.S. LNG Exports (bcfd) 11.9 14.9 16.3
Asia Pacific Gas Demand Growth +5.5% <1% +4%+
Global LNG Supply Growth — +5.5% +7%
Henry Hub Avg Price (USD/MMBtu) ~2.20 ~3.55 ~4.01
U.S. Pipeline Capex Cycle — $50bn+ Ongoing
Table 1: Selected U.S. Natural Gas Market Indicators (Sources: IEA, EIA, BofA Global Research) - Case Study: Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (EPD)
3.1 Corporate Overview
Enterprise Products Partners L.P., headquartered in Houston, Texas, is one of the largest publicly traded energy infrastructure companies in North America. The partnership operates an integrated midstream platform spanning over 50,000 miles of pipeline and more than 300 million barrels of liquid storage capacity. Its operations are organised across four segments: NGL Pipelines & Services, Crude Oil Pipelines & Services, Natural Gas Pipelines & Services, and Petrochemical & Refined Products Services. More than 80% of EPD’s gross operating margin is derived from long-term, fee-based contracts, conferring high revenue visibility across commodity price cycles.
EPD reported full-year 2025 revenues of $52.60 billion and net income of approximately $5.81 billion. Q4 2025 earnings beat consensus estimates, with revenues of $13.79 billion exceeding expectations by $1.43 billion and EPS of $0.75 topping estimates by $0.06. The quarter was characterised by record EBITDA and robust volume growth in Natural Gas and Petrochemical & Refined Products segments.
3.2 Distribution Profile and Financial Discipline
EPD has increased its quarterly distribution for 27 consecutive years — a record that distinguishes it among public energy companies globally and places it within a very small cohort of equities with such sustained distribution growth histories. As of early 2026, the annualised distribution stands at $2.18 per unit, implying a forward yield of approximately 6.8% based on prevailing unit prices. The distribution coverage ratio of 1.5 times, while seemingly modest, reflects a deliberate cash retention strategy: the partnership retained $635 million in distributable cash flow during Q3 2025 alone, building a financial cushion against macroeconomic uncertainty.
The partnership’s $5.0 billion unit buyback programme, with $3.6 billion of capacity remaining, further reinforces capital return discipline. By repurchasing units when they trade below intrinsic value, EPD effectively deploys capital at a discount, compounding returns for remaining unitholders. EPD has returned a total of $61 billion to unitholders since its IPO, a figure that contextualises its reliability as an income instrument.
Analyst consensus as of February 2026 rates EPD a Buy, with a 12-month price target in the $36–38 range. Goldman Sachs maintained a $32 price target at an earlier date but acknowledged improved distribution coverage as a key forward catalyst. Wells Fargo raised its target from $36 to $38 following the Q4 2025 earnings beat, while Scotiabank also raised its target from $35 to $37.
3.3 Growth Catalysts
EPD’s $5.1 billion capital project backlog underpins distribution growth expectations of 5%+ annually. Key growth initiatives include expanded NGL export infrastructure at the Bahia pipeline (co-developed with ExxonMobil), new natural gas processing facilities in Colorado, Louisiana, New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming, and NGL fractionation capacity expansions timed to meet projected demand. Management guided to approximately 10% EBITDA growth for the current fiscal year, and capex is expected to decline post-2026 as the current investment cycle concludes, unlocking an estimated $2.2–2.5 billion in annual discretionary cash flow.
EPD’s strategic positioning in U.S. ethane exports represents a distinctive structural advantage. As Asia-Pacific petrochemical manufacturers increasingly substitute ethane for naphtha as a feedstock — a trend driven by cost differentials — EPD’s dominant export infrastructure positions it to capture a disproportionate share of growing trans-Pacific NGL trade flows.
3.4 Valuation
On a trailing enterprise value-to-EBITDA basis, EPD trades at approximately 10.5x, modestly below the broader industry average of 10.53x. Its Price/Book ratio also reflects a discount relative to midstream peers. The forward distribution yield of 6.8% compares favourably to peers Kinder Morgan (4.3%) and Enbridge (5.7%). Over a five-year horizon, EPD’s total return of approximately 63% (inclusive of distributions reinvested) compares creditably to the S&P 500’s 75.9%, but the income component is substantially higher, which many institutional and income-oriented retail investors value on a risk-adjusted basis.
Metric EPD Kinder Morgan (KMI) Enbridge (ENB) Industry Avg
Distribution Yield 6.8% 4.3% 5.7% ~3.7%
EV/EBITDA (Trailing) 10.5x ~10.5x ~11x 10.53x
Consecutive Distribution Increases 27 years — — —
Distribution Coverage Ratio 1.5x ~1.9x ~1.5x —
3-Year Total Return ~63% — — —
Table 2: EPD Comparative Valuation and Distribution Metrics (Sources: TIKR, Nasdaq, Simply Wall St, Seeking Alpha) - Case Study: MPLX LP (MPLX)
4.1 Corporate Overview
MPLX LP is a master limited partnership formed in 2012 by Marathon Petroleum Corporation (MPC), the largest crude oil refiner in the United States. The partnership operates a diversified energy midstream platform comprising crude oil and refined product pipelines and terminals, as well as natural gas and NGL gathering, processing, and fractionation facilities in key producing basins including the Permian and Marcellus/Utica. The majority of MPLX’s cash flows are fee-based, underpinned by long-term contracts and government-regulated rate structures. Marathon Petroleum retains approximately 60% ownership of MPLX’s units and is the partnership’s primary counterparty, providing revenue stability through minimum volume commitments.
Full-year 2025 results demonstrated robust performance: revenues of $11.82 billion represented a 6.16% increase year-over-year, while net income attributable to MPLX grew 14.74% to $4.91 billion and adjusted EBITDA reached $7.0 billion. Q3 2025 revenues grew 21.9% year-over-year, a notable beat that management attributed to accelerating natural gas volumes and the integration of the $2.4 billion Northwind Midstream acquisition.
4.2 Distribution Profile and Capital Allocation
MPLX declared a quarterly distribution of $1.0765 per common unit for Q4 2025, representing an annualised rate of $4.31 per unit. At recent unit prices, this implies a forward yield of approximately 7.4–8.0%, making MPLX one of the highest-yielding publicly traded midstream entities in the United States. Critically, MPLX’s distribution coverage ratio of 1.4x and a payout ratio of approximately 58.6% leave substantial retained cash flow — an estimated $2.5–3.0 billion annually — to fund growth capital expenditures and reduce debt without unit dilution.
Management guided for 12% annual distribution growth through at least 2027, a projection that, if sustained, would materially compound total returns relative to a static yield model. MPLX has increased distributions every year since its formation in 2012. The unit count has declined by approximately 8% through buybacks, further enhancing per-unit returns for existing holders.
4.3 Strategic Growth Initiatives
MPLX’s 2026 growth capital programme of $2.4 billion is concentrated approximately 90% in natural gas and NGL assets in the Permian and Marcellus basins, reflecting management’s conviction in the structural growth of U.S. natural gas production. Key projects under development include Harmon Creek III (300 MMcf/d processing capacity, Q3 2026 start), two Gulf Coast NGL fractionation facilities of 150 mbpd each (2028–2029 completion), and a 400 mbpd LPG export terminal on the Gulf Coast (2028 start). All projects target mid-teen unlevered internal rates of return and are backstopped by long-term commitments from producers and Marathon Petroleum.
MPLX’s management has also articulated a thematic growth driver linked to data centre electricity demand. Natural gas-fired generation is anticipated to underpin AI compute infrastructure growth through the latter part of this decade, with MPLX’s Permian and Marcellus assets well-positioned to supply gathering and processing capacity to the producers feeding this power demand cycle. MPLX’s EBITDA is projected to grow from approximately $2.81 billion in 2026 to $3.60 billion by 2030, representing a 6.3% compound annual growth rate underpinned by contracted project pipelines.
4.4 Valuation and Risk Considerations
MPLX trades at approximately 11.6x earnings, below the broader oil and gas industry’s trailing P/E of approximately 13.6x, and well below a peer-average “fair” P/E of approximately 20x as estimated by fundamental DCF-based models (Simply Wall St). On an EV/EBITDA basis, MPLX trades at approximately 13.58x, a modest premium to EPD that analysts regard as justified by MPLX’s superior distribution growth rate (9.4% five-year CAGR versus approximately 4.2% for peers) and higher cash flow conversion margins on incremental Permian volumes (estimated at 60–70% EBITDA margin on throughput growth).
The primary risk factor specific to MPLX is customer concentration: approximately 90% of crude logistics revenue is derived from Marathon Petroleum, creating dependency risk in the event of MPC operational disruptions, strategic repositioning, or attempts to collapse the MLP structure. However, Marathon Petroleum has on several occasions explored strategic alternatives for MPLX — including a full acquisition — which analysts note would likely result in a significant unit price premium. The MPC-MPLX relationship thus represents both a concentration risk and an embedded optionality on a potential corporate restructuring event.
Metric Value
Forward Distribution Yield ~7.4–8.0%
Annualised Distribution (Q4 2025) $4.31 per unit
Distribution Coverage Ratio 1.4x
2025 Adjusted EBITDA $7.0 billion
2025 Revenue Growth (YoY) +6.16%
2025 Net Income Growth (YoY) +14.74%
2026 Growth Capex $2.4 billion
Projected EBITDA CAGR (2026–2030) 6.3%
Distribution Growth Guidance ~12% per annum through 2027
Projected Total Return (Yield + Growth) 16–17% annualised
Table 3: MPLX Key Financial and Distribution Metrics (Sources: MPLX LP Press Release, GuruFocus, Seeking Alpha, Motley Fool) - Comparative Analysis: EPD vs. MPLX
While both EPD and MPLX operate within the midstream infrastructure space and share structural characteristics — fee-based revenues, long-term contracts, high payout yields — they represent meaningfully different risk-return profiles appropriate for different investor objectives.
EPD is the more conservative of the two: a larger, more diversified platform with a 27-year consecutive distribution growth record, moderate yield (~6.8%), and a capital deployment cycle that is approaching completion, suggesting stronger free cash flow generation post-2026. Its $5.0 billion buyback programme and A-rated balance sheet reflect financial orthodoxy. EPD is appropriate for investors who prioritise distribution safety and long-term income stability over distribution growth velocity.
MPLX presents a more dynamic profile: a higher current yield (~7.4–8.0%), a more aggressive distribution growth trajectory (12% guided for 2027), and a capital programme oriented toward structural growth assets in the Permian and Gulf Coast LNG supply chain. The Marathon Petroleum concentration risk is partially offset by the embedded optionality of a potential MLP simplification transaction. MPLX is appropriate for investors seeking a higher current income combined with meaningful distribution growth potential, accepting a modestly elevated counterparty concentration risk.
Criterion EPD MPLX
Current Distribution Yield ~6.8% ~7.4–8.0%
Distribution Growth (Guided) ~5%+ p.a. ~12% p.a. through 2027
Distribution Safety Very High (27yr record) High (covered 1.4x)
Customer Concentration Low (diversified) High (~90% MPC)
Balance Sheet Quality Investment Grade (A) Investment Grade (BBB)
Capex Cycle Approaching completion Heavy ($2.4bn in 2026)
Key Growth Driver NGL/Ethane Exports Permian Gas + Data Centre
Valuation (EV/EBITDA) ~10.5x (below peers) ~13.6x (justified by growth)
Analyst Consensus Strong Buy Buy
Ideal Investor Profile Income stability Income + growth
Table 4: EPD vs. MPLX Comparative Summary - Singapore Investment Perspective
6.1 Strategic Energy Context
Singapore occupies a unique position in the global LNG value chain. As Southeast Asia’s premier energy trading and brokering hub, Singapore-based companies are deeply embedded in U.S. LNG origination, cargo trading, and downstream distribution across the Asia-Pacific region. The country’s domestic energy security is also directly relevant: pipeline gas exports from neighbouring Indonesia and Malaysia are projected to decline, increasing Singapore’s dependence on imported LNG. The IEEFA has specifically noted that this decline will increase pressure on Singapore’s LNG import volumes. In this context, the infrastructure assets owned by EPD and MPLX — which move, process, and export U.S. LNG precursors — are not merely financial instruments for Singapore investors, but are operationally intertwined with Singapore’s energy supply chain.
The IEA’s base case projects Asia Pacific to account for nearly half of all global gas demand growth through 2030, with LNG imports projected to increase by 10% in 2026 alone. The United States, by virtue of its dominant LNG export trajectory (accounting for over 80 bcm of newly approved annual liquefaction capacity in 2025 alone), is positioned as the structural swing supplier for this Asian demand increment. EPD and MPLX, as owners of the gathering, processing, and fractionation infrastructure feeding U.S. LNG export terminals, are direct beneficiaries of this structural trade flow.
6.2 Tax and Structural Considerations for Singapore-Based Investors
Singapore investors considering direct investment in U.S.-listed MLPs face a specific and consequential set of tax complications that distinguish MLPs from conventional U.S. equities.
The most significant consideration is that MLP distributions constitute income effectively connected with U.S. trade or business (ECI) rather than simple dividends. For foreign investors — including Singapore-resident individuals and institutional investors — this classification means distributions are subject to U.S. withholding tax at a rate of up to 37% (the maximum applicable rate), substantially above the standard 30% withholding applicable to ordinary dividends from U.S. corporations. Importantly, unlike most countries, Singapore has no bilateral tax treaty with the United States that would reduce this withholding rate, a material disadvantage compared to, for example, investors from treaty jurisdictions who may access reduced rates.
Additionally, MLP investments generate Schedule K-1 tax forms rather than the Form 1099 issued by standard corporations. K-1 forms report each investor’s allocable share of partnership income, deductions, and credits, and may require Singapore-based investors who receive them to file U.S. federal tax returns, even when they have no other U.S. nexus. This administrative complexity is a practical deterrent for many private investors.
For Singapore-based institutional fund managers operating under Sections 13D, 13O, or 13U of the Singapore Income Tax Act — schemes that were extended to December 2029 under the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s October 2024 circular — MLP distributions may be treated differently from qualifying fund income, and advice from Singapore tax counsel is warranted before substantial allocations are made.
6.3 Access Alternatives for Singapore Investors
Recognising the K-1 complexity and ECI withholding burden associated with direct MLP investment, Singapore-based investors may consider alternative access structures that preserve economic exposure to midstream energy infrastructure while managing tax friction. The most commonly used vehicle is the Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP), which is structured as a C-corporation rather than a partnership. Because AMLP consolidates MLP distributions at the fund level and issues Form 1099, investors receive ordinary dividends rather than K-1 partnership income, reducing the withholding tax rate to 30% (or potentially lower for treaty-jurisdiction investors) and eliminating the K-1 filing requirement. The trade-off is a tax drag at the fund level — AMLP pays corporate taxes on its MLP distributions before distributing to shareholders — which depresses net yield relative to direct MLP investment.
Midstream-focused ETFs structured as regulated investment companies (RICs) under U.S. tax law — such as those offered by large ETF providers covering the Alerian Midstream Energy Index — hold predominantly C-corporation midstream equities (such as Targa Resources, ONEOK, and Williams Companies) alongside some MLP exposure, and are subject only to the standard 30% dividend withholding. These vehicles offer Singapore investors a simplified access pathway at some cost to absolute yield.
For institutional investors with the operational capacity to manage Schedule K-1 complexity and accept ECI withholding, direct unit ownership of EPD or MPLX remains the highest-yield, most tax-deferral-efficient approach. A substantial portion of MLP distributions is classified as return of capital (ROC) rather than ordinary income, reducing the cost basis of units held but deferring taxation until sale. This characteristic can meaningfully enhance after-tax returns for long-term holders, even after accounting for ECI withholding.
6.4 Portfolio Implications for Singapore Investors
For Singapore-based investors with a long-term income orientation, EPD and MPLX offer characteristics that are otherwise difficult to replicate in the Singapore-listed equity market: high single-digit yields, fee-based cash flows with low commodity correlation, 26+ year distribution growth records, and direct exposure to the U.S. natural gas infrastructure cycle that underpins Singapore’s own LNG import security. The strategic coherence of adding U.S. midstream infrastructure exposure to a portfolio dominated by Singapore REITs, Straits Times Index constituents, and Asian equities is substantive: it diversifies geographic risk, adds infrastructure-like cash flow predictability, and captures the structural North America-to-Asia LNG growth theme.
The primary headwinds — ECI withholding, K-1 administrative complexity, and the absence of a U.S.–Singapore tax treaty — are real but manageable through appropriate vehicle selection, tax advice, and position sizing. Investors should also note MLP investment is typically inadvisable within Singapore Central Provident Fund (CPF) or Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) investment accounts, given the UBTI (unrelated business taxable income) complications that arise when tax-advantaged accounts hold MLP units.
Consideration Direct MLP Units AMLP ETF (C-Corp) Midstream RIC ETF
Approx. Forward Yield 6.8–8.0% ~7–8% (pre-tax drag) ~4–5%
U.S. Withholding on Distributions Up to 37% (ECI) 30% (dividend) 30% (dividend)
Singapore Tax Treaty Benefit None None None
Schedule K-1 Filing Required Yes No No
Tax-Deferred Return of Capital Yes (significant) Partial Minimal
CPF/SRS Compatibility Not recommended Use with caution Potentially suitable
Suitable Investor Profile Institutional / HNW Retail / Semi-institutional Broad retail
Table 5: Singapore Investor Access Options Comparison - Conclusion
Enterprise Products Partners and MPLX LP represent two of the most compelling risk-adjusted income opportunities in the global equity universe as of early 2026. Both benefit from structural secular tailwinds — record U.S. LNG export expansion, data centre-driven natural gas demand, Permian Basin production growth — that will sustain and likely accelerate throughput volumes on their existing infrastructure assets. Both offer distribution yields of 6.8–8.0%, supported by 1.4–1.5x coverage ratios and investment-grade balance sheets.
The relative underperformance of these instruments versus the S&P 500 over recent years reflects not a deterioration in fundamental quality but rather a structural sector rotation driven by the technology equity cycle. As that cycle matures and investors reassess concentration risk within passive portfolios, the value proposition of high-quality, contract-backed income assets is expected to gain recognition. Analyst consensus across major institutions — including Wells Fargo, Scotiabank, Goldman Sachs, and multiple independent research platforms — rates both EPD and MPLX as Buy or Strong Buy.
For Singapore-based investors, the primary academic and practical insight is that these instruments offer direct financial exposure to the same U.S. natural gas infrastructure cycle that will supply Singapore’s growing LNG import requirements through the remainder of this decade. Access requires deliberate navigation of U.S. tax complexity, but the fundamental income and total return case is structurally sound. At the margin, the appropriate vehicle (direct units vs. AMLP vs. RIC ETF) depends on investor scale, tax sophistication, and time horizon.
Disclaimer
This case study is prepared solely for academic and informational research purposes. It does not constitute financial, tax, or legal advice, and should not be relied upon as the basis for any investment decision. Past distribution performance is not indicative of future results. Singapore investors should consult qualified tax and financial advisers before investing in U.S.-listed master limited partnerships. All financial data is sourced from publicly available information and is accurate as of February 2026 to the best of the author’s knowledge.