http://www.infracapmlp.com/about/management.html - AMZA is the first actively-managed C-corporation MLP ETF and was issued in October 2014.

1. 5 Reasons To Consider Buying AMZA
 AMZA is the first actively-managed C-corporation MLP ETF and was issued in October 2014.
 The fund made its first distribution in January 2015, and at $0.50 would project to amount to a
roughly 9% annual yield.
 I provide five reasons to consider buying this fund, ultimately relying on the skill of the fund's
manager.
Last October, I wrote about C-corporation Master-Limited Partnership (MLP) ETFs, and
mentioned a couple of ETFs that, due to their recent inception, had insufficient background to
enable adequate discussion. I would like to backtrack a bit to discuss one of those "young" funds:
InfraCap MLP ETF (NYSEARCA:AMZA).

2. AMZA began trading on 2 October, 2014; its start could not have been less propitious. The
fund's holdings are all in the oil industry, and in October, the industry was in the midst of a major
decline in oil prices. The drop in oil prices has dampened investor expectations.
AMZA is a C-corporation ETF focusing on MLPs; it is also one of the approximately 125
actively-managed ETFs currently available. Both of these considerations mean that AMZA is
going to have a substantial expense burden: C-corporations must pay taxes on their income,2
and
actively-managed funds generally cost more to operate.3
The question that confronts the potential investor is whether an actively-managed fund - and a
tax-burdened one, at that - is worth the additional expenses. Given that the active ETF is going to
have to pay out more than the passive ETF, and given that those expenses are ultimately taken
out of the moneys that would normally go to shareholders in the form of distributions, is the
active fund going to pay out better than a passive fund?
While it is up to the individual investor to decide the issue of what counts as "better," and while
each active ETF is different, I have five considerations that apply to AMZA that may make it an
attractive holding. My research in, and understanding of, AMZA was aided (and abetted) by a
conversation with fund manager Jay D. Hatfield, president and co-founder of Infrastructure
Capital Advisors, LLC and co-founder and general partner of NGL Energy Partners LP
(NYSE:NGL).4
For purposes of exposition, I will be comparing AMZA to a passive C-corporation ETF: ALPS
Alerian MLP (NYSEARCA:AMLP).5

3. Responsibility for the Actively-Managed Portfolio
The fund manager is the primary focus for an actively-managed ETF. In passive ETFs, the
management team follows a "roadmap" laid out for it by the fund's index; it may have more or
less leeway in choosing how to follow that roadmap, but the basic contents of the portfolio are
set for it.
The active managers, on the other hand, have the freedom to structure their fund's portfolio
according to their best judgment - and this is perhaps the most crucial element for the fund. If the
manager is out of step with the target sector/market, or if their skills are not adequately
developed, the fund is likely to founder regardless of the manager's best intentions. Skilled
managers, on the other hand, are able to bring their knowledge experience to their fund; this
may not guarantee success, but it at least makes success more likely.
The first consideration, then, would reasonably be AMZA's manager: Jay D. Hatfield. A look
at Mr. Hatfield's experience should give us an indication of his abilities:6

4.  As President of ICA, he manages four other funds besides AMZA: Infrastructure Macro Income
Fund, LP; Infrastructure MLP Income Fund, LP; Infrastructure Long/Short Opportunity Fund,
LP; and InfraCap Real Estate Income Fund, LP
 Served as Portfolio Manager for S.A.C. Capital Advisors (now Point72 Asset Management)
 Was Managing Director and Head of Fixed Income Research, Zimmer Lucas Partners
 Headed Global Utility Investment Banking at CIBC/Oppenheimer
 Was Principal in the Global Power & Utilities Investment Banking Unit at Morgan Stanley & Co.
Mr. Hatfield seems to have experience in portfolio management, the energy sector, alternative
investment instruments, hedge funds; his involvement with NGL (which is included in
AMZA's portfolio) also gives him direct experience in the MLP area. To my mind, this makes
him singularly qualified to manage the AMZA portfolio in a hands-on fashion.
Flexibility Inherent in Active Management
In principle, perhaps the major advantage AMZA (and any actively-managed ETF) has is
flexibility - the ability to be able to develop and modify the fund's portfolio according to the
manager's perception of economic conditions at the time, rather than in accordance with the
structural dictates of an index.
Any market - and particularly the oil/natural gas market, of late - is dynamic. The active fund
makes it possible for the manager to adjust the fund's portfolio on the fly to accommodate
changes in market conditions. In AMZA's case, Mr. Hatfield has done several things with the
aim of outperforming the "standard" MLP ETF, Alerian's AMLP.
A comparison of the funds' performances since AMZA's inception is presented in the following
chart:7

5. The chart as shown points out two important things:
 Both funds have significantly outperformed The United States Oil Fund ETF, LP
(NYSEARCA:USO), which has a focus on upstream oil companies; and
 AMZA underperforms AMLP by 142bps.
As for the first point, while USO focuses on upstream oil, AMLP's index (AMZI) focuses on
midstream companies which tend to be less susceptible to the volatility of upstream companies
and whose profits are not strictly tied to the price of oil.8
Upstream concerns have been hit
hardest by last year's drop in oil prices; midstream companies have been less affected.
For its part, AMZA also focuses its holdings in the midstream oil companies; in fact, 24 of its 36
holdings are identical to those in AMLP/AMZI. However, the similarity ends there. AMLP's
portfolio is dictated by AMZI, and AMZI weighs its holdings (which are chosen based on
distribution) according to market capitalization.
AMZA, on the other hand, is weighted according to Mr. Hatfield's perception of each holding's
value to the portfolio as a whole; this points to the second consideration: In the actively managed
portfolio, assets can be assigned to a holding according to the manager's conception of the
portfolio and the expectations for each particular holding in it. Specifically, in AMZA's case,
holdings are weighted according to their growth prospects.9

6. Beyond the MLPs
AMZI tracks the performance of MLPs only, and - being tied to its index - AMLP counts among
its holdings, 24 MLPs. These may be among the largest midstream MLPs, but AMLP holds only
these, and only in proportions consistent with its index.
In structuring AMZA's portfolio, Mr. Hatfield added depth to the 24 basic MLPs by investing in
companies that were general partners in some of those MLPs (and, in a few cases, putting more
weight on the general partner than on its MLP). In all, AMZA's portfolio has general-partner
holdings in nine of the 24 MLPs in its portfolio.
Has this strategy worked? As I prepared this article, I constructed an informal back-test of the
AMZA portfolio (as weighted) to get an idea of how the portfolio's holdings would have
performed over the past 5 years. This chart gives the results:
(click to enlarge)
The portfolio, as a whole, would seem to have done quite well although there is no escaping the
2014 downturn.
I then thought to examine AMZA's hypothetical performance in a different way: Compare the
portfolio as a whole to those holdings identical to AMLP (call this AMZI*), alongside the
"extension" of AMZA's extra 12 holdings (call this Non-AMZI*). To cap the comparison off, I
would add AMLP by way of comparing the five-year performance of AMZI to AMZI*.10

7. The results:
Perhaps most notable is the difference in performance between AMLP's use of AMZI and the
differently weighted performance of AMZA's AMZI*. This could be taken to indicate that - over
time - AMZA has a strong likelihood of outperforming AMLP even if both funds were limited to
the same 24 holdings, just by virtue of different weightings.11
Equally important, however, is the effect of the added holdings (Non-AMZI*). Over the past five
years, these 12 funds have shown marked value improvement, and that improvement has had the
effect of raising the performance of AMZA, as a whole, over the performance of its AMZI*
based holdings. The improvement that only seems moderate compared to the dramatic
improvement in Non-AMZI* can be attributed to the fact that AMZI* makes up nearly 82% of
assets compared to Non-AMZI*'s just-over 18%.
Our third consideration, then, is that the added depth to AMZA's portfolio - a product of
manager Jay Hatfield's approach to the fund - results in an improvement in fund performance
that complements the improvements he introduced with his different weighting scheme.
The Impact on Distributions
While the extended depth of AMZA's holdings seems to bode well for its future performance,
one can argue that it represents a setback to the fund's distributable income. The "basic" 24
holdings account for an annual income for the fund of $396,289.69 (ttm), for an effective yield
of 4.58%.12

8. With the 12 added holdings, the income increases to $457,133.01 for an effective yield of
4.32%.13
This means that, after projected expenses, AMZA would be offering its shareholders a
dividend yield of approximately $1.02 per year for a yield of about 4.58%.14
AMLP currently offers a yield of 6.71%. While AMZA's performance might look to be a good
bet, dropping 213bps in yield would seem to constitute a serious blow to the fund's active
management.
However, in January 2015, AMZA distributed $0.50 in dividends to shareholders (dividends are
to be paid quarterly). Such a distribution, if annualized, would amount to almost double what I
was able to identify from dividends paid by holdings and would constitute a yield of
approximately 9%.
When I asked if he thought that kind of dividend was sustainable, Mr. Hatfield answered in the
affirmative and was quick to bring up an important aspect of his management: He has instituted
the use of covered call options to boost fund income. Because of this tactic, AMZA was able to
increase dramatically the dividend it was able to offer. Mr. Hatfield expressed confidence that
the use of covered calls would enable the yield to remain in the vicinity of $2.00 per share per
year.15
Our fourth consideration, then, is the freedom the active manager has of using various
investment instruments to amplify the gains - and/or offset losses - the fund's basic holdings may
bring about. Even if it were ultimately able to generate half as much as it did for the first-quarter
dividends, AMZA would still offer a yield larger than that of AMLP.16
Constructive Use of Leverage
Debt is a double-edged sword, as I see it. It enables one to access resources one might not be
able to afford on one's own; it also becomes a burden, with interest payments and repayment of
principle diminishing one's ultimate return. Debt is one of the things that can cool my enthusiasm
for any investment.
That said, when used properly, it can help boost a company's (or a fund's) flexibility, enabling it
to make quick decisions and moves that can enhance operations. If used judiciously, leverage can
be deployed without engendering the fear of reduced future income.
ETFs are restricted in the amount of leverage they can employ; the Investment Company Act
of 1940 sets a limit of one-third of its asset value as the most a fund can borrow. AMZA
currently has borrowed 20%, the funds being used to implement the strategy and tactics Mr.
Hatfield deems necessary. This use of leverage, he contends, will enable AMZA to outperform
AMLP in the long run,17
and is the fifth, and final consideration we will look at.
Assessment
At the beginning of this discussion, I claimed that there were five reasons to give an actively-
managed fund such as AMZA serious consideration as a holding. Those considerations are:

9. 1. The experience and skill of the fund manager, Mr. Jay D. Hatfield, at making decisions about the
fund's portfolio and operations;
2. the freedom such a fund has in terms of varying the weightings of the holdings in its portfolio;
3. the ability to approach the portfolio's allocation strategy in ways not always accessible to a
passive fund;
4. the use of varied instrumentalities to enhance the performance of the fund beyond its holdings
and their performance; and
5. the flexibility to employ leverage as deemed necessary to optimize operations.
I came away from our conversation with the sense that Mr. Hatfield has a firm vision of the long-
term strategies that will bring about the growth in share value and the growth in distributable
income that could make AMZA a valuable part of any portfolio. Points 2-5 above constitute Mr.
Hatfield's three reasons why he believes AMZA will outperform AMLP by at least 300bps, and
as high as 500bps (he lumps 2 and 3 together while I see them as two different strategies).
In terms of the added costs, both active management and operation as a C-corporation entail, this
is a judgment each individual investor will have to answer for themselves. If the use of covered
calls is able to consistently boost distributable income, and if the oil market meets Mr. Hatfield's
belief that oil will be going for more than $60.00 per barrel in the next year,18
both yield and
performance should give a substantial total return for the investor.
I am not sure that the share value of AMZA will appreciate quickly, as the general oil situation is
still somewhat unstable, and instability in price and supplies of oil will keep upstream and
midstream stocks down. Further, with the Fed getting closer to committing to a rate hike, the
impact of such a hike on MLPs, their general partners, and AMZA itself, will be indeterminate.
I do see an upside to AMZA, and perhaps one in keeping with the roughly 20% increase Mr.
Hatfield sees in the price of crude. That AMZA is a young fund may mitigate its performance
somewhat, but a consistently high distribution would offset any downside. Long term, I think
this fund has excellent potential, that potential contingent on maintaining Mr. Hatfield (or a
comparably skilled replacement) as its manager.
Disclaimers
This article is for informational use only. It is not intended as a recommendation or inducement
to purchase or sell any financial instrument issued by or pertaining to any company or fund
mentioned or described herein.
All data contained herein is accurate to the best of my ability to ascertain, and is drawn from the
Company's published documents to the extent possible. All tables, charts and graphs are
produced by me using data acquired from pertinent fund information; historical price data from
Yahoo! Finance. Data from any other sources (if used) is cited as such.
All opinions contained herein are mine unless otherwise indicated. The opinions of others that
may be included are identified as such and do not necessarily reflect my own views.

10. Before investing, readers are reminded that they are responsible for performing their own due
diligence; they are also reminded that it is possible to lose part or all of their invested money.
Please invest carefully.
1
"C-Corporation MLP ETFs: Why Wait?"
2
For a discussion of the tax burden assumed by the C-corporation ETF refer to the early portion
of the article noted in #1, above.
3
Keep in mind that the passive fund is "managed" on a quarterly basis, usually; an active fund,
on the other hand, can engage its management team as often as deemed necessary. Further,
rather than following an index, the active fund management develops its own, proprietary,
method of portfolio management. This "extra" engagement of management comes at a price.
4
Jay D. Hatfield and I engaged in a phone interview on February 18, 2015. All references to Mr.
Hatfield refer to that interview. I thank Jay for taking the time to talk with me.
5
AMLP was considered the superior fund of those considered in the earlier article (#1, above).
The data in this table is updated from that in the earlier article, using data from the Annual
Report of November 2014. In particular, AMLP's E.R. is cited as being 8.56% while I was able
to calculate an E.R. of 5.09% based on the data provided in the recent AR. Any error in
calculation is mine, and is regretted. For reasons that will be clear as the discussion progresses,
Mr. Hatfield encouraged the comparison of AMZA to AMLP's index, AMZI.
6
Information culled from Infrastructure Capital Advisors' biography, viewable here.
7
United States Oil Fund LP is included to provide comparison to near-month crude oil futures.
8
Upstream companies are involved in exploration, drilling and extraction. Midstream
companies are focused on the transportation, processing and storage of oil.
9
Per phone conversation, #4 above.
10
In principle, this pits two versions of AMZI against each other. The difference between the two
would (again, in principle) be the different weighting systems used: AMZI's cap-weighted
scheme to AMZI*'s "prospect-weighted" scheme.
11
Of course, the standard disclaimer applies: past performance does not imply future
performance.
12
That is, the yield it realizes from its holdings.
13
Again, the yield AMZA realizes from its holdings. By themselves, the 12 additional holdings
realize an income of $60,843.33, amounting to a yield of 3.16%

11. 14
These figures are based on the stated E.R. of 1.05% subtracted from projected income, then
divided among shares outstanding. AMZA currently has 350,000 shares outstanding.
The reader should realize that these figures represent estimates on my part based on available
data, and do not claim to be representative of the fund's actual income.
15
Per phone conversation, #4 above. It is worth noting that covered calls have the potential to
bring about costly losses, as well as substantial gains.
16
It should be pointed out that, as I researched dividend payouts for the MLPs held by AMZA,
nearly all of them showed gradual, consistent, increases in distributions as the past 12 months
played out.
17
Per phone conversation, #4 above. According to Mr. Hatfield, AMLP is leveraged to only
10%.
18
Per phone conversation, #4 above.