For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page
What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (EPD) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.
Our current read (analysis of 2026-09-06): Designation Watch · Gem Score +1 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 35 · Value -21 · Sentiment 17 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $63.84 vs $38.02 at analysis
Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable
reference-name attribute you can cite):
profile-header/price-overview— company profile, live quote, market capextended-analysis— the core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memofuture-predictions— our forward price-band predictionsmarket-narrative/ai-findings/gpt-critique— narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)- Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers):
price-history,income-trend,key-metrics,financials(statement tables),insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.
More for machine readers: site briefing at
/llms.txt ·
any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER ·
raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds);
every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.
Enterprise Products Partners L.P.
EPD NYSEEnterprise Products Partners L.P. is a midstream energy partnership that provides transportation, processing, storage, and terminal services for natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil, refined products, and petrochemicals. Its infrastructure connects major North American supply basins with industrial customers, refiners, petrochemical manufacturers, and export markets. The company’s operations span natural gas gathering and processing, NGL fractionation and storage, crude oil logistics, and marine transportation, supported by an extensive pipeline and terminal network. Enterprise Products Partners L.P. plays a central role in moving and handling energy commodities across the value chain, helping link production sites with end users through integrated logistics and infrastructure services. Founded in 1998 and headquartered in Houston, Texas, Enterprise Products Partners L.P. is a major participant in North American energy transportation and midstream markets.
Price Overview
Price History (1 Year)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
| Period | Revenue | Net Income | Net Margin | YoY/QoQ |
|---|
Key Metrics
EPS (Diluted): 2.66
Total Equity: N/A
Shares: 2,188,000,000
Total Debt: $34.40B
Cash: $969.00M
EBITDA: $9.35B
Total Debt: $34.40B
Cash: $969.00M
Revenue: $52.60B
Revenue: $52.60B
Revenue: $52.60B
Total Equity: N/A
Tax Rate: 0.4%
Equity: N/A
Total Debt: $34.40B
Cash: $969.00M
Current Liabilities: $12.83B
Long-Term Debt: $32.77B
Total Debt: $34.40B
Total Equity: N/A
Shares: 2,188,000,000
Shares: 2,188,000,000
CapEx: -$5.62B
Shares: 2,188,000,000
Stock Price: $37.92
Net Income: $5.81B
Industry Benchmarks
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 12, 2026 9:08pm (25d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $40.8B | $58.2B | $49.7B | $56.2B | $52.6B |
| Cost of Revenue | $29.9B | $45.8B | $37.0B | $42.6B | $38.6B |
| Gross Profit | $10.9B | $12.4B | $12.7B | $13.6B | $14.0B |
| Operating Expenses | $4.8B | $5.4B | $5.8B | $6.3B | $6.8B |
| Operating Income | $6.1B | $6.9B | $6.9B | $7.3B | $7.3B |
| Net Income | $4.6B | $5.5B | $5.5B | $5.9B | $5.8B |
| EBITDA | $7.8B | $8.7B | $8.8B | $9.3B | $9.4B |
| EPS | $2.11 | $2.50 | $2.52 | $2.69 | $2.66 |
| EPS (Diluted) | $2.10 | $2.50 | $2.52 | $2.69 | $2.66 |
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 13, 2026 9:29am (24d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | $2.8B | $76.0M | $180.0M | $583.0M | $969.0M |
| Total Current Assets | $13.3B | $10.6B | $12.2B | $15.1B | $13.4B |
| Total Assets | $67.5B | $68.1B | $71.0B | $77.2B | $77.9B |
| Current Liabilities | $11.6B | $12.3B | $13.1B | $15.2B | $12.8B |
| Long-Term Debt | $28.1B | $26.6B | $27.4B | $30.7B | $32.8B |
| Total Liabilities | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total Equity | — | — | — | — | — |
| Retained Earnings | — | — | — | — | — |
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 12, 2026 9:08pm (25d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash Flow | $8.5B | $8.0B | $7.6B | $8.1B | $8.6B |
| Capital Expenditure | — | — | -$3.3B | -$4.5B | -$5.6B |
| Free Cash Flow | — | — | $4.3B | $3.6B | $3.0B |
| Acquisitions (net) | $0 | -$3.2B | $0 | -$949.0M | $0 |
| Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) | -$333.3M | -$1.3B | $452.0M | $3.2B | $2.5B |
| Dividends Paid | — | — | — | — | — |
| Stock Buybacks | -$213.9M | -$250.0M | -$188.0M | -$219.0M | -$300.0M |
| Net Change in Cash | $1.8B | -$2.8B | $114.0M | $518.0M | $407.0M |
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Aug 12, 2026 9:08pm (25d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | +42.6% | -14.6% | +13.1% | -6.4% |
| Gross Profit Growth | +13.1% | +2.8% | +7.5% | +2.9% |
| Operating Income Growth | +13.2% | +0.3% | +5.9% | -1.0% |
| Net Income Growth | +18.4% | +0.8% | +6.7% | -1.5% |
| EBITDA Growth | +11.2% | +1.2% | +6.0% | +0.4% |
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Aug 13, 2026 9:31am (24d ago)| Date | Dividend | Declaration | Record | Payment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-07-31 | $0.56 | — | — | — |
| 2026-04-30 | $0.55 | — | — | — |
| 2026-01-30 | $0.55 | — | — | — |
| 2025-10-31 | $0.55 | — | — | — |
| 2025-07-31 | $0.55 | — | — | — |
| 2025-04-30 | $0.54 | — | — | — |
| 2025-01-31 | $0.54 | — | — | — |
| 2024-10-31 | $0.53 | — | — | — |
| 2024-07-31 | $0.53 | — | — | — |
| 2024-04-29 | $0.52 | — | — | — |
| 2024-01-30 | $0.52 | — | — | — |
| 2023-10-30 | $0.50 | — | — | — |
| 2023-07-28 | $0.50 | — | — | — |
| 2023-04-27 | $0.49 | — | — | — |
| 2023-01-30 | $0.49 | — | — | — |
| 2022-10-28 | $0.48 | — | — | — |
| 2022-07-28 | $0.48 | — | — | — |
| 2022-04-28 | $0.47 | — | — | — |
| 2022-01-28 | $0.47 | — | — | — |
| 2021-10-28 | $0.45 | — | — | — |
Deep Analysis
Risk : Reward — upside vs downside from this company's own quarters
Not computed yetNarrative Economics
market-narrative step).
Claude Reading
Starting with the raw tape: quarterly revenue actually just printed a huge sequential jump — $18.27B in Q2 2026 versus $14.39B in Q1 and $11.36B a year ago. That's +61% YoY, which flatly contradicts the momentum module's "-6.4% recent revenue YoY" flag (which appears to be using stale annual 2024 vs 2025 data where 2024 was distorted by higher commodity throughput pricing). Net income tracked: $1.84B in Q2 2026 is the highest quarterly NI in the file, and TTM NI is running ~$6.30B versus the $5.81B FY2025 stamp. So the "collapsing" narrative from the Market Forces model is, on the reported numbers, wrong — EPD is re-accelerating, not deteriorating. Margins compressed to 10.1% from 12.6% a year ago, but that's mix (higher-throughput NGL/LNG volumes carry lower % margins on gross revenue that includes commodity pass-through) and absolute gross profit is up.
On the balance sheet, $34.4B debt against ~$9.4B annual EBITDA (implied by 12.3x EV/EBITDA on ~$81.9B equity + net debt ~$33.4B = ~$115B EV, so EBITDA ≈ $9.3B) is roughly 3.6x leverage — high but within investment-grade midstream norms and nowhere near the "distribution cut risk" the Market Forces model flags. Interest coverage on $7.3B operating income is comfortable; the synthesis model's "interest coverage dangerously low" warning looks like a template misfire on an MLP with structurally high but well-laddered debt. FCF of $2.97B against ~$4.7B in distributions (5.81% yield on $81.9B cap) is the real pressure point — coverage on FCF-after-capex is under 1x, meaning growth capex is being partially debt-funded. That's fine while spreads are tight and the LNG/NGL export build-out is producing contracted returns, but it's not "fortress" either.
Where I disagree with the synthesis: calling this "fair value" at $37.14 versus $37.92 understates what's happening in the top line. If Q2 2026 run-rate holds (annualized ~$65B revenue, ~$7B NI), forward P/E drops to ~11.7x, and the 5.8% yield is covered ~1.5x on distributable cash flow. The Thesis Evaluation's top bull — LNG export wave not priced in — is directionally right and the recent revenue print is the first hard evidence. Insider option exercises with in-kind tax withholding are noise, not signal; the single 2,665-share purchase in March 2026 is trivial. I'd discount both the "significant insider buying" tag and any contrarian read from it. The real contrarian argument isn't distribution risk — it's that MLP structure caps the buyer pool (Thesis Eval bear #2, weight 52), keeps the multiple structurally suppressed, and no amount of LNG throughput fixes that until/unless EPD converts to a C-corp (which management has repeatedly declined).
Net read: I dissent from the synthesis "fair value" verdict and dissent harder from Market Forces' "deteriorating/headwinds" call. On TTM run-rate earnings and the visible volume ramp, EPD looks modestly undervalued — fair value $42-45, with the 5.8% yield doing the waiting-work. The narrative model has this right: minimal narrative premium, durable story, fundamentals doing the work. What could kill the thesis: (1) an NGL price collapse that compresses fractionation spreads (measured by Mont Belvieu ethane/propane vs Henry Hub), (2) a capex overrun on the SPOT terminal or Permian expansions pushing FCF coverage further below 1x, or (3) a rates spike that widens the yield demanded on MLP paper to 7%+, which mechanically takes the unit price to ~$31. The data thinness I'd flag: no equity figure on the balance sheet (MLPs report partners' capital differently — not a red flag, just a template gap), and the momentum module clearly pulled the wrong comparison window. This is a boring 8-10% total-return name (5.8% yield + 3-4% distribution growth) trading at a mild discount to intrinsic, not a broken business and not a bargain.
GPT Reading
EPD looks like exactly what the market says it is on the surface—a mature midstream cash machine—but the raw numbers are a bit better than the more alarmist signals imply. The key point is that earnings and operating profit have been remarkably stable through revenue volatility. Annual revenue moved from $58.2B in 2022 to $49.7B in 2023, back to $56.2B in 2024, then down to $52.6B in 2025, yet operating income barely budged: $6.91B, $6.93B, $7.34B, $7.27B. Net income likewise stayed in a tight $5.5B-$5.9B band. That is not a “deteriorating competitive position”; it is evidence of a fee-based system where reported revenue is noisy but economic earnings are resilient. The quarterly data reinforce that point: 1H26 revenue of $32.66B versus $26.78B in 1H25 is up sharply, and net income of $3.32B versus $2.83B is up about 17%, even with net margins around 10%. The business is not suddenly becoming high growth, but it is showing that underlying throughput and/or pricing are supporting better recent results than the backward-looking annual CAGR summary suggests.
The place where I do agree with caution is cash flow. Operating cash flow of $8.59B against capex of $5.62B left only $2.97B of free cash flow in 2025, which is thin relative to an $81.9B market cap and obviously not enough to self-fund both the equity yield and growth capex if you define FCF strictly after all investment. But for a midstream MLP, that needs interpretation: the right question is whether capex is maintenance or expansion, and the data here strongly imply much of the pressure is expansionary. Gross profit rose from $12.35B in 2022 to $14.03B in 2025 and operating income expanded too, so capex is not disappearing into a hole. The market should not treat all FCF weakness as a sign of distribution stress. At 14.3x earnings and 12.3x EV/EBITDA, EPD is not cheap in an absolute sense for a low-growth business, but it is also not demanding for an asset base producing roughly $5.8B of annual net income, nearly $8.6B of operating cash flow, and a 5.8% yield. Around $38, investors are paying a reasonable utility-like price for a business with better cyclical resilience than the “energy” label suggests.
What stands out most to me is that the stock is probably being held back by a mismatch between accounting optics and the actual economics. Revenue growth is low, free cash flow screens poorly, debt is high at $34.4B with just $969M of cash, and that combination makes quant models nervous. But debt has to be judged against earnings durability, not cash on hand in isolation. A business with operating profit above $7B and midstream-like asset lives can carry more leverage than a typical industrial. I also don’t put much weight on the dramatic “distribution cut risk” framing from the market-forces output, because the income statement stability does not support the idea of an eroding franchise. If anything, 2026 quarterly performance suggests the opposite. The modest insider purchase in March matters less than the fact there is no obvious insider exodus; the cluster of option exercises is noise, not a bearish tell. My read is that EPD deserves to trade somewhat above a generic mature-energy multiple because its earnings have been less cyclical than revenue implies. Fair value is a bit above the current price, not massively so, but enough to make the shares mildly attractive for total return plus yield.
The strongest case against that view is straightforward: this may simply be a fully valued bond proxy with hidden reinvestment needs. Revenue CAGR of 2.9% and earnings CAGR of 2.5% are weak, recent annual revenue and earnings were down in 2025, and free cash flow CAGR of -17% is ugly. If capex stays above $5B rather than reverting, then the market is right to look through EBITDA and focus on the limited true cash left over for unitholders. The balance sheet is not trivial; $34.4B of debt paired with a current ratio of 1.04 leaves little liquidity cushion if capital markets tighten. On that framing, a 5.8% yield is not a bargain but compensation for structural risks: energy transition uncertainty, MLP ownership constraints, and a business model that may require continuous spending just to capture modest growth. If you assume no material volume upside from export infrastructure and no multiple expansion from here, then 14x earnings can easily be “fair enough” for a company whose best years of organic growth may already be behind it.
What would change my mind is not another narrative about LNG or the energy transition; it is the next few hard numbers. If the 2026 improvement continues and full-year net income clearly exceeds the 2024-2025 plateau—say above $6.2B—with operating cash flow moving toward $9B+ while capex normalizes enough to push free cash flow above $4B, then I would get more constructive and see room into the low-to-mid $40s. Conversely, if the strong first half of 2026 proves temporary, margins slip back toward the 9%-10% range, and capex remains elevated such that free cash flow stays stuck near $3B despite stable earnings, then the stock is just an income vehicle and $38 is about all it deserves.
Grok Reading
The numbers tell a fee-based cash machine, not a deteriorating MLP. Annual net income has held in a tight $5.5–5.9B band for four years while revenue swung from $40.8B to $58.2B and back to $52.6B—exactly the toll-road pattern midstream bulls advertise. Operating cash flow of $8.59B in 2025 dwarfs the $5.81B in earnings and easily supports the 5.8% distribution at a $37.92 price. The recent quarterly print of $18.27B revenue and $1.84B net income is the strongest in the eight-quarter stack, and sequential revenue has accelerated even as the annual top line slipped 6.4% year-over-year. Gross margin at 26.7% and operating margin at 13.8% are intact. What the Market Forces layer calls “collapsing free cash flow” is largely a capex story: $5.62B of investment compressed FCF to $2.97B, but that is growth spend against a durable OCF base, not operational decay. At 14.3x earnings, 12.3x EV/EBITDA and a sub-2x sales multiple, the market is paying a mature-utility price for a platform that still prints mid-single-digit volume optionality through NGL and LNG export infrastructure. The 2.5% earnings CAGR understates the earnings power stability; investors are effectively getting the distribution coverage and the embedded growth projects at roughly no premium.
The balance sheet is the genuine constraint, not the income statement. $34.4B of debt against under $1B of cash leaves net leverage elevated and the current ratio at 1.04 offers little cushion; any sustained rise in refinancing costs would pressure distribution coverage faster than the income statement currently implies. FCF CAGR of –17% is a real yellow flag if the elevated capex fails to convert into incremental fee-based EBITDA within a couple of years. MLP tax friction keeps institutional ownership structurally capped, which permanently limits multiple expansion relative to C-corp peers. And the long-duration energy-transition bear case—structural oil demand peak eventually eroding volumes—is not priced as a near-term event but remains the correct terminal risk for any midstream name. Those are the data points a skeptic would correctly hammer.
I weigh them differently because the earnings and OCF stability already demonstrate low commodity beta, the distribution has a multi-decade unbroken record with coverage that still looks adequate on $8.6B of operating cash, and the valuation synthesis itself concedes the stock sits near or slightly below a no-growth floor. Paying 14x for a 5.8% yielder with fortress EBITDA is not a growth bet; it is a cash-return bet where incremental LNG-linked projects are free options. The “deteriorating competitive position / distribution cut risk” framing over-reads a temporary FCF trough created by growth capex and under-reads the $1.8B quarterly run-rate just printed.
A cut or freeze in the distribution, two consecutive quarters of OCF below ~$7B, or leverage rising materially above current levels without EBITDA growth would flip me decisively bearish. Conversely, FCF recovering above $4.5B as the 2025 capex wave commissions, or clear evidence that LNG export volumes are lifting fee-based margin, would push the stock into clear undervalued territory above $42–43 on the same earnings base.
Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Enterprise Products is a mature midstream earner running at $52.6B revenue with 26.7% gross margins and 13.8% operating margins in the latest year - both stable to slightly improving vs 2021 (26.8%/15%). Net income has held in a tight $5.5B-$5.9B band for four straight years, and OCF/NI at 1.5x with accruals at -3.8% of assets says the reported earnings are backed by cash. FCF has compressed from $8.5B (2021) to $3.0B (2025), but that reflects the well-known capex cycle in midstream, not an earnings-quality problem. Diluted units have actually shrunk slightly (-0.2% CAGR) - remarkable discipline for an MLP structure historically prone to equity issuance.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- Debt maturity ladder and weighted-average coupon - how much refinancing hits in the next 24 months
- Growth capex vs maintenance capex split - is the FCF compression from expansion projects that will convert to EBITDA?
- Distribution coverage ratio and whether the $2.97B FCF covers cash distributions to unitholders
- Customer/counterparty concentration in long-haul contracts
- Any off-balance-sheet JV debt or preferred equity not captured in headline net debt
The e2e composite pins fair value at $40.22 and the signal-adjusted read at $37.14, bracketing the $38.02 price within a 2-3% band either way. The DCF ($47.44) and EPV floor ($41.11) hint at modest upside, but the anchored-PE ($24.90) is a real drag reflecting the market's unwillingness to pay a growth multiple for a mature toll business - that tension is exactly what a fair price looks like. Nothing here suggests the market has mispriced the cash flows; the ~7% distribution yield plus low-single-digit growth is roughly what a strong, high-leverage midstream MLP deserves. The company-quality lens (Strong, 35) supports the higher end of deserved value, but that is already reflected in the composite. The bear case (energy transition, high payout ratio, FCF down 65% from 2021) is a legitimate reason not to pay up further, and the bull case (diversification, 25+ years of distribution growth) is what keeps it from trading at a discount. Net: this is a well-understood name priced accordingly - no gap to exploit at $38.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Growth capex guidance and expected in-service dates for major projects (drives DCF terminal value)
- Distribution coverage ratio trend and payout ratio commentary
- Segment-level EBITDA to confirm diversification benefit is holding
- Any commentary on the FCF gap vs 2021 - is it capex cycle or structural
The macro tape is mildly risk-on with a tame VIX at 14.6 and the S&P at highs, which is a benign backdrop for income-oriented midstream. More importantly, crude is up 86% year-to-date and financial media is actively pitching midstream as the smarter, lower-risk way to play the energy trade - that is a direct, name-relevant tailwind for EPD's toll-collector narrative and yield story. Recent news flow (three separate dividend / midstream-yield pieces in 72h) is textbook positive narrative reinforcement for exactly this cohort. Working against that: EPD's beta is only 0.48, so it doesn't get the full lift a high-beta energy name would; the narrative itself is described as minimal intensity and durable-but-boring; and recent 6-month price action is -6.4%, suggesting the tape hasn't actually rewarded the story yet. Higher rates (10y 4.68%) are a persistent, low-grade headwind for a yield vehicle competing against risk-free coupons. Net-net, sentiment leans positive - the story is being told louder as oil rips - but the pressure is moderate, not decisive, because this is a low-vol name with a sleepy narrative and a rates overhang capping the yield-chase bid.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Whether crude holds its rally - a reversal removes the narrative catalyst instantly
- 10y yield direction; a break below 4.25% would unlock real yield-chase flows into EPD
- Fund flows into midstream ETFs (AMLP, MLPX) as a real-time gauge of the rotation story
- Any distribution-growth commentary at next print that could reignite narrative intensity
This lens hasn't been run for this ticker yet.
When we made this prediction on Aug 14, 2026, EPD was $38.02. We expect it to be $41.20 by Feb 2027, and we consider it great value under $32.50. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Aug 14, 2026.
Blue is our prediction, starting the day we made it. Grey is a slower route to the same place — the same destination, taking longer. Black is the actual price, so you can see how we are doing.
Post-Report Due Diligence NOTES
Evidence for a closer look, not a verdict — no score or designation on this page has been changed by it. Items marked material are ones where a conclusion above moves to the other side of the price.
cost_of_capital
flips down 25%