YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
ASSOCIATED TAGS
american  business  coverage  distribution  earnings  energy  exactly  growth  income  investors  market  midstream  number  plains  trailing  
LATEST POSTS

What Is the P E Ratio of PAA Stock – And Should You Care?

And that’s exactly where it gets interesting.

Understanding the P/E Ratio in the Midstream World

The P/E ratio—price-to-earnings—is one of those metrics everyone learns first. It’s simple on the surface: divide the stock price by earnings per share. But in the world of master limited partnerships (MLPs) like Plains All American (PAA), it gets messy. Earnings aren’t always what they seem. These companies generate cash differently. They don’t pay corporate income tax—the burden shifts to unitholders. And they report net income under GAAP, but many investors ignore it in favor of distributable cash flow (DCF). So why even look at P/E?

You might not—except that people do. Retail investors see it on Yahoo Finance, nod, and move on. Analysts mention it in passing. The media throws it around like confetti. But the number alone tells half the story, if that. For PAA, a trailing P/E of 8.5 sounds cheap. The S&P 500 hovers near 25. Even other midstream players—Enterprise Products Partners (EPD) at 11.3, Magellan Midstream (MMP) before it was acquired—ran higher. But cheap doesn’t mean undervalued. Sometimes it means the market sees rot beneath the surface.

And that’s where we need to dig.

How Is P/E Calculated for PAA?

Take the current share price—roughly $12.50 in March 2025—and divide it by the last twelve months of GAAP earnings per share, which came in around $1.47. That gives you the 8.5 figure. Simple math. But is EPS reliable? PAA reported a net loss in 2020. A gain in 2021. Then another dip. Volatility in net income isn’t unusual—asset sales, impairments, and tax adjustments swing the needle. In 2023, they sold part of their Wamsutter assets. That inflated earnings temporarily. Remove that, and the real operating picture dims slightly.

Why GAAP Earnings Can Mislead MLP Investors

Here’s the catch: MLPs live on cash flow, not net income. Depreciation eats into GAAP earnings but doesn’t cost a dime in cash. PAA spends hundreds of millions maintaining pipelines—those are capital expenditures, not expenses that hit the income statement immediately. Yet Wall Street still quotes P/E ratios like they’re gospel. It’s a bit like judging a brewery by its electricity bill instead of how many pints it sells. You get a number. But is it useful?

That said, P/E isn’t useless. When it’s extremely low—single digits—it can signal distress. Or opportunity. The issue remains: context. A low P/E with stable DCF and low leverage? That’s a potential steal. A low P/E with crumbling volumes and rising maintenance costs? That’s a value trap wearing a discount label.

What the PAA P/E Ratio Reveals About Market Sentiment

Let’s be clear about this: a P/E of 8.5 isn’t accidental. It’s a message. The market is pricing PAA like a company in decline—or at least one stuck in neutral. Crude-by-rail volumes haven’t bounced back. Permian takeaway capacity is oversupplied. The long-term bet on North American oil growth? It’s stalled. And that changes everything.

Investors aren’t rewarding PAA for past performance. They’re discounting the future. The stock yields around 7.8%—attractive, sure—but distributions were cut in 2020. Not once, but twice. And unitholders remember. Trust erodes fast in MLP land. Because once the payout shrinks, the cult of yield dies with it. So while the P/E looks cheap, it reflects a deeper skepticism. Are the assets durable? Is the balance sheet bulletproof? Or are we one downturn away from another cut?

And yet—cash flow from operations last year was $1.8 billion. Capital spending: $700 million. That leaves plenty to cover the distribution and whittle down debt. But debt still sits at around $8.3 billion. Net leverage—measured as debt-to-EBITDA—is roughly 4.5x. Not terrible. But not exactly conservative, either. Especially with interest rates where they are. A 50-basis-point hike and suddenly that coverage ratio looks shakier.

Comparing PAA to Peers: Is It Really That Cheap?

Take Enterprise Products Partners. P/E near 11. Yield around 6.5%. But distribution growth, zero cuts since inception, and leverage under 4.0x. More expensive? Yes. But also more reliable. Then there’s Energy Transfer (ET), trading at a P/E of 7.9—slightly cheaper than PAA—but with a history of aggressive accounting and higher distribution risk. So PAA sits in the middle. Not the safest. Not the riskiest. A B- student in a class where A’s are rare.

DCF Yield vs. P/E: Which Matters More?

I find this overrated—the obsession with P/E in MLPs. A better metric? DCF yield. Take annual distributable cash flow—say, $1.60 per unit—and divide by the share price. That gives you a yield of about 12.8%. Now compare that to the distribution yield of 7.8%. The difference? Retained cash. Used to fund growth or pay down debt. In short, DCF yield shows how much cash the business generates relative to price. P/E shows… well, accounting profit. One is real. The other is a snapshot filtered through depreciation rules and tax quirks.

PAA vs. PAGP: The Split That Complicated Everything

In 2019, Plains split into two: PAA (the pipeline business) and PAGP (the G&P side—gathering and processing). The idea? Wall Street loves focus. Separate the stable pipelines from the volatile production arm. But did it work? PAGP has struggled. Commodity prices swing. Margins compress. While PAA’s cash flows are more resilient, they’re not immune. Throughput depends on drilling activity. If E&Ps slow down, volumes drop. And that’s exactly what happened in late 2023 and early 2024. Permian drilling flatlined. PAA’s crude pipeline utilization dipped to 84%. Not catastrophic. But not ideal.

The split was supposed to clarify value. Instead, it just created two stocks people don’t fully trust. PAA trades at a discount because of legacy concerns. PAGP trades at a discount because earnings are lumpy. We’re far from it being a clean story.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a Low P/E Ratio Good for PAA Stock?

Not necessarily. A low P/E can mean the stock is undervalued. Or it can mean the market expects lower earnings ahead. In PAA’s case, it’s likely both. The business is less risky than exploration firms, but it’s not growing. And without growth, multiples stay depressed. Plus, there’s the MLP stigma. Many investors avoid them due to tax complexity. That suppresses demand—and keeps prices low.

Does PAA Use Forward or Trailing P/E?

Most sources report trailing P/E—based on actual past earnings. Forward P/E, which uses estimated future earnings, is harder to pin down for PAA because analysts don’t agree on 2025 EPS. Some project $1.60. Others say $1.30. That kind of spread tells you data is still lacking. Experts disagree on whether cost cuts will offset volume softness. Hence, trailing P/E remains the standard. It’s imperfect, but at least it’s real.

How Does Distribution Coverage Affect P/E?

It doesn’t directly. P/E is about earnings. Distribution coverage is about cash flow. But indirectly? Absolutely. If coverage falls below 1.0x, investors panic. The stock drops. P/E compresses further. In 2022, PAA’s coverage was 1.4x. Solid. But in 2020, it was 0.8x. That’s when the cut came. So while the metrics live in different worlds, they influence the same thing: investor confidence.

The Bottom Line

So, what is the P/E ratio of PAA stock? Around 8.5. But that number alone won’t tell you whether to buy, sell, or ignore it. What matters more is why it’s there. Is it a bargain born of irrational fear? Or a fair reflection of a slow-growth, moderate-risk business in a sector out of favor? I am convinced that the latter is closer to the truth. PAA isn’t going bankrupt. But it’s not destined for a re-rating, either.

My personal recommendation? If you’re chasing yield and understand MLP tax forms (K-1s), PAA’s 7.8% distribution is tempting. But demand strong DCF coverage—above 1.3x—and watch debt levels like a hawk. And because the landscape keeps shifting, don’t bet the farm. A small position, maybe. But expect stability, not fireworks. After all, in midstream, the quiet stocks often survive the longest—even if they never steal the spotlight.

Suffice to say, the P/E ratio is just the starting point. The real work begins after you close the spreadsheet.

💡 Key Takeaways

  • Is 6 a good height? - The average height of a human male is 5'10". So 6 foot is only slightly more than average by 2 inches. So 6 foot is above average, not tall.
  • Is 172 cm good for a man? - Yes it is. Average height of male in India is 166.3 cm (i.e. 5 ft 5.5 inches) while for female it is 152.6 cm (i.e. 5 ft) approximately.
  • How much height should a boy have to look attractive? - Well, fellas, worry no more, because a new study has revealed 5ft 8in is the ideal height for a man.
  • Is 165 cm normal for a 15 year old? - The predicted height for a female, based on your parents heights, is 155 to 165cm. Most 15 year old girls are nearly done growing. I was too.
  • Is 160 cm too tall for a 12 year old? - How Tall Should a 12 Year Old Be? We can only speak to national average heights here in North America, whereby, a 12 year old girl would be between 13

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

1. Is 6 a good height?

The average height of a human male is 5'10". So 6 foot is only slightly more than average by 2 inches. So 6 foot is above average, not tall.

2. Is 172 cm good for a man?

Yes it is. Average height of male in India is 166.3 cm (i.e. 5 ft 5.5 inches) while for female it is 152.6 cm (i.e. 5 ft) approximately. So, as far as your question is concerned, aforesaid height is above average in both cases.

3. How much height should a boy have to look attractive?

Well, fellas, worry no more, because a new study has revealed 5ft 8in is the ideal height for a man. Dating app Badoo has revealed the most right-swiped heights based on their users aged 18 to 30.

4. Is 165 cm normal for a 15 year old?

The predicted height for a female, based on your parents heights, is 155 to 165cm. Most 15 year old girls are nearly done growing. I was too. It's a very normal height for a girl.

5. Is 160 cm too tall for a 12 year old?

How Tall Should a 12 Year Old Be? We can only speak to national average heights here in North America, whereby, a 12 year old girl would be between 137 cm to 162 cm tall (4-1/2 to 5-1/3 feet). A 12 year old boy should be between 137 cm to 160 cm tall (4-1/2 to 5-1/4 feet).

6. How tall is a average 15 year old?

Average Height to Weight for Teenage Boys - 13 to 20 Years
Male Teens: 13 - 20 Years)
14 Years112.0 lb. (50.8 kg)64.5" (163.8 cm)
15 Years123.5 lb. (56.02 kg)67.0" (170.1 cm)
16 Years134.0 lb. (60.78 kg)68.3" (173.4 cm)
17 Years142.0 lb. (64.41 kg)69.0" (175.2 cm)

7. How to get taller at 18?

Staying physically active is even more essential from childhood to grow and improve overall health. But taking it up even in adulthood can help you add a few inches to your height. Strength-building exercises, yoga, jumping rope, and biking all can help to increase your flexibility and grow a few inches taller.

8. Is 5.7 a good height for a 15 year old boy?

Generally speaking, the average height for 15 year olds girls is 62.9 inches (or 159.7 cm). On the other hand, teen boys at the age of 15 have a much higher average height, which is 67.0 inches (or 170.1 cm).

9. Can you grow between 16 and 18?

Most girls stop growing taller by age 14 or 15. However, after their early teenage growth spurt, boys continue gaining height at a gradual pace until around 18. Note that some kids will stop growing earlier and others may keep growing a year or two more.

10. Can you grow 1 cm after 17?

Even with a healthy diet, most people's height won't increase after age 18 to 20. The graph below shows the rate of growth from birth to age 20. As you can see, the growth lines fall to zero between ages 18 and 20 ( 7 , 8 ). The reason why your height stops increasing is your bones, specifically your growth plates.