By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish on both Energy Transfer (ET) and Amazon (AMZN) as long-term holds, citing significant risks that the author of the article overlooked.
Risk: Energy Transition risks for ET and valuation concerns, regulatory risks, and competition for AMZN
Opportunity: None identified
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Energy Transfer will remain a reliable income stock in bull and bear markets.
Amazon’s cloud, e-commerce, and advertising businesses will continue to grow.
The S&P 500 is hovering near its record high, and the benchmark index looks historically expensive at 32 times earnings. However, many investors are still rushing into this frothy market, expecting the market's top-performing stocks to keep rising.
While many of these stocks might head higher over the long term, they could pull back sharply before that happens. That downturn could shake many bullish investors out of the market. As Peter Lynch once said, "Everyone is a long-term investor until the market goes down."
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
As someone who started investing right before the Great Recession, I know that feeling well. But today, I'm hopefully better at tuning out the near-term noise and staying focused on my longer-term goals. Here are two of my top stocks I'd be willing to hold and forget for the next 20 years: Energy Transfer (NYSE: ET) and Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN).
I started to accumulate shares of Energy Transfer (NYSE: ET) last April. Today, the stock accounts for about 4% of my portfolio, and I don't plan on selling that stake anytime soon.
Three things drew me to Energy Transfer. First, it's a major midstream company that transports natural gas, liquefied natural gas (LNG), natural gas liquids (NGLs), crude oil, and other refined products through over 140,000 miles of pipeline across 44 states.
By charging upstream and downstream companies "tolls" to use that infrastructure, it's well-insulated from volatile oil prices and generates plenty of cash to cover its distributions. It currently pays a forward yield of 6.6%, and analysts expect its earnings per unit (EPU) to rise 17% to $1.41 this year, easily covering its forward distribution of $1.34 per unit.
Second, it's a master limited partnership (MLP) that blends a return of capital with its own profits to pay tax-efficient distributions. You'll need to report those distributions on a separate K-1 form every year, but you can also leverage the MLP's losses to reduce your own taxable income. Some investors might think that's a cumbersome extra step, but I think it's worth the extra time. Lastly, Energy Transfer looks cheap at 14 times this year's EPU. Its low valuation and high yield should limit its downside even if the broader market pulls back.
Energy Transfer certainly isn't an exciting investment, but it's a stock I'd be comfortable holding over the next 20 years. I'm simply reinvesting its distributions to compound its returns right now, but it would also be a great way to generate passive income when I retire.
I started to invest in Amazon in 2016, and the stock now accounts for 11% of my portfolio. It might seem prudent to trim that stake (especially after a 765% gain), but I don't plan to sell any shares for at least a few more decades. I'm still bullish on Amazon for three simple reasons.
First, it owns the world's largest cloud infrastructure platform, Amazon Web Services (AWS). AWS grew rapidly as more organizations relied on the cloud for data storage and computing power, and it's still expanding as more companies migrate their AI applications to its platform.
By expanding Bedrock (which enables companies to access multiple cloud-based AI models) and rolling out more agentic AI tools, custom AI chips, and AI-driven e-commerce tools, Amazon is evolving into a vertically integrated leader in the booming AI market. AWS also operates at higher margins than Amazon's retail business -- so the growth of the former can subsidize the latter's expansion through discounts, perks, and other loss-leader strategies.
Second, Amazon's advertising business, which sells promoted listings and integrated ads across its platforms, is evolving into a secondary profit engine alongside AWS. That expansion will give its e-commerce business even more room to expand its lower-margin ecosystem.
Lastly, Amazon will remain the largest e-commerce company for the foreseeable future. It will continue leveraging its scale to enter new countries and attract more users into its Prime ecosystem, which has already locked in over 250 million subscribers worldwide. So while its stock isn't cheap right now at 31 times forward earnings, I'm still confident in its ability to expand and evolve over the next few decades.
Before you buy stock in Energy Transfer, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Energy Transfer wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $477,813! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,320,088!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 986% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 208% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of May 23, 2026. *
Leo Sun has positions in Amazon and Energy Transfer. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"MLP tax complexity and sustained high capex at Amazon create material frictions the 20-year hold thesis understates."
The article pitches ET and AMZN as set-it-and-forget-it holdings, citing ET's 6.6% yield and 14x EPU plus AMZN's AWS and ad growth. Yet it glosses over MLP K-1 tax friction that complicates portfolio rebalancing and estate planning, plus pipeline regulatory and energy-transition risks that could cap ET's distribution growth. For AMZN, 31x forward earnings assumes sustained AI-driven AWS margins; heavy capex on custom chips and Bedrock could pressure free cash flow if enterprise AI spend slows. Both also face interest-rate sensitivity the author ignores.
ET's fee-based midstream contracts have historically insulated distributions through multiple cycles, and AMZN's scale in e-commerce and cloud creates durable network effects that valuation multiples alone do not capture.
"AMZN's valuation assumes AWS margin stability and advertising scale that face real competitive and execution headwinds, while ET's 6.6% yield on stable infrastructure is the only genuinely 20-year-appropriate holding in this pair."
This article conflates two entirely different risk profiles under a 'hold forever' banner, which is dangerous. ET is a defensive midstream toll-collector with 6.6% yield, 14x EPU, and predictable cash flows — genuinely boring and appropriate for 20-year holds. AMZN at 31x forward earnings is speculative: AWS margins are compressing as competition (Azure, GCP) intensifies, advertising growth is real but unproven at scale, and the article assumes AI monetization without evidence of unit economics. The author's 765% gain and 11% portfolio weight suggest confirmation bias. The S&P 500 at 32x earnings is expensive; AMZN being more expensive than the index while growing slower than its valuation implies is the real risk buried here.
If AWS achieves 30%+ EBITDA margins sustainably and advertising reaches $100B+ revenue with 40% take-rates, AMZN's 31x multiple compresses to 18-20x on normalized earnings — making it cheap. The article's 20-year timeframe may be precisely right for AI optionality.
"A 20-year investment horizon requires accounting for structural industry shifts that both ET and AMZN face, specifically energy transition risks for midstream pipelines and margin compression for e-commerce."
The author’s 'buy and forget' thesis for Energy Transfer (ET) and Amazon (AMZN) relies on a dangerous assumption of long-term stability. ET is a yield play that ignores the existential risk of the energy transition; while midstream infrastructure is currently essential, a 20-year horizon faces significant regulatory and stranded-asset risks as decarbonization mandates tighten. AMZN, conversely, is priced for perfection at 31x forward earnings. While AWS and advertising are high-margin engines, the retail segment remains a low-margin capital sink. The author glosses over the fact that Amazon's 'moat' is increasingly under siege by nimble, low-cost cross-border e-commerce competitors that are structurally altering the retail landscape.
If the energy transition stalls due to AI-driven power demand and Amazon continues to successfully leverage its logistics dominance to crush retail competition, these 'boring' structural advantages could indeed compound into massive long-term winners.
"Long-term hold of ET and AMZN requires unbroken secular growth and favorable policy, which are uncertain, making a blind 20-year hold riskier than depicted."
The article frames ET and AMZN as timeless holds, but a 20-year horizon exposes structural risks. ET’s cash flow looks solid on toll-based revenue, yet it remains sensitive to interest rates, capex cycles, and a global energy transition that could shrink gas demand; the MLP tax complexity and potential distribution flexibility risk can erode total returns even with a high yield. For AMZN, AWS dominates and AI expansion supports it, but the stock trades at a rich multiple with antitrust/regulatory risk and cloud competition that could compress margins if growth slows. Context gaps include policy shifts, energy transition pace, and AI adoption timelines.
Strong counterpoint: ET's cash flows have historically shown resilience through toll-based pricing and LNG demand, and the tax headaches may be less punitive in practice than feared. For AMZN, the case that cloud and ads keep expanding at a pace far above the stock price could be challenged if regulatory hurdles hinder AI deployment or consumer spending slows.
"ET's MLP tax structure amplifies rate and transition risks beyond the defensive label."
Claude separates ET as genuinely defensive, yet overlooks how MLP K-1 friction interacts with the rate sensitivity ChatGPT flagged, creating forced-sale risk during any distribution hiccup. This tax drag could erode the 14x EPU buffer faster than energy-transition timelines Gemini cites, especially if LNG export volumes plateau before hydrogen infrastructure scales.
"K-1 tax friction suppresses valuation multiple, not distribution stability; interest-rate sensitivity is the actual near-term lever."
Grok's MLP K-1 tax-drag thesis assumes forced selling during distribution stress, but that's backwards: K-1 complexity deters retail holders upfront, leaving ET's shareholder base already tax-aware. The real risk isn't forced sales—it's that sophisticated investors price in the friction, capping ET's valuation multiple permanently below peers. That's a drag on total returns, but it's already baked in at 14x EPU. The rate sensitivity Claude and ChatGPT flagged matters far more near-term.
"ET's reliance on retail investors due to K-1 friction creates structural liquidity risks that undermine its 'forever' holding status."
Claude, your focus on 'baked-in' tax friction misses the second-order effect: liquidity risk. If ET’s valuation is permanently capped by tax complexity, it loses its status as a reliable 'forever' holding because it lacks the institutional depth to support a 20-year buy-and-hold thesis during sector-wide volatility. When retail investors get spooked by regulatory shifts, the lack of institutional 'anchor' buyers creates massive price gaps. You're ignoring the structural fragility of a retail-heavy cap table.
"ET's real risk is energy-policy/regulatory tail risk and capex-driven growth limits, not K-1 friction or forced-sale concerns."
Grok, the forced-sale angle from K-1 friction is overstated. The bigger, underappreciated risk for ET is energy-policy/regulatory tail risk and capex needs that cap its distribution growth—independent of tax reporting. If LNG export approvals slow or carbon policies bite demand, the 6.6% yield may not compound as assumed, and liquidity won’t save you from a multiple, if credit markets tighten. K-1 friction is noise next to policy risk.
The panel consensus is bearish on both Energy Transfer (ET) and Amazon (AMZN) as long-term holds, citing significant risks that the author of the article overlooked.
None identified
Energy Transition risks for ET and valuation concerns, regulatory risks, and competition for AMZN