This confusion ALWAYS happens when a special dividend in excess of 25% of the PPS is declared. I have seen it on so many other boards, it is predictable and a bit laughable. Hold thru Sept 30, even buy some more if you want and get the divvy.
I put in a limit order at 1.85 depending l trying to buy this down to about 1.70 if that happens. Based on the company stats. I see this over 2.00 in January. Who knows plus I am going by the numbers off of the last Div. 2010
I got in at 2.16 originally. On that investment I loose if it goes below 1.50 based on the Div payout and stock price...so I think that is safe. On my other plays. If I get stock buying it down and goes to 2.00 into JAN. I will turn a nice profit. Merry Christmas or Ba hum bug... We will see..
If you're going to buy more, you should probably wait a bit longer. Once all the illiterate people sell, the price will go up, even after the correction.
" IMO PPS took a dive today due to one poster here bringing info about some BK issues back in 2011."
I assume you're referring to me. It wasn't me that brought it up. It was the two most recent SEC filings related to this company. I merely took a shine to the information and made it public knowledge by putting it in a highly visible location. Plus, the BK issue was in regards to the majority shareholder who will most likely lose their majority status through reorganization. I see that as good news.
"IMO PPS took a dive today due to one poster here bringing info about some BK issues back in 2011."
You actually believe the scant few readers of this board can move the price anywhere near today's dive? Do you also believe catloraine really is psychic?
Who care about the divvy anymore?
Instead of holding thru Sept.30th then sell at the deep unknown discount why not buying low like today and sell tomorrow for a few thousands $ profit?
IMO PPS took a dive today due to one poster here bringing info about some BK issues back in 2011.
"The "record date" in this case is irrelevant"
No, it's not. The record date still serves a purpose. The record date establishes that only the shares outstanding as of that date will participate in the distribution, which prevents convertible securities (for companies that have them) and secondary issues from diluting the amount of the distribution per share, for when distributions are considered by a company, they are calculated on a lump sum basis and then divided by the number of outstanding shares. This may seem to be a trivial point, but GALE entered into a spinoff with the ex-date after the distribution date, and after the record date decided to issue a secondary offering. Apparently they were unable to sell it to the underwriters because the new shares would not be eligible for the spinoff distribution. So GALE cancelled the spinoff. Then they reinstated it with a new record date that would include the newly issued shares. So the point is not only valid, but realistic.
"If you don't hold shares as of September 29th, you're not getting paid. So September 29th is the real "record date.""
No. You have to hold the MSN shares through the close of trading on the 30th, not the 29th.
"The company should have made that clear, instead of relying on investors to look up some strange rule."
It's not the company's responsibility to educate investors on stock exchange rules.
bespoke2013, I'd like to think you mean well, but you're not helping by giving out misinformation in all your posts.
"Were the people just as obstinately ignorant back then?"
Worse. Way, way, WAY worse. There wasn't anyplace on the Internet back then that explained it in plain language, so there was no easy way to verify that what I was telling them was correct. And to make it even worse, Wikipedia, that bottomless pit of misinformation, had it wrong in its entry for dividends over 25%, further confusing people who thought that was the place to find the truth. It took Wikipedia two or three years to finally get it right.
The "record date" in this case is irrelevant and that's what caused the confusion. Typically, when people hear "record date" they think you must be a shareholder of record as of that date to get the dividend. That is not the case here. If you don't hold shares as of September 29th, you're not getting paid. So September 29th is the real "record date." The company should have made that clear, instead of relying on investors to look up some strange rule.
cwn600, you had mentioned you were involved on this message board back in 2010 when the last extraordinary dividend was paid. Were the people just as obstinately ignorant back then? It's hard to believe, but now that I see it, I am amazed/stupefied!
"the company confused everyone by saying the record date would be the 12th, when that is not the case"
The record date is indeed the 12th. It is the ex-date that has caused all the confusion, not the record date.
"...will be sorely disappointed when they don't receive the dividend on Oct 1st"
The payment date for shareholders of record on the 12th is September 30th, not October 1st.
"Hard to believe there are that many dumb people."
I'll let that one go ...
I can't believe the volume was so high today. Hard to believe there are that many dumb people. Of course, the company confused everyone by saying the record date would be the 12th, when that is not the case due to the size of the dividend. Probably a lot of people patting themselves on the back thinking they made a great trade today and then will be sorely disappointed when they don't receive the dividend on Oct 1st.
There are a couple recent SEC filings related to MSN. One outlines Mr. Miller's acquisitions and viewpoints (he's a 5% stakeholder). The other filing is in regards to the upcoming shareholder meeting in October that explains the proceedings and outlines the current status of the Grande Holdings insolvency case in China. I had read previously about Grande Holdings receiving a liquidation order in 2011 and thought that would have meant a sell off of assets as it would here in the USA. But as it happens, Chinese insolvency is not like filing bankruptcy in the USA. They have steps and options unlike the US.
My opinion is that the reorganization of Grande will be good for us as minority shareholders in that I find it unlikely that Grande will retain its majority shareholder status for MSN. This will mean that other majority shareholders (like Mr Miller) whose opinions are to maximize minority shareholders value, will be considered more favorably. After a lot of research, I've found that the opinions of Mr Miller, ie. payment of dividends and possible sale of Emerson, are somewhat in line with Chinese insolvency reorganization standards.
More dividends and sale of Emerson are good for us. IMO!