There you have it... look at the chart since feb 28 or march 2nd to today. Nice up draft, here is hoping it breaks $17.80 prior to ex-div, march 13th.
thanks for your inputs ngp11111 and invest4divvie- nice if this board were a little more active. I am a retired income investor.
lets try not to forget that GOOD has never lowered its dividend. not even when the stock market tanked a few year ago. that says a ton to me. right now it is paying over 8% annually and has payouts MONTHY. to me it is worth the investment until I see some real reason to change my mind.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
No, No, that was known, the fees being waived that is.... But yes, stuck in the mud, so to speak. Will have some upward bias towards the end of the week through the 11th as dividend players show up.
Doesn't look like it is going anywhere, that article did a lot of damage but it flushed out Gladstone on the CC about having to waive fees to maintain the divvie.
When I posted, the negative article about GOOD did not appear on my screen. I only saw the negative article for LAND and mistakenly thought that was the article to which the reader was referring. The negative article is concerning. Technically the stock has declined to around support level. It is somewhat of a crapshoot if mgmt. can turn around the vacancies and can continue to support the dividend with lowered fees. In the meantime, you are getting paid monthly to wait for the situation to improve. If you think the mgmt. team is good, things could improve. This is a poor place to sell at a low support price. I think there is value in the portfolio and you are getting paid to take the risk.
Just another SA hatchet job citing selected data from filings. Yup, vacancies have been a problem but are getting better. Yeah, ffo flat because David Gladstone is waiving just enough fees to maintain ffo sufficient to maintain dividend and meet lender requirements. Gladstone is carrying the vacancies, not the shareholder. Hmmm, no mention of dividend support from Gladstone in article. Truth spoils the intended impact.
I believe Gladstone will eat whatever fees are necessary to maintain the dividend. IMO, very high yield, mostly tax deferred, is sufficient compensation for the risk. I bought more today.
I guess none of you follow Brad Thomas. He knows the REIT space like no other and has investors best interests in mind when he writes an article. If he says this is a bad investment then it would be wise to listen.
I agree a rebuttal would be in order. Maybe Gladstone will address it in the upcoming CC. I hope somebody asks about it.
I think you been looking at ledgers too long. The article clearly was an analysis of Good. not LAND. They explained how the companies are related, no probably about- obviously you did not read it or did not understand it. . They cited management conflicts of interest, substandard tenants and declining FFO per share. A real hatchet job.
The SA article was about GOOD although it did mention GLAD along with GAIN and the article was specific as to the relationship of the three. The article made a compelling argument about GOOD being substandard with high risk and yes, IMO, that is the reason it dropped today. I would like to see a rebuttal to the article but I don's suspect I will.
Seeking Alpha trashed Gladstone Land (ticker LAND). Not the same as Gladstone Commercial. The companies are probably related, but I'm not sure how.