I thought johnpikecanal told us that the company magically generated an extra 62 cents in book value by commuting some modified pool exposures (why the counterparty would just give them 51M in value was never explained by johnpikecanal).
As for johnpikecanal's argument that this stock, no, any stock, should trade at book value at a minimum, he should really take a look at the book value history of the company, and ask what would have happened to an investor who bought at book value two years ago. Oh wait, book value is now a lot lower. You mean book value ISN'T a static number, and that it can rise as well as fall? What a surprise, that is a really complex concept.