That SA author is also long NICK. Is it possible that he wants PSEC to sweeten the deal? We know that some pre-2009 loans were refinanced, and that some of these (e.g. Ajax) were written down. The overall portfolio, however, has a fair-market value that is very close to the cost. So why hammer away at Ajax as if that represents what is going on today? Again, any unrealized losses in Ajax amount to the loans made in 2008. (Yes, it's sizable -- about $20 million. ) But why not be unbiased and look at the unrealized capital gains in the portfolio? IMO, the author's "angle" has something to do with his position in NICK.
There are at least three other SA articles that are bullish PSEC over the past two days. And if you go back a little further, there are a few others from different authors. Who's right? Bottom line is PSEC is paying a fat dividend. The recent move into CLOs and now real estate seems to be paying off well.
Some analysts' were very negative toward PSEC in the not too distant past. I don't see that anymore. I also see credit ratings give PSEC corporate grade on their debt. And I see institutional holders buying PSEC. Do you think these people did not do their homework? The one negative SA author thinks he "discovered" something. Give me a break!