I've about had it with SA articles. Write a comment the least bit critical of the author or question his motives in any way and they remove it. How can you get an author to respond or defend against a little negative feedback when they always delete it? They remind me of liberal college professors that can't stand for anyone to raise an opposing point of view. There are some good authors that really dig into the numbers but more and more I see SA as a tout board for hidden agendas.
Do not get me wrong, PSEC at some point will be a buy again, just not right now. If you know anything about technical analysis look at its chart, note the trendline, stocastics, macd, etc.
It was actually a well written article however it was written by someone with a serious axe to grind. Don't know if he is underwater on his NICK trade or just really does not like the way that PSEC reports their write downs. jmkdog took after him on March 4th and 5th providing some very good feedback based on PSEC filings. The comment section is actually filled with good details (and some trash talk too that you just have to sort out) from several different responders. The article's author is Lawrence Zack Galler and from reading all of his article written to date not only is he upset with the Prospect takeover, but he appears to want to fire current management at Nicholas Financial to boot. There is just no satisfying some folks.
Kudos to jmkdog for keeping the author honest.
Major concerns? I read both articles and my conclusions are.
1. The author is bias and has an agenda. He does not want the buyout with the auto lending company to happen. (He admitted as much in his second article).
2. The author talked about loans made over five years ago in his first article and when called on it he could only find one small loan that he raised questions about.
3. No where does the author show or even suggest that PSEC has poor management, has poor loans, has questionable earnings, or will not continue to be a profitable company. Instead, he chooses to suggest that their integrity is questionable.
The replies and comments to both articles were much more enlightening that the articles themselves, IMO.
In short, the "major concerns raised", IMO, were about the author of the SA articles and his motivations.
I agree totally, no_mercy1.
Seeking Alpha "contributors" get paid for each "read" of one of their stories. I've clicked on attention-grabbing headlines that had little to do with the story a number of times, then I was PO'd that I enabled some bozo to get a larger payment.
I dont think you can put all SA writers in the same bag. One writer praises and another downgrades are two different people and not representing SA. The questions raised by LZG are very well documented which in itself is unusual for any SA article which sometimes is full of BS. AS I have always said it is in the loan business and loans dont increase in value only decrease. Therefore if PSEC is paying out all earnings it can not go up in value NAV except by very minor means. It would now seem that they have not been truthful completely in divulging bad loans. You have to realize these are not great loans when the charge 15% interest when I can borrow for 3.15% These are very high risk loans and I was always previously impressed with the fact they didnt have any non accrual loans, That seems not to be the whole truth now as divulged in the article and it has made me reevaluate whether I want to even get in at 10.50 The article did not say so but the facts of the article remind me of something called a Ponzi scheme. I am sure I will catch a lot of flack for this but if the author is correct then on the next economic downturn of any severity this could go to $6 and that will eat all your distributions up for many of the previous years. No one pays 12% without a serious reason. caution urged.
Rarely do I read a post containing as much misinformation as your post. Just so others aren't mislead - I think it's too late for you - here's a couple thoughts:
 PSEC does not "pay" 12% dividends. It pays $0.11+ per month; the market adjusts the stock price to a level which results in a yield acceptable to investors. Currently, the market price results in a 12% yield roughly.
 This is not a Ponzi scheme. All of its dividends are paid out of earnings, inception to date.
 If PSEC falls to $6 because of an economic downturn, then all stocks will fall as well. It is not a criticism of PSEC.
 I'm pretty sure that the 15% on loans is not the rate charged [not to most anyway], but the ROE .... not at all the same.
 Loans can increase in value, and do anytime the market interest rates fall.
 They have been truthful about bad loans. If they convert a loan to equity, this is just part of the business of BDC's.
 Avoid buying stocks that give you discomfort, but don't spread misinformation here. No one is forcing you to buy PSEC.
Sometimes you get more out of reading the SA comments on the article. If you're referring to the article that effectively it seems to me, noted that PSEC had covered over some losses some years ago with great gains since, it appears that the writer also read the comments and wrote another article trying to answer the objection, but, to me, demonstrating only a kind of academic argument.
Some time ago, a writer was praising one company, and the comments warned against that company. Following the comments saved me a good bit of grief.
The most of the articles on SA are not objective mostly shorts and a few longs. But the comments are always worth of reading it. Its bad that there is so little value information on the Yahoo messages and more quality feedback is only available on SA articles. The same is with Fool, either you get spammed for their email or you don't find valuable information on their website.