History has told us that the best time to buy is when others have given up. All I read about is “Soup lines” and “Ghost towns”. I think that type of talk is just plain stupid. The media always blows thing out of proportion. Of course things are lousy all over. We all know how poorly retailer faired. Hardly a day goes without news of how bad it is. Many think it’s over for Glimcher. No doubt the company's debt to equity ratio is too high, and reduced rents should be expected. This being said, the stock price is compelling.
I expect the dividend to be cut in half. I expect revenue to drop by at least 10% in 2009. I wouldn't be surprised if the company sells several profitable malls to raise capital. This could easily be done via a sale-leaseback, with the vulture buyers. Make no mistake, real estate investors with deep pockets are itching to buy cheap, for the right return. It makes sense for the company to reduce debt, raise cash, and buy back debt and stock at ridiculously low prices.
The remaining shareholders today are hardened investors, with a long term approach.
What is it that you don't get? The arithmetic looks pretty simple. Were you one of those liberal arts majors, not that there's anything wrong with being a liberal arts major?
They won't be doing a stock dividend because you and Tommy are the only ones who would think it means something and they have more than two stockholders and you're probably short anyways.
Here is the problem with that analysis. ABC company has a book value of $10. They pay a 10% divy in stock. Book value drops to $9, but you own more stock so the bottom line for the stock holder is the same. GRT has a negative book value. So you now own more stock in a company that has no value.
"I've already explained myself."
I've read many of your posts and they do seem reasonable, albeit usually negative on GRT.
However, I, too, have heard that a stock split is nothing more than a 100% stock dividend and there is no dilution.
If you have some rational for saying a stock dividend creates dilution, you need to explain that rationale or, for me at least, I would agree you have an agenda here.
Tony, give it up.
I've got more of a life than to be stooping to such lows where I'd be posting on multiple names on Yahoo message boards.
I don't care if you believe me or not, you're just incorrect here.
There are 100 shares in the company. I have 10=10%
There are now 200 shares and I have 20=10%.
Therefore no dilution.
There are 100 shares in the company.
I have 10 = 10%.
The dividend is 10% or 10 new shares=110 shares
I get 1 and I now have 11 shares= 10%.
Therefore, NO DILUTION!!!
Hint to all readers of this board. Tommy = Buster. They are the same and likely short.
God you are stupid. And the proof is you still own this pos. A stock split takes existing shares and SPLITS THEM. A 2 to 1 split means 1 share is now 2, but the price is cut in half. Paying divys in stock is a dilution as it adds stock from thin air. Just like the government prints money, grt and other reits print stock. This pos has to eventually: sell assets to try to stay alive, which may not work if they owe more than they can get or go bankrupt and try to figure it out. When the debt has to be refinanced, whether tomorrow or in a couple of years it will be impossible to do because of stricter lending, which by the way the really good strong reits can only borrow 50% of the value of a property. It is only a matter of time to bankruptcy and I hope anyone thinking of adding or buying into this pos doesn't. You can call me a basher, of course I'm bashing this pos. I am not short. I did hold some preferreds and added on the way down until I wised up and dumped everything.
JER is a mortgage company NOT a REIT like GRT. They deal in mortgage spreads and could have income when there is no cash flow. It is not possible for GRT to find itself in a position where there cash flows are not adequate to pay a required dividend and you are an idiot. Quit it already.
Think. In real estate deals the cash flow can be there and the profits are not because of depreciation. Do you get this? A REIT is required to pay out 90 % of profit after depreciation. The flows a REIT usually has (in good times) is essentially profits plus depreciation which equals those flows. When a REIT distributes cash greater than taxable profits, a portion is a return of capital and not taxable to the recipient.
Now, I know you know this because you are here for the purpose of spreading disinformation. GRT will not be required to pay stock dividends and even if they did they would not be taxable, would not dilute the shareholders and not serve any purpose whatsoever.
Now go F#ck yourself basher.