Well ... we just met, why argue? I can't tell how serious you are about the yield curve flattening. All it would take to make NFI overpriced is two or three more points of pure inflation.
But how on earth do the unfinancial people at TSC know that we can count on a bunch of quick inflation? Most experts' opinion is "dunno". If rates drop for the next three years, then does Greenberg go out there and tell shorts to double up their collateral a couple more times?
So, in that respect, yeah: nfi looks like a typical Greenberg & Cramer play. The basic decision to short is built on such flimsy analysis that you catch yourself thinking: "They must know SOMETHING more than that crap." (Greenberg's $20k worth of royalties at NLS for example. Comes out to $0.0006 per share, but he trotted it right out there as if he'd found something. I smell a very-nearly-missed deadline and some fast creative thinking.)
But these guys are journalists, not accountants. They think innuendo is their job ... or they just don't care. So they build a scary story to frighten buyers off for a few quarters. Somebody thanks them for being good ole boys and they feel a bit more comfortable about their next jobs after TSC tanks.
After they get wet a few times, they probably start to think they're making it rain.
The story has a happy ending ... but not for Herb and Jim I'm afraid. (Cramer's status as an inside joke within the financial community is crossing over into the mainstream, that's for certain.)
I think we're still in the "discussion mode." We could defer arguments for later....
<<All it would take to make NFI overpriced is two or three more points of pure inflation.>>
Inflation, what's that? In any case, depending on the situation, I trade in and out of many stocks and hold many others longer term. Depends on the situation but I always try to be flexible in my approach. I can jump out of NFI at any time. On the other hand, I've been holding two other REITS, IMH and AHR, for a long time.
In any case, I think the Greenberg/Rocker/Cramer/TSC connection is quite sinister. Isn't it an incredible coincidence that Rocker often has a large short position in the very stocks that Greenberg attacks?