"Must be "owner of record" on ex-date to get Div."
No, you must be the owner of record on the record date to get the dividend. The ex-date takes into account the three day settlement period to become the shareholder of record on the record date.
"IMO PPS took a dive today due to one poster here bringing info about some BK issues back in 2011."
You actually believe the scant few readers of this board can move the price anywhere near today's dive? Do you also believe catloraine really is psychic?
"The "record date" in this case is irrelevant"
No, it's not. The record date still serves a purpose. The record date establishes that only the shares outstanding as of that date will participate in the distribution, which prevents convertible securities (for companies that have them) and secondary issues from diluting the amount of the distribution per share, for when distributions are considered by a company, they are calculated on a lump sum basis and then divided by the number of outstanding shares. This may seem to be a trivial point, but GALE entered into a spinoff with the ex-date after the distribution date, and after the record date decided to issue a secondary offering. Apparently they were unable to sell it to the underwriters because the new shares would not be eligible for the spinoff distribution. So GALE cancelled the spinoff. Then they reinstated it with a new record date that would include the newly issued shares. So the point is not only valid, but realistic.
"If you don't hold shares as of September 29th, you're not getting paid. So September 29th is the real "record date.""
No. You have to hold the MSN shares through the close of trading on the 30th, not the 29th.
"The company should have made that clear, instead of relying on investors to look up some strange rule."
It's not the company's responsibility to educate investors on stock exchange rules.
bespoke2013, I'd like to think you mean well, but you're not helping by giving out misinformation in all your posts.
"Were the people just as obstinately ignorant back then?"
Worse. Way, way, WAY worse. There wasn't anyplace on the Internet back then that explained it in plain language, so there was no easy way to verify that what I was telling them was correct. And to make it even worse, Wikipedia, that bottomless pit of misinformation, had it wrong in its entry for dividends over 25%, further confusing people who thought that was the place to find the truth. It took Wikipedia two or three years to finally get it right.
"the company confused everyone by saying the record date would be the 12th, when that is not the case"
The record date is indeed the 12th. It is the ex-date that has caused all the confusion, not the record date.
"...will be sorely disappointed when they don't receive the dividend on Oct 1st"
The payment date for shareholders of record on the 12th is September 30th, not October 1st.
"Hard to believe there are that many dumb people."
I'll let that one go ...
"investors need to hold until October 2nd"
No, you can sell on Oct 1st and still keep the dividend. It's clearly defined in the rule book.
"if i buy more next week when will i rec that div?"
Supposed to receive it on Oct 3rd.
"if i do buy more will that affect my other holding which i have owned for 2 months"
Yes, it will make your first purchase a smaller percentage of your MSN holdings!
"I would have thought it would go to around 2.50"
Why would the company be worth more simply because it announced it's giving some of its cash to shareholders?
"A quarterly dividend of Cdn. $0.125/common share (Cdn. $0.50 annually) will be paid on September 30th, 2014 to shareholders of record at the close of business on September 15th, 2014."
"So shouldn't the PPS go down on Sept 16th, not on Sept. 11th."
"I think the drop today is just due to the market and nothing to do with the ex-div date. Am I wrong?"
Yes, you are wrong. The price adjustment for the dividend happens when the stock no longer trades with the right to the dividend. That day is the ex-date, not the day after the record date. That is the very purpose of the ex-date.
"As they continually give the money away in the form of a dividend, the increase in value is forfeited to the shareholders. Therefor there is no increase in value"
That's an odd way of looking at it, considering that the shareholders are the only value holders in the company and they're the ones getting the dividends, but I can see your angle. It's a self-deluding crummy one, but I see it!
Let's complicate it even further. A company paying regular dividends creates value by earning each dividend, then paying it to shareholders, reducing the value of the company back to where it was before it earned the dividend. Then it repeats the process. But with MSN, it's giving away far in excess of the earnings it's had, so its value drops way below where it was the previous time it paid a large (and unearned) dividend. With both this one and the last one, it's going backwards on the value scale.
Think we can come up with even more ways of looking at it?
Jdunrod2 said on August 28th, "My prediction for the short term is: I expect next week to climb perhaps into the 2.60 - 2.80 range & then we will likely see some sell off Friday 9/5 followed by a big spike back up Monday & Tuesday."
What do you see happening in the coming week or two?
"But in regards to a stock that pays a regular dividend, the answer lies in the arena of public opinion."
No, with a stock that pays a regular dividend, the value created is not simply a matter of public opinion. The value created is the income earned to support that dividend. Positive earnings quarter after quarter, year after year is very real and continually creates more value.
"if it was return of capital back then my guess is that it would be the same this time . wouldn't that add extra value to own more based on no taxes vs the new formula put in place today for taxable dividends?"
Why would that add value? It amounts to a partial liquidation of the company. What's good about that? Doesn't an overemphasis of the tax angle obscure the fact that the company is worth no more than it was the day before the big distribution was announced? The cash was already on the company's balance sheet the day before the dividend declaration, so was already factored into the company's net worth. On September 30 that cash is deducted from the balance sheet when it's distributed to shareholders. The remainder of the company isn't worth any more than that portion of the company was the day before the dividend declaration. If the company retained the cash, the net worth would remain the same and there would be no tax implications for shareholders. By giving the cash to shareholders, assuming it's all ROC, the cash plus the remainder of the company is worth the same as it would be if the cash hadn't been given to shareholders, and there is no tax implication for shareholders. So how does giving away the cash create more value?
"Its just that the ex-dividend date is not the shareholder of record date."
"Its the ex-dividend date thats hard to come by."
No, it's not. Go to the NASDAQ website and pull up Dividend History for CME.
"it's not your fault it's the cme because they gave out wrong info"
No, they didn't. The company's press release doesn't even mention the ex-date. It says the record date is Sept 10, which makes the ex-date Sept 8.
Dividend announcements only rarely include the ex-date. They usually mention only the record date and payment date. That's because the company doesn't set the ex-date, the stock exchange does. That means it's not the responsibility of the company to announce the ex-date, but it would be helpful if they did.
"i own the stock as of today and not buying anymore dont i get paind on the 30th of september?"
Yes, you do. Only those who buy MSN from September 10th through September 30th get paid on October 3rd. And even though the due bill redemption date is October 3rd, in reality, some brokerage houses don't pay until a couple days later -- just like with regular dividends.