"They don't quote a dividend as "ex" unless it is actual cash because they don't make an individual valuation on nontransferable securities."
Did you miss where they DID make an individual valuation? You didn't notice in the PR of 12-20 where they put an exact valuation on it of $10.89 per share? Here, read it again (or, apparently, for the first time):
"Gyrodyne has declared an additional dividend, payable to Gyrodyne shareholders as of December 31, 2013. Such dividend, which will be payable on January 31, 2014, will be in the form of notes ("Dividend Notes") aggregating $16,150,000 ($10.89 per share) in principal amount "
So, you claim they don't make an individual valuation on nontransferable securities? That seems to fly in the face of the fact that they did.
You're swinging at empty air, wggm.
"On Dec. 26th, this $10.89 security did not represent 25% of the value of Gyrodyne"
The NASDAQ already knew that as of the record date of Dec 31 for the 10.89 distribution, the stock price would be reduced by about the amount of the 45.86 distribution, so 10.89 would indeed be well in excess of 25% of the share price.
You're still not explaining why it in fact did not adjust for the 10.89 on Dec 27th. Or why no reporting agency, not even the NASDAQ itself, ever listed Dec 27th as the ex-date for the 10.89.
"My contention is that for a stock of this low market cap, I don't believe you can discern an awful lot from its share price, e.g., whether the price seems to reflect an ex-dividend adjustment or not."
You certainly could on Dec 31st, and you certainly will on Feb 3.
"I should not be referencing the ex dividend date."
Yes, you should. And the ex-date is Feb 3, not Jan 31 or Feb 1.
"The stock drop on dec31 coincided with payable date on dec30."
No, the price drop on the 31st was because the 31st is the ex-date. Forget the payment date. The price adjustment happens on the ex-date.
"the December 31 $10.39 dividend will be payable on January 31. So, the stock should drop by that range on Feb 1st."
No, Feb 3.
"The stock price change on the 31st didn't coincide exactly with the $66 dividend either. Is there an explanation for that? No."
Yes, there is. Stock price adjustments for distributions are made not on any trade made on the ex-date itself, but on the closing price quote of the previous day. That's why the opening price on the ex-date rarely equals the distribution exactly. But it's usually close. The closing price on Dec 30th was 63.37. It went ex by 45.86 (not $66) and opened at 13.90 on the 31st. That was down 49.47, a bit more than the 45.86 distribution.
And what happened on the 27th, the date you claim it went ex by 10.89? On the 26th it closed at 73.06. It opened at 71.00 on the 27th. Not even anywhere in the ballpark of 10.89. And why not? Because the 27th wasn't the ex-date.
Then explain why 1. The stock price didn't adjust, and 2. Why no reporting agency listed the 27th as the ex-date.
You actually believe that MarketWatch, the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg missed the ex-date?
When the 25% rule is in effect, very, very few company Investor relations people are aware of it, so very often simply assume normal dividend rules apply. POZN just went through such an event in December. The company finally caught on, but not before confusing shareholders just like on this board. Callers to POZN's IR were told normal dividend rules applied ... until the uproar when what would've been the ex-date, 12-9, turned out not to be the ex-date. Only then did POZN figure it out and start telling investors of the 25% rule.
"It dropped some on the 27th. Lots of confusion is perhaps why it didn't drop the full amount."
And you're sure that the five bucks or so that it dropped was related to confusion over the 10.89 distribution and not the 45.86 distribution?
"You are referencing a quote the company made with respect to the other dividend."
Yes. As an explanation of why the ex-date for the 10.89 will be Feb 3rd.
"25% rule is applied on the declaration date, not the record date"
And you explain the failure of the stock price to adjust for the 10.89 on the 27th how, exactly?
"did you read the nasdaq rule? there is a 25% market cap test. not met here."
Not met here? As of 12-31, the record date for the 10.89 distribution, the stock price is 12.71. How is 10.89 NOT more than 25% of 12.71?
"that dividend trades regular way i.e ex date 3 days before record date"
No. How do you explain the stock price not adjusting for the 10.89? Because it hasn't gone ex yet, that's why. And in any case, under normal dividend rules (which this one will not follow), the ex-date is two days before the record date, not three.
"In my opinion it should be trading somewhere around $5.7, not over $12."
That's because you have the ex-date wrong.
"the ex date was the 27th"
No, it wasn't. Didn't you notice there was no price adjustment for the 10.89 on the 27th? That's because it wasn't the ex-date.
"so you had to own the stock on the 26th."
Once again, no.
"Maybe I am reading this wrong, But it looks like anyone owning this stock today gets the 10.83 div."
Yes, you are reading it wrong.
Again, wggm, you're overlooking this: "As required by NASDAQ rules governing special dividends of this magnitude, the ex-dividend date will be set one business day following the payment date."
"On Dec 27th, it distributed a non transferable security composed solely of a note worth approximately $10.87 per share."
No, they didn't. That doesn't happen until Jan 31st. They outright tell you that in the PR of 12-20: "Such dividend, which will be payable on January 31, 2014, will be in the form of notes"
The payment date/distribution date is one and the same.
"If you bought after the 27th, you don't own that."
No, just like the 45.86 distribution, the 10.89 worth of notes is going to have the ex-date one day after the payment date, and for the same reason. The company stated that reason in the 12-20 PR: "As required by NASDAQ rules governing special dividends of this magnitude, the ex-dividend date will be set one business day following the payment date."
That means anyone buying up to, and including Jan 31, providing they don't sell until at least Feb 3, will get the 10.89 in notes.
"If I sell stock on Jan2nd shall I get $10.89 dividend?"
"dividend is paid one day after ex dividend date which is 12/30/13"
First, you've got the wrong distribution. jai4524 is talking about the 10.89, not the 45.86.
Second, the ex-date for the 45.86 was 12-31, not 12-30.
"Do not sell until January 30 to get the $10.85 dividend"
Feb 3rd, not Jan 30th. The payment date is the 31st, so the ex-date is Feb 3.