Selling shares is sometimes dictated by life needs: purchase of a house, college funding for the kids, etc. This is particularly true of high level employees who are often paid in shares rather than income; they will "dump" shares periodically for simple financial needs, not necessarily as an indication of expectations.
Being a "closed end fund" just means that new shares are not created/destroyed as a consequence of daily purchases/redemptions, as would occur with a mutual fund, where the only seller/buyer is the fund itself. For CEFs, you can sell/buy on the market. This doesn't prohibit the fund itself from being a seller/buyer of fund shares; only the small print in the fund prospectus/objectives would bear on that. Many CEFs that I know of buy/sell their own shares on an ongoing basis, a few only issue new shares in announced large blocks, fewer still just run with the initial shares offered.
Whether doing so in an ongoing fashion is above-board and honest, or in some fashion deceptive, is in the eye of the individual; the market certainly doesn't seem to penalize CEFs that *routinely* issue new shares (see symbol PGP as an example).
The 5.4m shares that you noted were sold in 2013 were sold at prices "above NAV". So net of commissions and expenses, from the sale they were able to obtain cash to purchase raw holdings for more than N shares by just creating and selling N shares. This has both pluses and minuses for existing shareholders, but generally improves their position at the expense of the new purchasers, who are paying higher than NAV. Should the right market conditions present themselves, the fund could conceivably make out by *buying* funds shares on the market for *less* than NAV.
Possibilities: 1) One is in error. Probably not, as you can see this day after day. 2) The two sources use different "start" and "stop" times. Could be this as old time systems may still report based on the London AM/PM fixes, others use the COMEX/NYMEX hours (trading days officially end at 1:15 EST in the afternoon, even though the electronic trading continues unabated). 3) One of your two quotes could be the 1st month's futures price, while the other is current spot. (I think I've notice one of the two networks reporting *both* prices, one in the scrolling ticker, and one in a set of flip boxes).
But really; doest it matter? When you're waiting on multi-hundred dollar moves, a few bucks offset here or there is a nit. ;)
Hey bejupete, this is meant in kindest fashion (I suffer from the same maladies, too)
a) I think you meant to say Death "Knell" with a K, which is either a noun (the somber sound of a bell being rung to note a sad occasion) or a verb (the act of ringing said bell during said occasion)
b) as a verb or a noun, a Death Knell is something that one does, or hears, but it is not something that you are "in".
back @ you: by "investors" do you mean little onsey-twosey individual people, or are you talking sovereign wealth? The size of money in play, and the motivations driving their actions, are quite different.
It looks to me like the money that moves markets today is HFT, Hedge Funds, Private Equity and Dark Pools. Investors as we commonly think of them are those little teeny things under the elephant feet that don't move much, and trade 5 times a year, not 50,000 times a minute.
Peter is right on a lot, but misses some important things.
1) The last time we had a bull run in bullion, the US markets drove it. Today, it is pretty obvious that serious pressure on the bullion price will be driven by the East.
2) The East does not by mining equities. US funds, individual ants, pension plans, do not buy mining equities. The only hope there is that they become a Hedge Fund Chew Toy darling, and get taken for a ride by opportunists. Those same fellas are not known for their buy and hold mentality.
3) The American public could give lessons to rocks on being stupid, and to ostriches on burying their heads in sand. Look forward to the "awakening" right about the time the Tooth Fairy is found to be real.
Look, I'm in bullion, miners, energy deep. I believe it *will* win out long term. But you almost have to find a way for it to happen without the common man getting a clue, or involved, because he's clueless and marginalized to the point of insignificance in modern times...
It's just that time of the month.
Seriously. There are 3 options expirations that effect the metals and miners. Futures (big honking contracts for the metals), options on those futures contracts, and then options on the mining shares (equities). Each expires on a different day in the month, and while they all are interrelated, the PMs pull on the miners is much stronger than the miners pull on the PMs.
Trading in the Sept PM options came to a halt as of the end of .... yesterday. It isn't uncommon to see the metal's price pull off some counter-intuitive stunt on the day of expiration (options are all about sharks & marks, and while the sharks are outnumbered, their size allows them to tip the scales in their favor month after month, much to the dismay of the marks).
Equity options (mining shares) expire on the 3rd Thursday of each month, so that was way back on the 15th. In the period between the 15th (equities expiry) and the end of the month (futures & future options expiry), the miners often want to "pull at the bit" but are also often held back by Titanic forces that would stand to lose lots if the metals took off. There is motivation to hold prices at certain levels until things expire in certain player's favor, followed by motivation to almost immediately shift the price to make re-entry by the marks be disadvantageous, followed the next day by a gut-check and flushing of weak-handed marks for a quick 2-day profit. So it's Make Them Pay, Put Them In A Bad Spot, and followed by Make Them Pay Again typically in a 3-day span near the end of every month.
So to sum up: I sort of almost *always* expect a disconnect between the miners and PM for the last week or two of each month, due to the nature of options expiration, the size of money and profits involved by the bigger players, and the seemingly blind regulators who ignore obviously manipulated markets.
Today the Fed "speaks". Doesn't matter that it is just notes from a month ago. Doesn't matter what it actually says. There is a 100% correlation between "speak" days and PMs getting taken out behind the woodshed.
It's like our own little, preschedule Hurricane season....
Time to raid GLD? JPM is an AP for GLD. All they need to do is get a large enough bundle of shares together, and they can get the phyz they need to meet delivery requests. They can get shares by either grabbing them during gold smash periods, or heck, if they have a backer with deep (infinite) pockets, they can just pay whatever is needed for shares on the open market. Either way, until GLD is bone dry and the corpse is being examined by the Keystone cops (SEC, CFTC, DOJ) there isn't too much reason to get excited about JPM's intermediate storage facility...
Different strokes. For some, they may have a point. I was dumb/lucky/crazy enough to buy my first chunk back @ $10.95. I'm one that was wanting to grow share count towards future retirement, not one that wants the distributions as cash. So for me, the best of all worlds would have been to sit near $11 and grow grow grow. (The 0.425 dsitro works out to over 16% annualized, *if* you're reinvesting).
Today my shares of CQP are worth more, true, but they're only growing @ around 6% with reinvesting. The joy of having spotted a stealthy overlooked gem is gone; loonies are dogpiling in and have driven the growth rate down to somewhat boring levels.
It might just be that there are people on this board who do understand yield, but due to circumstances have different hopes for how things unfold. It does take all types... :)
Actually increasing revenue should count way more than "beating estimates"; my cousin Vinnie can get you an "estimate" made to order....
Gold (naw, SILVER) Star for Endeavor!
Split your original NRGY cost basis into two parts, proportional to the valuation of your NRGY and NRGM shares as of the open the day of the issue.
Say your pre-issue cost basis was C. You want to find C = CY + CM.
In ratios, CY is to C, as the value of NRGY is to the value of NRGY + NRGM.
On the issue day, NRGY opened at around 14.71, and NRGM opened around $22.65. Multiplying by the shares of each, to get the valuations of each, and I found that around 39.7% original cost went to the new NRGM shares, and NRGY cost was reduced to 60.3% of the original cost.
Your brokerage will do a sloppy job tracking cost for you; they report numbers, but everyone involved (you, your broker, the IRS) expects the numbers reported to be junk because there don't seem to be any requirements/rule for them to adhere to. (My brokerage routinely reports $0 cost for things, as if I routinely received gifts from God). Do your taxes with *your* numbers, which should be sane and rationally justifyable, and it works out.
Yahoo excellence in action. If it helps any, I once owned a resource mutual fund that had a message board header of "bla bla funereal services".
You get what u pay for....
dar200 - There is a very interesting article regarding copper on ZeroHedge. It shows up as the first item when I Google the phrase "bronze swan".
A quick overview (as quick as I can be on a complex subject): The days of thinking about supply and demand mattering may be long gone. It seems that a number of financial firms in China found a way to use base stockpiles of commodities to lend, lend and relend over and over again, going in a lovely loop between an onshore part of their organization, and an offshore part. In some convoluted way, this allowed them to make/scam lots of money out of the system. That same activity in turn puts upward pressure on the yuan, and the Chinese gov is finally stepping in and putting a halt to the whole mess.
The "unwind" of this bad activity is in question. Any Western-minded country would find itself with large stockpiles of excess copper lying around, purchased not because it was needed, but because it was a base enabler for a rehypotihcation loop-scam. They would sell a bunch of it back into the market, and/or curtail further purchases. That would be bad enough, perhaps, to more than offset the supply side disruptions like the FCX one you mentioned and the recent landslide in Utah. I think Goldman Sacks (whom I despise) have a forecast out for copper to fall in price thru 2014.
I think there is still a possibility that China may have a mentality and behavior that isn't Western. They may be happy to crush some bad financial shenanigans on the one hand, and simply take ownership and hold onto the copper stockpiles with the other. They tend to play longer term strategies, and aren't driven by a short term profit/loss motive.
Suggest you look into options expiration. There are three types: options on equities, futures (contracts on the base metal), and options on futures. The expirations occur on different days of the month; equities usually come first, and the metals bring up the rear. I've learned that the calendar has a tremendous influence on price action; it isn't straightforward or the easiest thing to understand, but it is obvious after watching that opex is a major influence.
In the period between the two, you will often see equities "tugging at the lease", anticipating a move higher, while the dog's "owner" (the metal) holds back *despite* situations you'd swear would be bullish for bullion.
(Think about it, the "house" makes it's money by offering sure-thing deals to suckers, and then being on the winning side when the sure thing doesn't happen. There is ample incentive to hold bullion prices at a level that rakes in lots of money from losers *every* options expiration period.)
Gartman? You're kidding.
"... the Gartman ETF, named after advisor Dennis Gartman, ubiquitous author of the Gartman Letter, an investment advisory, couldn’t harness the benefits of its fortunate timing. The fund went public at $10 a share. Those same shares now fetch around $7.90."
His fund closed in March of this year.
"In short, when launched, the Gartman ETF was a bad product run by someone with no record, who ultimately couldn’t overcome the headwinds inherent in a closed-end fund. Investors should have been more wary."
Sound like somebody CNBC would label a Gold Guru. guffaw.