% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners Message Board

dar200 123 posts  |  Last Activity: 15 hours ago Member since: Nov 16, 1998
  • See IV board.

  • Reply to

    my advice to management

    by zooplankton200 Feb 13, 2016 10:12 AM
    dar200 dar200 Feb 13, 2016 10:53 AM Flag

    You forgot the word, "taxable" between "REIT" and "income".

    As can be calculated from the taxable portion of the 2015 common dividend, 2015 taxable income barely exceeded the preferred dividends. Thus, the "90% rule" is not an impediment to paying a very low common dividend.

    Nevertheless, I agree they should pay 75 cents assuming cad is at least 80 cents, NOT because they have to, but because they want to show the market it is wrong with its pricing. They want to show that its equity reit business is alive, well and stable. The best way to do that, imo, is to keep a stable dividend supported by stable cad per share.

  • Reply to


    by octopusink Feb 11, 2016 12:18 PM
    dar200 dar200 Feb 12, 2016 4:45 PM Flag

    Normally, a registration statement is filed, the sec sends a letter asking for changes, expanded disclosures and additional things they want.

    Registrant then files an amended registration statement giving the sec what they want. If satisfied, sec declares registration statement effective. If not, another letter asking for more.

    The original registration statement for Northstar Corporate Income Fund was filed on 7/31/15.
    Amendment #1 filed on 10/2/15.
    Amendment #2 filed on 12/2/15
    Amendment #3 filed on 1/22/16
    Amendment #4 filed on 2/12/16

    I suppose the good news is the interval between amendments is getting shorter.

    Lieberman should be fired.

  • Reply to


    by octopusink Feb 11, 2016 12:18 PM
    dar200 dar200 Feb 12, 2016 12:05 PM Flag

    And yesterday was ANOTHER amended registration statement on the och-ziff joint offering with nsam. Lieberman just can't get it right.

  • Reply to

    Dimon vs Hamo

    by dar200 Feb 12, 2016 10:23 AM
    dar200 dar200 Feb 12, 2016 10:38 AM Flag

    This a clip from Motley Fool article:

    Jamie Dimon has always put his money where his mouth is, and yesterday was no different. The JPMorgan Chase CEO bought 500,000 shares of the nation's biggest bank for a total of $26.6 million.
    This is one of the reasons it's impossible not to admire the 59-year-old executive. Throughout his entire career at the helm of financial firms, Dimon has consistently increased the amount of skin he has in the game when it matters most.

    Too bad they can't say the same about any nrf group exec., including Hamo.

  • dar200 by dar200 Feb 12, 2016 10:23 AM Flag

    Jamie Dimon got paid a little less than 28 million for 2014. Dimon just bought about 27 million worth of JPM stock in the open market, nearly 100% of his 2014 compensation.

    Hamo got paid 74 million for 2014. He bought about 2.6 million worth of NRF and about 2 million worth of NRE, a total of about 4.6 million or about 6% of his 2014 compensation.

    Which one is more convinced his company's stock is undervalued? Which one put real cash money where his mouth is?

    BTW, can you believe that Hamo's service to the NRF group in 2014 was worth 2.6 times what Dimon's service to JPM was worth? Obscenely excessive come to mind?

  • See IV board.

  • dar200 dar200 Feb 10, 2016 12:24 PM Flag

    First, ding #$%$, you are comparing Vanguard Group to Vanguard Specialized Funds. Notice different federal identification numbers? Vanguard Group reports holdings by all Vanguard funds. The REIT INDEX FUND reports only what the mutual fund and etf own of the index fund which replicates the RMZ index.

    Next, the 41 million shares you cite are from a 6/10/15 filing in its original form reporting 5/31/15 holdings by the entire group. These shares are as reported, NOT adjusted for the 1 for 2 at 10/31/15. For your edification, once a SC 13G is filed on any company, any subsequent 13G filing on the same company is a SC 13G/A (amended).

    So, 41,022,634 as of 5/31/15, (with no intervening Vanguard transactions including dividend drips) became 20,511,317 shares of NRF, 6,837,105 shares of NRE and a tiny bit of cash for NRE fractions at the close of business on 10/31/15.

    To enhance your limited comprehension further, Vanguard GROUP owned 25,662,028 shares of NRF as of 12/31/15. These are reported on a 13F-HR, not a 13G. Consequently, the Vanguard Group did NOT sell 27 million shares as per your opening post. Actually, they bought over 5 million post-reverse shares during the above time period.

    Too bad the facts rained on your parade.

  • Reply to

    New SC 13G

    by buk957 Feb 9, 2016 9:36 PM
    dar200 dar200 Feb 10, 2016 9:35 AM Flag

    Try the math for a 1 for 2 reverse split at the end of Oct, 2015.

  • Reply to


    by mysonchino Feb 9, 2016 2:53 PM
    dar200 dar200 Feb 9, 2016 4:40 PM Flag

    3.00 (cad or div) x 185 million shares = 555 million of common cad annually in front of 84 million of preferred dividends and preferred down about 13.5% today. That's how nutso irrational this market is and/or how much this market hates the stink of nrf management.

  • So, less than 3 weeks ago, KBW said this:

    "Investment Thesis
    While NRF?s strong historical performance includes its legacy returns pre-2008 and value creation
    from the NSAM spin-off in July 2014, we believe several factors warrant a valuation discount to Equity
    REITs including NRF's externally managed structure and above-peer financial leverage. Factoring in
    discounts for these attributes, we derive a $23 price target, which warrants an Outperform rating. We
    believe asset sales and selective share repurchases may drive upside."

    So in today's report, KBW increased the cap rates on all the properties (hotels, the biggest sector by 1.5%), thus driving down the value of the properties. Consequently, total property value is less than book value, a preposterous position given real estate appreciation the past two years.Then they increased the discount for external management to 35% to get to 13 as the new target.

    IMO, a hatched job to keep KBW from looking foolish with a 23 target three weeks ago. Just a rationalization job to lower target closer to market. Nothing about fundamentals. Just #$%$ -covering.

  • Reply to


    by octopusink Feb 8, 2016 5:57 PM
    dar200 dar200 Feb 9, 2016 10:41 AM Flag

    They are allowed to "preannounce" an estimate of earnings. They are also allowed to announce the dividend.
    Both are exceptions to the "quiet period" rule.

  • Reply to


    by octopusink Feb 8, 2016 5:57 PM
    dar200 dar200 Feb 9, 2016 10:32 AM Flag

    Much of that KBW blurb is, imo, baloney, a grasping for possible rationalizations to get off a 23 price target.

    We'll find out when the numbers come out. IMO, if the numbers are stable, NRF would be NUTS to reduce the dividend. If they want to show the market is wrong on price, they should present "business as usual" for a diversified equity reit. That includes "dividend as usual" for a stable equity reit.

  • Reply to


    by octopusink Feb 8, 2016 5:57 PM
    dar200 dar200 Feb 9, 2016 10:22 AM Flag

    The same nrf/nsam clustermess has existed since 7/1/14. The same clustermess existed almost a year ago when both hit record highs. What has changed?

    The proxy statements showing obscenely excessive compensation.
    The Friday night filing of the previous Wednesday morning's shareholder vote on compensation.
    Mention by name in NYT and WSJ in the context of excessive compensation.
    Disclosing the Aerium writedowns of more than 50% in fine print footnotes in the 10-Qs without a word from management.
    August: Allowing one hour between two earnings releases and start of back to back CCs, so nobody can be prepared to ask hard questions.

    In short,imo, what has changed since the record highs is the market realization of a greedy, sneaky, conflicted management. The STINK of management got out of the jar and poisoned the air in the room.

  • Reply to


    by octopusink Feb 8, 2016 5:57 PM
    dar200 dar200 Feb 9, 2016 9:39 AM Flag

    I asked the same question on the IV board and would like to see the report. After adjusting for nre leaving, what operational changes does KBW note or predict? Do we have the same cad adjusted for nre but a 10 dollar lower price target? If so, it's the STINK. Or, is this a set-up for Hamo's buddies to take nrf private at 13?

  • Reply to

    Thoughts on Preferreds

    by mysonchino Feb 7, 2016 7:06 PM
    dar200 dar200 Feb 8, 2016 4:12 PM Flag

    All of the factors cited as warranting a discount to the stock prices (nrf & nsam) are the same now as not quite a year ago when both hit record highs.

    Yeah, macro market factors have changed to the negative, so one would expect declines in line with peers.
    But both have declined far, far more than peers. Why the excessive decline? To me, it's the stink. Tutes are still voting with their feet, big time.

  • Reply to

    Thoughts on Preferreds

    by mysonchino Feb 7, 2016 7:06 PM
    dar200 dar200 Feb 8, 2016 1:49 PM Flag

    "Anyone have a credible explanation for such a drastic decline?"

    The stink.

  • Reply to


    by octopusink Feb 3, 2016 10:36 AM
    dar200 dar200 Feb 3, 2016 11:48 AM Flag

    Here's a clip from a Reuters article:

    W YORK (Reuters) - Orange Capital, the activist hedge fund firm led by New York-based real estate investment manager Daniel Lewis, is shutting down after a year of poor performance, according to people familiar with the situation.

    Its main hedge fund was down 7.4 percent net of fees in 2015 through November, according to investor information seen by Reuters. Performance for December and January was not available.
    A group of stocks in Orange’s portfolio, worth about $1.3 billion as of September 30, according to a public filing, declined substantially over 2015.
    Bellatrix Exploration, a Canadian oil and gas company where Lewis is a director and had pushed for change, saw its stock drop about 60 percent. NorthStar Asset Management Group, a New York-based real estate and investment manager, fell 46 percent. And Amaya Inc., a Canadian entertainment technology company, declined nearly 40 percent.

  • Reply to

    townsend closed

    by octopusink Feb 2, 2016 6:56 PM
    dar200 dar200 Feb 3, 2016 11:08 AM Flag

    The face of the 8-K does not disclose the 10 cent limitation. That comes from the loan agreement which is Exhibit 10.2 attached to the 8-K. I pasted the provision on the IV board this morning.

    The loan agreement also limits buybacks to 100 million worth for 2016 (post-loan) and 2017 combined. That too is pasted on the IV board as a reply to "NSAM 8-K"

  • Reply to

    NSAM 8-K

    by dar200 Feb 2, 2016 9:11 PM
    dar200 dar200 Feb 3, 2016 10:08 AM Flag

    Two follow-up posts on IV board with copy & pastes from loan agreement. This shows you can get useful info from reading documents filed with the SEC.