And where in that post was I "...... speculating a bump in divi to possibly $.82" ?? Where in that post did I even mention the dividend?
BTW, "suppose" in an illustration = "assume", not speculate.
I suggest you read it again, slowly this time, to increase comprehension. Before you do, please learn the difference between "illustrate" and "speculate".
191 million includes assumed conversion of partnership units and vested RSUs into common on a 1 for 1 basis. 183.4 million common stock outstanding in yesterday's SEC filing does NOT include assumed conversions of common stock equivalents.
Rounding to the nearest 10th of a million, there were 181.8 million common shares outstanding at 9/30/15 (from face of balance sheet in 3Q earnings release). They subsequently issued the last 7.1 million shares under the forward sales agreement. So, 181.8 + 7.1 = 188.9 minus 183.4 as of 1/21/16 = about 5.5 million shares bought back between 11/11 or 12 (couple of days after earnings release) and 1/21/16. Don't know when purchases were made but it doesn't look like buybacks will have more than a 1 million or so decrease in 4Q weighted average shares outstanding.
However, for 1Q 2016, 5.5 million shares bought back will have at least a 5 million decrease in 1Q weighted average. To illustrate, assume 191 million diluted shares out for 1Q earning 80 cents. That results in aggregate cad of 152.8 million. Now divide 152.8 million by 186 million and cad per share = 82.15 cents. A 75 cent dividend = 93.75% of 80 cents. It is 91.30% of 82.15 cents.
5.5 million shares x 3.00 annualized dividend = 16.5 million of cad which can be used to buy back more stock.
At 13.00 per share, 16.5 million buys back another 1.269 million shares.
Yup, yesterday's filing had a big tea leaf in it.
Yes. You are leaving out the revenues from the nontraded reits including those not yet selling and the income from their unconsolidated joint ventures. Yes, nsam has expenses, but another owner could probably run the book with much less compensation expense, mainly in the executive ranks.
Had you kept your nsam stock (right pocket), 1.00 out of your left pocket (nrf) becomes 96 cents in your right pocket. 4 cents is lost to the cost of carrying a second public company.
The left pocket trades at 10 times cad so losing a buck takes 10.00 off the price. The right pocket trades at 15 times cad so 96 cents adds 14.40 to your right pocket. Netting the change in both pockets adds 4.40 to your paper wealth. This is the reason for a separate nsam. Europe was supposed to trade at European multiples, an erroneous (so far) assumption.
Unfortunately, management pigged-out with the share compensation, probably thinking they could get away with it due to the increase in combined market cap (as of last December). The issuance of so many shares to an excessively greedy management diluted the 96 cents in your right pocket to 80 cents. (Numbers are just illustrative, not actual). Still a winner, but not what it should have been due to management greed.
I disagree with recombination. That just gets nsam earnings trading at nrf's low multiples.
It ain't hate for external management. If external management were hated so much, why did nsam hit 24.91 per share in early March 2015 shortly after reporting 27 cents of cad for 4Q 2014?
While external management does cause a discount in the managed's multiple because the manager's profit is subtracted from the managed's profit, that's not the reason for the price collapse, imo.
The dive started the Monday after the Friday night filing of the proxy statements disclosing obscenely excessive compensation and the dive accelerated the Monday after the Friday night filing of the prior Wednesday's shareholder votes on compensation. While it was already suspected that this management was being sneaky with the Friday night filings, the delay in reporting the shareholder votes on compensation proved the management was trying to hide things and could no longer be trusted.
The stink of this management is the cause of tutes voting with their feet and that's what caused the price collapse.
Recoveries from multiple smackdowns. We finally have some bargain hunters.
So far today, NRF has had 3 smackdowns and recovered from all. NRE 2 and NSAM 4 with the same result.
Nice to see for a change. Getting very tired of smackdown = staydown.
Has an offer been accepted? What are the cap rates? What is occupancy pct? What occupancy pct is projected noi based on? All if you don't mind sharing.
Same guy who wrote an error filled hatchet job on NRF a few months ago on SA. IMO, he's just trying to defend his SA botch here.
If you go to the nasdaq website under any symbol and click on Institutional Holdings, you get the tute report. If you click on the date column header, the file resorts into newest date reported order.
As of a few minutes ago,for NRF, 12 tutes had reported 12/31/15 holdings. 4 of them sold out.
For NSAM, 7 reported with 3 sold out.
For NRE, 10 reported with 5 sold out.
Yeah, the number of shares held and transacted by early filers is very small, but the percentage of sold out tutes is telling.
On no company-specific news except a shareholder goes public, usually a good sign in a mistrusted management situation.
And management stands silent.
Pathetic and infuriating.
I think you have posted here to the effect that nsam is getting hammered right along with (or similarly to) other asset managers. Just before I started typing this, nsam is down over 11% ytd.
Would you please post ytd pct for the asset managers you refer to. I happen to watch AINC and they are up almost 4% ytd. Who you lookin at?
I agree that the best use of nsam's cash in the long run is to buy back stock. But a short term boost is sorely needed. A 1 cent increase (10%) in the quarterly dividend costs less than 8 million per year vs a 400 million buyback authorization. IMO, a 10% dividend increase is money well spent.
Sold'em for 14.3681 shortly after the open for an overnight 3%. Another 2 grand for the Christmas fund.
I might even buy'em back if the smackdown goes far enough.
Well, if the yield was 36.8% on a 7.06 annual dividend, that means the stock price was 19.18. If 19.18 is 20% of book, then book was 95.90.
I hope you didn't pay too much for that research report.