Better use for the money elsewhere. In my opinion, Grupo will force us out prior to the end of 2016 at a 15% premium to market with a very low dividend yield while we wait. I also saw a double in NRE before the end of 2016 with a dividend yield of almost 6% on my cost. I had enough energy losses to offset the big tax gain on scco, so I switched the cash from scco to nre.
In late March, 2014 I transferred 1,500 shares of NRF into a new Roth IRA, a "virgin" account. I set the default to drip and have had no other activity in this IRA. The only transactions have been dripping all dividends, the nsam & nre spinouts and two reverse splits. This account even contains, intact, cash for fractions in the nre spin/split.
At Dec 31, 2014, this IRA was worth 62,730.98. Fidelity is showing the balance now (after the close) at 37,600.30, down 25,130.67 or 40.06% of the 12/31/14 balance. Thus management delivered a weighted average total return for the group of MINUS 40% in 2015.
NSAM: At 12/31/14 it was worth 34,587.57. At 12/31/15, including 4 dripped dividends, NSAM is worth 19,003.98, down 15,583.59 or 45.06% of the opening balance.
NRF: At 12/31/14 it was worth 28,143.41. At 12/31/15, including 4 drips for nrf and 1 drip for nre, it is worth 22.28 cash for fractions, 15,160.13 for nrf and 3,414.01 for nre, a total of 18,596.42, down 9,546.99 from the opening balance, or 33.92%.
Great job of "unlocking value", Hamo. You can bet on my vote on your 2015 compensation if it is more than zero.
It has nothing to do with sec filing requirements. It has EVERTYHING to do with communications with shareholders, NSAM shareholders in this case.
NSAM was responsible for selling Healthcare. NSAM owns the managing broker-dealer. NSAM gets a small net commission on each sale. NSAM manages Healthcare and gets fees for doing so, an asset fee, an acquisition fee and a disposition fee. Nontraded fees are material to NSAM's income statement and CAD per share. Why did NSAM not deliver some good news for a change to its shareholders? Do you suppose NSAM shareholders might like to hear the offering was successful, hence lucrative to NSAM?
The price of all things Northstar has been pounded lower and lower, off about 50% since the proxy statements were filed, imo, all because of the greed, sneakiness and hiding of info by management......the STINK of nrf management. From hedge fund darling to hedge funds voting, in droves, with their feet due to the stink of management. There is nothing wrong with the fundamentals of any of the businesses. It's all the stink, imo.
Part of that stink comes from not disclosing anything unless and until they have to. What would it cost for NSAM to have made it a joint press release with Healthcare? 500, 1,000??? No, this management chose to not communicate this news to NSAM shareholders. It just perpetuates the stink.
As of supplement 14 filed on 12/2/15, NRF had put in 2.6 million, less than peanuts compared to 1.8 billion raised.
Status of the offering is published in every prospectus supplement. That status includes disclosure of NRF money in.
He just won't straight-out admit he is responsible for his errors. I can't stand people like that (which I suppose was evident in my responses).
For entertainment, all should read the comments to the article. The author tried to duck personal responsibility.
I was not gentle in my responses.
Article in yesterday's WSJ said sales of RVs way up this year, but mix has shifted to smaller and cheaper RVs over the very expensive 40-ft buss size.
I have never rented space in an RV park, so I have a question for somebody who knows the answer.
When you rent a space for a RV, do you get charged for the space or the vehicle whichever is larger?
The analogy is renting a boat slip. If you put a 32 foot boat into a 30 ft slip, you pay for 32 feet. If you put a 25 ft boat into a 30 ft slip, you pay for 30 feet.
With RVs, if you put a 25 foot RV into a space which can hold 40 feet, do you pay for 25 or 40?
Hey ed. You spend so much time reading third party junk.....and you're posting junk here.... I suggest you redirect some of that time doing original analysis. You might get a much better understanding of nrf's business and maybe you won't post junk here.
This is junk on its face: "The PE of 4.87 is very attractive. The TTM coverage ratio is -0.72 which is definitely a concern. " Did it occur to you that these two statements are inherently incompatible? If one is correct the other must be wrong.
Closing price was 16.62. If PE is 4.87, then earnings are 3.41. They pay a 3.00 dividend. Thus the coverage ratio is 1.14. Hence, something must be wrong when you say ttm coverage is negative .72.
Oh yeah, these aren't your numbers. They come from Schwab. But you don't have a clue about what is behind these numbers or where Schwab got them. Suppose I suggested to you that the negative ttm "coverage ratio"
resulted from dividing the dividend by GAAP loss. Is GAAP income or loss an appropriate measure of NRF's dividend-paying capacity?
Forget about you knowing nothing about NRF. Your opening post stated that book value was 10 and it was selling for less than book. You were looking at the closing price of 16.62. Don't you know that 16.62 is MORE than 10.00? OOPS....wrong screen. But that does not excuse not noticing what you posted had to be wrong.
IMO, your opening post was mindless trash and your response is mindless trash. The time you spend reading third party junk would be better spent reading the 10-K and 10-Qs and taking an elementary financial statement analysis class.
My trusty old calculator says that 3.00 / 16.62 = 18.05%.
What divided by what = 14.84% ?????
What divided by what says that the coverage ratio = 73.16% ????
What divided by what = 6.56 pe ratio???
What divided by what = a debt to equity ratio of .49 ???
What numbers lead you to say that book value is 10 per share ??
Please tell us how 16.62 (yesterday's closing) is "......way below book value of $10 per share." Do you have a math problem, a language problem or both?
Were you a reader when NRF bought the CSE cdo in the summer of 2010? If you were, you might remember me railing against the accounting for that VIE beginning soon after the 3Q 10-Q was filed and I went ballistic on the subject after the 10-K was filed. IMO, they used cr@p gaap accounting for the cse cdo to cover up the fact that the core business was in slow liquidation mode. I pounded that accounting here over and over again, but I never suggested I thought what they were doing was illegal. Deceptive, yes, imo, but not illegal.
I sold all of my preferred after the 10-Q was filed.......took me weeks because I owned A. I held only the A preferred in the taxable account because it had a triple, the final few thousand shares. I sold that after the 10-K was filed. The legal accounting made me puke.
But I continued to watch.....and read. NRF came out of liquidation mode in the summer of 2011. They had survived the financial crisis and had begun doing new business. I think survival showed what a genius Hamo is. He saw it coming and stopped doing new business in 2Q, 2008, long before Lehman went belly-up, triggering the panic. I waited until the 2011 10-K was filed to confirm what started in 3Q. I started buying common shortly after the 10-K and am very happy I did.
The NSAM spinoff was very well received by the market. Then an already greedy management went way, way overboard "stealing" (imo) compensation shares just because they thought they could get away with it. They tried to sneak it by the shareholders with Friday night filings, withdrawing forward guidance. The shareholder vote was Wednesday morning. They reported the results Friday night. Sham buyback announcements. The NRE spin a failure so far. And here we are....a management with nothing but stink on it
I used the word, "sham", not "scam" There is a big difference:
a thing that is not what it is purported to be.
a dishonest scheme; a fraud.
When you testify as an expert witness, you either use very precise terminology correctly or you get the hell beat out of you on cross examination. I choose my words very carefully.
The word, "scam" has, to date, never entered my mind with respect to anything I have observed or read about the nrf group. If that day ever comes, I will sell every share of the group I own, despite the tax hit, and will notify this board AFTER I sell my last share.
100 million draw on loan has me baffled as I viewed it as a signal they would buy back with both fists every day they could to the max. It does not appear that happened. Without buybacks, an already cash rich nsam just gets richer every quarter. Yup, we wait for the 10-K at the latest where they have to disclose buybacks by month.
IMO, that nsam call spread contract is a sham as far as stock buybacks are concerned. As in 2Q, their token for show was done at the very end of the quarter. Options contracts are typically next day settlement and the premium was unpaid as of 9/30 suggesting a 9/30 signing with payment due 10/1. While the notional amount may be 100 million, the spread limits maximum proceeds if settled in cash to 40 million for which they paid 16 million leaving a 24 million profit in a best case stock price. Worst case is zero proceeds if settled in cash meaning a 16 million loss to create a make believe buyback illusion.
The 400 million buyback was announced in April. By the end of September they had done next to nothing to buy shares back. The price tanked the first few days after 10-Q filing as nsam admitted by its actions the buyback announcement was a BS bluff.
I'm surprised there wasn't more board reaction to the reduction of the drip discount from 5% to 1%. I'm not surprised the company reduced the discount because they obviously don't want to sell shares at a discount to an oversold price.
Anybody else stop dripping etp due to the discount reduction?