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.
Gotta take NSAM & NRF in the same deal. I suspect it would have to be hostile because this management is young enough to want to continue the compensation plunder for many years. If that's not enough, read the golden parachute provisions in the employment contract sections of the proxy statements. If you've been puking over excessive compensation, have an EMT team by your side before you start reading the change of control payments to them.
Still have lots of number crunching to do. First impressions, cad per share slightly less than my low expectation range. Europe is no loss to NRF, which will show in 4Q. Same with nsam, bloated with compensation increase.
Nothing much in either CC not in press releases.
NRF has apartment portfolio for sale looking for 500 million range. NRF looking to sell pieces of other portfolios by forming joint ventures. By doing so, they get to show an external transaction price on a minority interest.
To illustrate, if they sell 25% of something (via joint venture) for 1 billion, then the whole is worth more than 4 billion.
Not one question from the gutless (imo) analysts about the unmitigated disaster price-wise the rollout of NRE is/was.
Market reaction to ho-hum earnings not surprising to me given how much I believe this management is mistrusted by the tutes. While more disclosure by NRF in release and, in response to question, am considering reinstatement of forward guidance,
Getting the yield down by market bidding up price ain't gunna happen with these results, imo. Management all talk, next to no action on buybacks so far. We'll see when blackout ends in a few days. Businesses appear stable and sound though not growing (NRF) and not growing bottom line as fast as expected (NSAM).
This market hates all things associated with this management, imo. I've seen nothing today which I think will change that.
NRF finally put into print what they thought NAV per share was for NRF. I'm sure it took a huge amount of discussion to overcome the lawyers objecting to putting out anything which was not historical fact. You can't prove an estimate. You can only disclose your methodology, which they did. The reason lawyers don't like this for their clients is that hindsight might prove the estimate wrong.....here comes the lawsuit.
But NRF broke the mold with NRF. they did it. They put into print their estimate of fair market values of their properties.
Anybody and everybody can evaluate whether they agree with the estimate. Only transactional hindsight will be proof positive.
Here's the point of this post: IMO, they will do the same with NRE whenever they get around to communicating some facts and their opinions on value.
Point of this post?
Nrf at 17.50 = 60% of 29.
NRE at 10 = 45% of 22.
NRE is the table pounder until they release info on NAV.
Goes to NRF. Every equity reit I watch is green today, EXCEPT NRF.
VNQ up over 1%, NRF down almost 2%.
Greed, sneakiness and withholding transparency (imo) has earned deserved contempt in the marketplace. Stock is selling for 65% of NAV. Paper ballot on compensation did not prevail, so vote with your feet. It is going to be a long road back.
I have 16 positions in my taxable account, all individual stocks, all long. During trading hours my positions screen is sorted in descending order of the day's percentage increase. I just looked and got a shock. Only 3 positions are green.......NSAM, NRF and NRE. Don't remember the last time I saw that.
On a different screen Fidelity displays the three biggest percentage gainers of my entire portfolio (including IRAs, about 28 positions) and the three biggest percentage losers. Today, for the first time in a very long time NRF & NSAM are on the gainers list. Far too often in recent months, both have been on the loser list.
I hope this signifies serious buying back by both (and Europe too). It is so late in the quarter that heavy buybacks to the end of the year will have little impact on weighted average shares outstanding for the quarter, hence little impact on cad per share. However, NAV per share is measured with 12/31/15 diluted shares outstanding, not weighted average. Thus 4Q buybacks will have a bigger impact on 12/31 nav than they will on 4Q cad per share. This quarter's buybacks will have full impact on 1Q 2016 cad per share.
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?
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.
Do not confuse CAD with taxable income or gaap income. Each is a completely different animal.
Dividends are paid from CAD. The 90% rule applies to taxable income. GAAP income is C*R*A*P income.
Now you are no longer confused. Almost all reductions are because they must be reduced for liquidity reasons (a la drilling MLPs). Some dividends are reduced because management thinks they can get away with it. That's why Tylis's "throwing money out the door" comment was so disturbing to many.I think it was just his stupidity as opposed to his having an intention to cut the div.
"NRF went up because they didn't do a reverse split at that time....."
Now I understand. My wife keeps telling me I should be more patient, understanding and gentle with intellectually disabled people, so I'll try.
Please reconsider the above statement. It's OK to look it up.....like an open book exam. That patient and gentle enough?
NO. No gain or loss is recognized for tax purposes on a corporation trading its own stock. Buy back for 17 and later sell for 24 = no gain for tax purposes.
I don't think I used the word, "foolish", and I also said some people rationally disagree with me about the relative risk of preferred vs common. I think there is little difference in a going broke scenario, because a guy like Hamo will not go broke a little bit. If Hamo goes down, he will go down in flames where unsecured creditors will not get 100% on the dollar. All stockholders get wiped out.
In any event, the current relative price drop is significant to those who have to sell or want to sell. In such a case, yes sir, preferred has been "safer" than common over the last 8 months. But interim changes is price are meaningless unless unless sold. I was talking an infinitely long term. My reason was and still is, all the upside is with common and, at the time, preferred was at or above par. Now the yield on common is approaching double that of preferred.
Preferred is the better investment if NRF fails. Common is the better investment if NRF does not fail, all in my opinion. If anything, the switch to common case is even stronger with the disparity in price declines.
The simple way to solve the problem is to not admit any healthy muslim male between the ages of 11 and 65.
Yeah, yeah, the bleeding hearts will scream we're breaking up families and that's cruel.........they's scream that until a healthy male muslim kills one of their family members. Then the tune will change. Families can self select. Don't want the male separated? Then don't apply to come to the U.S
Same with sending ground forces. Public opinion is against it until a "Paris" happens in Washington, New York, Chicago, etc. Same with Germany. No will to fight.......until terror strikes in their homeland.
Now is the time for the civilized world to ante-up to wipe these terrorists out. Think Russia is happy to have ISIS take down an airplane with over 200 Russians on it? Iran will let Russia cross their territory to get to Iraq.
The arab countries go into Syria from Jordan. France, Germany and the UK go in from Turkey. We contribute and lead. The civilized world can't come up with 150,000 combat troops to wipe out 40,000 terrorists?
The only thing these monsters understand is a gun. That's what it is going to take. IMO, the sooner the world figures that out, the better.
It's only nsam's profit that is being sucked out of NRF, not the gross fee because nsam pays expenses (mostly compensation) which would otherwise be paid by nrf if the management were done internally (meaning on consolidated financial statements).
No question in my mind: NRE buyback announcement was not a bluff like NSAM was. I suspect the buyback got some help today from covering shorts.
At 11/13 settlement date (11/10 trade date) there were 3.784 million NRE short, about 6% of shares/units out.
IMO, if NRE presses its buyback hard enough, it will stampede lots of shorts into covering.
Let's see, with average volume a little better than 1 million per day, NRE can buy back in the neighborhood of 250,000 per day, imo, enough to #$%$ the shorts into covering. This could be fun to watch.