That's right. Buy too early and the fund (VNQ) does not replicate the index until June 1 trading.
I suppose Vanguard could cause other Vanguard funds to buy nrf starting now with the understanding that VNQ would buy them at the closing price on 5/29, but I don't know if that is legal or permitted.
This will be interesting, as nrf's articles of incorporation prohibit any one shareholder from owning more than 9.8% of nrf's stock. This is to prevent 5 or fewer people from owning more than 50%, which would terminate reit status. I don't know if there is an exception for funds & etfs, which are ultimately owned by millions of people.
At 3/31, Vanguard owned 18.7 million NRF, none of which was owned by VNQ. I estimate VNQ has to buy about 27 million shares by June 1. Absent dispositions in other funds, Vanguard will own about 45.7 million.
NRF's earnings press release says there will be 385.7 million outstanding after the forward sales agreement is closed. If Vanguard owns 45.7 million, it will own 11.85% of nrf.
Vanguard's holdings increased by 5.8 million shares during 1Q, which is a 45% increase over their 12/31/14 holdings. I suppose they could be "parking" nrf shares in other funds to be sold to VNQ on 5/29 in anticipation of addition to RMZ, but 3/31 is kind of early to be stockpiling when the announcement did not come until 5/12.
BTW, if Vanguard pays enough of a premium to entice Hamo to hold idle cash for months, NRF could fill VNQ's order for 27 million shares by issuing under the forward sales contract which had 32.3 million to issue as of 5/6 or by an unannounced (until done) private placement. Rats on Hamo if he does that. We need Vanguard buying in the open market to impact the price.
"If you compare NRF to VNQ (reit index) since date of spinoff, or shorter periods, you will find that NRF by and large tracks the index with periodic divergences that subsequently go away."
Please show us some numbers to back up your statement. I'll show you mine.
NRF closed at 16.80 on 7/1/14, its first trading day ex nsam. Shortly before I typed this it was 18.54, an increase of 10.36%.
VNQ closed at 75.24 on 7/1/14. A little while ago it was 81.00, an increase of 7.66%.
An increase of 10.36% is 35.2% higher than an increase of 7.66%. I don't consider a 35% difference in percentage increase "by and large" tracking the index.
Lets add 3 cash dividends for each since 7/1/14:
NRF: 18.54 today + .50+.40+.40 = 19.84 vs 16.80, an increase of 18.10%.
VNQ: 81.00 today + .512+1.103+.668 = 83.283 vs 75.24, an increase of 10.69%
So, including 3 cash dividends, 18.1% is 69.3% higher than 10.69%. You call that by and large tracking the index? In my book, beating by 69% is trouncing the index, not tracking it.
Now you have a chance to back up your statement with numbers. Your turn.
This one may not be perfect in the 3rd and 4th decimal places because I had to use the Yahoo history for one day and the history rounds to the nearest penny. If the high or low on this day had fractions of a cent, this calculation will be slightly off.
The average of the highs and lows for the 5 trading days ending yesterday (using yahoo history) was 56.774.
Thus, 95% = 53.9353, the discount drip price.
Yesterday's close was 57.35, so this drip price is is almost a 6% discount to the close. Rounding to 53.94, that's 3.41 off yesterday's close. Nice.
Have been thinking along the same lines. We've seen lots of these price "funks" in the past few years.
Short volume has been exceptionally heave since a huge spike to 67% on 5/6. Yesterday was over 51%. Just gotta wait it out. Of course, getting paid over 8.5% while you wait makes waiting easy.
Open interest on the May 19s is 33,503 calls and 2,577 puts. I wonder why I think tomorrow's close will be at or very close to 19.00. Maybe because the writers extract maximum pain from the longs with that price.
Compared to the calls the puts are a puny threat to writer profits. Thus, if the manipulation is not perfect, a little below 19.00 is much less costly to the writers than a little above. Thus I expect the writers will be covering short sales until the price approaches 19.00 and they will short like hell to keep the price from going over 19.00.
That was not a harsh rebuke. It was a gentle steering you to the path of self illumination, an appropriate word for your screen name.. I told you where to find your answers. Learn how to learn and you can learn anything.
The quiz will be Monday.
I previously predicted that nrf and nsam combined would total 50 by year end but then reduced that to 49 when more robber shares were issued. I stand by a combined 49.....nrf+nre+nsam.
I can't say why anybody who should buy doesn't. Those who must buy (index trackers) will do so at or very close to the end of May.
Please. If you are going to attribute something to me, either copy & paste the entire post without additions, changes or deletions or put the copied part in quotation marks. I did not post the above on the IV board. To read what I really did post, read message 1953 on the IV board.
I resent you adding words to what I posted and also deleting some I did post and then stating your opening post is what I posted elsewhere.
This is the sell-on-the-news crowd along with manipulators, imo. Both will finish today green today absent some macro bad news, imo.
Would go for a dinner trade but have too many of both.
I have plenty of margin capacity to exercise if the spreads near expiration are ridiculous and I have not already closed the position.
I never reveal my trading plans or prices until after they are executed.
Ex dividend has been built into the premium already. Tomorrow will not affect them, imo.
There are almost 41,000 contracts open on the may 19 calls. You can bet your mother that the writers will fight like hell to keep the price today from going over 19.40 which automatically becomes 19 tomorrow with ex div.
Another reason why I thought the june 19s were a safer rmz bet.
If you get out tomorrow you may win this one. Remember, nrf goes ex 40 cents on 5/14 so you really paid a 42 cent premium.
If you have the ability to exercise the calls you can avoid the huge spreads.
That shows you how dismally slow market writers are. Want another example?.......read the Yahoo profile on nrf. It's practically the same at Fidelity.
Not that long ago I emailed the Yahoo profile to Calabrese and suggested NRF devote some resources to correcting this kind of thing. No reply, of course.