I would very much like to see the trend continue of picking up new customers, especially longer term, and eventually kicking DHL to the curb.
Yep, shorts dropping, one year targets rising, interest rates rising. It's all good in Wonderland. Time to focus on making good even better. I think a couple covering brokers owe us an upgrade or two.
I never said it was not. Look at what I mentioned earlier, "and other net mark to market adjustments of $0.02." That applies to the assets (loans, etc.). I showed you what happened Q1, black and white and in the books.
I agree. And at 4 even they may think so too and start buying. They need to pop about a total 10mm dollar gain in net earnings doing the buy back. Of course if their core earnings increase it puts less pressure on the buyback.
Last little calc to show you where things stand ending Q1. If they pay a .16 dividend for 2015 (.64 total) and just say an average of .05 isn't covered every quarter, you are collecting a true yield of .44, not .64 per share. At 4 even this gives you a basic yield of exactly 11%. That does not include any ROC implications or change in share price.
Really it doesn't matter where the shortfall is tagged. The fact is that it is there. For Q1 if they had wanted to cover the dividend and keep the book value even they would of had to have paid a .09 dividend.
The KEY number people should focus on is net income allocable to common shares.
Using your numbers, you show a drop from 935.5 to 931.1 from Q4 thru Q1.
Now add new shares over the quarter into the equation.
Pip, from their earnings release, "The decrease in book value per common share of $0.07 was due to dividends on common stock paid of $0.16 per share, partially offset by net income allocable to common shares of $0.07, and other net mark to market adjustments of $0.02."
Net loss of .07 that had to come from stockholders equity from which the book value is calculated. The majority of that .07 shortfall will be delegated to return of capital.
Book value dropped Q1 because they paid a .16 dividend on the common shares.
LOL, that's basically what I've been trying to warn the backers of RSO not to do! I'm very picky when choosing equities. I marry none of them. And I hear your words concerning a market pullback. At some point it always seems to become a self fulfilling prophecy doesn't it? I am in more cash now than I've been in a long time just for that reason. I only own one reit at this juncture, this one. See ya on the other side Mint. ;)
I believe the general inference they are making is that due to the closing dates of equity sales, which has been an integral percentage of their income, some quarters may show lower earnings while others will be higher (like Q3 & Q4). They have a chunk of UTI so there should be no disruption in the dividend. I'm guessing it wasn't a seller's market the first quarter due to the drop in interest rates and everyone's hedges getting scuffed. I'll go out on a limb and predict they report earnings in the .30's or better for Q2.
Until you learn what ROC is and how it affects your holding I'm afraid the only one who looks like a moron is you.
I know this Pip, if you held shares for the last year and didn't trade them, you didn't yield an 80 cent dividend on each share and you'll notice the cost basis for each share you owned fell.
Ok, bottom. I know you want a number, but to be honest there is no bottom until their earnings fully cover the dividend and the ROC component is finally removed. As long as they have to keep drawing shareholder equity to pay the balance of the dividend the share price will keep slumping. There will likely be some positive movement if they physically start buying back shares, but how much and for how long is going to depend on earnings......REAL earnings. Pip, seriously, haven't you wondered how RSO supposedly "hit" their number right on the dot this quarter, yet posted they could only cover 9 cents of the 16 cent dividend? BTW, I'm a grandad, but I do remember those days.
You didn't make that kind of return on RSO in the last year unless you actively traded it.
Seeds.bill, the only problem you have is you're too nice a guy. ;) You've got nothing to apologize for either. If I had stayed and drank their Kool Aid I would have been calling them far worse by now. I drank the juice too until 2 things happened, (1) ROC started to turn up in the 1099 and (2) they started doing offerings below book. But know none of us were born as experts and everyone picks some "learning experiences" along the way. I'll admit their CC's always offered spins to keep investors expecting more. I've been there, done that. I'm only posting here now because I thought they may have finally stopped the bleeding by reducing the dividend and was considering giving them a new look. Instead it upsets me to see longs have to suffer through the same ___. Best of luck to you, hang in there.
And you sir are in the mine field and don't even know it. Best of luck, I hope it ends up working out for you and everyone else here. Like I said, if they reverse the trend that has now been going on for quite a while now things will get better. But until they do all they are doing is playing a shell game and paying a significantly lower yield than what is posted. HINT: The actual dividend yield for shares bought the beginning of last year was 9%, not 14%, and that does not take into account the drop in share price over the course of the year.
I'll be, you have no clue as to what I am talking about. I would take the time to lay it all out for you but I am pretty sure all I would get back is how daft I am and some other babble that doesn't relate to my point. If you would like to be civil and less argumentative I'll lay out a shining example of what I am talking about.
What??? I'm not talking about book value. Try reading the post again. You may also want to google Return of Capital (ROC) as it pertains to dividends and cost basis of shares owned.
I'm relieved someone else has done the math. Thank you Book. Q1 2015 only had 9 cents of the 16 cent dividend covered. I wonder how much of that is already delegated to ROC. People see that hefty yield and assume it's all a solid gain.
The ROC not only sabotages the true yield, it will come back to haunt you if you ever sell your shares. At that point you find the cost basis for your shares has been reduced every quarter by the ROC component. If you sell, your capital gain is boosted by the lowered cost basis and you find you have a higher tax liability. Some will say "I never intend to sell my shares so it makes no difference". Fact of the matter is no matter what, you are not getting a true yield as stated.
IF they turn this around it can all change. I think the true question here is what should the amount of the dividend truly be to be secure that it is completely covered.
I am not familiar with exactly what investment vehicles are currently in use to help finance the pension fund. However as we all know the pension contributions represent a significantly large expense to the tune of several cents per share per quarter.
My submission for one alternative of expenditure would be to invest in some additional income producing vehicles with the soul purpose of supplementing the pension fund.
Good luck to you pipster, your last post proved my point. I'm done playing with you now, but I'll be back from time to time just to check on you.