I do agree but always have a tendency to second guess myself. I bought my starter position right at the beginning of the decoupling of share price to NAV price, so I'm not happy about that, but as said, it was a starter amount...... I've yet to add, but in my mind, this is much closer to a buy than a sell because of its recent performance. It's trading at 11.27% discount to NAV right now which is an historical high according to CEFConnect and that's with a continued stability to NAV. I'd love to have a better handle on whether or not any of their portfolio companies is actually experiencing serious economic stress...I also realize high yield bond market has been compressed relative to normal, but still, the size of the change for BGH seems larger than the rest of the market, especially with the low duration aspect of the fund. I'm much closer to adding on than getting out.
Why is this closed end trading at historical discount to NAV? with a 10% yield now, all from income, you would think there's a bottom and yet it continues to drop..... I got in because the short duration aspect of the fund, but even that hasn't seemed to help.... Does anyone know if there's any specific problems with any of the issuers in their portfolio? I see where 20% is oil and gas - is that what's bringing them down? very frustrating.....
3:32PM Issue priced at 24.50 for 1,224,490 shares raising 30 mil... Underwriters 30 day option on 184k addiitonal
It's interesting that FAX is trading at over a 14% discount to NAV, a level of discount not seen since the '08-'09 crisis and NAV has been essentially stable since June 4. Of course, in the crisis time, discount to NAV did exceed 20% for brief periods of time, so anything's possible but right now it's trading at a discount to NAV that's not been seen in 5 years.... Is the result of an expectation of increasing interest rates or something else?
How is an investor supposed to evaluate the impact or attractiveness of this announced add-on issuance to this series when there's apparently no information yet provided as to size of the issue or price? Right now OXLCO is at 24.13, down 4.6% but without knowing the price of the add-on or the size, are you just supposed to guess whether it's an opportunity or a precursor?
More importantly, what's with the volume? That's more significant to me than a single mkt trade.........
So tell me, Kevin, are you a fan of Jason Hart's or not???? It's hard to tell from your 1500 never changing posts...
Just in case somebody would actually like to discuss TVC, can anyone explain why TVC and TVE are trading so close in price right now? After both issues reset, with TVE reset at 3.36% and TVC at 3.55%, how can they be trading within 10 cents of each other? What's even more difficult to understand is why are both, especially TVE, trading higher or at least at the same price as it did last week when long Treasuries have increased 20 basis points this week? I don't understand... TVC is justifiable because you can still put them back to TVA, but why is TVE still trading at a premium to par?
I've been a fan of INVE for a couple of years but ultimately bailed out of all my high risk stocks in October - couldn't stand the volatility. So I don't mean to come across negatively, but your comment could easily be turned around as a negative implication for INVE instead of a positive. What crossed my mind with this announcement was I wondered why CSCO didn't exercise the same strategy with INVE that Apple did when they chose to buy out Authentic at its very low market cap when they decided to use AUTH's technology in teh then upcoming IPhone? AAPL decided to lock in AUTH's technology and growth completely for themselves by stealing the company from AUTH's shareholders when they knew the impact of their own decision to use their tech. CSCO didn't do the same thing. I wonder why? Could it be the market's over estimating the long term value of this deal or that CSCO doesn't really consider INVE's tech that far ahead of the competition? I have no answers and kind of feel like Debby Downer in even bringing it up. It's just my cynical mind coming up with alternate thought for no apparent reason. I don't own INVE anymore, and won't be jumping in no matter what, so take this from whence it comes - a cynic with no dog in the hunt and no in depth analysis done.
I haven't read an IPO prospectus in years, but out of curiosity, I did skim OPGEN. I don't know whether it's more of a comment on the company or the status of the current IPO market but it amazes me that a company like OPGEN can attempt to go public with language in their S-1 clearly stating, "The report of our independent registered public accounting firm on our financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 contains explanatory language that substantial doubt exists about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our monthly cash burn rate is approximately $500,000. Our current operating assumptions, which include our best estimate of future revenue and operating expenses, indicate that our current cash on hand as of December 31, 2014 of approximately $0.7 million, plus the 2015 convertible note funding and additional secured demand note funding in 2015, will not be sufficient to fund operations through the second quarter of 2015.
'In the event the Company is unable to successfully raise additional capital, we will not have sufficient cash flows and liquidity to finance our business operations as currently contemplated. Accordingly, in such circumstances the Company would be compelled to reduce general and administrative expenses and delay research and development projects including the purchase of scientific equipment and supplies until it is able to obtain sufficient financing."
Were I not familiar with TINY's past proven non-communications skills and ability to participate in monetization events that never translate to TINY's shareholder benefit, I might be tempted to say that with language like this in the S-1, it's no wonder they're silent.