Apparently you think you are special. But, even your dividend will probably not be posted until closer to the end of April. While you are waiting you might want to do some of the due diligence that it appears you have overlooked as an investor in RSO.
Explain why total return is nonsense and a farce. I made a good profit in GABUX over the time I held it and I was well aware of the ROC distribution and how it weighed on the NAV. I benefited from the distributions and their tax-advantage. So explain too how GABUX is a classic ponzi scheme. But then you say you ignored me so you are unlikely to response. Your single post here and what do you come up with, nothing at all related to what I posted. Only your sad attack on me rather than addressing the facts. I will await your cogent reply.
I expected a run today up to around current book value at $5.07. With the reduced dividend covered and sustainable there was no reason for the pps to be below book.
Even better, run it on Morningstar. Yahoo charts only track the change in NAV and do not include distributions. Run it as total return on Morningstar and you will see why GABUX has been a stellar performer through the years as a reliable source of income that is tax advantaged.
We are not being paid interest. We are paid twice the distributions from the components within the index. The re-calculation of leverage changes the indicative value. The indicative value isn't the buy/sell price for the notes although it is usually close.
5 are up, one is down and one is unchanged and those 10 represent a little over 1/5 of the total portfolio.
So because oil happens to be low right now you think that is going to have a long term impact on GABUX? GABUX is for long term investors, not traders. You still haven't explained why the reverse split and distribution cut will cause the NAV to drop. I'm still waiting to hear your explanation.
Why on earth do you think the growth rate of GABUX will decline by 75% because of a reverse split (which really has little to no impact on the growth rate) and the cut in distribution actually raises the growth rate by reducing the ROC payout each month.
You are completely failing to bother to know what is in the GABUX portfolio. How long were you a GABUX shareholder?
That statement is simply ridiculous. The fund is not going to fail. Investors are not going to redeem $3.24 billion in shares. GABUX does not have a major exposure to oil. You don't even know what is in its portfolio. The fund will be around for a long time.
Why do you say that GABUX will sell its "top holdings?" On the contrary, if a fund needs to increase its cash it sells what it considers its least promising holdings, not its "top holdings." If I needed cash, why would I sell my best performing investments?
More than that, why do you think it would negatively impact the diversification of the fund? The fund will continue to have roughly the same diversification. In raising cash it could sell a portion of any of its 200 or more holdings and that would not change the diversification.
You are sure sour about the split and distribution change. It is clouding your rationality about it all.
Sorry that is completely wrong. You know how the NAV is figured because you wrote that in your last post. But when investors in an open end mutual fund sell their shares the fund loses assets, but it also loses an equal liability. So the NAV is unchanged by a redemption.
The idea that there can be a "run" and that sellers or buyers drive the price up or down is mistaken. Buyers and sellers have no impact on the NAV. Shares in an open end mutual fund aren't "traded." Sellers and buyers don't "bid" on shares.
When there are more sellers than buyers it simply means the share count drops. When you buy a share a new share is created. When you sell a share there is one less share.
It seems that your misunderstanding may be clouding your doomsday view of GABUX.
Liquidity can be an issue for trading. If I was looking to sell and there weren't many buyers I would notice that it may take a while for me to sell those those shares if I put in a limit order. I think back to the worst days of the recession in 08-09 and prices could whipsaw up and down quickly and range widely.
So what? You have mentioned this before and you have used the word "blood bath." Why do you think this is important? If they run out of or low on cash for redemptions they will sell some holdings. So what? It doesn't change the NAV in doing it. They may sell some appreciated holdings and that may increase their realized capital gains for the year or they may sell some holdings for a loss. It simply means the turnover rate of 11% may be higher this year and they may sell some holdings that they otherwise wouldn't have sold, but it doesn't change the NAV. The selling may have some repercussions on overall performance for a time, but that's not for sure. I would love to hear why you think this is so important that you keep stating it.
Help me understand the connection that you are making between what you call "interest/demand for the products" and "accelerate a downward pricing trend." The history of CEFL and actually all of the UBS ETNs is that "interest/demand" is reflected in liquidity or the availability of shares and in any premium or discount paid for those shares to be generally close to the indicative value of the ETN. The indicative value has little conneciton to "interest/demand" and a stronger connection to the performance of the index.
In other words, a "downward pricing trend" is most likely to come from a decline in the share prices of the components within the index. For someone concerned about the risk that there may be a call for early redemption because CEFL has dropped to $5 a share or has decreased 60% in value that has much more to do with the indicative value than "interest/demand." I think the question is, what would it take for CEFL to drop to $5 a share or lose 60% of its value? Those are actually two separate concerns, but are sure worth considering.
What would it take for CEFL to drop from its current selling price of $21.83 to $5? Of course it is double leveraged so that needs to be considered. Let's say the market goes into a 2008 type free fall. What would that mean for the CEFL index components (that generally mark the indicative value)? On this I would actually look at the low prices for the components in 2008-9. I think that's more realistic than simply doing a mathematical calculation based on various possible percentage drops. What did these CEFS do in 2008-9?
Then what would it take to lose 60% of its value? On this one I am unsure what "its value": actually means. Is it the original value of the note which is $25 or the indicative value? If it is the original value then you're only talking about a drop to $15 a share. So that's just not it. It would be a discount of 60% to the indicative value. That's extremely unlikely and I don't even entertain it.
Let's first be clear that you are not the person who posted the original question. Your ID is eld38 with an l between the e and the d. You created this ID today and you have never posted before today. The person who asked me the question originally is eid38 who created his ID in 1999. So you are a troll and a liar and it is so easy to spot your childish malicious posts.But, I'll play along with you troll.
1. Can you tell me why a reverse split could change the performance of the NAV apart from the distribution cut? You can't because there is no coherent reasonable explanation for why GABUX will perform better after a reverse split. It is only the reduction in what the fund pays out to investors for distributions that is any different.
2. Do you know what price I have purchased my ETNs at? So you really don't know what my personal return is, do you? By the way they are all ETNs and not ETFs. You need to pay better attention. No, it isn't about how high their distributions are, but I do put great weight on the reliability of their distributions. I regard the distributions of the ETNs that I invest in as very reliable and I am willing to accept higher volatility in share price in return for a more secure distribution. So no, you don't really do your due diligence at all because you don't know what my criteria are for my investments, nor what my total portfolio is, nor what my financial situation is and so your "due diligence" has no connection with my investments.
My strategy is to maintain a widely diversified portfolio with reliable dividend income. That has worked very very well for me for a long time.
Now little boy troll you can go to sleep and think about how you are going to assume another ID to try and harass people. It will be interesting to see what ID you use to reply to my note.
1. I don't know if the NAV will go up or down over any period of time. I can only speculate. What I do know is that if investors had received a 3.5 cent distribution every month instead of a 7 cent distribution over the last two years then the NAV today would be $0.84 higher than it is now. It would be $6.03. I do not think that a reverse split is going to change the fund's performance in any way. Changing the NAV by a reverse split doesn't change the assets. It simply doubles the share price. What changes the future NAV is that you they will be paying less in distributions. If one thinks that utilities and energy are going to go up then GABUX will probably go up.
2. I held both in the past and now hold both through my investment in CEFL. They are two of the holdings in its portfolio. A difference is that they are CEFs and trade at a premium or discount to NAV. I steer away from putting too many of my investment eggs in one basket. It's why I love ETFs and ETNs. I use CEFL, BDCL, DVYL, DVHL and MORL for a lot of my eggs.
Why does the price range matter to you? Why does it matter if you pay $5 or $10 or $35 for a share in an open end mutual fund? Why do the number of shares matter to you? The number of shares has no relation to performance.