she said she was limited on "material comments" based on SEC regs. she said they might consider a press release if investor response was large. but she was emphatic on the non impact to ARCC.
zamb... i called investor relations and talked directly to the VP of investor relations, Damayra Cacho. she said, "there will be no impact whatsoever." and as you noted, she emphasized the strong relationship with both parties. i was surprised i got past the secretary. that's usually a brick wall in most companies. kudos to ARCC.
pretty much all eREITS were down big today presumably because of a spike in treasury yields. but STAG was slaughtered. curiously, STAG traded at normal volumes. i have never seen a stock go down 4.5% in one day on average volume. very weird.
wizardofog.. to be clear, i am a fan and share holder of ARCC. i'd just prefer to buy it closer to nav. i'd be a buyer anywhere from $16.90 down. realistically, you're not going to get great capital appreciation (hence my caution buying well above nav), but you will get solid, steady income. pullbacks in the market are extra harsh on BDCs, so a good entry point is waiting out there somewhere. i dont think they will be raising their dividend in any significant manner anytime soon. quarters are lumpy by nature, and their history is to pay special dividends when the money is available... which is fine by me.
Goldman Sachs gives ETE $86 price target
Goldman Sachs initiated coverage on Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (NYSE: ETE) with a Conviction Buy rating and a price target of $86.00
ht0629, you're absolutely right. most of the analyst coverage of the market is very mediocre and frequently bad. even the select few analysts that have good track records and a good understanding of the company they cover, often fail to predict 12 month price performance.
ACSF is so thinly traded i wouldn't read anything into a 1 day move in share price. their NII was 31 cents per share last quarter. i think the dividend will remain at 29 cents this quarter.
dgaines80... management says they covered their dividend for the fiscal year, but that's because their 3rd quarter NII was 42 cents, but they waived intensive fees (to their credit) that quarter, otherwise they wouldn't have covered the dividend that quarter. meanwhile, the other 3 quarters of 2014 they failed to cover the dividend. they were paying out 34 cents per share, while earning 31 cents per share.
the general issue i would have with SCM is that they are small (32 portfolio companies), they're young, and they're not covering their dividend on anything resembling a regular basis. having said that, it is cheap... selling well below NAV.
SCM continues to fail to cover their dividend. they're also quite small. i see no reason to buy SCM at this point, compared to a select group of performing BDCs.
snuau comments were good, but i disagree with the "relatively low risk," comment. the problem so-called "smart money" has with BDCs is that you really have no knowledge of the finances of underlying companies the BDCs are lending to. One thing you do know is regular banks won't lend to the companies the BDCs are lending to. so by nature, BDCs are lending to companies at higher risk of default. NMFC has been very stable, though they stumbled last quarter and their NAV took a hit. this might mean the price right now is elevated because of the pending ex-date, and it might start trading at a sustained lower price range after the ex-date due to the lower NAV.
the other thing about BDCs is that you simply dont get much capital appreciation (it's all being paid out in the dividend), and you're at a much higher risk of a sell off in a down market compared to a large cap stock. it's critical that you keep BDCs as a small % of your portfolio, and be very picky which BDC you buy. NMFC has had a good history, but personally i'd wait until it dropped to roughly NAV before buying.