In this presentation, the Company lists 25 REITs, 6 of which have yields of 2% or less. A few more are in the 3% range. I can't remember who, but some poster insisted that no comparable REIT yields 2%.
Keebon, be patient with D as it looks to be dipping below its 50 dma. I think it goes ex-div on Wed so that is another potential 46 cents to come off the trading price. Looks like there is support just under $64 which would also represent an almost 10% correction off of its recent high.
On the contrary Newman, on CHKR, I saw the downtrend developing and sold at a profit at 26. It was with the SD trusts that I tried to play various bounces and was unsuccessful. As I have mentioned, another poster (on this board or one of the SD boards) first mentioned the issue with the pressure in the wells that made me realize that they were going to continue to fall short of the original projections. Yes, it is true that even bad stocks can bounce, but that is the anatomy of a bad stock -- trapped longs keep thinking the bad fundamentals are going to turn around, instead of realizing that the stock remains in a downward spiral. They invevitably hold on too long hoping the stock will get back to their original buy point and thinking they are getting paid to be patient. They rarely sell because the greed of getting even or giving up that "yield" gets in the way of making a better decision. Thankfully there are enough yield chasers to bid this up each quarter so that I get to play the inevitable post-distribution decline.
Sarge, I am considering buying D for my mom's portfolio. Decent enough yield without being too exotic, but I'm waiting for the right entry point. The risk is that if there's more taper talk, interest sensitive stocks like utilities will get hit, so you have to keep some powder dry, in case there's a correction and you have to add. History shows that some of these low, but growing dividend payers can be good long term stocks to own. They are not immune to market selloffs, but you usually don't have to worry about their businesses becoming obsolete. In this case, D has some side businesses that the market probably does not value properly because they are in the utility holding company shell.
I will have to check that article out. Factoid is on the investor village board and is very knowledgeable about MLPs. I am a little concerned about the BDC sector because I see too many people recommending the stocks in this sector. Reminds me of mREITs and MLPs. When everyone starts running to the same stocks, it is usually the last run-up. When there's no one left to buy, a stock can't go up anymore.
Except the stock is going up and you are the whiner. Oh Blutto, the stock can't go up because it doesn't have a yield yet, it's market cap is too large, it ran up 100% in 12 months, Buffet told me not to buy, I don't know of any REITS with 2% yields, no institutions will buy, their properties aren't special. Can't argue the facts, so you resort to name-calling.
Awhile back, someone used to post about D, Dominion Power, the electric company in Virginia. It has had a nice steady, run before recently peaking at about $68 when coincidently, the RSI went over 70. It is now correcting some and is near the 50 day moving average. It came to my attention because I was checking on junior subnotes that I own that are callable starting next June which led me to their earnings transcript. None of this news is new, but they have an MLP in the works as well as an LNG export facility, plus they mentioned some deals in the Marcellus and Utica that will produce 4 separate income streams. D has more going than the run of the mill utility.
Newman, first you should look up the elements of liable before you start playing lawyer. Opinions are protected. Unless you are a CHK insider, in which case you shouldn't be on a yahoo message board, you know nothing about CHK's plans for their units. Your post reminds me of poster Grgsville who assured me that many CHK employees owned this (anyone remember Enron and all the employees who owned their stock?). Didn't stop the stock from falling from $15. Your conclusion that they won't sell is just a guess like mine, except I have pointed to another similar situated trust sponsor (Sandridge) who sold their units when they needed the money to invest elsewhere. If you are right and CHK never sells a unit, that will not necessarily effect the supply and demand for the shares which in turn determines the stock price at the margin. But if I am right and they sell some shares, the price will go down (as was the case with SD when they sold).
The change in management at CHK may not change the performance of the wells and, more importantly, the perception in the market that this trust will continue to disappoint. As for being a "scare monger," you can look at the history of posts on this board to see all of the other posters who presented the same arguments only to see CHKR fall from $15 to $11. This is the third quarter in a row that I have made money buying puts before the distribution announcement, with much less capital at risk. EVERYONE who owns CHKR at this point is negative on a share price basis (save the arguments that the distribution makes up for the negative return).
Finally, I was an early investor in all of these trusts -- SDT, PER, SDR and CHKR and recently sold my last position. I got tired of seeing my capital disappear. Someday you will too.
Skittle you have made this personal. I have offered examples of other REITs whose stocks showed gains after reinstating their preferred and common dividends and you still refuse to acknowledge that fact. I have offered examples of REITs with 2% yields. You continue to ignore.
You then come up with all sorts of "skittle rules" and quotes from Buffet. You then conclude that the company "has not showed anything of future earnings or dividend power, all in your own opinion without any substantiation. Have you checked with all the analysts and hedge funds? Did you check with the fund that bought the PIPE? I guess they disagree with you. The milestones were clear:
1. Show acquisitions of properties.
2. State when the preferred would come current.
3. State when a common dividend could be expected.
4. Get a large investor.
Did none of this happen? Did the stock not go up? I guess the market is seeing something that you can't or refuse to see.
You are also incredibly inconsistent. You recommend CLF and CEP, but neither of those stocks have "shown the market" anything. Someone mentions technicals and you poo-poo, but then you mention "gap" fills and start talking about volume. Do technicals apply or don't they? Which is it?
Ironically, I am usually the one preaching caution on stocks hitting RSI levels over 70, but I also know from experience that turnaround situations don't have to follow the usual ordinary "rules" in the first stages of their recovery.
And the same can be said for you skittle. So far you have the following skittle rules with no examples:
1. No stock can increase more than 100% in 12 months.
2. A market cap of $387mm is too much
3. Paying the accured preferred will lead to common stockholders selling.
When someone give you an example of a stock that rose from under $5 to $17 and yields 2%, you can't even acknowledge it or try to debate it.
Skittle, you think you know it all just because you had a few friends in NYC. What you don't understand is that the market can find multiple reasons to support buying a stock at a higher level. It's about future expectations. Stocks trade at different p/e levels, different yields and grow at different rates. You say "nothing materially changed from the beginning of the month." Something did change. They filed another earnings report and had another earnings call and all the stock analysts, after having read and digested their report, have revised their models. All of those who were not following the stock when it was $2 can now see the progression both technically and fundamentally. You think that the market is completely efficient and all the information is available and discounted at the same exact moment, but there are structural reasons why funds can't buy stocks under $5. As bad as it may sound, a large part of investing is following the herd. But the herd doesn't start all at once. It takes a few bulls to start the move before the others follow. That doesn't mean that GPT goes up forever as eventually the growth will slow or become discounted into the stock price, but to try to say the move is over just because it violates some rule that you made up that a stock can't increase more than100% in 12 months has no basis.
Skittle, look at FR which I have been telling you about since I started posting. Yield is 2%. Similar story in that they got overleveraged and were forced to stop their dividends. Stock dropped to $2. Reinstated preferred divs and then the common divy. Look at the chart and then offer another theory for the rise. BTW, FR is now $17. Prologis (PLD) is a FR competitor with a yield at 2.9%, so there are 2 examples of comparative yields. Since you claim to be the expert in REITs, why don't you tell us why all REITS (even in the same subsector) don't have the exact same yield. My theory, which could be wrong, is that the funds who buy these stocks care more about dividend growth than they do about absolute yield. How else to explain how FR went from $2 to $17? Part of it is described by the law of large numbers. The bigger REITS can't really move the needle, but it is not out of the question for a small REIT like GPT to grow at a higher rate since they are starting at such a low point. You must not ever read any of the mutual fund manager interviews in publications like Barrons where the fund managers talk about buying stocks with growing dividends.
Crazy prediction? At least I present an example of a comparable. What about your prediction that GPT will drop when they pay the preferreds. Where's the comparable for that?
Agreed. What everyone is missing is that it was crucial to get over $5 so that the institutions and sector mutual funds could buy. An announcement of the first quarter dividend will mean that the growth and income mutual funds can buy because they want to buy companies who are growing their dividends. We will see what the dividend will be, but in the short-term, the market will apply a 2% yield to the growing dividend. If the market can "see" a dividend getting to 4 cents per quarter, it will "see" a share price of $8.
To quote the great philospher, Bill Murray, "it just doesn't matter." The market does not like mREITS at this time or level.
Well since most holders of CHKR are down, that's a lot of shares that could be sold over the next month. And you don't know when CHK might sell to fund their other projects, just as SD dumped some of their trusts. For those looking for a bottom, no one knows where that might be. The RSI is still barely oversold at 29. The SD trusts got down to RSI levels in the teens before they bounced.
Finally, its breaking that $11 support. Should get a flush to $10.50 and maybe lower. It was a little odd that this was holding up, compared to how the SD trusts acted after ex-date.
jdt, we have been over this previously, but I'll summarize. The company issued forward looking statements and disclosed that a deal may not happen. As I recall, Walker said a deal "could" happen by year-end (2012), not that one was guaranteed to close. They had an auction and the winning bidder walked. That's hardly securities fraud.
Most of us would not have added shares when it was trading at the highs if not for the overly rosy projections of some of the conflicted analysts like the guy from Baird. Many of us had a basis in the $20's or $30's (maybe lower), but $75 was too low a price when Baird was predicting proceeds of $1 billion, leveraged up to $1.5 billion and future distributons of $8 per share. We assumed that Total's purchase of CHK acreage was the beginning of the run up in prices, not the top. The Company first mentioned the Utica monetization back in Aug 2011, yet it took over 1 year. That should have told us something, either about management, their investment bankers or the market's perception. There were plenty of posters along the way who had some insight. The charts were not acting well. We should have bolted when they did not close in the first two weeks of jan 2013. I sold a very small amount at $57 for a small loss because there was clear risk down to the $30's. The writing was on the wall, but we were blinded by visions of billions in proceeds.
Well, it helped a little that most of the world was destroyed and we were the only ones left to rebuild it. When you have no competion, it's pretty easy to outperform.