Only through SCCO buybacks for the moment. Grupo has not bought a share since 2012 when I looked a week ago. If SCCO uses the full authorization at current prices, Grupo will get up to just shy of 90% ownership, I believe even counting German's shares. BTW, German personally once built a bigger stake in SCCO and then reduced it significantly, so he is not exclusively an accumulator.
SCCO has $2.8bn capex this year and if divs are maintained,, over $3bn of expenditures. This is not simply borrowing for a buyback, they need to borrow for operations in all likelihood, and if the identified projects in the out years are real, they will need all the cash flow - even from expanded operations - and then some for that.
That said, this is part and parcel of funding continued buyback of shares as I see it.
rog, regarding NRF/NSAM. NRF has certainly changed its focus over time. First it was a debt reit, then an equity reit, then split mgmt co, now splitting off Europe. Europe reads to me like a short term QE related arbitrage opportunity. Was that the master plan when NRF started? Did NRF lack focus? Adapt to changing market conditions? Is Hamamoto the Rodney Dangerfield of the REIT world? Looks for short term opportunities to make some bucks, then changes to the next short term opportunity? Is there a long term strategy?
Frankly, 20% annual returns since the IPO is great (their presentation figure), so why is NRF still yielding close to 9% while other reits are at 4%?
All valid questions to ponder in a longer term context.
Other reits are preparing for a separate asset manager model, for Europe, and without the egregious fees per at least one. Something more palatable to institutional investors.
I suspect this short term move is noise. We will certainly see.
Locally, ind living requires nothing of consequence up front, maybe $500. Asst living often requires $2k.
The continuum of care facilities are the ones where they ask you what your house is worth, and then that amount is the upfront payment, that you are supposed to get back someday. About $250k is the low side for an upfront payment on those. Many are $500k upfront.
dar, an island may be a different comparison. I have first hand experience with multiple relatives and multiple facilities over time in a large metropolitan area. People absolutely move. A perfectly good facility can become a poorly run one overnight under a new manager, too. Probably less movement in smaller communities.
That said, many people stay as well. And people die or move to higher level of care facilities.
Watch Better Call Saul? Overbilling happens. I have firsthand experience (assisted living) and corporate was probably complicit based on how they responded. (Large public company, btw).
My parents wished they had moved into ind living 2-3 years earlier. One died within a year of moving in.
We had two good, though short, nursing home experiences - but if you cannot feed yourself it must be tough. One was rehab and the rehab was great, the rest not so. The second was nursing care, and the care was excellent in a run down old facility. It really comes down to people and we had several good nurses on the wing, a doctor that was accessible (the first nursing home doc was a no-show but bill medicare a lot doc).
The people are far more important than the physical facility.
dean, you say the acquisition is independent living, then every subsequent paragraph references assisted living. They are two quite different animals, though a few assisted living facilities provide so little additional care as to be independent living.
Apart from whether such an acq is good or bad - your premise that residents don't move, require upfront payments and have little new construction is incorrect, at least in my experience.
Continuum of care facilities (ind, asst, and nursing home all in one) often require large upfront payments, but not standalone independent or asst living facilities, at least not in the major market I have direct experience in. When the economy tanked, people moved in droves out of my father's ind living complex. There is a lot of turnover due to death, and to illness. Often when one spouse can no longer stay, the other moves in with the spouse elsewhere or in with one of their children. Two places are more costly!
New construction continues apace. Aging demographics are a easy sell; I suspect they will overbuild as in the past. . A relative lives in a new complex and virtually everyone moved from another independent living complex. You ever heard old people complain? A lot move from facility to facility. Moves are really very easy once downsized - the kids handle everything and the elderly hop in the car and step out in their new place. Easy one afternoon move.
Once in, residents do age and often require home care, which is subject to medicare reimbursement and rules. Due to vacancy, facilities will let residents stay who they would never let come in due to infirmity.
Assisted living is a middle concept that is neither independent nor nursing, and most people I know who have dealt with assisted living had very very poor experiences. That is not true, though, for memory care facilities.
Now, ind living places charge a pretty penny, for sure.
My apologies. I was clicking through (no membership) and dar's posts sandwiched the post I was referring to.
I will remove my original post if it will let me so as to not confuse.
dar, you are slipping. Higher ownership than 85.1% was reported over a month ago.
As to rog's point - from what is the key question. Grupo knows how to play hardball. The base from which a premium is calculated could end up being lower than today's price, as well as higher. Today's price might well end up being the buyout price. It does not take a lot to engineer such an outcome legitimately.
You are both right about localities being just as bad if not worse than federal govt in spending money on worthless stuff. Locally our conservative dominated community is are very happy to raise taxes repeatedly and spend money on worthless stuff. That said, our local public corporations also spend boatloads of money on CEO interests that have nothing to do with shareholders.
Apparently Bloomberg reported it, and StreetInsider had a news article that showed up in a data feed reporting that Bloomberg reported it. StreetInsider also had the original cancellation as well.
The SCCO website shows neither the cancellation, nor the retraction when I looked.
I use multiple brokers, and have had multiple corrections from each on multiple securities. Some which were correct initially, made incorrect, then corrected back. My observation is that both companies and brokers are getting better and quicker at corrections. It looks like mine are all correct at this point - unless a company like NRF changes their allocation from that posted.
dar, as I posted below, NRF probably issued one set of figures in late February, then quickly revised them again before posting on March 3rd on their website. My late February revised 1099 (not Fidelity) is correct as to return of capital, but incorrect as to the amount of qualifed. That is, the first revised 1099 received, if based on the late Feb data, may still not be correct.
I too wish all things could be done right the first time. The culprit is the companies failing to do their reporting timely. The additional brokerage reporting is improving as companies and brokerages do a better job, in my experience. Now, perhaps the govt mandated reporting before brokerage systems were ready, but they never are ready until after something is implemented and experience happens.
Heck, one of my brokerages failed to properly allocate basis between NRF and NSAM until the revised 1099 - despite my correspondence with them multiple times! Then suddenly, the right numbers showed up in early March.
NRF may have corrected their own tax treatment as well before publishing info on their website. I received one corrected 1099 and it was correct with respect to the return of capital, but incorrect with respect to the qualified portion.
I agree that in certain circumstances there is a place for pfds, but I don't see it in NRF. There is no yield advantage of the pfd compared to the common, and no risk abatement in the pfd.
With pfds, always calculate yield to worst (yield to call). A call works to the advantage of the issuer. Rates go up, you don't get called and are earning subpar returns. Rates go down, they call it away and you reinvest at lower rates. Again, there is a place, just pick your spots.
Assume the E will be called in 4 years when it can be - the yield to call is 6.7% or so. A nice return, and one that compensates for dar's inflation scenario - if used as a risky substitute for cash or short term bonds. But the common yields over 8%, and they hopefully will grow the distribution, and get capital gains from price appreciation as the yield moves towards equity reit yields.
lunco, I defer to your experience, and am glad to hear you say a healthier economy outweighs higher rates. That has been my understanding and expectation.
Now, I am not so sure we are really in a healthier economy (or will be anytime soon), and I doubt interest rates will rise significantly in a short time. We are likely to have some bumps when the Fed raises rates as they have been signalling, but the worry will be bigger than the real impact.
I have different expectations for what will happen to the short and long end of interest rates.
No problem differentiating. You are looking at the legal aspect from the IRS perspective beginning from the filing date. I am looking at the practical aspect of a filer. I probably should have added more on my initial post, but I figured folks would understand. File on time, they can only challenge you until April. Extend, they can challenge you until October, legally.
And you do agree that an explanation is sometimes called for! Waiting until extension time runs out was not what the tax professionals (three different firms) suggested, but of course each situation is unique.
BTW, I doubt the IRS looks at an extended return with an explanation of a discrepancy any differently than a non-extended return with an explanation of a discrepancy.
Thanks for proving my point - October is later than April. Thus the period in which the IRS can raise a challenge is extended, even though it is still three years from the filing date. Start the clock running sooner and put a potential challenge behind you sooner.
I have on multiple occasions filed correctly, and been advised by tax professionals to do so, with an explanation as to why the filed amount differs from the 1099/W-2/etc. Some involving very significant dollar amounts. I have never been challenged or even queried by the IRS on such situations.
A CPA did such as well for a friend recently.
As a matter of course, it is best to get a corrected tax document and for your filling to agree with such. That cannot always be accomplished, however.
But go with your alternative - never file, or just pay tax unnecessarily!