The idea got traction because they want to believe it will dramatically drive the stock price up (or want to encourage others to believe it will drive the stock price up). If my past experience with index additions holds true, Vanguard Group has already made any open market moves they were going to make, as has every other fund family.
As I have said, people should watch the tape the last 5-10 minutes before close, and continue watching after the close. Then they can try to figure out what happened and why.
Now, the price may still move up, but it is not because volume buyers are driving the price up. Nor is it because volume sellers agree to sell if the price were 20 cents or 30 cents or even a dollar higher. Does not always go up, but sometimes.
VNQ (proxy for the REIT index) is down substantially today. Earlier in the day, NRF was up while VNQ was down substantially. As I type, NRF is down well less than the index.
Maybe we have to recalibrate and realize that down less than the index is the new up! :)
He is clearly still an opportunist. NRF strategy? Whatever they think will work and get funded for the next while. Most all REITS focus on a particular sector.
I know Whitehall closed down, but long after he left. I do not know the history while he was there - he was co-founder, wasn't he? Sometimes companies/funds take a turn after someone leaves (but sometimes that is just a story and the truth is things were like that always).
I agree with you in some respects, and also wonder how things will play out when things turn against REITS, particularly if there is a large amount on margin.
Reits got overheated and they have since declined about 10%- but that is hardly a turn, at least in my book. In six months or a year we will know it it was the start of a turn, or just noise!
Only mystery is why are people still posting about the 9.8% and the non-movement of the price (that is not really a mystery, either - pet theories die hard and the fact you and I posted about it before the event was irrelevant).
You are right, that it says nothing specifically about NRF. Folks also ignore that NRF outperformed reits in the few months leading up to the announcement of the index inclusion. Hmmmm. (That was also pointed out). Or that NRF has already shot their big catalyst - the NSAM spinoff. NRF was a large hedge fund holding, and hedge funds are "what have you done for me lately" vehicles.
I am sure Vanguard prefers the term coordination rather than collusion. Happens outside Vanguard on other indexes as well.
No offense intended - you are very straightforward.
Out there may not be so farfetched, don't preclude your theory. No need to post it. Folks should be able to figure out a few ways this could have gone done.
A twice distressed sale, somewhat. Hope being the third buyer is the charm.
There you go again, dar. Looking at one month tells only a one month story.
Look at the comparison to VNQ over 3 months, 6 months - virtually identical price returns. So in the last month NRF gave back the outperformance exhibited in the prior.
VNQ holds 145 reits and tracks the index - it is absolutely correct to say that NRF's price has performed in line with other reits over 3 and 6 months.
So, was the outperformance until last month the fluke, or is the recent 1 month underperformance the fluke? Or are they just noise?
And over the last 5 trading days...VNQ and NRF have moved in price the same %. That was true yesterday when I looked mid day, and the chart shows the same today, but VNQ is ex a 76c distribution today so while it is up in price it is also down in price today.
They have had six straight quarters of the same dividend. Personally, I consider that more than a year. But if it makes you feel better to look at a calendar year, go for it.
Another sound bite solution ignoring the facts. In 2010 Greece was way overindebted. Instead of defaulting, they accepted new loans (bailouts) used to repay German and French banks. They accepted lender controls and the IMF assured them it would solve their problems. Five years later, they have done much of what was required, suffered terribly doing so, and face another default with no light at the end of the tunnel and even worse suffering ahead.
What would you do in that situation? The reality is Greece has no good choices. Neither outcome is good.
Greece should have defaulted back then. That may well have led to Spain and Italy defaulting, and French and German banks taking big hits. Alternatively, the total debt should have been restructured back then. Frankly, instead of excoriating the Greeks, you should probably thank them for their poor decision a few years back.
Those interested in a brief but good summary of the Greece crisis should search on the term "A Primer on the Greek Crisis" and you will find a brief from a faculty member at the U of Chicago Booth school.
But, but, but...I thought Hamo was too smart to do deals that were not accretive?
Seriously, the concept of being a go-anywhere reit, then spinning off pieces when a valuation opportunity presents itself, is ripe with pitfalls. They should only do deals that work in the long term even if you hold them, because you never know when conditions will change and you will not be able to spin them off or find a greater fool.
No, I did not say that (nor did I say dar every said it was a bad idea, nor did I expect Europe to be accretive) . I did say that doing deals that don't work in the long term absent a spin off or greater fool should be avoided. There are many things outside NRF's control to make such a deal work. European assets are getting to be a pretty good percentage of NRF's properties.
Out of curiosity, what type of customer service problems are you experiencing?
Many if not most brokers have free ETF trading but from a limited menu of ETFs.
I use multiple brokerages, and find that each has customer support or operational weaknesses in particular areas. That is to say, matching the brokerage to your use is important. Bonds, mutual funds, ETFs, stocks, options, margin, shorting, commissions, reporting...