Many of us will attend a religious service tonight or tomorrow. I would like to encourage everyone to look past all the mean spirited postings Craig has initiated and say a prayer for his mother. If it is her time to be called it would be nice if it is a peaceful exit.
I see no commodity trends signaling an inflationary bias that would push the long end up enought to drag the middle (10 yr) to 4% within 6.5 months.
Chimera’s website posted the special dividend ‘May’ be a ‘return of capital’. That statement and the fact that it is not slated to be a current fiscal year payout; I believe is a strong indication that the majority of it will be ROC and /or capital gains distributed.
I started the disagreement_so I determined the substance. Chimera's website hypertext link to the release says 'special'. Have you lost your ability to read?
Yes you were. but is it specifically because it is a preferred? When looking at those two MITT issues the preferred placement in the hierarchy has not given much support to their price.
You are correct it cannot be cut unless it is an adustable preferred. They would have to eliminate the common stock dividends before they can suspend the preffered. If it is cummulative they would have to pay any suspeneded dividendes in arrears before paying the common.
This poster was correct that AGNCP has held up well. MITT has two preferreds that I am aware of that are trading at 20 and 21 and some change. One is 8.25% and the other an 8%. They both were oringinally issued at 25. So they are trading at discount.
I never said it was definitely a ROC__I said a large portion will be ROC. It is not hard to figger this out. If they had income from operations they would make it payable for this fiscal year not next. Since they mentioned ROC it is a tip off that it has to be from asset sales. A bit of cognitive reasoning has to be applied here
No the substance of our disaggreement is the false hood you posted up this thread__"they have to pay 90% of TI. That's why they paid a special".
Which clearly it is not. They are making because they have capital (presumably from assets sales) that they cannot hold because a Trust cannot have retained earnings. Unless they are a carry forward before obtaining REIT status.
That is what happens when the FED buys Notes and Bonds from the primary market aka the Treasury. They compete with all other investors in the auction market making bids along side each other. But since the Treasury's bank account held only with the FEDs New York branch is outside the reserve system that would not be the so-called printing money. The term printing money is an euphemism for injecting capital intothe reserve accounts of banks. Then the money multiplier effect of the fractional reserve process goes into effect.
"Guaranteed" Gosh sure sounds like that is a sure thing. But it is another moronic post from the vermin king of morons. The payment can be suspended, the issue can be called in and in bankruptcy all lein holders and bond holders stand above the preferred in creditor hierarchy.
Too bad you did not read the release before trying to tell jja what CIM was doing from your piehole. A REIT can make a payment in the next year and have it considered as a current year payout. They would have to declare it in the current year and pay it before filing current year taxes. The release states they will define/adjust the details of the payout before their 2015 tax return. So you see RAT it is actually a 2014 payout not a 2013. So it has absolutely nothing to do with meeting the at least 90%__as your piehole posted to jja.
If you mean by "The fact is they can" that that a payment can be adusted backwards in a future quater of the new year (as you previously posted) then you are even more stupid than I have ever imagined. That is not at all possible. Prove it RAT--produce the code sections that would allow that.
The biggest joke here is a GED trying to tell me a CPA and EA (two of five professional registrations) about tax procedures. On the scale of moronic behavior you have even out did yourself.
Again anyone can go to the NTI board and review my sources and the quotes from books.
One more time for your peach pit sized brain, they are referring to aggregate supply and demand. While a microeconomics book will discuss supply and demand as a driver they are referring to aggregate becoming the price mechanism equalizer in the long term. No competitive firm aside from input material and commodities price their goods on supply and demand. I even provided a reference from a micro book supporting my thesis and disputing yours. You will never find a business management book, a managerial accounting book, a finance book, cost accounting book or cost engineering book that will not agree with the 12 reference(s) I supplied and my thesis.
There is much more to gaining usable knowledge than your useless internet searches.
Every body with any experience reading your posts have are cognizant what you are about and factual accuracy is not it.
The only suggestion from an economist you ever posted was the 18th century Adam Smith and I provided my 12th reference from Adam himself saying prices are composed of three components__none of which is supply or demand.
Here is an exact quote from Wealth Of Nations, Book one. "When the price of goods is neither more nor less than what is sufficient to pay the rent of the land, the wages of the labour, and the profits of the stock employed in raising, preparing, and bringing it to market then the goods is then sold for what may be called its natural price.” “The natural price is precisely what it really costs the person which brings it to market.”
In fact you cannot find the word ‘supply’ in the index of Wealth Of Nations in either volume.
Let us determine which one of us has actually read Smith. In Wealth he discusses one bank as a role model for a nations banking practices. What is the bank? Anyone who read Wealth would never forget it because a large part of one book is devoted to it.
You have 5 minutes to provide the name.
As far as major economists all the references were verifiable academic sources many published by economists. For a point of economic historical perspective it is Alfred Marshal’s “Principles Of Economics—“the new Bible”, published in 1890 (Wealth 1776) that presented the first use of supply and demand charts.
The fact is that a REIT is not held to 90% but at least 90%, cannot be adjusted backwards in a future quarter as you suggested and since ROC is not from earnings and profit has nothing to due with taxable income. All three items you posted incorrectly about because as always youpost from your hole not that peach pit sized brain your rodentia species provides you with.
We both know that I on the NTI board I provided 12 sources proving that competitive firms do not price on supplly and demand except in input markets, such as, materials and commodities. Anybody else can find my sources under three seperate postings. You can then judge for yourselves whether the RAT just posts BS from his diseased piehole or not!!
If a Treasury Note or Bond is purchased through Open Market Operations then those purchases from the secondary market do indeed increase reserves. Purchases from the Treasury itself does not. The Central Bank is the only banker for the Treasury and their account is account outside the reserve system because they are not a depository institution.
Making fun of me will not change the fact that as usual you do not know what you are posting about. You are absolutely incorrect. I suggest you try reading Treasury Regulations Section 856, 857 and 858 instead of suggesting I stick to simple arithmetic. Under your logic then almost every REIT would be paying a special because they are not sure of their income.
Any organization qualifying for REIT status after October 5, 1976 must adopt a calendar year as its fiscal year. The ‘at least 90%’ applies to their fiscal year (a calendar year for Chimera).
Once they make a declaration they are locked in. They could delay the declaration and payment until they file their tax return including extensions. Since Chimera has already announced that most of the special is ROC they know they are returning capital from assets sales. A trust cannot have retained earnings unless their have been carried over from operations before achieving Trust status. The play in their final numbers will be the adjustment between ordinary dividends, capital gain distribution and non-dividend distribution. This is exactly the reason for the Treasury deciding the threshold should be ‘at least 90%, allowing over a 90% taxable income payout..
Since it has to be over their fiscal year, your suggestion that they can adjust a future quarterly distribution to make up for the prior year threshold is impossible. The tax regulations cannot be applied that way. Also since it is’ at least 90%’ and not 90% your suggestion that they would need to adjust is not logical.
This is the reason for tax accounting courses.
First the GED Craig the RAT does not even own CIM__yet he attempts to tell you why CIM is paying the ‘special’. How do I know he does not own it__because he has not been polluting the CIM msg board with his particular rodentia stench.
Second do not ever believe anything he posts. He never actually researches instead he just posts out of his diseased pie hole.
This is another example of that.
The requirement is not 90%___The codified IRS regulations define that a REIT "must pay out at least 90% of its annual net taxable income as a dividend to shareholders. That distribution threshold is outside of capital gain distributions.
Chimera’s website says a large portion of the special dividend will be a ‘return of capital’. Source: “South Western Federal Taxation, Corporations, Partnerships, Estates and Trusts”, ISBN 13: 978-0-324-82863-4. “If a distribution is not covered by Earnings or Profit (E&P) (either past or present) it is treated as a return of capital (ROC).” Since ROC cannot be from E&P it is not included in taxable income. Therefore it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the ‘at least 90% threshold’.
If they used that .20 to buy open market shares then they would become a debit to the Treasury Stock account. The company would have removed voting rights for the shares.
If by float__do you mean the number of shares outstanding? If you do how do you get from that to management bonuses?