I feel certain bond offerings are better way to play JCP. They have offerings in the 2017, 2018 and 2020 end dated. Two of them have call protection. Depending on your order size you can get these for 78 to 81 cents on the dollar. That gives a yield to in the high 9s. They have longer dated offerings but buying extra time offers no additional protection from bankruptcy. You can always hedge with options against the equity. In fact spending part of that outsized interest yield on option protection may be a good strategy. The equity is surely a #$%$ shoot. It would get wiped in BK and otherwise will be diluted away with future offerings or grants to lenders.
I think we all have assumed that 666 and any other derivation is the Wal Rat.
Well the WalRat has never seen anything above AA(s). That is because even tho he has been injecting the [hormone treatments] he cannot physically acheive suckable derivations.
To anyone that thinks different: I have a vagina. The lowlife WalRat has never-never been in one except rape. I actually know this phagot. He is a conved (on probation) pedophile. He is such a sick person: he thinks he can re-intoduce hisself to society.
Cmon Onion__that can never go down?? I think you are reflecting on a perpetual preffered__most of them are callable?.
I may agree that your payment has not adjusted downward but your principal valuation had to be. The asset allocated choice you make___IS THIS SIMPLE__I am buying price or a projected forward yield??
You are too aware of that. As posters go I category you you as "ducks in the roll"
LUTHP was a great invest at approx 555. I am continually looking for similar suggests??
You never met him_ you did another int search. Yah know if he was still alive and at Boni Vino__he would want you to be executed.
Milton for all his prophets was a 'Realist'
"Certain things are provable in economics"
That is true within a specific 'time frame'
Possibly the most relevant economic theory (since the one "everyone will act in their best interests) is the theory of "Rational Economics"
I say this because the theory actually pulls together the divisional aspects of 'political economies, sociology and physiology'
Do u what to buy an autographed book?
Actually Milton and I were colleague's in the CBOT course development. He introduced me to 'Single Malt Scotch' at Boni Vino.
If he ate he 'always' ordered the chicken cacciatore. I recall the waitress girls trying to redirect him to a 'fresh' special offering__but I guess Milton liked the 'tried and true'. So he would order the cacciatore.
Every time I visit the 'Windy City'__I visit the exchanges and then Boni Vino. I order the "cacciatore' and remember a man that taught me!
Friedman__my friend and curriculum SME (subject matter expert) never 'proved' any thing). Anymore than your 'beloved' Karl did or anyone else. By that I mean economics is a behavioral science. It has has become a divisional abstract of three (yes three) social academic sciences: Political Economics, Sociology and Physiology
Well you may have me there. We used to hang at 'Boni Vino' where many floor traders/market makers would hang. I only remember meeting his daughter__he called her Janey (spelling?)
Idiots like you continually try to redefine facts. All academic (your obvious lack of (academic)) accepted definitions are as I described it.
Find me one a(academic) source to state that a recession is not as I defined.
Kill all the IDIOT GEDs. By the way your rodentia mom and I prepared a 'Brodifacoum' stuffed turket for YOU!
He posts some of the most outrageous stuff. Unlike the RAT(whom is an intentional (non-apologetic LIAR)) klumps has a problem with accurate dissemination of information.
For example Japan’s year over year GDP is 2.70% (a 3rd qtr revision is due in a few days). Japan’s inflation rate is 1.10%. The Bank of Japan’s (BOJ) Governor states the BOJ target is a 2% rate in two years. That is 50% lower than what the klumps posted.
I suspect he is another internet searcher who does not rely on verified sources subjected to editorial review by subject matter experts. It is the bane of this information age that lazy people are apt to believe almost anything posted on a URL.
Just look back at some of the people he will reference or quote__buffoons of our times.
Create a correlation matrix of the relationship of gold to the indications he cited in his other post__you will find the relationships he posted are incorrect.
By the way gold could have a 10 to 12% run up_after two events unfold. 1) Tax selling in the ETFs. 2)Seasonal current account squaring in the FOREX markets.
Normally I would favor the ‘Futures’ exchanges. However, when I look at the ‘actual cash’ the ETFs have on hand to deliver for tax loss sales__Hmmmn? ETFs offer baskets that a primary dealer buys and resells. On the downside a basket can be busted (forced to liquidate).
I was expecting a relative volatile FOREX position squaring market (end of year). Now I am thinking that for traders/investors with International trading access an arbitrage opportunity for the ETFs may develop. Look for ETF and especially ETN differential pricing between the +12 to +10 exchanges and GMT zero.
Oh my gosh__is Karl rolling over__monetary control is the underlying basis for Milton Freiedman(s) theorizations. I personally knew Milton because he was a colleague for the CBOT curriculum development.
You hit the nail on the head__the RAT is incapable of telling the truth.
For the RAT since developing the skill set of research was not an included req for your GED.
The economic definition of a recession is two or more consecutive quarters of negative GDP.
From the Bureau of Economic Analysis__first column is in current $s, 2nd is in chained $s
2000q1 4.2 1.2
2000q2 10.2 7.8
2000q3 3.2 0.5
2000q4 4.4 2.1
2001q1 1.4 -1.1
2001q2 5.0 2.1
2001q3 0.1 -1.2
2001q4 2.2 1.0
2002q1 5.1 3.8
2002q2 3.8 2.2
2002q3 3.8 1.9
2002q4 2.4 0.2
2003q1 4.6 2.0
2003q2 5.1 3.8
2003q3 9.4 6.9
2003q4 6.7 4.6
2004q1 6.0 2.4
2004q2 6.6 3.1
2004q3 6.2 3.6
2004q4 6.4 3.4
2005q1 8.3 4.5
2005q2 5.1 2.2
2005q3 7.3 3.3
2005q4 5.5 2.2
2006q1 8.2 4.9
2006q2 4.6 1.3
2006q3 3.2 0.3
2006q4 4.6 3.2
2007q1 4.8 0.3
2007q2 5.4 3.1
2007q3 4.1 2.7
2007q4 3.3 1.5
2008q1 -0.5 -2.7
2008q2 4.0 2.0
2008q3 0.7 -2.0
2008q4 -7.8 -8.3
2009q1 -4.5 -5.4
2009q2 -1.1 -0.4
2009q3 1.2 1.3
2009q4 5.1 3.9
Oh yeah dim one__a number of REITs payed out a stock dividend or an enhanced payout distribution in the 4th qtr last year that brought their total annual distribution to over 100%
Look at my reply to paul__the trust has a requirement to meet based on 2013 net taxable income. Even if they want to delay the required payout ($) amount they will have to 'declare' it before any extension filed (and granted) for fiscal year filing. Take note that a Trust similar to any business entity are required to make quarterly filings. A REIT must adopt a calendar year as its fiscal year unless it first qualified for REIT status before OCT 5, 1976.
So you see the 4th Qtr payout has almost nothing to do with 2014. Why do I say ‘almost nothing’__because again the req is “at least 90% net taxable income annually”. This does provide some flexibility. You intimated 2014 may be harder__so hold back. Is that possible?__since the bottom threshold is 90% annual. Actually it is (note again a REIT could actually payout over 100%). A Trust theoretically cannot retain GAAP earnings; as a corporation would. However, a corporate entity that transferred to REIT status could have retained earnings. Similarly assets attained by a REIT could have retained earnings.
There are five learning domains. I think maybe you have a deficit in all five.
Really if you cannot comprehend the relevant difference from ‘90%’ vs “at least 90%”, or ‘net income’ vs “net taxable income” and the fact that ‘annual’ can be time adjusted by tax filings__then truly the ‘D’ in GED must stand for dummy.
Close but not quite.
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". The three important concepts are 'at least 90%', 'taxable income' (not EPS) and 'annual' (not quarterly or semiannual but the annual amount). That is why even though they can payout more than 90% they usually hold back to allow some flexibility for the annual total.
Under section 858, a real estate investment trust may elect to treat certain dividends that are distributed within a specified period after the close of a taxable year as having been paid during the taxable year. The trust may make the dividend declaration required by section 858(a)(1) either before or after the close of the taxable year as long as the declaration is made before the time prescribed by law for filing its return for the taxable year (including the period of any extension of time granted for filing the return).