Sat, Aug 23, 2014, 9:19 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

iStar Financial Inc. Message Board

quadruplemalt 17 posts  |  Last Activity: Aug 17, 2014 12:41 PM Member since: May 7, 2000
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • quadruplemalt quadruplemalt Aug 17, 2014 12:41 PM Flag

    you could try whalewisdom

    Quad

  • Reply to

    14% dilution ?

    by smithlewis89 Aug 11, 2014 10:10 PM
    quadruplemalt quadruplemalt Aug 12, 2014 9:30 AM Flag

    The share offering at a premium to book will be accretive to book value per share - but market cap is merely share price x outstanding shares so it isn't affected by the relationship of share price to book.

    Quad

  • Reply to

    Sold some PSEC today

    by frigator Aug 7, 2014 4:16 PM
    quadruplemalt quadruplemalt Aug 12, 2014 6:17 AM Flag

    If you acquired PSEC on Jan 1, 2008 the total return through yesterday's close would have been 63.6% (10.79 minus adjusted 6.58). The return would have been less at some entry points later in the year, so the statement that one "made....at least 80%" from PSEC is incorrect.

    Nonetheless it did indeed handily outperform bank interest performance.

    Quad

  • Reply to

    BDC earnings..

    by covadlegal Aug 6, 2014 5:41 PM
    quadruplemalt quadruplemalt Aug 10, 2014 3:15 PM Flag

    On p.68 of PSEC's 2013 10K are listed its "Total return based on net asset value" for a five year period. The values - starting with 2013 and going backwards are 10.9%, 18.0%, 12.5%, (6.8)%, and (.6)%. These are not obviously results commanding a premium valuation.
    By comparison, on p. 162 of MAIN's 2013 10K are listed similar ratios for five years. Those values are: 15.06%, 25.73%, 25.64%, 26.11%, and 10.64%.
    Keep in mind this is the total return based on NAV, not share price. The returns for PSEC based on dividends + share price were: 6.2%, 27.2%, 17.2%, 17.7% and (18.6)%. For MAIN they were 16.68%, 53.60%, 26.95%, 23.97% and 86.23%.
    Realizing that there is at least one poster who eschews historical data, nonetheless a clear difference exists in the five year outcomes and a rational case can be made for MAIN deserving a premium not deserved by PSEC.
    As I've said I have large positions in both but I try to maintain clear thoughts.

    Quad

  • Reply to

    What's a fair price for WMC now

    by jackhilr Aug 8, 2014 11:08 AM
    quadruplemalt quadruplemalt Aug 10, 2014 3:03 PM Flag

    Fear of tapering was a second derivative fear of higher rates. The actual tapering hasn't caused higher rates - but the direct issue of how higher interest rates would impact mReits is unresolved.
    It's not clear to me that any leveraged fixed rate bond investor has a viable defense against higher rates. Right now rates are stable/declining and hedging is as cheap as it has ever been - a double tailwind. When rates start to rise so will hedging costs - a double headwind whammy. I think those issues will limit how much investors are willing to pay for mReit earnings and how much share price risk they are willing to assume - at least it has in my case.

    Quad

  • Reply to

    BDC earnings..

    by covadlegal Aug 6, 2014 5:41 PM
    quadruplemalt quadruplemalt Aug 9, 2014 3:51 PM Flag

    What's the problem with paying a premium to NAV? It's not different than paying a high PE for a growth stock or any other variant metric.
    MAIN has a look more equity exposure in its investments than PSEC does - thus its BV needs to be evaluated a little differently.
    I agree that past performance is no guarantee of future performance, but it does say something about management.
    If one basketball player averaged 9 points a game, and another 26 points a game - would you pay more for the second, with no future guarantee of performance?
    I own a bunch of PSEC along with a bunch of MAIN - so I'm not knocking PSEC - but freaking out over paying a premium to book for an above average performer is illogical and echoic of many non-quantitative behaviors chronicled in behavioral economics studies.
    Since all data of any sort is necessarily "rear view mirror focus" I think you're generalization lacks a bit of nuance. I mean why read a balance sheet, a 10K or a Q?

    Quad

  • Reply to

    BDC earnings..

    by covadlegal Aug 6, 2014 5:41 PM
    quadruplemalt quadruplemalt Aug 9, 2014 9:03 AM Flag

    Interesting, since 261% is "far more" than 90%.

    Quad

  • Reply to

    BDC earnings..

    by covadlegal Aug 6, 2014 5:41 PM
    quadruplemalt quadruplemalt Aug 8, 2014 7:25 PM Flag

    Well, that's interesting.

    Taking the 4-5 yrs mentioned by kenbarker - (i used 7/27/09 to 8/8/14) - utilizing closing price on 8/8/14 AND adjusting for dividends - PSEC total return was 90% (adj share price of 5.58 to 10.62) - and MAIN total return was 261% (adj share price of 8.57 to 31.00).

    So - not sure what you mean by "best of breed".

    I own both shares for a variety of reasons, but it's MAIN hands down, imo.

    Quad

  • Reply to

    TWO seems to be falling in sympathy

    by talkshow55 Jul 31, 2014 2:09 AM
    quadruplemalt quadruplemalt Aug 7, 2014 12:37 PM Flag

    Yeah, for some reason I suspect you meant "ferret out".

    Q

  • Reply to

    Impressive lift in NAV

    by foxhsmart Aug 6, 2014 9:46 PM
    quadruplemalt quadruplemalt Aug 7, 2014 5:17 AM Flag

    Hard to see how 1.15 in a year is "even better" than .83 in a quarter- as the former is about 6% annually and the latter over 17%.
    A 6% ROE isn't really a business model.
    There are some interesting things going on with ACAS but its value creation in the last year isn't one of them, though like others I am hopeful about the next year.

    Quad

  • Reply to

    TWO seems to be falling in sympathy

    by talkshow55 Jul 31, 2014 2:09 AM
    quadruplemalt quadruplemalt Aug 7, 2014 5:08 AM Flag

    You misused "fetter".

    Quad

  • Reply to

    TWO seems to be falling in sympathy

    by talkshow55 Jul 31, 2014 2:09 AM
    quadruplemalt quadruplemalt Aug 6, 2014 6:24 PM Flag

    Well, I'm going to have to defend talkshow's use of the word sympathy and additionally suggest that "sync" is inappropriate.

    The latter first.

    TWO's share price is not synchronized with AGNC or NLY in any respect. It does not move in mechanical lockstep in congruent gradations.

    More appropriately the share price moved in sympathy - in shared passion or suffering, in common with the referent share prices.

    [C16: from Latin sympathīa, from Greek sumpatheia, from sumpathēs, from syn- + pathos suffering]

    The Greek prefix sun/m means "with" - and interestedly is utilized in both the word you criticized - sympathy, and the one you proffered - synchronize. Same prefix, one conjureing shared suffering, the other shared time, or clockwork.

    The former wins for elegance, subtlety and appropriateness.

    Quad

  • quadruplemalt quadruplemalt Aug 4, 2014 4:00 PM Flag

    Well, maybe the fact that BV can flop around so much is off putting, even though this quarter was up.

    Spread income metrics etc. completely overshadowed by balance sheet volatility - for me at least.

    Quad

  • Reply to

    this is whats wrong with the market

    by reikreik70 Jul 29, 2014 12:09 PM
    quadruplemalt quadruplemalt Jul 29, 2014 1:24 PM Flag

    reik, the problem is these guys and all the rest have proven they don't have a viable business model. If they hedge away interest rate risk they can't make any money, so they are essentially a bond/mbs trading vehicle - unless they diversity and then who knows what they become, or they run off into MSR's, etc. etc. and still can't make much money.
    This good quarter was the result of good positioning but it's all a bunch of guesses by management. My original interest in the sector was spawned by the thought they could make 15%ROE and distribute it tax effectively to shareholders, but I don't think that's the case.

    Quad

  • Reply to

    earnings

    by quadruplemalt Jul 29, 2014 8:12 AM
    quadruplemalt quadruplemalt Jul 29, 2014 1:16 PM Flag

    From p.58 of 10K:

    As of December 31, 2012, the Company had $634.2 million
    of net operating loss carryforwards at the corporate REIT level, which can generally be used to offset both ordinary and capital
    taxable income in future years and will expire through 2032 if unused. The amount of net operating loss carryforwards as of
    December 31, 2013 will be subject to finalization of the Company's 2013 tax return. The Company recognizes interest expense
    and penalties related to uncertain tax positions, if any, as "Income tax (expense) benefit" on the Company's Consolidated Statements
    of Operations.

    so - it's complicated but I don't think we've reduced the tax loss carryforward (or if so minimally) - so it would seem that dividends are a while away yet.

    My guess is that iStar won't pay dividends until necessary for compliance purposes but that's not set in stone I suspect if all cylinders start firing when land revenue starts to roll in.

    Quad

  • quadruplemalt by quadruplemalt Jul 29, 2014 8:12 AM Flag

    Ok guys - looks like a constructive quarter with continued improvement in balance sheet and operating metrics and new investments offsetting inflows.
    The jv in chicago noted a few months ago by golden may represent one path to high ROE realizations for a portion of the land holdings. When Jay embarked on his internal investment program a number of years ago he noted that proforma IRR's for investment in portfolio assets were quite attractive. We're getting a lot closer to seeing the outcomes of those strategies as time rolls on and slow moving land assets begin to flow into the income stream.
    So we have a stabilizing (stabilized) operating company beginning to maneuver effectively in its traditional business lines with a gestating land portfolio providing an interesting kicker.
    STAR is a case in point for the value of patience.

    Quad

  • Reply to

    Dividend

    by milo70kid Jul 8, 2014 6:32 AM
    quadruplemalt quadruplemalt Jul 11, 2014 6:10 PM Flag

    FSC's share price is about what it was five years ago. MAIN's share price is up 120%+.

    There is a slight difference in dividend yield but generally special dividends are not utilized in the yield calculation so MAIN's dividend is typically under represented.

    Different kinds of animals but MAIN has clearly outperformed FSC.

    Quad

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.