Was the $7 called BV or NAV? NAV would include mark-to-market adjustments, and so would be different than BV .... higher given what's happened to rates.
I think it's the stock's history. Management has had a tendency to over promise, and it is hurting their share price. Personally, I think they are changing their tune, and are under promising now. If I am right, then this stock is way under-valued. Most will wait to see what really happens, and RSO will remain a buy until then.
I'm not a Southerner, but let me note that Lincoln initially asked Lee to be in charge of the Union Army before he asked Grant. Lee and Grant attended West Point together, although Lee did much better. It was very difficult for Lee to decide what he would do, but when his home state of Virginia went Confederate, he decided to go along with his beloved Virginia where he had a big plantation. BTW, after the war - to rub salt in the wound - Grant buried many fallen Union soldiers on the grounds of Lee's plantation. This was the beginning of what is now called Arlington Cemetery.
It looks as though the $100M of bonds was sold in a matter of hours. Sold to institutions and funds, I guess. So, they must have convinced some professionals that things look OK.
According to the 8K, the 100M has already been sold. That is showing a lot of interest in, and faith in, RSO by people with money. It also means maybe another couple $100M to lend - including leverage.
As I recall, RSO was expecting to have a rather large originations number for the 4th quarter. The fact that they are incurring the interest expense to raise another $100M of equity supports that idea. They are also going to keep the 10% of AFFO that they don't have to distribute. So, I think they are doing good business although the margins have compressed some.
I also think that management is taking a more cautious tone in their guidance. Net, net ... NII is probably improving a little, and will be strong when the yield curve steepens a little. Hard to predict the dividends, but your numbers look as good as any.
Seems to me that the shareholders that want to bail due to the offering are bailing today. Volume is 2 1/2 times normal, and the day is not over.
But is the issue of convertible shares a bad thing? These stocks have gone though the same thing every time an MREIT made a follow-on offering. The PPS would go down only to have posters point out that the extra money would end up increasing income more than the extra shares would dilute it. RSO commented in the last ER that deals were not the problem; a good source of financing for RSO was a little problematic. Maybe, management can deploy the funds effectively, and accretively.
I'm thinking 16 also, although they will expect to earn - and will earn - more. REIT and BDC managers are giving themselves some cushion given the volatility in their businesses these days. A Xmas bonus could easily happen, though.
Maybe you filed some paperwork, but you aren't a whistleblower ... you don't fit the definition. You have no information or evidence. Apparently, no brain either. Your threats are baseless. One thing you should learn: sometimes people think that the government will fight their claims in court on their behalf; this almost never happens. Now, as others have pointed out, you have already committed libel, so if the FBI wants to pursue anyone, it will be you.
Yes. I am able to hold my PSEC indefinitely ... 20 years anyway. If you can hold a long time, all the math changes. Let's say you hold for 20 years, but the price never recovers, and you are down $2 a share. OK, let's say you get $1 per year, or $20 for the 20 years, in dividends. That's an $18 return on, say, a $11 investment or 164% which is 8.2% per year, down from 9.1% per year if the PPS recovers to $11. It's a hit, but nothing like the one-year hits usually described in these posts.
The best - maybe only - way to determine market value of an asset of this type is by cash flow generated, then discount it for risk if necessary. PSEC's record for non-performing loans is stellar ... can pretty much be disregarded.
If you believe that PSEC should earn 12%, then the PPS is right where it should be now as consensus earnings estimates are for $1 plus. If you believe that it should earn like other BDC's, then 10% is a better number, and the PPS should be $10 plus. If you think that some spinoffs will release extra value, then who knows, but $12 would not be impossible.
Gee, Jim, you really had writer's itch this morning. A couple comments:
 Congrats on making the right decision to hold onto PSEC. I agree with it, and it's what I am doing with my 90,000 shares.
 If PSEC does spin off certain businesses this spring, then it could be very beneficial to shareholders. I held NRF at $8+ and that worked out alright.
 PSEC management has purchased more of its own stock than any company I know of, and most of it was purchased above $9 ... only a few shares recently below $9.
 I didn't double check, but I believe PSEC management is paid 2% and 20% like a hedge fund. This is typical of outside managers, and, until recently, was well worth it ... and will be again. They will not reduce their fees, however, why should they [realistically]?
 If the statements of management were misleading, their auditors would have forced a revision. I was an auditor for six years with PWC, and I know that statements of fact - and misleading implications - would not be allowed.
No. They covered with NII last quarter, and this quarter should be as good - or better - because it's been a good economic environment for MCC.
First of all, it seems that you are including the unrealized loses in your analysis. On that basis, the last couple of months have been less than joyful. If I look at only my dividends plus realized gains/loses, then I beat the S&P. If I add the unrealized, then I am flat from last year. I'm not going to worry about it much. I expect the income stuff to come back in 2015. Heck, I added to my NCV and NCZ over the last couple of days, and they are already up. I bought NCZ today at $8.44, and it ended the day at $8.91.
So, David, hold on .... better news will come along ... enjoy your divvies until then.
What you say is not true. FSAM is an asset manager that manages the assets of FSC and FSFR. It manages these assets; it does not own them, just like you could employ a broker to manage your investments ... but he wouldn't own them. If assets were spun off, the shareholders would be compensated.
The only think I know is that it is a mistake to compare an extraordinary year  with another extraordinary year , and expect similar results. It's like watching Cudlow or Santilli on TV who have been certain that inflation would explode for the last five years ... but it's nowhere in sight.