You continue to make the same mistake that Davis does. Even the company, in the notes to their current financial statements describes FFO as the measure of OPERATING performance. CAD is merely what it says--because some operating expenses are non-cash, it is a measure of cash available for distribution, but it is in no way a measure of whether said company can afford, based upon normal operations to pay one--as is evidenced with RAS and their 50% dividend cut. If they were to routinely make capital gain sales part of their income stream going forward, CAD may be useful, but that is not the loan program or real estate operations. I'm hoping FFO rebounds this quarter--that would be a great signal that RAS is under priced right now, but quite frankly, CAD has so many adjustments to it--whatever the company sees fit to include--it is useless to me. The noted to the financials also states that as well--the companies calculation of CAD may differ from other companies interpretations and calculations,so it is never a comparable number. FFO is still the company's measure of operations--their financial statements confirm this.
CAD is not a gain--it is merely cash available to distribute--has absolutely nothing to do with earnings. Stop misleading people--your are either extremely ignorant to accounting and business or you are just trying to hide the facts. I tend to think the latter which makes your "CAD is earnings" statements even worse.
.19 FFO, more than enough to cover the dividend. Rising revenue and margins--selected property sales coming in the next three months to be used to take out financing costs used for last quarters purchase. No problems for RAS from IRT's operations. Now just hoping the RAS loan program has at least leveled out--then FFO should be positive. With that, PPS should rebound nicely.
Davis , you can't possibly believe what you are writing. I'm ending this here, you clearly are manipulating CAD for your purposes, I just hope no one is stupid enough to believe you. My hope is still that FFO will turn positive again this quarter, and for me , that's all i care about because that will signal real earnings from operations--period!
Davis, i will continue to correct your first two paragraph statements as absolutely incorrect by every accounting standard in existence. To ignore non-cash expenses as actual costs of doing business without any regard is simply inappropriate. CAD is simply what it says-Cash available for distribution--it has nothing to do with earnings. Because a cost is non cash, especially amortization, does not mean it can be ignored.
Seriously?? Lack of insider buying at these levels is one of the big disappointments for this stock right now. Insiders bought less than 40,000 shares in December while One sold 26,815 shares for a net buy of 12,125 shares. At $2.50 a share that's their big statement. I own more shares than they do! This better change after earnings are announced--they need to show some commitment to this company and have shown none--even at these prices. Insiders are asleep at the wheel or they know something we don't. The latter is the scary part.
Book is still $6.54--well above what will be a $4 stock price by the end of today. It doesn't sound like management is overly invested in this first quarter either, which if they pay a .24 cent dividend, will come from BV. So by the end of 1st quarter, BV is down to say $6.22--with same economic loss as 4th quarter with the .24 cent dividend. Hopefully credit volatility and oil(cause of a lot of the market turmoil) calm down in the second quarter and management can see clearer to begin to invest and begin to turn this company back around. I think they have a plan and I don't think cutting the dividend again so soon is part of it--JMHO of course, but I guess we will get a feel from management at 9 this morning.
It's always better to see earnings from operations be the majority of earnings, but buying and selling properties is part of RAS management plan and so gains from sales are never a bad thing and shouldn't be considered as such. Just don't want them to be 40% of the business. But now, understanding where management is from the CC, the 2016 numbers do make much more sense.
Obviously by the dividend cut and a secondary that cut the stock in half, the market would disagree with your position, and at the end of the day, that's all that matters.
Yes--when someone buys someone is selling--but at what price? That's what you are missing in the old argument. If the demand is in buying, stock price will eventually rise when sellers get tight and want a higher price. Institutions are taking those sellers out of the market at what they must feel are value prices--won't be as easy to buy at lower prices the more and more this happens. Laws of supply and demand--been around for ever.. Has nothing to do with management or the company if enough institutions see value at these prices--trading supply of shares is shrinking every day this happens and price will rise in response.
Only one problem with your statement--they CAN NOT afford a higher dividend--if they could they would certainly be paying it--that's the reality you need to come to terms with or your credibility here is out the window.
Its sounds nice to say there are better margins in the lending arm, but when will that come to the bottom line.? I keep hearing all these great numbers and we needed the secondary at sub-BV prices for lending and so on and so on. Show me the money--and i want it in more than just CAD--give me some positive FFO this quarter--then I'm with you!
Davis, you know we continue to disagree on this--if they could afford to pay a higher dividend--they would. They absolutely can't because they are so hand-cuffed with access to capital, the whole reason they CUT the dividend by 50%. Also, the dividend could still be cut further to accomplish your 8% goal on a $3 PPS. Question is, how much capital are they in need of? The question of whether they NEED to pay out more is a muddy one, but always remember, if REIT rules would come into play and require a higher payout, they could always choose to pay the excise tax and keep the capital for investment. There is no such thing as "They are forced " to pay a higher dividend--they always have options not to.
The question will be"will big money continue to pump the futures up by buying long"? It is the only reason oil prices are where they are today. These last two weeks are about the futures supply and demand and not about oil's supply and demand. Based upon oil supply, price per barrel should already be below $40. But so far trader's are ignoring that and bidding the futures prices up. Scary when the fundamentals don't seem to matter anymore.
I just reviewed the CC with management from this morning. Some very positive items that I have witnessed in other REIT calls which make me feel much better about 2016 projections. First as was witnessed with NYMT this week, management is simply not participating in this market until the volatility calms some. So with that, earnings will be somewhat muted--it is to be expected, but it is , in my opinion, a great move. Waiting for better solutions in the near term will provide for better long term performance and certainly lessens risk in the near term--Bonus points for management. When i first saw the CAD forecast, it was disturbing, but makes much more sense now. Secondly, management as much as stated that the dividend is safe for the next two years in their long term analysis and that is huge--they basically set it at a point where their was not much reliance on the credit markets to provide income. This is huge as yield is currently 15+%. Management is taking a very conservative approach here with their numbers, and I have to say while growth is on hold, it appears to be a very smart decision and one that many other REITS are buying into. Hanging onto my shares here--15% is ok with me--i'll for go the growth for now.
You also continue to ignore the gains from the acquisition transaction that is consolidated from IRT to RAS's income statement--they helped to increase income and BV and offset most of the consolidated costs related to the transaction. Show everything, not just what works for your mind set.
Well you know what i think of your CAD statements, so I'll leave it at that. Relying on FFO rather than CAD as a successful measure is NOT a character flaw in any way--it's smart analysis everyday of the week--period! It actually is about UNDERSTANDING the difference and doing the research.