All public companies are required by the SEC to disclose what the top 3 people make. Except you dont have to disclose the amounts if you have no employees. PSEC and a number of other BDCs use this loophole to hide what the CEO makes because he actually works for a management company. If you dont think that is sneaky then go ahead and just trust John Barry with your retirement fund. I wont trust someone like that. Good luck to you.
docpvh thinks those that are horrified by PSEC's management practices have to be shorts. (The latest Seeking Alpha article is just amazing). I dont short stocks paying 13%+ yields even when I believe further erosion of the share price is likely. I am a former long currently in MRCC, TCAP, and RAS (a REIT). I am of the belief that PSEC's practices are legal, but that if the SEC were doing its job would not be. So I really do fault the SEC more than I fault John Barry and Co.
I predict that greater scrutiny of the management fee shell game will be undertaken by the SEC. There is no good reason why shareholders do not know how many dollars John and Grier have enriched themselves (at shareholder expense). That is supposed to be public information but is not due to a really stupid loophole.
Would longs still be mad at those they describe as shorts if they were told that while their dividend was being cut, Barry made $25 million that year? I dont know how much he made. I am just guessing that his take is around 10% of the management fee, but Barry is keeping his pay a deep dark secret, leaving us to speculate.
Sorry to add more nitpicking. Good luck to all.
Some of us "bashers" are simply former longs who are incredulous regarding how self-serving management is. But it is only partially management's fault. That PSEC does not have to reveal how many millions John Barry and Grier are making is the fault of the SEC. They have provided a loophole for the BDCs which is being exploited.
Not a short. I don't short many stocks, and definitely not those that would charge 13% interest to a short (even if the dividend may not be the most stable). I made money on PSEC by knowing when to get out (before the dividend cut). So my perspective is worth noting by PSEC investors.
I like high yielders. I own TCAP, a BDC which pays its executives salaries that are disclosed. RAS is a REIT yielding about 11.5% investing in low risk apartments.
I am a former long who agrees with you. I come by to visit the PSEC mb because this stock has an interesting loyal retail following. Many of the shareholders lack the ability to analyze PSEC. It's not rocket science, but its also not that easy. You did not have to be a genius to see a dividend cut was coming, and I got out around 3 months before it was announced.
Management has become arrogant in their blatant strategy to build management fees (and therefore their secret executive salaries). I predict that the conference calls will be more closely controlled in the future so that John Barry is not put into the position of lying about things such as the reason for the dividend cut. (He actually said it was done to reinvest earnings in the business! Holy cow!)
Keep up the good work Jordan. You are providing an important service for PSEC shareholders. It is just the way it goes that you will be greeted with scorn.
The interesting thing is that at one of the last 2 conference calls John Barry was asked why some assets were sold significantly below their recent independent valuations, and he responded that sometimes you have to take a discount if you want to sell quickly so you can buy stuff. If I recall he really did say "buy stuff" or something very close to that.
I am in Buffalo and see alot of deals in the bank I work for all over NY (and NYC), CT, MA, PA, OH, and other locations. Apartments are going up everywhere.
Davis - Really glad I posted because you then responded with some of the facts I was going to look to dig out of the 10K. Thanks davisfoulger! BTW, I am a real estate appraiser and Certified Business Appraiser. On the real estate end, multifamily properties are hotter than a pistol in almost all US markets. Cap rates in middle of the road markets such as those where RAS invests are mostly around 6.5% to 7.5%. And these are moderate sized properties often.
So how is it that we RAS investors can buy today at an 11.75% yield in a liquid investment? It just does not make sense. The yield should be more like 7% to 8%, which means that assuming flat dividends (no increases) the stock needs to get to $9.00 just for the 8% yield, which is a 47% move from here.
There are a dozen or more BDCs with similar yields as RAS, and I am a believer in the BDC model too. But they are riskier, doing mezzanine loans with equity kickers and so forth. RAS is in real estate, and mostly the lowest risk properties, which should result in low dividend yields. So I have much more invested in RAS than in the four BDCs I own, combined.
GTW999 - Cheap stocks are a blessing not a curse. Value investors do look forward to the day when their stocks are no longer quite so cheap, but while they are cheap, you can sleep with little fear of the future.
1) Significant ownership of the hottest property type (apartments)
2) Diversification into office and retail, with apartments being the main interest
3) involvement in property management for IRT
4) Commercial real estate lendingVB
5) Solid management with a great steady or better record for the past several years
I added today.
What a ridiculous post. I am very negative on PSEC... Not sure they can maintain the $1.00 divy, but delist ... that statement shows how little you understand PSEC.
PSEC is managed by some very smart guys who know how to grow cash flow as well as anyone. Dividends paid have exploded, along with shares outstanding, total assets, and management fees. Only two measures have declined: Net Asset Value and dividends paid per share. (You can't have everything, right?)
Listen to the conference call two quarters ago where John Barry lies and says the dividend was cut (24% - he didn't mention the percentage) so that they could retain more earnings in the business. That lie was told when an analyst questioned their excessive management fees. They do get pretty defensive when those types of questions are asked. The point is, these guys will continue to try and build shareholder value (after all they are large shareholders), so long as it does not conflict with their main mission, which is to grow management fees.
How much of the $225 million+ in management fees do John Barry, Eliasek or Oswald make? We have no idea. Maybe it is best that way. Might make you angry. PSEC management is like most of the BDCs in paying their staffs through management fees. Then they make the proper disclosure to SEC that top executive salaries were zero, since they are paid from a separate management company. But none of the other dozen BDCs I checked have had exponential growth in management fees, as asset growth has been modest compared to the explosion at PSEC.
I am too smart to short PSEC. With a 13% high yield dividend, I have much better places to put my capital than shorting PSEC, so dont waste your breath calling me a short. I had about 10,000 shares a year ago and sold them all last August. After the divvy cut I came back - only buying around 5,000 shares in December. By March I was fed up and got out. Good luck to you all.
John Barry's insider buying was just his lunch money. He won't tell the shareholders how many millions he is taking in management fees. So don't get too excited about the puny millions from his insider buys.
Dave you Moron - The facts are that they have increased dividends, but cut dividends per share 24% with the explosion in shares outstanding, dividends have grown alot, but not as fast as the dilution caused by the explosion in shares outstanding (69 mil shares in FY 2010 to 359 mil most recently) that they achieved through the use of what I call their addiction to the ATM cash machine, or what they would call "At The Market" issuances of new shares.
Yes dividends have increased in total dollars, while monthly dividends per share were reduced by about 24%, from $0.11 to $08333. While the good people who trusted PSEC management got a 24% pay cut (not including their capital losses), John Barry and his cronies received huge management fee increases, Management fees paid to Barry and his Prospect Capital Management have grown as shown below in recent fiscal years (ended 6/30):
2010 $30.7 MM
2011 $46.1 MM
2012 $82.5 MM
2013 $151.0 MM
2014 $198.3 MM
2015 $169.2 MM (First 9 mos.)
The amazing thing is that apparently the SEC allows BDCs such as PSEC to keep top salaries secret since they are paid in the form of external management fees. I am willing to bet Barry's take exploded while his investors got fleeced. Is anything here inaccurate Dave... Please let me know if I have said anything that was not 100% true.
A former long wise enough to get out a couple months before the 24% divy cut.
PSEC's management's interests are not aligned with shareholders. They have used their ATM machine to explode the number of shares outstanding, increasing them by five-fold from 69 million to 359 million over the past five years. Did they increase shares outstanding to benefit existing shareholders?
Of course not. There was only one reason for the massive dilution - to have a massive increase in management fees:
2010 $30.7 MM
2011 $46.1 MM
2012 $82.5 MM
2013 $151.0 MM
2014 $198.3 MM
2015 $169.2 MM (First 9 mos.)
Those are the facts. Good luck with this great management.
Cool. I live in Buffalo and didn't even know they have a presence. I just recently bought shares when they got crazy cheap. (Average price about $0.75).
IQNT is delivering $20/ mil each quarter of EBITDA. At an 8x multiplier, EV is $640 + cash on hand of $113 MILLION = $750 mil. Divide by 34 mil shares = $22/ share. There is no debt. If the new CEO can grow the business a bit, we go up from there.
Good luck longs.
Count me among those who was happy with TA owning a decent amount of real estate, recognizing that HPT always owned most of the properties.
So I would not have done the sale leaseback if I were the decision maker, but, the cup is still half full. TA only has a modest amount of debt with a pile of cash, and with a bunch of truck stops and C-stores rapidly improving operations towards stabilization. So TA will have less real estate value but more business value. The stock is still headed higher, as cash flow should grow nicely, though the ride my get a bit bumpier thanks to the sale leaseback.
Stuart - I am with prchunter on this one. That the stock has been undervalued at least since Goldman backed out is clear. But the stock is about 350% of it value when that happened. Why? 1) Because management has done a good job of addressing the concerns of the investment community; 2) The fundamentals of the business are trending up very nicely.
We agree that EBIX ought to be $50/ share, and it will be soon. Robin R deserves our praise and thanks, not your whining.
The sale leaseback removes real estate income from TA. Formerly the capital cost for the 30 stores (real estate) was paid in interest expense. It now changes to rent. And TA has received a huge cash infusion that they will use to add and improve stores they are buying or developing. TA's income will be a return on the business value and FF&E, not real estate. If I were CFO, I don't think I would have recommended this strategy, as being diversified with some real estate equity is a good thing. TA has a very aggressive strategy.
But the way TA is growing stores while maintaining a huge cash hord has been pretty amazing (and being partly from earnings windfall profits on gas margins the past 2 quarters) also a good thing in spite of the market's reaction to a spectacular 3/31 quarter.
TA's earnings will grow rapidly, and our time in the $20s might not even last that long. Give them a couple of years, and this team will have TA shares into the $30s and beyond.
I am in pretty heavy, having about 15% of my invested assets in TA. Go TA!!