Look, all you are saying is that an investor should not pay more than 1 or 2 percent above the net asset value
of PSEC at the time they purchase the stock. Even better, of course, would be to buy the stock below the current NAV.
I disagree with your reasoning here. TCAP got hit hard because it was absurdly overpriced, trading at nearly double its net asset value per share. PSEC by contrast trades at only 1 percent above its net asset value per share.
Let me add one more thing about PSEC. I have read the quarterly transcripts, and the very , very strong
impression I get from the comments made by PSEC management is that they take a great deal of PRIDE
in this company. I do not believe that they will sacrifice the interests of the shareholders in an attempt to line
their own pockets. Obviously, they want to be compensated well, but not to the point where the company's future would be seriously compromised.
The way I see it is that we will get a minimum of 9 cents per quarter per share dividend, and if the equity kickers are at least somewhat profitable, 11 cents per share per quarter is the more likely possibility.
This comment is nonsense!
PSEC is modifying their procedures so as to act more like a venture capitalist and less like a financier.
They are sacrificing a small amount of interest income now for the possibility of earning a potentially enormous capital gain.
In the worst possible case, PSEC will cut the dividend to 9 cents per share per month, which equates to a ten percent annual dividend. After all, the company's earnings are running a minimum of 26 cents per share per quarter.
Bear in mind that this assumes that all of the "equity kickers" that PSEC has in place are in fact worth NOTHING! I find that extremely hard to believe.
PSEC is becoming more and more of a venture capitalist; by this I mean that they recognize that the big, big profits come from owning a piece of the action, as opposed to simply helping to finance the operations.
Well, I sold all of my RSO at $6.60/share.
In my opinion, a cut in the dividend by the end of the year is a CERTAINTY!.
I do not like the ever increasing payments to REXI for managing the company. Not only is the amount
always going up, but the percentage of interest income used to pay these charges is also increasing.
I am sure everybody understands that there are economies of scale involved with managing RSO. By this
I mean that if RSO has double the assets it had before, it should not cost the company twice as much to actually manage these assets. But with Resource America, you are paying a lot more than double to do this!
I am disgusted by what I consider to be the sheer greed of Resource America (REXI) in running this company.
The annual report will be sent out soon. Le us all try to figure out how much RSO pays REXI to manage the company. M feeling is that REXI is looting Resource Capital. How can we prove this? We need to know the grand total that RSO pays REXI. I am not just talking about the base management fee, but also the salaries that RSO pays for key company officers from REXI (like Jon Cohen), PLUS the special management fees that RSO pays REXI for the numerous joint ventures with REXI such as leasing and ownership of undervalued real estate. In otherwords, how many dollars in all go from RSO to REXI???
Look, the peer companies to RSO are NCT, NRF, and RAS. ALL of them have had spectacular recoveries
over the past year. I find it difficult to believe that the real estate recovery has benefitted everybody except
RSO. This company's profits per share have fallen steadily while those of other companies have gone up considerably. The problem is that a lot of money was shifted into activities such as leasing and undervalued real estate, which haven't made any profit but do require very high management fees.
The problem as I see it is that RSO is run in such a way as to benefit the shareholders of the manager,
Resource Amnerica, Inc. (REXI). This company has raised an enormous amount of money by diluting the stock. The funds are then invested in such a way as to generate enormous management fees for REXI, but
very little profit for the shareholders of RSO.
I am curious: Is the demand for loans at 12% interest more or less really that strong in the United States??
PSEC acts as though there is an enormous number of prospective clients out there waiting for their financing.
I am sorry, I meant that the dividends paid at the end of January, 2013, and the end of February, 2013, were both
considered to be paid in December of 2012. Does this make sense? Have the rest of you seen this on your 1099 for 2012???
I just got a strange tax rvision 1099 form from ETRADE showing that 2 PSEC monthly dividends wre both
considered to be taxable as of December, 2012. Not simply the dividend paid at the end of January, 2012, but also the dividend paid as of the end of February, 2012. Does that make sense? Have other people seen this on your tax forms?
On Thursday, the 147 shares of SBY I was expecting showed up in my account. By today, the shares of SBY had mysteriously vanished, only to be replaced by 147 TWO warrants expiring later this year. By the way, I own 3000 shares of TWO.
Anybody else have a similar experience with their ETRADE account???
Can somebody who has access to the Wells Fargo report list the criticisms of PSEC? I would really appreciate
seeing this spelled out in as much detail as possible!!!
I do not have a copy of the Wells Fargo report, and can not get one. Can you elaborate a little
bit more on your statment "(h)as lots of negative things to say about PSEC asset quality." Thanks! Arthur
I was very disappointed! This stock is going to take a beating tomorrow!
We have seen dilution purely for the sake of generating ever growing management fees to REXI, while
the shareholders of RSO have not been helped at all.