Below are the details for the new Great Elm Capital baby bonds.
It will be a weeks or two before we see trading as there is no OTC trading.
Make sure you do your due diligence on this one – not exactly a top shelf business development company.
Great Elm Capital Pricing Detail
This is a CEF that has nearly 50% leverage and an expense ratio nearing 25%….Let the buyer beware as the SEC is asleep at the wheel!
Capital & Leverage
Outstanding Shares 7,601,958
Total Assets (Reported: June 30, 2023) $322M
Estimated Total Assets $172M
Net Assets $93M
Market Cap $72M
Portfolio Turnover 32.00%
Debt-to-Equity 1.6017
Total Leverage 46.12%
Structural Leverage (out of total) 100.00%
Portfolio Leverage (out of total) 0.00%
Expense Ratio 24.73%
Non Lev Exp Ratio 12.52%
Gross Asset Expense Ratio 6.96%
Gross Asset Non Lev Exp Ratio 3.52%
Rel Lev Cost 7.45%
This is a BDC, not a CEF.
It is a closed end fund that (CEF) that operates as a business development business.
Is the asset coverage requirement 150% (for BDCs) or 300% (for CEFs).
I suspect you’re asking a question you already know the answer to, LI, but is the 300% asset coverage requirement for CEFs directly comparable to the BDC 150% asset coverage ratio???? I ask because I was just comparing the language in GLU-B to the language in this GECC issue and it mentions both a 300% number and a 200% number: for GLU=B:
“ASSET COVERAGE RATIO
As provided in the 1940 Act and subject to certain exceptions, the Fund may issue debt and/or preferred shares with the condition that immediately after issuance the value of its total assets, less certain ordinary course liabilities, exceeds 300% of the amount of the debt outstanding and exceeds 200% of the sum of the amount of debt and preferred shares outstanding.”
I don’t remember seeing any such differentiation in BDC language. So is either CEF number directly comparable to the BDC asset coverage ratio language of 150%? I am NOT asking a question I know the answer to… lol