READER INITIATED ALERTS

Below readers can post in the comments section items they believe are important to seen right away by all other readers.

For instance if we are not at our computer and a reader spots a new issue being issued they can post it below where others can come for ‘breaking news’ from other readers.

We want to keep this page ‘fresh’ so we will slick it off every 50 days so the items below remain only newer items.

We only ask that comments beyond the breaking news be kept to other pages or this page will be ‘out of control’ and not fulfilling what I hope is a handy alert page.

TO START A NEW THREAD GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE

359 thoughts on “READER INITIATED ALERTS”

  1. Anyone mention BRG-PA yet ?
    Had notice pop up in my TD account 92 shares on hold been a partial call for Dec 21th at 25.00 and .46 accrued
    Expect it to drop today. in line with my plan to park some money here to gain interest until just a event like this

    Reply

    1. Charles – Are you saying you think A will drop today because shares were separated from accounts today? Original announcement was 11/19 so the news had been out there. Now the question is, given this call for 47% of outstanding, how long does that imply before they call the remaining A’s at the barest minimum? My guess is we’re good till early Feb, but then again, I didn’t expect this 12/21 call to happen until calendar year ’21 either… BTW, I’ve decided to replace my called A’s with C’s, still looking to keep position in the high expectation of call areas to minimize long term risk…It’s the chicken’s way of participating in a name and at least getting something (YTC yield) out of it.

      Reply

        2. Mikeo – D does not have the same provisions that A and C do. Both A and C require BRG to increase the coupon by 2 points if they remain outstanding beyond specified dates – 10/21/22 for A and 7/19/23 for C. To me, this provision on both these series gives shareholders additional protections that D holders do not have.

          Reply

          1. a) Thanks for reminding me to read the prospectus!, and
            b) How common is that provision? Kind of had to chuckle at this, sort of a “Hey, I’m two years past my call date! Call me!” provision in case the company’s CFO is asleep at the wheel?

            Reply

            1. There’s an interesting preset to what your saying that to me is a product of today’s mentality on callability. That is, that there’s an issuer’s expectation that they WILL be calling their issues on the first call dates when they issue their issues, both preferreds and bonds…. That’s more of a mentality that’s only crept into the landscape recently. Back in 2015 and 2016 when A and C were issued, the call was just a standard provision not thought of as an expected event necessarily. My guess is the added protection offered by the 2% provisions was introduced as an added incentive to buyers for what was a highly leveraged and probably considered relatively iffy issuer. My guess it was a provision suggested by the investment advisors as an added inducement for potential buyers, it was not the idea of the company. Bottom line, it’s not a very common provision, but it is used occasionally. There are other examples out there, but don’t make me tax my brain to try to name them right now…. Thanksgiving’s setting in…

              Reply

              1. These also have put provisions in them, where the investors can force them to redeem them at par after a certain date.
                Rarely, some securities with that provision will trade under that amount, leading to easy money.

                Reply

    1. A junk bond fund being marketed when corporate defaults have been lower than normal because of the Fed pumping liquidity into the system with a firehose?
      What could go wrong?

      Reply

    2. In the CEF space new funds come to market when the asset class is hot. It’s almost always a terrible idea to buy into a new fund.

      Like other recent CEF launches the sponsor is picking up all launch costs. I think that will be the new norm under new fiduciary standard rules.

      Reply

  4. Sell GOODM, it is trading at 26.17 which gives an IRR ~ 1% until it becomes callable on 5/25/21. If the world stays the same, it will be called then IMO. We sold in all 10 accounts that held it. Obviously it not be called on the first date, but even if it takes a while longer, the return will not be great unless it makes it say to 2022.

    Reply

  5. CORR-A is on the move.
    I’ve been holding this dog for months.
    I have been selling chunks of it today.
    I hope it’s only “Chanelling” and not making a new channel higher.
    NYCBU ran away from me, Lando too.
    Just 13 days ago, Stifel downgraded the common to a price target of $1.

    Reply

  6. David Tepper adding to Energy Transfer (ET)
    For those of you willing to tip toe into the energy field, distressed debt guru billionaire David Tepper has added to his significant stake in ET common. Some of these fixed-to-floating pfds may be interesting.

    Reply

  7. CTY partial call announced by Qwest

    Lumen plans to use the net proceeds from the offering to redeem $500 million aggregate principal amount of outstanding 6.125% Notes due 2053 issued by its subsidiary Qwest Corporation, and for general corporate purposes, including reducing Lumen’s revolving or other indebtedness.

    New senior notes being offered in private.

    Reply

    1. NLY-D call date = 12/23, not 12/31

      Annaly Capital Management (NYSE:NLY) will redeem all of its 18.4M shares of 7.50% series D cumulative redeemable preferred stock, which retires relatively high-cost capital in a low rate environment.

      The cash redemption amount is $25 per share plus accrued and unpaid dividends to, but not including, the redemption date of Dec. 23, 2020.

      Reply

      1. Thanks guys, sold the D this morning at $25.42 and picked up I this morning at $23.82. Ex-div in a week.

        Reply

  9. Well, I didn’t expect this, since it is only 2 months away from mandatory redemption — but no harm done:

    Medley MCX called today: “MEDLEY CAPITAL CORPORATION has issued a full call on its MEDLEY CAP CORP (CUSIP number 58503F403).* Because you hold shares in this preferred stock, we want to let you know exactly what will happen next. On 11/20/2020, the redemption date, the issuer is expected to redeem them at $25.00 [and $.09] per bond/share.”

    Reply

    1. Annaly Capital Management (NYSE:NLY) will redeem all of its 18.4M shares of 7.50% series D cumulative redeemable preferred stock, which retires relatively high-cost capital in a low rate environment.
      The cash redemption amount is $25 per share plus accrued and unpaid dividends to, but not including, the redemption date of Dec. 23, 2020.
      https://seekingalpha.com/news/3638626-annaly-capital-to-redeem-all-of-7_50-series-d-preferred-stock?utm_medium=email&utm_source=seeking_alpha&mail_subject=nly-annaly-capital-to-redeem-all-of-its-7-50-series-d-preferred-stock&utm_campaign=rta-stock-news&utm_content=link-3

      Reply

    2. PASADENA, Calif., Nov. 23, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — General Finance Corporation (GFN), a leading specialty rental services company offering portable storage, modular space and liquid containment solutions (the “Company”), announced today that it will partially redeem its outstanding 8.125% Senior Notes due July 2021 (NASDAQ:GFNSL) (the “Notes”). On December 23, 2020 (the “Redemption Date”) the Company will redeem $8.6 million of the issued and outstanding principal amount of the Notes in accordance with the optional redemption provisions in the indenture governing the Notes. The redemption price will be $25 per Note (equal to 100% of the Notes’ original principal amount), plus accrued and unpaid interest through, but excluding, the Redemption Date. The Company intends to use cash on hand to fund the redemption.
      This press release does not constitute a notice of redemption. Beneficial holders of the Notes with any questions should contact the brokerage firm or financial institution through which they hold the Notes.
      https://seekingalpha.com/pr/18096755-general-finance-corporation-announces-partial-redemption-of-8_125-senior-notes-due-2021

      Reply

      1. This is exactly what I suspected/warned warned happen when General Finance announced their first redemption. GFNSL is a long term holding, and I resisted the temptation to buy more shares when the first redemption was announced for exactly this reason. Looks like they’re redeeming 50% of the remaining shares.

        Reply

  10. BRG-A Partial redemption – BRG calling approx 47% of outstanding on 12/21/20. 1,963,551 shares.

    Reply

    2. PEMBROKE, Bermuda–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Maiden Holdings, Ltd. (MHLD) (“Maiden”) announced today that it has amended its cash tender offer (the “Offer”) for its Series A Preference Shares, Series C Preference Shares and Series D Preference Shares (each as defined in the table below). Maiden, through its indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary, Maiden Reinsurance Ltd. (the “Company”), is offering to purchase 3,300,000 shares of each series of the outstanding securities (each, a “Series Purchase Amount”) listed in the table below (the “Securities”) as more fully described in the Offer to Purchase (as defined below)…
      https://seekingalpha.com/pr/18095357-maiden-amends-tender-offer-to-purchase-3300-000-shares-of-series-of-preference-shares-series

      Reply

      1. I am figuring this is being done to ensure the company gets at least 50% of each series, not just 50% of the aggregate of all series. All so they can squeeze out the remainder for bupkis.

        If you lie down with fleas …..

        Reply

    1. Now that trades are free there’s no reason to buy PFF. Just build your own mutual fund. No management fee and you’re nor forced to sell at the worst possible prices.

      Reply

      1. No reason to buy PFF even if trades are not free. Anyone with a reasonable understanding of preferred shares can do better than PFF.

        If you look at PFF holdings and the YTC and reset rates on them it’s dismal.

        Reply

  12. Insanity again, PLDGP traded for 81.80 today. It matures on 11/13/26 for $50. So you will lose about $5.64 if held to maturity. Works out to a -1.4% IRR . . . If you own it, I would sell it ASAP. . .

    Reply

    2. I think I chased down a prospectus years ago, it was issued by a predecessor company in the 90’s.
      There was a reason it trades so far above par, but I don’t remember it off the top of my head.

      Reply

  13. NEWTON, Mass.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Nov. 17, 2020– Service Properties Trust (Nasdaq: SVC), or SVC, today announced that it has priced an underwritten public offering of $450 million aggregate principal amount of 5.50% unsecured senior notes due 2027 guaranteed by certain of SVC’s subsidiaries. The settlement of this offering is expected to occur on November 20, 2020, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions. SVC expects to use the net proceeds from this offering to repay amounts outstanding under its revolving credit facility.

    The joint book-running managers for this offering were BofA Securities, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, BMO Capital Markets Corp., Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and PNC Capital Markets LLC. The joint lead managers for this offering were Mizuho Securities USA LLC, Regions Securities LLC, SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc. and U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. The co-managers for this offering were Barclays Capital Inc., FHN Financial Securities Corp., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Truist Securities, Inc. and UBS Securities LLC.

    Reply

    1. Garbage in, garbage out. Another RMR nightmare. (Writing from painful experience, and I’d love to be proven wrong.)

      Reply

      1. I stay away from all companies associated with the Portnoys.

        Others with high tolerance for risk can enjoy the higher yields, and more power to them.

        Reply

  14. Meltup today in GMRE-A, high of 28.11, yesterdays close 26.79, similar to GOODN meltup on Tuesday

    Disclosure, we hold GMRE-A is several accounts.

    Also last few days CTA-B high of 118.98, 11/13 close 109.2

    Reply

    2. only 300 shares exchanged at 28.11 and those were some kind of dark pool execution. I wouldn’t count that as being the real high of the day yesterday.

      Reply

    1. I like SCE-L and have been wondering why this BB+ rated utility pref is trading with a yield that’s higher than recent BB/BB+ non-cum insurance prefs. Wildfire risk is factored into that BB+ rating and is not the bogeyman some people make it out to be.

      Reply

  17. Not sure if this counts as an alert so apologies if this should be elsewhere: for those of you waiting for PG&E to start paying those preferred dividends, seems like it could be a while, longer than some (on other sites) have indicated. An email from Investor Relations said: We have not indicated when PG&E will pay the accrued dividend on preferred shares. Please refer to the dividends section under Note 6 in our third quarter 10Q for more information.
    SO when i dove into that there’s obviously a lot of info but the key info is: “The Dividend Restriction provides that PG&E Corporation may not pay dividends on shares of its common stock until it recognizes $6.2 billion in Non-GAAP Core Earnings following the Effective Date.” Taking a look at their recent and projected Non-GAAP Core Earnings, it appears that this is going to be a while (although i’m not sure when the “effective date” is). This section from the 10 Q indicates why i’m skeptical: “PG&E Corporation’s non-GAAP core earnings, which exclude non-core items, were $461 million, or $0.22 per share, in the third quarter of 2020, compared with $590 million, or $1.11 per share, during the same period in 2019.” (FYI their are projecting about $1.00 per share for 2021). So best case scenario about $2 billion non-gaap core earnings next year? That’s leaves a long way to go to get to $6.2 billion. Anyone have a different take on this?

    Reply

    1. Franklin – If I read it correctly,
      “may not pay dividends on shares of its common stock”
      does not preclude payments on the preferred stock.

      Reply

      1. true, but pretty clear they aren’t paying preferred until they are ready to pay common. A lot to digest in the 10Q but seems like based on the numbers it’s not going to be any time soon.

        Reply

    3. PGE is in a state of chaos IMO. They announced they are moving from San Francisco to Oakland in 2022 back in June. I don’t know if the virus and/or work from home has changed the schedule or not. Today they announced a new CEO will be starting effective January 4th. And she is coming in from the outside, so will have to come up to speed. Plus they are still dealing with all of the one off issues of bankruptcy and fires. And they are looking to sell some assets. Lots of moving parts and I am not sure paying preferred dividends is at the top of their worry list. It was not brought up at their conference call two weeks ago.

      Might be wrong, but would guess Q2 or Q3 of 2021 at the earliest for them to pay the accrued cumulative preferred dividends. I am sure others will have more educated guesses. . .

      Disclosure, at times we have held some of the PCG preferreds. Today we hold one of them, but it will probably be sold in the next few days. None of them are long term core holdings.

      Reply

      1. Tex, I think it could be even longer. Might be several years. In order to pay the common you have to pay the preferreds first. And that will (also) take a board of directors vote. In the meantime to even get close to the common, they’re going to need non-GAAP core profits of about $6 billion+ and that will take 3 years. See no reason why paying the preferred is a priority, not to mention all the other restrictions that the recent 10Q delineates.

        Reply

    4. Franklin, Its hard to tell…March bankruptcy prelim post bankruptcy balance sheet projections on the cash ledger showed a 2020, $42 million dollar cash disbursement to preferred shareholders which would encompass the 3 year suspension. So clearly the court is not opposed to payment. However preferred dividends are not court dispersed but Board of Director approved. They have chosen not to do so as of yet…However, suspended preferreds from 2001 bankruptcy were NOT paid with first reinstated quarterly dividend…They were paid a week prior, then a second declaration of the quarterly dividend was declared.
      Previous bankruptcy timeline was .. 2001 bankruptcy.., April 2004 they officially exited bankruptcy. April 13, 2004 all accrued preferreds were paid.. April 19 2004 first quarterly dividend was declared…Common stock divi was reinstated until March of 2005.
      So obviously they are not following previous bankruptcy playbook as they didnt disperse accruals immediately after existing this bankruptcy unlike first time. So its really hard to know. One thing is certain is the accrued dividends are not “freebees”. Its baked into price. Strip wise, one really is looking at a 6% B rated preferred, which one cant say is a real market bargain.
      I did a lot of flipping with the various series’s past couple years, but have been out since prices firmed up and series issues seem totally tracked to each other now.

      Reply

      1. thanks Grid. the history is interesting. Does seem different this time but as you said, impossible to know what the Board will do.

        Reply

        1. Yes it definitely is different this time. Most bankruptcies shed debt, this one if memory serves tripled debt outstanding before exiting. Assuming no third bankruptcy, preferreds at some point will be paid. As they had no vote in bankruptcy approval process because they were listed as “unimpaired”.
          The yearly payout is peanuts, so they could pay, they just choose not to at this point. To put in perspective, pre bankruptcy common stock dividends were about a billion a year in disbursements. The preferreds are $14 million annually.

          Reply

  18. USB-O announced intention to redeem yet its trading way above fair value. The times we are living in..

    Reply

        1. maybe i am missing something. sounds like the h which doesn’t really make sense to versus the O

          We intend to use the net proceeds from the sale of the depositary shares representing interests in the Series L Preferred Stock for general corporate purposes, which may include the redemption of depositary shares representing interests in our Series H Preferred Stock. Pending such use, we may temporarily invest the net proceeds or use them to reduce short-term indebtedness. For details on our Series H Preferred Stock, including dividend rates, see the section entitled “Description of Capital Stock ― Preferred Stock ― Series H Preferred Stock.”

          Reply

            1. its like the new math(that i never got)
              LOL
              thanks for the clarification

              i just sold the rest of my O so appreciate this getting pointed out,

              Reply

    2. Irrational trading also seen in preferreds with redemptions already announced.

      WFC-T last trade $25.44 (total proceeds on 12/15 $25.375)
      BK-C last trade $25.34 (total proceeds on 12/20 $25.325)

      Reply

      2. Along the same lines, check the discrepancy in price between TFC-F and TFC-G, which are both past call and pretty much the same as each other at this point.

        Reply

        1. Looked at this awhile back, I believe TFC-F is only callable on pay dates, TFC-G anytime (with 30 day notice)

          Reply

          1. Right you are. That explains the difference, and thanks for the correction. Should have checked the prospectuses first.

            Reply

      3. Wow what is that? I can see a rounding of positions but those aren’t 100 share trades! On the flip side I don’t have any time to evaluate someone else’s book

        Reply

    2. New BAM issue …………..

      Interesting issue. I THINK I have it figured out but not entirely sure.

      https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1001085/000110465920126433/a20-36018_4fwp.htm

      It’s a “perpetual” sub note but will be treated like a preferred for US tax purposes. Guaranteed by BAM so the same credit quality, meaning BBB. No UK withholding. 4.5%. SEC registered and will trade on the NYSE. US$.

      Folks, they did this structure for YOU. No withholding, even in a taxable account. No grey market ticker. It’s a relatively small issue by BAM standards so I’m guessing it’s a test of the waters for this kind of issue.

      Reply

      1. Bob, thanks for the link to the prospectus. If I understand correctly, it will start trading on the NYSE on 24 nov. Any idea how I’d find the ticker?

        Reply

        1. Bur – the issue settles on the 24th, meaning that’s the day the interest clock starts ticking. It will start trading when NYSE approves the listing and gives them a ticker. That is usually 10 days-2 weeks.

          Reply

          1. Thanks, Bob. Do you have any recommendation for a site or service I can monitor to be alerted when the new ticker is issued?

            Reply

        1. Page S-44 of the prelim prospectus supp, last sentence:

          Characterization of the Notes for U.S. Federal Income Tax Purposes

          No authority directly addresses the U.S. federal income tax treatment of an instrument with terms similar to the Notes. We believe, and the discussion below assumes, that the Notes will be treated as equity of the UK Issuer for U.S. federal income tax purposes. This characterization will be binding on a holder of Notes, unless the holder expressly discloses that it is adopting a contrary position on its U.S. federal income tax return. Our characterization, however, is not binding on the IRS.

          Payments of Interest

          In general, the gross amount of each payment of interest on the Notes (including any amounts withheld in respect of United Kingdom taxes and, without duplication, any additional amounts paid with respect thereto) will be included in your gross income as a dividend to the extent paid out of the UK Issuer’s current or accumulated earnings and profits (as determined under U.S. federal income tax principles). Subject to the discussion below under “— PFIC Considerations,” to the extent that the amount of any such payment exceeds the UK Issuer’s current and accumulated earnings and profits, it will be treated first as a tax-free return of your tax basis in the Notes, and to the extent the amount of such payment exceeds your tax basis, the excess will be treated as capital gain. The UK Issuer currently does not intend to calculate its earnings and profits under U.S. federal income tax principles. Accordingly, you should expect that payments of interest will be reported as dividends for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

          Reply

          1. Thanks a lot for taking the time to help me. So, as I understand it, it seems this new issue should be more attractive than BAMH; that’s interesting.

            Reply

    3. Prospect Capital (NASDAQ:PSEC) starts two separate cash tender offers to buy up to $30M of 5.875% senior notes due 2023 and up to $10M of 6.375% notes due 2024.
      For the 2023 notes, the company will pay $1,050.00 per $1,000 principal amount plus accrued and unpaid interest.
      For the 2024 notes, PSEC will pay $1,080.00 per $1,000 principal amount plus accrued and unpaid interest.
      Prospect Capital has $320M of 2023 notes outstanding and $100M of 2024 notes outstanding.
      The tender offer expire at midnight (New York time) on Dec. 16.
      https://seekingalpha.com/news/3637285-prospect-capital-offers-to-buy-back-up-to-40m-of-notes?utm_medium=email&utm_source=seeking_alpha&mail_subject=psec-prospect-capital-offers-to-buy-back-up-to-40m-of-notes&utm_campaign=rta-stock-news&utm_content=link-3

      Reply

    1. I would second that. You likely only have 86 cents of divis left to collect and the issue closed at 25.84 today. YTC essentially zero.

      That will be the end of STAG paper except for common.

      The purpose of the structure of the STAG common offering eludes me. If anyone knows the rationale please enlighten us.

      Reply

      1. Yup… Similar situation unfolding for holders of C-S. Callable in 3 months. No need to hang around for a net zero gain. Might as well sell and put that money into AIZN at 5.25% (as an option)

        CUSIP / ISIN Number: 04621X 306 / US04621X3061

        Reply

        1. I see – thanks for the clarification. AIZN is going to be the symbol for a new note to be issued by AIZ… didn’t recognize the underlying symbol.

          Reply

    1. CFR is a very old organization that chose to pretty much stick to its home territory of Texas. They are very dominant in the state and have prospered as Texas has prospered.

      They issue very little paper, which in part explains why this one got priced and started trading in record time. The OTC ticker was issued before Noon. This new issue is the one and only preferred the company has outstanding, including institutional issues. Only one bond that I could find, an institutional issue maturing in 2027 yielding all of 2%. Plus a very old Trust Preferred issue yielding about the same.

      I don’t know if this will be a hold or a flip but Vanguard managed to slip me in with a retail order when it was still trading otherwise in institutional sized blocks. My trade stuck out on FINRA like a sore thumb.

      So bid it up, boys, so I can make a quick 2 bucks a share by Thanksgiving.

      Reply

      1. Bob,

        Thanks for your comments on CFR. I think it’s a good company and I established a position via the IPO. I’m not a pin ball wizard so mine is a hold.

        Reply

      2. The ratings are Baa2(stable)/BBB-(negative). They have high exposure to energy. Here’s the explanation from S&P as of March 27, 2020:
        ============================================================
        Cullen/Frost Bankers Inc.
        Rationale
        The outlook revision on our ratings on Cullen/Frost Bankers Inc. reflects the company’s relatively high exposure to the energy sector that will likely be hurt by the recent sharp drop in and possibly persistently low oil prices. We believe the company’s currently good asset quality could worsen to a level that is not commensurate with our ratings on Cullen. Additionally, there is elevated uncertainty about the credit performance of its substantial commercial loan portfolio as a whole, given the shock to the U.S. economy from the COVID-19 pandemic.

        As of year-end 2019, energy loans comprised about 11% of Cullen’s total loans. (Loans are less than 50% of assets, so the exposure is a more manageable 58% of CET1.) About 83% of the portfolio is to the production segment, most of which is secured and subject to a borrowing base; however, the recent sharp decline in energy prices may cause collateral shortfalls. Additionally, construction loans are about 11% of loans, and this exposure could be more vulnerable to losses in an economic slowdown.

        As a buffer to these risks, Cullen has strong capital ratios, including a CET1 ratio of 12.36%, an S&P Global Ratings’ risk-adjusted capital ratio of 12.6% and a tangible common equity to tangible assets ratio of approximately 9.3% as of year-end 2019. Similar to peers, Cullen’s profitability will likely be constrained in the next few quarters by higher loan loss provisions, as well as a lower net interest margin because of the recent sharp drop in interest rates. However, we believe that Cullen has resilient earnings capacity, illustrated by its historically above-peers return on average assets and net interest margin.

        Outlook
        S&P Global Ratings’ negative outlook on Cullen reflects the possibility that, given the company’s energy exposure, asset quality could worsen over the next two years to a level not commensurate with the company’s historically excellent credit performance. We also expect that Cullen’s earnings may be hurt by higher loan loss provisions, although its preprovision earnings capacity will likely remain commensurate with peers’. We also anticipate that the company will continue to benefit from its good core deposit funding and good balance sheet liquidity over the next two years.

        We could lower the ratings if nonaccruals or net charge-offs rise sharply, potentially from the energy or broader loan portfolio. We could also lower the rating if we believe that earnings will be hurt significantly over a sustained period or if we forecast its risk-adjusted capital ratio will decline and remain sustainably below 10%.

        We could revise the outlook to stable if we believe that net loan losses will not be substantial and if the economic environment rebounds so that we are more confident that Cullen’s asset quality, earnings, and capital will remain solid and consistent with similarly rated peers.

        Reply

    2. I can’t understand why anyone would prefer this lower IG issue to the A1 rated OPP-A with a similar yield. CFR seems fine for a regional bank but that entire industry is in a secular decline for many years as interest margins have continued a decades long downward trend.

      Reply

      1. Agreed with Landlord. I’m not suggesting the new CFR is bad, but the price of OPP-A (now $24.56) has been surprising (and a bit disappointing). I would have thought it would be a minimum of 50 cents over par by now.

        Reply

        1. OPP-A is disappointing indeed. So if the credit rating is good what is the market trying to tell us with below par pricing? Expected inflation? Worsening economy near term?

          I’m now very reluctant to purchase investment grade preferreds/notes that are below 5%. What am I missing?

          Reply

          1. Why is it disappointing? You are getting near 4.5% yield that is IG. As others catch on it will creep up to par.

            Reply

          2. I think all the market is telling us with the below par pricing is that preferred investors don’t like names like Rivernorth they don’t know and don’t really understand CEF preferreds and why they are so safe even though they are small and hold junk rated investments.

            Reply

              1. All it takes is a threat to have a proxy fight to convert to open end, and the discount to NAV narrows considerably.

                Reply

                1. I’ve never heard of an open-end fund having a preferred stock issue outstanding. I think they are allowed to, but it must not be an attractive proposition.

                  Reply

                  1. Proxy fight would be on the common shares and it would convert the regular shares and they would redeem the preferred if they were forced to convert to an open end.
                    they cover it in the prospectus, oddly enough because they face a vote on it next year. see page S-3

                    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1678130/000139834420020337/fp0058716_424b2.htm

                    The Fund’s Charter provides that, during calendar year 2021, the Fund will call a shareholder meeting for the purpose of voting to determine whether the Fund should convert to an open-end management investment company. If approved by shareholders, the Fund will seek to convert to an open-end management investment company within 12 months of such approval. In such event, the Fund may redeem the Series A Preferred Shares, without penalty or premium, at any time prior to such conversion to an open-end management investment company.

                    Reply

                    1. Well, a potential redemption at par is obviously not holding the preferred shares down.

      2. Agreed, LI – well said. The new group of folks coming into office will certainly be no friend to the energy sector as we know it – further pressuring the damned thing from top to bottom. Where will the stock price of XOM be in 3 years? Look where it was 3 years ago. Look at where the E&P boys, drillers, the midstreamers, etc., were in the prior handful of years and where do you think they will be after the next few years wrap up? Forecast = mostly cloudy with periods of heavy storms.

        Energy sector investing for me is now in the same camp as shippers and BDC’s.

        Reply

        1. I’m a little more bullish on energy here. I think we’ve seen the end of “drill baby drill” in the oil patch which will be bullish for prices. But when I invest in energy, it’s only in bonds/preferreds and I want to get a big discount to similarly rated bonds/preferreds. Currently I own some ENB fixed resets, NSS and CEQP-PR. I particularly like the ENB prefs as I believe the Canadian market will benefit from less drilling in the US and ENB also benefits from a freeze on new pipeline construction in Canada. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a regulation in the US that bans pipeline construction that passes through federal land and other regs that makes new construction less likely.

          Reply

      3. RE: CFR and OPP ….

        I urge everyone contemplating a purchase to check the credit ratings. No crit there. But then you have to understand that the ratings are not the whole story – no where near – and you have to look beyond them.

        My take ….

        CFR is a super regional bank in the traditional mold. They have credit based businesses and fee based businesses and overall a very diversified earnings stream. They been around for 150+ years and are Texas through and through. They are well known for being conservative bankers, for good management and integrity. Look at management; look at the Board; read what they put out. They have weathered a lot of storms before. They will proudly tell you that they took no TARP money when so many others similarly situated did. They are not snowflakes.

        Although I favor “banks” that are more fee based (STT, NTRS, BK) I put a lot of stock in management. That’s why I’m willing to pony up for CFR shares.

        Turning to Rivernorth, I did the deep dive on them a couple years back and the memory is a bit faded but my impression was that the Rivernorth funds were terrible. The structure was strange, the incentives were badly aligned, and overall it was just weird. I would never invest in any fund the company was associated with and I wouldn’t invest in the preferred either, credit rating not withstanding. I just don’t want to be in bed with them. Returns have been mediocre. Check at cefanalyzer.com.

        I would concur with this bit from SA, from one of the better contributors over there:

        https://seekingalpha.com/article/4256406-opp-good-in-theory-not-in-practice

        A FOF is a simple structure to operate, and cheap to do. Yet almost all FOFs add high fees on top of the underlying fees, usually without adding any value. If you want to see how a FOF can and should be run go look at what Meb Faber has done at Cambria. He runs a global assets allocation FOF with ZERO added fees.

        Reply

        1. When looking at OPP-A, I couldn’t care less about whether OPP is a good investment. The only thing that matters is whether OPP’s value could collapse so quickly and have holdings with such poor liquidity that OPP’s coverage ratio could drop under 100%; i.e., OPP-A’s redemption value would be impaired. Since that looks like a very low probability event, I have no concerns about OPP-A.

          Reply

            1. Yes, I have mentioned HFRO-A before as one I’d pass on unless you really understand the holdings…and I don’t. Not worth the modest extra yield, if you ask me.

              Reply

        2. Excellent info Bob – much appreciated. But I personally still worry about CFR ending up in one of those “best house in a bad neighborhood” situations. Sounds like you give an A+ to the company and management but if they are highly levered or specialize in dealing with an industry that is being (and has been, for that matter) cutoff at the knees – how much comfort can you really take in their business/model? That’s my concern. Other than some renewables related folks, the traditional energy sector participants have been on their butts for years now. This isn’t just the bust part of a cycle. Certain folks in this joint are going to continue taking us away from the old model of doing business – like it or not. Don’t think I’ll ever see KMI back in the $40’s where it used to love being or XOM back in the $80’s. Look at OXY’s decimation or what’s happened to EPD and MMP. Some of these behemoth’s trade today, where they did 10 years ago. Anybody taking a position in Baker Hughes? They haven’t traded in their current range since roughly 1999! Talk about a secular decline. More like an agonizing slow death. Anyway, I need to do a deeper dive on them (CFR) but from what I see so far – they’re still a viable candidate for a smaller position to be taken in.

          Reply

        3. I agree with Karma that what matters most for a CEF preferred is liquidity and price transparency.

          As for Rivernorth, they’re not a bad fund manager. I’ve owned a couple of their FOF muni CEFs (RMI, RFM) and they are able to crank out capital gains from trading CEFs on a very consistent basis to generate the highest covered yields in the muni CEF space. The biggest knocks against their funds are the excessive fees and rights offerings designed to generate more AUM fees.

          OPP is partnered with DoubleLine/Gundlach which has a very strong reputation in the bond space (similarly, RMI is partnered with Mainstay which owns the #1 muni CEF over the past several years, MMD).

          Reply

      1. RE: Maiden .

        $100 million at 10.50 per share will get them just over 50% of the outstanding preferred. I’m relatively sure the plan is to squeeze out the remainder for nothing or for a few shares of common. In total, including accrued, the preferred have a face of almost $550 million, so this is 20 cents on the dollar.

        Nothing else makes sense to me. The company is not out to enrich the preferred; they are out to enrich the common, because that is what insiders hold.

        Thankfully, I don’t own any of this POS but if I did I would tender. Otherwise, I believe you will get nothing. The bunch behind Maiden is on my never-invest-with-these-people list.

        Reply

      2. Did it leak before the announcement?
        all were up a decent amount, and the tender is way above the market price.
        And I’ll bet the tender is oversubscribed.

        Reply

      1. EarlyBird, please keep us informed about this new CFR issue.
        If I recall, are they a Houston based regional bank involved in the Oil & Gas industry?

        Reply

  29. This is how the magic happens for me.
    PEB CEO Bortz has bought over 1 million dollars worth of the preferreds of his company on Nov 6th.
    I bought a total of 1,000 shares a few minutes ago of the E and F issues.
    When the CEO buys that much…good things usually happen.

    Reply

      2. Same thing happened with MRNA. Insiders dumped a ton of shares the day the vaccine news came out, but that has been their pattern.
        Pfizer CEO is a lot more surprising.

        Reply

        1. The CEO’s sale was scheduled and pre-approved back in August – there was no market timing involved. It was done in accordance with SEC rule 16b-3 which allows insiders to sell shares if it’s a routine transaction pursuant to a specified tax-conditioned plan or if the shares have been acquired thru grants or awards. However, Chief Corporate officer also dumped 43k shares at the same price

          Reply

          1. Thanks 2WR. Consistent with what you expressed, my understanding is that stock sales from an officer (i.e., anyone considered an insider) have to be disclosed and approved a priori.
            A different point: reported purchases by officers for significant number of shares may correspond to vesting of stock grants (i.e., legacy options grant, RSU, RSA, or other). Those grants are part of officer/executive compensation package. I am not certain whether stock grants are explicitly conveyed differently or reflected as a purchase. Perhaps someone can shed light.

            Reply

            1. I’m not an accountant, but it would make no sense to me that the vesting event would be reported as a sale. Just my $0.02

              Reply

              1. Hi Bur, I was referring to “purchase” or acquisition of vested shares provided via a “stock option grant.” In the old days (prior to the RSU/RSA fad), a common stock option grant had a vesting schedule of x years. Typically, equal proportions of shares would vest on successive grant date anniversaries. Shares would vest at the grant date’s share price but did not necessarily had to be bought by grant recepient (e.g., share price was actually lower than at grant date). Nowadays, shares per RSU or RSA grant are acquired on similar vesting schedules. They would be deposited to officer/exec accounts, hence, an acquisition (prior to selling them).
                But my understanding may be off.

                Reply

                1. Green-n-Gold, yes, I understood you were referring to stock options not RSUs. I was speculating that vesting would not be reported as a purchase but the subsequent, separate action of *exercising* those vested options of course would be. On the other hand (as you point out), RSU vesting is inseparable from purchase.

                  Reply

          2. PFE it would be interesting to see the terms of that 10b5 plan for the CEO and exactly what he agreed to do in terms of selling back in August. They sure were very duplicitous when it came to their vaccine trial around the election – first the CEO said they would report the interim vaccine analysis within days of hitting 32 cases regardless of the results (Oct 16), and then on Oct 27 he said he was sure they won’t report before the election, somehow despite being blinded to the progress, and added tons of weaselly legal language to how they would (not) disclose those interim results.

            Then when they finally reported Nov 9, the weekend after the press declared the winner, we find out they had been sandbagging and had 94 cases and had completed hidden the first 32 case checkpoint without reporting as they promised in mid Oct. In addition, PFE had apparently taking their sweet time (“in discussions with the FDA”) and in order to further delay the 2nd 62 case checkpoint (which succeeded with >90% protection), they stopped processing patient data so that the data monitoring panel wouldn’t have it in order to declare the results sooner. With those numbers, it’s very likely the first checkpoint also succeeded and likely much earlier.

            In short, the CEO could very well have controlled the timing of the good news in order that selling the majority of his stock would happen at the best price. I would normally give him the benefit of the doubt for a 10b5 sale, but given he found out the good news Sun afternoon 11/8 and they promptly told Biden’s campaign (and apparently no one else) later that Sunday ahead of the official PR early Monday morning, I’m very skeptical and there was no timeliness concerns since the 2 month safety data collection period for the vaccine means they won’t even apply for emergency approval for several more weeks.

            Let’s just say futures were up suspiciously Sunday in late trading and the whole market exploded on the vaccine PR Monday morning and it would have been entirely legal for any non-government officials in that campaign or anyone they told to trade futures or hotel stocks or cruises or anything else as long as it wasn’t in PFE stock. Wouldn’t you liked to have gotten that call? It would have been worth 8 figures at least to any half way capable trader.

            Reply

          3. Even more interesting if that was scheduled sale by CEO. You think a coincidence with Pfizer reporting their vaccine results on the same date as the CEO was planning to sell?

            Reply

      1. Bortz bought the C issue a month prior but only 1,300 shares or so.
        So , i don’t know why the C was a lagger.

        Reply

      1. Interesting they’re planning on using proceeds to pay for tenders for notes with no mention of the higher couponed preferreds… Notes = 3.70% due 6/22/27 and 4.70% due 6/22/47. BBB- confirmed by S&P.

        Reply

        1. I’ve sold all my VER-F, DCOMP, BFSPRE.
          Holding Cbklp,Corr-a buying more> Lando.
          And biding my time.

          Reply

  31. JCAP-B called TODAY – No 30 day notice – called in conjunction with closing of merger today with NexPoint… https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001622353/562e28ab-41f4-4367-9798-ef4de7bd7594.html

    NOTIFICATION OF THE REMOVAL FROM LISTING AND REGISTRATION OF THE STATED SECURITIES

    The New York Stock Exchange hereby notifies the SEC of its intention to remove the entire class of the stated securities from listing and registration on the Exchange at the opening of business on November 17, 2020, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 12d2-2 (a).

    [ X ] 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(a)(3) That on November 06, 2020 the instruments representing the securities comprising the entire class of this security came to evidence, by operation of law or otherwise, other securities in substitution therefore and represent no other right except, if such be the fact, the right to receive an immediate cash payment.

    The merger between Jernigan Capital, Inc. and NexPoint Advisors, L.P. became effective before market open on November 6,2020. Each Company Series B Preferred Share issued and outstanding immediately prior to the company merger effetive time will be automatically converted into the right to recieve the liquidation preference provided for in the articles supplementary of the Company, consisting of $25.00 per share plus accrued and unpaid dividends, without interest, subject to any applicaple withholding tax.

    The Exchange also notifies the Securities and Exchange Commission that as a result of the above indicated conditions this security was suspended from trading on November 06, 2020.

    Reply

    1. Reuters reports VER will price 500 M of 2.2% of senior notes + 700 M of 2.85% senior notes – sounds like adios VER-F.

      Reply

      1. The red herring makes no mention in use of proceeds of redemption of VER-F but it could happen anyway.

        The company clearly wants to get rid of its last outstanding preferred. I wouldn’t be buying it at more than a few cents above 25 stripped.

        It’s actually 2 different notes, with differing terms, totaling $1.2 billion.

        Reply

      2. 0-D No direct mention of any such thing in Use of Proceeds for VER notes but I guess you never know for sure… –
        ” We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering, together with borrowings under our Revolving Credit Facility or cash on hand, to (i) repay amounts outstanding under our Credit Facility Term Loan, including accrued and unpaid interest, and (ii) settle the swap agreements, including swap termination costs, in each case contemporaneously with, or shortly after, the closing of this offering. The remainder of the net proceeds from this offering, if any, will be used for general corporate purposes. Neither repayment of borrowings under the Credit Facility Term Loan nor settlement of the swap agreements, or the delivery of notices or other documentation in connection therewith, is a condition to closing this offering of notes. “

        Reply

    1. Interesting video. So are there really lots of “$1000 preferreds” that aren’t readily available to the average investor? Discussed on this forum are several $1000 securities, such as BAC-L, WFC-L, SLMNP, et al. Are the ones he alluded to really better, or is he just looking for a commission?

      Reply

      1. Yes that is correct. What average investors see for preferreds is a much smaller piece of the overall pie.

        Reply

      2. Mr Conservative is correct… Dollar amount wise its not even close. If my memory is correct its well over half and closer to 75% are private placed issues.

        Reply

      3. Dave, I just checked the current 265 holdings of FPE. Like the Cowen and Steers funds, these are close to 100% $1,000 face value issues. I did a quick check and am able to buy 77 of them which is 29%. Most of the remaining issues are 144A and/or private placement issues. They might never be traded on any exchange, including the bond exchanges.

        In any case, the $1,000 issues are less likely to have mini “flash crash” trades like the $25 issues occasionally do. Also my guess is broadly speaking they did NOT sell off as much as the $25 issues in the March 2020 time frame.

        There definitely is an advantage to a fund using private placement issues that do not trade. They are able set the value each day based on a “grid”, and since the issue does not trade, it would not force the value to be set lower. It is a reasonable technique to create a less volatile fund.

        Most III readers should be able to buy those 77 issues plus many others. Most brokerages would have you place orders through their Bond trading desk.

        Reply

        1. They will be forced to sell if there is an relatively big outflow from the fund (like the last March selloff e.g.). And selling 144A is much more difficult than ordinary publicly placed prefs/bonds, because the pool of potential buyers is limited by a small number of professional/institutional investors.
          Therefore, personally, I don’t like funds, the dependence on capital flows forces them to buy high and sell low.

          Reply

          1. FPE has tracked PGX and PFF pretty closely throughout the year, and the yields are all similar. PFF has quite a few 144A securities, while the footnotes in the PGX annual report don’t identify any (but I’m not sure there aren’t any, as the fund discussion says it may own them).

            Ultimately, it probably doesn’t matter very much what type you own. Having access to 144A securities clearly allows for better diversification, but do they even provide higher yields?

            Reply

          2. Yuriy said: “They will be forced to sell if there is an relatively big outflow from the fund.”

            Yuriy, since this a closed end fund (CEF) they have no involvement if shares are sold. The fund does NOT have a redemption feature like an open ended mutual fund. For example in the March sell off, if a lot of investors sold, the trading price might go to a discount to the NAV, but it would not force the fund to sell any of their positions. This in turn would not cause the funds holdings to be sold in a fire sale. Since the fund is actively managed, the managers might decide to buy or sell issues, but would only do so if they thought it would raise the funds return.

            Reply

              1. Karma, my CEF comment was responding to the original statement: “looking at the new CEF Cohen has IPOd.” My apologies, I should have been clearer.

                I analyzed FPE’s holdings because we do not yet have the holdings for the new Cohen and Steers CEF, just to see how many $1,000 issues they hold.

                Reply

                1. The Cohen and Steers has a really limited list of 1000 preferred, to choose from, like the Broadcom, NCR preferred and a handful of others since they can only buy listed stuff.

                  Reply

                  1. The broader point is that some of the ETF’s already have exposure to these institutional preferreds, so I would draw 2 general conclusions.

                    1) You don’t need to pay a CEF manager 1.5% per year to get some exposure to them.
                    2) There must be a reasonably liquid market for institutional preferreds to be included them in ETFs.

                    As far as liquidity goes, the entire corporate bond market locked up in March, so I imagine there was trouble in the institutional preferred market, too. If you want to avoid the possibility of having some of your holdings being sold at bad prices due to fund withdrawals, then you pretty much have to avoid any open-end mutual funds or ETFs unless they hold the most liquid holdings (basically S&P 500 or Treasuries are the only reliably liquid markets, although even Treasuries had some problematic days in March).

                    Reply

        2. here is a breakdown of the FPE holdings from a tax perspective.
          8 REIT preferreds
          60 Preferreds
          47 1000/Preferred’s
          10 MLP’s (including 2 1000 denominated)
          and the rest corporate bonds, mostly foreign issuers, with about a 1/3 exchange traded.

          Reply

      1. Even worse, they aren’t going to buy 144A…

        “The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objectives by investing at
        least 80% of its managed assets (i.e., net assets plus assets obtained through leverage) in a portfolio of preferred and other income securities issued by U.S. and non-U.S. companies, which may be either exchange-traded or available
        over-the-counter”
        And tax-advantaged, my ass.

        “The Fund may invest in preferred and debt securities of any maturity or credit rating, including investment grade securities”

        So only part of the income stream will be QDI, which really isn’t tax-advantaged.

        You could setup a trading algorithm to do this without paying the portfolio managers.

        Reply

    2. been looking at this one for a while
      before covid crash – nice coupon under par

      I understand the BAM people can be slimy to shareholders
      anyone else have info or an opinion?

      Reply

      1. Nick – Demonstrably BAM has put many, many tens of billions in shareholder pockets. If you care to reply, from where does “slimy to shareholders” come from?

        Reply

        1. Hi Bob

          Well that is why I asked the question so I could get other opinions.
          It was a poor post to say “I understand” when I should have asked “I’m wondering if”

          The accounting and the tax structure looks complicated which is understandable as they have assets across so many areas.

          It is very possible I have some wires crossed and have BAM mistaken with another company.

          Reply

          1. Nick – BAM is indeed a very complex company. Not only do you have the publicly traded entities but they run a large number of private investment pools as well. They are both owner-operators and fund managers, a rare mix.

            The company started with 2 guys, some name recognition, some contacts and a few million dollars. From that base they grew to the largest company of its kind in the world. Much of that growth came by acquiring world class assets from distressed sellers in financially distressed times. When they do so, they are out for the best deal for THEIR shareholders, not the acquiring company’s shareholders. That is their fiduciary duty.

            For example, some will say Brookfield “cheated” TOO shareholders because Brookfield got the company at a good price. Well, that was their job! They served their shareholders’ interests. If TOO management//board failed to do the same, then shame on them, not Brookfield.

            Funny, no one faults Buffet when he makes highly favorable deals for BRK but they do so with BAM all the time. Geez, Buffet even took Goldman Sachs to the cleaners with one of the best deals of all time in 2008.

            Reply

            1. I will add that FFH is also opaque and complex.
              Many of the companies POW owns are also deep and complex conglomerates, some surrounded with the mystic of Old Euro Fortunes owned by shadow bank accounts. Can be fun to dig into whatever you can find.

              Reply

            2. Re Buffet’s deal w GS in 2008 vis-à-vis comments elsewhere about the large number of privately-placed pfd deals: wish I could somehow have participated in *that* deal…

              Reply

          2. Hey “nick” Wish every company I’ve got a stake in was as “slimy” I took out my original stake to get my cost to zero and still got better than a 4 bagger “BIP” then popped me an additional gift with a special dividend of there new c-corp last spring. I liked what I saw enough to buy some “BAM” parent then. recently saw a recommendation of the parent on “CNBC for what its worth? I like Brookfield in any configuration. Mike Russell

            Reply

  34. Re: LANDO – Noticed in yesterday’s LAND quarterly that subsequent to Sept 30, LAND secured a total of $40.4 mil of new long term borrowings from 2 lenders that bear interest at 2.52% on a weighted average basis, fixed for 7.7 years… It doesn’t say if that’s a secured borrowing or not, but that looks like a healthy spread in favor of LANDO even though that’s 7.7 years vs LANDO being perpetual…

    Reply

    1. You piqued my interest with that one so I went hunting in the 10Q. I’m not sure if I figured out which two new borrowings they are referencing in the PR but this one from the 10Q must be one of them given the 8/31 issuance date:

      Farm Credit of the Virginias, ACA 8/31/2020 4,481 9/1/2030 3.99%

      It is a “farm credit note” which I think is like a secured amortizing mortgage but it’s not entirely clear.

      Reply

      1. LI – I think that’s a different one as that one from 8/31 did not occur subsequent to quarter’s end…. Report does also mention “a loan of approximately $4.5 mil from a new lender expected to be an effective interest rate of 3.24% which is fixed for next 10 years” that closed during the quarter, so maybe that’s the one you’re seeing… Then again, I suppose this could be considered either a negative or a positive depending on point of view given these are borrowings that would fall in line above the preferreds but still, rates seem favorable to LANDO comparatively.

        Reply

    1. When i posted, then this site “painted” all the posts… so never mind this post 🙂

      Reply

    2. Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust (NYSE:PEI) says it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to implement a prepackaged financial restructuring plan that received support from 95% of creditors.
      PREIT says the restructuring will have no impact on its shareholders, and common and preferred shares are expected to continue to trade in the normal course.
      Last month, PREIT entered a restructuring support agreement with bank lenders that committed an additional $150M to recapitalize the business and extend its debt maturity schedule.

      Reply

    1. First new closed end fund in the space in quite a while. Do you know if they pulled in the full 1.25 billion?

      Reply

    1. I still own this one and very glad to see the positive results. Holding PBI-B and the yield is not bad either!

      Reply

      2. I just looked again, as I hadnt checked since this morning. Wow that was a crazy ride. The common gets crushed today, but somehow the baby bond crawled back up to finish positive on the day. Who knows with these types of issues…

        Reply

      1. bob—the 9% is a perpetual preferred–the called issue has a maturity in 2021 so it will have to be called anyway soon (at least by maturity).

        Reply

        1. The C might be perpetual, but it is redeemable now. I’m ok with them choosing the other though, I own the C. 🙂

          “Commencing on May 17, 2018, we may redeem, at our option, the Series C Preferred Shares, in whole or in part, at a cash redemption price of $100.00 per share, plus any accrued and unpaid dividends to, but not including, the redemption date. The Series C Preferred Shares have no stated maturity, will not be subject to any sinking fund or other mandatory redemption, and will not be convertible into or exchangeable for any of our other securities.”

          Reply

          1. eoz–lot of difference between a perpetual preferred and bond maturing in 9 months–got to get the money for the bond call when you can–may not be able to later then you will be in a world of hurt.

            Reply

        2. i missed that. well it might not be a bad place to stash some funds with the remaining shares being called in july.

          Reply

          1. If interested I would wait closer to the redemption date and try to buy under par. If investing in the preferred or baby bonds investigate the company issuing the debt to gauge its ability to pay the dividends, just in case of a economic downturn. There may be better debt out there to invest in that isn’t so high a return but safer.

            Reply

      1. To answer my own question, it doesn’t matter if the record date falls on a weekend, the ex-date is 1 business day earlier. In this case, AFGH ex-date is Friday 10/30. Hopefully I have this right.

        Reply

      2. From the prospectus:
        However, interest that we pay on the maturity date or a redemption date will be payable to the person to whom the principal will be payable.

        As AFGH has been called for November 15, does this render the X-date moot?

        Reply

  52. Tim,
    Having wrb-b been called today, are you replacing it with in any of the other WRB prefereds?
    Like wrb-c (callable 3/1/21) but only if bot <$25.5 (trading now 25.66-25.80)?

    Reply

    1. “Timber reit”, WY , restores dividend, after March, management acted properly suspending the dividend, this prorated 17 cents, should revert to normal .34 a quarter next year + or- 5% annualized yield. I personally hold timber assets as an inflation hedge, being involved in forest products and packaging industry for several years, I also hold international paper, IP .

      Reply

    2. Medley Capital (NYSE:MCC) plans to issue notices to holders of its 6.500% notes due 2021; it seeks to redeem $74.0M in principal amount of the issued and outstanding notes on Nov.20, 2020.
      Notes will be redeemed at 100% of their principal amount ($25/note), plus accrued and unpaid interest thereon from Oct.31, 2020, through, but excluding, the redemption date.
      Interest payment to the notes-holders of record on Oct. 15, 2020 payable on Oct. 31, 2020 will be payable in normal course.
      https://seekingalpha.com/news/3624183-medley-capital-to-redeem-6_5-notes-due-2021

      Reply

  56. These GFN guys don’t even pay for an Egan-Jones rating.

    A highly leveraged company that has to sell debt to pay off old debt maturing in 9 months.

    Reply

  58. NEW ISSUE
    U.S. Bancorp USB
    Expected Ratings: A3 / BBB / BBB+ / A
    4.00% Area
    DRD/QDI Eligible: Yes

    Reply

  60. Thanks to the lively discussion below on LANDO, I took a look again at the various Gladstone offerings (GLADx (Capital); GOODx (Commercial); GAIN (Investment); and LAND).

    Any of you care to opine on the virtues (or lack thereof) of these respective entities?

    Reply

    1. Bur Davis – I just picked up a full position of Lando and a half position of the GladL in the past few days. I owned the Land and Glad preferreds in the past and spent a lot of time digging into the company last year. 1) I like management 2) fairly conservative 3) Like Glad bonds and Land preferred more than the other two offerings. 4) Glad Commercial Reit has some pretty crappy properties in the portfolio (My impression is they do sale leasebacks with the sponsors of the companies they invest in ) 5) I haven’t looked deep for a while but I always liked Glad portfolio better than Gain. Note: Listen to some talks by CEO David Gladstone (old timer but sharp) https://mebfaber.com/2018/07/25/episode-114-david-gladstone-farmland-is-one-of-the-most-stable-assets-one-can-own/

      Reply

  61. For anyone who has considered using VER.F as a cash replacement (as I do)
    it is now trading at 25.12, which means meat on the bone even if a call were to be announced today.

    Reply

  62. It seems NEE-J (coupon 5.0%) is being called, which I suppose is no major surprise, as it has been callable for nearly 3 years. Date is 10/24, and it’s already dipped to just a few cents above par.

    Reply

  63. Gladstone Land Corporation 6.00% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock will be listed on NASDAQ as LANDO

    Reply

    2. Thanks for the tip, J. Looks like there were some locked up sellers looking to get out. Feeling charitable, I took several hundred off their hands to help out a bit. Volume over 18k already.

      Reply

      1. Bob, that actually was all by design. It actually could have been longer if they hadnt sold all the shares. After it was closed they had 6 months to a year (cant remember without checking) to open up for trading. They are on to Series C now, same methodology for it, also.

        Reply

        1. I’m not very familiar with this issue or this company. Do you mind helping me understand what is happening with LANDO today? TIA

          Reply

          1. Nothing is happening aside from the listing. They had been selling it for a couple years as a non-traded pref and they had 1 year following the close of the issue to get it listed so here we are. LANDO is series B, they are now selling the Series C in a similar fashion

            Reply

            1. Thank you! Any thoughts on what is driving all the selling (especially considering where LANDP is trading)?

              Reply

              1. Buyers remorse? If you bought it when the issue was opened you were stuck in it for 2 years with no liquidity so this is the first chance to sell.

                Reply

                1. There’s not much chance of cap gain I would think as long as C remains open with LAND being willing to sell more continuously so this is just steady income potential for now…. LAND also just completed a share offering on common at 14.40 which also had a rough first few days of trading as well….

                  Reply

                  1. 2WR, Yes that is true.. The one benefit is you are not stuck in C…Or chasing your tail trying to find an avenue that sells it. It seems like advisor firms were more inclined to sell it than retail self trading brokerage firms. None of my 3 brokerages would offer either the B or C series.

                    Reply

                  2. I got to admit, I bought a couple hundred at $24.99 when it opened….Oops…Was forgetful to fact these types are “sold” not “bought” without underwriter support and some pent up enthusiasm to sell. Put a fork in me, Im done now as I just bought a nice chunk at 24.10. It could go lower until sell/buy balances out, who knows… But I feel comfortable owning this as I have played in LANDP since its IPO days. Of course LANDP had a more protective advantage than B has due to its term feature.

                    Reply

                    2. Thanks for the tip, I think. I bought some at 23.66 with no time to research it. The old ‘Buy something you read about on the Internet’ trick.

          2. Dick, this is what it is…
            https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1495240/000119312518013503/d528235dfwp.htm
            This is a specialty ag crop land reit. Quauntum appears wrong as it cant become callable until 2023, based on the 5 year minimum mentioned in above link.
            The issue closed earlier this year, and LAND is now offering Series C privately with basically same provisions as this B issue is. They stated they would provide a trading symbol for it once the issue closed. So its just a follow through. This isnt that unusual. Many preferreds on the market had a genesis of a private issuance, and then trading ticker was provided later to provide owner liquidity in case they wanted out.

            Reply

            1. Grid – Are you sure of your conclusion? The 5 year thing seems to relate to the final termination of LANDs ability to keep it open and the “Term” I would think has to do with the “termination date,” yes? That termination date would have been the date earlier this year when they closed it. The prospectus QOL links to says,
              “We may not redeem the Series B Preferred Stock prior to the later of (1) the one-year anniversary of the Termination Date and (2) January 10, 2022, except in limited circumstances relating to our continuing qualification as a REIT. On and after the later of (1) the one-year anniversary of the Termination Date and (2) January 10, 2022, we may, at our option, redeem the Series B Preferred Stock, in whole or in part, at any time or from time to time, by payment of $25.00 per share, plus an amount equal to any accumulated and unpaid dividends to but excluding the date of redemption.” It’d be my guess that means the first call date remains 1/10/22. Also your link mentions the annual ability for holders ability to request redemption at $23.50, hence an effective “put” of sorts, but I think that goes away with this now being listed.

              Reply

              1. 2WR, Based on what you have shown, you would be correct and my assumption is wrong. I got the link from their filings and that shows it 5 years. They didnt offer until 2018. Most odd to have a 4 year redemption time period. Maybe I will dig later… Or not, ha… I do know many of these were not sold at $25 but around $23.50 as preferreds were weak for a period when they were being ATM issued.
                Yes, the put is gone if memory serves. It was just a way to allow some people out if LAND was willing or able to a certain amount.

                Reply

            2. I see the price is $24.11. Is this the deal of the year? Any guesses at why the heavy selling? Who is that anxious to drop a 6%+ yield?

              Reply

                1. RE, We will have our answer one of these days, ha. The sell pressure on these short term can be furious. Im gonna lay in my bed I made and see what happens…But if it drops to $23, I will have to play ball again.

                  Reply

                  1. This is a ton of selling. Did the sellers acquire their shares for free? What’s the incentive to sell for any price today? I don’t understand this. The common is up today.

                    Reply

                    1. Dick, Gladestone issued this privately. It was an open issue until all shares were finally sold. But you had to buy them through a financial firm that agreed to be an intermediary to offer them to you. Gladestone through their brokerage paid entities a commission to sell them to buyers. The terms stated Gladestone would provide a ticker within a year of the issue “selling out”.
                      So Gladestone long ago got their money. This is just people selling who bought sometime between early 2018 and 2019 and wanted out for whatever reason. They presently are offering a Series C same method. The redemption price is $25 but I dont know exactly what price Gladestone is currently selling them for.

                    2. Is anyone worried that LAND does not cover their debt and preferred payments with net income or FAD?

                    3. Tim, Being a reit, net income is never going to ever really matter in terms of payment ability. Granted its not now or ever will be the quality of Ma Bell circa 1975. So one should be aware of that and potential cyclical nature of Ag land and values.. I would suggest reading the quarterly transcripts for good info to decide if it fits your personal investing profile. Some informative info there. David Gladestone ring leads the conference call circus there. He actually is not a “Suit” buying land, but actually has a history in Agriculture.
                      Here is an anecdotal latest example from this month to show what they do.
                      Gladstone Land (NASDAQ:LAND) recently renewed two leases that were originally scheduled to expire later in 2020.
                      Overall, new leases are expected to result in an increase in annual net operating income of ~$171K, or 11.4%, over that of the prior leases.
                      It has two more leases expiring in December 2020 that, in total, make up less than 2% of total annual revenues.
                      It is currently underway discussions with the current tenant on each farm and expects to renew each lease prior to its expiration at current market rents.
                      ….Plus they are fairly adept at improving properties and recycling and buying something else. I personally view it as a diversifier from other types of companies that traditionally issue preferreds.

                    4. Thanks Grid, I’m a fan of GOODN but never thought LAND earned enough to cover everything. SA info is probably wrong, they have FFO & FAD not covering payouts. Thanks for the response. I believe we have started our next leg lower in SPX so I plan to be patient in new buys. ATB

                  2. Well I had to pick up another lot at 23.75 after buying some at 25.01
                    I wish I would have slept in and missed out on that first buy.

                    Reply

                    1. I was in a little under $24. Bought some to flip and some to hold a little longer. Probably won’t keep either batch for all that long, but you never know.

              3. Dick–the selling was simply folks exiting when they could–previously they could tender back to the company at 23.50 the last day of the year only.

                Reply

            3. The 5 year reference in the SEC filing was at best confusing. Very easy to conclude this is a term issue, which it isn’t. I really can’t tell what it refers to.

              I looked at a lot of SEC filings today and my best guess (and it is a guess) is the first call is Jan 10, 2022, all of 1.2 years away. Everything about this issue is weird. But I bought it. Quite a lot of it. Very happy now that I unloaded my LANDP when I did.

              Reply

              1. Bob, it is a bit quirky, but I suspect you and 2WR, have it correct though. Looks like about 10% of the float was eagerly sold on first day they could be.

                Reply

                1. When you think about it, in general terms, the only people who knew this issue was out here today were those interested in selling…. There’s no interested sponsor for the shares outstanding, so it’s easy to think that had something to do with the out of balance selling…. And isn’t October 31 a magic day for many funds, such as end of fiscal year or some other magical event? That might have motivated some selling as fund managers might have reasons to close out position before October 31. Just a little uneducated theorizing on my part…. I bot today too but too early. Had sold LANDP at 26.35 in July and have owned and DRIPping LAND since March ’17.

                  Reply

                  1. 2WR, This was just a basic redux of QRTEP in another dress. I waited patiently on it, have no clue why I eager beavered 200 hundo out of gate near par with this one….Lapse of judgement. More than quadrupled down around $24.10 and decided to snag a 100 more at $23.70. Im ok with the second and third round purchases. Blew it on the first purchase…Musta been sleep walking of sumpin’ when I bought.

                    Reply

                    1. I wasn’t around in afternoon to try to time averaging down and probably wouldn’t have done much anyway, so I’m in at 24.67. average. I did throw out an offer at 25.68 in opening hours when best offering away was 25.99, but nobody bit… I figured I’d rather own this longterm at the price differential than OPPRP….. plus there’ll probably be an OPPRP redux with RIV in the near future… and yes, I know I’m acting against my anti-perpetual bias on this one…

                  2. It was a strange day. I missed it but the listing was telegraphed last Thursday by an SEC filing from NASDAQ. LAND itself said nothing about the listing that I saw.

                    But clearly the sellers were lined up. Strange to me inasmuch as this issue was sold to investors, not distributed to existing shareholders as some kind of dividend. My expectation when it started trading was that it would run to 26. I still think it will.

                    I bought a bunch at the opening around 25 and when the bottom fell out I doubled down at under 24.

                    Like you, I sold out all my LANDP, at an average YTM (not TYC) of under 1%. So, I trade 1%- YTM LANDP for 6%+ YTW LANDO. It’s a cannot lose trade as I see it.

                    Reply

                    1. Bob, The only thing possibly holding it back from your goal is that cheap 2022 first call date. But unless market goes crazy, I am in agreement it should be a plus $25 easy whenever sell pressure is over. I plan to flip some if price returns and keep a core hold. But Im not on the edge of my seat with this one. Can wait longer term if need be.
                      We will be in line for Oct divi as it goes exD in next week or so..Monthly payer for people not familiar with it.

    1. RBA, the Stonebridge piece says factually that broad aggregate preferreds have a current yield of 5.24%. Then they compare it to the US treasury 10 year at 0.63%, which gives a spread of 4.61%. Then they refer you to a graph that says the forward 5 year return for preferreds will be about 38% cumulatively. That works out to about 6.66% total return per year. So the only way you can get there from here is about 1.5% of capital gains per year. This is a different way of saying the newly issued preferreds five years from now will have even lower coupons. If we think the recent PSA-N was low @ 3.875%, we ain’t seen nothing yet.

      Of course in making this “point” forecast, they preclude the possibility that preferred coupon rates might rise. Personally I think examining a range of possible outcomes is better instead of picking a single point and putting all of your money there.

      We will check back in 5 years and see how their forecast turns out. I do wonder if they have published a historical forecast versus actual. It would be interesting to see how their models have performed.

      For the record, I strongly disagree with their model in this case. You could show the problem with one or two graphs, but we can’t do that on III.

      Reply

        1. Bob, That was the way I seen it too. Especially the liquid issues for ones that ultimately will be redeemed. This is the asymmetric risks of owning callable perpetuals. Any price gains will ultimately be lost and negated with descent towards par from an approaching call in lower yield eras. This feature negates much of the gains of being correct on a lower longer call. Your reward for being correct is a redemption and repurchase at lower coupon yield.
          The only way to avoid this besides your situation is owning noncallables and convertibles. And of course resets bought well below if ones assumptions to higher yields down road, or at least a minimum floor is assumed to have occurred. And another option of course is buying higher risk issues where company has little to gain or cannot gain anything from a redemption and reissue.

          Reply

          1. Making a good risk adjusted returns in prefs and babies has become a lot of work. I would prefer to buy at issue and hold to redemption or maturity and collect 8% in the interim but it’s not doable any more.

            I harvested a lot of losses in March and April (buying financial equivalent issues to keep exposure) and have used the opportunity to trade out of many of the issues with large cap gains to buy issues with better YTC. Sacrifice a little in current yield for some nice pick ups in YTC.

            I have also moved a lot of money from F2F and resets with big built in drops to those that will reset from a much lower base. I want to keep exposure to rising rates, just in case.

            It’s more work than I want but given that our travel plans have been all shot to Hell in the last year I had the time to spare.

            Reply

        2. Bob, 100% agree that many more issues will be called which will lower the total return. I have repeatedly said that investors should be very suspicious of any company that does NOT call issues with above market rates. Sometimes there might be a good reason for them not to call an issue, but the default logic should be that they will be called.

          This is part of why I think the Stonebridge graph showing a projected 38% total return for the next five years might mislead investors. Their model probably does NOT include any assumption that issues selling above par will be called, causing a loss of principal. All of us around here agree there is significant risk in buying these issues with negative yield to first call, yet we see investors doing it every single day. . . .

          Reply

          1. Tex to add to your point. One has to evaluate ever lower yields to determine if its even worth it. One should at least ponder David Gladestone’s statement earlier this year (Gladestone, as in LAND, GOOD, GAIN securities). To paraphrase from memory… “I love issuing preferred stock. If I could issue 3% preferred stock, I would never issue common stock equity again”. … The reference was made in terms of cost of capital, and lessens shareholder dilution of the common equity…. Notice he didnt say buy 3% preferreds…Just issue them……

            Reply

            1. Gladstone, despite the folksy manner, is a very savvy financial guy. He wrings every basis point out of his cost of capital, which is what his quirky preferred sales methods are designed to do. In effect, he is saying, “if people are willing to give me capital on such favorable terms, I’m willing to take it.”

              I have finished selling out what was once a large position in LANDP. I sold half when the YTM went to 1% and the balance when it went to zero and less. Saw the same thing with the Schwab issues.

              To the newbies wandering past, resolve to learn bond math! I’m sure the buyers here thought they were getting 4-5% yields when in truth they were getting bupkas.

              Reply

      2. Tex,
        It seems to me that Figure 4 which I think you are referring to, is an historical record of forward performance based on yield spreads. Not sure they are making a prediction per se. Others here seem to interpret that differently. But to me they are stating what could happen based on history not some certainty as to what will happen.
        As an aside I have made what might be taken as a judgmental or negative comments re Ken Winans stating that I don’t follow purported technical signals to determine entry and exit points into preferred securities as he recommends.. And that’s true, I don’t. However I have to commend Ken for his historical data records of preferreds vs. other investment choices from 1900-2009. This data is contained in his book Preferreds The Art of Profitable Income Investing. Even though the average yield of preferreds is about 6.5 percent for the period 1900-2009, there were wide variances in yields for various periods. One that continues to get my attention is the period from the mid 1930s thru the mid 1960s when preferred yields averaged approx 4 percent. Are we headed (or in) such a period now? I wish I knew.

        Reply

        1. RBA said: “It seems to me that Figure 4 which I think you are referring to, is an historical record of forward performance based on yield spreads.”

          RBA, I agree that they are showing a historical record based on yield spreads and is NOT a forecast going forward. My issue is that some investors will be mislead into thinking they have a reasonable expectation of that going forward from here.

          In addition to the negative yield to first call issues that will be called, I think their model that would suggest the 38% five year return likely does not apply at this point in time. I would give it maybe a 10% to 25% chance of happening, certainly not >=50% such that it would be the most probable outcome to count on.

          Reply

  66. CIT CFG Merger – Upgrade in credit quality here. CITprB was single B+, CFGpr are BB+.
    CFGprE 5% callable 1/6/25 trades at YTC of 4.17%
    CITprB 5.625% callable 12/15/24 trades at $25.45 (up 11% today) still has YTC of 5.15%.
    100bps of arb here.

    Reply

      1. CIT common is up over 20% today (woohoo). I think I’m staying away from bank commons from now on — and will be a little bit careful with bank preferreds…

        Reply

      2. Thanks for the clarification IG…merger is between First Citizens Bank and CIT Group, with FCNCA Chairman and CEO leading the merged company. Citizens Financial Group (CFG) is not a party to this transaction.

        Reply

  67. Following up on @Barbara Lawrence’s mention below, Doug Le Du’s CDx3 service has been purchased and will not be shut down. Here is the message Doug sent his current subscribers on Wednesday afternoon:

    *CDx3 Notification Service Has Been Acquired by BNK Invest, Inc.*

    I am very pleased to announce that the CDx3 Notification Service and our Preferred Stock List database system have been acquired by BNK Invest, Inc. (BNK), a firm with a long history of providing a wide variety of services to income and value investors.

    Because of this acquisition, the CDx3 Notification Service will continue uninterrupted and with a new preferred stock newsletter!

    What happens next?

    On the afternoon of Saturday, October 31, 2020, please expect an email message from BNK providing you with all the details and a link for transferring your monthly subscription to them…

    To ensure that your access to the CDx3 Notification Service continues uninterrupted beyond October 31, please follow the instructions that you receive from BNK on that day.

    Many Happy Returns,
    Doug K. Le Du

    *Who is BNK Invest, Inc.*

    BNK is a publishing company that has been serving investors since 2002 and is headquartered in Jericho, New York. The company provides over a dozen special investing resources that you may be familiar with including PreferredStockChannel.com, DividendChannel.com, ValueForum.com and many more. A full list of the company’s sites can be found at https://www.bnkinvest.com/. In terms of preferred stocks, the company’s site https://www.preferredstockchannel.com/ is a stock research website aimed at financial advisors and retail investors trying to maximize the opportunities in preferred stocks. The site features pages profiling each preferred stock, as well as a screener to help investors find preferred stocks.

    Reply

    1. Thanks Bur–that is nice to know. I had wondered if someone had bought it to purely shut them down–i.e. get rid of the competition, which is common in this arena.

      Reply

  68. Not sure if this was mentioned before, but Doug Le Du’s service was purchased and will not be shutting down.

    Reply

    1. LONDON, Oct. 15, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Global Ship Lease, Inc. (NYSE:GSL) (the “Company”), a leading independent owner of containerships, announced today that its credit outlook has been improved to B3 / Positive from B3 / Stable by Moody’s Investor Services. In announcing its review, Moody’s cited the demonstrated resilience of Global Ship Lease and the container shipping industry throughout 2020, expectations of an improved leverage profile on a sustained basis, positive momentum for charter rates, and supportive supply-side fundamentals.

      Reply

      1. Tim, it was bought by BNK Invest, Inc. Current subscribers were notified on Wednesday afternoon (I didn’t see the message until Barbara’s post called my attention to it). I’ll start a new post above with more detail.

        Reply

  69. Atlas Corp on October 10, 2020 said it had changes its mind about calling its delisted baby bond, Seaspan 7.125 due 2027. Following is a note I sent to its Investors relations:

    Dear Matt Borys and Robert Weiner:

    We understand Atlas’s decision not to pursue the previously proposed voluntary redemption of its outstanding Seaspan’s 7.125% notes due 2027 which was to occur on 10/10/2020, so that Atlas could maintain a strong financial position during these uncertain times.

    In Seaspan’s press release of February 14, 2020, It indicated that it had not arranged for the 2027 Notes to be quoted anywhere after the reorganization. This made sense then since Seaspan had intended to redeem the 2027 Notes on October 10, 2020,

    It does not make sense now. We and other note holders have no means to access the market value of these notes without quotes being available at least on OTC. Our financial positions are weakened by this. We ask Atlas to please arrange for the notes to be listed with an OTC market maker.

    Thank You

    Reply

  70. Atlas Corp on October 10, 2020 said it had changes its mind about calling its delisted baby bond, Seaspan 7.125 due 2027. Following is a note I sent to its Investors relations:

    Dear Matt Borys and Robert Weiner:

    We understand Atlas’s decision not to pursue the previously proposed voluntary redemption of its outstanding Seaspan’s 7.125% notes due 2027 which was to occur on 10/10/2020, so that Atlas could maintain a strong financial position during these uncertain times.

    In Seaspan’s press release of February 14, 2020, It indicated that it had not arranged for the 2027 Notes to be quoted anywhere after the reorganization. This made sense then since Seaspan had intended to redeem the 2027 Notes on October 10, 2020,

    It does not make sense now. We and other note holders have no means to access the market value of these notes without quotes being available at least on OTC. Our financial positions are weakened by this. We ask Atlas to please arrange for the notes to be listed with an OTC market maker.

    Thank You

    Reply

    1. RE Seaspan notes …..

      Great way to handle it. I will do same and hope others, too. Management actually does listen to IR.

      I find it very strange that SSWA has not popped up on OTC. I admit to imperfect knowledge of the process but I would think that an OTC listing could happen independent of any company action.

      If anyone has knowledge of the process or knows what has kept SSWA from going OTC I hope they will speak up.

      Reply

      1. I invite any other SSWA noteholders (or those interested in owning them, at the right price) to email IR and express your wishes. I am actively looking into the process for getting these notes listed OTC, but the process will require at least some approval by the company officers so getting this on their radar will be helpful.

        Reply

        1. Interested parties can email them through Atlas’s contact tab on their website. I did. Its very simple to do. GLTA

          Reply

  71. WRB-B interesting confusion today in a boring kind of way as to what WRB-B ought to be worth….. It’s being called on 10/21, yet today would be x-div date for the 10/30. Market doesn’t seem to know whether or not x-div applies. WRB-B I think should get about 25.32 on call date so it either ought to be worth about 25.29 or more today or under par yet it’s 25.24-25.28. Traded way low premkt @ 25.06 too…

    Reply

    1. My account was credited on 10/09 with the proceeds of the partial call along with accrued interest to that date for those called shares. I don’t understand the 10/21 call date. Thus, I would think that the ex-div applies as all shares now trading would be shares not called.

      Reply

    3. 2wr …. interest on wrb-b

      I don’t own it but the question piqued my curiosity. Per prospectus:

      Subject to applicable law and subject to any optional deferral period, as described below, interest on the debentures will accrue at an annual rate equal to 5.625%, and will be payable quarterly in arrears on January 30, April 30, July 30 and October 30 of each year, beginning on July 30, 2013, each of which we refer to as an interest payment date, to the record holders at the close of business on the preceding January 15, April 15, July 15 and October 15, as applicable, whether or not a business day. However, interest that we pay on the maturity date or a redemption date will be payable to the person to whom the principal will be payable.

      Note that last sentence. So, it appears there was no “ex” date for the final interest payment. You own it on the 21st, you get the accrued interest payment. If you bought it cheap this morning you got some proverbial free money.

      Reply

      1. Bob – Yes, WRB-B did not have an x-div date nor will they because the call precedes the scheduled interest payment date. Interestingly I discovered a reason why the market got it wrong this morning in premarket and upon opening (I sure wish I was paying attention premarket..). It was because TDA, if no one else, GOT IT WRONG….. Not only did they cancel at the opening an open order I had for WRB-B for reason they said was “pending corporate action,” but they also adjusted my GTC bid downward by the full amount of the interest payment due on 10/30 before canceling it. And with that I suspect TDA clients sold thinking they had captured the interest payment.
        So, as a reversal of normal circumstances from what I’ve experienced, TDA got it wrong on this one and Fidelity got it right because I bot bonds at the opening at 25.15 @ Fidelity because of a GTC order i had there at a higher price as well…. Lordy, Lordy, Lordy, I hope this is not a precursor of Schwabby things to come from TDA in the future…

        Reply

        1. 2wr, are you sure that WRB called the B series in full? So far that’s not my experience (they only made a partial call on 09 oct), but perhaps they’ll call the rest of my position soon?

          Reply

    4. I have a position in WRB-B. Echoing @tim.moore: my account was credited on 09 oct as well. 58.4% of my position was called, and interest was paid on the same day. I assume that I will be ex-div tomorrow on the remaining 41.6% of my shares.

      Reply

  72. All of the remaining CTZ being called on Oct 26. Principal plus accrued interest will be about $25.19.

    DENVER, Oct. 13, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — Lumen Technologies (NYSE: LUMN) announced today that Qwest Corporation, its indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary (“Qwest”), issued notices to redeem the remaining $160 million outstanding aggregate principal amount of its 6.625% Notes due 2055 (the “Qwest Notes”) on Oct. 9, 2020.

    Pursuant to these notices, on Oct. 26, 2020, the remaining $160 million outstanding principal amount of the Qwest Notes will be redeemed at par plus accrued and unpaid interest to, but excluding, the redemption date.

    Reply

    3. Looks like I’m gonna eat some losses on this one, as I went back an replaced the CTZ shares they took from their earlier call. I simply can’t abide odd lots in my portfolio, but probably should have waited until December to round them off. ‘Say la vee’ as they say in Paris…Texas.

      Reply

  73. Just noticed that on 9/10/20 ATCO withdrew the 10/10/20 redemption of the delisted Seaspan 7.125% notes (SSWA) due 10/30/2027. I guess that I am stuck with these…..Information on this site needs to be updated.

    Reply

    2. What’s the ticker symbol for SSWA now that it’s delisted? I may be interested in buying your shares from you. 🙂

      Reply

      1. SSWA is not trading anywhere as far as I know, definitely not on the otc stock market. Not amused at mgmt for delisting it and then not arranging for it to trade when it’s got 7 years to go…

        Reply

      1. And I bet RIV will get to mirror their OPP flop……….. RIVr is all of $.02 and that’s up! Dollars to donuts if OPP has a successful preferred, RIV will be coming right behind….. They say OPP’s preferred is going to be rated by Moody’s – it’ll be interesting to see what they get…

        Reply

  76. Any news on RNR-E? It has sold off hard the last 3 days and near a dividend in 6 weeks. Company will become a dividend champion (as defined by david fish) by the end of this year, and joining 129 other companies that have accomplished this.

    I picked up RNR-E. I love pinned to par issues and this one has dropped into my buy range again. I do own some from April dive.

    Reply

    1. I like this one
      Got some a couple weeks back. Added a bit yesterday (a day too soon). At the closing price today, literally no risk from call.
      But to answer the question, haven’t heard anything

      Reply

    2. They announced after the close today that losses from catastrophic events will have a $325 negative impact to Q3 earnings. Nothing unusual though as you would expect earnings to be bumpy from a property and casualty reinsurer.

      Reply

    3. It’s ripe for a call. I wonder if someone has inside info on that. Nonetheless, at this price worth a gamble. Thanks for mentioning it.

      Reply

  77. Did the Dilliards Trust DDT get called? It is up almost $2 and I can’t find anything on it. It’s trading 10x volume today as well. Very odd, not complaining though.

    Reply

    1. EOZ, Im betting this had something to do with it since I heard about it on CNBC today.
      A vote of confidence from one of Warren Buffett’s lieutenants sent Dillard’s stock up as much as 46% on Monday.
      Ted Weschler, an investment manager at Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, disclosed an almost 6% stake in the ailing department-store chain on Friday.
      The value of Weschler’s 1.08 million shares soared to as high as $66 million on Monday.
      https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/dillards-stock-jumps-warren-buffett-deputy-ted-weschler-reveals-stake-2020-10-1029669530#

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *