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

1,499 thoughts on “READER INITIATED ALERTS”

  1. Yesterday (01 dec 2022) on the thread “Another Good Day for Income Issues” (https://innovativeincomeinvestor.com/another-good-day-for-income-issues/), III contributor MFZ noted that they “Received a message … from Fiedlity that CUSIP 455434878 (IPWLK) will be redeemed.”

    (Direct link to their comment is https://innovativeincomeinvestor.com/another-good-day-for-income-issues/#comment-82313)

    Has anyone else holding IPWLK received notification of this redemption from their broker?

    I can not find this announcement at https://www.aes.com/investors. A snotty rep at E*TRADE confirmed they could see it through DTCC but that E*TRADE would not be informing their clients of the action.

    1. Bur, It is rather interesting how one almost needs a bloomberg terminal or special SEC kung fu to find this information. Google is absolutely useless. Even Edgar is not finding it with my basic searches.

      Go figure. So how are people finding out like brokers?

      1. Can’t answer your question, but Fidelity sent me notices on Dec. 1. After reading comments here, I checked my messages, and, voila.

      2. fc, same. The corporate actions guy I spoke with at E*TRADE says he is seeing it on DTCC (meaning on a service monitoring alerts from DTCC, I guess). And that E*TRADE doesn’t notify when the customer has no choice about the action (implying that they notify about a tender, but not about a mandatory redemption).

        The fact Fidelity notified their customers about this action puts another plus in their column for me (I hear a lot of good things about Fidelity on this site; comments here about their nanny-state behavior keep me from pulling the trigger).

        Contributors here on III with brokerage experience will be able to provide more info.

        1. OK.. so basically a company issues the info to the DTCC who then turns around and charges others for the ability to see, use, and digest it first. But nothing has to go to the SEC yet at this stage. So an uneven playing field really.

          Companies enjoy it because it simplifies their lives, “experts” like it because it keeps out the peasants, and DTCC likes it because they make money being a middle man.

          Do I understand this correctly? One would think something like a redemption would have to be publicly documented simultaneously when sent to the DTCC.

          1. I am guessing that by someone’s definition, notification to DTCC is publicly documenting the action. To your point about an uneven playing field:

            StackingNickels observed (https://innovativeincomeinvestor.com/illiquid-securities/comment-page-3/#comment-82327) that someone snagged 600 shares of IPWLP this morning at $112, a neat $3600 profit (plus accrued interest, since ex-div is the 14th).

            A trade that I’m guessing would never have happened if the buyer did not have access to a DTCC feed.

            I would love to hear comments about this from III contributors who are advisors or brokers.

            1. The message from Fidelity about a full call came in at 7:37 p.m on Dec. 1. MFZ posted about it after 10 p.m. on Dec. 1 on this site. Stacking Nickels said someone bought 600 shares of IPWLP this morning (Dec. 2) for a quick profit, since the redemption price on this preferred is $118.

              So ostensibly, someone could have read the Fidelity message last night and put in an order this morning before everyone caught on. Just a possibility.

              1. Very true. I’d already forgotten my own comment above about the service Fidelity provided to its customers which at least one other brokerage (E*TRADE) did not, a service which provided incremental exposure beyond Bloomberg subscribers.

                1. Bur, here as I understand it anyways, the situation. Companies have to notify the owners of a redemption. But remember people dont really own these, as they are in street name, so its just eventually passed along via brokerage to “owner”. This seems more prevelant in old bought out subsidiary companies for whatever reason.
                  Useless tidbit, most of us typically dont own any stock. Some clearinghouse outfit named “Cede and Company” technically owns basically all public tradeable stocks no matter what we think we own. Here is a funny easy example using a small OTC company National Stockyards. Has a tradeable float of about 43,000 shares. If you look on page 7 below you will see the CEO owns about 4,000 shares, while the rest is disclosed as owned by “Cede and Co.”
                  https://www.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/financial-report/351040/content
                  Here is a slightly twisted article from across the Pond, but interesting background of Cede if you like.
                  https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/secret-trillion-dollar-company-owns-20790205

                2. Incidentally, neither IPWLP nor IPWLK can be traded any longer on Fidelity at this point. If you enter the CUSIP numbers, they say Fidelity is “not currently offering this security.” IPWLP was cut off earlier in the day (possibly after that 600 share trade), while IPWLK was available a little longer before it, too, was severed.

      3. FC, you have to plunk down your ~$25k/year for a Bloomberg terminal to get the best data on calls and nearly everything else financial. If you do not, you are will disadvantaged in many situations.

        1. Yes. The benefits of a terminal are nice but thankfully the internet has equalized the equation somewhat over the last two decades. Perhaps if my portfolio was worth 10 million I might consider it. Until then!

    2. Interesting they’d call these low rate coupons in this environment. We can all thank the SEC for putting these on their “expert” market list as we had no opportunity to buy these for quite some time now. Those “experts” took advantage of the pricing for sure 😉

      1. Sorry, no.

        None of these issues were on the expert market. They were freely traded OTC as Pink Information Current.

        https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/IPWLP/overview

        Gridbird had posted on this site a year (?) or so ago that the paperwork had been filed with the utility regulatory agency for a potential call within a couple of years. So a warning was given that redemptions were coming at some point.

      2. The IPW** are on the pink. They trade normally. We had an inkling they might be called. One was actually called in the recent past. Some of us even thought about accumulating in the hope of a redemption to make money but I am not sure if many actually went through with it. Getting paid 4.5% or whatever in this environment for who knows what length of time is depressing. Plus the value could fall more.

  2. Some BAC preferreds have tender offers. They are trying to buy some of them on the cheap!

    e.g. I own BAC-K and it is trading at high $24s. It is callable in Jul 2023 and has a 5.875% coupon. Their tender is for $24.2799132! It is currently trading in high $24s.

    Perhaps I do not understand this tender – do I HAVE TO tender my shares or risk de-listing (and loss of liquidity)? or I can hang on collect 3-4 dividends and wait till called?

    Here are some details I could find
    https://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/content/newsroom/press-releases/2022/11/bank-of-america-corporation-announces-cash-tender-offers-by-bofa/certain-outstanding-depositary-shares-offer.html

    1. msquare, it is simply an offer to purchase. You have every right to either accept the tender or reject it. Not sure how you leapt to it being de-listed. This is not a redemption as they can’t until July of next year. They could redeem them earlier if a capital treatment event occurred, but then again they would redeem for $25, but this is not a redemption request, but an offer to buy them from you.

  3. Be careful where you buy $1k preferreds! There has been a lot of discussion on the newly issued Lincoln National preferreds, both the exchange traded $25 one and the $1k issue (CUSIP 534187BR9) that trades like a big boy bond. I happened to notice a trade that went through late in the day on the $1k issue which prompted me to look at all of the trades. The trade I noticed crossed at a price ABOVE the ask price on the platform I was on. It was the last trade of the day for $70k face. The last dealer paid $105.75 and sold them to the end buyer for $107.865. At the time, the ask price I was seeing was $105.75. This buyer paid $1,480 more on his platform than he/she/they would have on another platform. And it is even possible that the brokerage added an additional commission on top of that. This is the equivalent of paying ~ $0.52 more per share on a $25 face issue.
    Note this “could” not happen on any exchange traded $25 issue. Due to the NBBO, all brokerages must quote the exact same bid and ask prices. They can charge a commission on top of the NBBO, but I don’t know of any 52 cent/share commissions these days.
    BOTTOM LINE is you absolutely, positively MUST make sure you are not paying extravagant markups/commission on $1k face issues. The best way is to check all of the trades on the FINRA/Morningstar site before you place your order. Alternately, you could check the price on multiple brokerages. BTW, this is NOT an isolated, one off incident. I see this type of trade all of the time.

    FINRA site:
    https://finra-markets.morningstar.com/BondCenter/Default.jsp

    We were not involved in this trade, either buying or selling in any account.

  4. IIPR-A is down more than a dollar to $25.50 (if not lower)….anyone see a call or anything similar? Tempted to buy more but I’ve been burned on “buy first, question later” a time or five haha. This is a decent swing trading issue (buy low sell high, while still holding a position at all times). TIA

    1. Probably just an il-liquidity move, That said, the issue is callable though I have no knowledge of the risk of that happening anytime soon.

  5. BAC is offering to buy your BAC PRM. Apparently we should tender it to them for below the current market price. Details below.

    Bank of America Securities, Inc. has offered to purchase, for cash, up to 1.5 Billion USD in aggregate Liquidation Preference of its outstanding securities, including the Depository Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of 5.375% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series KK.

    Tender shares for cash: 22.12 USD + Accrued Interest per 25.00 Liquidation Preference Amount tendered and accepted

    1. That news is 3 weeks old (announced before market open on Nov 10). When the tender was announced BAC-M was trading below the tender price. The tender offer announcement resulted in many (most?) of the tender targets to trade at or above the tender price when the market opened that day.

      1. Just got the info from my broker 🙁 . IB only reacts when you need to do something. Should keep a better track on the news, but I tend to mostly ignore that.

  6. Newtek Recently Received Federal Reserve Approval to Become a Bank Holding Company

    BOCA RATON, Fla., Dec. 01, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Newtek Business Services Corp. (NASDAQ: NEWT) (“Newtek”) today announced that it has received conditional approval from Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) to complete its acquisition of the National Bank of New York City (“NBNYC” and the “Acquisition”). Newtek announced last week that it received approval from the Federal Reserve to become a bank holding company and a financial holding company by acquiring NBNYC. Newtek expects the Acquisition to close in January 2023, subject to completion or waiver of the remaining closing conditions

    Yet no word on the fate of the notes NEWTZ or NEWTL

    https://investor.newtekbusinessservices.com/news-releases/news-release-details/newtek-receives-approval-occ-acquire-national-bank-new-york-city

  7. ATH-C asking around $24.50. Picked some more up today. Apollo Global Management, Inc. parent with 6.375% coupon and nearly 6% FRR spread on 5YT in 2025. QDI for those in need.

    1. I am accumulating ATH-D
      solid IG rating – Current yield 6.9% way under par

      >6.5% yield until called – if ever as its such a low coupon issue

      1. I also own some D that is under water. Not enough shares to be concerned with the paper loss. Just another way I use different preferred to create my own ETF. From time to time I add a few shares to chip away at the cost basis but I am definitely in no rush to add.

        At this stage in the game with prices having gone up a little I am just letting cash build up a bit. Over the long term buying at 17.50 or 18.50 won’t make much of a difference in D’s case. It will probably be around for a very long time.

    2. You might want to look at their bonds 6.65% 2/33 A- / Baa1. Trading around $100

      CUSIP 04686JAF8

  8. For higher IGers who’d like a touch of speculation, PSA-H is worth a look.

    A past-call 5.05% coupon remains uncalled, though serial-redeemer PSA has a much higher 5.60% coupon via PSA-H that is callable on 3/11/2024. Notable that this is also the highest coupon in the PSA mix.

    Based on last trade at $24.46, a redemption at 1st callable would yield 8.30%. I’ve fully-loaded the position and will not be tracking it one way or the other.

    A3/BBB+, current yield 5.72%, ex-date ($0.35) is 12/13/2022

    1. There is no way a 5.60% coupon issue trading a little below $25 will yield 8.30% even it is called today, unless redeemed way above $25.

      1. Hahaha. Keep the faith HB.

        If called as outlined, the issue has ~$2.03 in coupon premium and $0.56 in cap gains in 16 months. Also of relevance, the first divvy is in 22 days.

        Hope that helps.

        1. Your own words: “Based on last trade at $24.46, a redemption at 1st callable would yield 8.30%.”

          The premium is only $0.54.

          1. I think there’s some confusion going on as to which “yield” is being referred to… Are you calculating current yield? A’s calculating “yield to worst” or “yield to call” given YTC is YTW using the initial call date… His YTC is accurate.

        2. Nice find Alpha – I show XIRR on this at 8.31%. If it remains uncalled for another year it’s still a 7%+ return. Thanks for sharing.

    2. While PSA is a serial-redeemer, that is usually because they can re-issue at a lower rate. Which is not possible now with this 5.05% issue so I would not bet on it getting called. But who knows, I have been wrong before

        1. LOL – I guess I got confused as to what issue you were talking about since you mentioned both a past-call 5.05% coupon and a higher 5.60% coupon callable on 3/11/2024.

          1. Mav – your thoughts on the PSA-H here? Would you purchase or wait to see if price comes back down some?

            Much appreicated

    3. I thought they would call some stuff with the gobs of money they got from the psb sale but they paid a huge special dividend in 2022. So I gave up on the call theory and just went with yield for my purchase.

      Maybe they had to because they are a reit. But that was 2.3b.

      1. SJC – It really depends on your objective. Alpha talked about PSA-H a day or two ago. If you think they will call it in 2024, then I believe he calculated a 8.5% or so yield to call (that may have changed since then so be sure to calculate it). However if you don’t think they will call it, I think there are better opportunities out there yielding more than the 5.68% PSA-H is currently yielding at it’s current prices

        That’s just my opinion. Everyone has different goals and risk tolerance

        1. Mav, Assuming call scenario referenced above and at today’s last trade ($24.66), PSA-H XIRR (YTC) is now 7.61%.

          With even a slight moderation of rates seems a fair guess at >50% probability of call by this redemption king. I’m all-in on this one.

    4. Given what happened with the PSB preferreds, would you want to touch the PSA preferreds? PSA also does not have conversion rights.

      1. Hanger: what Justin said.

        To answer your question directly: yes I’d definitely want to touch PSA preferreds. I haven’t added any positions in the past couple of years as yields were so low. However, every one of their outstanding issues now has a Current Yield greater than 5%, so given they’re Investment Grade they are starting to look pretty good to me again.

        1. I should add that I’m wary about doing so now, given
          a) so many of the issues have sub-5% (and indeed sub-4%) coupons: if rates continue to rise, the prices of these issues will fall disproportionate to the higher-coupon issues. And
          b) two of the higher-coupon issues (F and G) are past call. Even though call risk is lower in the current environment, PSA are well known for being disciplined about calling. So
          c) H looks best to me, with it’s 5.6% coupon and 5.68% current yield and 11 mar 2024 call. YTC is much higher on the lower-coupon issues, but call risk on those is correspondingly lower.
          Again, I’m not adding new money to them now, nor is this meant to be a recommendation of any kind.

          I’m interested to hear how others view this.

  9. 2WR , Is there an actual change in ownership happening? or could this be construed as a merger ? NEWT is buying the bank and changing from a BDC to a Bank Holding company? Maybe on a technicality Barry could say the notes don’t have to be called

    1. The language is clear as a pre-condition to closing the bank purchase so there’s no wiggle room about having to do with interpretation of change of ownership or merger … It seems to be so specific that there’s no way around it but you never know what’s possibly in the eyes of a good bond attorney….. But that’s why we try to figure out why NEWT has been so unwilling to outline their strategy for the notes.. what possible options are we missing?

      1. Perhaps they want to buy some of these at below market rate instead of at full price at redemption. If they make it known they will absolutely redeem everything upon the closing of the deal then there is less incentive for anyone to sell at a lower price. But if they allow some uncertainty then they create a bit of a discount they can profit from.

        If they can create themselves a discount of a few percent by simply not committing to something until the time is at hand when they have to then why not?

  10. In the ‘pay up’ category, Sabre Corp, the travel software company, had to pay 12% for 5yr secured notes..I think these are Baa Moody’s which is of course mid range junk.
    On Bloomberg’s Wall Street Week show this weekend, Bob Michele of JPM who is usually spot on sees not only recession for 2023 but h/y bond rates blowing out way above current, which you’d expect.
    BXP one of the most highly touted office reits had to pay 6.75% for 7yr paper
    https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1037540/000165642322000046/bxp-20221117.htm

    if you need money you are going to have to pay up.. if you’d got it, you get paid! so much for ‘cash is trash’ for the patient. Bea

    1. Bea- Are you talking about this issue?? https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1597033/000119312522289564/d416449dex991.htm

      If so, it’s a secured issue to boot. I see no mention of price, though… Where’d you see/hear 12%” Also not to be sold in the US

      On November 21, 2022, Sabre Corporation (“Sabre,” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” or “our”) issued a press release (announcing the commencement of a proposed offering by its wholly-owned subsidiary Sabre GLBL Inc. (“Sabre GLBL”) of $535,000,000 aggregate principal amount of senior secured notes due 2027 (the “Secured Notes”). A copy of the press release announcing the offering is attached as Exhibit 99.1 to this Form 8-K and incorporated by reference herein. The precise timing, size and terms of the offering are subject to market conditions and other factors.

      The Secured Notes and the related note guarantees have not been, and will not be, registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) or any state securities laws. The Secured Notes and the related note guarantees may not be offered or sold in the United States or to, or for the benefit of, U.S. persons absent registration under, or an applicable exemption from, the registration requirements of the Securities Act and applicable state securities laws.

      1. 2WR, Before you buy up the float make sure you are aware Bea mistyped Baa. Im sure she meant to type Ba3 as she stated mid range junk. I know you might get all excited about 12% Baa debt. 😀

  11. I picked up some Fed Farm Cr Bks: CUSIP 3133EN2R0
    Paid: 99.925
    Maturity: 11/28/2031
    Callable: Anytime
    Coupon: 6.30%
    Comparable Treasury Yields (based on maturity): 3.8%
    Even considering that they’re callable, that strikes me as a very large spread.

    1. Yes, I bought similar issue. It is callable in 1 year, so I pretty much look at it as a high yield 1 yr CD, but who knows where interest rates will be in 1 year, may not get called that soon.
      CUSIP 3133EN2D1
      Security Type Government Agencies
      Issuer Name Federal Farm Credit Bks Cons Systemwide Bds
      Maturity Date 11/15/2032
      Coupon Rate 6.375%

        1. MarkS,
          That would be good. I am 74, so anything with a call date over 1 year looks like a perpetual to me 🙂

      1. If you’re with Fidelity, the best way to find these is to be set up with them to receive notices of upcoming new issues… That’s how I’ve been finding them. New issue announcements can be filtered to include various different areas but I’m set up to see them all…. These come under the heading of Agency/GSE.

              1. Bill–Schwab does not allow me to enter order and states that I should call the bond desk. How were you able to buy online? Does the market have to be open to enter order? Thanks.

                1. Randy,
                  Yes the market has to be open to place the order. Also, there are a few bonds (not very many) that have a phone symbol instead of a Buy button, to purchase those you do have to call the bond desk.

              2. Looked at it on Schwab this am- it still says call bond desk- no quotes or buy box. WTF?
                I went to BONDs- entered the cusip, left the little box with ,000 to the right of the box blank– if 100 is entered, wouldn’t that be 100,000? Anyway, tried with and without 100.

                1. I bought 25 this morning at Schwab on-line. Does anyone know how to obtain notice of upcoming new issues?

                2. Bill S’s won’t work (not sure why), but Mark S’s CUSIP 3133EN2R0 does work. Price increases for less than $10,000 – even over par.
                  Sorry for newbie type questions, but:
                  I’m reticent to go beyond the Step 2 disclosure statement – thinking step will place the order without a chance to change or cancel. Their wording says step 3 places the order, but step 2 doesn’t give the usual cost , fee info at all.
                  — Also- do I get to sell at a similar price, or do you take a hit?
                  –Can you sell at anytime or is it locked in?
                  Schwab doesn’t really detail selling.
                  Thanks

                  1. Hi Gary,

                    I don’t have Schwab. So I can’t help with logistics. But this is what I would do. Call Schwab customer service and while you’re online have someone walk you through the process and answer any questions that you have. That’s what they get paid for. I promise that you won’t be the first person that asked these questions. Good luck.
                    Mark

              1. Reply to this whole screen above:
                Same old brokered actions. Brokers call it , “Our Inventory”, but it is nonesuch.
                They are electronically linked as the buyer/seller to the Exchanges and execute according to the bid/ask with those buyer/seller plus the markup/down. That’s it.
                I have begun migrating all of my accounts to IBKR where I have become comfortable with their Trader Workstation, cheap rates and Trading Watch Lists and can place a bid/ask and not have it adjusted every five minutes like TD and Fido. I’ve got other things to do with my time except play a piker’s game.
                Others here have written about their small price differences between brokers and price ratcheting on a minute by minute basis, but this last two weeks have been a pitiful display by brokers who wonder , “why are our bond desks getting flooded just for real, accurate quotes and treasury placements?” Yes. I heard that from TD twice last week….after 40 minute waits. I want to be backed up by MEN, not work from home, Friday payday, frat boys. I plan to be alive and thrive, not make do.
                I am going to get comfortable with my own native skills and go with who I think will support ME. This site has helped me do just that with resources, feedback and pushing into the pref markets when the Zero Party was going on. That’s over now.
                Before I went deer hunting I had my tools in perfect order and had done all of my pre-work. Had a great week on the job in 19′ nights, took two shots and have two in the freezer, butchered by ME…not some broker.
                I’m getting ready for liquidating into the second wave down in interest rates, bonds and equities will all do well, build cash for the real event…the next run which will break most people’s investing bones; it may be ’24 or ’25.
                Like a broker I used to know said, ” be READY to be right.” I don’t know if any watchers of StL Channel 9 PBS remember his ads fro the ’80s.

    2. This is interesting but note that other bonds from same issuer with similar maturities have YTMs of 4.6-4.7%. For example, there is a 2.1% coupon maturing 11/27/22 trading at a YTM of 4.7% (CUSIP 3130APXZ3). Although callable, this one would be very low on the list of issues to get called, while CUSIP 3133EN2RO would be one of the first. So, you are getting a 6.3% yield until rates go down and it gets called, which might be 2 years? On the other hand, you can lock in 4.7% for 9 years with one of the low coupon ones. So you are getting paid 1.6% extra for the high probability that the high coupon 6.3% is first to be called. Might be worth that risk if you think rates are going to be high for a long time. On the other hand, the main attraction of long duration right now is the idea that rates may be close to peaking and therefore you want to lock in good yields.

      1. JD,
        Yes, you are correct, it all depends on one’s perception of where rates will be years down the road. My take is rates will be about where they are now for several years to come, but that is pure speculation on my part. But remember, a lot of people paid $2-$3 a share more for preferred’s that were near or past call dates just to squeeze out 1% more, so this isn’t near as speculative as that was.

      2. Hi JD,
        If the bonds that I bought get called in a couple of years, I will be annoyed. But I doubt that I would have much of a loss. It is all a question of perceived risk vs reward. The higher coupon rate that I receive should dampen volatility if rates continue to rise.

    3. Mark—where does one go to view a chart on this and similar agency securities? When I enter the cusip # on Schwab, I’m just told to call the bond desk, which I understand. I don’t think I can use Finra for agencies. Any suggestions? thanks.

      1. Hi Randy,
        Bill S picked up similar shares on Schwab with no bond desk involved. You might ask Bill how he did it.
        Good Luck.
        Mark

    1. Thanks for posting 730… I hadn’t caught up with the announcement yet….. From my point if view, if NEWT does call in January, it will be a pyrrhic victory because the process has taken so long…. Technically speaking, if they do call in January, NEWTZ will still be called at an ever so slight premium… If they can wait to Feb, it’s callable at par….. Barry has been so mysteriously cagey throughout this whole process about how NEWT plans to comply with the mandatory redemption precondition to completing this bank deal that it will be interesting to see just exactly what they do and when…. Language seems to be clear that it’s mandatory with the only possible exception being an ability to defease which would probably be more expensive but gets cheaper to to the higher rates go…Yet this new announcement also comes without any clarification of what they plan or feel obligated to do about the notes. I suspect NEWT’s been buying both NEWTZ and NEWTL in the marketplace at discounts to par in anticipation…. Interestingly, this mandatory redemption of Z and L requires about $150 mil – all in order to make a $20 mil acquisition of a bank….. Also note redemption has to come with the usual 30 day notice.

      1. Yeah we won’t get much benefit from the make-whole on NEWTZ, but still will be a solid return versus just about anything else in the fixed income space. I thought it might jump closer to par on this announcement, but hasn’t really happened lol

        Would like to know who were the buyers/sellers on the block trades a couple weeks ago. Seems like somebody got early word about the Fed approval and bought, but not sure why a large holder would sell at that point. I would think this was MNPI and so it couldn’t have been NEWT buying.

        1. I’m not familiar with rules governing MNPI but should NEWT be prevented from speculating on their own future need to call these in anticipation of the announcements without knowing for sure what will be decided? Also this is all still subject to OCC approval so there’s still no path locked in concrete for them anyway. I would think they’d be clear to be buying but I sure don’t know definitively…. I’ve been pounding the sand on this precondition for months including 2 conversations with Barry and a question asked in a CC where he would not disclose an anticipated path as to how they would get in compliance … wishing to be able to save a few bucks by buying at a discount in blocks and having the confidence to bet on getting all needed approvals before there was an official decision made by the feds could explain that I suppose, so I still suspect NEWT as having been the buyer, although I really do not know what the lawyers would say about that.

          1. “I’m not familiar with rules governing MNPI“

            My understanding was this did not apply to debt, only equity / options, since among other things company insiders owe no fiduciary duty to creditors the way they do equity holders and thus the underlying fraud theory for insider trading fails to apply. I guess the SEC has tried a bit against debt insider trading, with limited success and mostly in bankruptcy situations.

            https://www.cohengresser.com/pdfs/publications/41.pdf

      2. Hey guys,

        I’ve been looking for the mandatory redemption language- can’t seem to find it. Would one of you post a link, please?
        Mark

        1. Mark – are you talking about NEWTZ and NEWTL? Sorry I don’t have the actual link but it’s in both Form 8k dated August 2, 2021 and the Stock Purchase Agreement – See (f) below

          The obligation of the Company to consummate the Stock Purchase is further subject to additional conditions, including (a)
          NBNYC’s tangible common equity equaling or exceeding $20,000,000, (b) NBNYC’s equity-to-debt ratio as of the Closing
          equaling or exceeding 10%, (c) there having been no material adverse effect with respect to NBNYC since December 31, 2020, (d)
          the written resignation of all of the directors of NBNYC if requested by the Company, (e) the Company’s having obtained
          shareholder approval to withdraw its election as a business development company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as
          amended, (f) the Company’s having completed a refinancing of its outstanding notes, including the elimination of any provisions
          relating to the Company’s election to be treated as a business development company under the Investment Company Act of 1940,
          as amended,

            1. Thanks for the information 2whiteroses. I should have written my request with a bit more clarity. What you provided was exactly what I was looking for- I was contemplating buying some of the notes for a quick flip. But the language below has me thinking that this may require too much brain effort on my part.
              It appears that what may be needed is the elimination of RIC language. I wonder if they can accomplish that without redeeming the notes. Perhaps the permission from the “holders” to change wording is all that is required. See below:
              ———————-
              “Global Securities
              Each Note will be issued in book-entry form and represented by a global security that we deposit with and register in the name of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, known as DTC, or its nominee. A global security may not be transferred to or registered in the name of anyone other than the depositary or its nominee, unless special termination situations arise. As a result of these arrangements, the depositary, or its nominee, will be the sole registered owner and holder of all the Notes represented by a global security, and investors will be permitted to own only beneficial interests in a global security. For more information about these arrangements, see “Description of Notes — Book-Entry Procedures” below.”
              ….

              Changes Requiring Your Approval…..

              The second type of change does not require any vote by the holders of the Notes. This type is limited to clarifications and certain other changes that would not adversely affect holders of the Notes in any material respect.
              Changes Requiring Majority Approval
              Any other change to the indenture and the Notes would require the following approval:
              • if the change affects only the Notes, it must be approved by the holders of a majority in principal amount of the Notes; and
              • if the change affects more than one series of debt securities issued under the same indenture, it must be approved by the holders of a majority in principal amount of all of the series affected by the change, with all affected series voting together as one class for this purpose.
              In each case, the required approval must be given by written consent.
              The holders of a majority in principal amount of any series of debt securities issued under an indenture, voting together as one class for this purpose, may waive our compliance with some of our covenants in that indenture. However, we cannot obtain a waiver of a payment default or of any of the matters covered by the bullet points included above under “Description of Notes — Modification or Waiver — Changes Requiring Your Approval.”

              1. Then the question remains, who would just say, “OK, go ahead, weaken my protection without compensation… I’m fine with that?

              2. Then the question remains, who would just say, “OK, go ahead, weaken my protection without compensation… I’m fine with that?” Hmmmmmmmm, wait a minute, could the answer be NEWT itself? I wonder if the blocks that have been trading along with other open market sales are going to the company, would the company theoretically be able to vote those shares toward the changes you point out??? I’m just trying to think out loud of all possibilities as to why they have been so unwilling to give shareholders any guidance toward their plans for the notes.. That being said, the language does say, “the Company’s having completed a refinancing of its outstanding notes…”

                1. Hi 2WR,
                  You have great points and you may very well be right. I just don’t see much in the way of legal protections. You would need to cobbled together 25% of the “indirect beneficiaries” to demand action from the trustee and also provide indemnification sufficient to satisfy him/her. Can “refinance” mean substituting the old note with a new note eliminating any BDC language while also keeping the same protections currently granted to the “indirect beneficiaries?” Don’t know! But for me- it’s not worth the worries.

                  1. If you are worried about management willfully breaching covenants, not sure you should be investing in any debt securities lol

                    1. Hi 730Cap,
                      I just don’t like grabbing nickels in front of a steamroller.😁

  12. It’s been suggested here a number of times Fidelity trades appear to be better-priced than other platforms, notably Ameritrade.

    Spent a few minutes today comparing bond pricing between the two. Consistently, Ameritrade is nicking us for a basis point or two for “exact” same issues.

    Ameritrade has other attractive features – the quote feature, symbol format and platform are strengths – though I’ll be more-consistently channeling bond trades via Fidelity.

    1. TDA still operates as a principal, don’t they? They bake their commission in to the offering they show (with the amount of the commission relatively hidden). Fidelity acts as agent, always charging a buck a bond with minimum and maximum on the other hand. Fidelity shows you the best offering out there and then shows you the YTM you end up getting at the marked up price you end up paying…. TDA I believe shows you only the YTM you receive… I’ve not even bothered with TDA fixed income in a long time so I’m not sure if anything’s changed but past experience coincides with yours, A… better execution at Fidelity. Incidentally, if you make your comparisons before buying you normally can see that they are showing you the same offering, particularly when the amount offered is an oddball amount… When that is observable, you normally do see a higher price on the same block at TDA than at Fidelity

      1. 2WR,
        I finally got that Fidelity account open. Had a nice 50 min talk with an advisor who has been with the company for 27yrs. Probably could of continued, but a lot of bells and whistles to explore on their site that I need to soak in.
        As an aside, I picked up a used copy of The Big Short at a lending library while on vacation. I had started years ago to read all of Michael Lewis’s books with the first one “Liar’s Poker” which I enjoyed, but somehow never continued.
        Interesting first chapter in this book where Vinny finds the first indications of problems with mortgage bonds was in the manufactured homes lending.

    2. I noticed Fidelity continues to exclude corp bond FTF issues but recently allowed FTF pref issues to be traded. Anyone know why?

  13. TDS-U dropped sharply starting yesterday inspite of a couple of upgrades for TDS in the last few days. It set a new 52-week low at $17.47 (so far today) yielding 9.3%. No apparent news. The common is flat for the day as I write. Could it be tax loss selling?
    I hold a small position in this issue

Leave a Reply

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