Our site runs on donations to keep it running for free. Please consider donating if you enjoy your experience here!

Sandbox Page

I will be adding a new link titled “Sandbox” in the right hand menu.

That link will get you to this page.

I had originally set up the “Reader Initiated Alert” page for ‘alerts’. I was thinking this, for instance, might be when a preferred stock is undergoing a temporary selloff and someone wants to let the population know about it quickly. Of course we all (including me) use the ‘alert’ page for general messaging.

I am requesting that we start using the Sandbox page for all general talk, and try to preserve the ‘alerts’ page for ‘alerts’.

I have had a screen up on one of my monitors all week where I see all comments – no matter where they are posted–it is a great page and I wish everyone had a page like that–believe me we all benefit from all the knowledge being shared. I don’t want to stifle any of the exchange of knowledge, but hope to get things a bit better organized by adding the Sandbox page.

1,965 thoughts on “Sandbox Page”

  1. Politics aside, the announcement of potential student loan forgiveness has pushed down prices of some of the income issues from companies in that sector (JSM, SLMBP, etc.). Might be a good buying opportunity (disclosure – I picked up a few shares in some).

    I have noticed that for the last few announcements of potential loan forgiveness, these shares have dropped then recovered. I think there is a knee-jerk reaction for some holders to sell on the announcements, but the companies involved won’t be asked to pay for the forgiveness (at least not yet), so there should be very minor impact on them – hence the “bounce back”.
    Just my thoughts. not a recommendation (as if anyone here were silly enough to take advice from me. My wife would roll on the floor…)

  2. Hey guys, let’s return our focus on how to make money.
    – Who has found a great buy?
    – Who’s selling what?

    For me; ADM, and CC falling knives grabbed have now returned more than 20% and are sock drawer keepers.
    PFE yielding 6.3% standing still.
    Energy holdings storming.
    KRP (thanks Azure) yielding 10.4% up 10% since purchase (excluding divs)
    AGMPRF has been a great trading opportunity.
    Bounds up and down – just bought another 800 shares yielding more than 6%.

    Keeping all my rolloffs liquid – expecting major interest rates moves ahead.
    Not concerned whether I’m earning 4.95% in SPAXX instead of 5.03% in an ETF. Difference feels peanuts in big picture.

    1. That ADM pickup was a nice one for sure. As usual my main regret is not buying more.

    2. I went out on a limb and bought 100 shares of (Hecla Mining) HL-B for slightly below 52. It is a 7% broken convert preferred. Cumulative yet callable anytime. My yield will be right around 6.7%. With silver going up in price, I had an inkling things were going to improve mining wise which their most recent report showed, and a desire to diversify if possible. Plus owning a mining preferred is kind of fun. Another old school preferred with about 150K shares still floating. Back during the GFC they stopped paying but since it was cumulative they quickly caught right back up paying out 4+. Otherwise based on records I see they pay reliably. It is a very small amount of money now days for them.

      I have no idea why they do not call it. Imagine someone converted some shares last year which I read in their reports which whittles down the float a tiny bit.

      It is not a lot of shares but 6.7% QDI seemed OK. Part of me knows I will probably sell it if the often volatile price of it goes above 54-55. If it goes below 48 I might buy another 100 shares to make my cost basis an even 50 to avoid a call hit.

      1. If you don’t mind me asking, What is the draw to a mining preferred that only pays 6.7% and is over par and callable? Only reason I can think to own it is maybe diversity of holdings as has to be a rare thing to own a mining preferred. Doesn’t seem to me that the current yield at all meets the risk.

        1. fc, never mind my question, my pea sized brain couldn’t process what you spelled out as your reasons. Kind of looking at this myself.

          1. Pig,

            Even though you said not to bother reply I will take a stab at it. Diversity is one main reason. It is a small amount of money right now but at least it is in a sector that I have nothing of. That sector is also improving fundamental wise for the commodity as well as the company is on the upswing. It is also one of those miners who has mines in 1st world countries. They have paid this preferred reliably, using data I found on a preferred website, for 20 plus years except the GFC (they caught up obviously). Common has a small dividend.

            Yes it has a call risk. Many old preferred do over par. One cannot ignore that but based on the history of this preferred I do not see any reason why it is coming any time soon. They have had 20 plus years to call it yet it remains outstanding. On top of that the cost of paying it each quarter is trivial due to the small float. There has to be some goofy reason they do not call it. Insiders own it? Barely worth their attention? They prefer to not use some millions of cash to call it?

            It is a possible flip. I have no idea why it trades the way it does but getting out over 54-55 is a real possibility if you put in a GTC order for your price. It might take a few months but it does seem to go up a lot more than one would think. If someone wants to pay me almost 3 bucks more then I paid in a few months I am ok with that too. It is not a lot of money but a profit is a profit. I will hold for a bit and then setup a GTC order one of these days in case it pops to a ridiculous amount. Then rebuy back at < 52 if possible or whatever price my low ball bid is setup for.

            Yea.. it is a fun preferred. A mining preferred. Imagine that in this day and age. I guess I added some to my "baseball" card collection. A yield of 6.7% QDI seems reasonable to me personally. I was looking at utility preferred and I was not really thrilled with 6-6.1% they currently offer. This gets me a bit more.

            Honestly.. I was kind of on the edge myself of buying it. I have known of its existence for a long time but the price has always been way too high. Only now has it come closer to par. I kind of keep up with the metals and it has always intrigued me. I dipped a toe in.

            1. fc, thanks for detailed reply. It definately seems like a trading preferred. I do partake in that activity, although I”m more inclined to buy and hold. Not sure I’ve ever held a mining preferred. Will be watching a few of these $51-$54 cycles out of interest.

      2. fc, I saw that small conversion. They got killed on it. But it was only like a little over a 100 shares. HL-B actually quit paying twice, in the late 90s also. This is where 3/4 of the float disappeared. They got a generous common stock conversion offer while the divi was suspended so they took it. Its a horrible credit rating of around CCC+ but I play it when I can. A few weeks ago I had 500 shares or so bought mostly in low $51s. Then over a few days I would fire 100 share market orders at it when bid ask spread was huge. And have a bot intercept it at $54 range and pocket a quick $2-$3 a share bounce. Ya gotta know how to play that game though.

        1. I have been playing HL-B for a bunch of years (I think I may have picked the idea up from you, Grid before this board got going). I swing in and out, but always seem to come back to it.

          Weirdest thing about it (at least for me) is that the market maker doesn’t work well.
          I can have a buy GTC in at $51.1 and another at $51, and the $51 will fill (usually only partially). Same on sells – a sale will fill at $55 when I have orders in at both $55 and $55.5.

          I don’t mind when they benefit me, but I regularly see transactions reported at prices that by rights should have gone to me. Nobody to complain to, I guess. It is just how this odd little thing trades.

          That said, I don’t rely on the GTCs very much. they just add some gravy. I also play the “entice the bot” games sometimes.

          1. Private this seems to happen more frequently on the big board illiquids. I usually only buy whenever there is a dedicated seller at a serious selling price. As when there isnt one tends to get the problems you described.

        2. Grid,

          Part of me had delusions of being a trader when I bought it. Lol. Lets see if I can make a few bucks myself. I will freely admit that plan was in the back of my mind as I pulled the trigger. Knowing my luck they will call it next week or a whole mine will peter out and they suspend.

          1. fc, I think you fine in terms of being paid and not being called. I would just never be a common stock holder because any time it tries to go up they seem to send out a secondary and dilute to grab some cash.

    3. Sadly Westie, watching the market as of late has been like watching paint dry

      Have not come across any promising new opportunities
      Good new issues have dried up

      So I just practice patience and sit and wait
      I have learned over the years not to force trades
      BTW – I still hold all my ADM as well

      1. Maverick,
        agree with your assessment of market conditions. I have been taking profits left and right and buying income for the most part, safe AA+ TVC and TVE. Even dabbled into a couple beaten down REITs (BNL and GTY). No matter the market conditions, I’m busy buying and selling.

        1. pig any others holding TVE or TVC I”ve got a full allotment here as I asume others might also. Just wrapping up taxes I realized I’ll have a large predetetermined capital gain in 28 and 29. normally I sell for gains in down years if possible this is some what unusual any planning advice from tax savvy here appreciated Mike

          1. Mike, I have all of that in a non-taxable account so taxes not a consideration for me. I don’t have any advice to give in that department.

    4. Exactly, Westie! I come here to talk about income and great buys for the day, or major news about parent companies of preferred stock. I come here to get away from bickering political polarization, and to get away from runaway negativity “ the deficit” is $35 t being pushed in my face daily, when people have been concerned about the budget and deficit for 250 years. It’s a concern, yes, but I don’t believe this site is meant for constantly reapeating the same themes, give me INCOME NEWS from TODAY! On that note, nice selloff in ECCF today, it went all the way to 24.69 today on a serious dump , still good at 24.95, under par.

    5. I flipped the hide off ADM in January. Kind of fun, and very profitable, but I exited (Feb?). Kind of wish I had held longer, but so it goes.

  3. Anyone have Bank of Hawaii (BOH-A) preferred? Picked up a handful of that yesterday after selling half of my shares in WFC-L. Picked up a modest yield increase, rating upgrade, as well diversifying a bit. Ex date is next week so might head back below $16 very soon.

  4. What’s the story with SCE-H?
    It started floating 3/15/24 at 3 month Libor plus 2.99%. Any announcement from EIX as to whether they are using SOFR to calculate the yield. My off the napkin calculations if they went to SOFR would put current yield about 8.46% QDI. SCE-M is trading at a 7% current yield right now. Why is SCE-H not getting any love?

    1. Zwei, Its probably “par anchored” being its upcoming yield is high call just like the Southern Cal Edison Series E with a 9.75% is presently. And yes, you are correct about the SOFR plus add on to adjustment. Here is your public announcement concerning it.
      https://download.edison.com/406/files/202301/libor-act-implementation-for-sce-preference-stock-trust-preference-securities-20230120.pdf?Signature=AnH73OzoDJYKF4q86B7c7hGx4rc%3D&Expires=1698481604&AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJX7XEOOELCYGIVDQ&versionId=_0sbF_YfiNU.fad_jVJLT7c2wY84eYAZ&response-content-disposition=attachment

      1. Grid, pardon the ignorance but what is the ticker for the Series E preferred stock you mentioned? Or is that an institutional issue?

        1. Graust it trades on the bond desk with a cusip. You would have to call bond desk. Cusip US842400FU26.

    2. I paid 25.12 for SCE-H .. it went ex on 3/13 so 27 days of accrued is about 11 cents for a stripped price of near par ..tks for the show

      1. mjtrol, just for clarification, remember accrued dividend starts on payment date not exD.

        1. tks..that would 3/15 so still close …I did use the prior 3month dividend which is based on the fixed coupon 5.75 not the floating which is near 9 so I likely understated the accrued

          1. I wasnt sure if the payment date was accurate, so that is why I mentioned it. I havent owned the $25 SCE preferreds in a while so didnt know if the 2 day spread between exD and payment was accurate. So this is a good example where it really doesnt matter. As some can be 4 weeks or even longer before actually paying.
            Im not a big fan of low adjustments (sub 3.5% or so), but may make a baby sitting exception being one of our posters this morning posted basically NSS is a goner by early June. So I may look for other floating options for the near term.

          2. I went ahead and bought a 400 share entry position myself today at $25.07. I have to be cognizant of fact I now have $30k of the Series E at about 9.75% since I bought 10k more of it today, too.

            1. Are you starting to get more comfortable with these live floaters with lower yield spreads?

              When I bought PPL’s live floater (CUSIP 69352PAC7) in July 2023, I was somewhat concerned that the yield spread was only 2.66. I was able to buy it for $91.14 which helped me get comfortable with the yield spread being low. It now trades closer to par. I’ve been tempted to sell as the price has risen but today I am happy I stuck with it.

              1. Dick, for me, only for possibly buying on an exchange like SCE-H. I dont want to buy low adjusters on bond desk because I cant babysit well from there and I know I wont get the best price possible selling being its “Oz behind the curtain” telling me what I will get, and selling a small retail amount into an institutional issue wont help pricing either.
                Rocks, EIX sends mixed messages there. They have a 4.199% adjustment plus 3 month term SOFR plus 26 bps still outstanding that yields considerably more than this. And its been callable for 2 years. Yet, last year they offered a tender on a 5.375% fixed to reset preferred and its 2 years away from even floating… Tender to redeem a 5.375% still fixed and leave others 300 bps higher outstanding. I will leave it to you to unravel that mystery!

            2. Outlook for SCE-H: Now that it’s floating, likely to hug par because it’s callable with a high yield. Main risk is a drop in SOFR/short-end yields due to rate cuts or a problem in the economy.

              Does that sound right?

              Any guesses as to the likelihood of a call?

  5. I was friendly and did business with Jamie Dimon since the mid 1990’s when he was COO at Smith Barney. Of course, he is now the CEO of JP Morgan Chase and did not open his annual shareholder letter with rosy language about the state of the world, or even enthusiasm about his bank’s record profits.

    Instead, he describes “yet another year of significant challenges” including the war in Ukraine, war in the Middle East, extreme tensions with China, higher food and energy prices, turmoil in the banking sector, outrageous government deficits, and even major risks with the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy.

    Dimon writes that “America’s global leadership role is being challenged outside by other nations and inside by our polarized electorate,” and that this is a “time of great crises”.

    He went on with a few charts and thoughts about the bank’s business and financial performance over the last year… and then dedicated most of the remaining 57 pages of his letter to the serious problems which face the world.

    His observations are wide-reaching– from the decay of social cohesion to the prospect of war and higher inflation, to the serious potential for a reset of the Bretton Woods system (which made the US dollar the world’s reserve currency).

    Frankly the letter almost reads as a manifesto written by someone who is completely fed up with government incompetence and positioning himself to run for office. I can’t agree with everything he says, but it’s obvious that his ideas are balanced and well thought out.

    There are a few points in particular worth repeating.

    1. Keep it in perspective; the world is not coming to an end

    “If you read the newspaper from virtually any day of any year since World War II,” Dimon writes, “there is abundant coverage on wars — hot and cold — inflation, recession, polarized politics, terrorist attacks, migration and starvation. As appalling as these events have been, the world was generally on a path to becoming stronger and safer.”

    This is absolutely a true statement. It’s easy to get caught up in the negativity while missing the abundance of growth and opportunity.

    In the year 1918, most people probably thought that the world was coming to an end. The Great War was at its peak, economies were faltering, inflation was surging, rationing and shortages were everywhere… and then the Spanish flu popped up and killed tens of millions of people.

    Bleak times indeed. And yet the next century was the most prosperous in human history… despite a very bumpy path along the way.

    This is similar to where we are today. Yes, Inspired Idiots have caused a gigantic mess. But the general trajectory of the human species is still improving.

    2. That said, long-term risks should not be underestimated. Especially for the West.

    Dimon finds that there is “too much emphasis on short-term, monthly data and too little on long-term trends”, and he talks about inflation as a great example.

    Economists and investors tend to be almost singularly focused on monthly inflation reports in an effort to divine if and when the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates.

    They’re entirely missing the point, Dimon writes. Month by month, and even year by year, inflation numbers could vary wildly. But if you look at the big picture, you’ll see substantial evidence for future inflation.

    We’ve been writing about this for a long time. In fact, since inception we’ve only been focused on long-term trends… and we see these as highly inflationary.

    Similar to our view, Dimon understands how “ongoing fiscal [deficit] spending, remilitarization of the world, restructuring of global trade, capital needs of the new green economy, and possibly higher energy costs in the future” are all inflationary in the long run.

    The inflation might not show up next month or next quarter, but he believes (as do we) that the coming years are full of “persistent inflationary pressures”.

    There are also significant risks to the current US-led global order; America’s influence is waning, and Dimon writes that the “international rules-based order established by the Western world after World War II is clearly under attack by outside forces, somewhat weakened by its own failures [and] confusing and overlapping regime of policies.”

    As part of this, he talks about the distinct possibility for a reset of the post-WW2 financial system (known as Bretton Woods) that anointed the US dollar as the global reserve currency. He puts it succinctly: “we may need a new Bretton Woods.”

    We’ve been writing about this for years; the dollar’s decline is a long-term trend, but for us, it’s an obvious one. You cannot run multi-trillion-dollar deficits each year and still expect to be the world’s economic superpower.

    It’s notable that even someone like Dimon can see this coming.

    3. These problems are still solvable.

    We’ve written extensively that the problems facing the US and the West are still solvable. For now. But every year that the problems continue to be ignored brings the country closer to a point of no return… where there is no way out but default.

    Dimon is not shy about offering up suggestions, many of which we have written about in the past. He talks about border security, streamlining sensible regulations, and economic policies which prioritize growth.

    “Unfortunately,” Dimon writes, “the message America hears is that the federal government does not value business — that business is the problem and not part of the solution.”

    “There are fewer individuals in government who have any significant experience in starting or running a company, which is apparent every day in the political rhetoric that demonizes businesses and free enterprise and that damages confidence in America’s institutions.”

    He says he finds it “astounding that many in Congress know what to do and want to do it but are simply unable to pass legislation because of partisan politics”.

    He goes on to list a multitude of government failures and the “staggering number of policies, systems, and operations that are underperforming”, including pitiful public schools, broken healthcare, infrastructure woes (especially the energy grid), terrible immigration policy, Social Security’s looming insolvency, and more.

    Dimon states very clearly that the federal government “needs to earn back trust through competence and effective policymaking.”

    True statement. But I’m not holding my breath. Because in related news, the White House just announced that Joe Biden is working on yet another way to forgive student debt for 30 million Americans.

    He doesn’t seem to care that the Supreme Court already rejected his previous effort to forgive student debt, saying he did not have the legal authority.

    It’s pathetic that the cost of university education is so high… especially given how many degrees in an AI-world are useless. Plus many universities these days are just hotbeds of radicalization. It hardly seems worth taking on $80,000 of debt for such a dubious outcome.

    But nevertheless, taxpayers have footed the bill for college and loaned out over $1 trillion to students across the country.

    This is a basic tenet of capitalism (which Mr. Biden claims to embrace): debts have to be paid.

    But because this guy’s poll numbers are so pathetic– especially with young people– he’s trying to score points by canceling their debts.

    Well, canceling student debt means that taxpayers will lose hundreds of billions in loans that they made. So rather than taking steps to strengthen America’s balance sheet, the President is once again violating the law to make the balance sheet worse… all to improve his image among young voters.

    This is hardly a way to restore trust in government. So again, I’m not holding my breath.

    Dimon’s letter is worth the read if you have the time. You might not agree with everything he says, but it is rather telling that the CEO of the country’s largest bank is speaking so plainly about obvious risks.

    It’s another reminder of why it makes so much sense to have a Plan B.

      1. What is wrong with you, David?
        The address by the CEO, Dimon has many relevant points. We investors invite all the information available.

        1. This part (not written by Dimon) was right wing:

          “Well, canceling student debt means that taxpayers will lose hundreds of billions in loans that they made. So rather than taking steps to strengthen America’s balance sheet, the President is once again violating the law to make the balance sheet worse… all to improve his image among young voters.”

            1. I’m glad you asked – here’s what jumps out at me:

              “Rather than taking steps to strengthen America’s balance sheet” – starts from a wrong premise that a nation has a balance sheet in the same way a business does, ignores the fact that goals such as making the student loan system fair might be important, and ignores the big picture of Biden’s budget and tax proposals.

              “the President is … violating the law” – a scurrilous and unfounded accusation, especially when it was the student loan lenders who probably broke the law.

              “the President is *once again* violating the law” – doubling down with another false accusation that the President has previously violated the law.

              “all to improve his image among young voters” – pure speculation, ignoring the possibility that the goal is what was stated, to make the student loan system more fair by repaying money to borrowers who were scammed out of excessive interest.

              1. David,

                I appreciate the tone and thoughtfulness of your response. I think what rankles most who might disagree with you is what appears to be the government’s fundamental unfairness towards the taxpayers who never went to college, payed their loans back on their own if they did, or financed it on their own dime. And then there’s the government’s deficit and rising financing costs . . . I think you understand, yes?

                1. I was fortunate enough to never need a student loan, but what I have read is that the the student loan system was corrupt and many borrowers were cheated and scammed. (I do have a young relative who I feel was enticed into assuming a large amount of student debt in a very sketchy way, which supports this idea.) I am sure there are borrowers who have received relief that was in some sense undeserved, but let’s not lose track of the goal of student loan relief, which is to compensate the many people who were cheated. To some extent we have to trust that the people who are trying to clean up the mess have good intentions.

                  My question to you is whether the existence of some unfairness in the relief actions is a valid reason for not trying to address the (to my mind much greater) unfairness toward those who were scammed.

              2. I am trying to ignore you but when you post blatantly false statements like this it is impossible:

                “the President is … violating the law” – a scurrilous and unfounded accusation, especially when it was the student loan lenders who probably broke the law.”

                You do realize don’t you that the Supreme Court issued a decision on student loan debt relief and declared that what Biden was/is doing was violating the law. So nothing scurrilous and unfounded about it. He can’t just ignore the highest court in the land

                1. This is an overly dramatic (and to my mind misleading) way of saying that an Executive Order was overturned by the courts. I understand this also happened to the previous President, so would you agree that he repeatedly “violated the law”? I didn’t think so.

                  1. Nothing overly dramatic about it.

                    An executive order was overturned by SCOTUS. OK, it happens.
                    But when Biden decides to ignore the SCOTUS ruling and still try to do his illegal scheme to buy votes which SCOTUS ruled was illegal, NOW he is clearly violating the law

          1. “Biden talking about new student debt relief could be yet another fiscally simulative measure in the US ” – Goldman

            1. The typical American household would need to spend $445 more a month to purchase the same goods and services as a year ago, a report from Moody’s found.

          2. What’s rarely mentioned is the moral hazard. Some people who can pay their loans decide to stop paying. Why pay if it might one day be forgiven? Also teaching people that debts are not obligations.

            1. I think it is mentioned quite regularly, but this is very one sided.

              What about the moral hazard of the student loan lenders getting away with cheating so many people? Don’t other types of lenders see that and decide to cheat their own customers? Doesn’t it teach them that they don’t have to follow the law or honor their contracts?

              1. ” student loan lenders getting away with cheating so many people? ”

                Please tell us exactly who these “student loan lenders” were and how exactly you think they cheated so many people? Be specific because it is clear you do not understand the issue

      2. `David,
        US and world events that can possibly effect the economy are useful in making investment decisions. What exactly were the “right political views” that where disturbing?

      3. That was Right Wing? I didn’t note anything that was particularly ideological in the passage. Then again – I suppose from Lenin’s point of view Trotsky was also a Right Winger. Possibly why they had him whacked?

        In Wasington DC we have two political parties “The Stupid Party” and “The Evil Party”. If you are going to invest money it is best to know which is which. This is because periodicaly these two parties get together and do something that is both really Stupid and really Evil – hence the $33T in debt.

        The only way out of this $33T in debt is inflation. It is best for fixed income investors to keep this in mind. That is neither a right nor left wing observation. It is simply a fact, and rather Mr Dimon’s point I suspect.

        1. US Debt ~ even higher than 33T ~ now $34,640,000,000,000 & increasing about 2T per year ~ unsustainable IMHO.

  6. Self Fulfilling Prophecies: There are a few well respected analysts who post
    on SA regularly; a few days after their Paid Subscribers view the Article.
    Pointing out undervalued Stocks , and fair market value , at which point a
    sell or switch recommendation may be forthcoming ; their recommendation
    alone can “do the trick” ; i’m not finding fault with this ,just pointing it out.
    for example ; PST I read on SA recommended EBBNF two days ago ; the stock is up from 20 to 21.15 in a few trading days ; volume last two days -when non-subscribers read it is up 7 fold to 30K from about 4K av vol. YTD; what I do ; just follow it; will come back to earth in time ; look at other stocks in the Series for better buys (in this case EMB has several)

    1. A good observation. I used to figure about a 2% to 5% pop/drop after a REIT recommendation / slam from The My Oh My Buy Buy Buy Big REIT Guy on The Other Website.

      After a while I refined my strategy to research and buy stocks that I ID’d as good investments before he put a out buy rec to the masses. Or to buy what I though were deep value investments when the slam came out. With a BBBBRG discount. (Kind of like the old JCPenney: smart shoppers know to wait for the coupon.) JMO. DYODD.

  7. Guys and Gals—most people have strong feelings about how things (such as inflation) affect every day Americans. I certainly do. However, I think, long and opinionated comments of this nature are best expressed on many other websites. III is primarily meant for discussing fixed income investment ideas—not politics or issues with heavy political overtones. I think we should keep it that way.

    1. Whidbey ; I’m with you on that; let’s keep sandbox on stock talk ; mostly Preferred and Baby Bonds that trade on exchanges ; and every once in a
      while if someone has a “screaming buy” of a very mispriced Common or MLP,
      i’de like to hear about it ;ie ADM was mentioned here as a “screaming misprice” mid January at 51.50 ; its up 12 points since then . and we had a
      lively discussion on it’s merits at the time.

      1. Ted, been some good action on WHR low of 103 to a high of 120. It’s a good consumer stock and paid its dividend in the GFC
        https://www.dividendchannel.com/history/?symbol=whr
        There is concern that it is debt heavy but I believe it is working to reduce that.
        2024 will be the watershed year. I’m not a big believer when companies say they will make big cost savings as in the past your most expensive cost is labor and cutting that is a one time savings, sometimes detrimental to the survival of the company. Cost cutting by automation has seen the biggest savings lately. If they can pay down debt and not cut the dividend and hold out to the next growth cycle it should be a good investment. In the mean time I think people will trade around the dividend. Buy after ex-dividend or mid term in the dividend cycle and sell into the rise in price and repeat. Keep a core holding for long risk on the chance management brings the ship through the storm.

        1. Charles ; my strategy on WHR would be; i see support at 105 ; i’de expect it to
          trade down after the next ex date ; then sell the 105 near puts ; that gives
          you two ways to come out ahead; the put expires and you net the premium
          or get exercised at 105 but the cost basis is lowered by premium received .

          1. I sold the put, got assigned and then sold the call (then itm) on WHR. it was about %5 in a month. I’ll sell the put again near the price you indicate and like these kinds of trades on dividend stocks.

            1. Ted, remember 10 or so years ago the news stories were all about “Green Shoots” that the economy was starting to revive and showing signs of growth?
              People are no different than the rest of the animal kingdom, the days get longer and warmer after the cold of winter and things pick up. I agree the next low will be higher than the one we just hit. As long as nothing unexpected happens.

          2. here is my current pick of a “stock for all reasons” VALE ; a Brazilian mining
            mostly Iron Ore ; profitable on a regular basis ; paid $1.75 divs the past 12 months; I like the variable dividend policy ( pay a % of earnings) no Foreign tax withholding ; big volume ; average vol 30M shares/day; and at
            12.50 now, coming off a low ( ex div 54 cents 3/12 ) big Omega -ranges between 12 and 16 regularly over the year; right now the options don’t pay much (April and May) I only do near term ; own 1500 shares and going to buy another 500 . the chart looks exactly like it does after every dividend ;consistency is very important because I know what to expect ; what do you think ? If you can “shoot any holes” in my thesis ; i’de like to hear them

    2. WI, I understand your sentiment but disagree because of the importance of inflation. My investing indoctrination came from the 1966-1982 period when inflation went out of control. Recall that the Dow hit 1,000 in 1966 and did not rise above that level for good until 1982. So a zero percent nominal return over 16 years, but that is the good news. The bad news was that Dow 1,000 in 1982 was about 333 in real terms. So a Dow investor lost 2/3rd’s of their money in real terms. My personal investing perspective is that inflation is at the center of the investing universe, so it is darned important to have an opinion about where it is going. So I welcome the discussion as long as it is fact based and does NOT devolve into politics.

      1. Tex—I remember very well when the long T bond traded at 15.5% and bills at 21+%. I am always worried about inflation and appreciate discussions about it. I just don’t like it when they evolve into a blue-red kind of conversation.

    3. Whidbey, IMO when it comes to investing, being attune to inflation, its impact on the buying habits of others, etc. is important. There have been a multitude of comments and discussions about inflation here – and that is a good thing IMO

      I also believe understanding more than just the headline number of the employment report is important. It is such an important subject that Tim posts about it the morning a new employment report is being released. I think it is wise investing to look beyond the headline numbers to fully understand it. I understand others may not. But if you learn that the report has been overstated 10 out of the last 12 months and subsequently revised downward, I would think that would impact how someone looks at and relies on the numbers. Same if learning that the detail shows the job gains are all net part time vs full time – or mainly government vs manufacturing – things you do not typically see mentioned in the headline numbers

      1. The devil, or angel, is in the details on the jobs report. There is no doubt about that.

      1. “On the other hand, the site you mention is trying to weaponize the data by saying “family budgets are under attack”, which is meaningless”

        I doubt it is meaningless to those families who are struggling to get by thanks to the record inflation we have had the last several years. The fact is, while I doubt it impacts many people on this site, for those who are less fortunate, family budgets are indeed under attack given rising prices due to record inflation. And as a result, some have had to take on an extra part time job just to get by

        1. The article makes it clear that most people who work less than 35 hours a week do so voluntarily, and there is nothing unusual about the current full time/part time ratio.

          1. You keep telling yourself that while ignoring the data showing that all of the job growth in the last twelve months was in part time jobs.

            And it still will not change the fact that unlike you stated, there ARE lots of families who are struggling to get by thanks to the record inflation we have had the last several years. As I said, I doubt it impacts many people on this site, but for those who are less fortunate, family budgets are indeed under attack given rising prices due to record inflation. And as a result, a number have had to take on an extra part time job just to get by.

            If you don’t think inflation has hurt families, I don’t know what to tell you other than go out and ask those who live paycheck to paycheck in the real world

            1. I am not ignoring the data. I think it’s a sign of economic health that people are voluntarily choosing to work part time at normal levels.

              My main argument is with the word attack. That implies intention to harm. It is a political word.

              Inflation primarily harms savers, and people who live paycheck to paycheck by definition are not saving. So no, I don’t think inflation has much effect on those people.

              1. David said: “Inflation primarily harms savers, and people who live paycheck to paycheck by definition are not saving. So no, I don’t think inflation has much effect on those people.”

                David, WSJ had an article where they went and bought food products at grocery stores. They reported prices had increased 36.6% over the last 4 years compared to the BLS number of 25.2%. Wages have increased 21% over the same period. So using either inflation number, food costs have risen faster than wages.

                Please explain how someone that was living paycheck to paycheck four years ago is NOT harmed by food inflation?

                Last year the Federal Reserve reported that 33% of families with incomes <$25k/year could NOT afford to pay their current monthly bills. With family incomes <$100k/year, which is the vast majority of Americans, 14% could NOT afford their monthly bills. I think it is reasonable to define these families as living paycheck to paycheck, so when inflation in the necessities, like food, utilities, transportation, medical, iPhones, etc, how are they NOT harmed by inflation?

                Link to Federal Reserve Survey:
                https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2023-economic-well-being-of-us-households-in-2022-expenses.htm

                Link to WSJ food price study:
                https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/inflation-food-price-of-groceries-2024-5010700b?st=pop27dqiv2cagfr

                Please present any statistically based data you have that contradicts either of these reports.

              2. First, while some may be, many people are not voluntarily choosing to work part time. Many are forced to do so as a second job because of the high inflation the last several years or as a primary job for a variety of reasons

                Second, people who live paycheck to paycheck are most definitely being harmed by inflation. There was a short article in Axios today noting “A striking share of renters and homeowners across the U.S. are skipping essentials like meals and medical care to keep a roof over their heads”

                If you look at the chart in the article, included in the top sacrifices people say they’ve made recently in order to afford housing include

                21% working additional shifts
                15% Worked an EXTRA job
                15% Worked a SIDE HUSTLE like Uber or Food delivery

                That is a whole lot of people working extra, including 30% taking on new extra part time jobs because they had to.

                Others have skipped meals (22%), Sold belongings (21%), etc, etc.

                So please tell us how these people who are clearly living paycheck to paycheck are not being harmed by inflation

                https://www.axios.com/2024/04/06/housing-rent-mortgage-sacrfices-redfin-report-2024?

                1. Mav:

                  Sadly, it is about to get worse for the lower and middle income class. Many of the dollar stores are closing. 99 Cent Stores just announced that all 400 of their stores will shut down.

                  Dollar Tree and Dollar General are closing 100s of stores. I know some folks in the lower income bucket that depend on these stores to be able to afford cheaper grocery and cleaning items.

                  Honestly, anyone that posts on this site that truly believes that people living paycheck to paycheck have not been hurt by higher inflation needs to put down the bong immediately.

                  1. Kid Twist – you are right. I saw that news on the dollar stores and 99 cent stores closing. That will not be good for those already struggling and living paycheck to paycheck

                    Private – like you, I too have seen lots of people who are struggling to find full time work while trying to cobble together a living from multiple part time jobs.

                    Both of these facts to me do not point to a good economic situation. Combine that with what others have posted about business activity, commercial real estate issues, etc. and the outlook does not seem positive,
                    What that means for me from an investing perspective is while I try to stay near fully invested and do not try to time the market except on the margins , I have lightened up some on those margins (both with common and some preferreds), just hiding out in safe 5+ % MMFs and Treasuries

              3. Hi David, I’d like to make a suggestion. As you read info from different sources try to read it in a non political manner. The word “attack” in this article was clearly referring to families being attacked by inflation and not by any political party. Or, if you do not like the source of the info, simply don’t read the article. That works every time for me.

                1. Good suggestion Pete.

                  One other thing to note, is that if you are truly a professional trader. You leave politics at the door. As an individual, you have no power to change the outcome whether it lines up with your personal or political view of the world or not, but you always have a chance to make money based on taking advantage of whatever the situation is.

                  For myself, personally, I find price and technicals that evaluate sentiment and momentum to be more valuable than reading economic reports prepared with different bias(es). It is possible everyday to make money and necessary to be able to trade differently than what the ‘macro’ fundamental data suggests. Obviously you still need to be able to read a balance sheet and cash flow statements to make sure something isn’t going to zero.

                  Being a professional trader / investor means leaving politics at the door and being a mercenary for hire.

                  Having said that, I think its good and necessary to be able to read an opposing view point and not have to attack someone else because it differs from yours. It helps to build a necessary mental muscle that is necessary to live in the broader world. The world is bigger than one political party or the USA, for that matter.

                2. I don’t agree with your argument. Why should I read a political article by a right wing commentator in a non-political manner?

                  And if I don’t like the source of a political article posted here in violation of the site rules, why shouldn’t I express that?

                  The answer is not for me to ignore the people posting their right wing politics here, but for them to follow the site rules and stop posting them in the first place.

              4. David – Are you seriously arguing the raging inflation we’ve experienced isn’t hurting poor people? Go to a grocery store.

                This is such a goofy take. Clearly you’re only making this argument because of your political allegiances.

                Also, totally not surprising that you call for censorship when you read something you don’t agree with. It’s amazing how the other side doesn’t do that.

                FYI – If there is censorship of data points/economic opinions that are offensive to hardcore leftists, I couldn’t see myself posting on such a site.

                1. Going to a grocery store obviously only gives half the picture., since you can’t see wage inflation there. Where I live, wages have risen dramatically and don’t seem out of balance with prices. Obviously I don’t have complete data on that, but that is what I have observed. There are many signs that the economy here is healthy. I don’t see any evidence that poor people are worse off (or better off) than pre-pandemic.

                  I learned in econ class long ago that inflation hurts savers, benefits borrowers, and is about neutral for those who are neither. I haven’t observed anything that would contradict that.

                  Tim is the person who established the “no politics” rule. If you think that’s censorship, complain to him, not me.

                  1. I looked at my 2023 expenses and I see that my food costs went up 6.7% year over year. I’m not sure I would call that raging inflation. Based on second hand information, it seems in line or less than wage increases in my area.

                    I saw much larger increases in property tax (mostly due to political maneuverings in my state) and insurance premiums.

                    1. As Tex noted – “WSJ had an article where they went and bought food products at grocery stores. They reported prices had increased 36.6% over the last 4 years compared to the BLS number of 25.2%.”

                      Nearly a 40% increase in the cost of groceries since 2000 is RAGING inflation. Especially for those living paycheck to paycheck. Not sure how anyone could argue otherwise.

                    2. OK, I went back to my 2020 expenses, and found that from 2020 to 2023, my food costs increased … by all of 4.3%. Weird. I guess I must be a better shopper than the WSJ. (Actually I don’t clip coupons or anything – I do all of my shopping at one local supermarket and Costco.)

                    3. I checked my spreadsheet for orders placed at WalMart. For the past 3-1/2 years, the average cost of identical items was up 22%.

                      Where I really got whacked was my home insurance – up 70% last year.

                    4. David – I’m too busy trying to make money to argue with you. The things you’re saying are so idiotic that I don’t think they warrant a response from anyone. Good luck with your next booster shot!

          2. David,
            Not to get into the middle of this disagreement, but the data in the article you linked shows that almost half of respondents who “voluntarily” chose part time work did so for “other” reasons. That tells me that their survey wasn’t very well thought out (i.e. if their survey returns 40+% other, they need to rethink the answer choices they are offering).

            Also not clear that the “voluntary” vs. “involuntary” line is reasonable. If someone has child/family care obligations that prevent them from working full time, I suspect it doesn’t feel very “voluntary” to them.

            All of these articles are trying to “weaponize” data to push their various agendas. I think some do it with much smoother words and some are much more subtle, but all are pushing a position (political or otherwise).

            1. @Private, yes “voluntary” and “involuntary” need to be very rigorously defined or different criteria needs to be used to get an accurate understanding. Also what is the definition of part time work. My wife’s job didn’t require 40 hrs/wk work yet she had a good medical plan, pension and vacation time. So her “part time work” had equal or better compensation than some full time jobs.
              Statistical data can often be misleading.

            2. I don’t agree with your “they all do it” argument. The article I linked did a great job of discussing the topic without pushing an agenda:

              https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2024/03/11/a-closer-look-at-full-time-and-part-time-employment

              And danzeb, of course voluntary and involuntary are rigorously defined. If they weren’t, there would be no way to compare numbers reported at different times. Remember that these numbers have been collected since 1968. They can’t suddenly change their methodology.

              The definition of part time work is clearly stated as less than 35 hours per week.

              1. I was trying to not respond to you. But the article posted by Potter pushed no agenda either

                You simply read it through your partisan perspective and took exception to the word “attack”. As Pete pointed out, the word “attack” in that article was clearly referring to families being attacked by inflation and there was ZERO mention of any political party.

                If you are going to read articles like the one Potter posted and cry that “And if I don’t like the source of a political article posted here in violation of the site rules, why shouldn’t I express that?” then I suggest you grow some thicker skin. Potter’s article simply dissected the employment report, a relevant topic here and certainly not in violation of any rules, and placed no blame nor mention on any political party

              2. David,
                You volunteered “And danzeb, of course voluntary and involuntary are rigorously defined.” What are those “rigorously defined” definitions? One definition of voluntary work is work that a person does not get paid for. I’m guessing that’s not it.

              3. David,
                not to whip up more ire, but the BLS changes methodologies with great regularity.

                Every quarter, some part of their methodology changes on some of the various metrics they track. Most changes are implemented to (hopefully) drive better metrics, but (IMHO), some are implemented improve the “optics” of some measurement that is important to the sitting president. BLS is overseen by a political appointee put in place by the president, so I don’t think that should be surprising to anyone that they “shape” data to support their “boss”.

                I haven’t checked, but I can accept that the line between part- and full-time has been 35 hours since the 1960s, but you have to go crawl through all the other metrics (and the supporting documents) to see what has changed (and when) with respect to the other things they reported (like “voluntary” and the sub-groups of reasons) to understand the data.

                BLS is good about publishing what changes they make in their methodologies, but that rarely makes it news articles, let alone headlines. Also note that BLS regularly says that data before x date is not comparable with data after that date because of methodology changes – but writers use the data across those dates to make comparisons anyway. It makes for simpler stories with “punchy” headlines. Unfortunately, you usually have to go read back quarter-by-quarter to see the cumulative changes. Too much work for most reporters in today’s “quick story” world.

                I think we had this same discussion about BLS and its methodologies a couple of months ago when there was a series of posts about unemployment rate announcements being revised downward for many months in a row. Apologies if I am mis-remembering.

    1. Yes Potter, I have read similar reports on the data that all of the job growth in the last 12 months was due to part time jobs – so I believe that is accurate

      Why is that. Well many speculate that:

      1. Some just don’t want to work as hard after the pandemic
      2. Some are having to work multiple part time jobs in order to live after the record high inflation we have had the last few years
      3. Some are being filled by foreign born individuals

      We have seen how the jobs report has been overstated nearly every month over the last year or more – so I am not sure how anyone can rely on it accurately at this point to make decisions. I expect that game playing with the report will continue the rest of the year

      1. Maverick, my personal thoughts FWIW, don’t personally think anything is being rigged. But maybe the dynamics in part by what you are saying may be affecting things. Additionally I have heard on CNBC before that government has also cited they get incomplete data because many respondents they count on to submit data don’t bother to give them any.
        Kind of reminds me back in the day the old UPI NCAA top 20 coaches football poll. It was found out the coaches didn’t even bother to fill it out. They just had the secretaries do it so they wouldn’t have to be bothered with it.

      2. There are factors that limit employment growth.
        Unemployment rates are historically low at numbers some consider full employment.
        Many of those currently unemployed probably don’t match the requirements of the available jobs. As a result long term unemployed is about 20% of those unemployed.

      3. Mav,
        One other major factor (IMHO) about part time vs. full time jobs – lots of employers have increased the number of part time jobs they offer and reduced full timers. This allows them to offer benefits to fewer people (saves money).

        More importantly, it makes it easier to “flex” their labor costs by raising and lowering the number of hours PT folks get to work (making labor a variable cost).
        Although just anecdotal, I get to talk to a lot of young people and lots of recent immigrants who are struggling to find full time work while trying to cobble together a living from multiple part time jobs. It seems to be a constant struggle to negotiate hours with employers who want 8 hours this week, then 30 hours the next week, and 10 hours the following (and never on the same days/times).

        I think employers try to make it hard for people to have multiple part time jobs so they can have maximum flexibility for themselves. A lot of these people end up quitting a jobs/having to get a new one because they can’t get an employer to help them juggle multiple schedules (“you either work the hours I assign you or I will get someone who will”).

  8. I recently signed up for the Fidelity program where you allow them to “Borrow” securities from your portfolio and in return they pay you interest on the “loan” over a few days or longer.

    I don’t trade much and I have some pretty large positions just sitting there so I thought why not (at least in the IRA where I wont pay taxes on their interest payments).

    Oddly, the two securities that they have been “borrowing” the most are MS/L and TFC/O. I guess they have a need for them but it was a surprise to me to see them borrow preferred shares while all the common positions I have they have showed little interest.

    1. What rates are they paying on the 2 names that you mention?

      Don’t they gross up the payments-in-lieu to reduce the tax impact?

      1. If the borrower of your shares is short the stock on the ex-dividend date, he pays you the dividend in the form of payment in lieu. Payment in lieu of dividend is not tax qualified. IOW, you lose qualified dividend status and its lower tax rate.

        1. Yes, that is obvious, so the brokerages are aware of it and usually gross up payments in lieu when made to taxable accounts.

          You’ve motivated me to look at the Fidelity Fully Paid Lending page, and here is what they say:

          “In order to mitigate the impact of cash-in-lieu payments to taxable accounts, Fidelity may return shares prior to a dividend record date. To help offset the potential tax burden associated with the receipt of cash-in-lieu payments in place of qualified dividends (as defined in the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003), Fidelity will credit participating taxable accounts with an additional credit adjustment equal to 26.98% of the qualified portion of the distribution. This adjustment will occur annually after all reclassification information is made available.”

          Of course that doesn’t help with QBI and ROC distributions – I guess there’s always a loophole.

      2. They are giving me 2.63%. I have decent sized position in both of these so I am getting like $7.50 a day for the week or so I have been enrolled.

        Like others have said my understanding is they make you whole on the dividends should they hold them through that period so this will be interesting to watch.

        The only annoying thing is I get an email each morning saying my transaction has been processed and I am thinking “what transaction?! – its my $7.50.

    2. Most common stocks are liquid so the likelihood of your shares being loaned for shorting is low. OTOH, preferred stocks can be very illiquid and are more likely to be borrowed.

    3. Hi Porky, how does Fidelity report the interest earned through this program? Just a simple 1099 form or more complicated tax treatment?

      1. So here is what should happen.
        other income for the fees received, on a 1099MISC
        also, any dividends paid while they are out on loan would be paid as a substitute payment on the 1099MISC and not the 1099DIV, so the dividend loses its qualified status.

        1. Does the loan of shares mess up your holding period for capital gains?

          I wouldn’t think so, but I know the IRS often has different ideas than I do….

  9. I’m wondering if QOL has the correct 5yr rate for EBBGF:
    Notes: Rate declared for period 06/01/2023 to 06/01/2028 is 6.7037%
    however, the rate should be the 5yr treas = 3.7% (per Fred 6/1/23) + 3.14%
    = 6.84% ($1.71 /yr) ( all based on $25 price)
    SA shows 1.68 = 6.72%
    E-trade 1.676 = 6.704%
    Maybe there is another 5yr rate? Anyone know if QOL is right or wrong?

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS5

      1. GUMFIGHTER & sailing
        ” ..Rate will be $1.00 until the first redemption date, then it will be equal to the sum of the Non-callable 5 Year United States Treasury bond on the applicable fixed rate calculation date plus 3.14%,” ( on QOL)

        It’s possible there is a Canadian version- not sure.

        They must have used a different date than 6/1/23 to get the US 5yr treasury.

  10. MGRE (new AMG issue) with 6.75% coupon has come back down. Spiked to $25.69 a few days after hitting the market. Currently trading at $25.24.

  11. Was actually able to get some HMLPF on Fidelity today at $13.90. Seems like a great risk/reward play on LNG. Their Q4 filing looked quite positive with most of their fleet on fixed, long term charters.

    1. Chris – I’ve been building a HMLPF position at Fidelity myself. The company has been greatly de-risked with the Lampung arbitration settled favorably (see https://hoeghlng.com/investor-relations/news/news-details/2024/HEGH-LNG-Arbitrations-with-charterer-of-PGN-FSRU-Lampung-Settled/default.aspx ). And recently Bloomberg reported that Höegh LNG (and its Morgan Stanley Infrastructure partner) is shopping the company around:
      _____
      Höegh LNG Owners Are Exploring a Sale of Gas Infrastructure Firm
      Morgan Stanley infra arm, Leif Höegh working with advisers
      Owners explore strategic options for LNG joint venture

      By Gillian Tan and Dinesh Nair
      March 18, 2024 at 11:13 AM PDT
      The owners of Höegh LNG Holdings are exploring a potential sale of the operator of floating liquefied natural gas terminals, people familiar with the matter said.
      Morgan Stanley Infrastructure Partners and Oslo-based Leif Höegh & Co. are speaking with an adviser about a range of strategic options for the company, according to the people.
      (Article continues)
      _____
      Gift link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-18/hoegh-lng-owners-said-to-explore-sale-of-gas-infrastructure-firm?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTcxMjI2Mjk5OSwiZXhwIjoxNzEyODY3Nzk5LCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJTQUU2NFRUMVVNMFcwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiI3REVFMTNBRjU2Nzc0NEE0ODQ4RkRCNDI2M0Y1Mzc5QiJ9.FQqypAJzTNvZzPLe1-tOa6oO4Q-K7oYyaOgRpUkdQwA (valid for 7 days)

      1. Chris, Given the history of preferreds not being paid given delisting and corporate shenanigans, are you not concerned the preferreds will be left stranded by the new owners (assuming a sale). TIA

    2. Chris – Are you able to get that filled on your own placing a limit order or do you have to call the Fidelity trade desk?

      We should come up with a complete excommunicado/expert market list if this is the case and which remaining broker(s) is best at facilitating buy-side trades. There are are some huge yields to be had out there if this is the case and I’d take this 15%+ yield all day long on HMLPF over an annuity.

      Remember when a bunch of us were loading the boat on that Ocean Spray preferred between $13-$15? Good times.

      1. Theta – Fidelity has never in my experience put any barriers in front of buying issues like HMLPF, the Ladenburg/Osaic preferred shares LTSAP and senior notes like LTSH and LTSK, or any other OTC / expert market securities. It’s a simple online trade like any other security provided you use limit orders. No OTC fees are charged, no phone calls required. I opened a tiny IBKR account so I could see the bid, ask, and size of these issues to guide the trades at Fidelity – for some reason they’re the only broker that shows this info.

  12. I’m looking at new issue CDs at TD sorted by coupon. The highest is Chase 5.35%, 15 months, call 6 months. And then Tradition Capital Bank 5.3%, one month, no call. One month…bonkers! (One month bills are 5.47% according to one source.) I’m weirdly tempted.

    1. FWIW, Wells Fargo is offering a $525 bonus for opening a savings account with $25k for 3 months. That’s 2.10% and 8.40% annualized (simple). The offer expires April 9, 2024 and is for new savings customers only.

      1. yeah, but then you would have to business with the crooks at Wells Fargo.

        I wonder whether they will pay you a bonus for each of the “phantom” accounts they will open in your name without your knowledge?

        1. If doing business with Wells Fargo is against your religion, I respect that.

          I do my banking with them online so it’s impossible for them to open “phantom” accounts without my knowledge. In addition, I get an E-mail every day if there is a transaction or my account balance changes so again, it’s impossible to be charged a fee without my knowledge.

          I already have a savings account with them so this bonus isn’t available to me.

  13. Back at the tax free happy 😊 window, I bought:
    CUSIP 88046KJY3 Tennessee Housing Development Agency Residential Finance Revenue coupon 4.70% due 7/1/49 AA1/AA+/AA1 Underlying @ $100.348 with YTW/YTM/YTC/YTS all about 4.66% Guaranteed by multiple governmental agencies Sink starts 1/1/45
    This specific tax free bond is right for one or more of my trust income ladders, all reading this must decide if this bond (or any other investment) is right for their portfolio and NEVER rely on someone unknown that may or may not have your best “interest” in mind behind a computer. Do not believe anyone that tells you their investments always are winners and they are smarter than the markets…
    Games are won by players who focus on the playing field –- not by those whose eyes are glued to the scoreboard, A

        1. Azure i’ve heard bonds sometimes have “sinking funds” but I’ve never heard
          the term “yield to Sinker” what does it mean ,?

    1. too funny ; that link took me to a series of Dirty Happy Movie clips! was this intentional ?; IMHO it’s debatable if this security will make it to 2026 .

    2. I had a small position I bought for a quick dividend capture and got caught in a quick downturn. The biggest risk of doing dividend captures without knowing enough.

    3. I took a look at TPTA. Not sure but beginning to suspect they have breached their covenants. I know last filing said they were in compliance. If you look all their debt has been extended and the covenants released. I assume they breached those covenants and it is an “extend and pretend”. Paying higher rates on their debt for these extensions.
      The prospectus states US Bank is the trustee. US Bank is the only creditor that did not renew with Terra. I have a friend in corporate trust at US Bank. He looked and per the data in computer at US Bank they are only the paying agent and NOT the trustee. My friend did state the US Bank data system could be wrong. I wanted to ask him to further check but that request felt out of bounds.
      Someone posted they were contacting Terra IR. Would be interested in knowing the reply. I don’t think this is just someone selling as price should have stabilized.
      For now, I am holding off any purchase. Would like to verify the trustee and Terra is in Compliance. This is external managed and I have no doubt these managers will strip Terra clean before any Terra investor recovers.

    4. FWIW…I did track down CFO of Terra and asked as result of merger Terra Fund 6 (TFSA) & Terra LLC back in Oct’22 if the two were pari-passu…. He responded that TFSA (Terra Fund 6) is a wholly owned sub of TPTA and when pressed if the assets in Terra 6 could be used for P&I on listed TPTA baby bond he responded “Yes” Note that TPTA ~85 mil outstanding & TFSA ~ 35 mil…. They are current on common divy (5% monthly, non-listed shares) and last year common divy was 100% ROC. He had no opinion on large market price discrepancy between the two…….. Careful out there…

      1. JM, Thanks for the information. My friend at US Bank called me and said he had researched the issue of US Bank being listed as trustee. It seems US Bank data entry is incorrect (and now corrected). US bank is the trustee and all securities are within covenants. (He did mention as I posted the covenants for the debt have all been lowered by banks for renewal purposes.)

        Do you suppose TFSA will be redeemed or recovery near 100% While TFSA recovery (if not redeemed) will be less? It does seem someone knows something!

  14. Does anyone follow AQNB closely? I have a very small position and don’t follow the company very closely.

    Did the language around potential redemption recently change in the company’s financials? This is what I saw in the Q3 2023 report:

    “The Company’s subordinated unsecured notes have a maturity in 2079 and 2082, respectively. However, the Company currently anticipates repaying such notes in advance of maturity upon exercise of the Company’s redemption rights in accordance with the terms of the applicable indenture.”
    https://s25.q4cdn.com/253745149/files/doc_financials/2023/q3/Q3-2023-Quarterly-Report.pdf (see PDF page 43)

    In the Q2 2022 filing, the footnote referenced redemption of AQNB in 2029:

    “The Company’s subordinated unsecured notes have a maturity in 2078, 2079, and 2082, respectively. However, the Company currently anticipates repaying such notes in 2023, 2029, and 2032, respectively, upon exercising its redemption right.”
    https://s25.q4cdn.com/253745149/files/doc_financials/2023/q2/2022-AQN-AR_Q2-8_10d.pdf (see PDF page 41)

    I’m curious if I should interpret that to mean they are now planning for an earlier redemption?

    1. Yes, even though they have a float-to-fix swap in place for AQNB through 2029, it appears they changed their minds and are planning to redeem it in 2024.

      Kind of unusual they disclose what they currently anticipate several quarters before the reset date. Maybe it’s a Canadian thing?

      1. Yes must be a Canadian thing. It’s polite to let your investors know your anticipated intentions so they don’t overpay for your securities. I wish all companies did this.

    2. I emailed AQN investor relations about AQNB and this is what they sent to me earlier today. AQNB will begin to float on 7/1/2024 (assuming it does not get called) at the 3 month plus 4.01%. It traded under $25 today.

      —————————————–
      Original Question:

      I noticed that the footnote in the financial statements which describes early redemption of the 2079 and 2082 notes recently changed. Previously, it was mentioned that the company anticipated repaying the notes in 2029 and 2032. The updated version just states that the company “anticipates repaying such notes in advance of maturity.”

      I was wondering if you could provide me with any additional color on possible early redemptions. Is it expected that both issues will be redeemed at the first possible call dates?
      —————————————–
      Response from AQN IR:

      Thank you for your patience while I looked into this with our treasury team.

      The next tranche of notes with an upcoming call date will still receive equity treatment by our credit ratings agencies for another five years after it becomes callable. Accordingly, we do not expect to call those notes. This is in contrast to the last set of callable notes, in which the callable date coincided with the loss of equity treatment.

      1. See page 71 of the following PDF (Q4 2023 AQN Financial Statements). It discusses cash flow hedges and interest rate swaps. It looks like a swap for AQNB exists and expires in July 2029.

        https://s25.q4cdn.com/253745149/files/doc_financials/2023/q4/2023-Q4-Exhibit-99-2-Financial-Statements.pdf

        “The Company mitigates the risk that interest rates will increase over the life of certain term loan facilities by entering into the following interest rate swap contracts. For an interest rate swap or cross-currency interest rate swap designated as hedging the exposure to variable cash flows of a future transaction, the effective portion of this derivative’s gain or loss is initially reported as a component of other comprehensive income (loss) and subsequently reclassified into earnings once the future transaction impacts earnings. Amounts for interest rate contracts are reclassified to earnings as interest expense over the term of the related debt.”

        1. Hmm, if IR is to be believed it appears there is a disconnect between the Accounting and Treasury departments. But I’m not sure if that explanation about the equity treatment of AQNB vs AQNA makes any sense.

          I’d love for them to let AQNB float at around 9.6%, but I’m not holding my breath. Not much question they could refi at a lower rate today,

          1. It looks like the 2019 annual statement describes the interest rate swaps on AQNB:

            “In September 2019, the Company entered into a forward-starting interest rate swap in order to reduce the interest rate risk related to the quarterly interest payments between July 1, 2024 and July 1, 2029 on the subordinated unsecured notes (note 9(e)). The Company designated the entire notional amount of the three pay-variable and receive-fixed interest rate swaps as a hedge of the future quarterly variable-rate interest payments associated with the subordinated unsecured notes.”

            https://s25.q4cdn.com/253745149/files/doc_financials/2022/ar/2022-AQN-Annual-Report-vF2.pdf (PDF page 127)

            On page 50, the 2019 annual statement mentions a 2029 redemption for AQNB and a 2023 redemption for AQNA.

            “The subordinated notes have a maturity in 2078 and 2079, however management intends to repay in 2023 and 2029 upon exercising its redemption right.”

            One can never know for certain if an issue will be called or not. I guess we’ll see.

          2. The overall financial improvement of the company could have allowed the credit agencies to allow it. This stuff can always be a bit fluid, and agencies and company typically work together on stuff like this. That being said, I always agree with you on having a suspicious eye of issues way above market yield. The key on these for me is to buy willing to accept the fact it may not stay outstanding long, and an entry point where a call loss would not occur.
            I dont know if I will buy, but its appealing to me for the above reasons.

            1. I wish I could find more detail about the interest swaps but haven’t been successful yet. I wonder how much actual “pain” they’d experience from higher floating rates.

              With the swaps, perhaps they don’t have much incentive to actually call it? The initial floating rate coupon might be 9.5%, but who would bear the ultimate economic cost?

              1. My floating rate subordinated debt issue from PPL has been floating since 2017. The current coupon is 8.23% (3 month plus 2.66%). It’s rated BBB/Baa2. I’d imagine they could’ve refinanced this one cheaper as well but it hasn’t happened yet.

                PPL mentions interest rate swaps in their financials also:

                Interest Rate Risk
                • PPL and its subsidiaries are exposed to interest rate risk associated with forecasted fixed-rate and existing floating-rate debt issuances. PPL and LG&E utilize over-the-counter interest rate swaps to limit exposure to market fluctuations on floating rate debt.

                https://filecache.investorroom.com/mr5ir_pplweb2/1107/2023_PPL_Annual_Report.pdf (PDF page 151)

  15. CFG-D I’ve not been paying close attention, but do I have this right? CFG-D will set its first floating rate tomorrow and because it is callable on 30 days notice on dividend payment dates only, it will remain outstanding at least until 7/6. That should mean coupon should become something like 8.99% for the quarter ending 7/6. With Baa3 rating from Moody’s that sounds pretty good I would think

    1. Yes, its first floating rate dividend will be paid in early July. I have it at closer to 9.2% but haven’t checked the numbers lately.

      Even buying here at 25.19 means you’d see an IRR of roughly 6.6%, even if they call it as soon as possible, so as long as the bank is safe it seems like a decent issue. (I own some, but was hoping they’d have called it.)

      1. CFG-E is callable 1/2025 and is yielding less than 6%. Not apples to apples obviously, given ftof vs. fixed but it does seem that one of these issues is mispriced.

    2. I had posted the following back in early February. I’m unable to find the specific message to reference as I aooear to lack the understanding on how to effectively use the search function on here. I fully expected a call, but perhaps something’s changed or just delayed. I’m OK with hold this at the floating rate 🙂

      ———————————————————–
      I was looking for place to put some short term funds and saw this mentioned on another site.

      CFG-D is callable on 4/6/24, trading under $25 redemption, I picked up shares at $24.40. Looks like it will be called as 8K filed on1/23 regarding a new issue:

      https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/us/citizens/SEC/sec-show.aspx?FilingId=17199662&Cik=0000759944&Type=PDF&hasPdf=1

      “On January 23, 2024, Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) completed the issuance and sale (the “Offering”) of $1.25 billion aggregate principal amount of 5.841% Fixed/Floating Rate Senior Notes due 2030 (the “Notes”). ”

      The 8K mentions that funds will be used:
      “The Company intends to use the net proceeds of the Offering for general corporate purposes, which may include securities repurchase programs, dividend payments, capital expenditures, working capital, repayment or reduction of long-term and short-term debt, redemption of outstanding longterm debt, short-term debt and preferred equity securities, investing in, or extending credit to, our subsidiaries, and the financing of acquisitions. The Company has not identified the amounts it will spend on any specific purpose.”

      The IPO shows this was $300 million facility at issuance. So with $1.25 billion seems likely they’ll redeem this. If it’s called that’s will be $25.40 (redemption plus dividend) that’s $1.00 in dividend/gain which is 4% return (XIRR of 24%). Certainly beats a money market return for short term funds.

      If it’s not called then will reprice at SOFR+ 3.642%+.26161% adjustment, so about 9.25% rate which I’m OK then with funds invested for longer term.

  16. Saw that TRPPF (Series 7) holders are being given the option to stay with 5.985% fixed rate or switch to Series 8 (floating, currently at 7.379%). Any holders thinking of switching?

    1. Check the prospectus. Typically these Canadian reset issues require a large percentage of holders to elect to switch to floating, else everyone gets the default 5 Year reset rate. I rarely see the switch succeed.

  17. ( Bostic ), Fed Voting Member Wed. FF Rate comments …
    SPY Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic (voting FOMC member): Still expecting one rate cut this year and that rate cut should take place in the fourth quarter ….
    Mr. Bostic said:
    The economy is maintaining its strong momentum.
    He is not hearing that demand is getting faster or slower, just staying consistent.
    He thinks inflation will come down slower than many people have expected, which is why he tried to pull back expectations on rate cuts.
    He still expects one rate cut this year and that rate cut should take place in the fourth quarter.
    Inflation has been become more “bumpy.”
    He doesn’t think the Fed will reach 2% inflation until 2026.

  18. Tax question. I am US citizen and this was my first year owning ENB preferred that I bought on Canadian exchange through Interactive Brokers. I got form NR4 from Canada related to that income. But as I understand that income was already included with IB 1099-DIV form (at least I see there the right amount of foreign income tax paid – I don’t have another security on this account that causes foreign taxation). Am I right and if so what should I do with this form? Thank you!

  19. Are there two ALL-B’s?!

    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/899051/000104746913000048/a2212216z424b5.htm
    references “5.100% Fixed-To-Floating Rate Subordinated Debentures due 2053”, floated at 15 jan 2023 at “three-month LIBOR plus 3.165%”. Further, it says “We intend to apply to have the Debentures approved for listing on the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”) under the symbol “ALL.PR.B”, which leads me to refer to it as ‘Series B’.

    But in his comment from 27 mar (https://innovativeincomeinvestor.com/sandbox-page/comment-page-10/#comment-113959), writing about ALL-B, Dick Whitman included this link:
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/899051/000110465913059936/a13-14234_2fwp.htm
    which references “SERIES B 5.750% FIXED-TO-FLOATING RATE SUBORDINATED DEBENTURES DUE 2053”, which started floating at “Three-month LIBOR plus 2.938%, accruing from and including August 15, 2023.”

    I can see that these are completely separate issues, but I’m confused why they both seem to be labelled Series B

    What am I missing?

    1. ALL has 2 separate junior subordinated debt issues that are currently floating.

      1) CUSIP: 020002309 which trades with the symbol ALL-B
      2) CUSIP: 020002BB6 (Series B) which can be purchased through the bond desk at your broker

      CUSIP: 020002AU5 (Series A) is also trades through the bond desk. It’s a fixed to floater but hasn’t started floating yet. Here is the FWP for Series A:
      https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/899051/000110465907035668/a07-13264_1fwp.htm

      The most recent 10-K describes all 3 of these issues (see pages 167-168):
      https://www.allstateinvestors.com/static-files/e16e5a33-abc6-4544-b486-df19cbaf3db4

  20. Fidelity is imposing a $100 commission (“servicing fee”) on purchases of ETFs from 9 smaller fund families. I take it that the ETF families declined to pay Fidelity a kickback of some sort. ( “Support fees.” ) The fund families are Simplify Asset Management, AXS Investments, Day Hagan, Sterling Capital, Cambiar, Regents Park, Rayliant, Adaptive and Running Oak. I don’t own any of the funds, but I think Simplify has some creative offerings. I check their ETF list from time to time for their strategies.

    Fidelity says the list is in flux. This leads me to wonder out loud if Fidelity will decide to start adding “surcharges” on ETFs that undercut lucrative Fidelity products by charging lower management fees. Fidelity’s money funds charge much higher fees than say Vanguard which IMHO accounts for Vanguard MMFs consistently higher yields. If Vanguard’s over 5%, you’ll never see 5.0% from SPAXX because the skim is too high.

    Funds like BIL, SGOV and similar near-cash funds that hold essentially the same Treasury assets as Fidelity can be more than competitive with Fidelity’s MMF’s because their ETF fees are lower than Fidelity’s. SPAXX 0.42%. BIL 0.15%, Just sayin’

    Fidelity to charge $100 servicing fee on some ETFs
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fidelity-to-charge-100-servicing-fee-on-some-etfs-ee2186fb?mod=home_mostpopular

    JMO. DYODD.

    1. I see nothing wrong with this at all. A brokerage has to make money and Fidelity and others can’t offer every product out there for free

      These seem to be niche ETF families. Fidelity offers over 2500 fee free ETFs from a wide variety of sources – Fidelity, Ishares, Schwab, Vanguard, Goldman Sachs, Invesco, etc, etc, etc – more than enough for someone to find something that fits their needs

      1. And you can go to another broker in the case it bothers you.

        As long as Fidelity lets me trade a decent list of expert market for no commission and otc for no commission I am good with them.

        1. Here is the original article.
          https://archive.is/ZBXGW
          There is a comment in the article that mutual funds have been bleeding assets and ETF’s have gained assets. Fidelity is charging the ETF’s to list them on their platform. There is no such thing as free. All the platforms, Vanguard, Schwab, Fidelity etc. have to find ways to pay for the “free” trades.

        2. Can you provide a few names on the “decent list of expert market” securities that Fido lets you trade with zero commission?

          I know about SLMNP, but what are some others?

          1. I still buy the Osaic (used to be LTS) baby bonds and it’s preferred issue, the Amtrust baby bonds, and HMPLF (which still pays but higher risk). Whether these are decent is up to you.

            Used to trade GMLPF but out of that issue due to parent company raiding assets.

            Trading EAGPP which is grey market right now before official listing commission free.

            I also bought SLMNP post delisting on Fidelity.

            Might be good for folks here to put together an all inclusive list.

  21. TECTP – I’ve had a full position of this issue for a few years and this little 9% gem has performed nicely. The bank is consistently profitable and its capital ratios are way above average. The issue floats to just over 12% on 5/15/24. It’s been trading a bit stronger since last ex-date which I attribute to the possibility of it not being called. The issue is tiny compared to total assets and while I don’t have any data, it may largely be held by insiders as the common is. If so, it likely won’t be called.

    1. I owned it back “in the good old days” and rang a nice cap gain riding it back to par. Havent been in this in a while. Probably the damndest issue on the market. Not in terms of its yield or financials. But the fact this private company goes through all the costs associated with a market traded issue and SEC filings over a puny ~$15 million or whatever preferred issuance. Most companies going private delist a preferred anytime or chance they get to delist a preferred. And yet this one hasn’t and certainly hasn’t alluded to ever wanting to.

      1. Grid – I think you are the one that originally mentioned TECTP. A big thank you. The issue totals a measly $17M out of assets of $645M. Why indeed do they incur the cost of maintaining this public issue? They don’t need the Tier 1 capital of this issue since their ratios are well above “well capitalized.” The thought that comes to mind is that insiders own a large chunk so hopefully it won’t be called next month.

    2. TECTP no downside up to par+next div = 10 + 0.225 = 10.225. Ex-div ~May 3. Call or float May 15. Either you get called break even or own a possible runner. Trades thin.

    3. I bought 520 shares of this a few years back and I just sit here milking the cow. Once or twice a year I check their website and reports. I was curious what they plan to do with it since it will float. I fully expect it to get called. 12% would be too good to be true.

  22. Interesting April Fool’s Day morning market action:
    – 10-year yield (TNX) sharply up and at recent highs, which is also the high from Oct 2022. Chart suggests possible move to 4.9%
    – PFF dropped below the Dec uptrend line. Correction starting?
    – Crude futures 84.5, +1.5%. Inflation pressure on treasury yields?
    – More convoluted: USD (DXY) up against euro. Demand for dollars increases with higher oil price. Treasury selling abroad pushes yields higher.

    What else?

    1. The move in long rates is pretty interesting.

      It’s worth being cautious. If short rates stay put and long rates blow out–in other words, if the market truly starts trading like “higher for longer” is the new reality–then perpetual preferreds are going to get taken to the toolshed.

      1. Toolshed for a beat down and buying opportunity? All tenors 2 years and higher up sharply today and stayed up, unlike some other assets that held or gained in the face of higher yields (NDX, gold, crude). No crystal ball.

        If the 10- and 30-year yields go much higher, it will look like a breakout. Then narrative will follow price.

        Long rates currently are a mismatch with the level of deficit spending. If you know why, please tell. Inquiring minds need to know.

  23. Still watching TPTA & TFSA with their low volume and huge difference is pricing. TPTA down some this morning. Next ex-dividend 6/14 paying 11.8%. Still don’t see any news. I have some TPTA.

  24. Gridbird;
    Got a question on a $50 issue, I know you are very knowledgeable on a lot of these. I am rolling over the last 20K left in my old 401K to my traditional IRA account. The account is already earning enough for our needs, so I want to buy something above CD rates, but relatively safe from being called or worse.
    What do you think about splitting it evenly between CNTHP and CNLPL ?

    1. Hi Bill, just a few thoughts using base assumption you are comfortable holding all your $50k in Connecticut Light preferreds. These 2 issues are about 6.2% current yield, and roughly a bit above their call price, with base assumption a call isnt happening. All 13 Connecticut Light and Power preferreds are equal standing, so one isnt “safer” than the other in terms of getting paid.
      One my first ever purchases of a preferred was CNLPL probably a dozen or so years ago. That being said, I presently own two recently purchased CLP preferreds but they are CNTHN and CNTHO (bought in $39s and $42). My thought is to consider some CLP issues with close to the 6.2% present yield CNLPL and CNTHP have, but with prices well under par like the above mentioned or others. The reason being at least you have a chance for better capital appreciation.
      Being illiquid they all will bounce around based on buy/sell imbalances, but ultimately return to their value. I have owned probably all of them at one point or another and had a lot of them last fall when they spiked near and over 7%. But have sold them off and trade around the edges now. You could lump NSARO and NSARP into those 13 also to look at. I wouldnt chase down to 6% on others. One can get these other ones 20% and more below par near same yield as those two if patient. This is just my thoughts. Doesnt make it the right choice for you, however.

      1. Gridbird;
        I just have 20K to rollover, wish it was 50K 🙂 I see your point, for a very few basis points less income one could make a large capital gain at some point, especially if rates come down. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, I have some due diligence to do, but the ones you mentioned are certainly in the ballpark of what I am looking for. Once again, thank you for sharing your expertise.

        1. Sorry, Bill, I knew it was $20k, but then old age got me focused on the $50 (par) for some reason and I forgot, ha!

              1. Its got to be old age. My lovely GF occassionally gets on one sided conversations that I had zero interest in listening to. She would accuse me of not listening, but I could always repeat the last 4 or 5 words she said to throw her off track and believe I was. Now, I get busted all the time for not listening because I cant do that anymore. But…when it comes down to brass tacks of punching dollar amounts to buy or sell, the attention and focus is still there thankfully….even on the golf course, ha.

    2. Some of the Union Electric preferreds offer 6% return with potential captial appreciation as do the NMKC shares.

  25. MS-E (7.125%) and MS-F (6.875%) are now fixed and not F2F. Does anyone have an opinion or knowledge of potential call for these two issues? They both went down at the end of the week. Thanks.

    1. Whidbey Islander;
      I have no insight as to if and when they may be called, but both issues went x-dividend on March 27, so it is normal to drop in price about the same amount as the dividend.

    2. Selling in the last 20 minutes was high volume in many Investment-Grade Preferred Stocks. While MS-E and MS-F, both BBB-rated, had 15K selling volumes higher, rated BBB+ PSA-S and PSA-P had 25K and 65K volumes, respectively. Clearly, a mutual fund or an institutional investor was repositioning. Your MS-E and MS-F have yield-to-call of .05441 and .05676, respectively. They will pay you better than a 13 week T-Bill.

      1. End of quarter is often wild. It pays to have your hand on the trigger finger the last few minutes.

  26. End of quarter positioning in AT&T Preferreds and Baby Bonds?
    Today, at about 3:51 EDT, the four issues got hit on huge volume.
    T-A down ~3.2% on ~7x normal volume
    T-C down ~2.6% on ~8x normal volume (800K!)
    TBB down ~ 2.7% on ~7x normal volume
    TBC down ~ 1.7% on ~4x normal volume
    AT&T common … up slightly on slightly less than normal volume.

    1. ATT data breach ~ 73 million account holders info leaked onto the dark web, apparently breach has been known for the past 2 weeks, just announced to public today.

      Maybe it is just coincidental??

Leave a Reply

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