Triton International OTC Symbol

Finally the OTC Grey market symbol was announced for the new Triton International 8.50% perpetual preferred.

The symbol is TPNRF.

We do not see the symbol set up at eTrade or Fido at this time.

10 thoughts on “Triton International OTC Symbol”

  1. What’s the story on Cincinnati Bell Prfd 6.75%, $50 par, waaaay past call, trading at $38.60 with X-Div tomorrow. Something about being a Convertible and ownership change back a few years. Looks dangerous!

    1. I owned and made good off the bottom, sold at $38, picked up a div. Here’s what I learned: New young management, took on debt to buy a fiber optic main line that runs to Asia via Hawaii to west coast. Looks like a revenue toll gate.
      Companies like CTL/Qwest (Qwest LT BBs ) are out there too. I just sold my CTDD for a good gain pre-ex-div. CTL just bot out Level3 for a very good reason and are building out very advanced secure cyber communication centers in Asia. SECURE communications between these continents is the ramp up and may work out for CBell trans-ocean lines with synergies from many other companies that need cyber-fiber presence security.
      The only other option for CBB is to just ride the decline of traditional telecom. Q is: Can this new management do it? Like most old Bells losing incremental landline, but still substantial billable vol round their native market and ability to get decent debt to move up if they can? Apparently, they do a good job around Cincin. There’s more info out there if you sniff around, verify all this. Both companies have a lot of debt to service.

      1. Thanks Joel. I picked up a minuscule amount today just to force myself to “sniff around”. Might add or might dump, only time will tell.

    1. Any experts out there care to comment re: ‘Asset Coverage’?:
      Also, spent some time ‘pleasure-reading’ prospectus regarding “asset coverage contract”. I chose ECC (X,Y,A,B) as they have two prefs AND two BBs with Mat Dates and asset coverage provisions. The contract seems to work off a maintenance of Mark to Market valuation ratios of 200% (prefs) and 300% (bonds). The ECCX bond shows 385%. How it actually functions and guarantees anything is somewhat confusing, but I can not see how the PAYMENTS are covered by asset coverage liquidation except thru cumulative default and eventual recovery. Seems there are also provisions for time to “freeze and workout over time including suspending payments” (my words). Anybody have experience here or have a good resource? Thanks in advance, JA

      1. Joel A – Are you talking about the Asset Coverage ratios mandated under the provisions of the 1940 Act for closed end management companies? Not sure what you’re getting at… To me I’ve always looked at them simply as a means of knowing the absolutes of leverage a company can take on and what they have to do with the debt or preferreds in the event anything unforeseen such as decline in the value of assets as opposed to increases in leverage increases the ratios beyond the mandates…. Usually it means the necessity to call some or all of the issues in in order to get the ratios back in line… Too simple an answer?

        1. I see the maintenance of coverage from an asset marked to market basis, but it looks like the actual payments on a preferred is not ‘guaranteed’; or are assets sold off to make the payments? or can they be deferred and just accumulate to hopefully be collected someday?
          I am pretty sure that suspending a cumulative dividend will end up following a stock if bot by another. I do not know of any success doing this. Usually it ends up as a wash out in BK.
          Trying to get accurate understanding and not get into a confusing tail chase.
          Thanks, JA

          1. Joel – Not really being an expert on the subject, please understand that my entire reply comes with a big old “IMHO” attached. If I understand correctly what you’re getting at, I think you are trying to assign an attribute to mandated asset coverage ratios that they were never intended to have directly. As they relate to the 1940 Act I believe they were initiated by Govt as a way to encourage prospective investors to invest in certain new investment classes such as closed end management companies and BDCs, not by attempting to guarantee interest or dividend payments in any way via the ratio’s existence but as a way to essentially guarantee there should always be enough assets left in a company to return 100% of principal to a debt or preferred investor if the stuff were to ever hit the fan. Yes, they limit the amount of borrowings a company can take on and that’s part of the appeal as a layer of protection in of itself, but still, there’s nothing within the ratios themselves that thereby prevents the stuff from hitting the fan or as in the case of an AmTrust, for example, a company’s mere unwillingness to continue to pay a non-cumulative preferred. But if/when it does all hit the fan, if the investor knows a company has been forced to wind down at a time when it has at a minimum 2 times the assets needed for them to eventually pay off the debt/preferred you own, that’s when the positive impact of the ratios being in effect becomes apparent. You mention ECC as an example. If their coverage ratios were to slide under the required 300% and 200%, I believe they’d have to call in a sufficient number of shares of preferred and/or debt in order to fall back into compliance. So bottom line, I suppose you could say the asset coverage ratio doesn’t really tell you anything directly about an ability or willingness of a company to continue to pay debt or preferreds, but it does give solace that you’ll know a company has to act to protect their ability to return principal by being required to do something if/when they breach the ratios, thus giving investors protection they would not have were they not put in place by Govt. Incidentally, I think in the ancient times of yore before the covenant light days of prospectuses we live in today, you would frequently see individual companies put similar type ratios into their covenants because investors demanded them and lenders had the upper hand, unlike today. In the case of the 1940 Act, the covenants were written in to an entire class of companies instead of them being put in place on a company by company basis for investors to have to discover on their own case by case….

            So that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. If nothing else, this explains what knowing 1940 Act coverage ratios are in place means to me when reviewing prospectuses. It also means why imho BDC investors have been let down in a way by the passage of the Small Business Credit Availability Act that changed the asset coverage ratio from being 200% to 150% for BDCs. BDCs invest in already highly leveraged companies, so to have BDCs now capable of leveraging themselves up dramatically higher than the original protections afforded investors by the language of 1940 Act, especially now at a time considered to be late in the economic cycle I believe makes investing in BDCs and BDC baby bonds substantially more risky due to the multiplier effect of leveraged companies (aka BDCs) investing in already leveraged companies. I have ratcheted back my willingness to invest in BDC baby bonds substantially because of the SPCA, but that’s just me… it’s also made for a research project to find individual baby bonds like GLADN and KCAPL where the language within doesn’t allow for adjustment to the new 150% level… There’s an added appeal to those issues if one is looking to invest on a yield to initial call basis because if the underlying companies have chosen to adopt the new leverage limits, they’re going to be very interested in getting these particular issues off their books ASAP.

            1. GREAT info and inputs for me. I went back and revisited the prospecti and things shifted a bit in my understanding. Appreciate the efforts on my behalf. JA

Leave a Reply

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