SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Dividend investing for retirement -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Elroy who wrote (15884)5/31/2013 12:04:45 AM
From: Steve Felix  Respond to of 34328
 
Makes no difference, but: American Capital Agency Corp’s 8.000% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ( NASD: AGNCP)

Just seems funny to me that they seem to be having a hard time getting it done.

O is just the opposite. The payment on the new shares from March, at $45.90 = 4.7% are much lower than the 6.625% F preferred they floated last year.

Maybe something I am missing. Probably why they don't let me be in charge. lol!

O-E at 6.75% is callable. I see a 2% savings, selling enough stock to redeem it. Why not?



To: Elroy who wrote (15884)5/31/2013 11:30:09 AM
From: deeno  Respond to of 34328
 
"I've often wondered why the mREITs would ever issue regular equity (which costs them around 10%-15% in regular dividends each year) rather than preferred equity, which usually costs them around 6.5%-8%."

Because you can cut the dividend on common shares as required. No such luck with PFD's without causing some liquidity crunch. the real leverage is the short rates as you already know. These PFD's could be boat anchors in the wrong environment in my opinion. The 5 yr fixed termed pfd's ala nuveen NVX.A that Mcsweet mentioned would have been better if they could float them.

The current volitility, with just a wiggle in rates, highlights what Ive stated in the past. Gutsy play, great income, escape early. In the end people will buy these into the abyss.



To: Elroy who wrote (15884)6/1/2013 12:06:42 AM
From: Woody_Nickels  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 34328
 
That's not correct either. Your hypothesis
depends on the REIT earning more than
the pf shares cost. Not always true.

More shares divided into constant income
means less all around. Don't count on more
income to distribute, especially with 'fixed-
income' instruments like MBSs in REITs.