Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 (24107)	12/26/2015 12:17:02 PM
From: inspbudget	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34328

Might be worth the time and trouble to investigate how much of their portfolio is comprised of " Level 3 " assets - these assets are valued by PSEC, and ( as far as I know ), not marked to market. It is possible that such assets could be on PSEC's books at highly inflated valuations, representing a risk that may be overlooked by investors. PSEC has also had some run-ins with SEC reporting, etc recently, which make for a less than stellar history. I do remember they were not adversely affected, but have not followed them so no idea of current status. I do not have hard numbers to support my rationale, but, like rnsmith, I have avoided their shares, choosing to invest in other companies that give me more peace of mind. I guess that's what makes a market. One man's opportunity is another's danger signal.

To: Elroy who wrote (24107)	12/26/2015 10:22:50 PM
From: rnsmth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34328

<<Hmmmm, OK. It's sort of hard to do much analysis of your reasoning since there's no numbers in it.>> Credit rating. Check that out. I know it is within the comfort zone of some investors to hold risky companies in return for stratospheric current yields. My main concern is safety of the dividend and of dividend increases. The overwhelming majority of my holdings have investment grade credit ratings, most above BBB. I do not need much in the way of numbers to avoid BDCs. I do have one REIT that seems more similar to a BDC in that it provides financing for clean energy projects. I consider HASI to be a speculative position, and has such it is a half-weight position. Using credit ratings as one screen is not a perfect system, KMI, for example, but as part of the screening process it works for me. Look up Bob Wells' article on non-financial dividend cutters during the Great Recession, very few had credit ratings below investment grade. Very Few.

To: Elroy who wrote (24107)	12/28/2015 12:01:06 PM
From: geoffrey Wren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34328

"I also wonder whether activist investors will come after PSEC in the next year or two in the way they've come after TICC and FSC (other BDCs). PSEC's fees are fat and juicy (2% and 20%), so I don't know why some asset manager doesn't propose to manage the assets for 1.5% and 15%? Let the shareholders decide in a proxy fight. 10-1 PSEC's management's response would be to match the 1.5% and 15% and viola, the share would probably jump a $1.00 just on the news." Activist investors have to be careful. If they make a move only to have PSEC's current management match a cut, then the activists have accomplished nothing for themselves (except for any shares they have that have gone up in value). Should not the board of PSEC be seeking out a better management deal itself? Of course in today's world most boards are toadies to the CEO's. In PSEC's situation, they ought not to be. I quickly checked the 10K, and it seems that management is not entrenched. "The Administration Agreement may be terminated by either party without penalty upon 60 days’ written notice to the other party. Prospect Administration is a subsidiary of the Investment Adviser." But I have not double-checked that. Many, if not most, outside managements manage to entrench themselves to get a golden parachute if they are discharged. I own some PSEC, but have reservations. Book value is overstated, and it is hard to know by how much, although the current stock price discount is most likely much more of a discount than the overstatement of book value. Management is overpaid. Board of directors is not diligent. The current dividend could be cut. Market pricing is indicating a fairly high likelihood of dividend cut, and usually the signal from the market is a fair statistical indicator of prospects for the dividend. Nonetheless if they paid the current dividend for 2 years and then cut it in half and continued that for many years, it would still be a good investment at this price, which is why I still hold it. Hopefully I will not be kicked in the teeth on this one. Have been before. As Hillary says, "I have the scars to prove it."