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 : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grommit who wrote (64482)	8/4/2020 7:41:57 PM
From: Grommit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78958

MNR and UMH. These companies are financially related and I generally avoid these situations without exception. But i bought MNR pref shares, hoping that they are a little removed from the issues. they own each others common stock, the founder of MNR (E. Landy age 86) is still chairman, while his children are CEOs of each company (Michael on UMH 58, Eugene on UMH 59). They have poor ratings on corp governance -- for compensation, board, shareholder rights. They call themselves "related companies" in the disclosures, but conflicts of interest are not disclosed. none? It can be acceptable to found a couple of companies and install competent children in mgmt, but why go beyond that? yuck. (I also avoid companies where the board members and officers have the same last name.)

To: Grommit who wrote (64482)	8/13/2020 11:24:46 AM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78958

(Grommit stocks) Grommit, thanks for your idea of STAG . I closed my position this morning. The stock rise makes the dividend yield lower than I'd like. I've been watching Rexford, and I'll go for a position now. l like its unique business focus: "Focused exclusively on creating value by investing in industrial property throughout infill Southern California." rexfordindustrial.com I'm going for the 5.875% preferred, trading above par. Yield less than I'd like, but the apparent safety of the business maybe offers somewhat of a tradeoff. --- Investors must like the warehousing/industrial specialty of the company in the expensive land that is S. California: the common stock price is bid up to where its yield is low -- lower than I'm willing to accept anyway. I'm still wavering on INN.

To: Grommit who wrote (64482)	12/24/2024 3:25:26 PM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 78958

Industrial real estate: I made a mistake by not buying California industrial reit REXF when it was discussed here four years ago. The stock has come down now to about similar level again. The dividend is still lower than I'd like. (Prefer >=5%, which it wasn't then and my reason at the time for not buying.) REXF dividend has grown, and with the stock down, the yield is now up to about 4.4%. At the same time money market rates have dropped to maybe about 4.2%. This makes it an easier decision to deploy some cash from money market into REXF here. I have built a small position in PLYM, also an industrial reit. Here the dividend is over 5%. Unlike REXF though, PLYM dividend has been cut in its past. PLYM operates in 2nd and 3rd markets (non-coastal USA), so land is much more available for developing and for competitors. Built-up California otoh of course means in-fill is important in developing new properties, and makes REXF properties the more valuable, presumably. finance.yahoo.com finance.yahoo.com