Simon Property Group: Time to Go Short 10 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Simon Property Group’s (SPG) decision to eliminate 90% of their cash dividend is the most vile of breaches between shareholder and management. They’ve used a small loophole that allows REITs to issue shares instead of cash and still retain their REIT status.
They claim it’s the prudent thing to do and reserve the right to “reinstate the cash dividend when it becomes less prudent.” What does that mean? When would one ever enter into a less prudent transaction? To add insult to their arrogance, they also claim that this is not in response to the current retail operating environment. On the conference call they also stated that their smaller tenants need them more than they need their tenants. Delusional is the word that comes to mind.
I for one, am thrilled. I’ve been short SPG for some time now. My carry cost just went down nine-fold. Additionally, whatever modicum of fear I’ve had about management being able to pull the rabbit out of the hat over the next 24 months has been completely eradicated.
I eagerly await their next testament to the high quality of their portfolio and their exceptionally strong balance sheet (so strong, in fact, that they’ve eliminated the dividend). Also, next quarter’s inevitable admission that they were somewhat surprised by the huge, “unforeseeable” number of retailer bankruptcies, the “unprecedented” downturn in consumer spending and the “astonishingly” rapid collapse in rental rates.
Hubris (/hjuːbrɪs/) or hybris (/'haɪbrɪs/) is a term used in modern English to indicate overweening pride, self-confidence, superciliousness, or arrogance, often resulting in fatal retribution.
DISCLOSURE: The author is short SPG common stock
Related Articles
|

























Long term under $5.
As more and more retailers close stores and go bankrupt, REITs will see their cash flow suffer and their massive debt come due (SPG is leverage more than 18x).
Plus, by issuing 90% of their dividend in stock, they are just diluting existing shareholders.
Combine this with the fact that most institutional investors are in REITs for their steady stream of dividend income and there is no telling how far this dog will slide.
I did a writeup of the conf call here:
www.bearishnews.com/po...
idea.sec.gov/Archives/...
It's on page 45. Can someone clarify if they're fully responsible for this debt? From what I read, it seems they are. But this debt is part of a joint venture, so it's not on the main balance sheet for some reason?
I may be completely off-base here, but the numbers look odd.
jegan ;-)
On Feb 03 04:31 PM Adam Sharp wrote:
> Anybody else listen to the conference call? They're claiming 2009
> will be better than 2008, and ask analysts to ignore Q4 of 08 when
> predicting profits in 09. Added to my original short of $55 at $48,
> and again at $43.
>
> I did a writeup of the conf call here:
> www.bearishnews.com/po...
The tenants should have more bargaining power when their leases run out in a year (unless retail spending and demand for CRE space has rebounded strongly, which seems unlikely).
This is the signal of very serious shortage of cash. Since SPG's leverage was the highest in the US, SPG has no cash left to pay for dividends after paying for interests. Even Vornado is paying only half of its dividends in stocks.
I don't think the US credit market has the generous room now to extend more loans and cash out more for SPG's real estate projects and equipment with overall loan to cost ratio of 95% (equity made of 5%).
On Feb 02 04:28 PM Fact Check wrote:
> The retailers are telegraphing where SPG is headed. Mall REITS are
> going to lag the retailers just as banks lagged the residential real
> estate slide. Take a look at what news came out of Macy's today (a
> major SPG tenant).
>
> As more and more retailers close stores and go bankrupt, REITs will
> see their cash flow suffer and their massive debt come due (SPG is
> leverage more than 18x).
>
> Plus, by issuing 90% of their dividend in stock, they are just diluting
> existing shareholders.
>
> Combine this with the fact that most institutional investors are
> in REITs for their steady stream of dividend income and there is
> no telling how far this dog will slide.