Seeking Alpha

Douglas Albo

View as an RSS Feed
View Douglas Albo's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Equity CEFs: Buy Alert On DSE Right Now [View instapost]
    Today's drop brings DSE to a -9.1% discount which puts it in the middle of the pack of MLP CEFs. But the yield is now at over 7% which puts it towards the top and CEFs tend to be priced on yield. I'm not saying it won't get cheaper but after the drop it has suffered while its NAV has performed well, this is a good entry point IMO.
    Sep 19, 2014. 08:12 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Bubble Stage Of This Bull Market May Be Nigh [View article]
    James, you've been right as rain in your articles, congrats. The bubble that occurred in the NASDAQ when it ran up a stunning 87% in the span of about 6 months from Oct 1999 to March 2000 was during a time in which NASDAQ stocks traded in fractions. The changeover to decimals didn't start until 2001.

    I remember vividly during that run up period that many high flyers were trading at 3/4 pt (75 cents) to 1 pt ($1) or more spreads back then and even the most liquid NASDAQ names were typically trading at 1/4 pt (25 cents) to 1/2 pt (50 cents), certainly a lot higher than 1 cent or 2 cent spreads today.

    I've argued that 5000 on the NASDAQ back in 2000 was a bubble in large part because of those fractional spreads and that the NASDAQ would be closer to 7000 or 8000 today if it were still trading in fractions. Everybody likes to claim that the NASDAQ still has not reached its 5000 all-time high threshold and thus, may be giving the impression that there is more room to run even though I doubt if the NASDAQ would have ever reached 5000 in early 2000 if stocks were traded in decimals like they are today. Your thoughts?
    Sep 19, 2014. 09:27 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Equity CEFs: A BlackRock Energy Sector Fund That Gets No Respect [View article]
    Not really. CEFConnect just crunches the numbers forwarded to them from the fund sponsors in their filings. BGR had a $2.50/sh capital gain distribution included in their semi-annual report dated 4/30/14 so plug that in. Plus, UNII does not include option-income...only investment income (portfolio dividends and interest). Page 111 of the semi-annual report shows the Net Investment Income and excess distributions for the 6-month period.
    Sep 9, 2014. 10:26 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Equity CEFs: Buy JLA Over QQQX [View instapost]
    Since JLA shareholders will be converted to QQQX, the more QQQX goes up, the better for current JLA shareholders. Now you could lock in that 4.8% arbitrage spread (as of article date) by shorting QQQX but if QQQX goes up more than JLA before the conversion, then the arbitrage spread will just widen (assuming NAV ratio stays same).

    Premiums and discounts are irrelevant though you could get an approximation of the arbitrage by comparing the two funds valuations. More accurately though, this is all based on the NAV ratio of the funds and the market price of QQQX to determine what JLA is worth.
    Sep 8, 2014. 10:04 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Equity CEFs: A Fund Which Probably Should Just Go Open-End [View article]
    For those who stuck with NIE, congratulations! Allianz just declared today after the close, 9/5/2014, NIE's distribution would be raised 35% to $0.38/share from $0.28/share.

    That is a VERY large increase and bumps the current market yield up to 7.4%. See, good things come to those who wait!
    Sep 5, 2014. 05:22 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Equity CEFs: New Kids On The Block [View article]
    Yes, I saw it. Its included in the GDV Shareholder Commentary dated 6/30/14 on pages 24-26.

    So GGZ was only about 20% invested as of 6/30/14. Certainly higher by now but probably still holding a lot of cash. I think that's good, particularly if we get a pull back. NAV won't move much right now.
    Sep 5, 2014. 10:54 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Equity CEFs: Don't Judge A CEF By Its Yield [View article]
    You asked where in my table above comparing GRX with PGP does the $0.77/share come back to the investor. It's awash to the investor, as are all of the distributions shown in my tables because they only compare NAV total return performance, not market price performance. That's why I put "all distributions are added back" because of the NAV reduction for each distribution.

    You're wanting to know where the $0.77/share is distributed to investors so that you can apply that to the market price performance. This is different because its a Rights offering, i.e. an offer to BUY more shares, not SELL (or redeem). You're not getting $0.77/share in cash like a normal distribution.

    The market price is totally independent in this case. If it were a normal distribution, then yes, it would be paid to the investor and the NAV and market price would be reduced accordingly. In this case, only the NAV is reduced. I suppose you could argue that on the day the conversion took place, the NAV dropped from $11.98 to $11.23 ($0.75) while the market price only dropped from $10.29 to $10.19! How about that for a savings? And remember, you bought those added shares at $9!
    Sep 4, 2014. 06:26 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Equity CEFs: Don't Judge A CEF By Its Yield [View article]
    The $0.77/share drop in NAV was because the exercise was at $9 for both the NAV and market price, well below both prices. That's bad for NAV (though investors neither gain nor lose at the NAV level if they exercised) but good for existing shareholders since you exercised at $9 when the market price was well over $10.

    Not sure how you read this any other way.
    Sep 4, 2014. 01:06 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Equity CEFs: Don't Judge A CEF By Its Yield [View article]
    Thank you for your note!
    Sep 3, 2014. 12:59 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Equity CEFs: Don't Judge A CEF By Its Yield [View article]
    At a 4.2% NAV yield, no...I'm not concerned about where the distribution comes from. These funds, particularly HQH and HQL, are not about dividend income generation. They almost always rely on capital gains.
    Sep 3, 2014. 11:57 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Equity CEFs: Don't Judge A CEF By Its Yield [View article]
    George, I'm sure there are some positives to the Cornerstone funds, but they pale in comparison to the glaring failure of their overall strategy. Reverse splits back in 2008 for CLM (1 for 4) and CRF (1 for 2) should have been the first sign that the strategy was flawed. These funds have frankly been a disaster for anyone who has held on to them long term.
    Sep 3, 2014. 10:53 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Equity CEFs: Don't Judge A CEF By Its Yield [View article]
    Not sure how the value is over represented. The NAV conversion is what it is. There's no gain or loss there if you fully exercised your Rights.

    In regards to the market price, the Rights gave you multiple opportunities to sell the enhanced value, either through GRX or GRX-RT at nice bump up prices before the conversion took place if you didn't want to actually increase your stake.
    Sep 2, 2014. 10:57 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Equity CEFs: Don't Judge A CEF By Its Yield [View article]
    Straight from Gabelli's website. Feel free to add them up and compare with my historic distributions for GRX.

    They actually adjusted the distribution up a bit from $0.7644/share last time I looked to $0.7707/share. May have had to adjust for the over-allotment.
    Sep 2, 2014. 05:18 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Equity CEFs: Don't Judge A CEF By Its Yield [View article]
    NHF looks to be more fixed-income weighted with only 30% equities. I cover Equity CEFs in which portfolios have to be at least 50% stocks.

    Granted, PGP is not an equity fund but with its huge S&P 500 futures weighting, it is still heavily dependent on that index.
    Sep 2, 2014. 04:16 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Equity CEFs: Don't Judge A CEF By Its Yield [View article]
    Well, if CEFs didn't trade at discounts or premiums, I probably wouldn't be buying them as well but picking up assets and yields at significant discounts is worth it to me. Remember, your competition in CEFs is not their benchmarks, its other investors in these funds!

    BTW, I don't see where Gabelli uses the R3000 as GDV's benchmark. In their Semi-Annual report dated 6/30/2014, Gabelli uses the S&P 500, DJIA and NASDAQ Composite, all of which GDV has beaten at the NAV since inception and that is net of fees.
    Sep 2, 2014. 03:17 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment