Seeking Alpha

Workinhard

Workinhard
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Workinhard's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Yield On Cost: A Vitally Important Consideration For Retired Investors [View article]
    you still don't get my point? It has nothing to do at all with any individual stock, which one yields 2.8%, which one yields 3.2%, which has a higher growth rate, etc. It was simply the point that the poster was saying that because his YOC was 4.5%, he would not sell that stock at it's current 2.8% yield and buy one yielding 3.2% because by his reasoning his income would go down and that is clearly not the case.
    Sep 7 10:35 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Yield On Cost: A Vitally Important Consideration For Retired Investors [View article]
    the comment i was referring to stated" all else being equal" talking about the stocks. The poster was saying "why would i sell a stock yielding 2.8% to buy one yielding 3.2% if my yield on cost is 4.5%". That comment indicates a lack of understanding of basic investments.

    To get my point across, lets assume the stock under consideration for sale is in a Roth IRA. The stock to be sold has a yield on cost of 4.5% , but it's current yield is 2.8%. There is another stock with the same fundamentals , growth prospects etc, and it yields 3.2%. The poster i was commenting on would not do the stock swap ONLY BECAUSE HE IS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT HIS INCOME WOULD GO DOWN because he is looking at his yield on cost of 4.5 instead of the current yield of 2.8%.
    Sep 7 02:35 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Yield On Cost: A Vitally Important Consideration For Retired Investors [View article]
    Original cost is irrelevant as to whether a stock is a buy, sell or hold. Do you need to know what your cost is for tax purposes - of course you do. But the poster was trying to make the point that the market doesn't care what you paid for a stock, and neither should you when you are evaluating buy, sell or hold.
    Sep 7 02:19 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Analyzing Prospect Capital Corp.'s Recently Restructured Control Investments And Its Impact On NII [View article]
    There are other BDC's that will offer slightly lower yields but with much better run organizations and trustworthy mgmt. PSEC will get clobbered one day without warning , either because of a dividend cut or large losses on investments and your monthly dividends will not protect you.
    Sep 5 11:07 AM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Yield On Cost: A Vitally Important Consideration For Retired Investors [View article]
    Are you being serious? You are saying that your get more income from a stock yielding 2.8% than one yielding 3.2%? I don't care if your yield on cost is 100% , if you sell a stock that yields 2.8% and buy one that yields 3.2% your dividend income will go UP.

    Maybe you are being sarcastic and just having fun with the board, can't imagine any other reason for your comments.
    Sep 4 08:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Yield On Cost: A Vitally Important Consideration For Retired Investors [View article]
    You are thinking about this wrong - if you sold a stock with a current yield of 2.8% and bought one with a current yield of 3.2%, your income would go up. Period. End of discussion. Doesn't matter if your yield on cost of the stock you sell is 100%, if it's currently 2.8% and you buy a current yield of 3.2% , you will have more income.
    Sep 4 08:23 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Maybe You Shouldn't Pay Off Your Mortgage [View article]
    But to my point , you aren't earning more on your cash reserves and bonds than you are paying on you mtg in this market. So you are making a bet that not only will stocks go up , but that interest rates will also.
    Sep 2 04:37 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Maybe You Shouldn't Pay Off Your Mortgage [View article]
    During a bull market there are plenty of comments along the lines of "it's a no brainer to borrow against your house and put the money in the stock market and earn way more than the mortgage interest rate". You hear very little of this during a bear market.

    If you do refinance and put the money into stocks, haven't you just gone on margin in the stock market , using your house as collateral? And I will assume all those that are calling this strategy a no-brainer must have a 100% stock portfolio , and no cash, CD's or bonds, because that wouldn't make sense to mortgage your house to buy stocks if you have cash reserves, CD's or bond elsewhere.
    Sep 2 03:00 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • If STAG Industrial Was A Car It Would Be A Mustang [View article]
    Brad - I had a similar question. It seems like you and other analysts favor reits having unsecured debt (corporate bonds) vs secured debt (mortgages on properties). While a REIT's debt may be unsecured, they can't just decide to default on it if the market turns against them, they have to pay the unsecured debt or they will get sued by the debt holders and have their equity crushed in the market.

    But if your properties have mortgage debt on them, and you have some real estate markets or properties go bad, the reit could then selectively default on that specific debt (ie, hand the keys over to the bank). I've read of many REIT's doing that in the past, including some of the big, popular names.

    Maybe the unsecured debt is cheaper than mtgs in todays markets?
    Aug 28 02:26 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Will Start Social Security At Age 62 [View article]
    because history shows most people panic when their stocks sell off that much and many sell out at the exact wrong time - whether dividends are coming in or not - especially if they are retired and have no other income coming in. As i said i am sure their some here who are ok with a 100% stock weighting when they are retired but most are not.
    Aug 26 06:59 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Prospect Capital: More Restructuring Of Senior Portfolio Debt - Meet First Tower [View article]
    Mgmt is playing card games to try to keep the dividend up , I am not optimistic about PSEC long term , esp if we get a market sell off.
    Aug 26 01:21 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Will Start Social Security At Age 62 [View article]
    If you need the money to live on, take the SS payouts as soon as you need then. No sense struggling until age 70 to live if you really need the money at age 62. But if you don't need the monthly payments , and can live off of other income, I would hold off as long as possible. The biggest risk most individuals will face is outliving your money. If you live to your late 80's or early 90's (not unusual in todays world) , you will appreciate that much higher monthly SS payment. And if you die early and didn't collected as much as you would have if your started earlier - so what - you're dead.
    Aug 26 01:15 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Will Start Social Security At Age 62 [View article]
    exactly right - in a bull market, everyone is a genius for having all their money in the stock market. Seems everyone has forgotten the panic investors felt in 2007-2009. I am sure we all know people who panicked and sold at the lows and never got back in. Mutual fund flows sure show a lot of people did exactly that.
    Aug 26 01:08 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Will Start Social Security At Age 62 [View article]
    I read the article, am a fan of Vanguard and Bogle, but disagree with the idea of capitalizing SS to make you think you have a bond allocation. Why wouldn't you then capitalize every income stream you have - including blue chip stocks like Coke and JNJ which have paid dividends forever?

    A retired investor is much more likely to panic and sell stocks at the lows when they see their total portfolio of stocks moving down - I know YOU wouldn't - but the majority would . It's a great theory in a bull market but I doubt many will appreciate what their stock portfolio does in a bear market without some type of fixed income weighting. Some how I doubt they will be comforted by a monthly social security check if their stock portfolio drops by 40%.

    For me, as better long-term alternative , for the majority of people, is to see what your remaining annual expenses are after SS , annuity payments and pensions and then create a portfolio that produces more than enough income to cover that expense shortfall. If you are loaded like Bogle, go ahead and load up 100% in dividend paying stocks. If you can cover everything with a portfolio of muni bonds and it helps you sleep at night, go for it.
    Aug 26 01:04 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Prospect Capital: What Comes Next? Part 4 [View article]
    PSEC is not a long term holding, their cost of equity capital is too high (12%+) to be able to invest it profitably. If you can buy it under BV and trade it , that is ok if you are nimble but the only ones who will make money in this stock over the long term is the external manager.
    Aug 26 12:41 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
183 Comments
473 Likes