Joe Eqcome's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/283299/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/297772/comments?source=feed#comment-18088901 18088901
http://bit.ly/waHMp7--]]> Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:32:56 -0400
http://bit.ly/waHMp7--]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/297772/comments?source=feed#comment-18081851 18081851
Base on 2013 earnings it is for the S&P Index 1711.

Joe Eqcome]]> Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:51:28 -0400
Base on 2013 earnings it is for the S&P Index 1711.

Joe Eqcome]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1280551/comments?source=feed#comment-16450831 16450831
Maybe in was the Auction-rate cumulative preferred share which was limited to default debt and the muni terms and other issues that was to replace it.

What's your guess?

Joe Eqcome]]> Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:10:13 -0400
Maybe in was the Auction-rate cumulative preferred share which was limited to default debt and the muni terms and other issues that was to replace it.

What's your guess?

Joe Eqcome]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1260771/comments?source=feed#comment-16182941 16182941
Highest Focus Stock for the Week:

"The yield is 7.7%. Its discount is 6.1% for an average discount of 5.9% for the 52 week period. There was a slew of selling on Wednesday (284,200) and Thursday and Friday (129,500 and 179,000, respectively). Average is 38.6%".

This should have removed.

It was the "Lowest Spread and Focus Stock for the Week:"

Sorry.

Joe]]> Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:46:23 -0400
Highest Focus Stock for the Week:

"The yield is 7.7%. Its discount is 6.1% for an average discount of 5.9% for the 52 week period. There was a slew of selling on Wednesday (284,200) and Thursday and Friday (129,500 and 179,000, respectively). Average is 38.6%".

This should have removed.

It was the "Lowest Spread and Focus Stock for the Week:"

Sorry.

Joe]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1260771/comments?source=feed#comment-16156181 16156181
Since ROC is a "return on your capital" is doesn't make any sense for your IRA--for both Roth or normal IRA. You must deducted the return of capital you've receive from your holdings basis (share price less return of capital) to calculate gains.

However, in real estate the value of the depreciations (upon the net value) may not extinguished your values at time of your holdings. The value of income properties may typical goes up.

The distributions is usual above net earnings and value may be cash flow beyond the net income.

For example, the net holding of your properties was $1,000,000 on your net assets 10 years ago. So, you be depreciating it for 25 years and the 10 years that you have been holding was $600,000 on your books (20 years).

However, the $1,000,000 has been appreciation for 10 years and in reality it is worth $1,250,000. The depreciation deduction would be a great as the property value and the cash flow is net income plus more that the depreciation.

Joe Eqcome]]> Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:23:55 -0400
Since ROC is a "return on your capital" is doesn't make any sense for your IRA--for both Roth or normal IRA. You must deducted the return of capital you've receive from your holdings basis (share price less return of capital) to calculate gains.

However, in real estate the value of the depreciations (upon the net value) may not extinguished your values at time of your holdings. The value of income properties may typical goes up.

The distributions is usual above net earnings and value may be cash flow beyond the net income.

For example, the net holding of your properties was $1,000,000 on your net assets 10 years ago. So, you be depreciating it for 25 years and the 10 years that you have been holding was $600,000 on your books (20 years).

However, the $1,000,000 has been appreciation for 10 years and in reality it is worth $1,250,000. The depreciation deduction would be a great as the property value and the cash flow is net income plus more that the depreciation.

Joe Eqcome]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1135351/comments?source=feed#comment-14310431 14310431
I have scrolled the new current weekly and the week of 10/28/12 (where I haven't been participating on SeekingAlpha.)

The returns are for 11 Weekly reports. There has been 7 weeks where the returns are predictive. The weeks were negative for -0.2% and predictive for +0.9%--a net benefit of 1.1%.

Returns were somewhat predictive of potential positive return--with a twist.

I'll be reporting it in the upcoming reports.

Joe Eqcome ]]> Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:28:43 -0500
I have scrolled the new current weekly and the week of 10/28/12 (where I haven't been participating on SeekingAlpha.)

The returns are for 11 Weekly reports. There has been 7 weeks where the returns are predictive. The weeks were negative for -0.2% and predictive for +0.9%--a net benefit of 1.1%.

Returns were somewhat predictive of potential positive return--with a twist.

I'll be reporting it in the upcoming reports.

Joe Eqcome ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1135351/comments?source=feed#comment-14262761 14262761
The negative spreads (PrcNAVSprd) is a calculation between the current “PremDisc” against the historical one (the week I'm using is one week) in comparing the positive or negative spreads between the two.

The positive PrcNAVSprd is an indication that the share price has gone up with the NAV in comparison with the two week average. This may be a negative surprise.

The negative PrcNAVSprd has gone down as share prices to NAV. This may be a positive surprise. Stocks prices have gone-up as negative sentiment as oppose to positive sentiment from the top 10 percent.

The difference is that stocks price momentum may be improving and the stock price is anticipating that the NAV may move-up. Or dividend can increase shareholders attention. Also, unreasonable NAV can cloud the picture.

We feel we have a reasonable hand on the coming and going of the CEFs—but mistaken are made.]]> Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:52:32 -0500
The negative spreads (PrcNAVSprd) is a calculation between the current “PremDisc” against the historical one (the week I'm using is one week) in comparing the positive or negative spreads between the two.

The positive PrcNAVSprd is an indication that the share price has gone up with the NAV in comparison with the two week average. This may be a negative surprise.

The negative PrcNAVSprd has gone down as share prices to NAV. This may be a positive surprise. Stocks prices have gone-up as negative sentiment as oppose to positive sentiment from the top 10 percent.

The difference is that stocks price momentum may be improving and the stock price is anticipating that the NAV may move-up. Or dividend can increase shareholders attention. Also, unreasonable NAV can cloud the picture.

We feel we have a reasonable hand on the coming and going of the CEFs—but mistaken are made.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1121691/comments?source=feed#comment-14023271 14023271
EMF has a yield of 2.2% and it has gotten beaten up by EMB over the year. The stock gain for EMF has beaten the EMB for nearly 3 months. EMB has USD emerging market bonds and EMF has equity.

You might want to get a share of EMB into EMF. The shares are 87% equity.]]> Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:50:40 -0500
EMF has a yield of 2.2% and it has gotten beaten up by EMB over the year. The stock gain for EMF has beaten the EMB for nearly 3 months. EMB has USD emerging market bonds and EMF has equity.

You might want to get a share of EMB into EMF. The shares are 87% equity.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1121691/comments?source=feed#comment-14022831 14022831
The PCEF was a reasonable investment when I make it a couple of times. While its a nice yield, I'm going to scale out of it now as rates are going up and reducing my position to a sub-nominal rate.

Please be careful because interest rates are rising when the fed cap comes off. ]]> Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:34:59 -0500
The PCEF was a reasonable investment when I make it a couple of times. While its a nice yield, I'm going to scale out of it now as rates are going up and reducing my position to a sub-nominal rate.

Please be careful because interest rates are rising when the fed cap comes off. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1121691/comments?source=feed#comment-14022461 14022461
I didn't buy it because of 14.2% and It seemed to be that REITs have had there share of success. ]]> Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:24:51 -0500
I didn't buy it because of 14.2% and It seemed to be that REITs have had there share of success. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1053121/comments?source=feed#comment-12455471 12455471
The reports for the weekly comments are usually a 2,500 to 3,500 users apiece.

The reports comments on recent weekly CEFs transaction regarding position, premium and PrcNAVSprd. The high and low regarding the CEFs are weekly offered.

If you don't like the report, please don't use it.

We have others who find it of value.

Joe Eqcome]]> Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:13:39 -0500
The reports for the weekly comments are usually a 2,500 to 3,500 users apiece.

The reports comments on recent weekly CEFs transaction regarding position, premium and PrcNAVSprd. The high and low regarding the CEFs are weekly offered.

If you don't like the report, please don't use it.

We have others who find it of value.

Joe Eqcome]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1026221/comments?source=feed#comment-12035941 12035941
The new website is coming in December/January.
Let me know if your going to be a Beta site?

Joe Eqcome]]> Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:05:53 -0500
The new website is coming in December/January.
Let me know if your going to be a Beta site?

Joe Eqcome]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1015901/comments?source=feed#comment-11766951 11766951
The Kayne Anderson price was NAV $26.44 for November 16, on XKYNX (http://yhoo.it/S60UYR).

The pricing fell from -1.4% and the NAV fell to -7.2% for a 5.8% updated.

I was using the text that was generated. Your prices may have seen higher as a % changes.

Joe]]> Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:42:58 -0500
The Kayne Anderson price was NAV $26.44 for November 16, on XKYNX (http://yhoo.it/S60UYR).

The pricing fell from -1.4% and the NAV fell to -7.2% for a 5.8% updated.

I was using the text that was generated. Your prices may have seen higher as a % changes.

Joe]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/738481/comments?source=feed#comment-11765041 11765041
Your last dividends payments cause the stock to goes down 4.5% YTD. That's 7.0% for the industry on average.

Good luck!

Joe]]> Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:04:52 -0500
Your last dividends payments cause the stock to goes down 4.5% YTD. That's 7.0% for the industry on average.

Good luck!

Joe]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/976411/comments?source=feed#comment-11225731 11225731
"Focus Stock(s) of the Week: Taiwan Fund (http://bit.ly/U2JdG1) is our best pick of the week. The annual dividend will likely be preceded in the month of December and be payable in January. The weekly share price was down 2.2% and the current NAV was up 1.0%. This will take the PrcNAVSprd down about 3.2% (normally good)."

Alan Young, thank for having be back!

The annual distribution level does not need a negative -$0.36. All that may be needed is a distribution level that is annual. There is no distribution level for which a -$0.36 level is mandatory.

By the end of the December month we will see if the annual distribution is available.

Best,
Joe Eqcome]]> Sun, 04 Nov 2012 18:03:27 -0500
"Focus Stock(s) of the Week: Taiwan Fund (http://bit.ly/U2JdG1) is our best pick of the week. The annual dividend will likely be preceded in the month of December and be payable in January. The weekly share price was down 2.2% and the current NAV was up 1.0%. This will take the PrcNAVSprd down about 3.2% (normally good)."

Alan Young, thank for having be back!

The annual distribution level does not need a negative -$0.36. All that may be needed is a distribution level that is annual. There is no distribution level for which a -$0.36 level is mandatory.

By the end of the December month we will see if the annual distribution is available.

Best,
Joe Eqcome]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/712051/comments?source=feed#comment-7565481 7565481
I wouldn't disagree with your conclusion if you were focused on owning a package of taxable-debt oriented, leveraged CEFs.

The proposition outlined in the article is more a play on movement of large cap equities which would respond differently in an environment of rising interest rates.

The large cap CEF portfolio offered here might be an opportunity to add some diversification to your CEF holdings by augmenting it with an equity component.

However, if you feel rates may never come down, PCEF is the one stop stock for participation in a leveraged taxable portfolio of CEFs.

Regards.]]> Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:07:25 -0400
I wouldn't disagree with your conclusion if you were focused on owning a package of taxable-debt oriented, leveraged CEFs.

The proposition outlined in the article is more a play on movement of large cap equities which would respond differently in an environment of rising interest rates.

The large cap CEF portfolio offered here might be an opportunity to add some diversification to your CEF holdings by augmenting it with an equity component.

However, if you feel rates may never come down, PCEF is the one stop stock for participation in a leveraged taxable portfolio of CEFs.

Regards.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/616341/comments?source=feed#comment-7527331 7527331
Sales loads as you've indicated don't apply to CEF as they are publicly traded stock that are bought and sold on the stock exchange.

To buy shares of a CEF you would have to have a brokerage account and commission for some of the on-line brokers are $10.00 or less per. So, this would not be a concern.

They are all subject to management fee that are reasonable. Go to http://bit.ly/o4ngfR and you'll be able to find the expense ratio for each of the CEFs.

I hope this is helpful.

Regards]]> Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:57:14 -0400
Sales loads as you've indicated don't apply to CEF as they are publicly traded stock that are bought and sold on the stock exchange.

To buy shares of a CEF you would have to have a brokerage account and commission for some of the on-line brokers are $10.00 or less per. So, this would not be a concern.

They are all subject to management fee that are reasonable. Go to http://bit.ly/o4ngfR and you'll be able to find the expense ratio for each of the CEFs.

I hope this is helpful.

Regards]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/616341/comments?source=feed#comment-7335871 7335871
The only dumb question is the one you don't ask.

My sense of it is that since both are CEFs the likelihood that any of these barriers, to which you make reference, wouldn't likely have a meaningful impact.

This may be a issue if one was a closed-end fund and the other was an ETF.

I hope I've interpreted your question correctly. If not, try again

Regards.]]> Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:50:33 -0400
The only dumb question is the one you don't ask.

My sense of it is that since both are CEFs the likelihood that any of these barriers, to which you make reference, wouldn't likely have a meaningful impact.

This may be a issue if one was a closed-end fund and the other was an ETF.

I hope I've interpreted your question correctly. If not, try again

Regards.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/712051/comments?source=feed#comment-7324301 7324301
CEFs market segment is tiny and as a result is not on most peoples radar screens. So, this may be a investment "backwater" that receives less investors' attention.

Approximately 2/3's of the $282 billion is considered fixed-income oriented. The balance equity oriented.

The Eqcome CEF Index is 130 CEFs that have been in operation for an extended period of time and a second series of 58 that have been in continuous operations since the late 70's.

Regards]]> Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:41:58 -0400
CEFs market segment is tiny and as a result is not on most peoples radar screens. So, this may be a investment "backwater" that receives less investors' attention.

Approximately 2/3's of the $282 billion is considered fixed-income oriented. The balance equity oriented.

The Eqcome CEF Index is 130 CEFs that have been in operation for an extended period of time and a second series of 58 that have been in continuous operations since the late 70's.

Regards]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/712051/comments?source=feed#comment-7323561 7323561
Let's take the example of a CEF that is trading at $10 per share and whose NAV is $10 per share (trading at par), it is paying an annualized $0.80 per share dividend and whose expense ratio is 1% on total net assets of $500 million.

In this situation the metrics for are similar for both the market based valuation as it is relative to it NAV.

Now, let's assume the stock is trading at a 10% discount. The stock price is now $9 per share vs $10 NAV per share. As you can see all the valuation on the stock market capitalization ratcheted higher than calculation based on NAV.

The market value yield is 8.9% ($0.80 / 9.00) and the expense ratio is now 1.1%--although the dollar amount remains the same as expense ratios are typically based on NAV.

I hope this is helpful.

Regards

]]> Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:27:13 -0400
Let's take the example of a CEF that is trading at $10 per share and whose NAV is $10 per share (trading at par), it is paying an annualized $0.80 per share dividend and whose expense ratio is 1% on total net assets of $500 million.

In this situation the metrics for are similar for both the market based valuation as it is relative to it NAV.

Now, let's assume the stock is trading at a 10% discount. The stock price is now $9 per share vs $10 NAV per share. As you can see all the valuation on the stock market capitalization ratcheted higher than calculation based on NAV.

The market value yield is 8.9% ($0.80 / 9.00) and the expense ratio is now 1.1%--although the dollar amount remains the same as expense ratios are typically based on NAV.

I hope this is helpful.

Regards

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/712051/comments?source=feed#comment-7298891 7298891
I agree with your first point that the days of large cap stocks owned in a CEFs are probably less efficient than owning them as an ETF or index fund.

However, if investors thought large cap CEFs would change form to an ETF or liquidate, the likely investor response would be to narrow the discount as such a discount would be eliminated as in either case investors would get value of the NAV.

We've seen this numerous times with smaller CEFs. The larger CEFs will not voluntarily convert for some of the reasons mentioned earlier in another comment.

The catalyst for conversion is usually some investors forcing the conversion. However, given the size of the large cap CEFs, you'll need a lot of firepower to obtain enough stock to make your voice heard.

Regards]]> Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:55:21 -0400
I agree with your first point that the days of large cap stocks owned in a CEFs are probably less efficient than owning them as an ETF or index fund.

However, if investors thought large cap CEFs would change form to an ETF or liquidate, the likely investor response would be to narrow the discount as such a discount would be eliminated as in either case investors would get value of the NAV.

We've seen this numerous times with smaller CEFs. The larger CEFs will not voluntarily convert for some of the reasons mentioned earlier in another comment.

The catalyst for conversion is usually some investors forcing the conversion. However, given the size of the large cap CEFs, you'll need a lot of firepower to obtain enough stock to make your voice heard.

Regards]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/712051/comments?source=feed#comment-7298771 7298771
ADX does a meager buy- back program that it re-authorizes annually--more as eyewash than a serious attempt to repatriate value to shareholders.

As far as converting to a ETF or mutual fund, the firm runs the risk of having assets dissipate as assets rise and fall with subscription and redemptions either as a mutual fund or an ETF.

With a CEF your assets are fixed and you're saved from having investors pull them out. You charge the same fee based upon that fixed level of assets.

Regards


]]> Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:45:33 -0400
ADX does a meager buy- back program that it re-authorizes annually--more as eyewash than a serious attempt to repatriate value to shareholders.

As far as converting to a ETF or mutual fund, the firm runs the risk of having assets dissipate as assets rise and fall with subscription and redemptions either as a mutual fund or an ETF.

With a CEF your assets are fixed and you're saved from having investors pull them out. You charge the same fee based upon that fixed level of assets.

Regards


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/283299-joe-eqcome/769301-maximizing-retirement-returns-through-social-security-elections?source=feed#comment-7100831 7100831
Thank you for your comment and observations.

Let me see if I can expand on my initial comments for the purpose of clarification.

Point 1: Social Security Carries Risk. This is quite correct. However, this risk is moderate for current retirees compared to private pension fund assumptions of actuarial returns of 7.5% or greater understate their liabilities by $100's of billions.

Given the choice between choice of opting for the GM retirement fund--or for that matter a state pension fund, versus Social Security, I'd choose the latter.

Point 2: Social Security May Not Last Until 2033. This date represents the date in which full benefits may cease. As you're aware, S.S. in a "pay-go" system. S.S. benefits will not be eliminated but reduced to approximately 75% of full benefits. I dispute your linking Medicare and Social Security together as they represent two different sources of revenues. However, I'd entertain your logic for such a position.

Point 3: "Don't Sell Outside Assets to Concentrate on Social Security": There is no implication that your non-S.S.retirement savings or portfolio management are mutually inclusive.

What the article states is that without changing any of your retirement savings behavior, there are ways to maximizing Soc Sec benefits by planning carefully within the rules and regulations that guide such benefits.

Even if Soc.Sec. reduces benefits it will likely be sometime in the late '2020's or early '2030's. Therefore odds for a reduction are fairly low in the next 10-to-15 years.

Point 4: Your Benefits are Whatever Congress Says They Are: Any of the proposals to reduce S.S. benefits pretty much "grandfather's" in people over 55. The political will to take on seniors who have been paying into the system for 30 to 40 years would be suicidal.

Having said all of that, your points are valid. However, the likelihood of a vast change in S.S.for the current group of seniors 60 and older is in our opinion remote.

Therefore taking time to select your benefits in a valuable and profitable exercise.

Regards.]]> Thu, 05 Jul 2012 16:29:57 -0400
Thank you for your comment and observations.

Let me see if I can expand on my initial comments for the purpose of clarification.

Point 1: Social Security Carries Risk. This is quite correct. However, this risk is moderate for current retirees compared to private pension fund assumptions of actuarial returns of 7.5% or greater understate their liabilities by $100's of billions.

Given the choice between choice of opting for the GM retirement fund--or for that matter a state pension fund, versus Social Security, I'd choose the latter.

Point 2: Social Security May Not Last Until 2033. This date represents the date in which full benefits may cease. As you're aware, S.S. in a "pay-go" system. S.S. benefits will not be eliminated but reduced to approximately 75% of full benefits. I dispute your linking Medicare and Social Security together as they represent two different sources of revenues. However, I'd entertain your logic for such a position.

Point 3: "Don't Sell Outside Assets to Concentrate on Social Security": There is no implication that your non-S.S.retirement savings or portfolio management are mutually inclusive.

What the article states is that without changing any of your retirement savings behavior, there are ways to maximizing Soc Sec benefits by planning carefully within the rules and regulations that guide such benefits.

Even if Soc.Sec. reduces benefits it will likely be sometime in the late '2020's or early '2030's. Therefore odds for a reduction are fairly low in the next 10-to-15 years.

Point 4: Your Benefits are Whatever Congress Says They Are: Any of the proposals to reduce S.S. benefits pretty much "grandfather's" in people over 55. The political will to take on seniors who have been paying into the system for 30 to 40 years would be suicidal.

Having said all of that, your points are valid. However, the likelihood of a vast change in S.S.for the current group of seniors 60 and older is in our opinion remote.

Therefore taking time to select your benefits in a valuable and profitable exercise.

Regards.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/694391/comments?source=feed#comment-6982101 6982101
You'll find some excellent information on the issues that you raised at the following website: http://bit.ly/o4ngfR.

Regards]]> Sun, 01 Jul 2012 22:47:17 -0400
You'll find some excellent information on the issues that you raised at the following website: http://bit.ly/o4ngfR.

Regards]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/679471/comments?source=feed#comment-6822041 6822041
The most important thing to consider when you're looking at return of capital distributions is those asset that generate non-cash charges such as depreciation, as in real estate, or depletion as in extraction industries such as oil, gas and timber (natural resources). So any of the CEFs that fall in those categories are prospects for return of capital distributions.

You want to make sure that these are true non-cash charges by tracking the NAVs to make sure they don't decline with the return of capital distributions.

The other issue with return of capital distributions is that it can be generate because of the timeing of income recognition.

For example, in options, a position may have a gain that can't be recognized until the position is closed. Yet, in theory I can generate a distribution that is return of capital if the CEF prior to the closing of the position. (I must admit, I on dangerous ground with regards to option accounting--so proceed with care with some of the buy/write funds or dividend roll-over strategies.

Again, check the NAV to see if it is deteriorating with return of capital distributions. That usually a good check

A good source for this information is http://bit.ly/o4ngfR.

Regards]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:32:44 -0400
The most important thing to consider when you're looking at return of capital distributions is those asset that generate non-cash charges such as depreciation, as in real estate, or depletion as in extraction industries such as oil, gas and timber (natural resources). So any of the CEFs that fall in those categories are prospects for return of capital distributions.

You want to make sure that these are true non-cash charges by tracking the NAVs to make sure they don't decline with the return of capital distributions.

The other issue with return of capital distributions is that it can be generate because of the timeing of income recognition.

For example, in options, a position may have a gain that can't be recognized until the position is closed. Yet, in theory I can generate a distribution that is return of capital if the CEF prior to the closing of the position. (I must admit, I on dangerous ground with regards to option accounting--so proceed with care with some of the buy/write funds or dividend roll-over strategies.

Again, check the NAV to see if it is deteriorating with return of capital distributions. That usually a good check

A good source for this information is http://bit.ly/o4ngfR.

Regards]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/679471/comments?source=feed#comment-6754111 6754111
I agree. I think an investment with a high return of capital that is generated from non-cash expenses, i.e., depreciation or depletion, which doesn't material impact invested capital makes sense in a taxable account.

Because your heirs would get a "step-up" basis in the stock, should it become a bequest, the reduction in basis as a result of the return of capital distribution will unlikely get recaptured.

Regards.


Regards]]> Sun, 24 Jun 2012 23:15:48 -0400
I agree. I think an investment with a high return of capital that is generated from non-cash expenses, i.e., depreciation or depletion, which doesn't material impact invested capital makes sense in a taxable account.

Because your heirs would get a "step-up" basis in the stock, should it become a bequest, the reduction in basis as a result of the return of capital distribution will unlikely get recaptured.

Regards.


Regards]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/679471/comments?source=feed#comment-6744231 6744231
The simple answer to your question (remember "The Orient Express") is that SRV would be less attractive than other high yielding securities in a tax-exempt account due to the fact that SRV's distributions are mostly a return of capital and are typically not subject to income taxes at the time of distributions.

Therefore, if you held it in a tax-exempt account such as an IRA you wouldn't be getting any advantage of the tax deferred nature on its distributions within that account.

However, this quickly get complicated when considered in a Roth IRA because as a result of SRV's return of capital distribution lowering the cost basis of the stock, I'm not certain when you receive distributions from your Roth IRA if you would have to pay taxes on any recapture in the basis.

If not, then it is a question of whether the benefits of compounding value of the lower tax basis is better than the loss from sheltering distribution from taxes from a return of capital distribution.

These are important considerations beyond the scope of my expertise. If this is a meaningful investment decision I would consult a trusted financial advisor or your accountant.

My knee-jerk reaction is to select something else for your Roth and own this in your taxable account.

Regards. ]]> Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:33:59 -0400
The simple answer to your question (remember "The Orient Express") is that SRV would be less attractive than other high yielding securities in a tax-exempt account due to the fact that SRV's distributions are mostly a return of capital and are typically not subject to income taxes at the time of distributions.

Therefore, if you held it in a tax-exempt account such as an IRA you wouldn't be getting any advantage of the tax deferred nature on its distributions within that account.

However, this quickly get complicated when considered in a Roth IRA because as a result of SRV's return of capital distribution lowering the cost basis of the stock, I'm not certain when you receive distributions from your Roth IRA if you would have to pay taxes on any recapture in the basis.

If not, then it is a question of whether the benefits of compounding value of the lower tax basis is better than the loss from sheltering distribution from taxes from a return of capital distribution.

These are important considerations beyond the scope of my expertise. If this is a meaningful investment decision I would consult a trusted financial advisor or your accountant.

My knee-jerk reaction is to select something else for your Roth and own this in your taxable account.

Regards. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/663691/comments?source=feed#comment-6615081 6615081
I based my observation on the following chart from Yahoo that shows an annualized monthly distribution of $2.76 per share ($0.23 per share monthly for a yield of over 11.8%. I usually try to corroborate such facts.(http://yhoo.it/N9GSX9)

In going back and looking at the public literature, I. like you, could not find any press release to confirming such a distribution change.

So, the answer is that there was only one data point and that's why I emphasized the previous distribution rate and yield.

Thanks for your query.

Regards]]> Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:20:02 -0400
I based my observation on the following chart from Yahoo that shows an annualized monthly distribution of $2.76 per share ($0.23 per share monthly for a yield of over 11.8%. I usually try to corroborate such facts.(http://yhoo.it/N9GSX9)

In going back and looking at the public literature, I. like you, could not find any press release to confirming such a distribution change.

So, the answer is that there was only one data point and that's why I emphasized the previous distribution rate and yield.

Thanks for your query.

Regards]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/663691/comments?source=feed#comment-6502881 6502881
Many thanks for providing incrementally important information that help investors to triangulate on some of the issues impacting individual CEFs.

Regards]]> Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:58:17 -0400
Many thanks for providing incrementally important information that help investors to triangulate on some of the issues impacting individual CEFs.

Regards]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/648781/comments?source=feed#comment-6337211 6337211
I respect your opinion.

Now that you have advanced a conclusion, it would be infinitely more helpful if you could provide the basis for your conclusion.

Is it that you think the global economy is in a tailspin? Stronger USD? Central banks selling gold?


Regards]]> Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:48:06 -0400
I respect your opinion.

Now that you have advanced a conclusion, it would be infinitely more helpful if you could provide the basis for your conclusion.

Is it that you think the global economy is in a tailspin? Stronger USD? Central banks selling gold?


Regards]]>