HighTower

A Curious Mix of Moves for Closed-End Funds

significant discount, major holdings in Bershire Hathaway and possibility of a resumption of dividends.

Closed-End Funds: Hugging the Flat line

The only benefit expressed here is the inflow and outflow of money to the porfolio which is more important to the management than the shareholder.

The additional marketing cost (12b-1 fees) are more than made up by the closing of the discount.

Additional, buying something at a discount that stays at a discount doesn't enhance return. It's dead money.


On Nov 15 10:17 AM jse17 wrote:

> www.adams-express.com/...
>
> Focus on (C)

PIMCO Global StocksPLUS & Income Fund Looks Overvalued

Your logic is the same as the one that produced the current financial crisis. You ignore the fact and let the bubble build until it explodes. This is the greater fool theory supported by fools, traders and government supported financial institutions. The little guys are usually the victims--twice.


On Nov 13 05:14 PM suburban blues wrote:

> And a stopped clock is right twice a day.. This reminds me a great
> deal of all the naysayers against the present rally...eventually
> they will be right. but they sure passed up a lot of profits.

The Compelling Case for Converting Adams Express into an Active ETF

This seems like a reasonable suggestion. What is ADX management response? Is there something this guy is missing?

CEF Weekly Review: Ping Pong, Anyone?

The management of ADX has no incentive (positive or negative) to narrow the discount. They just sit there “fat & happy” collecting fees with little personal concern for the discount.

Maybe management should be compensated in salaries that are discounted to the same extent that the shares trade to NAV, or pay them it their own stock based on the share price.

Management has no dog in this fight: why should they care? As Joe points out, they’re not buying shares of their stock as a great investment.

The independent directors should embarrassed they haven’t addressed this situation and shareholders are just a bunch of patsies for not stepping-up.

PIMCO High Income Fund: A Swan Song

I agree with your conclusion that this is more about Pimco's status as a bond manager than the specific valuation of PHK. As we've seen before, market's are subject to periods of "irrational exuberance". However, this exuberance can last longer that you'll be able to remain solvent. Probably a good idea to check back in 6 months.

PIMCO High Income Fund Cannot Support Its Share Price

What's the implications of PHK's newly announced investment policy that expands the amount of its portfolio it can investment in investment grade securities?

Doesn't that mean its net investment income will be lower because higher rated bonds yields are lower and the markets are more efficient?

So, now you have lower portfolio income and less leverage? What does that do to investment income?

www.allianzinvestors.c...

Attractive and Secure Monthly CEF Distributions?

That did not appear on its website until today


On Aug 28 10:13 AM Paali wrote:

> www.csam-europe.com/ds...

Attractive and Secure Monthly CEF Distributions?

Can someone please tell me where ETFconnect got their data regarding CIK's new distribution rate? I don't see anything posted by CIK to reflect the new rate.

CEF Mergers Drives Special Equity Funds

I've included a hyperlink to "Investing Tutorials - Basics" from Investopedia as it appears you don't have a clue: www.investopedia.com/u...


On Jul 19 12:32 PM GlobalTrekker wrote:

> Decent compendium of CEF activity, some more relevant than others,
> but let's keep this a financial web focus and keep your personal
> politics out of it.

Low Share Price CEFs Have Significant Advantage in a Market Recovery

CEFGuru

While I don't have those numbers readily available, using the current low price CEFs in the artcile as a proxy, The average bid/asked spread for the 6 CEF in the article is .011 per share vs an average share price of 2.20. That would amount to a average spread as a percentage of price less than 1/2 percent (0.5%).

Joe Eqcome


On Mar 16 09:38 AM CEFGuru wrote:

> What is the average bid/ask spread between the top and bottom quartile?
> Curiosu to see if this would somehow eliminate much of that outperformance.

Closed-End Funds: Taking It on the Chin?

I've read a number of Scott F's comments and I find them not only of little investment value I also find them annoying. He seems to have a shallow understanding of RIC’s and offers dismissive pronouncements without providing any source of support for his arguments. Stringing a couple of buzz word and throwing in terms like "crap" isn't real investment insight; it’s something I can get my 7 year old daughter to do.




On Jan 22 11:32 AM Scott F wrote:

> December did prove oversold, though less than November, but most
> of these ten funds are not remotely worth buying. They are at deep
> discounts and going deeper because they are crap. If you could buy
> a bag of rotten fruit at a discount to its peers, would that make
> it cheap? Also, these discounts in many cases are actually *understated*.
> These funds often have made-up dividends (i.e., return of capital),
> invented NAVs (Type 2 and 3 accounting evaluation methods), huge
> annual fees, and terrible long-term track records. The managers are
> largely incompetent and just milking the funds for their fees until
> they dissolve. These are only trading vehicles, and little more than
> gambling at that.

Muni Funds: CEFs vs. ETFs in 2009

I agree with Joe. I'd like to see Scott provide some support for his comments. He may be correct, but until he can document it, its just vague conjecture.

Opportunities for Gains in 2009: CEF Year-End Muni Discounts

This is pretty naive drool.


On Jan 13 12:18 PM Scott F wrote:

> Interesting finding but not statistically robust. You really need
> to take random samples of the funds and the sectors and see how reliable
> this has been over the years. Then you'll have far more statistical
> confidence that 38% or any % is significantly and causally correlated
> with year-end. Also, there are macro fundamentals that this ignores.
> These are largely New York and CA munis which are at high discounts.
> This makes sense as they have vastly over-leveraged their confederal
> debt. With so much debt and more growing though mutual financial
> crises in NY and CA, both are going to have to go to the debt market,
> cap in hand, and end up paying a lot more for their muni debt. The
> lower-yielding munis these funds hold are going to get killed, and
> as all these funds are leveraged, the carnage will be amplified,
> maybe by as much as the entire discount. Compare these to state munis
> that have no leverage, and it will give you a better handle on how
> the market is pricing this risk.