Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Bryce_in_TX's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • You Must Know This About REITs [View article]
    Thanks for the encouraging article as it relates to interest rates. I bought O and OHI for long term retirement income. Share prices will rise and fall over time, but long term I look for both to rise gradually due to the ever increasing dividends paid by both. Enjoyed the article.
    Apr 9 06:19 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Motors launches business leasing subsidiary [View news story]
    Even at $5 a gallon, the total out of pocket expense on a Honda Accord would be about $58K over 10 years. Still less expensive than a Model S by a considerable margin. I figured 26 mpg. A 4 cylinder would be 30 mpg, so the cost would be less using the 30 mpg, around $55K.

    Total cost is a mortgage payment, but it depreciates in value, not appreciates, like a home.
    Apr 8 05:16 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Motors launches business leasing subsidiary [View news story]
    A Model S is cheaper in the long run than a Honda Accord? Nupe. $28K for the Accord, plus 12,000 miles a year for 10 years, 26 mpg avg. Total cost around $44K. Throw in 4 oil changes a year at $30 a piece times 10 adds $1200. Add $5K for other repairs and you're looking at $50K total. Add 4 transmission fluid changes and several radiator flushes and you add another $1K. Tesla doesn't come close.
    Apr 8 04:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Realty Income: One Heck Of An Ark That's Prepared For The Storms Ahead [View article]
    Still no sign of FFO or AFFO in Ned Davis's Research Report. They are using GAAP earnings. Maybe Brad could expound on cash flow. I suspect what they are using cash flow wise is the Cash Flow from Ops and not FFO.
    Apr 8 03:27 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Realty Income: One Heck Of An Ark That's Prepared For The Storms Ahead [View article]
    Bottom Line:

    I give a lot more credence to Brad and his actual experience in this industry, versus an investment company which appears to use primarily GAAP metrics. I think $40 is a little high for my comfort level to invest at, but I think a 1.1 rating out of 10 (Fidelity) is wayyyyyyy out of line and based upon less credible GAAP metrics primarily.

    Banking on "O" as a retirement income vehicle for both myself and my son. Long "O".
    Apr 7 06:01 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Realty Income: One Heck Of An Ark That's Prepared For The Storms Ahead [View article]

    "I do agree certain benchmarks (EPS & GAPP accounting) are not acceptable REIT evaluation metrics. Don't you think the service companies I cited in my comment know this? Don't you think they know what a REIT is and how they are typically, professionally evaluated ( FFO / particularly AFFO"s) ? Do you think they have not reviewed their recommendation accordingly when criticism of them came in from investors that thought they inappropriately used EPS and GAPP? How do you know they rely exclusively on GAPP and EPS ?"

    I don't see anywhere on Fidelity's analysis provided for "O" where FFO or AFFO is mentioned. The metrics shown, and which I have to assume the ratings are based, are primarily GAAP metrics. I can post the analysis if you want me to. No, I don't believe that the investment firms which Fidelity uses for "O"'s analysis use FFO or AFFO in their analysis. It's not listed anywhere in their reports that I see, only GAAP related metrics primarily.

    Example Report from Columbine Capital:

    The factors that impact their rating the most:
    (1) "Industry Momentum is Very Unfavorable
    Being in a strong-performing industry can have a carry-over effect that influences the investment prospects of the individual stocks. We measure the performance of a company's industry group over the past year in comparison to the market as a whole."
    (2) "Return On Equity is Very Low
    A measure of the rate of return on the ownership interest of the common stockholders. Return on equity reveals how much profit a company generates with the money shareholders have invested. In most sectors higher return on equity is better for future stock performance."

    ROE is a GAAP metric. Needs to be given little weight with an equity REIT, IMO. Columbine gives it the most weight. What more need I say?

    Factors that are "high" in consideration of Columbine's rating are:
    (1) "Cash Flow is Very Unattractive
    Positive cash flow gives a company funds for internal expansion, acquisitions, dividend payments, etc. Our evaluation looks at a company's cash flow over the past four quarters. Stocks favored by this measure have the highest cash flow available for their price."

    Again, this is the GAAP Cash Flow from Ops. I assume not FFO. CFO includes items not included in FFO. "O" must pay out at least 90% of its taxable income annually in dividends. Naturally, its CFO is going to be lower than C corps who can retain more cash for internal operations and capital expenditures. I don't see why "O" should be penalized for having to pay out more of its cash in the form of dividends.

    (2) "Estimate Trends are Very Negative
    Companies that are the subject of increasingly improving earnings forecasts tend to find favor with investors. We evaluate the changes over the past sixty days in Wall Street analysts' estimates of a company's future earnings using measures of diffusion, magnitude, and extremes."

    This is a GAAP earnings metric. I would give little weight to this metric.

    The list goes on with five more GAAP earnings metrics. So, 7 out of 11 evaluation metrics are based upon GAAP.

    I have to conclude these companies are basing their valuations primarily on GAAP metrics, rather than FFO, AFFO, and metrics which include these alternative evaluation metrics. I don't find your assumptions about Fidelity reasonable based upon my research.

    It would take time, but I could post some of the reports (all 12 if you wanted to see them) for you to see. But since you use Fidelity, yourself, you have access to the same data as I. I honestly don't see the reports as credible because it appears to be based primarily on GAAP, and I don't see FFO or AFFO anywhere in the analysis. Since you have access to Fidelity's analysis, show me where FFO or AFFO are considered. I don't find it.
    Apr 7 05:46 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Realty Income: One Heck Of An Ark That's Prepared For The Storms Ahead [View article]
    And $35 is a better price than $40, obviously. With rising interest rates, it may get that low or lower. I will hold what I have and buy more. I am in for the long haul with a rising dividend and gradually rising share price as a result.

    Fidelity advised me not to invest in their Oil Services Fund and Nat Gas Fund. When their Oil Services fund tanked at $33 a share in 2008 or 2009, I bought in with both feet. Had I followed their advice I would have missed out on a 100% return on my money. Professional Investment Advisors seem very skiddish to advise a client to invest when things have tanked. The reality is that is the time to be buying in, leaving some cash on the side to buy more if prices decline more. The only way you are going to lose is if the market fails to turn around. If that happens, the capital markets as we know it will cease to exist.

    With "O" thus far, I am averaging about a 9% a year return, since Nov. 2012.
    Apr 4 04:28 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Realty Income: One Heck Of An Ark That's Prepared For The Storms Ahead [View article]

    "A P/E of over 60, and a payout well in excess of earnings."

    How can the P/E of over 60, based upon GAAP earnings be credible?

    GAAP earnings exclude the rise in FMV of assets, and instead depreciate the assets over time. As in my example of the $500,000 cost of a property, at the end of 5 years that property can be sold for $575,000, but GAAP only reflects a value of $455,000. Instead of GAAP reflecting the gradual rise in value of the property, both in the carrying value on the balance sheet and on the Income Statement as part of annual earnngs, GAAP waits to reflect the increase in value until the property is sold.

    Obviously, the rise in FMV of an asset which consistently increases in value, such as real estate, is an increase in net worth and income. That needs to be reflected as it occurs, annually, and not wait for 20 or 40 years to reflect the change in value. GAAP fails to do that, and as a result, understates net income on an annual basis. That is why the P/E and GAAP earnings are materially distorted and wrong. REIT industry professionals have had to resort to alternative economic metrics as a result.

    Obviously, a company continually paying out well in excess in earnings can not stay in business for long. The longevity of "O" and ability to increase the dividend should also be a signal something is wrong with the GAAP numbers.
    Apr 4 03:11 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Realty Income: One Heck Of An Ark That's Prepared For The Storms Ahead [View article]

    The long term track record of "O" contradicts your statement. The compounded average total return for "O" since 1994 is 16.3%.

    I''m in this long term. If higher interest rates causes "O"s price to decline, I'll buy more to average down my basis. With a steadily rising dividend, the share price is going to rise, long term.
    Apr 4 02:18 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Realty Income: One Heck Of An Ark That's Prepared For The Storms Ahead [View article]

    My point is that some of the investment houses base a material portion of their evaluations on GAAP numbers. As I and RWMostow have stated, GAAP gets it very wrong for equity REITs, like "O". Any evaluation of such REITs based upon GAAP Net Income metrics, to include price to earnings, is going to be very materially wrong. That is what I am saying.

    Let's take a $500,000 new property, land valued at $100,000 and the property at $400,000. GAAP places this property on the books at $500,000, its cost. After 5 years, let's say the property has appreciated in value by 15% (3% a year). So, FMV, the price it could be sold at, is $575,000. But the net value of the property on the GAAP financials is $455,000. ($400,000 less $50,000 salvage value divided by estimated useful life of 39 years. I'm assuming GAAP useful life is the same as the tax life.)

    There is a $120,000 variance in the FMV and GAAP book value. Also, the increase in FMV of the property has not been reflected in the GAAP Income Statement. All of this materially distorts GAAP Net Income and the carrying value of the property, which distorts any financial ratios based upon these GAAP metrics. Extend that out to 39 years and you have an even bigger distortion.

    How is that cheerleading? Are you saying GAAP has no problems and the investment houses are justified in evaluating the REITs on GAAP metrics? I don't think so.

    As I said, Fidelity shows TTM earnings as $ .71. That is GAAP Net Income from continuing operations. I've already pointed out the weakness in that metric and any ratio using that metric. It fails to include the appreciation in value of the property (assets) and the depreciation also distorts actual results. (A property fully depreciated still generates revenue, meaning the depreciation charged needed to be adjusted downward annually since the property continues to be used. See page 56 of the 2013 10-K for the $ .71 per share income from continuing ops.
    Apr 4 01:51 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Realty Income: One Heck Of An Ark That's Prepared For The Storms Ahead [View article]

    Great point that I missed, land increases in value and can not be depreciated. Thanks. Distorts the GAAP balance sheet and income statement even more, based upon current GAAP standards.
    Apr 4 01:37 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Realty Income: One Heck Of An Ark That's Prepared For The Storms Ahead [View article]

    Brad can explain this much better than I, but.........

    I am with Fidelity Investments and Fidelity ranks "O" as a very bearish 1.1 out of a possible 10.

    Fidelity shows EPS of $ .71 (TTM), while O pays out $2.19 in dividends a year. How can that be?

    Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the Investment Property that O lists on its balance sheet is carried at historical cost, not fair market value. Also, that property is depreciated annually, when, in reality, the FMV of the property generally rises in value. So, the GAAP valuing of the property at cost rather than FMV and the depreciation is a huge distortion to actual Net Income and EPS.

    Also, this distortion makes the P/E ratio unreliable on a GAAP basis.

    FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) is currently evaluating whether to switch to valuing property like O's at FMV rather than historical cost, but hasn't switched yet. I anticipate they will in the future, and that should help bring the GAAP financials more in line with reality. AT present, GAAP distorts the underlying economic reality of rising values of real estate, due to the property being valued at historical cost, and that property declining in value annually due to depreciation charges.

    I suspect that is a large reason for both Schwab's and Fidelity's rating of O. So, I don't think you can place much weight with their ratings. It's based on GAAP, which materially distorts the economics of REITs like "O".

    I think Brad knows what he is talking about and Schwab and Fidelity do not because the investment firms base much of their ratings on GAAP, which is not reliable for REITs.

    I am long "O" and am planning on starting a retirement account for my son in the next year or two with "O" as one of the basic foundational pillars of the account.
    Apr 4 12:18 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    "If they have to prop it up through shady practices then perhaps this suggests that management might have little, or no, confidence in the company's own products."

    Management having no confidence in the vaccine is not consistent with the science, IMO.

    At 18 months, the vaccine showed clinical efficacy (p value .04). Bears will argue that at 24 months and 60 months the vaccine "failed" and showed no clinical efficacy. However, only 58 patients, or 55% received what was eventually determined to be the optimum dosing of Nuevax, 6 consecutive monthly injections. (See "Months Vaccinated" at top right of chart on page 2596 of Phase II Study results)

    Furthermore, at the 24 month interval, though the P value was .08, the vaccine was associated with a 57% decrease in relative risk of recurrence of cancer. See page 2597 in above link.

    Adding boosters every 6 months after the initial treatment also improved results. So, bottom line, almost half the patients in the Phase II study did not receive the optimum dosing which was subsequently established. Looking at those who did receive the optimum dosing as well as boosters, there was zero (0%) disease recurrence at the 24 and 36 month intervals, and just 5.6% at the 60 months interval, versus 25.9% recurrence rate for the control group. That's a recurrence reduction of 78.4%.

    I would not want to be a short on GALE, who shorted it based on the science.
    Mar 31 10:46 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena: Setting The Record Straight [View article]
    "I've used my login at clintrials, and also logged out to be a jo-shmo, and am confident all of the data is as I state. Other's are press releases, RXi filings before GALE, and ARMY docs from those that ran the ½ study."

    But you don't provide the links for us to verify it. "am confident all of the data is as I state." LOL and you expect us to just "trust" you without you providing links to the information for us to verify if what you say is accurate? Really? That is not how it works in my world.
    Mar 30 11:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena: Setting The Record Straight [View article]
    "We are working on the same for another Kriegsman Co. It should hit the NY Circuit Court soon enough. (I am not a lawyer, not actually filing, but asked to participate in advising the team of share holders involved.)"

    Working for individuals involved in a lawsuit, you above all people should understand the need to provide authoritative support and back up for all of your claims, not just for yourself, but for those you are making claims to, i.e. us on this forum.
    Mar 30 10:39 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment