Seeking Alpha

Bryce_in_TX

Bryce_in_TX
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Bryce_in_TX's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • 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]
    Fcarone,

    "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]
    Jm_is,

    "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]
    kid,

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

    http://bit.ly/JL5mLG

    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]
    FCARONE,

    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.

    http://1.usa.gov/1gumrlO
    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]
    RWMostow,

    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]
    fmhaynes11,

    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 | 6 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)

    http://bit.ly/1gry7fp

    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%.

    http://bit.ly/1gHuTCP

    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
  • Galena: Setting The Record Straight [View article]
    "It's sad to me that many feel the need to have anyone they disagree prove everything, while they accept anything as gospel from those with which they agree. It feels very red-state vs blue-state. "

    Mr. Ryan,

    The problem with your statements, for me anyway, are that I am not up on GALE's past like you seem to be. The delay of two years, from 2012 to 2014, of the trial actually getting underway I was not aware of. Going from 100 sites to 148 sites I also was not aware of, and where the sites are located. You spout out "stuff" without providing the links so that less informed individuals, like myself, can see where you derive your information. I find some of your claims credible, but some I don't, such as the questioning of the changing in wording from 25,000 patients to 103,500, or going from 200,000 to 230,000, or the change in dosing from an initial dose to monthly boosters.

    In Galena's most recent 10-K, I have quoted where they state 30,000 to 40,000 breast cancer patients out of 230,000 annually qualify for Nuevax. I don't find the 103,500 anywhere. That, I have to assume, is an assumption you have made based on other information. I don't find it credible.

    Going from 200,000 to 230,000 new cases of breast cancer a year I don't see any significance in, since the 230,000 is used not only by GALE but other reputable organizations, as I have shown from links.

    And going from an initial dose to monthly boosters, I have explained that I believe that is your own misinterpretation of the wording. As I have shown and proven, I believe, beyond any doubt, GALE has never changed their initial course of therapy and subsequent boosters, either in their 10-K filings or in their Present Trial wording.

    You also questioned if they had an SPA, which they do from what I have read. And you state that the earliest that Nuevax would be ready for use is 2022. I don't find either of those statements credible for obvious reasons.

    So, I find some of your claims without any credibility, mixed with others that have credibility. But, I have always given quotes along with links to back up what I am saying, always. Not wanting to provide links with your information will never fly with me. Why should anyone believe you without providing authoritative support for your claims? To me, a person is either lazy, or wants to try and present half truths or lies along with credible information, which is exactly what I am finding with you.

    When I said to pretend that I am 12 or 14 years old, I was serious. You have to make your presentations easy enough to understand, backed with authoritative links, so that it can be understood at such a level. I always attempt to do that. Otherwise, some of your material will go over some of our heads (probably me) and not be fully understood.
    Mar 30 10:12 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena: Setting The Record Straight [View article]
    What's funny?

    From the 2010 10-K, it states:

    "(1) U.S. insurance reimbursement assumed at $35,000 for initial course of therapy." (See bottom of Page 10 in link)

    http://1.usa.gov/1lcCTMH

    Note the word "initial course" of therapy, not "initial DOSE".

    As I showed, from the Phase II study results (see links above), the "course of therapy" was monthly injections of Neuvax. Some patients received 6 consecutive monthly injections, some received only 4 injections, in months 0, 1, 2, & 5, and some received only 3 injections, in months 0, 1, & 5. NO PATIENTS RECEIVED JUST ONE INITIAL DOSE AND THAT WAS IT. (See chart at top of page 2596, the column on the right titled, "Months Vaccinated".

    http://bit.ly/1gry7fp

    It's obvious to me that based on the Phase II results, the optimum dosing was determined to be 6 consecutive monthly injections of Nuevax, followed by a booster every 6 months, times five.

    The initial course of treatment for $35k, as described by the 2010 10-K, are the initial 6 consecutive monthly injections. The $5K bi-annual boosters are the boosters following the initial course of treatment, administered every 6 months, times five.

    There is no mystery here or change in wording. The 11-23-2011 description of the therapy to be administered is essentially identical to the 3-21-2014 description. And the wording in the 2010 10-K is consistent with these descriptions. See the links again.

    http://1.usa.gov/P1Fbmx

    "The NeuVax will be administered in intradermal injections, in four divided doses (4 sites on upper thigh) once a month, for six consecutive months.

    At the end of the six months, NeuVax™ vaccine boosters will be given the same way once every six months for the next five times (totaling 36 months)." (11-23-2011)

    http://1.usa.gov/1bfG30X

    "E75 peptide acetate (HER2/neu p366-379) in WFI (1.5 mg/mL) mixed with 250 micrograms Leukine® (sargramostim, GM-CSF), will be administered in intradermal injections, in four divided doses (4 sites on upper thigh) once a month, for six consecutive months.

    At the end of the six months, NeuVax™ vaccine boosters will be given the same way once every six months for the next five times (totaling 36 months)." (3-21-2014)

    Mr. Ryan, you don't provide quotes or links to back up your claims. I've had to bust my behind to find this information, and it isn't as you have portrayed it.

    From the 2010 10-K through all Phase III study changes, nothing material has changed in how the course of treatment is to be administered.
    Mar 29 08:32 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena: Setting The Record Straight [View article]
    "$35K initial dose plus $5K bi annual boosters is now Monthly boosters."

    Is the $35K for an initial "dose" (singular), or is it for the initial course of treatment? If you look at the Phase II study results, on page 2596, the chart at the top, look at the right where it says, "Months Vaccinated". Do you see that the most treated patients received 6 monthly injections of the vaccine?

    http://bit.ly/1gry7fp

    This is consistent with the description of how the dosing will occur in the Phase III Trial:

    "The NeuVax will be administered in intradermal injections, in four divided doses (4 sites on upper thigh) once a month, for six consecutive months." (11-23-2011)

    http://1.usa.gov/P1Fbmx

    "E75 peptide acetate (HER2/neu p366-379) in WFI (1.5 mg/mL) mixed with 250 micrograms Leukine® (sargramostim, GM-CSF), will be administered in intradermal injections, in four divided doses (4 sites on upper thigh) once a month, for six consecutive months." (3-21-2014)

    http://1.usa.gov/1bfG30X

    To me, what you have described is consistent with what will be administered, per the descriptions from the Phase III Trial site, both in 2011 and in 2014. The initial course of treatment will be 6 injections, in 4 divided doses, administered once a month for 6 consecutive months, and will cost $35K. One singular initial dose for $35K doesn't make sense to me.

    Then the $5K bi annual boosters would be administered every six months, just as the Phase III Trial describes:

    "At the end of the six months, NeuVax™ vaccine boosters will be given the same way once every six months for the next five times (totaling 36 months)."

    I don't see that they have changed anything here. I think you have misinterpreted the wording.

    On the other hand, I think you have some valid points with delays in getting the Phase III Trial underway, the possibility of some trial sites being shut down and the Trial delayed, and the ethics of the management.

    Whether they messed up on the protocol and design of the Phase II Trial, I don't know. Did they know what groups would benefit from the vaccine prior to Phase II, or was the different dosing of the vaccine to different groups a necessity for finding out who would most benefit?
    Mar 28 05:14 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
2,375 Comments
3,003 Likes