Canadian Money Forum banner

41 - 60 of 97 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #41
CFR Is Misinterpreted Again ?

for some reason CFR or the person posting here seems to me as though he is pushing only Riocan (REI-UN.TO), stating the 8% sustainable income when REI-UN.TO is below $17 & I do not disagree with that whatsoever, until & unless the stock pops or the stock drops or the dividend amount changes or the REIT is collapsed & converted to a regular stock.

REI-UN.TO is not forever - IMO its a very short hold (less than 2-years), after that who knows where it will be. And what of that, what happens then to the 8% sustainable income cash yield on that particular REIT

The question is why the emphasis on this particular REIT - This is the single most important question that I would like answered by anyone, including CFR?

The thread on Riocan IMO has degenerated to bashing CFR with CFR constantly trying to defend (or plugging) that particular REIT

For some reason CFR continues to quote buffet & others - why & who really cares

Would CFR please tell us what if any other high return sustainable income trusts (those 7/23 mentioned elsewhere up thread) it is that he follows if any, since I for one am always interested to hear the views and opinions of those investing who are getting high sustainable ROR or ROI

I dont really care that CFR compares his firm to the pedlars, since I'm sure that there must be other FA's and/or pedlars that compare themselves to CFR.

CFR can say whatever he wants about the returns, I have no way to confirm or check on the claims he says that he or his clients get or how much they have made or lost with CFR - for all I know CFR could be blowing wind out of his backside

Hi Ethos1

Riocan, like any investment, is not forever, and must be continually evaluated, as I have stated before.

My original point, many posts ago, was that an 8% sustainable investment rate of return was possible. When this was considered to be "astonishing", and I was asked for specific support, I provided Riocan as just one of many current investment opportunities available that provide an 8% sustainable rate.

Riocan was also provided as an example of the type of returns that my clients and I have been getting over the past several years.

Out of the 30 TSX REIT's, yes, using my strict investment criteria , I only consider 7 (including Riocan) of the 30 as quality REIT's. However , since my clients pay for my ongoing research, I don't believe that it is fair to give more than Riocan away for free. (You could always buy the REIT index funds, and have the same experience as Jon Chevreau describes on the REIT thread)

Previously, I stated that my clients and I will continue to buy Riocan up to $17, and then afterwards stop buying it, focus on margin paydown, and in 3-5 years when it hits $27 again, we will sell it. Obviously, I don't expect everybody to agree with this strategy, but I just toss it out there as an example of just 1 strategy that my clients and I are doing. Instead of taking my word for it, just follow Riocan for the next few years, and see for yourself if this April/09 recommendation was a good one.


Bob
www.cfrca.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
REITinvestor.ca cautiously believes RioCan distribution to be safe for 2009

REITinvestor.ca cautiously believes RioCan distribution to be safe for 2009.
RioCan REIT (REI.UN - TSX)
March 24, 2009
REITinvestor.ca cautiously believes RioCan distribution to be safe for 2009. REITinvestor.ca, a private subscriber based independent rating & ranking service has completed its review of RioCan REIT and is of the opinion the current distribution is safe for 2009. Following a detailed analysis of RioCan 2008 Q4 Report and Annual Financial Statement, REITinvestor.ca is of the opinion that management can navigate the stormy waters of retail and office leasing in the near term. REITinvestor.ca is maintaining its neutral #3 rating for REI.UN for 2009. In the opinion of REITinvestor.ca, the distribution payout of $0.115 per month ($1.38 annualized) is secure for the next 12 months assuming the financial and economic does not weaken substantially over the rest of the year. Of particular note to REITinvestor.ca: - RioCan REIT reported occupancy rates (96%) while lease renewals/new leasing have remained strong into the close of 2008 due to quality of assets, quality tenants and excellent management. - However, certain risks remain for REI.UN should commercial real estate values continue to fall. o Namely, termination of its $200M credit line if loan to value for pledged properties exceed 60%. REITinvestor estimates the REI.UN entire portfolio is currently levered to 52.2%. o S&P and DBRS maintained their credit rating for REI.UN at BBB or investment grade as of 12/31/09. This rating could be affected by further weakening of financial & economic conditions triggering further difficulties including replacing debentures coming due. - Additional line of credit for $90M has been approved but yet to be completely finalized. This additional restores liquidity to an industry average of near 7%. - During the 1st 45 days of 2009, REI.UN reported that the area of unexpected vacancies (bankruptcies etc.) were double the area realized during the same period in 2008. This rate of increase is of concern and will need to be monitored for the rest of Q1 & Q2 2009. - REI.UN is focusing an effort to expand its 3rd party asset management services which would provide for additional risk free revenue. REI.UN units closed on Tuesday March 23rd at $12.25 per unit and are yielding 11.1% at that price. RioCan REIT is Canada’s largest REIT with more than 32M square feet and $2.6B in market cap. For more information, visit REITinvestor.ca


DISCLOSURE: REITinvestor.ca maintains its own investment fund and currently is not holding units of REI.UN. REITinvestor.ca does not provide investment advice nor does it recommend the purchase or sale of securities including any REIT units it covers. Please consult your personal professional advisor before investing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,686 Posts
Let me try again. ROC is NOT truly a return of capital, but instead , as I stated before, it is simply the REIT passing onto individual unitholders capital cost allowance (CCA) that the REIT isn't claiming, so that the CCA can be claimed by the unitholders.
Okay. Here's my last try why CCA is simply ROC. Say RioCan buys a property and the buildings are worth $100m. It doesn't really matter how the capital is raised. It could be raised from shareholders by issuing new units or borrowed from a third party. We'll assume it is borrowed from a bank. The building is capitalized on RioCan's balancesheet and CRA allows a CCA in future years for the loss in value of the capital asset due to wear and tear.

Now, let's do the accounting for Year 2. Assume the building nets $8m in rent. Assume money was borrowed with an interest-only loan at 4%. Interest expense is $4m. Guess what? CCA is $4m based on 4% CCA rate for buildings. RioCan can distribute the entire $4m to unit holders as ROC!

Now this is ROC because the building is worth $96m on the books and RioCan owes $100m to its lenders. End of story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
All I want to know is where to find Bob when Riocan's distributions don't keep up with inflation, like he's promising.

My thinking is --- Run away from any one who says he has a sure thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
All I want to know is where to find Bob when Riocan's distributions don't keep up with inflation, like he's promising.

My thinking is --- Run away from any one who says he has a sure thing.


Bob did say up to $17 its 8%, after that he repositions, which too my mind is good logic.

Possible things that could happen

If the stock drops below current levels and the distributions also drop - then its time to sell.

However if the stock drops & the distributions remain the same, then wouldn't the yield go up & those at $17 average would begin to loose capital

If the stock stays between $17 - $20 and the distributions drop - then it could be the time to sell off, take a profit or bury your head in the sand
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
Okay. Here's my last try why CCA is simply ROC. Say RioCan buys a property and the buildings are worth $100m. It doesn't really matter how the capital is raised. It could be raised from shareholders by issuing new units or borrowed from a third party. We'll assume it is borrowed from a bank. The building is capitalized on RioCan's balancesheet and CRA allows a CCA in future years for the loss in value of the capital asset due to wear and tear.

Now, let's do the accounting for Year 2. Assume the building nets $8m in rent. Assume money was borrowed with an interest-only loan at 4%. Interest expense is $4m. Guess what? CCA is $4m based on 4% CCA rate for buildings. RioCan can distribute the entire $4m to unit holders as ROC!

Now this is ROC because the building is worth $96m on the books and RioCan owes $100m to its lenders. End of story.
In a case like this where all "excess" funds have to be returned to unitholders, why on earth would a bank provide an interest only loan? On top of that, why wouldn't they insist on debt:equity ratios that prevented the company from distributing all the cash without paying down the loan balance? Otherwise, many years down the road when the building is 99.999% written off, no maintenance has been done so the building no longer generates significant revenue since it's a hole, and it's market value is way less than the outstanding 100m loan, the bank takes a big hit.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen... but if it does, I'd like to know which banks are stupid enough to do it so I can stay away from them! They're probably the same banks that think subprime is a great way to make money since houses can only go up....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,686 Posts
In a case like this where all "excess" funds have to be returned to unitholders, why on earth would a bank provide an interest only loan?
This scenario is simply for illustration purposes but let's say RioCan owns all its properties free and clear. If it has $5B in assets, banks don't have much risk in giving a $100m line of credit secured by some of the properties. After all, they do this all the time for homeowners with significant equity in their homes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
Sorry, one more question, although this one has to assume they have other stuff other than 100% financing through interest only bank loans.

Say there are 1m shares outstanding of the reit @ $10.00 per share. If it generates 40 cents per share (as expected) entirely from operations (no RoC), then you would presume the share price remains the same. If they distribute 60 cents per share, of which 40 cents is operations and 20 cents is RoC (say from selling a building) then I would assume the share price would go down by 20 cents to maintain the exact same yield (as that building will no longer be generating operational income).

But say it's a responsible company and sets aside money for maintenance/repairs, but that the CCA rates in the initial years are too high (since 4% of 100m is 4m, but 20 years down the road it will only be 1.8m), so it returns 2m of the amount and spends/sets aside 2m for maintenace. In this case the building has returned that cash, but we would not expect it to impact operating income at all, since it has been maintained... therefore, for the yield to remain the same, the share price would need to stay the same during this period. Later on, when the CCA is less than the actual cost for maintenance, operating profit would be reduced due to the additional expense, and therefore at that time the share price would start going down to maintain the same yield.

This RoC/share price disconnect might be explained because the CCA, and therefore the expenses related to it, are likely too high for buildings. Using 4%, the book value of a building is less than half the purchase price in 20 years, but how many buildings under normal circumstances have a market value that goes down when they are properly maintained (which the company is presumably doing)? Therefore it might be possible to say that if you accept the theory that under normal circumstances the building holds it's market value regardless of the book value, then giving back the CCA is not a return of capital, but a distribution of unrealized capital gains?

And I should stress I'm not arguing for or against Reits or Riocan, although I have been happy holding XRE so far, I'm just trying to understand them better to make sure I don't have a ticking time bomb in my portfolio.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
This scenario is simply for illustration purposes but let's say RioCan owns all its properties free and clear. If it has $5B in assets, banks don't have much risk in giving a $100m line of credit secured by some of the properties. After all, they do this all the time for homeowners with significant equity in their homes.
But by doing this, the bank has given itself priority on the assets so that it gets paid before the funds are distributed to unitholders, and has presumably selected properties worth more than $100m. If we apply that to your example from your post, then even though the REIT is returning CCA cash, the value of the building remains equal to the amount of the bank loan, or they would forclose.

That seems to support the contention actually that the CCA is not necessarily a true return of capital. Going back to your original example, year one balance sheet is:

Building 100m Loan 100m
Equity 0

After Year 2 (before distribution) it is:

Cash 4m Loan 100m
Building 96m Equity 0

BUT if we were to sell the building, assuming there was only price stability, we'd have:

Cash 104m Loan 100m
Equity 4m

Then when we paid off the loan and distributed the 4m it would be profit, not RoC... the only difference being the recording of the building at book instead of market.

I realize this isn't a universal case, depends on the building, the reit actually maintaining things properly, how old the building is (ie, is that the construction price or the purchase price of a 100 year old building)... but at least it explains to me why there is so much argument about whether it is a true RoC or not (with the not seeming to be unrealized gains).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,686 Posts
But by doing this, the bank has given itself priority on the assets so that it gets paid before the funds are distributed to unitholders, and has presumably selected properties worth more than $100m. If we apply that to your example from your post, then even though the REIT is returning CCA cash, the value of the building remains equal to the amount of the bank loan, or they would forclose.
You are assuming that the loan is secured by the exact building the loan was used to purchase. It may not be true. Let's say I have a $25K secured LOC against my home, which is worth $250K. I can draw down the $25K credit line for buying stocks. As long as my interest payments are current, the bank doesn't care what I do with the $25K drawdown. My stocks could go to zero but as long as the terms of the loan are met, the bank wouldn't foreclose.

That seems to support the contention actually that the CCA is not necessarily a true return of capital. Going back to your original example, year one balance sheet is:

Building 100m Loan 100m
Equity 0

After Year 2 (before distribution) it is:

Cash 4m Loan 100m
Building 96m Equity 0

BUT if we were to sell the building, assuming there was only price stability, we'd have:

Cash 104m Loan 100m
Equity 4m

Then when we paid off the loan and distributed the 4m it would be profit, not RoC... the only difference being the recording of the building at book instead of market.
After Year2, you have Cash 4m, Loan 100m, Building 96m and equity -4m (not 0). The negative equity is why I'm arguing that CCA is ROC.

I'm not sure what happens when the building is sold in the 2nd year for $100m. You have $4m capital gains, $4m CCA but only $4m in cash to distribute. Any accountants want to weigh in?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
You are assuming that the loan is secured by the exact building the loan was used to purchase. It may not be true. Let's say I have a $25K secured LOC against my home, which is worth $250K. I can draw down the $25K credit line for buying stocks. As long as my interest payments are current, the bank doesn't care what I do with the $25K drawdown. My stocks could go to zero but as long as the terms of the loan are met, the bank wouldn't foreclose.
Your stocks could go to zero, but not your house. The bank wouldn't let you give anyone else a higher priority on the funds from your house when you sell after they secure it, so overall, as an entity, you couldn't have a truly negative equity.

After Year2, you have Cash 4m, Loan 100m, Building 96m and equity -4m (not 0). The negative equity is why I'm arguing that CCA is ROC.
That's wrong, because assets+liabilities do not equal equity. I believe you meant you have -4m equity after distributing the 4m cash, in which case you would have, after Year 2, Cash 0, Building 96m, Loan 100m, Equity -4m. That's entirely based on book value though. If the building is worth 100m or more, then using actual market values, you still have => 0 Equity.

So in essence, using only book value, it is a RoC, but one that doesn't affect the yield because CCA is a non cash expense. If you use market value, however, which is what the bank would use when determining if it's loan were still properly secured, you'd still have 0 equity and thus it is the gain in the value of the building that you are returning instead of capital... which also would not affect the yield.

I'm not sure what happens when the building is sold in the 2nd year for $100m. You have $4m capital gains, $4m CCA but only $4m in cash to distribute. Any accountants want to weigh in?
I am an accountant, just not a tax accountant (although we all have to get at least a rudimentary understanding of normal tax laws)... and reits are all about weird tax treatment, or at least they were. Under normal circumstances, assuming the corrected balance sheet numbers above, after the distribution you have cash 0, building 96, loan 100, equity -4. You sell the building and now have cash 100, building 0, loan 100, gain on sale of assets 4, equity -4. You pay off the loan and now have cash 0, building 0, loan 0, equity 0 (gain = net income = equity).

Of course, in a normal business, not sure about reits, CCA is optional. If you feel 4% is too high, you can just claim less. You can also have seperate "book" depreciation from "tax" depreciation, say 1% vs. 4%, so on the books you'd show it as building 99 instead of 96, but for tax purposes you could have claimed the entire 4m.... you then just have to have an item to record the future tax payable because of the present tax savings from the difference.... so if it works the same for reits, if they don't need 4%, instead of writing off 4% and saying it's RoC, they could just say "depreciation is 0 this year" and thus have a 4m profit that they distribute.

The same way it could appear to be a RoC and not be though, it could appear not to be a RoC and truly be. If it would require 2m per year in regular maintenance to keep it's value and the company doesn't spend it, then that will make profits look 2m higher, which they could distribute without it looking like a RoC... but in that case the market value of the building might be going down fast due to the neglect, but the book value doesn't change. In that case, instead of down the road recording a gain, you wind up recording a loss, which means that previous distributions were really RoC.

The more I think about it, the more I can see how easily it would be to play games with this structure, which makes me nervous about holding XRE :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,686 Posts
That's wrong, because assets+liabilities do not equal equity. I believe you meant you have -4m equity after distributing the 4m cash, in which case you would have, after Year 2, Cash 0, Building 96m, Loan 100m, Equity -4m. That's entirely based on book value though.
I stand corrected. I did mean to say equity -4m after the cash is distributed.

The CCA might be much higher than true depreciation, so some of the ROC yield is income that is classified as ROC due to tax treatment. That's a fair point.

The reverse is also true. The ROC portion can easily be boosted by delaying much needed repairs. Many income trusts played this game and investors eventually paid the price through lower unit prices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
The more I think about it, the more I can see how easily it would be to play games with this structure, which makes me nervous about holding XRE :)
Actually, what should make you nervous about holding XRE is that, depending on the value of your investment, you could easily purchase the four main components of the index as a proxy for the ETF and avoid paying the MER. That would be ideal, of course, if you plan on holding this investment for a long time...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #54
Is REIT ROC Really A ROC ? What Does Bob Say ?

I stand corrected. I did mean to say equity -4m after the cash is distributed.

The CCA might be much higher than true depreciation, so some of the ROC yield is income that is classified as ROC due to tax treatment. That's a fair point.

The reverse is also true. The ROC portion can easily be boosted by delaying much needed repairs. Many income trusts played this game and investors eventually paid the price through lower unit prices.

Hi CC

You have come a long way, thanks to some fine analysis by StephenHeath, in your REIT ROC awareness, compared to your above post which purported to be the "end of story" concerning the REIT ROC issue.

As you correctly state, many business income trusts over inflated their cash distribution/yield by deferring maintenance capex, which in the end usually blows up in the face of unitholders. Most such business income trusts had no tangible/real estate assets, but instead owned only rapidly depreciable vehicles and equipment.

What about REIT's, which own tangible / long lived real estate rental property assets ? Do REIT distributions consitute true income only from an overall economic view point, with CCA "classified as ROC due to tax treatment", or do REIT distributions include some real economic ROC ?

This issue has been debated ever since REIT's were first introduced into Canada more than 15 years ago, and will likely continue to be debated for many years. Many subjective factors are involved, as already identified in StephenHeath's analysis, such as real estate location/quality, real estate property and rent inflation rates, how well the properties are maintained with capex expenditures, distribution payout ratio compared to AFFO, etc,etc,etc.

So what does Bob say ?

Is REIT ROC Really A ROC ?

In the case of the 7 quality REIT's that I believe only exist of the 30 TSX publicly traded REIT's, ie managment/unitholder alignment of interests, top tier well maintained properties, distributions less than AFFO, etc,etc, I believe that the distributions of these REIT's , from an overall economic viewpoint, do NOT include a ROC.

In the case of the remaining 23 poor quality REIT's on the TSX, ie management/unitholder conflict of interests, poor located/maintained properties, distributions exceeding AFFO, etc, etc, , I believe that the distributions of these lousy REIT's, from an overall economic viewpoint, DO include ROC.

In my opinion, Riocan should be included as one of the 7 quality REIT's, with its distributions therefore, from an overall economic viewpoint, NOT including a ROC.

Which, of course, brings me way back to my original point that Riocan's distribution is one of many examples of where you can achieve a 8%+ sustainable yield.

An "astonishing" journey !

Bob
www.cfrca.com
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,686 Posts
The CCA might be much higher than true depreciation, so some of the ROC yield is income that is classified as ROC due to tax treatment. That's a fair point.
Cherry picking your points must be part of Bob's analysis. "Some of the ROC distributions" suddenly transformed into "the entire distribution has NO ROC". Nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #56
Bob Stands Corrected Regarding "Some"

Cherry picking your points must be part of Bob's analysis. "Some of the ROC distributions" suddenly transformed into "the entire distribution has NO ROC". Nice.

Sorry CC, this was not intentional, as I should have also put a "some" in my sentance above.

However, this minor point does not change my major points that :

1) You have come a long way, thanks to StephenHeath, since your "end of story" ROC post, where there was NO "some", and

2) My conclusion that Riocan's 8+% yield is sustainable.

Unlike some, I have no need to "cherry pick" or misinterpret somebody's else's words in order to make my analysis. However, I do stand corrected for not including "some" when referring to your quote.


Bob
www.cfrca.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
Actually, what should make you nervous about holding XRE is that, depending on the value of your investment, you could easily purchase the four main components of the index as a proxy for the ETF and avoid paying the MER. That would be ideal, of course, if you plan on holding this investment for a long time...
That is the long term plan, at the moment my investments are still too small to do that considering fees (XRE is allocated to only be 10% of my total equities part of the portfolio), but eventually when that portion hits... I think I worked it out to be about 15,000 or so (I'd better double check that number now since I've forgotten) it would be time to split it up.

thanks to some fine analysis by StephenHeath
While I appreciate the compliment, the reality is that I was posing questions to better understand it. I tend to be the kind of learner that has to understand how things work to get it. And while perhaps it did show that CC's original statement may have been a tad too definitive, the spirit of his statement, that some distributions could be hidden RoC, making the yield look better than it is, seems to be 100% true, as I have now learned how, if I ran a REIT, I could play the numbers any way I wanted to.

(Disclosure: I've learned everything I know about investing from CC, and developed my portfolio, asset allocation, etc... based on his techniques. I respect his opinion highly enough that anything he had significant worries about I'd stay well away from, so in this case, even if it weren't my natural inclination to be more conservative and plan for the worst case scenario, I'd hesitate to jump on the "8% returns in retirement" bandwagon.)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,686 Posts
I've learned everything I know about investing from CC, and developed my portfolio, asset allocation, etc... based on his techniques. I respect his opinion highly enough that anything he had significant worries about I'd stay well away from, so in this case, even if it weren't my natural inclination to be more conservative and plan for the worst case scenario, I'd hesitate to jump on the "8% returns in retirement" bandwagon.
Thanks for the kind words. I have posted before that I like RioCan myself and hold it as a proxy for the Canadian REIT sector. I've written on the blog that my interest was piqued when analyst estimates of NAV indicated a discount to market value. Also, at that time (around $20) the spread over then bond yields were slightly more than average. My average price is between $17-$18 and REI.UN makes up 5% of my portfolio. Of course, the discount to NAV and spreads are even higher now, suggesting that investors are handsomely compensated for risk. T

However, there is a world of difference between saying that RioCan's risk-reward profile is attractive to making claims that the yield is "sustainable" far into the future. Equities are always about probabilities; there are many ways in which the future can play out. It is one thing to say the odds are in your favour; quite another to make blanket statements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #59
Who's your investment teacher ?

That is the long term plan, at the moment my investments are still too small to do that considering fees (XRE is allocated to only be 10% of my total equities part of the portfolio), but eventually when that portion hits... I think I worked it out to be about 15,000 or so (I'd better double check that number now since I've forgotten) it would be time to split it up.



While I appreciate the compliment, the reality is that I was posing questions to better understand it. I tend to be the kind of learner that has to understand how things work to get it. And while perhaps it did show that CC's original statement may have been a tad too definitive, the spirit of his statement, that some distributions could be hidden RoC, making the yield look better than it is, seems to be 100% true, as I have now learned how, if I ran a REIT, I could play the numbers any way I wanted to.

(Disclosure: I've learned everything I know about investing from CC, and developed my portfolio, asset allocation, etc... based on his techniques. I respect his opinion highly enough that anything he had significant worries about I'd stay well away from, so in this case, even if it weren't my natural inclination to be more conservative and plan for the worst case scenario, I'd hesitate to jump on the "8% returns in retirement" bandwagon.)

Hi Stephen

I have learned almost everything that I know about investing from Benjamin Graham and Warren Buffett.

You state that you have learned everything that you know about investing from CC.

One of us is severely lacking ?


Bob
www.cfrca.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #60
CC Finally Makes Full Riocan Disclosure ?

Thanks for the kind words. I have posted before that I like RioCan myself and hold it as a proxy for the Canadian REIT sector. I've written on the blog that my interest was piqued when analyst estimates of NAV indicated a discount to market value. Also, at that time (around $20) the spread over then bond yields were slightly more than average. My average price is between $17-$18 and REI.UN makes up 5% of my portfolio. Of course, the discount to NAV and spreads are even higher now, suggesting that investors are handsomely compensated for risk. T

However, there is a world of difference between saying that RioCan's risk-reward profile is attractive to making claims that the yield is "sustainable" far into the future. Equities are always about probabilities; there are many ways in which the future can play out. It is one thing to say the odds are in your favour; quite another to make blanket statements.

Hello CC

Although better late than never, it's nice to see you finally make full Riocan disclosure.

You state that your average Riocan price is $17/$18. Between my 2002 $13 Riocan purchase, and my much more recent Feb/09 $12.15 Riocan purchase, my average Riocan cost is approx $12.50.

You state that Riocan makes up 5% of your portfolio. Quite interesting, and does Archanfel know about this ? Riocan makes up approx 10% of my portfolio.

You even state that at current Riocan prices, investors are handsomely compensated for risk. Which is exactly what I have been trying to say for almost one week ! Better late than never, thank you !

Aside from some better timing, and a willingness to take a larger position, our Riocan investing actions are not that different.

However, you go way off track by misinterpreting me again when you say that I made "blanket statements" that Riocan's distribution is sustainable "far into the future". Where did you dream this up from ? Have I not stated several times that Riocan, like any currently good investment, must be continually evaluated ? Why is your late Riocan disclosure and positive Riocan comments labelled odds in your favour stance, while my similar positive Riocan comments for some reason labelled blanket statements ?

If Riocan's ROC is such a major issue/risk, why is it 5% of your portfolio ?

There is no "world of difference" between what we are both saying about Riocan.

Riocan is simply a good investment where we are both getting a 8%+ sustainable return.

The only "world of difference" is the timing of when we each disclosed our Riocan positive opinions and positions.


Bob
www.cfrca.com
 
41 - 60 of 97 Posts
Top