{"id":9495,"date":"2010-01-22T01:07:58","date_gmt":"2010-01-22T05:07:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.prefblog.com\/?p=9495"},"modified":"2010-01-22T01:07:58","modified_gmt":"2010-01-22T05:07:58","slug":"powprc-yes-cpd-is-the-buyer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/prefblog.com\/?p=9495","title":{"rendered":"POW.PR.C: Yes, CPD is the Buyer"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today’s spreadsheet (dated 2010-1-21) from CPD discloses a holding<\/a> of 0.72% in POW.PR.C compared to the January 19 figure of 0.25% … so we may conclude that CPD is the culprit behind the stupid dumb trading in the TXPR Rebalancing Issues<\/a> … Assiduous Reader to_be_frank<\/i> wins a kewpie doll for first spotting the pattern<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Nesbitt – it looks like they are CPD’s agents in this horrific display of gross incompetence – bought 30,000 shares of POW.PR.C today at 25.443 while selling 25,000 at 25.45 (the sale was a single cross, so there’s one institutional investor with a smile on his face, anyway. Give the man a bonus! The other implication is that Nesbitt only bought 5,000 from retail). POW.PR.C closed the day at 25.08-20, 2×10 … so who knows? Maybe things are getting back to normal. POW.PR.C is still trading about 25bp through POW.PR.B at the closing bids, however – despite having significantly more call risk – so they’re still extremely ridiculously expensive.<\/p>\n

Fearless Prediction: CPD will show its normally low Trading Expense Ratio on its next financials (the TER shows only commission cost, and makes no attempt to capture the generally much much higher market impact and spread costs). Regulators are very particular about funds reporting their TER, because it’s so VERY VERY important.<\/p>\n

Update, 2010-1-22<\/b>: I have uploaded three charts from HIMIPref™ for your edification and amusement. They compare POW.PR.B (which should normally trade to yield less, due to the lower value of the embedded option) with POW.PR.C:<\/p>\n