REITs Value When Interest Rates are Rising

Comments on: Debunking REIT Interest Rate Myths

Well argued. I am new to investing in REITs as an investor but I agree that the "conventional wisdom" doesn't make sense. I primary have dipped into only apartment REITs.
As with many misleading claims there is some truth behind the claims about REITs and interest rates.
It seems to me that the 3 biggest explanations for REITs declining if interest rates rise are

1. lowered value of REIT assets - this one makes the least sense to me. I get the cash flows (if they are set for years into the future) will be given less value but for my particular focus (apartment REITs) the cash flows could well increase (over the longer term) as the same factors causing rates to rise allow rental rents to be increased.
2. lower value of the current yield - this makes perfect sense, though it seems to me it vastly under-values the real LONG TERM impact. For a bond this is just true that the value of the future payments are worth less if interest rates rise. But for REITs if rates rise do to a stronger economy and thus they are able to raise rents and raise dividends then you do see a drop in the value of near term dividends but in the longer term it is much less straight forward. It may well be that the gains for the REIT in the long term exceed the lowered value of the reduced value this years dividends (though it may also be true that the payments do not increase to even out the comparison to new expected yields). This will of course be dependant on the REIT type and individual REIT portfolio.
3. As you say the increased costs do to higher rates are not baked into all REITs. It does seem to me (again I am new to REITs) that they often are going to experience higher costs but it isn't immediate. As you say often they have fixed rates but also it seems (again maybe I am wrong) they often have fairly high amount of debt coming due in say the next 5 years that has to be rolled over - and also new purchases will have these higher rates.

Related: Looking at Real Estate in This Challenging Investing Climate (2015) - Looking for Yields in Stocks and Real Estate (2012) - Landlords See Increase in Apartment Rentals (2010)

Ikea Business Model; and Growth and Society

comments on: Peak Stuff and the Hierarchy of Useless Things

"stock analysts" don't exist for Ikea. They have no stock holders. They are completely owned by a "charity."

But all you have to do is look at all the extremely highly paid executives in USA charities to see that charities often take on the form of corporations being run 1st to make executives happy and 2nd for other reasons (charitable in the instance of charities, education in the instance of large universities, profits of shareholders and all the other stakeholders in the instance of companies).

Another similar model you can view is tax evasion trusts set up by the rich which subvert the social contract. They have bought laws and regulation that allow them to set up trusts to benefit them, and/or their kids, and/or their grandkids and have those trusts treated beneficially for the rich, at the expense of society. Some argue Ikea has the same model, pretend it is a charity and use the funds primarily to benefit those creating the charity ("What emerges is an outfit that ingeniously exploits the quirks of different jurisdictions to create a charity, dedicated to a somewhat banal cause, that is not only the world's richest foundation, but is at the moment also one of its least generous"). In Ikea's case some amount does go for the "charitable purpose of Ikea": interior design.

The growth mindset certainly permeates Ikea, as it does public USA companies and "wall street."

> "not as much in the quality of customer experience"

This is so true. As a consumer, I find the customer experience painful much more often that it is good. Basically, the best it gets in the USA (for 95% of the companies) is when you don't have to interface with them at all. Then things are good. And I do think companies have made strides in removing the need to call to get things fixed... But oh my, when you do need them to actually get a hold of them the extremely bad experience is pitiful and truly far beyond pitiful most of the time. They setup extremely insulting processes that completely disrespect your time and humanity.

The horrible experiences when needing to deal with large USA companies is by far my biggest frustration of being back in the USA. As long as you don't have to contact them things are usually decent but I dread any time I need to contact one of them.

My father really liked Small is Beautiful by EF Schumacher which I think takes issue with the growth focus that permeates society (it has been decades since I read it) and instead wishes to focus on better lives not lives with more things.

Related: Kleptocrat CEOs and Their Apologists - Pretending to Listen to Customers Rather Than Actually Doing So - Why Pay Taxes or be Honest - Corrupt Looters at AIG

Stock Buybacks Often are Misleading

My comments to this post by Jeffrey Pfeffer were not posted, which is obviously his right. My two requests for clarification that it was actually a decision and not just wasting my time due to a bad process that didn't even allow someone to make a decision to post it or not (the post has a great total of 0 comments and is requesting that people make comments).

Sometimes those that have lots of fans don't bother with comments. That is fine. But requesting comments and feedback and then not providing any responses I find doesn't show much respect for people.

 Why Does Apple Care About Its Share Price?

Put simply, executives should spend more time on product development and customers and less time worrying about something (their stock price) that is more outside their control.

As a stockholder I agree with you. Apple has continued to have a great cash flow. Mainly they should focus on that. Apple has diluted stockholder equity by over 10% over the last 7 years with massive stock grants to executives. The $50 billion buyback is unlikely to even return outstanding stock levels to the level of 7 years ago.

Along with the excessive nature of their cash balance (I am all for keeping some money for a raining day and keeping money to invest in research and new market but they have $100 billion more than they need for that) and stockholder dilution they have practiced putting some cash to use reducing the stockholder dilution makes sense to me.

Invest for the Long Term

Invest Like a Simpleton [the broken link was removed] by Tim Beyers, fool.com:

Ten years ago, Tom Gardner boldly picked 10 stocks to buy and hold for the next decade.
...
Even with a tough week in which Silicon Graphics filed for bankruptcy and Dell admitted its business is not at all like it used to be, the Simpleton Portfolio would have returned more than six times your money had you invested on day one. For context, consider this: Over the same period, the S&P 500 gained approximately 135%.

Quite a nice record. Fool.com is an excellent web site worth reading for investing education (they do force you to provide an email address, which I think is a bad practice for web site usability, but the content on fool.com is worth putting up with the bother - just use the email address you have to deal with these types of hassles).

You can track the performance of a "virtual fund" based on my 10 stocks for 10 years (original post - apr 2005). I created the Sleepwell fund on marketocracy (this fund includes occasional adjustments - 4% turnover in the last year): Sleepwell investment results.

Investment links:

• 10 Stocks for 10 Years Update (Jan 2006)
  
• Saving for Retirement
  
• Why You Need a Roth IRA
  
• Investment Dictionary
  
• Investment Books
  
• Warren Buffett's Shareholder Letter - 2006