Would a product like umax typically keep its payments at some level more consistently (as there is no preferred share to protect)? Is the upside (downside) potential higher on the split?
That is what I am thinking are the main differences but wondering if there are any other differences in how you see them.
If one was lookig at a swap from FTN to umax to keep a similar yield and lower leverage risk is that a reasonable view?
FTN uses leverage to generate higher yields for its Class A shareholders, but as mentioned, the yield can be suspended to protect the preferred shareholders.
UMAX is a different product, where it invests in utilities, pipelines, telecoms, and railway companies in Canada, but uses an active covered call strategy to enhance the yield. This comes at the expense of upside capital appreciation potential.
Given the structure of FTN Class A shares having to protect preferred shareholders and a history of suspending its dividends multiple times, we would consider UMAX a better option for maintaining a stable distribution policy.
In general, we would be comfortable with a switch from FTN to UMAX given the reduction in use of leverage and consistency and reliability of distribution payments relative to FTN.