Too bad this board has gone into the dumper. Too many stupid comments and responses to make anyone want to actually share info about SFL.
Would SFL probably be better understood if it was a totally independent stand alone company? Certainly.
Did holders of SFL stock understand the relationship between FRO and SFL when the bought or received shares? They should have or if not sold immediately.
Since JF holds a huge block of SFL are we likely to see a quick change? No.
Is SFL actively looking for deals that would be profitable to the company and the shareholders? Yes.
Therefore, it seems like the whiners should sell and move on and let the oldtimers get back to intelligent posting instead of the stupid drivel that I found today.
He's still there. Blankenship, Spieler, Trim, too. Trouble with English grammer? THEY ARE STILL STEERING THE SHIP!!! How can you accept that their left hands do deals with their right hands????? It boggles the mind how dense the minds are on this board.
The point of your post is...???? I agree with your last point!!!
Is that what you want guarding, growing your shareholding?
Maybe, just maybe, that is why Jebsen is leaving. He was tired of the ethical cesspool?!!! How could Jebsen be CFO of both SFL and FRO who were doing business together? It's an ethical nightmare. Fastow of Enron can tell you about it. Lay (JF) will say "I didn't know". Trim will say "I did my best". lol! But Fastow (Jebsen), he was up to his eyeballs as CFO. Others may have winked, nodded or gazed away. Who nows? But Jebsen, day to day mired in certifying. And talking at earnings calls. Now we have HeavyLift, SFL owns the ships, Jebsen can't tell of the SFL side of the negotiation. I say SFL needs to assert itself!!!! Nobody should work for both the banker and the customer! CLEAN HOUSE of those playing both sides.
I think it is you that is having trouble with English,
This is the list of SFL executives.
Let me know if you notice anything about this list.
Mr. Tor Olav Trim , 43
Chairman, Chief Exec. Officer, Pres, Vice-Pres of Frontline Ltd of Frontline Ltd N/A N/A
Mr. Tom E. Jebsen , 48
Chief Financial Officer, VP and Chief Financial Officer of Frontline Ltd N/A N/A
Mrs. Kate Blankenship , 40
Chief Accounting Officer, Company Sec., Director, Chief Accounting Officer of Frontline Ltd., Company Sec. of Frontline Ltd of Frontline Ltd N/A N/A
Mr. Oscar Spieler , 44
Chief Exec. Officer of Frontline Management As N/A N/
"It is very indicative of backroom smoke and mirrors."
Is this "backroom" to you?
Do you think you have broken the story here?
Just because you two pretend to have been incredibly ignorant when you supposedly bought this stock does not make it anyone elses problem.
I guess Jebsen should have said, "I ran the idea by myself and I thought it was great idea"
>>>You negotiate and split it as well as renegotiate the new profit sharing based on the new business. That's preciesly what is happening here.<<<
If you read the laphno postings of the FRO and SFL earnings calls, you are terribly wrong. There is nothing to support what you wrote. Specifically, Jebsen said things indicative of a future negotiation. Maybe you are not familiar with English grammer? I will ask that you read laphno's posts, linked below.
Your analogy is improper as well. The retail space at FRO (the Suezmax) is profitable for FRO and SFL today. FRO doesn't want to change the business within the leased retail space, they want to change the outer walls, the physical location, to a new place in the mall. The mall owner would then consider if this is in the interests of the mall owner (i.e., SFL).
In our FRO and SFL case, FRO unilaterally said what they would do. No mall owner would permit this. We have not heard a single word of decisiveness out of SFL. Nothing. That means the negotiation hasn't taken place. It is very indicative of backroom smoke and mirrors. Jebsen said things like "should", "will have to consider", "I guess".
SFL is in the drivers seat. In your analogy the Mall owner would say stay put in your space and meet your contract, or give us more money for a more advantageous location. Instead, Jebsen is tongue tied for SFL, but not so when he discusses FRO's position.
SFL shareholders are not getting a proper negotiation.
Jebsen very clearly indicated FRO doesn't own the ship. Therefore, FRO cannot materially change that ship without SFL's permission. It is rather incredible that the very same Jebsen at SFL cannot explain SFL's position and how it capitalized on the lease. That is very telling of a subservient position for SFL shareholders, something that shouldn't be considering SFL owns the ship and has a concrete lease with FRO.
Now you are going to have a rather obtuse response, ignoring facts. So I will ask once again, How can there be a negotiation if Mr. Jebsen of FRO is going to negotiate with Mr. Jebsen of SFL?
The earnings call clearly demonstrated Mr. Jebsen of FRO saw no need to consider SFL. There's nothing better to understand that than to to see what they said in the earnings calls. We don't need to listen to your, mine or anyone else's hearsay or conjecture. Review the links. The first 2 are from the FRO call. The 3rd is from SFL. Stop conjecturing. End the inane analogies and your personal past experience flag waving. Speak to the facts of FRO and SFL with substance. Please.
"Mr. Jebsen, must go."
You show yourself to be totally uninformed about this company.
He resigned about 3 months ago effective August. After that they brought in the banker as CEO.
If this information doesn;t embarrass you into silence, I don't know what will
Actually this lease structure is very different from your computer lease because of the profit sharing or percentage rent provisions. Those require FRO to only use the ship as an oil tanker or they will be in material breach.
Think of this situation as like someone who is leasing retail space from you and has 5 years left before he has options to renew at a lower price (because his business will get worse then if he doesn't change before that time). He now wants to change the business in the space and extend the life of the lease. Who pays for the tenant improvements and the cost of the space sitting idle during construction? You negotiate and split it as well as renegotiate the new profit sharing based on the new business. That's preciesly what is happening here.
Although some of the less educated here would have you believe it's all backroom self-dealing, the banks and note holders who finance SFL have a big say in just how far SFL can go before it is in breach of covenants, so these irresponsible allegations are nothing more than puffery.
yes, as long as you pay the lease. heh, heh. True, true.
Therefore, one can't drop this thing out of a window until you finish paying the lease. Same is true of major modifications. Until then, its SFL's call!!! SFL is in charge. Why didn't Mr. Jebsen, of SFL, know the financial arrangements SFL negotiated for FRO to change the asset to a HeavyLift boat????
Because FRO does as it pleases. Mr. Jebsen of FRO makes sure of that. It is not good to have Mr. Jebsen working at both companies. Time to clean house at SFL. Mr. Jebsen, must go. A real negotiation should be done immediately regarding FRO's attempt to change the lease UNILATTERLY!!!!!!!! I say keep FRO leasing this ship and lease them another for conversion!!!! Maximize SFL shareholder wealth, not FRO shareholder wealth!!!!!
Isn't a great deal of this contingent upon the type of lease in question... Sales type vs Operational.
Not a guru on leases by any means, but in a $1 buyout (effectively a sales-type) on a computer system, the financier could care less if you drop the thing out a window as long as you pay the lease.
If these are sales-type lease conversions, they are FRO's at the end, SFL has received the cash payments that allow the retirement of debt as well as a reasonable return on equity.
I would think that the cancellation after 2010 would not be available any longer as most leases are until 2014 or later (per SEC filings) and the asset is no longer what it used to be.
you are presenting like an operations person, quakrt. I agree with your presentation, if I was in operations.
SFL is into finance. They have their customer, FRO, wrapped up in the contract!!! There is little risk. Onus is on FRO to run the Suezmax as contractually obligated.
If, IFFFFF, the banker (SFL) buys into your presentation, than FRO must assume the risk of conversion. That includes paying SFL a buyout of the lease and other operational assurances. Remember, SFL has their business. FRO is the one who wants, or needs, to change.
If you lease a Van and now want a truck, you will have a buyout of the old lease. An extra cost of business. I didn't hear Jebsen, as part of the SFL Jebsen, discuss this fee. He was talking like he was FRO.
Not only that, he couldn't present the profit to SFL for letting the customer do this. He wasn't representing SFL. Simple to understand. Easy to see in the transcript that laphno posted. Jebsen only talked like a FRO person.
That is wrong. Its all drivel to let FRO steal what belongs to SFL shareholders. SFL is not being run like a finance company. Clean house at SFL. Make sure we get maximum benefit out of our leases and assets!!!!!!!