Here's what is most likely to happen given the current market demand, worldwide war on terror, trends in upgrades in law enforcement equipment, and competitive situation in DHB's industry.
Based on the failure rate of their product, customers demanding their money back, reorders going to zero, legal costs due to current and/or potential lawsuits, and other problems too numerous to list, Second Chance will go bankrupt within one to two years.
Second Chance's exit will leave only two vest suppliers. DHB with the lion's share of the market is sure to garner whatever business Second Chance would have landed if they had a decent product. Factor in the new products the company has released and is working on now and $250-300 million in revenue is certainly not out of the question in that scenario.
The stock is cheap if you look forward not backward. Regardless of how this quarter's numbers come in, Q4 and Q1 and 2004/2005 could produce gangbuster revenue and EPS. As the months pass we will become widely recognized as the 800 pound gorilla in this space, attracting the attention of big-cap, deep-pockets corporations, and ultimately DHB will get bought by a major defense contractor.
People will kick themselves when they realize they should have not only been buying it here at $5, but accumulating it all the way up too, pyramiding by adding to their positions at $6 and $7 and $8 and $9 and $10. All us PATIENT investors who bought low and continue to accumulate as the stock goes higher will live happily ever after.
This is the most plausible scenario going, and this is why investors need to own DHB.
Realize that I did not say that it was the cheapest.
A suspicion or a presumption is completely different than cause-and-effect and you are allowed to have it.
I do not know what "No I didn't know the name" refers to.
It is not worth my time to prove the last point but I would start with EPD.
Mr. Simplot, from days past, built a number of successful businesses that did well.
nasd has no prohibitions against anyone owning controlling interest, however, some institutions do..........Brooks does not own controlling interest tho.......DHB is a pure play, that is to say they make one thing in a nich market. That is why we will never have a large institutional ownership compared with other companies......that being said, there is no reason we will not be trading higher soon.........I don't know much about Brooks, or company management, but they are not as transaparent as I would like them to be.....
IMO, they have not capitalized on the available opportunities with regard to news, press and sentiment of our armed forces....then again, it wouldn't be prudent for them to rock the boat with the DOD on board............the final point I would make is that some posters here do not think DHB is
visible enough to investors, which I would disagree. I believe alot of people know about them, but a combination of better plays elsewhere and the lack of PR are the main reasons why the chart doesn't reflect consistency.........all that being said, price tends to move quickly, and I suspect shareprice will continue to climb.
thanks for response shmolton,however, it didn't really answer my question as to what would happen to the shareholders of dhb? i'm just not sure how it effects the stock when an insider sells. all i know is that he has to announce in advance. how long in advance? i'm not sure. can anyone help explain? ps. i was away for a couple of days, so i realize this post is a tad old. lol. thanks
I agree that "Brooks is a strong manager" and he is the reason for a successful DHB. I have never argued that point.
I also invested in DHB knowing all of the negatives. No I didn't know the name. I thought it was great investment opportunity and I still think it is a great opportunity. However, for DHB to realize its potential some things must change. A business maturation of Brooks and the company.
Brooks owning a majority share is NOT the cheapest way to prevent a takeover. Being CEO, owning the majority share of the stock, conducting business with the family (loans, business entities and leases) is very expensive to anyone concerned about the PPS. If he owneds 15%, eliminated all family business transactions and was COO we would have a substantially higher PPS. That's a presumption but I'm pretty sure its correct.
I doubt that you will find any successfully public-traded companies with full name of CEO, owns controlling interest, does family-oriented leases, loans and business transactions. I would think (not sure) that this would not be allowed on the NASDAQ.
On the key point we agree, DHB is still a great opportunity.
Yes there are other ways, but Brooks owning the majority of the shares (thanks jrbogens for the clarification) is one of the cheapest.
There are companies out there, but this is inconsequential for a couple of reasons. Showing you a company would do little to quell the angst underlying the basis for your opinion. Do you really want me to find some?
However, your statement implies cause-and-effect which is a much higher standard to prove. I do not think that to be the case nor do I think that your presumption can be proven.
Even if I found some companies then I suppose we would start the bantering over the meanings of quality.
I have simply taken the contrarian point of view and have offered unbiased statistics in support of that opinion. In short, I have many reasons to believe that Brooks is a strong manager and little proof otherwise.
Whether if Brooks owns 51% or 47% is not really the issue. The point is that some investors are uncomfortable with Brooks being majority owner. I am not.
It was 15 or so pre split(split adjusted you are right-it split in the mid 1990s as I recall). I just have that 15 stuck in my head. My graph at work goes back that far, but the one on Yahoo stops in 1998.