Interesting how this stock isn't popping with the rest of the market. I think the market has beat this one so badly there are no speculators left. The existing shareholders already have their max positions in place and they aren't buying any more until there is some profits. We may see some rotation into stocks like ANLY once the general market tops out, because there will be nowhere else to go. No sense in chasing stocks that have already gone up 100% from the bottom.
I predict a rise to $.75 for no other reason than the rising tide.
Perhaps I spent too many years on the front lines, but I have a different view of the role of the CEO than many here. Contrary to investor-centric belief, the primary purpose of a corporation is to survive. If you had your druthers, you never would have sacrificed control by going public and selling stock, but remained privately held. However, the realities of the marketplace are that to raise capital quickly enough to allow competitive growth and operations, you have to take that route. Thus, you have two conflicting tasks--do what's best for the corporation, and honor your obligations to the stockholders who loaned you money.
The Board is the advocate of the stockholders; the CEO must be the advocate of the corporation, and by extension, its employees. The result of this tension should, in a well-run boardroom, result in a reasonable compromise between sheer stockholder profit, and expenditures that contribute to the long-term viability of the corporation but show little immediate return (e.g., pure research, investment in human assets to provide a pool of proven expertise for complex projects, etc.)
In recent years, this model has been corrupted by the "day trading" mentality--too much attention has been given to immediate ROI, too little on forward planning. Thus, we've lost Bell Labs as a research resource, for instance. And AiC--which used to target high-return clients who needed cutting-edge, top-shelf talent...well. No need to go there.
The upshot is that AI needs a CEO who can make believable plans for the future--plans that require a comprehensive vision of exactly what AI is going to sell that differentiates it from other companies in the sector. He/she needs to identify a market need that can be filled most effectively by AI. That used to be simply finding the best codeslingers and analysts, paying them well, and contracting them to clients with such an immediate need that they would pay good rates. That model doesn't work today.
What will? I have my ideas, but I'm not CEO of AI. This direction, planning, and model has to come from the CEO. He won't get any help from the Board--that's not what the Board does today. In fact, any reasonable plan will probably be opposed by the Board. The CEO needs a team of forward-thinking, dedicated, and sharp individuals with a commitment to the long-term success of AI, and the ability to formulate and implement such a vision; it's what they've needed for the past dozen years or so. With all due respect to the current CEO, I still don't believe that exists. Until it does, we're going to continue to see the company flounder with sub-dollar stock prices and lackluster growth potential.
It's not an easy task; if it was, far more corporations would be on solid ground today, and AI wouldn't be in the quagmire it's in. For all I know, the current CEO really does have a plan such as this, and we've just not seen it come to fruition (although I haven't seen signs of such.) But the bottom line is that you, as investors, don't WANT the CEO to be *your* friend; that's what the Board is for. The CEO is the *company's* champion, and what AI needs now is a strong, directed champion.
The Bd. typically listens to the CEO and his/her plans and does not understand the business. They are supposed to look out for shareholders and they believe that is what they are doing, howeever ther own EGO's enter intom their decisions becauae they become part of the problem instead of the solution by believing what they hear from the CEO..ergo..a self fulfilling prophsesy....too much belief with too little knowledge...been there..trust me.
The board may not care much one way or the other about Anly's performance because most board members have not invested in Anly. Most of the board members will not have significant financial losses if Anly's stock price continues to decline. The board members may be friends of the CEO and be more concerned about his retention than about shareholder gains/losses.
It is interesting that Anly's board members are not investing their own dollars in Anly. This may be a red flag. It is also interesting that there is a lot of talk about reforming corporation governance to ensure boards are more responsive to shareholders. One proposal involves requiring board members to purchase stock prior to taking board positions so that they have a real stake in the performance of the corporation.
Very rationale evaluation of company's worth if acquired. Obviously the Bd thinks the current team running the firm can do better. So far, we have not seen this....what does the Bd think this firm can really be worth or are they so entrenched that it is all about Bd. EGO.
It was YOU who was hostile to my posting about trusting the judgement of anyone who couldn't understand the English language.
As for AHT, their balance sheet is worth about $.80 if one were to liquidate tomorrow (unrealistic.) In addition they have a tax asset (which is currently fully reserved) that would be worth about another $.30-$.40 to an acquiror or $.60 to the company if they could achieve profitability. Thus an acquiror who is profitable could buy the company for $1.20 today and get the $55 million of gross margin profits from the consulting business (about 21% gross margin on run rate of about $255mm in revenue.) Assuming they could chop out redundant executive operating expenses, and administrative costs (offices etc.) to the tune of $3-4mm/year and achieve a higher utilization rate by merging staffs, perhaps picking up another $3-4mm they would have a huge return. That is why Koosh offered $2.20 in cash in its initial offer and came back as recently as 13 months ago and offered $1.75 in cash. The company is still worth the same as it was then; in fact, possibly more as they have already done a lot of the pruning on SG&A and rationalized their book of business to delete the lower-margin pieces. As Warren Buffett would say, this is a "cigar butt"....so long as they don't start bleeding badly. If they can contain their "cash" losses to under $6-$8mm till things brighten a bit and they can get back to breakeven, they are a steal for an acquiror at $1.20-$1.50/share
This stocking isn't moving up with the market for a number of reasons. This company has been in a turn around mode for years with no success. Also, unlike other staffing companies in their same space, they cannot provide nor answer many questions on their conference calls other than providing antidotal answers. On the date of the last CC call they were almost 2 months into the 1st quarter and they could not provide any guidance into the 1st quarter. Also, they are reporting some of their solutions practices posting double digit growth, yet they cannot provide numbers as to the solutions practices as they do not account for them at a practice level...so how do you determine that some practices are experiencing specific growth and others are floundering. Sounds like alot of BS.
So as long as they just provide antidotal answers to shareholder questions and remain unprofitable with declining revenues the stock will be more valuable as wall paper than as an investment IMO!
The 1st qtr for staffing companies is usually challenging considering projects and budgets ending at the end of the 4th qtr and new projects getting delayed into the 1st qtr. Good luck, we all need it with Anly.