David..you are quite right in inquiring as to what effects war would have on NAT. It is one of the risk factors involved. War requires lots of energy, So one would imagine that the amount of oil shipped would have to increase. One could also imagine longer routes being forced, blockades, etc. so each journey will have added time as well, limiting availability of tankers. All of this would be positive for rates.
On the downside if tankers became targets and NAT lost a few ships, it would likely cause damage to the stock price, but probably good longer term as it takes supply out of the market.
Thank you for a thoughtful reply, the first poster to do so. Certainly the points you make are relevant and to the point. Anyone else want to weigh in? Only posters who are prepared to address the issue please!
I wouldn't say clueless. This company is just way too risky right now. Until the cyclr turns and the company is actually earning money and no longer losing money, the price will fall. I don't think NAT is in any danger of going under but many other companies will. Long term NAT will be ok but who knows where the bottom is. I personally won't be buying until I see a 15% bounce from the low.