I agree but they have to solve the liquidity problem. There is all this happy talk among the analysts in re STNG and CPLP but nobody really talks about us. IMHO it is b/c of the thin float. We are just as, if not more, compelling than those other two...
Something just occurred to me: As the 2012 new-build come on line, NNA has 85 million in cash to pay out (progress payments). This is in addition to the amount covered by bank loans. So, they will be deep into 2013 before they have a significant amount of cash available for deals.
I guess...but thinner float will allow for bigger upwards price movement on fewer traded shares. I guess I don't care if we have sell-side coverage. The economics are the economics and I'd hate to see company get rid of shares at this level simply to increase the float.
My read is that additional ships to be added probably will not be delivered until after the existing orderbook is delivered and chartered. I think management probably has a lot of work to do to shepherd their existing orders through the yards and then get them through the oil major vetting process. The only caveat is that if they have some ridiculous opportunity dropped in their laps they woudl grab it. With the product tanker orderbook looking pretty modest, I suspect that may not happen with the yards. It could happen from banks reposessing ships on the water.