I bought in the Spring of 1997 at 6 5/8. Got a 10
percent stock dividend in Oct., 1998, to lower my cost to
$6 even. Bid now is about $9 1/4. I think that is 50
percent. I haven't done any trading since my original
purchase, although in hindsight, I probably should have. I
could have gotten out a couple of times (more) at 100
percent profit, and then gotten back in at a lower price.
Hindsight is almost always perfect.
agree with your comments. Management does not seem to
be sensitive to shareholder concerns, although one
could argue that the best way to take care of
shareholders is to grow the company, profitably. They have
certainly done that. I think that you are also right that a
lot of current shareholders are sitting on losing
positions right now. I don't know what its going to take to
get things moving, but Management hasn't found it
yet. I would have expected a price in the $15 - $18
range, at the minimum, now, but it seems no one is
--"play games" with the numbers. But that doesn't
exclude putting out some occasional news/PR. As somebody
said; they "say nothing so they can't be sued". That is
not the attitude that encourages new investment. The
problem has never been with their numbers, but rather
with their lack of guidance & general overall secrecy
---years ago? It was $6 until mid-'97, but has
done nothing net since Oct-'97. Note that it was $12
in 1998 and again in 1999; both when volumes were a
little higher. I do think that most of the current
holders probably have bought at least "some" of their
ATRO above $10, if not at an average > $10. Agree??
You must have made some good trades. All you need
to do is review Yahoo's 2-yr and 5-yr charts to
confirm that "it hasn't gone anywhere" in the last 3
years. I don't disagree with your comment disagreeing
with a "buyback". It is illiquid enough. All I
disagree with is anyone's comments that this management
team has any concern about the stockholders' interest.
They are focused on running the company, with no real
interest in PR or in Wall Street's view. Obviously, there
will never be any real institutional interest in a
stock this illiquid.
The stock has been flat for the past two-three
years, but I really don't care, although it would have
been nice to be up at least a little. If the market is
short sighted or focused on getting rich quick, that is
not our company's problem. As I have said before,
"You can lead a horse to water but you can not make
him drink". As long as the fundamentals remain
strong, for me this is the important
Liquidity in small cap stocks really stinks right now and
there is nothing all the bitching in the world can do
about it. I am actually happy ATRO is not putting up
great numbers now because the market would just be
What drive me crazy is that three
years ago all we had was a nicely growing company with
a slowly improving stock price. Then great
fundamental news just kept hitting the company. The F-16
contract looked like the golden goose. Then Specialty
Packaging landed the big one too. The fundamentals were
saying "load the boat".
Here we are still sitting
and waiting. Meanwhile our financial numbers are not
headed in the right direction, part of our business
seems to have fallen off the table and we cann't get
good guidance as to what is really happening.
am sure this is not "The Perfect Storm" and sooner
or later (mostly later) both reported results and
the stock price will improve. But those who think
that management can boost the stock price by playing
games just don't understand how the game is
I'm not trying to be smug, and I agree that
something needs to be done to invigorate this stock. I just
don't agree that a stock buy back is the right thing.
If there were 40 million shares in the float, I
might agree; but with only 4 million, a buy back would
almost be tatamount to taking the company private.
Liquidity would definitely decrease evn further.
do not agree that the stock has been dead for three
years. I've owned it that long, and I am up over 50
percent. Not great, I agree, but it beats the market's
historical average of about 11 percent per year. If you want
50 percent per month, you should be elsewhere.
Dat's a yoke!! We knew 2 years ago that it
doesn't move with a Nasdaq push to new highs. And any
attempt to correlate with the DOW or S&P 500 would
certainly be absurd. This year we got a reminder that it
doesn't even move up with the Russell 2000. I think you
write off "the Bear's" suggestion too lightly. No stock
dividend by ATRO is going to make any difference in the
fact that the stock is grossly illiquid, and thus of
zero interest to any institution. The stock has also
done Zero over the last three years. Don't be so smug;
it has been Dead Money for years, and that is NOT
acceptable to most investors. "How ATRO Mgmt sees it" is
exactly what The Bear is complaining about.
Sorry but the bear is nuts!
Great idea to
increase shareholder value: split the stock two or three
for one. That would be real smart, give us a $3 or $4
Management is pumping cash into growing the company. When
these investments start to pay off (if we are not all
dead) the increase in earnings should drive the stock
price up. Once we get over the cost hump on the F-16
contract cash flow should be pretty strong. Maybe then the
company could do a small buyback.
Until then, I
too vote for another 10% stock dividend. I am looking
at such a move as a definitive statement from
management that things should be getting better in the
future. The lack of a dividend at year end 1999 and the
subsequent issues we are seeing now speak
Sorry, but I still think that your proposal makes
absolutely no sense for this stock and I am reasonably
confident that ATRO Management sees it the same way. I'm
hoping for another 10 to 20 percent stock dividend later
this year, both for the shares and to get more shares
out on the market.