People here keep saying that they are bummed that TC management did not buy the unsecured bonds
Don't you realize that they did not do that because they did not want to drive the price of the bonds up, because they PERSONALLY , and their "friends and associates" WERE buying the notes! (and they wanted to do that at the lowest prices possible)
Unlike common stock, it is not required for insiders to disclose their purchases or sales of the company's notes!
So while TC management was not buying the notes officially with the company's funds for the company's account, you can bet your bippie that they were buying them for their personal accounts....
Do you remember when they bought the big piece of 2017 notes at 107plus, (for the company) and the person complained on the cc, wanting to know who the other party was? Similarly , how they refused to answer ANY questions of what they intended to do, not even discuss the possibilities.
It all fits together for a management that was self serving. This is what I posted about repeatedly, and now we see the process end with a "take the cake" example. Perron et al walk away with MILLIONS and common shareholders walk away with crumbs..........................
( and if you think that I am B. Ellis, I feel sorry for you!)
I thank you for your kindness on this board. To those who have been hurt by TC management and have not gone along with the abuse and lies and false accusations, I am sorry that you got caught up in this sorry TC affair. To those who contributed and joined in with the abuse, and have been hurt, I would be lying if I did not say, You deserve it! and the Karma of what goes around comes around has delivered the just deserts to you........................ to those I say:
don't change a thing, don't learn from your mistakes......... just keep it up
You are correct that prior to 12/2/2016, to exercise the call clause on the bonds, TC would have to pay the premium of 104.375, and that would represent a penalty , as at that price, even though they save some interest payment , the premium would result in a negative yield to maturity, so it does not make financial sense to pay that much over par. One can work out a mathematical formula , taking into account how much time between the no premium call of 12-2-2016 at 100 par, and calculate how much over par TC can pay and still capture some net benefit, considering the stopping of any further interest accrual any market purchase would provide. Also realize that even a deal is announced soon, the actual closing and cash receipt of asset sale would be at some later date, still to be determined. I would highly suspect that if a deal was announced next week, that the market would cause the note prices to rise somewhat above par, and likely to a point that it would make it difficult or impossible for TC to buy on the open market significant amounts of notes at prices that would make it a great savings of interest versus just waiting to December , when they can legally use the call feature and buy all of the notes back at 100 par. We are now at 5 months from that par call date.
It does underscore how unwise TC management was to not repurchase any of the 2017's when they were readily available at prices significantly below par. I purchased some of them below 80 cents on the dollar.
I post less than the "regulars" Yet I warned long ago, when TC was close to $3 a share that it was likely going lower. When it fell much lower to below $2, the same. . When Jacktrade continually posted about how he was placing 10K share limit buy orders at $1.20, then $1.10 etc, I predicted to him and the board that he would see those orders filled and that the shares would likely go lower still.
Now I wish to reiterate my latest view.
If one is interested in buying TC securities, at the present time, there are two choices that make sense. If one wants a higher degree of safety and just wants an income stream, the choice is to buy the 2017 SECURED notes, preferably at no higher than par. If one wants to speculate on a riskier vehicle, with the hope of capital gains, the choice is the unsecured notes, either the 2018 or 2019. At the moment the 2018 notes are selling for a lower price than the 2019 and they have a shorter maturity, will have to be dealt with sooner than the 2019's, the 2018's appear to be more desirable than the 2019's ( if market conditions change and the 2019's are priced equal or less than the 2018's then they would be close to equally desirable for the purpose outlined in the post).
Note that I have not included the common shares . That is because , in reality, away from this board, the truth is that the speculation of potential for TC common shares is markedly less than on this board. The common shares do not appear to be as good a choice on a risk/reward basis & are likely to continue to underperform.
Note also , that while I was posting long ago that TC common shares would be likely to decline, I was purchasing ABX, Barrick Gold shares at below $7 a share. Compare my record to the "king " of this board who uses multiple id's liberally, is abusive and a liar/fraud and "has no clothes on"
have you considered the possibility that the reason that TC shares are not being bid up , in light of the news of the bidding process, is that the bids that are being placed are not as high as the hopeful TC board members think and have posted as their opinions as. The fact that the prices of the notes have been strong also support this concept, that those familiar with the process and the prices being bid etc, will support upside in the notes , but not so much in the common shares.
Have you considered this possibility , which is the most likely explanation.
papa, I don't agree that the common shares are more attractive than the 2018 unsecured notes. Technically the reason your view could be right is because of the assumed greater upside, but in this case, the chances of that are so slim , that the upside of the 2018 notes is likely to outperform the common shares. The bid prices that people have speculated on the board are likely higher than what is actually happening. The common shareholders will not likely do as well as the 2018 note holders. So what I posted months ago is still likely true.
If one wants to buy TC securities, if one seeks relatively safe income, one buys the 2017 secured notes (but paying over par is not such a good move so the 2017's have become less atractive). If one wants more risk and potential for more gain , along with good income, one buys the unsecured notes. Since the 2018 is closer in maturity and both the 2018 and 2019 are trading for the same price, the 2018 are slightly more attractive than the 2019.
The news story regarding TC putting up MM for sale by seeking bids should be no surprise , given the history we have of management. REMEMBER, their FIRST ( and perhaps their only) priority is to enrich themselves as much as possible. They care very little for the common shareholder.
I can give more detail but essentially their plan is to offer the company crown jewel MM . They are said to be seeking $1 billion for it, The article did not say anyone was bidding that high, but that TC was "banking" or hoping for that figure. If bidders do not come close enough to that figure, TC can say "OK we tried to avoid bankruptcy" but the market would not play ball. They can take down offer to sell MM, and if no one comes forward with a high enough bid and time continues to elapse and note maturities come closer and closer, they can feel cleared to proceed with a restructuring of debt , through various means ( and yes including the option of prepackaged bankruptcy ). They would say, no shareholder can successfully sue us, we tried to avoid it, but the bidders did not meet our price.
If a bidder comes close enough to their price of $1 billion, they use the money to decrease some of the debt ( of course they would have to fully redeem the secured notes), and they use some of the money to do other things. People here have wondered why the AMARC deal was done? So back then, they were probably contemplating this scenario. They further invest in AMARC , perhaps buying them out completely and guess what, the same cycle we are used to, paying money to develop the new mine there , cost overuns etc etc, but Perron et al get to continue their highly compensated positions. So either way , management gets what they want, to keep living on the cash they can extract from the company.
since Skippy just cannot restrain himself from distorting , lying and making false accusations, I choose to clarify. my most recent posting
I am not suggesting that it is a definite future occurrence that TC will enter into a prepackaged bankruptcy. What am I saying then? That the market is anticipating some form of restructuring of its debt which will likely include conversion or exchange of debt for equity, of which prepackaged bankruptcy is but one example of the how this may be accomplished.
I did not state that TC is in exactly the same position as HK, or that is TC follows the prepackaged bk route ( which is a possibility) that the terms would be identical. I do think it is a mistake, given the fundamentals, and the particular management of TC to rule out such a course.
Skippy , loves to pursue lies and to distort and vilify others. I feel sorry for him........... he is a pathetic unhappy person who seeks to attack others unrighteously to assuage his own feelings of inadequacy and his poor investing performance. He would do well to stop lying and abusing others. His Bernie crusade is absurd to the extreme....
I will respond when I choose.
As far as acumen, compare our record. I have been consistently on the right side of the trade, you on the wrong. Let's see how things continue.
wrong, you show your usual abusive and amateurish protocol.
Study how the prepackaged bankruptcy concept is being used very commonly in these situations. Look at HK , among many others , to read the details.
if what you say were true, the common shares price would have risen, along with the note prices. Instead we have seen the note prices increase while the common shareprice decrease. which indicates that the in the know money believes your scenario is not the correct one. Prepackaged bankruptcy with noteholders getting the bulk of the equity in the company, and a ptitance of a few percent for the current common shareholders is now what the professionals you speak of are anticipating.
the unsecured not prices have risen , as the common share prices has decreased. This is a clear message that the market is now anticipating that ultimately TC will attempt to restructure the unsecured debt by exchanging it for the bulk of common equity in the company. Note the trend in prepackaged banktuptcies. A recent example ( one among many ) has been HK Halcon Resources, the common shareholders will wind up with only 4 % equity . Management there will continue to be running the company, it is attractive deal for management. Does anyone now doubt that TC management will not follow a similar path?