Q2 rev is irrelevant, and won't affect shares much.
Its all about YOSPRALA approval, and also about surprises regarding any acquisitions.
STNG low share price reflects the ugly scenario you allude to, imo.
Why do you suppose the shares have fallen 50% in the last several months---because sweet roses were lining the pathway of their immediate future?
8 VLCC owned, but only 2 on floating rates.
NAP has options for purchase of 7. Navios Acquisition granted Navios Maritime Midstream Partners the rights to acquire, exercisable until November 2016, all VLCCs (except the 2010-built Nave Synergy) at fair market value.
NAP share price is weak, and unlikely would they be able to raise all the funds needed for a dropdown via equity markets. Debt markets may also be more of a challenge, given bank turmoil related to BREXIT.
Don't be fooled by the current lull in spot fixture rates...that will change.
GLOG today secured a 7 yr charter today, for a new build at a daily rate of about $75,000/day...commencing in 2018.
MONACO, July 11, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- GasLog Ltd. ("GasLog", NYSE: GLOG), an international owner, operator and manager of liquefied natural gas ("LNG") carriers, today announces that it has signed a time charter party with Total Gas & Power Chartering Limited ("Total") to charter "Hull 2801" for a period of seven years. Hull 2801 was GasLog's only newbuild vessel without a multi-year contract. The vessel is currently under construction at Hyundai Heavy Industries in South Korea and is due to be delivered in 2018.
Total will charter the vessel from GasLog for a period of seven years, commencing in mid-2018 at a date to be finalized ahead of the commencement of the charter. A further option period of three years has been granted at the charterer's option.
Following the successful charter of this vessel, all of GasLog's six remaining newbuild vessels have firm, long-term charters of between 7 and 10 years.
The daily charter rate is in line with GasLog's average long-term charter rate and the gross contracted revenue from the contract is approximately $190 million over the seven-year firm period.
The risk of Div cut is actually higher for ASC, for the very reason you give---their payout is formulaic and tied to net income. If net income falls, a cut is automatic.
STNG payout ratio at the current rate is a low fraction of their income, and of course while there are never guarantees, a temporary weakness in their earnings will not force an immediate Div reduction...but it will for ASC (of course, it works both ways...).
STNG fleet is newer, but indeed it is more diverse over the product sector. Long haul and regional short hauls, and Arctic transits are part of their capability. ASC focuses only on the medium haul routes.
Share buyback is fine with me. Buying more vessels is certainly something STNG has done lots of. The fall in vessel asset prices hasn't exactly paid off, Im afraid.
Its been over a week since your illuminating conversation with Mr Brown, CFO and Executive VP of LPCN.
He hasn't returned my call---I guess he must be busy chatting with other investors.
Im concerned that Mr. Brown is having a difficult time putting on paper what he put on voice-call to you.
Could you call him again, and pass my concerns along?
Please ask him if the share price will be $5 by next Thursday, since my options look to expire.
they are pounding the table for Product Tanker companies, especially STNG ($10, Buy), and ASC ($16, buy).
Seasonal or Systematic: What is Happening in the Tanker Market
Over the course of 2Q both tanker day rates and equities have drifted lower for both crude and products. While sentiment is mixed on crude tankers, and generally positive on product tankers, given the lack of ship ordering which will at some point almost certainly lead to a sustained rally in day rates and cash flows, there has been no appetite by investors to catch the falling knife of short term rates. However, perhaps the market is anticipating something that industry participants are missing. Certainly we believe lack of new oil production and moderate but still growing vessels supply present a problem for crude tankers, and while product tanker demand growth should continue to grow unabated and the vessel orders are much more manageable, perhaps the segment is too closely coupled to the crude tanker market. Although the magnitude of seasonal weakness in 2Q has been greater than we anticipated, we continue to have strong conviction that the product tanker market is likely to recover in 2H16 and ride a multi-year wave of strength into at least 2018 while the crude tanker market could continue to soften but is unlikely to experience a hard crash
A few fixtures reported this week:
VL Prime (260,000 dwt), locked a 72 day charter for $16,921/day which is the actual TCE including estimated ideal days in the period.
GEM NO. 1 (270,000 dat, 2016) locked a 49 day charter at $16,636/day, with is the actual TCE including estimated ideal days.
New Diamond (270,00 dwt, 2000) locked a 72 day charter at $14,929/day on the same terms as above.
its more than the price of oil, though the tankers are certainly used by traders as a hedge against oil price swings.
the longer term valuation hinges on their fleet asset value. New build VLCC are now available below $90M...implying that the value of DHT's recent 6 new builds (not all yet delivered) is appreciably less.
Those are leveraged with debt, so this devaluing of asset prices has an amplified effect of NAV.
As to dividends, those could likely vanish in Q3 given that spot rates are barely now $20,000/day, and much of their fleet is spot.
Not sure what the value of DHT shares are when there are so many moving parts, but the decline in income, the resulting decline in payout, and the fall in asset prices, all wrapped in a weakening global deflationary environment speak to trouble for debt-leverage entities like most tanker stocks.
The fall in asset prices is doing much harm to the NAV of tankers, and that decline has not shown any indication of bottoming. This is a big deal for these companies, who all use debt leverage to acquire and renew their fleet. A fall in vessel value is thus heavily leveraged.
The good news is that the fall in asset prices is much about shipyards desperate for business, offering cut rate prices at their yards, rather than some decline in shipping needs of oil.
And, the low prices in the secondhand market means the shippers need not order new tonnage at this time.
thats what makes a market....Roth being confident also (apparently), has a bullish $30 target. Canaccord Genuity, being less sure, cut their target from $15 to $6.
Maybe its not worth much, and a $30 target given the current $3 LPCN trading range, seems more than silly.
Lipocine price target lowered to $30 from $40 at Roth Capital Roth Capital analyst Michael Higgins lowered his price target for Lipocine to $30 from $40 after the FDA issued a Complete Response Letter on Lipocine's oral testosterone product, LPCN 1021, citing "deficiencies related to the dosing algorithm." Roth Capital has a Buy rating on the shares.
Read more at:
Hard to imagine that the CFO would make the statements to anyone, least of all a Yahoo poster, given that no public statement has been made, no press release bearing such material information has been provided, and no meeting with FDA has occurred.
Just doing my due diligence....and while the statements rendered sound reasonable, so do lots of other statements read on these boards.
Since you appear to have the CFOs ear, please ask them to release a formal PR, so that everyone has the same information from management.
What LPCN did was not unique, apparently:
as per the Zacks summary, based they're meeting with LPCN management:
"The FDA felt that this inconsistency would lead to dosing errors and as a result will require evidence to support a single point window after administration of Tlando where the patient is evaluated and up-titrated or down-titrated to achieve the optimal dose. Prior to the CRL letter, management felt that the trial design was sufficient as it was based on the Phase 3 trial for Axiron, an Eli Lilly topical testosterone product which was approved in 2010. "
Zacks gives this assessment :
In a best case scenario, a label bridging study using existing data may satisfy regulators. This approach tests the pharmacokinetics of a drug under different dosing titrations by extrapolating data that has already been collected. Under this scenario we anticipate only a minimal amount of additional expense and a delay of four to eight months. We estimate 30 days for the initial FDA meeting, a minimum of 30 days to conduct additional analysis and 60 days for a Class 1 resubmission response from the FDA.
If the FDA requires additional substantiation regarding an optimal titration point, then a 45-day safety and efficacy study may be required with costs ranging from $1 to $5 million depending upon the agency’s needs. Under this scenario, we anticipate it could take from 12 to 15 months to obtain approval. We estimate 30 days for the initial FDA meeting, 2 to 3 months to enroll and set up for the trial, 45 days to conduct the trial, 2 to 3 months to analyze data and 6 months for a Class 2 resubmission response from the FDA.
It is possible that a longer study may be required with additional expense in excess of $5 million and a duration on par with the 15-month SOAR trial. However, we think this is unlikely given the narrow focus of the CRL on titration and dosing requirements.
from Zacks this afternoon
The CRL highlighted deficiencies related to dosing as provided in the label. The Phase 3 trial had adjusting dosing based on 15 blood draws taken over a 24 hour period; however, the proposed label only relied on only one blood draw to determine the proper titration. The FDA felt that this inconsistency would lead to dosing errors and as a result will require evidence to support a single point window after administration of Tlando where the patient is evaluated and up-titrated or down-titrated to achieve the optimal dose. Prior to the letter, management felt that the trial design was sufficient as it was based on the Phase 3 trial for Axiron, an Eli Lilly topical testosterone product which was approved in 2010.
Lipocine noted that the CRL did not include any language that questioned LPCN 1021’s efficacy, safety, adverse events, side effects or the effectiveness of Lipocine’s proprietary Lip’ral drug delivery technology.
agreed. LPCN shares are now trading below net cash. Street is giving 0-value to the entire drug portfolio...its not even giving fair value to their cash position!