Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. Message Board

AnotherAnonOne 40 posts  |  Last Activity: Jul 28, 2015 5:48 PM Member since: Jan 6, 1999
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 28, 2015 5:48 PM Flag

    How many years have you been pumping this bilge? Now, a month after they filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, you're still pumping. Go back the LOCMQ board.

  • Reply to

    Downgrade right before earnings?

    by jbw_2000 Jul 23, 2015 8:42 PM
    anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 24, 2015 2:25 PM Flag

    I agree with everything you say. I guess I just have a different understanding of "precipitate". The dividend was cut in half with the Oct. 2012 dividend (this after Portnoy on the Feb. 2012 earnings call said "It’s our current intention to maintain the dividend and that’s what we foresee for the foreseeable future. And again there has been no discussion about reducing the dividend at the board level at all.")

  • Reply to

    Downgrade right before earnings?

    by jbw_2000 Jul 23, 2015 8:42 PM
    anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 24, 2015 1:33 PM Flag

    gtw999,

    What precipitated the ejection of RMR and the Portnoys from CWH was the proposed 27 million share equity offering in early 2013.

    From a press release by the law firm filing suit

    On February 28, 2013, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP initiated a shareholder derivative and class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston, Mass., before the Honorable Denise J. Casper with the caption Delaware County Employees Retirement Fund v. Barry M. Portnoy, et al.,

    ...

    Plaintiff will ask for damages and seek to enjoin Defendants from any further self-dealing and mismanagement, including enjoining a recently-announced 27 million share Equity Offering and Tender Offer, as well as any attempt by Defendants to enforce the oppressive arbitration clause in CWH’s bylaws.

  • Reply to

    The Calm before the Storm...

    by quicksilverskeet Jul 23, 2015 12:00 PM
    anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 23, 2015 1:43 PM Flag

    Quick, Just a comment on point J. I don't think the trading and volume mean anything with regard to whether Glen and Co. have a chance to pull something out.

    Pull up a historical price listing on ticker TXCCQ. Then, take a look at when they filed bankruptcy. Then, take a look at the bankruptcy type. Never mind on that last one, they filed for a Chapter 7 liquidation. Does the fact that this ticker still trades mean anything with respect to any possible value for shareholders? And, this case is still active, the trustee is still being paid somehow.

    Bankruptcy courts very, very seldom provide any value to shareholders. They are a dogfight among the creditor classes, the lawyers, and the financial advisors for whatever meat they can tear from the bones of the company.

  • anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 21, 2015 9:30 PM Flag

    Thanks, Galileo!

  • Reply to

    got to love this

    by sgiseller Jul 20, 2015 3:22 PM
    anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 20, 2015 4:58 PM Flag

    Actually, 48%. It closed at 3.15 (per Yahoo, 3.1887 per Nasdaq) on 7/13, the day before the reverse split.

  • Reply to

    How long until the next reverse split?

    by ron.burkett Jul 20, 2015 10:09 AM
    anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 20, 2015 11:08 AM Flag

    The share price is down 42% since the reverse split. How long should one be patient?

  • Reply to

    Barron's article

    by mrdudley10 Jul 14, 2015 5:36 PM
    anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 16, 2015 12:28 PM Flag

    The article, although it didn't state it explicitly, took the cash from the 3/31/2015 10-Q. The CFO was undoubtedly giving a current (as of the date of the presentation) cash balance after all of the recent property sales.

  • Reply to

    Barron's article

    by mrdudley10 Jul 14, 2015 5:36 PM
    anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 15, 2015 8:02 PM Flag

    It was mostly a paean to Zell. They cite a JP Morgan analyst stating that the net asset value is $32/share, which may be conservative. They say that analysts estimate that ffo for 2015 may drop by almost half from the $3.32 reported in 2014. Debt is 4.1 times ebitda, down from 6.1 times a year ago, and cash is $421 million. They expect some distribution by the end of the year because REITs must pay out 90% of net income.

    They didn't compare it to any other REIT.

  • Reply to

    Question

    by irishagentrunner Jul 13, 2015 12:16 PM
    anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 13, 2015 11:59 PM Flag

    Trailing twelve months.

  • Reply to

    Tight, tight spreads ...

    by oilyman24 Jul 13, 2015 10:40 AM
    anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 13, 2015 3:07 PM Flag

    Skeet,

    I don't know, you may be correct. If you do a search on the exact term "tax loss carry forward change of control" in Google, the third item is a pdf titled "A Primer on Protecting Tax Losses from a Section 382 Ownership Change" I haven't read it all, but it is extremely complicated.

  • Reply to

    Tight, tight spreads ...

    by oilyman24 Jul 13, 2015 10:40 AM
    anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 13, 2015 3:04 PM Flag

    I think any order can be changed by the judge. But, the terms of the order itself can be essentially waived by the "Debtors". After a proposed transaction, the Debtors have 20 days to object, and if they don't object, the transaction can go through.

    The legal mumbo jumbo about this topic is mind-numbing.

  • Reply to

    Tight, tight spreads ...

    by oilyman24 Jul 13, 2015 10:40 AM
    anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 13, 2015 1:37 PM Flag

    Skeet,

    Wouldn't a bid from E or another oil company constitute, if consummated, a change in control and thus a loss of the tax loss carry forward benefits? Such a loss of the tax benefit is exactly the issue that Docket #6 addresses.

  • Reply to

    Quick, Oily and behind question

    by strayman49337 Jul 12, 2015 9:32 PM
    anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 12, 2015 11:08 PM Flag

    Skeet,

    You say "you can't buy large amounts without judge approval and 30 day notice....."

    Docket #6 says "a “Substantial Shareholder” is any Entity that has Beneficial Ownership of at least 9,102,850 shares of common stock of QRI (“Common Stock”), constituting approximately 4.75% of the outstanding shares of Common Stock;" and restricts any entity from buying a number of shares which would cause that entity to become a "Substantial Shareholder" or selling a number of shares which would cause an existing "Substantial Shareholder" to cease being a "Substantial Shareholder".

    So, you can become rich! You just need to buy 9 million shares at $0.03 per share ($270,000) and then when the shares become worth $3.50 after the conclusion of the bankruptcy as you assert, you'll be worth a cool $31 million!

    This is, of course, patently absurd because the share price would have reflected this opportunity by now. I agree with Strayman.

  • Reply to

    Equity offering

    by vjpj1110 Jul 2, 2015 5:47 PM
    anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 12, 2015 1:17 PM Flag

    First, those were units, not shares. A unit consisted of one share plus 1/2 warrant.

    Second, since that press release was issued out of Toronto, and specifically states that

    "The securities offered have not and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "U.S. Securities Act"), or any U.S. State securities laws ..."

    what makes you believe that the price of $0.60 per unit was US$? It was certainly CA$. If you're not aware of it, go to the SEDAR web site. On July 2, there was a document filed which is described as "Underwriting or agency agreement". In that document, it specifically states under DEFINITIONS that “$” means lawful money of Canada.

  • anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 9, 2015 9:15 PM Flag

    Yes, I do have a negative opinion of Axion. It just seems to me that after so many years, their technology should have already have gained traction and been generating sales. But, different opinions are what make a market!

    When officers and directors spend their own money to purchase shares, it shows strong support for the company. Current officers and directors have not done so. To me, that fact speaks for itself.

    I hope that the LCB investment works out for you and Axion and that the Chinese money behind LCB is not affected by the crashing Chinese stock market.

  • anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 9, 2015 6:48 PM Flag

    You mean you didn't read the PRE 14A you just referenced in your recent post? It's on page 3.

  • anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 9, 2015 6:26 PM Flag

    If you think that AXPW is such a compelling buy at this price level, why do you think that all of the officers and directors don't agree? In total, they own less than $850 worth of the company's stock, at today's closing price, or less than $13,500 of stock if all warrants were exercised?

  • Reply to

    I count 23 Lawsuits as of today

    by crushthepoodle Jul 7, 2015 2:02 PM
    anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 7, 2015 8:01 PM Flag

    crush,

    Do a search on William Lerach and his law firm Lerach Coughlin, which morphed into Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, which ultimately became Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd, LLP. You'll find it interesting if you want to take the time. I misstated the firm's name in my previous post about the SZYM law suit.

    Mr. Lerach's last name became a verb, as in "Solazyme has been lerached", although I haven't seen it in use lately.

  • Reply to

    I count 23 Lawsuits as of today

    by crushthepoodle Jul 7, 2015 2:02 PM
    anotheranonone anotheranonone Jul 7, 2015 7:13 PM Flag

    lindbergh9

    Look as the news headlines for 3D Systems (DDD) and you'll see a similar number of plaintiff law firms trolling for a lead plaintiff in a class action. The original suit was filed on June 16.

ETP
51.20-0.22(-0.43%)Jul 31 4:06 PMEDT