Keep in mind that while the GAAP numbers may not look great going forward that will be because of the large non-cash depreciation/amort charges. Backing those out (which only serve to shield income from taxation) we should see large increases in cash inflows and a concomitant reduction in debt. All positive. This stock is nearly priced for BK... when the market realizes that is not going to happen, it will return to fair price, which is at least a double.
I do. Company has gained efficiencies such that it can extract gold in the low $800 per ounce range. It has maximized its production abilities, while reducing the need for significant capital outlays. All it needs is for the price of gold to remain where it is, and it slowly chips away at its debt while it makes plans for the sulfides phase. If, however, gold prices go up, it falls immediately to the bottom line (with a kicker on silver as well), i.e., if the co. mines 250k ounces of gold this year and sells it at $100 higher per ounce...well you do the math. If at the same time silver goes up, the offset it will provide on mining costs will only drive down costs making the co. more profitable per ounce mined and sold. With gold no longer apparently being out of favor, ANV has the chance for whipsaw back up, IMO.
Why are you pining for a buyout? The Company has reported that it has right sized its cost structure while increasing production significantly, all against a backdrop of steady to slightly increasing gold prices. Just a little bit of luck should send this price into double digits pronto.
It was politics, nothing more nothing less. In any system of this nature, there will ALWAYS be errors. ALWAYS. The question is what is an acceptable level of error, and in that regard we never heard anything to suggest that BFDI's implementation of the system fell short of industry standards. All we heard was that there were errors...that's the type of deceptive talk of politicians--make it look like the company is deserving of criticism, without actually libeling the company. How do I know? Simple. The government is barred from making gifts of public funds. Officials involved can be prosecuted and jailed if they did so. Here, Baltimore paid Brekford out $600k...that was a settlement of claims, not a gift of funds. Baltimore created a liability for itself through its decision making and it negotiated a settlement of that liability. It's that simple.
My guess is that this is an unsolicited offer, and that the offeror has preeempted the company on issuing a PR regarding its intent. My further guess is that the Company is preparing a counter release in which they acknowledge that they were approached, that they think the offer is too low and that they don't recommend shareholders accept it. It will be vetted by the attorneys before release.
So, what you are saying, b_fr_nk, is that there are shareholders, who have shares, who might sell them? Come on, this is a pretty lame bashing exercise. Are you telling me that in every company there are not a bunch of shares outstanding in the hands of shareholders who bought at a price far less than the current market value? Good grief. Ask Mark Zuckerberg what he paid for his shares... .
There are only two issues of significance concerning the preferred shares: (1) in a liquidation situation (and if we have that we are all in trouble) it has a preference amount of about $1.5MM; and (2) they are convertible at a ratio of more than 1:1 as a result of the Company's breach of covenants back in 2006. Upon conversion, they would increase the diluted share count from around 25.5MM to 27.5MM, or about a 8% dilution... Not dissimilar to what every company with an option pool has. But all of this is in the 10Q on file with the SEC.
So, b_fr_nk, given how insignificant this issue really is, I have to wonder: (1) are you bashing to buy lower? or (2) do you just not understand the issue and are running around screaming the "sky is falling" without knowing what you are talking about?
Really? Please, regale us with your fundamental analysis which shows that the current price per share is "nonsensical". My bet is you cannot. With $.56 earned last quarter, increasing shipments, increasing mix of higher margin projects, an increasing pipeline of project business and increasing panel prices, the earnings only portend to go up. How high can they go? I don't know, but the price is fully inline with recent performance, IMO, and low if CSIQ can continue to execute. So,please, tell me how it is overpriced. This should be good.
I think this is an astute observation. Solar, as a component of the overall power generation mix, is here to stay. There was overcapacity in the market two years ago, but there is now an equilibrium created not just be the closure of some smaller manufacturers, but by an increase in demand. That demand will only grow as consumable energy products grow more scarce. Governments are planning now for events 5, 10 and 50 years in the future, as the cost of extracting coal and NG continues to rise. The only question is whether CSIQ is going to be a winner in the solar game, and I think at least in the short term we have the answer.
You are right by my estimation, but there are a few one-time expenses/charges that impacted that net, as explained below in my prior post. Still, I think that the company wanted to bury the fact that this quarter, even backing out one time charges, failed to keep pace with last quarter. The company will have this optics problem going forward as a result of the increasing depreciation charges. They are non-cash charges, so they will mask results, but I agree that company needs to be able to articulate its case to investors. The only thing that will loosen the shorts grip on this stock will be positive cash flow and earnings.
Yes...go back and read my posts from 9 mos, 1 year and further back and you'll see I was making the same point to both Denniss and sbull...they were whining on a daily basis about the moves in ifon and my message then was patience...the verykool story was still playing out and it still is. If Denniss or sbull paid heed at all to my words, then I made them a lot of money. Why should I be ashamed of that?
I think that the only thing I would be ashamed of is if I came on message boards being an a.s.s and an irritant. Hows that' working for you?
The real issue with climate change is not whether it is happening. It is...and it has been since the planet was first formed. The question is what is causing it and whether man can stop that change.
It is the arrogance of humans to believe we can control something as complex as the global environment. Heck, we can't control (and often can barely survive) regional disasters like droughts, tornadoes, storms, floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc., yet the arrogance of certain members of our government think we can control global climate change, without even understanding why it is changing. Pretty ridiculous IMO. Is it solar flares? Is it a cyclical change caused by warming of the oceans a la El Nino off the West Coast of the Americas? We just don't know, but let's spend trillions of dollar avoiding the boogie man the government has propped up as the source of the evil?
If you want to clean up coal burning plants to mitigate the demonstrated adverse health effects from plant emissions, have at it...but please let's stop the demonization of industries just because politicians with agendas choose to do so.
By parity of reasoning, should I be concerned in every stock I own that there is a large percentage of holders who own at prices far below market who will want to sell to book their profits? That risk is inherent to pretty much every stock, so I don't see how it is a special concern here..
In any event, you have a great weekend too...spend it with your kids, they grow up and move out way too soon! (BTW, my older son is going to the 49ers Seahawk game this weekend. I would have joined, but Im preparing for a trial. Go 9ers!)
Will you narcissistic twits please leave? Carlsmith921, SolarSoldier,...seriously, get an effin life! you been doing these forever under different monikers and you have single handedly destroyed a board. Just get a life
Point B is where you are confused. There are 5.5MM preferred, which are nothing more than capital stock. Normally, preferred convert one to one, but here they have a kicker of about 1.7MM shares. The 1.7MM shares is the dilution, not the 7.5MM.
As to point C, what you don't seem to respect is that I have a different investment philosophy than you do. Not sure what is right or wrong, or whether one is right or wrong for where we are in our stages of life. I've put 2 kids through college and am preparing for the last. My objectives may differ from yours. I am happy for you when you hit it big, such as HIMX or GTAT, but I"m not envious of you, because I was unwilling to take the risks you took. Here, a 1.7MM share dilution by shareholders desirous of selling is not a risk I fear, it's just a fact. The only thing that would concern me is if they were selling because they knew the business model was broken. I don't see that.
As for investment returns, sorry I raised it...no need to open the Kimono...I'm just glad you're doing well, because a couple years back you seemed to be in agony over the performance of certain stocks you were in. Happy you are seeing better fortunes.
Agreed. To a certain extent we all fancy that our own analytics are a material factor in our returns and so posting numbers feels like bragging...however, I've been doing this long enough to know that the same logic I used to pick winners has yielded some terrible stinkers, which reminds one that there is a significant element of luck in this process. Certainly, luck visits the diligent, but I will readily admit that I did not expect a 1000% return on my investment in CSIQ! Had I known, i would have bet my entire portfolio on it, rather than, for example, sitting part of it in MCZ for what is going on 6 years now, or IFON for 8, or...you get the point.
Just an fyi, my investment philosophy is substantially similar to Hopeful's. That philosophy typically guides me to values in small cap stock, which are (as most of you know) subject to wild swings. I've had a few go BK or close to insolvent (WPCS, BRLC, HQSM, OCZ). I have had others that sat and did nothing forever, or I failed to get out during momentary blips (DAAT, APT...). I've had other that had a solid return (BOLT, SANM last year, ZOLT last year, ). But what really makes the portfolio are the occasional flyers (IFON in 2006, CSIQ twice now, DXPE, KTCC), which can more than offset the occasional stinker. I continue to refine my approach to avoid disasters like HQSM and BRLC, but I think they are unavoidable to a certain extent.
If a company builds a data center, it's a capital expenditure, which comes out of one budget, and if it is an operational expense, it usually comes out of another. The incremental increase in cost to go all SSD in a data center would all be booked as a capital expense, which might benefit the ongoing power expense, but it is sunk cost, and the server has a limited life. IME, it takes decisions being made at the CEO level for companies to make these kinds of decisions, as there are competing interests of different cost accounting groups within corporations, who have a vested interest in the issue of where the money comes from for expenditures of this nature. Having been involved in some very large cloud compute contracts, I can say these are not insignificant issues.
So, bottom line is that apart from a technical benefits or drawback to SSD, there is a whole nuther overlay on the adoption of SSD for enterprise use, which will stand as an impediment so long as there remains a disparity in the storage capacity of SSD and hard disks at equivalent price points.
So, my back of the napkin analysis is as follows:
Total Revenue -- $83 million
Total Production Costs - $57.4 million (including $12.5MM write off, $45 MM without)
Dep & Amort -- $12 million (compared to $19 MM for the prior 3 quarters)
Exploration - $.5 million
Corp. Exp. -- $3.5 million
Other -- $13 million (losses on sale/property held for sale)
Interest Exp. -- $9 million
Basically, there was a loss of $23 million on the quarter, $25 million of which was based on write offs and losses on properties for sale. Without their negative effect, the co. gained about $2.5 million, prior to application of the $8 million tax benefit and the impact of hedging, etc. Okay, not great, but keep in mind that $9mm is non-cash depreciation/amortization, so net you're looking at $11.5 million after adjustments.
Sounds like amateur shorts. In all fairness, IFON has risen quite a bit on nothing more than a press release. I think this most recent quarter is going to be good and show material profit, but the impact of the the distribution contract may not be seen for a quarter or two. So, I"m a bit in holding my breath mode. That said, given that we're trading not far above book, I don't see this as a good short under any circumstances.