I'd like to know the basis for their claim about market share. ASTE is doing very well in sales, including sales of aggregates.
Yahoo won't let me post a link (although there is now a worse kind of spam). Find noaa (.gov) and if you can't make your way from there, I will try to give more info on link. It is from the Climate Prediction Center at NOAA, Seasonal Prediction Discussion. There are also maps as I recall but I guess I found the discussion most useful when I created the bookmark.
"the djf 2012-13 temperature outlook indicates enhanced chances for above normal
temperatures for much of the western continental u.s. Stretching across the
south central great plains to the western gulf coast. Below normal temperatures
are favored for parts of the northern great plains and western great lakes and
the florida peninsula. For alaska, there are elevated odds for above-normal
temperatures along the north slope and below normal temperatures for the
southeast and alaska panhandle. ".
"the djf 2012-13 precipitation outlook favors above-average precipitation for an
area in the tennessee valley and below-average precipitation for parts of
california, nevada, southeast alaska and the alaska panhandle"
1) There was a dotcom bubble, but the point remains that it is dangerous to like a company because the industry will grow well: autos in early days is another example of the fallacy of this. That said, I'd rather invest in a growing industry which is why I am in ADM in the first place.
2) ADM WACC was 5.6% this quarter. Their goal is for ROIC to exceed WACC by 2%. As a goal, 7.6% ROIC seems to be a very low hurdle in evaluating acquisitions or any investment opportunities. For example, utility AVA is being granted an 8.6% return on their rate base, which I believe is pretty equivalent to ROIC. Non-regulated companies usually shoot higher than utilities.
It depends on book value of the assets sold (book minus sale price). The cost is not a cash outlay. Or did I misunderstand he question?
I did not understand the explanation for the $16 million charge for exiting the Nutrimetics business in the UK as given in the conference call. Here is reply I got from investor relations, although I am still surprised by the size of the charge given the cause (pound went from $1.75 at end of 2005 to about $1.62 at end of September). Maybe they are saying that charge is for more than Nutrimetics in UK, but includes other UK operations no longer in existence.
"There are some "normal" restructuring costs of the type you have outlined in connection with ceasing to operate the company in the U.K. These are not very significant and are included as well in our re-engineering numbers including on the outlook schedules attached to the release. Due to its size and nature, we called attention to the CTA element only, which relates to the translation of the U.K. balance sheet at different FX rates each month over time, including when we had operated a Tupperware business in the U.K"
Case in point: bid-ask was 11.10-11.33. What actually happened, see Nasdaq market site, was that 700 shares were bought at 11.1082 and 500 were sold at 11.3283. I suspect neither original offerer or bidder saw their trades executed.
West, actually that used to be my strategy for thinly traded stocks. Now I am not sure what to do, because of the undercutting as given in my examples. Sometimes limits work, and sometimes they don't. A 2% bid-ask spread today, given volume, is ridiculous.
As I've noticed before, if bid ask spread is 10.97-11.31, then actual trade often goes off at 10.971 or 11.309; in other words, small investor is getting short changed. I believe it is an aspect of high frequency trading which never seems to receive focus, perhaps because it is the small investor who is suffering.
You need to narrow spreads, small investors!
Steve, I just glanced at AEHR earnings release. When they say "expanding the market" is it clear what they are talking about? As they say, semi-conductor capex in general is trending down.
Unallocated corporate expenses for the year went up from 16.2 million to 19.0 million (2.8 million or 17%). Yet in the management's discussion, the only thing I saw was a reference to "a higher estimated annual incentive plan bonus accrual and higher costs for the supplemental employee retirement plan (SERP)" discussed in note 9. Yet in note 9, I saw a small drop in net periodic pension and postretirement health benefit costs. Now in note 10 we learn that the SERP went up 674 thousands, which explains .7 million of the 2.8 million. All the remainder is due to bonus accruals?
I guess this is part of the answer: retail/wholesale includes "distributors of industrial cleanup and automotive products, environmental service companies and sports field product users". Their definition of business segments does not seem very useful.
I don't get it: if scoopables are increasingly being substituted for coarse litter, then shouldn't industry sales be growing? and if ODC is doing well in terms of scoopables, then shouldn't they be growing faster than industry? sounds like ODC scoopable sales growing fast with Cat's Pride growing 25% and Fresh and Light almost as high in absolute value as Cat's Pride (22 mil vs. 25 mil).
So, why are consumer sales lackluster?