Between last Friday and Tuesday the CEO sold 40,000 from $31.99-$32.32.
Leaves him directly holding 269,388 (not counting unexercised options).
I believe this is teh first time.
Some other execs also have been sellers over the past few weeks.
Of course, non of this prevents me from being WRONG WRONG WRONG about the trend of the stock price and its near-term movements, as it traded just now at $6.75.
And you have not addressed my main point. I would welcome a third party to moderate this, simply for the reason that we seem to be talking past each other rather than to each other.
Unless I am mistaken, the company does not disclose actual levels of sales for branded or bulk product sales. Nor do they give volumes of sales. Instead they disclose the total sales level (as required) and they disclose a "nonsense number" that is, the percent increase in branded sales. With only two numbers (sales and percent increase of some subset of sales) I cannot make a definitive calculation, hence I have not provided one:
In my view, there are only two possibilities:
At the start, branded sales were 5% of total sales.
If then, total sales grew 50%, and total sales grew 3%, AND WE ASSUME THAT THEY SELL FOR THE SAME PRICE, then we can assume, using 100 as the initial sales level that
Total Sales went from 100 to 103
Branded went from 5 to 7.5
Bulk went from 95 to 95.5
On the other hand, if we again assume both products sell at the same price, and branded sales were 30% of sales at the start, then
Total Sales went from 100 to 103
Branded went from 30 to 45
Bulk went from 70 to 58.
We simply do not know enough information.
What we can assume though, is that 37% increase in branded sales still resulted in only 3% sales growth. That doesn't cut it. THAT is the problem.
Show me a case where sales growth is 3% and branded growth is 37% and it is a GOOD situation. Any case.
Let me be more specific:
If they are telling us that branded sales are up 37% but the total amount of branded sales is so low as for this to have no impact, then they are feeding us a line of what Col. Sherman T. Potter would call "horse hockey."
These huge percentage increases have now been reported for close to two full years.
Since the revenue line itself is so low, how can you make a case to the contrary?
Hey, I don't know everything, but I can do basic math. If the basic math doesn't apply because the sales level is too low to matter, then they are at best providing misleading information.
Also, the BioAstin brand is apparently worthless, since they can't increase profits by converting bulk sales to branded sales, as they have stated has been happening for about two years (i.e. the current CEO incarnation).
The only reason you could think that is you know it to be the case.
Why not just say that instead of :I think"?
No it is not.
Those were shares that were sold short by people who were arbitraging the closing of the Cole Acquisition. Because the share ratio was known, people were able to buy ARCP shares at a discount by buying Cole shares. They then simultaneously sold short the proper number of ARCP shares. When the deal closed, the short position just evaporated as they delivered their new ARCP shares to cover the short. It's called :risk arbitrage." Look it up.
Notice how the format of the spammer's two different profiles is identical:
Surname, Initial/Name, number
Usually, though, they pumpp a web address.
Also, Gold is not an exxcellent thing to trade unless you know alot about....gold.
A stock like this, where you can listen to the conference call and read the SEC documents, and get to know the valuations of the competing companies, is a good way to trade.
that said, is anybody here "pair trading" by being long ARCP and its 7% yield and short
NNN or O and their sub 5% yields?
It is hard for a decision to be rendered before discovery is completed.
If the patent were almost expired, why didn't they just wait a while?
This is the area I know least about.
Except for all the other areas.
Interesting filing in the lawsuit.
Valensa attempted to compel the production of a memo used by a marketing firm in the positioning of AstaX as an "eye damage" "retardant" (the so-called "Tso patent" licensed by Univ. of Illinois.
The 2009 memo is said to include a legal counsel's opinion about the matter.
The court rejected Valensa request that the production of the memo be compelled.
According to the document, the case remains "in discovery."
Gotta be dragging on the bottom line quite a bit all this legal nonsense.
Companies this size aren't built to handle this stuff, but in the case of CYAN, this is
pretty close, in my view, to being an "existential matter."
Despite the recent modest rally in the shares since the Cole deal closed, ARCP still has a
dividend yield 200bp or more higher than either O or NNN.
At nearly 6.9% yield, we are finally under the 7% level.
I still see no reason why this yield differential should not and will not collapse by at least 100bp over a period of only a couple of months.
A 6.25% yield on the current dividend of $1.00 annually would give us a $16 stock price.
I don't think that is too much to ask. even a 6% yield ($16.66 stock price) seems quite reasonable with O and NNN yielding under 5% right now.
The fact that it will be paying a $1.00/share annualized dividend with monthly disbursements has been known in the investment community for quite some time based on the company's own statements.
This news is already fully incorporated in the stock price.
I am astonished by how little attention this company gets here on the Yahoo! board.
Despite the huge rise in the share price over the past 5 years and the ongoing strong fundamental and financial performance, the board is virtually dead. Pretty much the only people around are ones that have been around....longer than 5 years.
Management has executed a classic turnaround, and the company now is valued almost like a growth stock. A decent-sized M&A deal or two will get SPA within shouting distance of its 2015 revenue target of $500 million, which seemed like a fantasy at the time that it was put forward.