You guys are really clueless. There are NO retail investors in Ackman's fund. NONE. There is limited ability to get out of a fund like that.
According to a Reuters article published yesterday, Sun's plant in Gujurat is now banned from exporting product to the US because the plant does not conform to US FDA "Good Manufacturing Practices."
Typically the FDA periodically inspects and audits the record-keeping of foreign plants that export pharmaceutical products to the United States.
It seems to me that this ban, which could last for months, makes Sun's control of TARO even more important.
I'm not going to provide a link because even though Yahoo! is good at screwing up posts with links, it can't controllers spammers offering "daily stock trading alerts" and "tips" Yahoo is pathetic.
You idiot. You know NOTHING.
Hedge fund investors can only "liquidate" their holdings on average once a year.
They don;t have the ability to just go to the fund manager and say "I'm out."
You are truly clueless.
Apparently there was a conference call held at 10:30 this morning.
Perhaps it was addressed on the conference call.
I just went back and re-read the press release and as Ed McMahon used to say to Johnny "You are correct, Sir!"
It does indeed say it will be a "pro-rata taxable distribution."
In my view, this is quite unusual.
According to Moody's report on the announcement, the deal is supposed to be completed during the second quarter of this year. That's very fast!
usually, companies go to the IRS and seek a "private letter ruling" that the spin-off would be a "tax-free" event. It appears in this case that they do not intend to do that. There does not seem to me any reason to expose existing shareholders to such a taxable event.
Moody's states that the transaction does not materially affect ARCP's credit metrics and existing ratings, but that it does improve some metrics, though only modestly.
The creation of the new company via a spinoff of 1 new share for every ten shares of ARCP owned will result in an increase in dividends of 7.3%. Therefore, dividend is effectively going from $1.00 a share of ARCP to $1.073 per share on a combined basis.
Although they do not break down the dividend between them exactly, it stands to reason that since the $0.073 increase in the dividend will come from 1/10 as many shares of the new company, the new company will pay a 73 cent per share annual dividend while ARCP seems likely to continue to pay $1.00/share.
With the stock right now at $14.70, and the effective dividend at $1.073, the dividend yield now stands at approximately 7.30%, up from the 6.80% that could be assumed prior to the annoucnement at the same stock price.
Does anyone have an estimate of what the legal, accounting, and regulatory compliance costs are for VALU to remain a public company as opposed to the costs they might still incur as a private company.
There continues to be virtually no reason (other than someone doesn't want to shell out the money) for this to remain a public company.
"We needed something to boost this stock."
It sounds as if you are relatively impatient.
If so, you would be better off in a little more "high flying."
In those names, they will give you plenty of "action."
You just might not like some of it.
In a "value" situation, one must have a bit of patience.
This move is one that further focuses the portfolio on its core "single tenant" assets.
Exactly. That is the definition of "Selling General & Administrative Expenses"
These people are so stupid they don;t even realize when they say something #$%$.
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.