it is quite clear that the company conducted an extensive process of obtaining the best price possible for the company.
However, we, as investors, are not entitled to no the identity of the other potential suitors.
The question that remains unanswered is why the Board felt that continuing a sale process after the market value of the company had been impaired by the bad news about the energy industry customer's declining sales prospects is unclear.
Signing on with one of these ambulance chasing law firs is rather despicable. They are leeches on society for the most part in matters such as this.
Actually, I do not really think that $6.58 is a fair price.
I recall the company mentioning that the business they lost was in the oil and gas business.
I was surprised at how large a portion of revenue it represented; I seem to recall it was close to 10%,
yet they had never disclosed a customer that large (10% is required disclosure).
Here's the real mystery question for me: Why are they selling out at all?
No, a 1/3 Debt / Capital limitation is not normal for an IG bond offering.
The boilerplate language is standard. That specific amount is not.
Is the $89 million pre-tax or after tax?
Any idea what the total assets of Finmart are?
I could only find Finmart-related revenue info in the most recent filed 10-Q.
EZPW should head back to the $9 range in 6-12 months after their accounting issues are resolved.
if there is any recovery in the price of gold, it could go even higher sooner.
Indeed as a custom product ordered on a one-time basis, with progress payments made before delivery, the supplier put them obviously at a very low priority.
CYAN management appears to ahve failed to include in the contract any penalty for failure to deliver the equipment on time.
It does not seem likely to me that it was the lawsuit, though I can't rule it out as an influence or even the cause.
It seems more likely to me that the failure to develop the new products was caused by the delay in completing the new equipment installation. The rationale for this is that having the equipment installed locally would be an enabling factor in ramping up the product development process.
Just a guess.
Personally, I doubt that all of the intangibles and goodwill will need to be written off, although it cannot be ruled out, that would be a second to worst case scenario.
The analyst's view, as noted above, would require the company to take writedowns to real assets in addition to all of the intangibles.
So, If we get to a $9 tangible book level, and the earnings are about 90 cents per share, you get an entirely reasonable 10% ROE.
That scenario makes alot more sense.
However, if they are required to take a writedown of investments in the mexican business, carried on the books as an investment, then there could be additional downside to the tangible book figure.
Even if the stock trades just at 1x book, from $6.50 today there appears to be 35-50% upside over a 6-18 month timeframe. of course, there is execution risk.
On the most recent Form 10-Q filed in February there was listed
Goodwill of $337.498 million and
Other Intangibles of $60.379 million
The Total therefore is $397.877.
Using 53.7 million shares that equals $7.40 per share of intangibles.
The Value Line figure appears to include only the Intangible Assets but (mistakenly) excludes the actual Goodwill.
The editor should have caught that.
Today, a doctor's appointment took me from midtown to Tribeca and Soho.
As you may be aware, this is an area of boutiques, shops, and galleries populated by the shi-shi people who not only don;t have to work for a living, they don;t have to pay attention to stock message boards to supplement their incomes because "we have people for that."
As I strolled through the area, gazing into various shops/boutiques through their windows and open doors, I was struck by the large percentage that had interior video displays running in form factors that ranged from large to even larger than large.
it seems to me we are still only at the cusp of the digital signage trend/rollout.
OK, this is not (necessarily) my view of what is going to happen but here is my question:
If the deal falls through and doesn't happen,
Q1: How low will the share price dip (i.e. target price for bottom feeders), and,
Q2: Given the outlook for FY16 of roughly $0.50/share of e.p.s., at what price would the stock stabilize?
On 9/15 UBS analyst Eric Crawford wrote about the AASHTO report
and called it "ET-Plus wins another Round"
He has a $42 price target and compared the guardrail situation to that of tank cars.
Tank cars were built to standard; accidents continued to happen; standards were tightened.
He thinks the same will happen with guard rails.
he notes, obviously, that the Harman appeal is pending and that AASHTO views
additional tests by Virginia as "irrelevant."
His price target is 10x his 2016 e.p.s. estimate of $4.60 per share, reduced by $4 to account for the harman liability.
P/E ratios on top of the cycle earnings for cyclical companies is always very low, thereby presenting the "value trap" to the uninitiated.
Book value is only around $21 a share.
They should not dilute book value with buybacks much above that level, in my opinion.