I would have to believe that absent everything coming together favorably in a relatively short period of time that his days are numbered.
These are more statements that are unsupportable.
You say that production rose 103%. Where does this fact come from.
If production rose 103% and there was no spike in sales, then one would expect that inventories would have increased dramatically. INFACT, from March 31 to June 30, inventory DECLINED while the June quarter revenue increased by less then $200,000 from the March quarter revenue.
Your constant pumping is tolerable, but supporting it with statements that are contradicted by the facts is NOT tolerable.
I'm not going to let you get away with that kind of nonsense.
No. I actually have been following this name (sometimes from afar) since (would you believe) the mid-90s.
I friend pointed it out to me. They were a very different company back then, and I never did much in it.
However, in the aftermath of the collapse of Lehman, I found it selling for around 40 cents and I started trading it. I would buy some shares then sell them after it rose, then buy them back. I did some calculations the other day. Since June of 2010 I have traded almost 80,000 shares of PLNR (both sells and buys combined).
The story of digital signage is pretty good, and the stock finally reached the "tipping point' where that business is going to dominate the reported financials.
The same thing is going on at Xerox (XX). A couple of years ago they bought ACS, a computer services business which is growing about 4-5% a year. The copier business, meanwhile is shrinking 4-5% a year. In a couple more years the revenue split will have shifted from about 50/50 to two-thirds/one-third.
I think you make a good point that there have not been many "mega acquisitions" altely.
Of course, those are forced upon management by low oil rices, when the need to reduce overhead via consolidation is the only good way to improve results.
Today, though, $28 billion is chump change.
What's more, it is not "M&A" but activist hedge funds that are forcing management teams to take actions to realize shareholder value. Look at what Apache has done over the past couple of years. Even that wasn't enough to keep Jana Partners from taking a position and agitating for change. What Apache did I would call "Management Activism."
MRO has been undergoing "Management activism" for a couple of years already; it began with the split-up from MPC and the acquisition of Hilcorp (the name came to me).
In any event, my main point is that the valuation of MRO is SO low compared to those other two companies that we can be certain in the current environment that something is coming. Big buybacks, faster dividend increases, more asset disposals. All of these things will be put to use by MRO in my opinion over the next 6-24 months in order to surface the value that my prior post highlighted.
How much would they get for the EG assets including the methanol plant? it has 100,000 boe/d. it is easier operating conditions (lower cost) compared to the North Sea where they netted $2.1 billion for 70,000 boe/d. I am going to guess that the EG asset is worth on the order of $3.5 billion give or take a few hundred million. That would give them the ability to accelerate domestic growth even more and to substantially reduce the share count.
The Barclays conference presentation will be very interesting indeed.
For the past six years, a takeover of MRO did not make sense.
Today, however, there IS a real case to be made that MRO is trading too cheaply, and I am going to give you that case:
MRO is trading at essentially the same equity market cap and Enterprise Value (that's equity market cap plus debt less excess cash) as PXD and CRL.
That's ok, because PXD has production roughly the same as MRO but located in the Eagle Ford and Permian, as compared to MRO's Bakken and Eagle Ford. CLR, on the other hand, has about the same amount of production as MRO and PXD, with assets primarily in the Bakken and in the SCOOP (Oklahoma).
For CLR and PXD, those assets represent the bulk of the company. Their production in those regions is growing between 20% (PXD with spending within cash flow) and 30% (CLR, outspending cash flow by about $750 million a year). Similarly, MRO is projecting production growth in the Bakken and Eagle Ford between 20% and 30% annually.
But, with MRO, you get another 200,000+ boe/d of production from EG, North Sea, and elsewhere.
When you buy MRO you are getting these assets for practically nothing compared to PXD and CLR.
And here's why: It has only been in the past 2 or 3 quarters that MRO's production in the Eagle Ford and Bakken have really started to take off. Most analysts thought that they overpaid by ALOT when they bought their initial acreage in the Eagle Ford (dang, I can't remember the name of that outfit).
But now, they are demonstrating significant growth at competitive costs in those fields, and the valuation does not reflect the assets.
Of course, this is all IMHO, and do you own DD.
There isn't going to be a halt, and the Board is only indirectly responsible for filing financials.
It is the primary responsibility of executive management.
Do you know the difference between executive management and a board of directors?
Looking at the volume on the daily chart, it really surged on the immediate news and pop, then
trended down through 8/14.
Volume increased on 8/15, which was the day prior to the upside breakout out of the "pennant/flag" formation.
Since then, the trading volume has been been generally BUILDING. Yesterday, though, the volume rose on a down day really for the first time, then pulled back today on the renewed advance.
When I look on the 30-minute chart, the stock has been going sideways since about Noon on 8/26.
If I've learned one thing over the years, its that stocks can go up WAY more than you ever imagined, and that they can go down WAY MORE than you ever believed possible. That's one reason trading these low-priced names can be so attractive: the percentage moves can be astounding. However, I really insist that my micro-caps start out with fortress balance sheets preferably without debt and with plenty of cash.
I think at one point a few years ago I was buying this company at $1.70 when it had $2.00 a share in working capital and was debt free.
Try capitalizing the annual FCF after the spinoff.
Then you will have the start of an idea.
I have been selling little pieces. I still have 30% of my shares,
and it was, for me, quite a big position before this took off.
So, I have been managing my portfolio risk and selling
little bits on the way up. I don't need to make every last dollar.
Just the next to last one.
But you are right, the volume remains abnormally high on a
very sustained basis.
That being said, if something were really going on, There would
not have been so much REAL insider selling--they would be
prohibited from trading.
So, it seems to me it is some sort of Twitter/Yahoo/VectorVest
type of phenomenon.
First of all, EV/EBITDA is not expressed in dollar terms.
Secondly, you have not explained why 14.36x is an attractive valuation.
Testing the high on reduced volume, yes.
Even a break tio new highs could be a non-confirmation if volume remains under 1 million shares (well, technically, if it remains below 1.4 million shares).
I meant to note the amount by which it had changed since this run began.
The level was less than I had anticipated.
I suspect it is significantly higher now.
The short interest in PLNR rose to 203,795 shares at 8/15 from 121,732 on 7/31.
That is not much compared to the more than 500,000 shares per day of volume during the first half of August.
This is one of the most ill-informed posts I have ever seen.
Firstly, a company cannot be buying back its own shares when it is delinquent in its SEC filings.
Hertz is delinquent in its SEC filings, therefore, they are not buying back their stock.
Secondly, companies are not allowed to buy back their stock in a manner that is destabilizing to the stock price. The definition of "destabilizing" in this case is in a manner that changes teh stock price.
Finally, companies are not able to buy back their own shares at the start of the trading day or at the end of the trading day.
lease do some research before you post nonsense.
This comparison seems pretty moot to me.
The only things that matter is revenue growth and margin improvement.
Instead, what we will get is blather about "growing conditions" and "growth
in Nutrex revenue" and "legal expenses" combined with no measureable
Do you doubt it?
The point is, you have NO IDEA of anything about Sidoti.
If you think someone can't downgrade a stock after an 80% increase in the stock price in a few weeks, you also have no clue about how Wall street works.
Might they be wrong? Sure.
Might it go straight up from here? Perhaps.
But the fact that they had a buy at all says it all.
Yes, the profit margins on production in Libya are very minor and they would be better off selling their Libyan assets, but of course it is too late for that. I don;t even think they include Libyan production in their guidance.
Digital Signage revenue +30% to ~$112.5mm
Other Revenue -4.8% to ~$86.5mm
Total revenue +14.2% to ~$199mm
Gross margin 25.8% up from 24.3%E for FY14 and 22.4% in FY13
Selling & Marketing 11.4% of sales
Operating Income $6.8mm
Effective Tax rate 20%
Net Income $6.1mm or 28 cents/sh on 22mm shares
FCF $5.8mm after $1.25mm of capex
You heard it here first.
All assumptions are judgement calls using what seems "reasonable"