We traded at $359.10, putting us just under the 200-day moving average for the first time since early May when we were trading around $325/share.
Meanwhile, the current bid/ask spread is an obscene $359.99 bid, offered at $395.12.
That's outrageous. No wonder we have 127* shares per day traded.
Bloomberg isn't married, though he is divorced.
Like NY Governor Cuomo (also divorced), he consorts with a woman but doesn't marry them.
Also, keep in mind, when a new CEO comes in, he came in because he saw substantial value and opportunity.
Thus, he is not unhappy at seeing the stock pull back if it means his upcoming option grant will be priced at the lower level.
Finally, maybe he should have compared this price action to the action in other REITs.
Who is Mr. Ton?
Cashmonies_69's post was juvenile and pointless and offered nothing of value. His handle is equally juvenile.
The opinion it contained was expressed in a way that should have been shared with Jack Daniels, not this message board.
A person who doesn't realize that a CEO does not control the price of a stock in the short term is a financial danger to himself and his family.
What are you talking about?
Did you even read the document?
The discussed a transaction extensively with several other companies and it was presented to nearly 15 companies in total. 14 of whom showed no interest.
The meaning of your statement:
"did not single out a company to give management a better "inside" deal?"
is completely unclear since when reading it, it doesn't make any sense.
The fact is NO other company made an offer for the whole company.
And, no, we would NOT have heard about it.....until now. That's not the way it works.
Given the profitability that has been demonstrated in the past, and looking at a financial model where certain revenue growth levels and gross profit margins are assumed, it seems to me that the stock is a reasonable value here below $6.
But, i don;t see an immediate catalyst for it to move up, so I will wait before adding, looking to minimize the amount of time my capital is tied up and trying to get an even lower price than currently. Also, I will probably nibble over time, trying to pick spots and buy on days when either it or the market appear to be acting irrationally.
If their biggest problem is an inability to meet demand, why have they not been more successful in raising their pricing structure?
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.