Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Diana Containerships Inc. (DCIXV) Message Board

barrygeo 39 posts  |  Last Activity: 9 hours ago Member since: Oct 8, 2004
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Forget. Another criteria to get to cash flow positive was growth in DVAR sales. That has seen some progress lately, but I don't know if it's enough

  • "$13 Million a quarter for three quarters is nice but still only one paying wind customer"

    lafeet, I think it will come out to a bit more than that. The pr stated that shipments under the $40 million follow-on would begin fy 2q and that the "vast majority" would be delivered by the end of the fiscal year. There is only month of the second fiscal quarter remaining (ends Sep 30), leaving two more full quarters before the "vast majority" of the $40M is delivered.

    So most of the contract covers a period of only 2 1/3 quarters. If you interpret "vast majority" to be about $38M of the $40M (just to have a number to calculate), then $38m / 2.33 = $16.3 million per quarter revenue coming from Inox.

    For comparison, according to the last annual report, Sinovel accounted for 56% of amsc's annual revenue of $70,530m last fy. I calculated that to be $39,496m from Inox last year, or about $9.9 million per quarter, on ave. And during amsc's last reported quarter ending June 30, 47% of their $23,723m revenue came from Inox, which I calculate to be $11.1 million.

    So it could be about 50% increase in rev from Inox, yoy

    But they have to get JCNE back to a paying customer. Last quarter, JCNE accounted for 25% of their revenue, which I calculate to be $5.9m. If I heard the conf call correctly, they do not expect any revenue whatsoever from JCNE. Thus, the guidance for a sequential drop in overall revenue

    One of the company's criteria for what they need to accomplish to get to cash-flow positive is to have two wind customers in "meaningful production."

    It's only Inox right now.

    The other criteria was to start getting revenue from REG and Navy. REG revenue will not amount to squat unless they actually go ahead with the project, and the amount of the Navy contract was disappointing to most of us.

    glta

  • Reply to

    sold a portion amsc

    by barrygeo 17 hours ago
    barrygeo barrygeo 12 hours ago Flag

    zep, I'm keenly aware of Inox's growth, as I've been posting details about it on this msg board for some time now. One reality to consider is that Inox's capacity is sold out, so they won't be delivering significant growth on their current backlog until they expand their manufacturing. They are in that process, but I don't believe they've disclosed a time frame.

    There are also risks of a political change in India, or the risk that the Modi govt will find obstacles to their plans for growth in renewables.

    If the momo here can be maintained by good news in other areas (REG, Navy, Dvar, perhaps JCNE), then we might see some more strong upside to the stock.

    good luck

  • Reply to

    sold a portion amsc

    by barrygeo 17 hours ago
    barrygeo barrygeo 14 hours ago Flag

    Hi propain,

    The contract was no surprise, least of all to me. The reason I'm in here in the first place has more to do with amsc's Inox business than with anything else. Problem for me is, I was buying in anticipation of good news from Inox way back before the reverse, then I averaged down too soon and too agressively.

    Sometimes selling the news is not a bad move, although so far it looks like I would have done better holding off. Still holding 3/4 of my position.

    Selling a portion was sort of a compromise for me.

    I'm guessing there will be another Inox order of similar size or a larger early next calender year. Most likely it still will not be enough to go cash-flow positive.

    Good luck

  • Just one-third of my shares at 5.31. That's a 27% loss on my average of 7.30.
    I feel more comfortable with the size of my position now.
    glta

  • Reply to

    Sinovel

    by yankeeclipper2012 Aug 28, 2015 1:16 PM
    barrygeo barrygeo Aug 28, 2015 2:39 PM Flag

    "Your HH 2 sides to every question post off putting since that website run by bent expat couple of standard deviations off the bubble."

    What?

  • ... that according to CFO in his presentation. Ah, well.

  • Reply to

    Actually ...

    by qazwsxedcvbn2003 Aug 26, 2015 12:54 PM
    barrygeo barrygeo Aug 28, 2015 1:52 PM Flag

    CFO stated in presentation about $1 million value per MW wind turbine, and 5% to 10% of that goes to ECS. Doing the math, with Inox's 1200mw backlog, that's $1.2B, and Inox would need anywhere from $60 to $120 million worth of ECS from AMSC to support that. Henry stated Inox says they expect to convert that backlog to revenue in the next 12-15 months.

    Didn't hear Henry use the word "actually" until he responded to a question about Sinovel litigation late in the presentation. I detected anger and frustration. (Understandable). I think the company is sick of the topic.

    Actually, so are many of us.

    glta

  • Sinovel reported a six-month net loss of 865 million CNY. According to Financial Times, Sinovel's cash balance after 1q (March 31 2015) was 942M CNY. At 0.16 CNY to US dollar, the cash balance at that time was $151M.

    According to the FT website: Sinovel's net loss for 1Q was 248M CNY, with negative operating cash flow of 201M CNY. Subtracting the 1q loss from the 6-month loss, Sinovel's net loss for 2Q would be 670M CNY.

    Look at that 670 loss for the qrt vs. their cash balance of 942 at the end of 1q, and it would appear their cash is probably rapidly dwindling. For instance, if Sinovel's cash balance is now 300 to 400 million CNY, that would be just $48 million to $64 million. Even if it's as high as 600M CNY, we are still looking at only $96 million, and most likely going down at a good clip.

  • Sinovel Wind's Loss Widens on Fewer Orders, Asset Impairment
    Bloomberg News

  • google the following

    Inox Wind Limited
    Q1 FY16 Results Conference Call
    July 27, 2015

  • Reply to

    patient accumulator

    by yankeeclipper2012 Aug 11, 2015 11:55 AM
    barrygeo barrygeo Aug 11, 2015 3:56 PM Flag

    What's your average now, yank?

    Mine is $7.30

    I'm patient like you, but unlike you I'm not inclined to sink any more in this thing. Their revenue guidance was a disappointment. I miscalculated and believed Inox growth would mean $100m or more per year, but apparently it will fall short of that. JCNE revenue was significant last quarter, but they say it will fall to none. If they continue to try to claim that JCNE will be their second wind licensee to enter "meaningful production" they will have to prove that with a return to sales in the future.

    Your hope in Blade Dynamics is misplaced - a long shot. The Navy business and REG will role out agonizingly slowly, but more announcements could boost stock price somewhat. Not much, and short lived.

    That and the next Inox contract might be viewed as a good exit point. But I'll keep my mind open and maybe hang in here for better or worse.

    Just my opinion. Good luck.

  • Reply to

    results

    by icon0 Aug 6, 2015 4:18 PM
    barrygeo barrygeo Aug 7, 2015 9:13 PM Flag

    Agree. Lots of progress made getting per-share interest income back to where it can support dividend. And with more certainty div can be maintained, the yield and stock price look attractive, in my opinion. Sort of have my doubts we'll see 15 again any time soon, but would be thrilled if it happened.
    gl

  • Not saying this guy is accurate or knows what he's talking about. Just providing a link to show there are two sides to any story. Google the following:

    hidden harmonies sinovel

    Anyway, as much as I distrust the fairness of Chinese courts, there must be at the very least a pretension of a legal basis for two Chinese courts dismissing the case. Dan sums it up by saying "a crime was committed." Well, that's fine, but it would be nice if we could read the details of the Chinese courts' decisions to figure out what basis there was to dismiss the cases. I'm sure Dan has a translation of that filed away, but he'll never share it with us.

    From the beginning, Sinovel claimed that the source code was their legal property to begin with. Totally sleazy the way they got it. But Sinovel and the courts could squirm out of it with the argument that Sinovel stole nothing that wasn't there's to begin with.

    Apparently something like that has happened, and the only hope for a positive outcome would be if the new IP Court or Chinese Supreme Court rules differently.

    glta

  • barrygeo barrygeo Aug 3, 2015 2:59 PM Flag

    "Contrary to what some fatigued shareholders and shorts masquerading as concerned investors, I do think Sinovel litigation here and in China is not a waste of time"

    The legal expenses going forward will be negligible or non-existent, because from here on out their lawyers are being paid on contingency. So it's not a waste of time at all in that light. Nothing to lose, possibly lots to gain (though I'm skeptical)

    BK is not really an issue, in my opinion. It seems the company is unlikely to take on significant debt, and the little debt they are carrying can be easily serviced. The problem is ongoing dilution.

    good luck

  • barrygeo by barrygeo Jul 29, 2015 3:45 PM Flag

    You're right lafeet. I should've looked at the source more closely before posting. I deleted the topic in the interest of keeping it real.

    good luck

  • Reply to

    Back in htgc

    by barrygeo Jun 25, 2015 2:59 PM
    barrygeo barrygeo Jul 29, 2015 10:48 AM Flag

    I think lock up expired a few days ago, but management indicated they won't be dumping it all immediately. Maybe over two quarters or so ???

    I don't think they've indicated what they plan to do with the gain, i.e. if a special div is possibility. IMO investors' long term interest would be better served using the proceeds to repurchase more 7.00% notes.

    glta

  • Cut and paste the following into a google search to read the decision:

    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Nos. 14-3013, 14-3105

    I haven't read through it. The very last paragraph reads:

    "The district court’s denial of Sinovel’s motion to quash service of process is not an appealable order under the collateral order doctrine. We thus DISMISS Sinovel’s appeal, No. 14-3013, for want of appellate jurisdiction. In No. 14-3105, we conclude that the requirements for issuance of a writ of mandamus have not been met, and so we DENY Sinovel’s petition."

    end quote.

    All this means is that the case can move forward. It'll take years. The U.S. Justice system seems to be no faster than China's.

    I still am of the opinion that Sinovel could ignore any penalty imposed by the U.S. because it would be difficult to enforce. An award from the Chinese courts or arbitration would bear fruit, but I doubt we will see that. Time will tell

    glta

  • barrygeo barrygeo Jul 23, 2015 12:31 PM Flag

    Hi mikeandvicki, there's no censor among us and it's an open forum. I actually think your posts are thoughtful and well-worded, and it's obvious you are an intelligent person. But that doesn't automatically mean that I believe your argument is based on solid points.

    Your comment about me "pretending" is well deserved since my last response to you was blunt and rude. A lot of us are pretenders here in that we're trying to figure out what's going on. I ain't no expert on amsc, and if I or anyone else seems to try to present themselves as a know-all, don't believe them.

    When I argued against your notion that Sinovel's "...more recent problems also find their origins in AMSC" I offered you a source that confirms much of what I posted. I also invite you to take any single or multiple sentences that I wrote in that message and ask me to provide you with a source to confirm what I said is accurate. I can probably do it.

    good luck

  • barrygeo barrygeo Jul 23, 2015 11:19 AM Flag

    lafeet, Huaneng Renewables is the parent company. I think they assign various subsidiaries to run their many wind farms.

    An Oct 2014 Windpower Monthly article states that: "Sinovel is being sued by 12 subsidiaries of Huaneng Renewables in the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court over an alleged breaking of contracts. The companies, led by Huaneng Fuxin Wind Power ..."

    My understanding is that Huaneng Renewables itself was recently spun off from the state-sponsored China Huaneng Group, which is China's largest power producer. So Huangeng Renewables must be a very large wind operator. If you cut and paste the following into a google search you'll see a long list of Huaneng Renewables subsidiaries:

    Huaneng Tongliao Wind Power Company Limited

    What interested me most were the points dealing with the software and source code, particularly number 7, where Huaneng promises " ... not to provide any third party with any technical data relating to the control system software and source code supplied by Sinovel and, without the consent of Sinovel, not to modify such
    technical data on its own"

    end quote. In a way, this is just Sinovel protecting what they believe is their proprietary information. But, Is this the very same source code that amsc accuses Sinovel of having hijacked? What happens if amsc demands information from Huaneng about the software and source code being used, as evidence in a court case?

    Sinovel's position in the Chinese court cases is that the source code was Sinovel's property all along, according to their contract with amsc. So, regardless of how they obtained it, they were only obtaining their rightful property.

    Apparently, one lower court in China has sided with Sinovel on that point, though amsc has appealed.

    good luck

DCIX
1.66-0.08(-4.32%)Aug 31 4:00 PMEDT