I see that arsewhole lakeed has deleted his post. I suggest all put him on ignore. He will bring nothing but garbage to this board.
by DR. KENT MOORS | published DECEMBER 18TH, 2014
Oil prices are struggling to stabilize in the wake of what some are calling a “black swan” event.
It refers to a theory popularized by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a well-known risk analyst and statistician.
A black swan is an outlier, a development that fails to follow any normal pattern.
According to Taleb, a black swan event has three characteristics:
1. It is a surprise. Nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility.
2. It has a major impact.
3. People contend that they expected the event to take place (in hindsight).
To put this theory into perspective, Taleb considered World War I, the breakup of the Soviet Union, and 9/11 as examples of black swan events, so these are hardly everyday occurrences.
Almost 15 years ago, Taleb applied this approach to the stock market and has been a regular on financial TV ever since, especially when things seem to be taking a turn for the worse.
As a consequence, this has led to the black swan being used as an “explanation” for all kinds of things. It’s the obverse of the mantra “this time is different.”
And that leads us back to the true nature of the 40% drop in oil prices…
Oil Prices: A Fall that’s Hardly “Out of the Blue”
Over the past couple of days, I have seen three separate prognosticators claim that the stunning fall of crude is a black swan event.
It isn’t. But calling it one may be a good way of clouding up what really is happening.
First off, there were always indications on both the supply and demand side that matters were softening. Second, the OPEC non-decision on Thanksgiving to keep production levels unchanged was both predictable (from the Saudi perspective) and telegraphed in advance. Then, the orchestration of the talking heads commentary on the tube made the whole move “legitimate.”
This is hardly something that emerged out of the blue. It’s also not the stuff of a true black swan.
Unless, of course, there is another motive at work
Stagg: I came close to selling my NMM pre market when I saw they missed both on earnings and revenue but decided to wait. I guess I got lucky as it's up. Company reaffirmed it's $1.76 divvy for 2 years (but remember what happened to SDRL's promise). Will be very attentive to their CC on replay this morning. Just got through shoveling 5" of HEAVY, slushy snow. UGH.
Not only that golob but he posted under two different IDs initially. Got to wonder about his agenda, especially when you see his every post with a "strong sell" disclosure. I put him on ignore immediately.
who held through thick and thin from GKK to GPT. Way back when, I sold my GKK and put everything into NCT which, looking back was the right thing to do with it's divvys and spin offs, et.al. Hopefully now it will be your turn to prosper. Good Luck.
Your overrated comment rings true but I would find it hard to imagine that the management buys are not in their windows of opportunity. Of course they know the information, but I'm sure it's legal for them to buy at this time. That's why their buys lend a bit more weight to their purchases at THIS time. Heck, I don't know anyone that would just throw away a million or two dollars for no reason.
Part 1: Hamilton, Bermuda, December 12, 2014
As the year draws to a close, I would like to share with you some reflections on the state of our business and in particular how Nordic American Offshore differentiates itself from the competition.
NAO is essentially based on the same business model as Nordic American Tankers Limited (NAT) in its industry, with a modern and cost effective homogenous fleet, a strong balance sheet and a quarterly dividend pay-out policy. We at NAO have a cash break-even level of about $12,000 per day per ship, which is considered low. NAT owns 19.2% of the shares in NAO which became stocklisted on NYSE June 12, 2014.
The last few months have seen significant changes in the price of oil, spurring confusion among some investors who have fled from oil-related securities. By doing so, many of them have, in my opinion, "thrown out the baby with the bath water."
Most industry observers were surprised by the rapid decline of the price of oil - but it is important for investors to understand why such a shift happened. Our view is that there is no systemic problem in the oil market. Demand remains healthy and is growing. Oversupply of oil is one important issue, but supply can be controlled. Therefore, we must consider the situation in the context of geopolitics. Who gains and who loses from a low oil price? Why would OPEC choose to maintain high production?
I don't think you've done enough DD to make the call that it is risky. They stated in their last CC that they were well positioned for any rate increases which should be the prime objective of any REIT with the certainty that rates will go up sooner than later. Their leverage number stated in recent posts here is wrong, closer to their stated 7.5X where you'll find many other REITS are in the same ballpark. I really don't find it any more risky than other REITs with similar leverage. Their share price, selling at a 10% premium to book value shows investors are comfortable with their direction. I'd personally like to see the share price higher to bring down the yield to a more reasonable level. NYMT has "positioned" itself to weather most adverse market swings. They survived the 2008- real estate crash and have built the business back to respectability and I'm comfortable with my current holdings. All JMHO of course.
Sarge: If NMM could sustain it's 10% yield 10 weeks ago at about $17, why shouldn't it be able to sustain it now at $10? The higher yield is only a factor of it's lower price. Perhaps keebon has thoughts on it's earnings and divvy sustainability. It's paid almost the same divvy quarterly (.44) since 2009 without any problems, despite the fact that the BDI has been like a yo-yo for years. kee???
LINE: This COULD be a great entry point for LINE. This from I.V. this morning and very possibly the reason for it's sharp fall today. IMO this has NOTHING to do with fundamentals, just the index members selling LINE as they cannot hold it.
" Likely because they were kicked out of the Alerian Large Cap Index Fund over the weekend, (replaced by WES), because it's market cap fell below the requirements. Any fund based on the index needs to sell it by the end of the week."
Mark: Perhaps they were not looking at what the market thought of their purchase. Perhaps they're buying because they feel the changes in store for the company will lead to a better company(ies) and a more profitable investment. No one really knows the reason for their buys and apparently the "market" right now could care less. It remains to be seen how their new direction will pan out.
P.S. I exited the last of my PSEC on monday, pre-market a bit over $8.70 and am holding that cash on the side to re enter next month. I needed the tax loss and I want to get back in in early Jan., Hopefully before they make any new announcements. I still think it will be a very good investment with the new divvy and suspension of the ATM below NAV. We shall see.
The broad selloff in energy stocks has taken down virtually every oil-related stock. But one industry seems to have been unduly punished. Oil-tanker stocks have sunk along with oil, falling 10% as a group in the past six months.
Investors and insiders say the industry is fundamentally healthier than it has been in years. Shipping rates are on the upswing, and fuel costs—the tankers’ largest expense—continue to decline.
Rates for tankers carrying crude oil have risen 23% since mid-October, and those carrying refined products like gasoline are up 36% over that period. Supertankers known as VLCCs, for very large crude carriers, are renting for $77,000 a day for individual voyages, up from $35,000 a year ago, says Evercore ISI analyst Jonathan Chappell. And the cost of fuel for shippers is down 40% from 2013.
This sudden strength might seem counterintuitive, given the drop in the price of oil. But oil’s current weakness has more to do with oversupply of the commodity than with weak demand. With demand continuing to rise, albeit at a less rapid rate than in previous years, the need for tankers remains robust.
Demand for oil tankers has risen for several reasons. China has been stockpiling cheap oil to shore up its petroleum reserves. And the surge in oil supply out of North America has opened up new shipping routes. Venezuela, for instance, has shifted more oil exports to China because the U.S. doesn’t need as much of its oil, and longer routes are lucrative for tanker companies. New refineries in the Middle East should also open up longer shipping routes as oil products must travel farther to reach consumers.
In addition, the glut in oil has led to delays in moving refined products, which just means more work for some ships—it “uses up ship time, and we get paid for that, too, at the same rate as the voyage,” writes Anthony Gurnee, CEO of shipper Ardmore Shipping(ticker: ASC).
SC4: I listened to the last CC (11/06/14) and the only mention of their leverage was that it was currently slightly above their historical norm of 7.5x and they were working to lower it. "Slightly above" to me doesn't translate to 20x leverage but again, that was the terminology they used.