It is big when the stock is cratering as it is and mgmt adds fuel to the fire by unloading over a million dollars worth. Also, just from a PR perspective, how bad does it look when all you see is insider selling when the stock is in free fall? If as you say, it is immaterial to them (the amount of shares), it does show serious lack of judgement by mgmt to make the decision to sell.
buying stock back??? Look at the inside transactions. The only thing insiders are doing are selling. Their heavy selling is probably contributing to this decline.
PE firm Apollo Capital owns like 50% of the common shares still and Im sure they want to exit at a profit, not loss. Even if NOR gets downgraded, havent they already extended their debt out several years and dont need additional financing, so why does it matter that their debt gets downgraded?
It is unfortunate their business is so levered to aluminum prices, but if they do have excess cash, buying back either stock or debt at these depressed levels would be very accretive assuming they dont have liquidity issues. Given no near term maturities, ever analyst report I've read says no near term liquidity issues. So what is the risk here?
If you look at sector companies, they've benefited drastically from the rise in nat gas as well as strong oil prices. Companies like BBG and most recently KWK have seen their stock trade close to highs for the year. Why has FST not benefited from rise in commodity prices and in light of a clearly strong economy with 3%+ economic growth?
Is this just tax loss selling or are fundamentals worsening? Hard to see things worsening when nat gas and oil prices are strong and the economy is picking up steam.
Such a nice business that should see business and stock increase along with the economic improvements. TA could have so much potential, but management destroys shareholder value at every opportunity. TA management's Christmas present to you shareholders is a 20% destruction of shareholder value. These are very very costly C-stores that mgmt pitches are profitable and a great buy. Other than the purchase price alone, has anybody really analyzed how much these C-stores really cost shareholders? Issuing and selling stock at a collapsed stock price is a real dilution event on horrible terms. It is like selling your house at a 20% discount to market in a fire sale. So the next time management praises themselves for what a steal they got with the convenient stores, someone should chime and and ask did mgmt factor in the opportunity cost of selling shares a fire sale prices to finance the deal.
Maybe 10 yrs later, the stock will come back. But the point is the stock has collapsed, and they will sell stock at these collapsed prices, diluting shareholders pretty badly.
I bet step two after they dilute shareholders at a huge discount is to sell the land/building to HPT at an artificially low price and pay twice the going market rent to HPT as they've done in the past. It took shareholders years of painstaking lawsuites to get current TA rents down to market levels.
Im surprised nobody is questioning whether it makes financial sense to buy the C-stores via an equity issuance. In addition to the $60+ million paid, TA's stock has collapsed by 20% on the C-store and equity announcement to finance the deal. From a financial analysis point of view, the cost for this deal is the $60+ million paid plus the 20% collapse in stock price ( equiting to $60million in lost shareholder value).
Anybody a finance person out there? Am I not looking at the cost benefit analysis correctly? If TA had the cash on hand or was able to get a bank loan, then the economics of purchasing the C-stores may make sense, but to issue shares and causing the share value to drop by $60 million, you've effectively paid twice as much for these C-stores and therefore, I highly doubt this makes sense from an ROI perspective.
If their intent was to price it at $10 to raise $50 million, given the drop today, and the potential continued drop until they price it, the stock value drop alone is going to be worth more than the value they will raise. By the looks of it, pricing will probably be in the $8.50-$9.00 range, effectively wiping out $50 million in shareholder value. What a costly equity raise.
TA was trading around $11 at the announcement of the C-Stores acquisition. They've lost over $50 million in market cap post c-store and share issuance announcements. Given they were going to buy the c-stores for $60 million, havent they effectively paid twice as much given the destruction of shareholder value that has occured since?
Given this type of irrational behavior that expands revenue at all costs without regard to shareholders, who is stepping up to take the 5 million share issuance? At such a price, it is pretty clear why management is doing this deal. The conflicted board with RMR and HPT, which TA pays rents and management fees to, get business from TA from greater revenues (not profitability). Management also gets higher salary from managing a bigger company. Who loses? The shareholders.
It is amazing what FVE has achieved. Hard to find a stock that is down on such a big year for the market. FVE really messing up big time to be crushed in such a bull market.
This stock trades at a price to sales ratio higher than Tesla! It is still burning through cash with no end in site as evident by the recent equity raise. Sales growth have also failed to meet the high expectations needed for such a high valuation multiple. For those saying this stock is dirt cheap, what are you basing that statement on???
Tesla is doing over $2 billion in revs in the US alone and they can barely keep up with the demand as they have limited production capacity. Given how well the brand is resonating, Tesla could certainly ramp revenue quickly in the US and in international markets. WPRT target market is actually much more limited than TSLA so I disagree that WPRT will grow faster.
No, Tesla does not trade at 30 times 2013 revenue. Tesla expected 2013 revenue is $2.3 billion. Their market cap is $15 billion. $15B/$2.3B = 6.5X.
WPRT expected 2013 revenue is $160 million and their market cap is $1.5 billion. $1.5 billion/$160 million =9.4X.
WPRT trades at like 6-7 times revenue, similar to Tesla Motors. Everybody says Tesla is one of the most overvalued stock out there. If both WPRT and Tesla trade at the same multiples, fundamentally, why would an investor buy WPRT? It is highly unlikely WPRT can grow revenue going forward faster than Tesla.
TSLA gets a lot of bad publicity for being valued at like $15 Billion. WPRT is valued at like $1.5 Billion. Tesla does 10X times more revenue and cant even keep up with the demand. Revenue is growing like gangbusters and there are waitlists in international markets for their cars. Tesla has also won Consumer Reports best ratings out of any car. If Tesla is one of the most outrageously valued stocks out there, what does that say about WPRT?
With similar price to sales ratios, but Tesla clearly with great growth potential and brand recognition, why would anybody bet on WPRT at such high valuations levels. Arguably, WPRT is more grossly valued than TSLA.
It doesn't show a lot of confidence when management is selling in the mid high teens. The only buy is Douglas Kevin. Douglas isn't even on the mgmt team and therefore is not really an "insider". Also, just take a look at his key portfolio holdings, he has shown to be a horrible stock picker, with much of his picks down like 50% despite markets hitting all time highs.