It was just a movement in sentiment on PAL. PLG actually went down and they are supposedly going to build the first equipment driven mine that won't need those striking workers. Besides, while the Northern strike is interesting, it really won't get going until Anglo gets hit. That will be the real deal with possibility of prices skyrocketing if things get out of hand.
Could also announce a major restructuring where all the debt is converted into equity and shareholders get warrants for the purchase of shares in the new entity. Lots of different possibilities and i doubt today's buyers had any real information on the topic.
They really aren't even close to stopping the cash burn. Shares are the most expensive of all the competitors too. Of course, there is a point where things turn around but I'm sure not aware of anything indicating that they are there.
They have a demonstrated track record of buying business and then losing lots of money on it.
Clearwire was the only success that they have had and that was fairly short-lived.
You are clearly off base here. The goodwill test does not look at market value of shares although it can trigger the requirement for testing at a quarter other than the standard once a year.
Is it conceivable that they have to write down the personal line goodwill? It certainly is but they did just finish testing it in the second quarter. That is some indication (certainly not conclusive proof) that there will not be a write-down.
What page of the Q says the personal line is 101% of book value. I didn't see that.
Also, you are wrong in terms of testing period. Q4 is the testing period using values as of September 30th. I don't know if they will test in third quarter. I can certainly see an argument for it but without more details on how they did their testing in the second quarter, I am unsure.
You should be a little less sure that the third quarter will include a goodwill hit. It is conceivable but on balance it is maybe a 50/50 thing (WAG) unless you are aware of other facts that you have not shared.
You are reading too much into the comment in the Q. Certainly their largest subsidiaries are in danger of rehabilitation unless the Bermuda regulator allows the merger but they also have subs that are in no danger of rehabilitation. They will have to get approval from regulators to pay dividends but that is fairly standard. I do not think these dividends will be enough on a long-term basis but they are important.
Go back and read the Qs from periods prior to the troubles. Approval from regulators is standard language.
I've been over the 10-Q pretty closely. There are certain subsidiaries that cannot upstream dividends but others are o.k. What capacity exists or what the parent looks like I don't know.
If no dividends can be paid, and the parent is cash starved it can certainly lead to a bankruptcy filing. The last 10-K had some parent company information and to be quite frank it looked like there were errors or at a minimum the information was put together poorly. My guess was it was put together poorly. In any event they have had the reverse acquisition that would mean that the old parent company data from the 10-K is out-of-date.
Actually, the true cost was far higher than 19% when you factor in commitment fees. I really don't know for sure what the fee was but the capitalized amendment fee was $8.1 million. Maybe there was another amendment but I don't think so, I think the $8.1 million relates to the $21 million so the effective interest rate was far higher than 19%
Transparency is not their strong suit. I've looked through their regulatory documents and have no idea what the parent's balance sheet looks like. Maybe it is in some of the proxies associated with the Canopius acquisition but I couldn't find them. Can you???
The subordinated debt comes due in 2030s. The convertibles with face of $145 million are due Sept. 2014. I just find it hard to believe they can't refinance that or draw some dividends from some of the subsidiaries.
His posts are more informative than most of TWGP's SEC filings and certainly better than yours.
They have been issuing vague comments about unusual activity in the share price for a couple of years now. It is just "puffing" and should always be ignored. Kind of like your posts and mine as well if the truth be known.
PAL is in the business of selling shares and mining is of lesser importance except to the extent it allows the issuance of funding. Right now they would be wise to at least pretend to be focused on mining.
Without being closer to the process it is impossible to say. I do think the entire process of negotiating the waivers has been fairly easy and the banks legal fees seemed pretty reasonable (very low). The banks have been more accommodative than I would have guessed and I can't quite figure out why.
Is Barclay's and Bank of Montreal just being suckers? I tend to think not but that runs counter to my belief that one cannot trust much of anything coming out of TWGP.
It is conceivable that the share issuance was done to support sales growth rather than simply limp along. Maybe...I don't really know or have any insights on this.
It is pretty bad. Who knows what is going on but obviously transparency and competence have not been their strong suits.
You think the waivers have been onerous? They seem easy to me.
There has been nothing there for many years at this point other than the Kiplinger brand name which still carries value.
NAP is ran by a South African right now. The very worst investments are South African mines ran by Canadians. Maybe a South African can run a Canadian mine but a sharp American or Englishman would be better.
Lots of rude generalization there but there you go.
The reasons that have been provided are that the surface mine is fully mined out and the subsurface mine is transitioning from a mined out zone to a new one. I'm sure that is true but it isn't the only reason. They have also talked about problems with hiring qualified personnel.
The truth is that they have never really been successful. There are so many failed mines in the world and in my mind there isn't any shame in failing but the Canadian ones seem to have a real knack for attracting suckers to invest in them. There are great mines in Canada but the ones ran by Canadians tend to be the ones with potential that never really deliver sustained profits.