Especially when you consider LINE is hedged against a decline in natural gas prices.
Who wrote that opinion, the flat earth society?
Once exports start, there will be much greater demand for U.S. natural gas because it is cheaper here, by a significant margin, most other places in the world. So, one of two things happen (and not necessarily in the alternative).
Greater demand + less supply = higher prices
Greater demand + greater production = more revenue even if prices are stable
The Judge has issued orders refusing 13 of Enterprise's 14 jury interrogatories (questions for the jury) to answer. The one that was not refused was modified.
Generally speaking, due to the nature of the case/claims presented, I think ETP has an edge heading into jury deliberations. Indeed, EPD & EEP do not occupy the moral/ethical high ground here.
You are correct. I checked the online docket. After filing various jury instructions, jury interrogatories, and objections to same, the Defendants have filed briefs in support of a Motion for Directed Verdict. No response from Plaintiff ETP yet; however, that would not be unusual because more often than not these things are argued orally, not via briefs.
However, given that the Court denied all of the Defendants arguments contained in their Motions for Summary Judgment as "meritless," it seems highly unlikely the Court will grant the directed verdict motions. Possible, yes; likely, no. Thus, the case will probably go to the jury at some point.
Sorry for the confusion. When I originally checked the docket, the directed verdict motions had not yet been posted by the Clerk of Courts yet.
There's a simple reason for the market difference. LINE shares were not diluted. BRY holders did not receive LINE shares. Instead, BRY shareholders received LNCO shares.
I could envision a scenario where, like the KMI & KMP situation, the distribution rate for LNCO is different, i.e. less, than that of LINE. That's exactly what has happened at KInder Morgan--the limited partnership units receive a higher distribution rate than the corporate entity.
One method is to put your shares out for sale with a LIMIT order at some dream price $50 in GTC fashion. If they're out for sale, they can't be loaned out by the brokerage.
Found this comment.
A question among many retail investors’ mind is how to prevent short sellers from borrowing our own shares. This is a good question because when our shares are lent to short sellers the shares are effectively used against ourselves in helping put downward pressure on our stock. In principle, if people can’t borrow shares they can’t do further short selling.
Shorts must locate shares for shorting. To enact a short sale, Trader A must first confirm that he will be able to borrow the number of shares he plans to sell. Brokers keep a list of available inventory on what is called a Box List. Brokers populate the Box List through their own inventory and shares of others, including their customers who borrow on margin and agree to lend their shares, and other third-party brokers.
Instructions how to stop a broker lending YOUR SHARES to a short:
1. Call your broker. When you own shares at a brokerage house, those shares are actually held in what is called “street name.” You have rights to the shares, but the brokerage house is allowed to loan out the shares held in your account to facilitate a short sale for another buyer. This often happens without you knowing, but you can call your broker and request that he does not allow the shares to be located for a short sale transaction.
2. If your broker does not fulfill your request, you have the right to transfer your shares directly to the transfer agent. The transfer agent will keep your shares in safekeeping and the shares will be registered in your name. This will take a few business days, and there may be fees assessed for initiating the transfer.
3. Request a stock certificate. The only way to be absolutely sure your shares are not being loaned out to facilitate a short sale is to physically hold the certificate in your hands. This way, you are in complete control of your shares of stock, and shares held in certificate form are nearly impossible to be used for short sale purposes.
Depends entirely on the shorts continuing to cover and taking profit. They had a very nice gain earlier in the day, but the stock keeps drifting higher.
My guess is that there's a chance the stock finishes the day between the $32.40 open and flat.
I don't think there's a set pattern as to when they would increase the distribution.
For example, in 2010, the increase occurred in Q4.
11/2/2010 Cash 0.66 10/25/2010 11/4/2010 11/12/2010
8/4/2010 Cash 0.63 7/27/2010 8/6/2010 8/13/2010
The last increase occurred in Q2:
5/4/2012 Cash 0.725 4/24/2012 5/8/2012 5/15/2012
2/3/2012 Cash 0.69 1/27/2012 2/7/2012 2/14/2012
None of the analysts had any negative comments. It was mostly--what are you doing going forward type questions.
That was the fund manager for Allianz Asset Management AG, who is the second largest institutional shareholder behind Morgan Stanley.
Management is surprised because guidance concerning excess cash was 5-10% and the excess cash was 18%.
That was also a comment from the second largest LINE shareholder, who didn't see any problems with the quarter.
Why is the Weil analyst hedging his bet? Because he probably knows that short interest (despite the SEC resolution and completion of the Berry merger) remains very high:
Settlement Date Short Interest Avg Daily Share Volume Days To Cover
2/14/2014 12,644,964 1,294,277 9.769906
1/31/2014 12,651,989 1,576,527 8.025228
1/15/2014 13,040,887 1,669,781 7.809939
12/31/2013 13,716,591 2,320,695 5.910553
12/13/2013 13,791,830 1,949,826 7.073364
11/29/2013 11,900,752 1,170,143 10.170340
Any good news could send the shorts scrambling for cover and thus an "immediate" rebound in the share price.
As to our other point, yes, there are BRY shareholders who received LNCO shares (not LINE units), but BRY also brought substantial assets, revenues, and EPS to the table as well.
I figured out what the issue is. The revenues estimate was $627.29M. The actual revenues were $585M.
Where did the difference come in? There was a $44M non-cash changes in fair value of unsettled commodity derivatives. That's the difference.
Basically, it appears when natural gas prices rose dramatically, their hedges didn't work, which accounts for the revenue difference.