I read a comment on a SA article, hinting on why no guidance was given. The author mentions a possibility of a legal mandatory silent period, due to ongoing direct investment or acquisition negotiations.
Those assumptions are credible imo, because you do not turn your company around, mention this turnaround several times in your conference call, but refuse to give guidance.
It's 10% of the float that's sold short, discounting the shares locked up by mgmt.
Google finance is most accurate to my knowledge about inst. ownership, they effectively report 38% institutional ownership.
Given that short interest has risen quite a lot the last month or so, those short positions are under water.
Because of the low institutional ownership, I don't think it will be a one way ride up. Until effective announcement of O&G contracts, it will be a good company to trade.
1st horizontal resistance will be tested at the open or today ($5.8), next horizontal resistance $7.2.
" at a closing to be held on or prior to March 5, 2014"
So you're saying that the one receiving the shares, is artificially driving up SP and then dump them on the market tomorrow?
Who's buying? Someone closing a large short position? New Institutions?
Just a thought as a question: would it be allowed for Sinovel to gobble up a few million shares?
On the investor relations page you can find: "NOTICE TO CURRENT AMSC SHAREHOLDERS REGARDING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE ACTIONS".
Only the lawyers are benificiaries of this, but please, get it over with!
Last year they reported March 29th, they still have to schedule a date this time.
I would like to hear from the new COO what he has in mind!
Combined revenu increase of +/- $40M for 2014 (i.e. 10% revenu increase); EBITDA guidance slightly upward, due to headwinds.
IMO that's growth...
I hope they are very clear on how they report, i.e. are they reporting numbers before the merger, or after? Better yet, they should be very specific, namely guidance after the merger (number of shares, rev, capex, earnings, etc)!
or pay $25 a share NOW
IMO the recent decision on the offering makes part of the strategy in the Sinovel case. It proves that AMSC will survive on its own and that the Chinese don't have to bother: American flexibility and entrepeneurship will prevail!
"In order for Sinovel to really deliver on what its shareholders want, it's going to have to ship product outside China, and that road goes through American superconductor."
If Sinovel wants to expand, they have to settle. Question might be: do they want to do business outside China?
China is big, but Sinovel needs to follow its direct competitors and expand!