It looks like CRY was a buyer recently. The market is very thin. Hence, CRY's buying had its desired affect. I think CRY executed their buying very effectively, so must give credit where credit is do.
CRY, like any company has a legion of risks. To mention two, I would say company specific risk and general market risk.
For the moment anyway, CRY seems to be growing BioGlue sales. This is critical for them to do, and they seem to be doing it quite well. Second, CRY seems to be making progress in the HeroGraft area. This is important to them as well. Plus they have several other things shaking and baking at different levels of potential and/or certainty. So overall, I think CRY's valuation relative to company specific risk is in line with the current market generally.
As for the market risk generally, I don't like what I see and I don't like what my intuition is telling me. The financial markets are a gigantic experiment in money printing. Had Greenspan not let bubbles occur, things still may have been ok. But the bubbles did occur and at the end of the day we have this experiment. I feel that we are still in a secular bear market, that the bear has been kept at bay by money printing everywhere (US, UK, Japan, China, and EU). The central banks everywhere are buying almost all of their country's new sovereign debt. But there is an artificial feeling to the whole thing, sort of like the old Soviet Union. Also, I think we built this country on cheap energy (cheap being under $20/barrel for the most part). Above $50/barrel economic growth slows. A person reads about the abundant NG and shale oil, but this oil is NOT CHEAP oil, so it really doesn't solve our problem. The marginal cost to produce oil is now around $80/barrel, so don't expect cheap oil unless we are in a recession. So bottom line, I think this market is probably about 40% overvalued. If I'm right about this, when the tide goes out it will go out for CRY too.
The reason for the producers wanting to export NG is so they can get the world price. It costs about $5-$6 to export NG. Also, interestingly 25% of the NG is used up just getting it in liquid form to another country. The producers really want the the world price. When all is said and done, in couple/few years from now, NG prices are likely to be in the $10/Mcf range. Coal will be cheap on a comparitive Btu basis then.
BioFoam is not FDA approved. Its international sales are likely close to $1 million/year. BioFoam profitability is insignificant. BioFoam is unworthy of much discussion. The BioFoam pony will never grow to become a horse. It may be a candidate for the “glue factory”.
Do your own due diligence.
The whole market is headed lower. When the tide goes out all boats sink. That is likely to be when you should buy BTU. Way to early to buy it yet. Buy probably in the $13 to $17 range. Long term I like BTU, but when the tide goes out and global growth slows...like it is presently doing...everything will go lower. Probably 500 points of the S&P is because of POMO (permanent open market operation). POMO = a complete separation of truth and reality...the piper will be paid...buy BTU then...
It is very laudable for CRY to make tissue products. But the last I knew CRY wasn't a a non profit. CRY should be permitted to make a profit from tissue sales. Probably a market rate profit similar to a utility that is regulated. But it seems to me that CRY should increase the price of everything in their tissue line by roughly 10%. Overall, sales of some products may fall off a bit, but then people could get the product (albeit at a higher price), and CRY could earn a profit. So IMO CRY should either quit selling tissue, or make some profit from it. Hopefully for CRY they would be able to continue making it as well as make a reasonable profit as well. I think though that tissue was Steve's baby from day one, and he just can't let go of it. It's part and parcel of his DNA. Do your own due diligence.
One fairy tale bumped up the price by $0.40 in two days. Multiply $0.40 times 27,800,000 shares outstanding and the "take away" is that one fairy tale magically generated $11,120,000 in market cap in two days. Given the data that exists so far, one can only speculate on how high 2, 3, 4, or more fairy tales could run this thing.
Buckeye, I suggest you consider writing a fairy tale. This would permit shareholders and others to further evaluate this fairy tale market cap correlation relationship. We may really be on to something here. Maybe, just maybe, the "magic eraser" magic was somehow transferred to "fairy tale" magic.
It seems worth a try anyway.
Once up on a time, there was a CEO by the name of "Stevie Wonder". He had always been interested in magic, and on some occasions seemed to indeed possess strong magical powers. On day while he was walking around a mountain of stone, he looked down and say a small rectangular object. He put the object in his pocket and went back to his office. He was working away when his mind flashed back to the rectangular object he had picked up earlier. He went and got it and put it down on a sheet of paper. To his amazement, it erased everything on the paper. He tried erasing other things too, and found that the object was indeed a "Magic Eraser". Stevie Wonder was quite taken by the eraser and his newly found and extraordinary magical powers. He thought about this eraser for a while, when he had an inspirational idea. He decided to see if this eraser would magically eraser electronic data. To his amazement it did! Then Stevie Wonder had an idea. Hum he thought, I wonder if the eraser would eraser CRY's rather sordid historical stock price chart. He went to Yahoo Finance and to his amazement he was able to eraser the stock chart history from February 26, 1993 through September 29, 2011, but then suddenly the eraser stopped erasing. Try as he would, he quickly discovered that the magic eraser had lost all of its magical powers. To be sure it was no longer working, Stevie Wonder decided to give it one last try on the Google Finance website. But to his sadness, he found that the Google stock chart still showed CRY's stock price history all the way back to February 26,1993. To this day, Stevie Wonder is happy about having erased 18 years of price history from Yahoo Finance, but he is saddened when he thinks about the lost powers of the "magic eraser" and that Google Finance still shows CRY's entire stock price history.
Since you need to do your own due diligence, it is up to you if you wish to believe in fairy tales.
Presently PerClot from Starch Medical is sold internationally at a gross margin of 55%.
Per SA CRY can now produce PerClot in Georgia. Using PerClot produced by CRY, per SA, the gross margin is above 80%. If this is the case, why isn't CRY producing their own PerClot for sale into the international market? Afterall, CRY paid $1 million for the manufacturing license. My understanding is that the PerClot CRY intends to use for FDA clinical trial has already been manufactured in Georgia.
So again, why isn't CRY selling the above 80% margin PerClot instead of their selling the low margin stuff?
Cardiac and vascular tissue combined represent 44% of total sales. This is a ZERO “net operating income” Gerbil Factory as best I can determine. DAL cryptically said as much late during the CC. Chalk this 44% of revenues up as a BIG FAT LOSER WITH A LIABILITY TAIL. Anybody on this message board ever heard of Brian Lykins?
Poorhouse, this stock price is still in the #$%$ house". As poorhouse said in his post, CRY is always a few quarters (and perhaps a few Stevie Wonder stories) away from where they are telling shareholders they are going. Remember three years ago? The analyst’s then were projecting EPS double what they are projecting now. As I recall, CRY was a $5-$6 dollar stock in 1996. It still is a $5-$6 stock now. Perhaps there is a reason. Perhaps management has some issues. I’m just guessing of course.
Do your own due diligence.
PerClot: Nothing new here. CRY will either win big, or lose big, on PerClot. If CRY can obtain FDA approval (more likely than not IMO), AND importantly overcome Medafor’s patent (50%-50%), then CRY will be a HUGE WINNER. If on the other hand, CRY is not able to overcome Medafor’s patent (50%-50%), then CRY will be a HUGE LOSER. I have no way to evaluate this, so I consider it a coin flip (50%-50%) until the final outcome is known. Outcome known in 2016. If CRY loses, damages will be 35% of U.S. PerClot sales...my guess.
ValveXchange: For the moment, this is a ‘pipe dream”. It will only become valuable if CRY obtains FDA approval. That’s not going to happen for years...2018 if ever? By then the entire medical system and entire U.S. economy will have destroyed itself, so value ZERO. I’ll believe this one when I see it. It's a great Stevie Wonder story, but no traction that I can see.
Revascular Technology: Do you see ant traction here?
Q2 2011 sales $1,177,000, partial quarter
Q3 2011 sales $2,113,000, first full quarter
Q4 2011 sales $2,415,000, QoQ growth +14%
Q1 2012 sales $2,114,000, QoQ growth -12%
Q2 2012 sales $1,933,000, QoQ growth -9%
Q3 2012 sales $2,060,000, QoQ growth +7%
Q4 2012 sales $1,985,000, QoQ growth -4%
Q1 2013 sales $2,191,000, QoQ growth +10% (maybe, but far from certain...we will have to wait and see...)
Do your own due diligence.
FDA Warning Letter: If management is to be believed, they seem to be making progress on this matter. So far I accept their story here.
BioGlue: Higher Japanese sales were a surprise to me. This is an 85% gross margin product, so sales here matter. Also, no evidence yet of market erosion from Tenaxis Medical...assuming Tenaxis medical exists.
HeRO Graft: It looks like this produce is going to gain long term traction. I like HeRO Graft.
CRY’s outstanding short position is low, about one half of what it was in May 2012, a positive IMO.
Do your own due diligence.
Steve, it appears that the Cardiac" and "Vascular" cost centers do not generate any "net operating income". At best, if they contribute anything at all to "net operating income", the number is tiny. For several years now, CRY has not been able to increase the gross margin from these two cost centers. Within the past year I seem to recall DAL saying that forward margins would stay about the same. Hence, it appears that these two cost centers are similar to being on a train to no where, as they don't contribute any "net operating income" now, and worse it appears they won't contribute any "net operating income" in the future either. What shareholders want to know is WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO OPERATE THESE TWO COST CENTERS? It's like the old adage: "You lose money on every sale, but you make it up in volume".
Please don't B S the poor shareholders. With the low stock price they have already suffered enough. All the shareholders want here is an complete clear explanation that tells them the "TRUTH" about why sales that compose 46% of overall sales don't seem to contribute to "net operating income".
Steve, I recently noticed that your base pay went from $1 million in 2012 to $1.13 million in 2013. Also, for 2012 you received 41,667 in free options. For 2013, you received 93,824 in free options. I'm sure you have all sorts of other perks as well. I find it strange that you, and other officers, get paid more while at the same time the stock price continues to struggle. Do the shareholders of CRY ever get a piece of the action, or is that reserved exclusively for you?
Check everything for yourself. Do you own due diligence.
Steve, I suggest that shareholders would like to know WHY YOU CONTINUE TO OPERATE THE "CARDIAC" AND "VASCULAR" TISSUE COST CENTERS.
Also, please don't B S the poor shareholders. With the low stock price they have already suffered enough. All the shareholders want here is an complete clear explanation that tells them the "TRUTH" about these two cost centers.
Do you own due diligence.
Steve, I suggest that shareholders would like to know WHY YOU CONTINUE TO OPERATE THE "CARDIAC" AND "VASCULAR" TISSUE COST CENTERS. WHY, WHY, WHY DO YOU DO IT? It appears that these two cost centers are "ZERO", or at best "NEAR ZERO", "net operating income" cost centers. The margins from these two cost centers don't seem to materially improve much over time either, so are shareholders on a train to nowhere?
These cost centers have a potential liability tail too, flash back to Brian Lykins in 2001. It was the tissue write offs and related tissue liability issues that almost bankrupted CRY back in the 2001-2003 period. These two cost centers appear to waste a lot of employee time too, time that could presumably be redirected to something with better profitability.
Also, the "FDA Warning Letter" was replete with comments pertaining to "cardiac" and "vascular" tissue matters.
STEVE, YOU NEVER NEVER EVER ANSWER THE TISSUE PROFITABILITY QUESTION.
STEVE, ARE "AFRAID" TO TELL SHAREHOLDERS THE "TRUTH" ABOUT THE "LACK OF PROFITABILITY" AT THESE TWO COST CENTERS?
IF THERE ARE GOOD REASONS FOR CONTINUING THE CARDIAC AND VASCULAR TISSUE LINES, THEN PLEASE EXPLAIN TO SHAREHOLDERS WHAT THESE REASONS ARE. Don't B S the shareholders either, because all they want is an simple answer that tells them the "TRUTH".
Do you own due diligence.
Including the "Revolver" JRCC had debt of $284,000,000 as of 12/31/2010, $582,193,000 as of 12/31/2011, and $607,207,000 as of 12/31/2012. Their first BIG DEBT payment is $121,000,000 due 12/1/2015, 2.5 years out in time. It appears to me that JRCC needs natural gas prices at, or above, $6/mcf.
Natural gas wells deplete rapidly. I think that the average well production in the Bakken is under 60 bpd. Also, we we start exporting it, using it as a transition fule for cars, etc. we will burn through it faster than we think and prices will be above $6, probably above $7.
JRCC needs $6 gas pretty soon though so they can get needed volumes and margins.
JRCC would be very leveraged to higher natural gas prices...one would think anyway...
Right now though, it is possible they could be put in Chapter 11 too. Unlikely maybe, but this can't be ruled out. JRCC needs higher natural gas prices, that's all there is to it.
These are numbers I captured form a "Natural Resource Partners" chart.
PRB = Powder River Basin = $3.25 Natural Gas (IN THE GREEN)
ILB = Southern Illinois Coal = $4.00 Natural Gas (IN THE GREEN)
NAPP = Northern Appalachian Coal = $4.75 Natural Gas
CAPP = Central Appalachian Coal = $6.00 Natural Gas
I'm surprised that JRCC is "in the gree" at $4.40/mcf natural gas. On the flip side of the coin, I think that the "all in" costs for natural gas production generally is around $7/mcf. In addition, there is a huge difference in natural gas prices regionally. Perhaps JRCC is operating in an area where natural gas is more expensive. Does anyone know the natural gas price in JRCC's target market area?
In the long term every lump of coal will be burned. Can JRCC survive until volumes and margins improve?
First, I wonder if SA is going to get out his "Magic Check Book". Perhaps he will start writing magic checks if CRY's stock price should fall below $5.50, the level at which CRY has previously bought back shares. CRY might be in lock-up right now though, I don't know.
Second, during the CC on the 30th, I would like to know why CRY continues to operate the "cardiac" and "vascular" tissue cost centers. WHY? It appears that these two cost centers are "ZERO", or at best "NEAR ZERO", "net operating income" cost centers. These cost centers have a potential liability tail too, flash back to Brian Lykins in 2001. These cost centers take up a lot of employee time. Also, it appears that the pending "FDA" matter results largely from the processing of "cardiac" and "vascular" tissue, although BioGlue was mentioned as well. SA never answers this question. I think he is afraid to tell shareholders the truth about the lack of profitability at these two cost centers.
Due you own due diligence.