This looks like one of the most Illiquid 750 mililion market cap stocks i've seen.
I'm holding a bit of the company for a long term investment but the lack of volume is baffling.
Lol you know, your skin is on the way out and every cell of it you have on your body will fall off in 5 years (but you'll probably grow new ones)
The expression is "buy the rumor, sell the news" . I' wont go into a treastise about rumors. The most important take away from the expression is, once the news it out, it usually gets priced into a stock. Whether true or not, I just wanted to share that with you. If you buy and sell rumors you'll be at the mercy of people starting rumors to make a quick buck. Now, if you happened to have a freind that is sheet metal contractor and heard from a building owner that said a tenant of his told him they needed to take a large commercial space to accomadate growth on a contract they almost had inked.... well that kind of rumor from someone you know might (might maybe if the vague news hadn't been distorted) make you more confident if you understood the fundamentals of a company already. Still.. that kinda rumor distracts you more than helps you.
he sold them and put them in something else that went up 10 fold.. didn't you know that ? ; )
oops, I put a thumbs up on this with the "not rely on rumors" part before I realized he followed something sensible with a bunch of nutso conspiracy theories and other stuff that made less sense pulled from the air.
Like this guy has really taken the time to read the notes to the 10k ? loll ! yeah I'm sure he's a regular whit paper reader too and a clairvoyant to the future of consumer electronics in a way that any large company would have a trillion dollar market cap if they hired him to allocate the R&D budget.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
You're as nutso as you sound if you're short this stock.
The only saving grace is that you sound flighty enough that you might have moved on to your next pipe dream before you get screwed by a big short squeezing move.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
What if I bought today ? lol - CEO gets a little bit over-cofident now and then but he believes heartely that public ownership of stock means a company should pay out money to shareholders via re-purchases and dividends.
He's upfront about deserving a full slice of the pie for his efforts (not half the pie though).
In the past he hasn't been terribly bashful noting that a higher stock price means a lower expectation for returns from buyers; buy a bond for twice face and you get a quarter of the return you would if you bought it for 1/4 face value (( simplified to avoid some of the time value of money and recursive nature of it) .
At this price, there is huge upside and little downside as there is a core of operations that would justify this value without the others that swing between wildly profitable and showing paper losses.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
True. And I guess KB reported and the analysts liked the details about trends in the more expensive homes being sold etc.... which is a critical element in profitablity.. that is where the gravy is. Still, I think the degree of the surge and the point of least resistance upward was option related... I mean 12% is a big jump despite HOV 's more exagerated swings (based on small numbers of shares outside of long term institutional holders hands).
But you're right.. the sector news was probably key and its not certain there would have been a price surge today without it.
I got (sorta) lucky yesterday. I had been waiting for 4.80 but when the price gave up on getting lower I bought my position back in the mid 5.30s . I am long term bullish on the stock but today's sharp move had everything to do with the huge (relative to trading float) options outstanding on both sides of 6.00 a share. Long term, $6.00 is probably the appropriate price given the current risk/reward possibilities with a large upside if there are very good times ahead (like 30% annualized)... a moderate upside for moderate result over the next 4 years (maybe 12% annualized if it moves to the 10 ish range with moderate results behind it) but the potential of struggling some quarters and a dilution of shares to seize opportunities and the possibilities of counter parties like private equity pools funding the ties ups of future building sites getting greedier and no longer being an effective way to have adequate capital for a large enough base to continue.
In that case something closer to the current price might pevail 4 years from now. Of course, some economic shock could take the stock back lower too. The bad potential needs to be factored in with the good (more likely perhaps) potential when deterning a fair price for today.
That the CEO felt the 5.98 price was reasonable enough to sell a sliver of his holdings at (only a sliver and likely out of need to fund charitable commitments he made in the past) a few months ago does indicate that he's going to run the company in a way that won't bet the farm and will probably aim at the moderate results path but do so strengthening the balance sheet in a way that would preclude the bottom results path and allow them to survive a repeated sector down turn that could happen with higher interest rates making capital more expensive both for the companies margins and the price that consumers could pay for their homes.
I mark myself as a "buy" but I sold out my position today .... I'd expect a chance to buy it back a fair bit lower again... how much is a question but today's move will settle again next week after the option covering and roll overs are completed.
no the bottom line is not where the stock trades at.. .. if i goes down to three dollars a share next month but it makes more money, where the stock trades at in 5 years is the key.
The board of a company should take next to no interest in the monthly gyrations of the stock but aim at producing maximum long term value for the company as 3rd party investor buying the entire company would value it.
Yeah, that might hurt short term traders.. but investors who plan to hold for the long term.. i.e over 3 or 5 years will not be hurt at all if the long term decision is a logical one.
First, they already have had 200k authorized shares, most of which they have not used. This proposal would increase the amount to 460k . They had used some share issuance in the past to do debt conversation ans save the companies liquidity position. Shares in the future could be issued to take advantage of opportunities that would be more than worth the dilution of existing share holders.
There are about 1.2 million shares outstanding now...even if all of the shares were issued(which is not planned, only autorized to allow for timely seizing of opportunities) , current owners would own 75% of what they once did but also own 75% of the new money put into the company. What price the shares are issued at is key. If it were at 5$ a share that would infuse 200 million $ into the company. If you look at the current leverage, not only of long term debt to sales but also try to understand how property is tied up in advance with smaller payments before it is exercised, an infusion of $200 million could very conceivably be key to extending operations to previous sales levels.. it might make the addition of 1 billion in extra sales possible.
If diluting ownership by 25% allows company profits to be 80% higher than they would have been without that needed capital, the profits per share of the larger # of shares comes out far ahead.
But again, the key points are there isn't any rush to issue shares and even in the most extreme situation, if they issued the approved shares immediately current owners would still own 75% of a company in a much more sound leverage position with the extra couple hundred million available.
Perhaps it makes the investment more conservative, but hardly a reckless action hurting shareholders at all.
lol, I'd have to agree with you there.. maybe qualifying that by saying 97% of the _posts_ are by traders... and from what I can tell, rather inexperienced (like under 3 years at it) for the most part.
In terms of _people_ not posts, the ratio isn't so bad.
Of the people who aren't traders a large percentage of those are interested in the stock for reasons beyond normal investing... they have some tie to the company either as an employee or a friend or relative of an employee. (and I'm not talking about anyone in management or at a level that could manipulate results or anything close to that or even have broad access to profitability in any precise way (although they might be seeing segment sales data on a copy machine or as part of a logistical responsibility - shipping etc, internal accounting etc.). I would also say that the closer people are to good data the more responsible they are about not gossiping about it.. .thats why I suggest friends who might have asked "how's business" at a bar-b-que and recieved some general stuff that is bound to come out friend to friend over a few beers.. more related to job security and opportunity and having something to add to a conversation about the broader economy than any intent to gossip about their own.... Pride and a beer or too might let things slip.. but things that any analyst could also pry out with questions to suppliers etc..
You do get an occasional investor who looks for undervalued opportunities for something between investing long term and buying at a discount and hoping to sell as soon as a price target is met, whether that is weeks , or months or years... and a few who are holding the stock long term who just want to reassure themselves or hope to find some good tid-bits about how the company is doing. Those people are more bound to find Fear , Uncertainty and Doubt that a net encouragement.... if you combine some good news and some scary speculation, the net take away is to make people who would be investors think more like speculators.. which really isn't a good thing.
they probably need more working capital too , hence the share issusance. I can say more about how the "diliution" gives offsetting gains in total company profits... whether that is enough or more to benefit profits per share is the complicated judgement.
Interesting and quite plausible. I hadn't thought of that exact angle. I did consider that they were having a hard time hiring someone they felt up to the job (or perhaps they lost a prospect or two to another company - not unlike a head coach search at college football programs.)
For better or for worse that inability to find and sign the "right" person does increase the motivation to accept a cash offer to take the company private, even at a low price.
Why hasn't a buy out firm stepped in yet? (rhetorical question to myself)
1) There have been a couple that began advanced negotiations and got cold feet at the price they were offering after doing due diligence on non public internal figures that is customary prior to a formal commitment.
2) Potential buyers are buying RSH bonds at a discount (I don't have any clue of the bond market) and hope to force a sales issue at a lower cost if liquidity crosses standards in the bond contracts that would put them in default) . To few natural buyers and the vulture-funds have too many other opportunities?
3) As you mentioned, it might be a hopeless task to stabalize things in the minds of those that might have the capabilities to do so ?
4) (positive one) The financing market is vastly improved from where it was a year ago: a) increasing money in private equity funds coupled with the double whammy of fewer opportunities in play as the cherrys have been picked. b) less serve lending standards and yield chasing that can fund the "leveraged' portion of the buy out.
It seems to me that 4) is the necessary component. The company has looked easy enough to tender for over a period of quite a number of months without a CEO and a long enough period of a 2 dollar price range to justify an offer well well well below historical sales ratios ... a healthy premium over a 90 day average trading price would not have looked outlandishly low .
4) is needed but 1) (internal numbers that show other skeletons in the closet) would still be an issue if it is worse than it looks from the outside.
But, lol, it could be even the most ambitions LBO guys don't want to take the risk of being forever associated with what they figure is a low odds bet.
What cut and pasting ?
These boards have deteriorated from how they were 10 years ago. Not that they were great 10 years ago but people shared their thoughts in full sentences and tried to share knowledge and interpretation, even if that interpretation were off the mark.
As for the authorized share sales, I believe you are incorrect and I gave you my best reasoned-guesses at useful and even important reasons to always have some shares authorized in this business.
Off all the bear arguments 1 I first thought positive worried me - why so long without a CEO ?
My initial thought on this was "Clearly the board is interested i(or strongly open to) in the company being bought out. They're being smart not to stick shareholders with an expensive executive contract that could cost investors a quikc 10 million if a buy out happened months later "
After reading more doom and gloom and looking at the happy state of my account after a lucky timing of buying at 2.20 ish only a couple weeks ago (I'd watched the stock years ago and was going through old buy lists after making liquidating something else) The trading history showed what I saw as a steady transfer of shares and a gradual up slope which could very well be a sign that the big sellers had unwound their full positions. Also I'm a sucker for the net net investment strategy or thereabouts and the buy out financing and assets available is strong right now.
The bears did make me look harder again at the percentages of sales from different sources... my theory that the mundane purchases can carry overhead is probably not true.
BUT going to the title of the post... with new willingness to be pessimistic, I thought "Ok, wow it has been a long time without a CEO... if my theory of waiting for a buy out was/is true... if they want to sell and no buyers have stepped to the plate... that is really not a good sign at all."
I panic sold out at 3.02 . I have no idea whether I'll be #$%$ off at mysel if a 4.50 buy out comes in this friday or if I'll be happy to have not only taken a quick profit, but also to have acted quikcly to seize the chance to lock it in if the stock goes back to the $2 range.
I'm neither long or short the stock. I just wanted to temper my bullish views in my past posts ... while the stock is still trading near my sell price.
I'd love to hear theories on why they've gone without a CEO for so long as that might reassure me enough to buy back in.
"Authorized" doesn't necessarily mean "expected" or "planned". Having authorized shares in place allowed for raising capital to maintain solvency so (unfortunately) vital late last year to both lower the costs of borrowing and not having loan commitments coming due so close ahead, of which many might have had terms of capital maintenance that made the existing ones technically in default.
Contingency plans in place are both wise and an exercise of fiduciary duty we should expect.
However, actually implementing the dilution (not only having it approved and ready) should be done only at times where doing so substantially boosts the value of existing shared either by grabbing net of dilution highly profitable opportunities, or drastically reducing costs when forced into borrowings with arduous terms imposed upon the company.
"no spokesperson was available for comment" means something different depending if you call at 3 PM or 7 PM .. might get the voice mail at 7 PM and they usually don't have much to say. ; )
Still, IF they did reach investor relations at a reasonable time and didn't get a "We do not comment on Market activity" the omission of that simple statement does imply that something delicate is going on.
It just went up too quickly too much before. It had gotten ahead of it self in terms of risk / reward ratio. Even if you are optimistic about it's future take a pencil to paper in terms of sales projections and past profitability and apply a multiple that will be more cautious than in the past.
They have a lot of work to do to get there. I believe they will be successful, but you can't price for a wild success. You need to pay a price based on modest success and get a profit if the wild success is realized.
I'll certainly buy back in at a lower price.
It could also be a short squeeze, triggered by a flurry of articles and new leveraged buy outs predicted. Those speculating on buy outs soaked up shares and were willing to pay more recently, and the shorts started feeling heat which has escalated?
Short interest listed at the finacial sites is hard for me to be certain about. There used to be this thing in the past where hedge funds went "short against the box" , owning both long and short positions rather than simply covering the position. I forget the reason for that because I think the tax loophole that started it was closed long ago.
The yahoo finance data showed a short position equal to 30% of the shares outstanding. If those were truly naked short positions they're screwed if the funds who own a huge percentage of the float don't want to sell near this price but wait for a lbo.