the CEO must answer respectfully the analyst's questions going forward. This Sam Dubinsky has always been courteous in his tone. Just answer the question. The fact that CEO disregarded the analyst because he thought him absurd, and now his call is proved true.
Perhaps shorts have attacked this because the company is troubled, the CEO has made a big target on it because of hisboasting, and now they see he is without recourse. It has been a very good company to do this too it turns out.
Possibly the CEO now agrees with the bears case. Lacking any statement to the contrary. One third of the market cap is vanished during the silence and you would think CLF insiders are not fased.
It's not bandwagon when you are out front and predicting a 60% decline and it happens. Give the man credit. The CEO did nothing to pevent it either, even after he scoffed at Sam.
You are clearly grasping at straws. I know you mean well. But it is like you are in a kind of wish fulfillment world that the facts do not at all support or prove. Maybe it is just a hopeful hunch on your part. How could you know all the things you say are actually going on in some secret corporate world that you have all figured out?
Every 5 minutes? What do you mean. I said 2 weeks of battering and all manner of things said in the press maligning CLF's future prospect. Yes, when the stock declines over 30% in 2 weeks, on top of 70% at the hands of an uncontested bear thesis, yes, they could find a few minutes to defend the shares. Or maybe not.
It would explain the silence and tacit assent to the stock catastrophe.
I have just nooticed the massive decline the last few weeks. And management doesn't seem fased in the least..Some companies will defend their shares, not this one it seem.
So the common shareholder gets bum rushed. LG made it sound as if prices such as this were virtually unthinkable when an analyst projected it. He scoffed at even the notion. Now you are saying, it is part of his plan to buy back debt? There would seem to be a balancing of interests that should prevail, and some fiduciary is owed to shareholders to support the stock price. Or is it that he must allow the stock to be devastated in order to switch out bonds.
"No, we are not in danger of violating debt covenants as an uninformed analyst has alleged." How about that, if it's the case? Instead permitting the stock to have fallen apart radically the last two weeks.
As a violent 30% decline took effect on extreme bear cases being tossed around in the media. Why wouldn't they at least release some statement that, non, they are not in immanent violation of their debt covenants. Or a personal statement from the CEO to shareholders of update at a precarious time for his investors. But nothing, no acknowledgement at all of the attack of which CLF has been the recipient for 2 weeks running? Maybe I missed something. Or the company mau be finally in a capitulation mode of sorts, and for that reason has nothing to say. I suppose they might have decided to let it decline wihput intereference for a buyback of this lor that depressed instrument. That didn't help the shareholder who bought back when the CEO would scoff at targets such as the price this is at now. lastly, some delicate negotion might be afoot. But total silence, 2 weeks? It's disappointing.
They are going back to the well and trotting out the "lower iron ore" meme. We get these flash update reminders what, like 2 to 3 times a week or more? Is it a computer generated things, where they set a scheduled slam on CLF, with a random generator filling in the blank with "Lower iron ore", or ""weak China demand", or "Seaborne exposure", etc etc, then repeat every few days?