...move up towards $2.60..............it would still be trading at a 25% discount to tangible book. $21,267,000 in assets; $129,000 in liabilities; and only 5.8 million shares outstanding.
kip, from the 10k, I get the breakout of licensing/royalties revenues from Abbott as follows:
FY end 6/11 = $300,000 (payment on 6/11)
FY end 6/12 = $554,167 (payments on 1/12 and 3/12)
FY end 6/13 = $912,501 (payments on 7/12, 10/3/12, 12/12, 5/13)
Qtr end 9/30/13 = $150,000
I got the info off the 10k quickly, so could have made a mistake.
Overall revenues aren't too high for the Abbott licensing/royalties, but they are very high margin, I think over 80% gross margin on average.
There's also sales of the raw material beta-alanine sold to Abbott which will end, but I don't see figures on that.
hopeful, re "Further, Baltimore already agreed to buy the cameras from BFDI and it owes BFDI 1.5M, whether the contract goes forward or not."
Is this asset already on the balance sheet somewhere, in A/R, or pp&e or somewhere else?
and while I luv ya, I dont think the press should be blame here.
UVE has zero growth, and is now more expensive than FNHC (another Florida P&C insurer, which also had .40 earnings. But FNHC has 90% growth. Price to tangible book on UVE is 2.6, price to tangible book on FNHC is about 1.3......UVE is more aggressive in its policies, FNHC is more conservative (less risk). UIHC is also cheaper, imo, sinceit isgrowing fast, vs UVE's no growth.
Nevertheless, UVE could certainly move higher on the MO.
salhem, I agree that its overvalued, and at some point has to turn down, but just remember that next quarter RFIL reports, which ended on 10/31 (which is also RFIL's fiscal year ending quarter) has been historically their strongest quarter each year.
last year, the 10/31/12 quarter revenues exceeded the 7/31/12 by 44%, and the 10/31/11 quarter revenues exceeded the 7/31/11 revenues by 21%. So next quarter could still be strong, even with the negatives (like it will be taxed at a higher rate than the past two quarters).
Nevertheless, its overvalued, but we'll see how high this thing can go. What a move its made so far.
btw, entering today I owned 24,000 shares of UVE bought. I posted several times on the UVE board earlier in the year saying UVE was an excellent risk reward....at that time UVE was trading in the low $4.00's.
matsky, I'm not making anything up. Just saying the 'new' management is old management that was promoted. They werent brought from the outside to clean things up, rather longtime company execs who worked under the Meier father and son team while funkiness was going on.
from a recent 8k regarding Mr. Downes, the new CEO, has been at UVE since 1999, the majority of his working life:
Mr. Downes, age 43, has been the Company’s Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and a director since January 2005, and Chief Operating Officer and a director of Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, since July 2003. Mr. Downes was Chief Operating Officer of Universal Adjusting Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, from July 1999 to July 2003. During that time Mr. Downes created the Company’s claims operation. Before joining the Company in July 1999, Mr. Downes was Vice President of Downes and Associates, a multi-line insurance claims adjustment corporation.
Congrats on the timing of your purchase!
I've actually posted many positive things about UVE on that board (I've owned it for a while)....and if you research it you'll find posts from earlier this year saying it was a good time to buy b/c of the management changes, moving investment management out of house, kicking out the Meir's, buying back huge chunks of Meier stock....etc..
scott, UVE got rid of the two Meier's, both father and son. And that's definitely good. But no new people were hired from outside, they were all promoted from inside. If I recall correctly, the new CEO was the chief underwriter for UVE while the funky stuff was going on. Again, I own UVE, but at this level, consider it higher risk. His (and all the new exec's) salaries are still super high, with tons of options. I do wish you luck with it, and myself as well.
As for FNHC, they made it clear that they were going to raise cash a while ago (they filed their stock registration statement on 9/20), and tha'ts what provided that great buying opportunity when the stock dropped to the low eights in September).. On 11/8 they filed saying it would be a stock offering and would price in a few weeks. So they certainly gave all their investors full disclosure of their plans, and gave any investor ample time to sell (anyone could have sold around $12/share) should they want out.
Feel sorry for that guys sad life. Just report and ignore him, imo. He's only a lifeless troll.
First of all, its the right on red nonsense, as you detail, that imo, has turned everyone against these cameras in general.
And regarding the speed cameras being placed in zones where society should be cautious.....thats one of the main points of the Baltimore Sun story. You're right, it was agreed most would be placed near school/hospital zones etc. But many were placed in areas that may have been near a school measured 'as the crow flies', but not a road that would route a driver to a school. Many were place in higher volume roads with little access to the schools, but where they could issue more tickets......so they added little to no safety near the school.....at least thats what the articles stated.
I own COBR, and have on and off for many many years. I hope those knuckleheads can meet their guidance for December....maybe we can finally get a nice move. But they are knuckleheads.
I understand your point, but I disagree for the most part. I still believe most citizens think the cameras are unfair, and dont like dislike them. Obviously not all.....I'm sure they have supporters like you stated, but imo, a large majority are on the other side.
And BFDI or any contractor is incentivized not to be fair, but to capture as many tickets as possible, since thats how they make money. Perhaps thats what has gotten them in trouble in this case....too agressive a systmem. From what I've read, Fox and The Sun believe the current system of paying on a per ticket basis is a bad one. I agree. And they argue for a flat fee to make the system at least appear more fair, so the vendor is not paid for each ticket issued, but rather for setting up the system one time and then be paid for maintenance and clerical duties.. I agree with that as well.
From what I've read, the Sun did some investigating and reported on it. That's what newspapers and journalists do. Its not their responsibility to gauge the effect their reporting might have on a public companies share price, whether the report ends up being right or wrong in the end. That should have no consideration, imo.
scott, have you checked into the negatives I stated about UVE.....namely their past shady practices, their over average rate increases which could lead to a rate cut near term, and their dramatic loss of market share, amongst other things?
s12, you know they announced the decision weeks ago, its not new. I think it was the correct thing to do.
UVE, a Florida Insurer, did a stock offering, what, like a year ago, at around $3.80 and the stock is now $8.20.
HCI, a Florida Insurer, did a stock offering I believe less than two years ago at around $10/share, the stock is now $47.
UIHC, a Florida Insurer, did a stock offering about one year ago at around $5.00/share, share price is now over $10.00.
FNHC is growing faster than UVE, HCI, and UIHC now, and at the time of their cash raises. FNHC obviously needed the money to fund growth. All the other Florida insurers did equity offering in the low interest rate environment, so it was pretty obvious that FNHC would follow.
...they have similar assets, and when they were going to combine into one entity, the percentage owned was to be based on the book value of each. Since then, the Fort Worth Sheraton Property(1701 Commerce) went into bankruptcy and they delayed the 'merger', imo, until the effects of the bankruptcy on the assets of each was determined. Since VRTB had a much bigger percent interest in the Fort Worth Sheraton, its book value was hit more by the bankruptcy.
Right now, the tangible book value of each is as follows(at least as per my calculations):
VRTA = $3.42/share
VRTB = $2.91/share
If we look at the subsequent events section of the September '13 10q, it states that $700,000 will be returned to VRTB, and $64,000 to VRTA related to a Sheraton 1701 Commerce Deposit, and this will be treated as income in the December '13 quarter. If we add these funds back to VRTA an B's tangible book value, we get:
VRTA = $3.43/share
VRTB = $2.97/share
So, in essence, it seems to me that VRTA should be trading at a 15% premium to VRTB, rather than the current discount it gets. Right now, VRTB is bidding $1.81, so based on that fair value for VRTA would be $2.08 (rather than the $1.70 VRTA is trading at).
Again, this is based on the formula that Vestin last used to determine how VRTA an VRTB would be combined into one entity.
....I mentioned that when they priced, FNHC would take a hit. I think it priced pretty well, about 10% below current price, and way less than that when they first discussed it. I had sold 40%, and bought most back already.....shaving about a buck from my sale price.
amazing to me that they are paying between .015 and .02/share commission for these trades....I guess you gotta pay the extra bucks to find investors to sell you large lots.
re: "(1) Excluding commission of $0.015 per share.
(2) Excluding commission of $0.020 per share.”"