Hmmmmmm, makes sense that you're right, marlowe - but that makes what sf writes even scarier, with his points referring to the company's letter to shareholders rather than to my letter to Board cruisers...
My bias was spelled out right up front but I apologies for the ungrammatical rambling.. I didn't realize I was submitting my paper to my English perfesser...
I guess my second part actually didn't post. Trying to reconstruct, I think my only other point had to do with their investment in Accelerator Corp, "an investment vehicle for emerging biotechnology companies." Hey, isn't that what TINY is supposed to be in the first place? That implies to me that they believe they've found somebody better than they are at their own job so rather than using their (shareholder) monies to fund companies at the venture capital level as TINY shareholders would expect, they're now going to invest in companies investing in companies that fund companies at the venture capital level. So, in other words, they're saying our management structure is not bloated enough, so we want to impose another layer of management fees (the costs of Accelerator Corp management) before TINY shareholders see any positive results from TINY investments. So TINY leans toward being a fund of funds now with yet added overhead..... Nice....
No need for anyone to refute my opinion for my sake but I encourage anyone interested in doing so to enter the fray for hopefully the benefit either existing or potentially future shareholders as I will remain on the sidelines..
OK, here's what struck me, but again, I caution, my slant is definitely biased by TINY's 5 year performance of being down 50% in a market that's been up 100%. It is also only that of an observer nowadays, not an investor.
To me, even the good news comes out wrong and the best news was their statement that "one of the messages we heard loudly and clearly at our Meet the Portfolio Day in April of this year was that our shareholders are interested in gaining access to investment opportunities in our portfolio companies when available." Really? You're only hearing that now as if it's not been something of expressed interest by shareholders for years? TINY used to do that in the glory days and it was always well received strategically. So couching this statement as being responsive to shareholders is a bit of a stretch imho.
Now going from top to bottom in the letter pointing out what irked me: First, regarding Molecular Imprints, noting that "Harris & Harris Group was the only investor group to have a realized gain at the close of this transaction," after reading the details, is another way of saying most of our investment tranches into MI were losers, it took way too long to monetize and we lucked out when the other early investors said enough is enough and elected not to continue funding.
Re: Kovio, well where to start??? Blaming the problems on "1) traditional venture investor syndicates being in total disarray, 2) the investment taking too long for the fund life of the typical venture investor, 3) a hubris from top tier investors on the types of liquidity events they were willing to undertake and 4) us having too small an ownership, too little capital to affect a different outcome" and then going on to admit that "Kovio had a tier one group of venture investors" seems to be contradictory at the very least as well as an admission by TINY management of a poor investment strategy by placing themselves voluntarily in a position where they had an inability
I admit to having a negative bias to TINY and, having exited two years ago, I shouldn't even be still be here, but I am. With that in mind, I can't help but be struck by bad things written in the Letter to Shareholders out today trying to be explained as good .... I'll not go into details immediately because I'm not really out to bash, but man, to me there are spin masters at work here, but they're coming across more like spin rookies....
Does anyone have any idea how to get ANY information about Special Opportunities Fund???? It's a fascinating operation, but it sure seems impossible to find out what or how they're doing.... A semi annual letter to investors, an annual report and not much more than that in between it seems....oh let;s not forget the weekly update on the website for NAV. Talk about a leap of faith investment.... not disappointing, mind you, but surely one you have to believe in to invest because you're not going to be able to invest on due diligence........
I tried posting before but it apparently didn't take... IRB - why would there be new offering to cover the cost of purchase when the acquisition is 100% shares? Yes, there'll be shares issued to QRE shareholders, but I don't think that will be "dilution." bigbear - one definite reason for the selloff is the arbitrage effect.... Arbitrageurs typically sell the acquirer and buy the acquired to take advantage of the spread between what will eventually be identical equities. I think (I could be wrong) arbitrageurs are even more likely to take this traditional stance when a deal is all shares, no cash, as this one is. For example, as I write, BBEP is at 22.31 and QRE is at 20.55, BUT, under the terms of the agreement, 1 share of QRE will be worth .9856% of a share of BBEP or 21.99. Arbitrageurs will try to lock in that spread of 32 cents by selling BBEP and buying QRE, locking in riskless profit over time assuming the deal goes thru. It's the arbitrageur's job to then have a good read on the likelihood of the deal to go through and the timing of it to figure out whether or not the yield spread is sufficient for them to jump on the trade.
I do wonder the same thing, but having said that, they say in the merger announcement they are recommending an INCREASE in the dividend to 2.08 annualized based on it, so I guess mngmt's feeling OK with it.... Coverage ratio for QRE was something like 1.1x going in.
I wonder why TMO hasn't had a stock split since 1996? Based on historical prices it would seem to be way overdue....
It's obvious you just don't get the concept. WLL did not agree to buy KOG for 13.90. They're buying it using a different medium than cash - their own shares. They're buying it for .177 shares of their own stock for each share of KOG. Assuming no change in terms and no emergence of another offer from any other company, just your thought that KOG could now go to 30 if WLL goes to 100 proves you don't understand the concept or the effects of arbitrage. If WLL goes to 100, KOG can only trade around 17.70 only, probably a little less until the deal is closed, because the two companies' shares are now essentially the same security.
Your comment implies that to you no all stock deal for any company has ever been done that was fair for investors because none of them can provide the shareholder with a dollar value.... Somehow, I think there's a whole lot of shareholders around the world who have been involved in all stock deals who would disagree with you... Yes, absolutely it seemed awfully strange to have a nominal "takeunder" in this case, but right now, I own .177 shares of WLL theoretically for each KOG I own. What's good for WLL is good for KOG. Do I think we got the best deal possible? nope... but still, your thesis doesn't hold water. It's not necessarily bad just because the structure doesn't allow you to produce a dollar amount per KOG to be able to value the deal.
Press release on website as of today that settlement for the 25% stake in Langer Heinrich to China Uranium for $190 mil US will be on July 23rd. That should take some pressure off!
Joe - I appreciate your willingness to ask questions but I think the best thing you can learn from this situation is how to do due diligence... It's obvious from your questions that you need to know how to do your own research. One of the brightest salesmen who ever worked for me constantly asked questions including questions he knew the person he was questioning shouldn't answer. He found out more that way than any other salesman I ever knew, but still, what you need to do is figure out how to do your own research. It's great to be willing to ask questions, but without the basic knowledge to be able to discern what's being said on yahoo boards is accurate, the odds of absorbing only accurate info are very poor.... Having said that, I suggest you walk away from this one until you have a better grasp of personal due diligence.
Being the contra indicator I seem to be, probably one of the best things is has going for it is that I've lost faith. First off, I can no longer believe in Clipstream as a "disruptive" (don't you hate this now highly overused concept?) technology. If it were to truly to be disruptive, there'd no way DSNY would go 6 months since announcing marketing without any major announcements. I have no idea what's not to like about Clipstream, but apparently there is for the big guys in a position to utilize it. So now you have a company willing to ramp up expenses by hiring a sales force for Clipstream paid for by the supposed cash cow revenues from Play MPE, thus it seems logical to be expecting higher expenses, essentially no new revs from Clipstream, constant revs from Play MPE and, therefore, DSNY falling into a loss for the quarter and perhaps a substantial one... And as far as the directors buy-in? Well that smacks of desperation in my mind, not something to like..... Sorry... don't mean to bash - just sharing the reasons why I've thrown in the towel..
Thanks, Brooklyn - That's what I was thinking too, however, I'm a bit more cynical about it than you. To me, by the shear size of the authorization, it seems like a potentially massive transfer of ownership of the company from outsider common holders back to the company employees and/or management. It sure seems to have the potential effect of massive dilution to my percentage ownership, which is a trivial amount btw.
Can anyone explain the meaning of this S-8 filing today nominally talking about 100 million shares (with only 216 million now presently outstanding) at maximum proposed price of $7.09???? And restricted stock units to be given away???? What is this???