Well, TITN is certainly not 'too big to fail' from an economic stand point. From a CNH North American market share perspective, they are indeed too big to fail. CNH will not let what is a fairly sizable portion of their market walk away due to lack of or failing dealer presence.
They sort of did that on the west coast with Western Power, before they eventually had to buy the locations anyway.
That doesn't mean CNH will necessarily protect share price though. If CNH had to bail them out, it would start with floorplan followed by some kind of capital loan . . . which could at some point be converted to equity if needed.
But; the float is small enough that deep pockets can prevent share price collapse without spending a whole lot of money. Which means they can also squeeze the shorts any time they want to.
CNH will not likely buy Titan, as they eventually did with WPEC. TItan is publicly traded and much larger than WPEC was. But they can and will prevent an out and out melt down like what happened at Wolterman, even if it has to be accomplished by using tertiary resources to protect share price while using their credit facilities to ensure adequate operating capital. I know, that would be highly dubious, legally. Tell me it doesn't happen. Go ahead.
While I am hardly a fan of Titan, I will point out that they managed to reduce their inventory by about 180 million last quarter, using the proceeds to substantially pay down debt..
Having said that, it cost them about 30 million to do so, which is not nearly as bad as I had thought it might be. If they repeat that this quarter, they've overcome a very significant issue. If they continue to reduce inventory and pay down debt, they may even become profitable. You are probably right about additional closings, thought I don't think it will be "many many many". If they are on their game it will be very few, but some significant downsizing and administrative consolidation at their locations. Still haven't figured out their eastern European strategy. Looks like a major mistake to me. Or . . . just another shell to hide a pea under. If that's the reality of the game.
Note; I still don't recommend owning the stock as I don't think they'll ever make much money and I don't recommend it as a short as I seriously doubt CNH will let this thing fall far enough to make that a profitable venture. Titan is held tight enough to render a short squeeze or even a corner very possible. Remember; this outfit controls a very significant portion of CNH's North American market share. And CNHI is mostly just a subsidiary of Fiat. There are interested parties with very deep pockets involved on that end.
"300m cap for sales of almost 2b are a joke" . . . You do realize that they are reselling heavy capital equipment, don't you? I mean, they get pretty thin margins on the wholegoods. I think about 8% on average. Wholegoods is about 90% of everything they sell . . . so that's about 160m gross margin, plus whatever they can make on parts, service and rental.
I do agree the short is rather high, given the actual float. And you could be right about an eventual short squeeze. It is very thinly traded and CNH has a pretty strong hand, both in what they can do with regard to floorplan financing and with regard to large large blocks of the common.
Anyway, I wouldn't own it, because its unlikely to ever make much money, so the squeeze may never come. And I wouldn't short it, because of its too dangerous on such a thinly traded stock.
But at least they've managed to take a chunk out of the inventory problem they had.
I'll leave it to the readers of this board to decide who is the joke.
As it is, your post is full of demonstrably false statements as to render the verdict; it is you.
Can you refer to the post where I bought shares when the price exceeded 100?
I don't recall you having anything positive to say about USG ever.
When someone asked why USG's stock price seems restrained, based on conventional metrics, you come out with poor earnings, etc. Which would not be a correct observation, since those metrics included actual earnings. I mentioned actual relevant information on why institutional buyers are precluded from buying and you pretend I am cheerleading.
You are just a useless FUQ.
If you want to speculate about my job, I'd guess that should tell everybody here who you are.
Anyway, as I said; you are a troll. I am done feeding you.
Sho; since the message thread is buried so deep, no one else reads it; I will 'bump' this by topic; You are a liar, you have no shares of USG and are probably the paid basher, formerlyknown as 'quickmovessmiles' and 'jimsuechitown'.
I, on the other hand, have a zero cost basis in the shares that I continue to own, as my initial investment came some time in 2001 or 2002, when USG was in bankruptcy, at an average cost of 6.22, not over 100, as you continue to claim. Any who care to do the research can probably look back in the comments at least far enough to establish my veracity in that regard.
I freely admit that I bought in some additional shares around the 80 mark, but not many, and I sold enough shares, north of 80 that my cost basis in my remaining holdings is less than zero. My shares are free and clear. The single regret that I have is that I didn't add to my position in the last few years, when I could have bought back in below 20.
So . . . . . I made a lot by buying low. Failed to fully capitalize by selling all of my shares when it was really high, but none of that puts my cost basis or any purchases north of $100.
You, on the other hand, pretend to be long, but all you've done is bash the company and troll anyone who dares to say positive things. Well, sho, why don't you have a heaping helping of #$%$ and go away?
Your comments have been completely misguided, as you impugn the company by suggesting, repeatedly, that there is 'another' price fixing lawsuit, when that is a complete mis-characterization of the situation, you strongly imply that management is selling out their shares, when in fact their net position continues to increase, and you question the commitment of the management team, even as they have stuck through the last 15 years of the harshest adversity of practically any company on the S&P 500.
You are a troll and a paid basher with nothing useful to offer this board.
Congratulations on your use of a thesaurus.
Your point, once again, is what?
I'm quickie? That is a deliberate misdirection that any who've followed this board will instantly recognize as complete temerity.
Further; I stand on my prior statements; my cost basis is zero. I added some, at some point north of 40 . . . back in what, 04 or thereabout. I sold a bunch over 100. I did sit on about half of the shares all the way back down, but I'm standing with those still today. In the mean time, I made way more on the shares I have sold than my original cost basis (6.22).
How is any of that difficult to comprehend?
I suppose it is, if you've never actually had an account or owned any securities.
Don't really know why I bother, you are a turd. Oh, yeah, now I remember; you pretend to own USG, even as you bash the company constantly, which means your calling me quickie is all the more hillarious, as that identity may well have been yours.
Go away, loser.
Too rich. You implying that I'm quickie?
Bought at 100? Show me where.
I wanted to, heck I may've even added a few shares around 80. I sold just as many over 100 as I bough over 80. But the shares I hold today are free and clear, bought at an average of $6.22 during the bankruptcy and sold enough over 40 that all my remaining holdings are essentially free.
And "Doesn't sound like he's running for the exits to me." is considerably different from running for the exits. I think it may in fact be your posterior that is causing the problem.
Nice try though.
rboater; is this the kind of useful information you were referring to?
Hilzinger still owns over 70,000 shares. Doesn't sound like he's running for the exits to me.
Innuendo and slander are hardly useful to an investor.
Just my $0.02.
Well, I'd agree with your statement; too much inventory to start with.
But they seem to have actually rectified that problem; inventory went down 200m. They wrote off about 24 million of goodwill, accounting for most of their loss. If they actually liquidated 200 million in inventory and only took a 10 million dollar hit, they did a lot better than I had expected.
Don't get me wrong; I strongly dislike Titan and suspect there's less to their balance sheet than meets the eye, but I did not expect them do liquidate 20% of their inventory without taking a 30 or 40% hit on it. They seem to have proven that notion to be incorrect.
Just my $0.02.
Anyway; still too closely held and too much under the thumb of JI Case Corp. (sic)
Don't be long, don't be short., just sit back and pay attention. (& read the SEC filings) You just might learn something interesting here. At the very least, it will be fun to watch.
Just so we're clear, rboater; is SHO correct in the reason why USG's share price looks a bit anemic? I posted a couple of things that really limit institutional demand for USG shares. NOL's and the rights agreement.
Sho had made a bunch of comments that don't align with the facts and flame's me while doing so. I flame him back with real facts. All in good fun;
His one comment that is "correct"; Housing start are a bit anemic, on a historical scale. Of course, unit starts are over 1M, revised upward from January, and exhibit a very strong uptrend.
USG wrote down some assets last quarter, including a couple of ships. But the word 'obsolete' doesn't appear, either in the 10k or the conference call. I checked. Sho was wrong.
Last quarter earnings were weak due in large part to the write downs. But that doesn't really effect operating performance, does it? Investors are certainly aware of that. Does it tell you anything about forward earnings?
Sho's own posts show him to be either ignorant or misleading. Sho says; "Ongoing selling of USG shares by officers and directors leads to low confidence." Has that really effected share price? You said it yourself once; they sell to exercise options. Insider ownership has increased since 1/'13 and since 12/14.
"Now comes another price fixing lawsuit . . ." Is that an accurate characterization, rboater?
How about his implication that the debt, due in 2016-18, may cause "further equity dilution"? Will USG be unable to 'roll' that debt at market rates? Do you believe, rboater, that there's an SPO and massive dilution coming to USG?
Sho261, March 18;
"Another price fixing lawsuit. current mangement is full of BS
The board needs to fire current management . . as I have stated in the past. . . prices are under extreme pressure . . due to the latest price fixing lawsuit. No wonder there was a lot of insider selling over the last 30 days . . You bullish people need to get a grip . . ."
Is Sho long? Really?
Read it and weap, Sho;
sho261 • Aug 6, 2013 2:57 PM
"" I am long USG and not happy about the upcoming events. I hedged a little yesterday and a lot today.
When USG issue's the press release of the secondary, watch the price tank. I know all of this will be short term pain for long term gain.. I get it.. To delever the balance sheet at the expense of current shareholders is not something I envisioned this early in their recovery or the magnitude of the dilution. Once this shelf is completed, the float will be some 345 million outstanding including the preferred. More than double the current float.
Any investment in USG going forward should be made with the understanding of at least a 5 year hold and pray the housing recovery gains a lot of momentum.. "
Still anticipating another 236 million shares? An SPO? Wrong then, wrong, lying and insulting now.
My entry point was 6.22 in about '02. I sold enough over 80 that my cost basis is zero.
Now, go re--read your original post. You were certain another 236 million shares had been authorized and were about to be SPO's. You said it. Own it. Or I will go back, get it and quote it.
Sho; you do not own shares. You are a basher. Just that simple.
Hey, Sho, remember this beauty;
sho261 • Aug 6, 2013 9:10 AM
You really are confused. Go back and read my original post. No one said this is and additional 236 million added to the 108 million except you. I said this would double the float to 236 million and it will. And yes this will be major dilution to shareholders equity. Look it up, as you don't understand dilution.
And no the following statement from you is incorrect again "Sorry for being temporarily confused, this IS the annual shelf registration." This is not an annual registration but an automatic shelf registration which becomes effective AUTOMATICALLY upon filing. That what ASR stands for.
You certainly post a lot of inaccurate information. At least check things out before you post as you really are looking quite foolish.. GL
HMMM . . .. float at 236 million yet? Dillution? We're still trading right where we were when you posted that. Doesn't dillution usually imply the stock price will fall? I think my point at the time was 1) No new shares had been authorized and 2) The 'dillution' from the convertible bonds was already priced into the stock.
If anyone has problems understanding reality, it isn't me.
See, Jessie, that's the thing, people like Sho put forth misleading negatives, and pretend they've been insulted if anyone corrects it.
There are indeed things holding back USG's share price. Debt may be one of them, sure. It looks a bit thinly capitalized. I suggest you look into how that came to be. 15 years ago there was a bankruptcy filing because of the asbestos vultures. Considering that situation, shareholders are lucky to not have been severely diluted. Having settled that mess, housing sank and USG was unprofitable for about 5 more years. Management stuck it out through both issues and I guess it seems ridiculous for someone to question their ability or commitment.
USG is in pretty good shape now, debt load not withstanding. What really keeps the stock price in check isn't operational issues, it's the Net Operating Loss carryforward. When USG paid the claim they capitalized the loss as a net operating loss carry forward. Now USG can earn something like a couple billion dollars without paying taxes on it. HOWEVER; ownership cannot really change. You are essentially frozen if you have over 5%. IF you are under 5%, you are limited to 4.99%. After that you endanger the NOL carry forward and also your voting rights due to a shareholder protection agreement. That hold's the share price down.
Right now it looks as though Bershire will take the company private, probably about the time the NOL's are used up.
In the mean time; the notion that there is "another price fixing lawsuit from homebuilders" is deliberate ignorance. Some of the class opted out of the settlement. There is no new suit. There may be a trial, but to the extent the class doesn't participate, the class settlement goes down. There are no 'obsolete ships', only write-downs for tax benefit. 90 million last year. I doubt management would hold back earnings so BRK can buy it on the cheap. The longs here are pretty well committed and won't likely be fooled. Buffet won't be stealing this company.