....help DEST direct more business to its free standing stores and boost overall margins? Or will the overall loss of sales from loss of total sales outlets end up being a disaster? They seem like they know what they are doing....but why are they only guiding for a low single digit same store sales increase in 2016?
200% debt/equity ratio.
If they want to pay in (mostly) stock, my attitude is they need to pay $12.50 per DEST share...especially considering how much O-P has run up, over the last few years.
Gross margins are improving. The company is stabilizing...which means Orchestra-P should be even MORE interested than they were before. OR maybe a private equity white knight comes in here.
My guess is it is taken out for $10 cash, in the next few months. If not, it's a decent hold for a intermediate to long term turnaround.
Well, with O'Brien's conveying stock buybacks are pretty much out of the question, it deserves to drop like a stone....because all the bugaboos about flawed, at best, and bad faith, at worst, capital allocation, are again front and center. Growth for growth's sake (or worse, as a reflection of being HPT's captive slave), is not a strategy....however heady and dramatic all of this expansion looks, on its surface. Bottom line: if you compare TA's normalized EPS to where it was when they came public, have shareholders earned a decent return on their money? Especially considering all the dilution?
Just for example, my overall portfolio value is up 50%, from my bottom 6 or so weeks ago (although admittedly only back to where it was at the beginning of 2016) which was roughly the time i sold my TUES at $5.75, or whatever the price was. But you, in being overly "rear view mirror" oriented, are more worried about having "missed additional gains" you "could have had," than in finding something that is BETTER. Even though The relative valuation comparison between TUES and the entire universe of stocks changed DRAMATICALLY when it went from $5.75 to $8 in the last few weeks, especially since the fundamentals of the company are desultory. At $5.75, you are in the top 20% of undervaluation arguably (but i sold because that wasn't cheap enough for me). At $8, the stock becomes nothing more than an AVERAGE SELECTION for the year ahead. You should have sold at LEAST half, but you're too afraid you'll miss out and be kicking yourself if you sold and it "keeps running" in the short term. That is self defeating thinking, to me, and again, limits your overall long term gains, merely because it is more psychologically satisfying to you to get "multi-baggers," or "ride 'em for max gains."
Plus, who cares where it is at now, if your "fastidious" buy and hold for max price strategy is more likely to result in your riding this back down to $7, or $6.50, when it inevitably reverts to the mean? Does $7.96 matter at that point? Will you come on here and chiripily report your 20% loss in opportunity cost when it goes from $8 to $6.50? Will you factor in the fact that you probably could have sold at $7.96, and bought something that WENT UP INSTEAD?
I scale in and scale out of positions, as prices change. EVERY SINGLE ONE of my portfolio positions, needs to be thought of in terms of RELATIVE VALUATION, compared to every single other one. You are not as disciplined in doing that, because you have shown in spades, over the years, that you are more afraid of "missing gains," and "selling too early," than you are in "maximizing net undervaluation" in your portfolio. I understand it's a balancing act between letting momentum "fly" and swapping out for something that is more of a bargain, but i have said before, and i will say again, that your methodology is too rigid for me, and results in your GIVING BACK GAINS, far more often than you "create more gains." This lowers your overall returns, and probably means you have only beat the market by 3-4% annually, i'm guessing, over the long run. The tragedy is you could do much better....because you are a great stock picker. But for some reason, you overly favor buy and hold.
The market has rallied from a V-shaped bottom. Most Everything that was down down dramatically from its highs, like TUES, was a "stretched rubberband," and bounced. There is nothing genius about the money you made (is there something about TUES's fundamentals that has changed, that you "figured out"? no.)....although I congratulate you on it.
I would consider shorting in here, but I'm nog going to, because "the sheep" have shown before just how "gaga" they can get about this one. But if the company is still "ho-humming" at 20-30 cents in annualized EPS, I think having it sell anywhere from 1- 1 1/2 times book is probably about right....and pretty much a value trap, from a fundamental perspective....although definitely worth swing trading.
I sold TUES to buy things that were more FUNDAMENTALLY cheap. Over the long run, I make more money that way. I know you do fine for yourself with your systems. But they are too boring, and lower return making, for me. Even though you are, of course, one of the best, and absolutely most disciplined, value investors I've seen on these boards in 20 years.
Shows the stock is underfollowed...and the market is inefficiently pricing the stock. I love the MASSIVE stock buyback they announced several weeks back (while simultaneously eliminating the dividend). These guys are SOUND CAPITAL ALLOCATORS, and that is what I care about! Plus they got a new CEO in there who is shaking the place up, and fixing the business model. I would like to see some insider buying in the open market, though. Where IS it?!
Sentiment: Strong Buy
....on heavy volume. This got WAY oversold. Balance sheet is as good as GOLD. Potential go private candidate. This is one of my 5 largest holdings....roughly 10% of the portfolio.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Do you have a web link to the letter? I can't find it on-line. Or did you get a printed copy mailed to you?
Seems willing to sell all the way down to 56 cents, generally, and "take it down" that low. Then "let it bounce back." But "prefers" to sell in the low 60's, any time he can find buyers there. Too bad he couldn't just cross the block with someone, rather then engage in this "torture" with the marketplace. But I guess it is a chance for those who want to acquire more shares to do so, at prices that still seem favorable. I still think this thing will be back over $1 within 6-12 months....but I guess the risk of a reverse split is scaring people.
...give me great confidence. Both of those authors clearly know the company from front to back...and one of them refers to "Bob" on a first name basis. It is clear to me that the underlying break up value of the company's assets, even in this depressed potash market, is worth CONSIDERABLY more than the current enterprise value of the company. So, for now, the debt holders are very likely willing to "play ball," and give Bob & Co. a chance to see through the company's remade business model, which, I'm guessing, WILL involve a closure of West, and, of course, the conversion of East to Trio. Then, we'll look at where things are at, a year from now, on potash prices, and whether the company is materially EBITDA positive. If pricing is modestly higher, a year from now (as I would think likely), and the company is cash flowing again, then we are fine. If not, THEN we are at a point where the possibility of a need for a cash infusion is at hand.
When they (very likely) get the relaxed covenants/waivers from their financiers, over the coming weeks, I'm thinking the stock goes up to $1.75-2.00 in the short term....with near term resistance at $2. But if the covenant waivers are rather broad and "permissive," the stock could trade back up to the $2.00-2.50 range again. Either way, I am extremely bullish here, because, in the near to intermediate term, I am convinced the company is worth a lot more than the current trading price, in a sale or breakup. And of course, in the longer term, if the company can get back to even HALF of its historical operating margins, the stock is going to $10-15, in such a scenario. We just need the RUNWAY of the "newfangled" covenant waivers, and this thing is "off to the races."
Sentiment: Strong Buy
But there is no evidence he HASN'T chased the stock either. It's just that the stock has essentially been continually in a downward trend or flat, for the last 2 1/.2 or so years he's been buying. So we wouldn't know his predilections on "chasing."
I'll give you 5 to 1 odds it's him who bought on Friday. He loved the thing to pieces at $1.80, all last fall, and was buying up the place. And he probably was more "afraid" that the run-up, after the earnings release, would mean he might "miss" the shares, and someone else would get them. More likely, though, he just intends to buy CONTINUALLY (as he has), as long as the stock is below a certain price ($2.50, $2.25, or whatever it is).
I still think we are good for at least a 50% move from here, over the next year, if they continue to perform better...and return to profitability in a few quarters, as I think likely.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
The price increase only applies to north american sales, which is 70% of their total. Therefore, the $80 million increase in EBITDA I talked about, annualized, is actually 70% of that, or $56 million. (They won't capture the whole $56 million in 2016, since the increases were phased in in Q1. I'm guessing $46-48 million is a good range of incremental EBITDA for 2016 from the price increase.
Not really. I don't see the numerical problems he refers to with the march 31, 2015 6-k filing. Although i do see a reference to "time depositis."
As for the changing of the date of the dividend, I see the fact that they are paying a hefty dividend to ALL shareholders as good enough, and i view this management As "straight shooters." But i will i quire about his concern on that.