Company will have to pay the $2.75 in order to digest those shares, but I don't know who is going to be selling as the volume has pretty much dried up. I personally own a fairly large position that I've been accumulating and will likely not be participating.
I imagine some long-term holders disgusted as the price-action and the management will take the opportunity to get out at $2.75, but I don't see how they'll pick up a substantial percentage of the remaining float at $2.75.
I think they'll have to raise the offer. At $3.75, I'd consider the sale of my shares, but I think the inherent value of the company is a bit over $4.00.
Thanks for the reply TRF,
Thanks for the reply TRL,
I'm not sure the model of rapid growth through acquisitions will prove to be a viable business model. The kind of businesses NVEE are buying would seem to need hands-on management and local connections.
As for the current share count, it is a bit higher than at the end of 2014. The most recent acquisition released new shares onto the market. The lockup on those shares won't end until next January. But that would add another 100K to the O/S count.
The most recent acquisition was supposed to generate about 10m in revs which would be immediately accretive. That extra 10m is included in the 2015 projections and in turn makes the growth numbers look a bit less exciting than most people here seem to believe they are.
P/S ratio is an important metric, especially when comparing a small-cap stock like NVEE to its peers. Again, with the P/S ratio at the very top of its sector, that's a warning sign for a small company like NVEE. I simply don't agree with you that P/S ratios should be ignored if the company is showing a profit.
... especially not good if you consider that the guidance given for 2015 revenue includes the dilutive first quarter acquisition which pushed the O/S to about 5.9 million and added additional interest-bearing debt.
The company's 61.5% increase in accounts receivable is concerning. I don't see any explanation for why there was such a rapid increase within the report - perhaps they alluded to it in the conference call but I did not listen to it. My guess would be that it is acquiring companies that may have collections problems where the selling private company is selling at a discount to get out and NVEE wants to want to exude the appearance of growth to get its stock price up.
If you disclude pass-through revenues, the P/S ratio of this technical services company is about 1.15, the highest in the industry. They also doubled margins in an industry where margin growth remains pretty flat over time. I doubt the margins can continue to grow as they are already highest in the industry as per yesterday's 2014 numbers.
Looks overvalued to me here, but the market will decide the reality over the next few weeks regardless of my opinion - which may be a bit oversimplistic.
Moreover, check out JRJC valuation. Xueqiu gets 21 times the traffic according to the most accurate analytics site in the world; similarweb.
JRJC has a 132 million dollar valuation. If JRJC can merit that valuation, Xueqiu should merit 1.5-2 billion, and I imagine it will.
Moreover, RENN invested 40m into Snowball, not 10m as you stated. I imagine this investment will end up gaining 4-5x and is being dramatically undervalued on the balance sheet at the moment.
And we haven't even considered the effect of the Sofi IPO yet.
Yeah, the same Snowball that owns xueqiu, the fastest growing financial news site in China which also happens to be social. If it IPOS, will likely IPO over 1 Billion. Valuation has at least doubled since RENN injection.
During every oil price meltdown one of the majors makes an acquisition.
I wouldn't be surprised if one of the Deep Water Drillers gets salvaged from the scrap heap and incorporated into one of the majors.
I don't think RIG investors who actually move the stock take a look at spot. Only futures (of all durations) push this stock higher and lower.
That being said, I can't see what is pushing this stock up today as short, mid and long term dated futures all had dropped; at least they did the last time I checked.
China Construction Bank should be changed to China Development Bank... sorry for the mind-glitch.
I don't think the point would be to have a bidding war and have multiple parties "bid the company" up to "where it belongs", I think the point is to allow the main stakeholders on the Chinese side to get it all back and run the company privately.
If specific individuals located in China were guilty of suppressing the price, it's important to note that they are largely out of the purview of US law. So whose to stop them from doing this IF, and I repeat IF, this is the case?
If you take into account the history of US-Listed small cap Chinese companies, why would you trust any of these guys like Adam and Co. to act ethically and pay fair value when they don't really have to? So far who has been punished by Chinese authorities for crimes committed on US investors during the 2011 fiasco where collective tens of billions of dollars of investor capital was swept over to China through either poor financial reporting standards or outright theft of investor capital.
Don't take it from me. Mckinsey, a well-respected global management consulting firm, comes our with a quarterly journal. In one of the articles from a recent addition, an observer noted;
"The SEC doesn’t face a problem just with Chinese audit firms but potentially with any audit firm outside its regulatory purview. And the SEC is not the only regulatory agency facing this problem, since every other major capital market could face the same experience, particularly given the growing competition among stock exchanges.
To close the gap between US and Chinese regulations satisfactorily, the countries’ two regu- latory agencies must collaborate; both sides urgently need this to happen. The solution offered by the Chinese regulators falls far short of genuine cross-jurisdiction cooperation and to date has not been fully tested. Hence US investors are still forced to take on faith the content of audit reports, and neither they nor regulators have timely mechanisms to take action against fraud.
Are you OK? Or perhaps drunk?
The reality is that many Chinese companies don't want their share price elevated because it would cost them more to then take it private. The Chinese Government was incentivizing them to go private a few years ago, and I imagine that may be the case again. Do you think China Construction Bank wanted to get less bang for their buck in bringing these small-cap US-Listed Chinese stocks home? I'd say not. Do you think they have any loyalty to US shareholders holding shares of China-based companies? I'd say not.
If you think Wall Street hedge funds or market makers are to blame for the low share price, you would be beyond ignorant. Neither have any incentive to suppress to share price of a micro-cap Chinese stock.
Fact of the matter is normal stocks don't trade like this. Although, of course, it's not just E-Future, but E-Future is one of, if not the most, obvious stock with a clearly manipulated trading pattern. Many other Chinese companies show equally bizarre charts and trading patterns that defy common sense.
I'm of the feeling that just get it over with and take it private sooner rather than later. No need to continue the silly games.
Does everybody get what's going on now? I'm not sure if this is the right place to explain it in fine detail, but it is clear as day if you have eyes to see.
The listed company which has since been bought out... please read the prior post by selecting on the Messages tab rather than the Topics tab.
Eh... but who really knows. Nothing is as it seems in China... wouldn't be surprised if they effectively hold over 50%.
I think you're trying to make an honest buck, but as a long term investor, I don't think you'll get quite as much buck as you think, but I think you'll walk away with a profit if your cost basis is under $6.
Everything they are doing, and have been doing over the years, as I now look back in hindsight, makes it fairly easy to predict that the company is going private.
China TransInfo Technology Group Co, used traded under the ticker symbol CTFO as I alluded to above. Roger Zhang, the CFO who presided over that deal now heads the Audit and Corporate Governance committees for E-Future as announced a few days ago, . That company now trades on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange and has gone up about 500% since leaving the US exchanges. Investors received only a 28% increase over the closing price when the going private offer was announced on June, 8 2012. He was hired by CTFO 1 1/2 years before that.
Search for and then read, "Muddy Waters Stigma Means $1 Billion Cost to Exit U.S.", for more background information.
The other board member, Roy Zhou, apparently led Yoyi's C and D round fund-raising, so clearly he has experience working venture capital firms to find sources of capital for immediate injection into a company.
I think EFUT wants to be a private company. I think they make a tender offer before raising funds which is why they added somebody who has experienced the process of Going Private offer and subsequent deregistration of the listed shares and another guy who has experience in finding funding partners within the retail, and more specifically, the mobile retail advertising APP industry.
I don't think this is altogether awful news, but I don't really like the idea of getting a going private offer for 20%-30% above the current price. I would certainly be opposed to a tender offer at less than 1x sales.
Also, if you've been paying attention, the company has slowly amassed a greater percentage of the share base and likely can control the vote through the execs, employees, and through other investors who they more or less control.
Speculation, yes. But I think there is more than ample evidence that I'm right.
It's pretty clear what is going to happen from here...
Going the way of CTFO.
Huh? I made a statement of fact that could in no possible way be considered an initiation of an argument.
The statement I made is a factual statement based on specific historical circumstances that can easily be verified. Read it again.
EPRS slipped through the doors into the NASDAQ via a reverse merger, so anything before July 16, 2014 has nothing to do with EPRS.