Obviously buying oil at the top of the market shows flaws in Watford's understanding of big picture market forces although to my understanding moving out of Marcellus and to the west was a strategically sound move. Not anticipating the depths of the production problem when levering up is obviously another mark against his big picture analysis.
His strength is supposed to be efficiency including use of capital (assuming he gets the big picture market forces right). Over the summer he mentioned using part of the proceeds of an asset sale to buy back stock as their stock was much more depressed than asset prices. While I don't see a stock buy back in the cards now the idea of buying back bonds at pennies on the dollar makes a lot of sense and would seem to be something Watford would understand and consider. I would imagine bond prices would shoot up on an announcement of a significant asset sale so maybe there is more to the lack of an announcement than "can't get er done".
In the end I still think debt holders don't want to own UPL. Even though this is an asset buyers market there are plenty of buyers and I don't believe chapter 11 is going to offer up better asset prices than just doing a deal with UPL now so IMO they'll eventually do a deal that will be somewhere between shareholder friendly and a disaster.
From EIA weekly report ended Jan 6.:
"The Opal price in southwest Wyoming decreased from $2.57/MMBtu to $2.43/MMBtu. West of the Rocky Mountains, the California regional average price fell from $2.69/MMBtu last Wednesday to $2.62/MMBtu yesterday. "
I'm not positive, however I believe these are the markets UPL primarily serves. The west has been experiencing much colder weather than the east this year. The weekly storage report ended Jan 1 shows mountain at 2.6% above it's five year average storage and Pacific at 3.6% above it's five year average. It's been a couple of weeks since the previous report however I remember all regions being in at least high single digits above their five year average at that time.
UPL's current situation might be even better than the improving HH spot prices are suggesting. By no means am I suggesting they are out of the woods, however they appear to be gaining options and some leverage. Reports of more cold weather next week and maybe for the second half of January as well add more hope they can manage this crisis.
Going into the holiday's and insanely warm weather in the east I was praying no news was not going to result in a Christmas eve or New Years eve announcement. Now I'm hopeful that no news means they're working on a comprehensive solution to the debt problem. No guarantees and one persons opinion, but in the end creditors don't want to own the business and UPL's position is improving.
BTW I have a long term public record going back to 2006 in TMF CAPS under the player name MKArch if you are really interested in my stock picking record.
It ain't a biotech by anyones definition, they sell lab supplies. They also do over $100M a year in revenues and have been profitable. Whether it's a good business or not is debatable and whether it's a good investment or not depends on what you pay but it's at least a real business.
"didn't you know David Green was regarded as one of the worst biotech CEOs when he was in charge of HBIO?"
I guess you would find that funny considering HBIO isn't a biotech. But you knew that right?
The stated reason for Green stepping down from the CEO role was to get a CEO with clinical trial experience. Not only didn't they get a CEO with clinical trial experience they didn't even get one with a medical or scientific background. I assume when a company puts out a press release stating they are looking to hire a CEO with clinical trial experience they interviewed CEO's with clinical trial experience. Or is this another "We're in a large animal trial that will last 6 month" and after 6 months we find out there is no large animal study?
In regard to McGorry's qualifications, I suggest you take a good look at the company he left after accepting the fallback CEO position at HART. CSBR, does about $8M a year in revenues and regularly trades zero shares for an entire day. Last I checked the 3 month average daily share volume was ~300 or ~$1,500/ day traded. I was also on the Q2 cc and had McGorry cut me off mid sentence when my line of questioning was getting too close to misleading statements in the past. He pretended I had no further questions when in fact he cut me off because he didn't want to answer the question. He took the lead answering science questions on the last cc when he's obviously not qualified to understand the science and had someone who was qualified (LaFrancesca) on the cc with him. McGorry's hiring as CEO was a massive red flag.
There are no sure things and this isn't the first company I've lost money on nor will it be the last. Peter Lynch once chalked up his amazing investing track record to being right 6 out of 10 times. I'm not knocking HART because I lost money and if I thought they had a chance of succeeding I'd buy back in. I don't like HART because it's a zombie promotional penny stock. There is no business here and never will be. They live as long as outfits like Aspire can make money gaming the discount they get on the stock. I've seen it before and it doesn't last forever.
This is an eventual zero. If you want a realistic evaluation of their prospects selling regenerated organs look to all of the potential CEO's with clinical trial experience who didn't take the CEO job at HART forcing them to fall back to a clown on their BOD without even a medical or scientific background let alone clinical trial experience. They people with clinical trial experience got a look under the hood, know what they are looking at and not one saw enough to accept the CEO job and it's nice pay check.
In regard to the prospects, they prominently discussed the economics of selling regenerated tracheas on their old investor presentation based on their first scaffold. They also went out of their way to discuss this on their cc's as well. There is zero information about the economics of selling regenerated esophagus on their current investor presentation. The $100K-$200K reimbursement you refer to was the reimbursement they claimed they could get for their trachea product. The target market for the trachea had a near certain death sentence under traditional treatment. That doesn't appear to be the case for the esophagus.
Interestingly half of their presentation is still citing accomplishments of the first scaffold which they've already abandoned. Orphan drug status, patents, compassionate care cases, and a blatant lie in the description of the 2016 timeline to get into clinical trials including the type of clinical trial. What they failed to carry over to the new presentation however was the economics of selling regenerated tracheas which leaves me to believe it was b.s. to begin with or something has changed. IE: maybe the insurance companies they vetted their fee with for their original scaffold aren't real impressed with the do over and new management team and not willing to discuss reimbursement anymore.
Expect a lot more shares than 5M, lots of selling pressure from Aspire as they flip stock and constant kicking the Clinical trial can down the road.
From what I understood of the trachea everything hinged on the fact there was no viable alternative to their trachea. They were targeting a patient population with a near certain death sentence within months under traditional treatment. My understanding was both the orphan drug designation and high reimbursement were predicated on this.
If there are viable existing alternatives to HART's esophagus product which it seems like there are, it's not likely to have the same economics as the trachea. The fact they prominently discussed the economics of the trachea in both their investor presentation and on their conference calls but no discussion of the economics of their esophagus product is a pretty clear sign the economics of the esophagus are not worth talking about. The shill from Maxim on the last cc leading mcGorry into the total potential market for all of their potential products instead of drilling down on the economics of the esophagus was another tell to me that economics of selling esophagus are not good.
Off the top of my head:
1. What are the economics of selling regenerated esophagus.
2. The selling point of the trachea product was a certain death sentence within months using traditional treatment and the total cost of treatment with their regenerated trachea was also supposed to be less than traditional treatment. Finally they claimed to have vetted the $100K-$200K reimbursement with insurance companies and received favorable feedback. What about the espophagus?
3. What is the likelihood of orphan drug status for the esophagus?
4. Why is half of the new investor presentation still based on accomplishments of the first scaffold?
5. Why did the estimated number of patients with esophageal cancer treated by surgery go from 4K/ year in the press release to 2k-3K per year in the investor presentation that came out a couple of days later.
IMO this is now a zombie stock and I don't agree that they escaped death spiral financing. Look at the terms of Aspire acquiring stock, always at a discount to market price which is the defining characteristic of death spiral financing. In regard to Concerns 1-3 which all have to do with the extent to which they have actually succeeded in regeneration, IMO the best unbiased but informed judgment comes from all the CEO's with clinical trial experience that didn't take the CEO job and the fact they had to fall back to a clown on their BOD who's last position was with a publicly traded company that does $8M a year in revenues and regularly trades zeros shares for an entire day. When Green and McNaughton left safe positions at the former parent company that Green founded to run HART there was reason to take their claims seriously. The moment they announced McGorry as the new permanent CEO they lost all credibility. I wish you luck however I put no faith in any claims made by the new management and don't buy that they went from "can't say we can regenerate tissue at all in Q2 to we can regenerate an esophagus three months later. I would also ask about concern #5; what are the economics of selling regenerated esophagus? In the course of two days the potential market went from 4K to 2K-3K.
If they keep kicking getting into clinical trials down the road as I'm sure will be the case the share price sinks. Aspire's also going to be flipping their shares trying to game their discount while they can which will also put downward pressure on the stock.
Once the stock break $1 and the fifty cent floor starts to become a concern for any additional financing and there will be additional pressure on the stock.
This delays the inevitable some but it's not the exceptionally generous helping hand the press release want you to believe it is. There's going to be massive dilution, downward pressure on the stock and a good chance only a fraction of the $15M is ever realized by HART. There are no free lunches in the investing world just misleading press releases.
All death spiral financing requires is that share are always acquired below market prices which this does. As HART's share price declines Aspire's cost follows suit. If Aspire were really just in this out of the goodness of their heart they'd have done a straight forward secondary offering as the investors did last year.
BTW in regard to the discount even though 25% over 30 days may seem like a better deal, it's a fairly long time and that price may not afford much of a discount to the current market price. Aspire may just be trading the potentially more discount for more certainty of a discount.
Regarding HART's control they burn about $10M a year and I think they are limited to 150K a day. Plus if they keep putting of getting into clinical trials the stock is going to drop putting the fifty cent floor into play. On top of this they control when Aspire has to buy but not when they sell. HART doesn't have that much control.
I did try to figure out the next day purchase option and can't decipher b).
This one is structured differently than what I've seen in the past but the basic principal is the same. What I'm used to seeing is someone issues debt that is able to be converted to stock at a discount to market prices. I remember one where the discount was 25% below the volume weighted average price over the previous 30 days. The issuer gets a discount to market price to game and as the stock price drops their cost drops.
Instead of a set discount to the VWAP over some time period this is set up so that the low price of the day or the average of the three lowest closing prices in the previous 10 trading sessions establishes a discount. As the stock price drops so does Aspires purchase price. It's a different version of death spiral financing but it's basic principals are the same. Game your discount, as the stock price drops so does your purchase price.
If all Aspire was trying to do was purchase a piece of HART they would have done a straight up buy as was done last year. Aspire is in this to game their discount and price reset.
Purchase price is lowest of the day or average of lowest VWAP the lowest 3 days in the previous ten days which ever is lower. There is some provision for additional sales the next day with a purchase price at 80% of the VWAP or lowest price. I've seen worse but it's still death spiral financing and the fitty cent minimum share price is likely to put a lid of total financing.
To be fair there is a one week lag in the reports so this one covered a cold week. I don't know what the temps are across the country but it's mighty nice outside in the northeast. Not looking good for upcoming reports but we're still only just past the start of the withdrawl season.
Added at $3.5 the other day. The entire industry has been selling off. Nothing new going on. Low oil is good for nat gas as gas byproduct has been a large part of what's been killing the industry over the last few years but nat gas sells off when OPEC refuses to prop oil up?
As to UPL it's more levered than others so it gets hit harder but major debt maturities are still a few years out. They're working on shoring up covenants but even if they didn't banks and bond holders don't want to own UPL they just want to get paid back so covenants would likely be amended if need be. No matter how low this panic drives the industry nat gas storage is still only 6.7% above it's five year average. Eventually that will matter.
It doesn't surprise me that you have withdrawls after injections for the last three years chico. I kind of assumed something like that was the case.
BTW chico a simple google search before you post nonsense that's easily refuted would save you a lot of embarrassment. Just some friendly advice.