Sorry bud, but you may want to check the color of the sky in your world. There is absolutely nothing wrong with raising additional cash as is being done here. The new shares may be "dilutive" simply by definition of there being more outstanding, but it is not dilutive to my ownership in the company because I am purchasing the additional shares - at a lower price than where it's trading today. Further, if it's not in shareholders best interests, why offer the shares to all shareholders in the first place? Swenson could simply do a private transaction, write a $3 million check, and have the company issue shares directly to him at a below market price. When the shares are back at $2.50 in a couple months, let's revisit this and discuss how shareholders being able to acquire shares at $1.90 was such a bad thing.
my last buy was at $5.05 - I got tired of playing games trying to get a bunch more below $5.00. if someone puts a decent size ask out there for $4.95 or less and nobody else is taking it, I'll grab them, but it looks like they've jacked it back up to $5.80+ on the ask...and somebody apparently bought 2 shares. Again, I think this is the market maker playing games - it was the only trade of the day - do we really believe someone would do that? Buy 2 shares for $11.80 and pay commission on it?
$5.8899 ... 2 ... NDD ... 15:33:19
Good job fred. I think we understand the stock/company better than those folks who drove the shares higher...and gave us Round 1 profits. I think that this time around will be even better as we know that new contracts will be hitting in the next 6 to 9 months and we have the patience to wait for it. That's all it's going to take - a new contract and sales moving in the right direction. In the mean time, I'm back to trying to get more shares as volume dries up. I'm confident more of those who were part of the pump will be looking to part with their shares.
No - I sold at $3.00 because it took me 5 months to accumulate a position of 50,000 shares at prices from $1.90 to $2.10 (beginning right around this time last year) with average daily volume of 5,000 to 10,000 shares and less. I had to play games to buy as little as 1000 or 2000 shares at a time. When volume rockets up over 500,000 shares a day from one day to the next and I can sell 10,000 shares at will it is very clear to me what took place. I think you are quite well aware of it all too.
Now, we are practically where we were a year ago - similar share price, similar daily volume, same games to buy any kind of volume of shares.
I understand how this game is played. Swenson/Cabillot did not sell a single share while the price was pumped up. I also understand very well why the rights offering was set at $1.90 and I'll take all the shares offered to me...anyone who has the money available is stupid if they don't - unless the shares are below $1.90 at the time they write the check.
I have no illusions of what's taking place here. Either you understand and will do well, or you play the stupid games with the Seeking Alpha folks. I make my money trading against them - I just happened to be here first and then they wrote those articles. I've made my money and my shares are now essentially free.
I'm sorry that you bought shares at a much higher price. You should not think about them. Start with a clear mind and look at it as if it were a new investment/trade. Buy a new block of shares at $2.00 or whatever price you think is good to lower your basis. If you still believe in the investment, then it's silly to wait for your original purchase price - average down with the $1.90 rights shares and purchase more. The company isn't going out of business - surely you know/see that at this point.
You are funny, friend!
How many shares were traded today? And 5,000 of them were mine.
The price of $3.80 was a direct result of Seeking Alpha pump and dump article - everyone knows it, except maybe you.
"According to you the people who bought at $3.80 were ignoramus and not a genius like you who has been praising the take over since the beginning "
What I said is that YOU had the opportunity to buy shares at $1.90 and obviously did not. YOU had the opportunity to sell shares at $3.80 and apparently did not. I did not sell at $3.80, but well above the price we see today. However, it is true that the people who were buying at $3.80 were ignoramuses - a quick glance at the volume at the time made it very clear that it was all pump and dump related to the article. Now, with volume somewhat back to normal, the shares are more appropriately priced.
And yes, I am praising the takeover. Had it not been done, you think the company would be in better shape today? That would make you wrong again.
As far as Swenson increasing ownership at the expense of shareholders, you may want to read the following carefully - especially the last sentence:
"Nicholas J. Swenson, a director of the Company, is the Managing Member of AO Partners, LLC. Raymond E. Cabillot, a director of the Company, is Chief Executive Officer and a director of Farnam Street Capital, Inc. The Standby Purchasers have agreed to purchase any and all shares of common stock that are not subscribed for by shareholders in connection with the rights offering up to an aggregate amount of $2.8 million, subject to the Company's right to reduce the number of shares purchased by the Standby Purchasers in order to preserve the above-referenced tax attributes. The Company believes preservation of the tax attributes referenced above may result in the Company imposing material limitations on the Standby Purchasers' ability to purchase stock under the terms of the standby commitment."
You are very wrong.
"THEY took away all the upswings in the stock"
YOU have a warped judgement of what THEY are charged with doing. Upswings in the stock? They took that away? You don't think that maybe people who bought the stock during the two pump and dump Seeking Alpha articles have decided to simply sell and move on? That they are not investors but simply follow the sheep kind of crowd? I know that for certain.
"MORE stock outstanding - no benefit to stockholders already under water"
Giving you the chance to average down at a price below the current market price. The fact that you are underwater is a result of how you invested, not what THEY did. YOU had the opportunity to buy shares at $1.90 previously and sell at over $3 as many folks did. YOU are now being given another opportunity to buy shares at $1.90 - will you take advantage of the opportunity or continue to wallow in your misery about how the company and management is giving YOU the shaft once again?
"The assumption is that the BULLS? have deferred until they buy at this LOW price /"
That is your assumption but not reality.
The rights offering is beneficial to ALL shareholders.
It is irrelevant how many shares AO/Farnam purchase - all that matters is that each shareholder is being given the opportunity to 1) maintain his percentage ownership in the company and 2) purchase shares at a 15% discount
If you choose to not purchase the rights being offered to you at this time, it is a mistake unless you believe you'll be able to purchase the shares for even less than $1.90 at some point between now and when the new shares are distributed. More likely, once the new shares are distributed, you'd be able to immediately sell them for more.
Understand, as previously mentioned, the company did not have to provide shareholders the ability to participate in the offering at all and could have allowed AO/Farnam to purchase even more shares at a lower price. What is being done is an indication that Swenson does have all shareholders best interests in mind.
If we're the only ones in BYBK at the moment, that's fine by me. I've been in similar before and the time to get in is when nobody knows about it or wants it. I've found that most of the folks out there are not able/willing to do the research/work and they will fail more often than succeed when it comes to investing.
There are overlooked hidden gems in banking at this time at the low end of the scale and BYBK is one of them - BVA is similar, which I also own. The low float makes it additionally attractive. I like management's plan and am confident they'll be successful. They are in the right market, have the right approach, and are differentiating themselves.
I see we previously ran into each other on DRCO...we think similarly.
To whoever gave me some more shares at $4.50 yesterday - thank you!
Obviously you were unable to understand what you read in the SEC filing - which was actually a few days earlier but clearly you just read it when posted as a news item yesterday.
TARP interest payments and repurchase of shares is GOOD news!
Amazing the types of people who "invest" in the market these days.
Last small bank turnaround I owned (UBMI) that "recently" began buying back their TARP shares did it in two transactions. The first they did was for 50% of the shares. A few months later they repurchased the remaining 50%. A few weeks after that, the bank was bought out for a 75% premium above the share priceat the time - which was a bit over 3 times the price of where the shares were just a year earlier.
GRBS shares have no business sitting below $5/share at this time.
Sorry, I have to disagree with you.
Today the shares are exactly where the were a year ago after the lone analyst who brought this up made a big deal out of it. What's changed since then? Nothing. What was the reason for the shares to fall from over $20 during the past 6 weeks or so? The same issue as a year ago? How? Why then did the shares go to over $20? The same issue was out there.
The risk is no higher than previously - probably lower considering how the company has performed better in 2013 than 2012.
In a few months, when shares are moving higher again, what will your reasoning be?
the longer Sprint waits, the less leverage they have in making a new deal. if they are building their own towers, don't they have to get the property rights, variances, local permits, etc.? or would they simply try to lease the same way that NTLS does on existing towers? would they be able to get full coverage of the existing territory on their own?
I think that much too much is made out of this, just as last year, and the simplest most direct solution is what will be done - they will renew with similar pricing/terms that are in place today. NTLS management has said multiple times that they have a very good working relationship with Sprint, and similarly stated that too much was being made out of this.
"The SNA prohibits Sprint from, directly or indirectly, commencing construction of a PCS wireless communications network in the Market until 18 months prior to the termination of the SNA. Sprint is further prohibited from, directly or indirectly, contracting for, or launching, any wireless communications network that provides PCS services in the Market until the termination of the SNA, including all renewals thereof."
So we are within the 18 month period prior to the end of the SNA. Is Sprint busy doing the work to build out its own network by building it's own towers and/or leasing? I don't think so.
The SNA will be renewed, business will continue as normal, and with this put behind NTLS the shares will rebound strong with upgrades ... everybody lives happily ever after.
I'm also guessing that in addition to renewal of the SNA, joint business with DISH will be expanding.
not whining at all, simply stating the facts.
it is very clear what took place considering the bid/ask for the entire day prior to my trade.
it wasn't a market order considering the timestamps on the trades.
if you look at the trades over the past two weeks, you can additionally see that this is standard procedure attempting to push the shares lower.
again, in the longer-term, it means nothing...I'm just stating the facts.
I buy at $5.05 because he flashes a nice size on the ask. After I buy the nice chunk of shares, maket maker sells 54 shares at $4.89 and then another 54 shares at $4.85 trying to manipulate the price lower.
Those types of games only last so long and only the most naive of investors fall for them.
In the mean time, market maker just sells small lots of shares to lower the bid attempting to accumulate shares from weak longs that just get tired and hand them over. Personally, I don't mind paying the extra 10 or 20 cents/share knowing that when I sell the shares will be 100%+ higher.
The insider purchasing a bit higher is fine by me - if the shares were good enough for him at that price, I'll take them 5% to 10% lower.