Actually I'm exceptional at this game. The fact that you form opinions without facts says everything about you and nothing about me.
I did a simple spreadsheet entering in the quarterly revenue and EBITDA from Q1 2014 through Q1 2015. Most of these quarters have seen 13% to 17% sequential declines. I was hoping to find that the rate of decline is decreasing. Instead Q1 2015 significantly increased the rate of decline.
Canada was down 22% on revenue and 33% on EBITDA. I realize that there have been some big contract wins announced for Canada, and we will see if they can at stabilize the decline in Canada.
The bottom line is I don't see much evidence of a turnaround yet.
Debt is not increasing. And the cash flow statement clearly shows positive cash flow, so that could be applied to pay off debt further.
The question is what level will sales shrink to? What is a sustainable level for Australia, and separately for Canada? Sales are still imploding, so this is very much a hot potato and could easily revisit $2 again.
Einhorn selling does appear to be a marker for a base - and bottom - forming. You would have to say he didn't understand what he bought, which is why he lost so much. He didn't control his losses on the way down. And he doesn't seem to understand or care about the dynamics of how the company might recover.
It could be that tax authorities on either end would construe the transfer of the company to a new market as two separate actions:
1) The implied sale of the original security at the current price.
2) An implied purchase of a new security with a new symbol, with a new cost basis.
What kind of morons would give a thumbs down to a simple declarative question about a company's fundamentals? This forum is filled with garbage spam and promotion. Shame on yahoo for running such a sleazy operation on its investment forums. Shame on yahoo for never doing anything to control the spam.
And get rid of the feedback system. It's been corrupted by spammers.
From the CVEO presentation, it looks like they are primarily supporting mining, with focus on coal.
You almost want to say that CVEO should just write off most of the Australian operation and then put it into runoff. That way we don't get the slow bleed of deterioration in Australia poisoning the better-than-zero results coming out of Canada. Australia could drag CVEO down for a while because it is a higher margin operation and CVEO still gets a lot of EBITDA there.
Track the commodity. Tankers went up because oil pricing came down. That created demand for VLCC used as offshore storage facilities, to support users who bought oil at low prices and sold on forware futures contracts, locking in a profit.
Oil futures are heading back up, which reverses that phenomena, and lowers the demand for VLCC.
Does anyone happen to know how the Australian operation breaks down by resource type? How much is for iron ore, how much for oil/gas, how much for gold or other resources?
I do not believe LinkedIn is a company valued on earnings. Other momentum stocks like AMZN rarely even have earnings yet sell for phenomenal multiples of revenue. LNKD is being valued for growth as a momentum stock, and it would trade at enormous multiples of revenues even with very negative earnings.
What would be a normalized EV/EBITDA level for the temporary lodging industry? I'm assuming somewhere around 5x to 8x depending on where you are in the cycle?
What was the EV/EBITDA for Civeo when it went public?
I did live through the Internet bubble, but that was a totally different dynamic. In 2000 some analyst calculated that all possible growth in telecom could never pay back the investments already made. That shut off the money flow to the entire sector. That in turn stopped all growth, since it was largely fake growth based on raising money to buy advertising at uneconomic prices.
Companies that were growing at 30%+ per year simply imploded and went out of business quickly, because they had no real business and the shortfall in funding rounds proved that. LinkedIn has a real business, and they are a fully funded operation. I don't think they are worth their market capitalization, but I also don't understand how a 3% shortfall in revenue is anything more than a yawn.
I'm not going to defend LinkedIn as an investment. I see it as a very overvalued momentum stock. Having disclosed my bias, I do not understand how the market gives this stock a 25% haircut based on the announcement. They were originally projected to have $2.988B of revenue, and they announced new guidance to $2.9B. That is a 3% revenue shortfall. How does that begin to translate to a 25% reduction in market capitalization? What's the rational theory behind that adjustment?
On options, I couldn't disagree with you more. High premium indicates that the volatility is already in the option price, and the time decay eats everyone who is not a PhD in mathematics alive. High premium option bets are for suckers.
DDD has had a 25% borrow for the last few months yet someone holding it short in that timeframe did not make a profit, as the borrow cost offset the decline in value. That high borrow cost means you need to hold for a short time period and time the short absolutely perfectly.
I think you would be better off in DDD buying a put that is well into the money. The premium in this case would be less than the borrow cost shorting outright.