Not a great sign.
Why do they want to sell?
I would expect that this size restaurant group would not sell easily. Too large for many private parties and too small for any large restaurant operator.
The company still does not seem to be doing great, has a lot of debt and doesn't own anything meaningful. Unless I am missing something.
Why would the "new team" buy into the company only to look to exit just a few years later with no great improvements?
I agree, wholeheartedly, that this is the right direction for the company. The only way to succeed is to differentiate and security is one of the best ways to do so. It will command a higher margin. Loss or breaches of data are a huge expense, as Target and other companies have learned. So, even if competitors offer cheaper purchase prices on their phones, many will be willing to pay a higher purchase price to buy greater peace of mind with security issues, and reduce the security risk factor. Way to go, BlackBerry!
Because it is human nature to be more risk averse than growth oriented. It's panic time. In the next few weeks, I expect it to rebound.
ALU holders got a fair deal. They end up with a third of the resultant company, so they have earning power of the whole thing and the cash adds to security and growth potential.
Restrictive rules and delays by the French government resulted in a lower valuation for ALU. Every buyer has to look at the flexibilities they will have when the acquisition is complete. Restrictions cost time and money, which reduces the value of the companies operating there. Work rules come at a cost.
Spanish young people are rioting for more and better jobs. Fifty percent are out of work. Yet the young people are not creating jobs for themselves. Why? Too risky and too costly with Spain's rules and regulations. No they see the cost of those rules and regs, if they have their eyes open.
Good luck, longs.
Did anyone else get assessed ADR Fees on their SOL holdings? Mine are two cents per share per year, which seems high, given the value per share. I am curious as to what the rest of you have paid. Thanks.
While I agree that 1,200 shares traded after hours does not a market make, it is odd that someone would buy that much over the trades for the day. I would think a paper carrier would be a bit more judicious with her/his capital.
It is an interesting trade. Does it have meaning? We will see in the next week or so.
But I did learn one thing from your post -- I had the wrong paper routes.
The Baird downgrade, today, seems to be totally ignored by the marketplace, with GCO up over two percent. Granted, the market is also strongly up, today, but a thinly traded stock like this is generally quickly and negatively impacted by a downgrade. So, this would tend to be a good sign for the issue.
Good luck, longs.
Okay, thanks. I'm not sure that the jump from one stock to the other is without question; however. But, thanks for the clarification.
As I recall, the Chairman retired and was paid his retirement, etc. bonuses, NWPS went bankrupt, some of the management stayed, one that left sued the failed company for emotional distress!, all the shareholders were wiped out. Then, one of the hotshots that got paid a lot of money and bonuses to "help" them find a lot of the lousy businesses they bought -- that helped bring them down -- got paid an additional lot of money and probably bonuses, to "help" them sell those same businesses, first as an employee than an outside consultant. He is expected to do well with a political career, also! The management that remained got bonuses to stay and take the company through bankruptcy, wipe out the debts and create better, more secure jobs for themselves as a reward, making lots of money and living the high life. The company became NWE bought other assets, including some in MT, started paying a dividend, almost got bought by an Australian conglomerate (shunned by regulators, I think), and is a financial solid company now.
Yahoo says NWE has been in business since 1923. I think that is misleading. If a company goes bankrupt and is owned by all new investors, it failed. No matter the "corporate structure" it failed and should not claim longevity. The business was sold, by court order to creditors and then in the market to other investors. It's a new business that, with the help of the court system, ripped off the prior investors for the benefit of management. Just like GM and many others.
These are all my opinion, of course. I believe our system rewards management too much by giving them control of a better company through bankruptcy, and rewards throughout. Failing management teams are rewarded, investors that have no control are punished. Then, it is as though nothing bad ever happened -- "in business since 1923." No, you have not, NWS.
But the world is run by victors and they report history. The victims and their views die and are forgotten.
Regarding NWPS and similar bankruptcies, I believe our system needs work. There is something wrong with management making a ton of money while everyone else loses their retirement savings. It really irks me when the losing management gets a bonus to stay because the company "needs" their expertise. I don't think so!
It's terrible when a public company goes bankrupt and the management ends up better off -- bonuses and more stock in the new company. The least they can do is apologize and quit -- let someone else run the company.
Good luck on your other investments.