If the "action" of the last couple of days is due to institutional interest, then you must be arguing that that it wasn't worth their time to bother shorting a stock that was selling for $2 a share.
But now that the price has been artificially plumped to $10, there is enough downside to make it worth their while to pounce. Which would account for the lumpy, but steady, downward movement.
You're making Rami's case for him.
Try to wrap your mind around this, Rami...
JF, friends, and family control 65% of FRO. Consequently, any damage that they intentionally inflict on FRO to "take your money" would largely rebound on themselves. So WHY would they take such action?
Admittedly, ship owners as a group routinely appear to be addicted to (economic) mass suicide... but one suspects that the experience of owning of a floating piece of steel leads one to begin hallucinating about Onassis-like empire formation. It is, apparently, as addictive as crack.
But the idea that there is some nefarious plan to fleece investors out of their shares is wildly ridiculous, bordering on the hysterical. JF can not engage in such an action without screwing his own daughters.
That said, the management / ownership shenanigans, like those of Angeliki Frangou, raise the level of uncertainty. No way FRO will get a premium bid until the nonsense settles. It's a competitive market. Folks can gain exposure to tankers through DHT, NAT, TK, TNP, et. al. without enduring all of the horse tookey that JF (and Angeliki) have introduced through their cross-ownerships, spin offs, mergers, drop-downs, and other no-value-added financial sleights of hand.
As a COMPANY, the r/s has ZERO affect on FRO as a cash generator. It's neither here nor there.
The number of shares outstanding has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not the company is a success- financial or otherwise.
$9.91 / 5 = $1.982
Yesterday's close was ... $1.93
So... up a nickle. About 2.6%
The DOW is up about .99%
Other tanker stocks are DOWN from 1.9% to 2.4%.
A day doesn't make a trend, of course, but... at this particular moment the R/S has been a net positive.
While a PE of 6 might be a screaming deal for a tech or a pharma company, it is about **normal** for a ship owner.
Meaning... a multiple of 6 is not far removed from FULL value for this industry.
Take a look at some historical reporting.
Well... Obama couldn't be any worse a justice than Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas at least had prior appellate experience before he was appointed to SCOTUS.
In fact, of the current justices, only Elena Kagan lacked prior bench experience before appointment to SCOTUS. Her appointment was largely political, as would be an appointment of B. Obama. But she at least **clerked** for the court. Obama doesn't even have that experience.
Somehow it would seem...appropriate... that nominees to the highest appellate court should have prior judicial experience, preferably in an appellate court.
Just imagine if an airline chose their pilots in similar fashion: prior experience as a flight attendant would be sufficient to land a job in the cockpit.
How do you figure we are "even" when my costs doubled for the EXACT same coverage that I used to have but you are paying nothing more?
Not that I'm complaining. I'm just point out that your line of "reasoning" doesn't quite jibe with reality.
"If they were denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions, they signed up and now paid premiums."
Many, but not all, of these people did NOT buy insurance when they could - BEFORE their pre-existing condition(s) came into existence. They then complained that they could not get insurance afterwards. What a surprise. They attempted to scam the system. They SHOULD lose their house and everything they own before a neighbor is compelled to pay a DIME to support them.
What these folks currently pay doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to what they COST the system. That is WHY premiums HAVE to go up for everyone else, despite what YOUR personal experience has been. You're flirting with delusion if you think otherwise.
With respect, I don't buy the story about your friend. If he was a "successful businessman" he could have, at a minimum, at some point in his life, purchased a catastrophic health policy. I had one for years before "upgrading". They were not that expensive. But he took a risk with his health and now he wants to lay the financial responsibility off onto others That's unconscionable. He SHOULD lose his home.
We agree that the healthcare delivery system is a mess.
But blaming THAT state of affairs on a lack of single-payer is a total, complete red herring. The problem is NOT who writes the check. It never was.
Yes, well... if they ever start **acting** like the cartel they claim to be, they'll be able to maximize their collective profits.
I'm not holding my breath, of course...
If you think about it... there is no more glut today than there was 10 years ago. The difference is whether the oil is in the ground or sitting in a FRO tanker idling off the coast of some terroirst-infested banana republic waiting for a contango unwind.
Far better to keep the oil in underground "storage" than pump it up andput it into above ground steel storage (or whatever form) if the latter approach causes the spot price to crater.
They'll wise up... eventually. Though it may take a near-collapse of their economies before they come to their senses.
Your generalization is incorrect, Keem.
I'm an example of someone who had, for several decades, purchased an individual health policy. Along comes ACA and my policy gets cancelled because our government, not me, decides that the policy was inadequate for my "needs".
So I'm now compelled to purchase a new, government approved, policy.
The thing is... the least expensive of these policies incorporates almost **exactly** the same deductibles and coverages as the old policy - except that I now have maternity coverage, though as a 62 yr old male i'm not sure WHY I need maternity coverage.
The premium I pay for this all-new-and-improved arrangement is MORE than double what I used to pay (it is currently about 2.4x what I paid for the old policy).
It's not as if I'm not alone in having experienced a significant increase in the coast of health insurance. There are millions of people just like me.
So your understanding that "premiums increased the most were on all those people who had no insurance" is incorrect. That is the convenient explanation used by folks who want to **believe** that the increased cost of the system is being born by "slackers" who were "scamming" the system by not purchasing health insurance. The reality, however, is very different.
Figures. Sooner or later these guys were going to comprehend the reality that they operate in a sem-competitive market. They will NOT maximize their profit by creating a market glut.
Yes, creating a glut does force high-cost producers such as shale frackers into BK or to shutter their highest cost wells.
But at what price to their own economies is such a Pyrrhic victory achieved?
The shut ins will come back on line if / when prices stabilize at a point where it is economic for them to do so. That will ALWAYS be the case. Regardless of what the Saudis hoped to achieve.
FOX was behaving stupidly, so, in my book at least, The Donald, whom I do not favor, scores a point or two for telling the network to "pound sand".
The so-called "debates" are really rather silly anyway. Kudos to Trump for having the gumption to show his back to the characters at FOX.
" Looks to me like the dead guy committed suicide by resisting arrest."
So, all those killings that the BLM (Black Lives Matter) folks are complaining about were not murders or manslaughters... they were suicides?
Apparently they didn't get your memo, Lake.
Shmack is correct.
The fact YOU did not pay an increase just means that someone else had to pay MORE of an increase.
It is not possible to add millions of high-cost patients to the system and NOT experience overall cost increases. Someone had to pay. Someone HAS to pay.
It's great that YOU got a "pass" on funding the increased cost of the system. But others did not.
There is lots of news about concerning post-ACA premium increases. Lots of people complaining about the high-deductibles on the basic plans. And a number of reports about State insurance programs going under because of the unexpectedly high-cost of care for those millions of new customers. You can google any of this, if you have a mind to do so.
I did use the term "compete", Lake. But what exists in healthcare is NOT competition, as you suggested was the case.
Single payer does not change the dynamic of the system. To control costs It will be necessary to alter the fundamentals of the DELIVERY system AND "collar" people's expectations about what level of service they will receive for a healthcare dollar.
Changing who writes the check doesn't do a whit about fixing the delivery system or altering people's expectations.
OTOH, I read investment advise that recommended that one, instead of doing something (for the sake of doing something), sit there.
Sometimes the most effective thing we can do to improve investment performance is to sit on our hands.
We're light years apart on abortion. We'll have to agree to disagree. I'll merely repeat the opinion that many people, you included, insist on employing euphemisms to "de-tox" a procedure that is ethically revolting and morally indefensible.
You're mistaken in presuming that the healthcare system is competitive. Ever try to cost-shop a medical procedure the way you can cost-shop a car or lawn maintenance? Good luck with that.
Whatever competition exists has been **service** based, not **cost** based. That is the result of our 3rd party payer system.
When your company or your union (or even your government) was paying 100% of the cost of your healthcare, why would you have ANY incentive to be concerned about cost effectiveness? Your primary concern was convenience and flexibility (and quality, of course).
When folks who are empowered to spend unlimited amounts of OPM (other people's money) on themselves, they have ZERO incentive to worry about cost.
And then there is the whole AMA racket that wants to require that MDs provide services that a LPN is perfectly capable of performing.
Nah... the healthcare system is FAR from being a competitive "business".
The good news is that increasing co-pays and large deductibles encourage folks to at least start THINKING about the cost of care and foregoing elective stuff.
And the glacial movement to doc-in-a-box store-front medical delivery (as opposed to expensive offices with fancy waiting rooms or, worse, hospital visits for relatively minor medical needs), is helping to slow the increase in cost-of-care.
You're assuming the y-o-y increase in premium rates post-ACA is less than the y-o-y increase would have been had ACA not passed.
That is one of those road-not-traveled discussions. It may be true, but quite possibly not. To provide one example, **I** still experienced a 20% increase in rates post-ACA, so I'm not inclined to conclude that your premise is correct.
The Feds cannot provide "free" coverage to lots of sick people / the worst health risks without raising rates for everyone else. That argument is as true today as it was when it was stated before ACA was passed.
As for Medicare... the ONLY reason that program is financially "solvent" is that a large portion of its funding is provided by a payroll tax on individuals who *** do not receive benefits from the program *** (they will eventually, but they cannot currently claim benefits). And even with that funding, the program is STILL expected to be cashflow negative after 2030.
It was legal to own slaves a while back, too, Lake. If your argument is that legality conveys moral legitimacy, then one need only reverse a few laws and - POOF - slavery is morally okay.
Yes, PP DOES advocate for slaughter. What's worse, they make MONEY off of the slaughter.
What you're quibbling about is that the slaughter is **legal**. You would prefer that a less inflammatory, more euphemistic term be used.
Which is silly. Because you probably do not object to the use of the term "slaughter" when it is used to discuss the killing and dismembering of a cow, a pig, or some other animal. PP is (and other abortion providers are) engaged in *exactly* the same process of slaughter, as the term is routinely used. They only difference is that food purveyors slaughter "animals" where PP slaughters embryonic human beings. The process is the same.
We agree that PP provides a lot of other services besides abortion. But that isn't the point... for ANYONE.
This issue for those on the right is that PP is singled out for special Federal provision. Rather than providing funding for a covered service, funding is provided to an *organization*. Would you support Federal funding of the Catholic Church because it provides daycare and latch-key services? No? Then why would you support funding of PP?
PP should compete with other healthcare providers on the SAME basis as those other providers. No special distributions. Fund the SERVICE, not the organization.
Just for chuckles, I revisited my 2015 expenditures on gasoline and did a back of the envelope calculation to figure out what the savings might have been vs. what I now pay for health insurance "thanks" to ACA.
To keep this simple...
If we figure that gas prices have been cut in half (which they haven't, but, again, we're trying to make this simple), then the reductions in gasoline costs probably saved me about $1200 last year.
OTOH, my healthcare costs increased by over $3,000 (same basic coverage, same deductible as pre-ACA).
So it will take roughly 2.5 years of "savings" from reduced fuel costs to offset ONE year of increased costs of healthcare.
So... Oro has this one "nailed".