So would I.
But it might **take** a 6% dividend to GET the stock to $3.
And based on the recent history of FRNT, that doesn't look likely.
The last couple of FRNT dividends have been non-cash... distributions of shares in other companies that FRNT owned and spun off.
My beer bet is that the first merged-FRO dividend will be similar... a distribution of the GOGL shares that FRNT currently owns. That would make merged-FRO a purer play on tankers (though it will own both VLCCs and product tankers).
It appears that FRNT paid cash dividends in 2014 roughly equal to about 8 cents USD. That would put the cash dividend yield at about 1.3% based on the merger rate of 2.55 shares of FRO for every share of FRNT.
What will happen in / after the merger is anyone's guess. But a 6% cash dividend yield on a share price of $3? Eh.
Like you, I'd be happy with that.
Whether or not it happens...
So, 54 cents in earnings in 2017.
Using historical p/e range of 3 to 8, that equates to a pps of 1.62 to 4.32 with a mid-point of 2.97, or a pe of 5.5.
If that seems a drastically low PE, check the history on a S&P report that shows the go-go years when FRO was flying.
And compute current year and year ahead p/es for NNA, TNP, TNK, etc.
The numbers above are very much in line with history and with these other tanker owners.
Greece already received substantial bail-out funds and did not make the required fixed to structural problems.
WHY should Germany and the rest of Europe toss any more of a life-line to a country that not only refused to make the necessary changes but snubbed it's nose at them?
Time to pull-the-plug on Greece.
The ECB should terminate all emergency funding in response to the "no" vote and allow the Greek banks crater. This would force the countries banks to "bail in" depositors... effectively impose a one-time tax... to recapitalize.
Any new loans to the country would be contingent on Greece implementing structural reforms FIRST.
It's in contrast with the articles, which I read, because those articles do not deal with the whole of the market place.
Crude oil demand is largely price inelastic; it does not matter how much or how little is charged for the product; demand does not vary significantly in response to price changes.
You can find an article about this here:
(replace DOT with "."), but there are many others available.
So, help me here, xray....
Demand for crude is price inelastic; there is already an excess supply, not a shortage, of crude.
Forget the "doomsday" hyperbole. Please explain HOW the release of Iranian crude will positively impact VLCC rates when no one needs the stuff?
Fine. Eliminate the funding and construction of roads as a government function.
That eliminates an area of government spending. Theoretically, it would permit government to lower taxes.
Make every road a toll road run by a private, for profit, corporation. That would compel owners of EVs and hybrids to contribute to the cost of maintaining infrastructure.
"That being said....that has nothing to do with Christianity if one wants to tie it to being an adherent to Christ's teachings."
WHOSE definition / interpretation of Christ's teachings, Keem?
Presumably you do not believe that all peoples and denominations are consistent in their interpretation of the teachings, and the the demands, of Christ.
So... who gets to choose which is THE correct interpretation?
What happens when "the Spirit", apparently, says different things to different people?
Au contraire. There may be a DECREASE in rates paid for VLCCs because the SUPPLY of VLCCs will increase when Iran converts its floating storage to delivery vessels.
Remember that, apart from sanctions busting deliveries to China, Iran's 50 or so VLCCs have been sitting idle as floating storage. Once the oil they hold can be legally traded, those ships will back on the market competing with the other currently operating VLCCs.
Demand for oil will not be increased by the elimination of sanctions. So it's not as if there will be an increase in demand for VLCCs. Just more ships servicing the same level of demand.
Which won't be good for spot rates.
Depends on what one means by "pure play".
Merged FRNT will directly own VLCCs and product tankers and retain significant indirect ownership dry bulk carriers.
Unless, of course, the ultimate objective is to distribute as a non-cash dividend the shares of GOGL that are owned by FRNT (or, later, post-merger, by FRO).
Which would be consistent with other recent moves.
Rog, will you PLEASE think before you post...
" However that is not what Jesus taught them to do is it?"
And what does Jesus teach about divorce? Yet a 2014 article in Christianity Today comments that the rate of divorce within the Evangelical community is higher than that of the country as a whole. Presumably you think these divorcees are still Christian (because they call Jesus "Lord"). But... Jesus' teaching on the subject hasn't stop them from dumping their spouses and / or engaging in serial marriages, has it?
Same with persecution of the native americans. It might not be what (YOU believe) Christians should do, but they engaged in the practice despite what Jesus taught. That is FACT.
" History clearly shows who the leaders were in the abolitionist movement and the huge majority were Christians not philosophers."
Incorrect. You CAN research the subject...
"Oh you say that the Pilgrims society were racist? Do you have any proof of this?"
You misread (as usual). I was commenting on the settlers' ability to live peacefully with the native americans.
But since racism apparently dominates YOUR thinking...
I note that you consider any white who has a stray thought about a "black" to be a "racist", but do not consider it to be proof of "racism" when white settlers all but exterminate native american societies.
All I can say, is... WOW!!
How can you NOT see the inconsistency in your thinking?
" History tells us that the population of New England grew from 320 in 1620 to over 250,000 by 1700. ".
An American version of lebensraum led to the forced evacuation / eradication of native americans.
" Christians missionaries were working with Indians and trying to save them"
Rog, no one is disagreeing that SOME missionaries did as you state. The POINT is that others did not. It is FACT that Christians... lay and reverends alike killed indigenous peoples that would not convert.
"it was the Christians would led the charge against slavery at least in the North."
You're rewriting history to make Christians appear better than they were. The abolitionist movement found its most fertile ground in the philosophical adherents of the enlightenment as well as in transcendentalists such as Thoreau and Emerson. To be sure, Quakers and Evangelicals DID actively oppose slavery and were major players in the movement. But you are entirely IGNORING the fact that other **Christians**, even in the north, were justifying slavery based on the Scriptures.
"It was in fact the Pilgrims who lived peacefully with Indians and even married some clearly not racist."
Some individuals? Sure. But as a society? Absolutely not.
If your argument was correct, how is it that native american civilization was largely eradicated in Christianity based New England?
Face it Rog, those good New England Christians engaged in a version of lebensraum. Where, for 20th century Germans it was the just deserts of a master race, in 17th century New England confiscation of land and destruction of former inhabitants was "God's plan".
And, whether you are willing to acknowledge the fact or not, by the 2nd generation those 17th century Christians practiced a version of the "prosperity gospel"... they believed that God had delivered the land to them for their possession. They had their own Joel Osteens back then.
Are you looking at what FRNT is "bringing to the table"?
It has 19 newbuild commitments. It needs cash to pay for those ships.
It also has a significant investment in Golden Ocean... much of Q1 earnings were related to Golden Ocean; yet... Golden Ocean is losing money... and is predicted to do so for the next two years (as far as predictions are currently available).
A short while ago (Q4 2014?) ... FRNT took a significant write down in asset value related to the newbuild contracts on which it had gorged (probably both the bulker and the tanker newbuild contracts). This was *after* JF had made a big deal about how he'd been snapping up contracts at cut-rate prices. The write-down would not have been necessary if demand for the on-order-ships was secure.
Essentially, over the past couple of years, JF skimmed cash from SFL to prop up FRO (and create FRNT). Then he skimmed cash from FRNT to prop up (build out, if you want a more positive spin on it) the bulkers. Now (it appears that) he's skimming cash from FRO to prop up FRNT.
You're looking ONLY at the on-the-water tankers. It might be useful to look BEYOND just those boats (and it might be useful to look, too, at what sorts of boats JF has on order).
True enough that I did not think JF would waste time and money re-consolidating what he'd only recently split up. I was wrong.
The pumpers (including you?) were gushing over how sky-is-the-limit-bullish a merger would be for FRO. Yet, here we are with the pps down, not up, 6% or so after the announcement.
Until there is more information about what the merged company will look like, what *appears* to be the case is that JF either:
(a) can't make up his mind about how to organize his shipping empire, so he's combining, separating, spinning off, doing all sorts of stuff that adds noise and expense but does little to nothing in terms of adding value.... or,
(b) just maybe, he's recognizing that he needs the cash flow from one entity to fund the plans of another entity (you can verify this by reading the FRNT's Q1 report). That's a "left pocket, right pocket" thing for JF, since he owns big chunks of all of the entities involved. But it would not necessarily be good news for those who own shares in *just* the entity whose cashflows are being plundered to support the cash-poor sister entity.
I'm back in for another (probably short term) flip. But the merger as a killer deal unlocking huge value in FRO? Not likely.
I could be wrong. But I'll profit (again) if that proves to be the case. One can only wish they were able to make money every time they were wrong....
Tend to agree, though I picked up some shares today.
FRNT has a bit under $1b in new builds to fund. 80% of FRNT's Q1 earnings were non-operational, some which were entirely one-off transactions. The Knightsbridge / Golden Ocean arrangement is predicted to be a money loser for the next couple of years - and it has its own significant newbuild schedule to fund, so the divy from that arrangement should probably be considered less than reliable.
At least the NYSE filing requirements should make the arrangement a bit more transparent than is currently the case.
No statistical significance re: a reduction in homicide after the ban /buyback.
The big reduction was in the reduction of suicides by firearm.
"Nike,Apple could stop child labor abuse overnight,if they chose."
Sure. If they stopped producing product.
Just as Dole, Green Giant, et. al. could (presumably) eliminate illegal immigrants from the ag industry by ceasing to buy raw material.
But as long as the product is produced there will be someone, somewhere in the supply chain, cheating the system.
I'm unclear about how your comments about southerners in the 60s is relevant to this discussion. I don't doubt that they are correct conclusions. But I do not see the connection between that situation and global corps' supply chains.
Lake, (and Rog, if you're reading this), those companies have acknowledged that their audits have found instances of child labor in their supply chains.
But those same reports also discuss the efforts that the companies employ to expunge the practice. They talk about the problems that result from human traffickers supplying workers with forged papers, selected contractors subsequently sub-contracting without Apple, et. al.'s knowledge to abusing firms.
Only the most simpleminded would think it possible for a corporate CEO to snap her fingers and immediately eradicate all illegal and offensive practices. We have extensive labor reporting here in the US and we have not been able to completely eliminate illegal labor practices; how much more difficult must it be in countries where those in power sometimes benefit financially from the practice?
No question; corps are not squeaky clean in regards to child labor, environmental sensitivity, and a host of other issues.
But it is FACT that the firms being most severely bludgeoned ALSO audit for, and seek to eradicate, the infractions. In many cases it is the global players that are imposing higher standards on the local manufacturing that was common in the regions BEFORE the global players set up shop.
Yes, there is more to do. But the reality is that the big names are not the caricature child consuming villains that anti-globalists make them out to be.
Who is borrowing at 0% and loaning at 5%? Certainly not individuals...
And for those living on fixed income, QE is an ongoing disaster.
Depletion allowance is to natural resource sales, what parts and labor are to auto sales. It is the *cost* of the product that is subtracted from sales revenue to arrive at taxable income (ignoring every other cost).
Maybe the better analogy would have been depreciation of plant and equipment. Either example, parts or depreciation, is part of cost of goods sold for the auto mfg just like depletion allowance is to the nat resource company.
The point is that depletions are not tax credit delivered "subsidies". They are a deductible cost, just as parts, labor, depreciation, etc. are deductible costs of production to a manufacturer.
That is not to say that method of calculating the depletion allowance could and should be rejiggered...