Just based on this, I'm betting that Stephen works for Usec and Gojeera works for DOE.
Right? No, there's no rivalry or contempt to be found there, is there! I must be imagining it.
We're all on the same team, right?
maybe not much effect on share price, or the 6000 shares that were available at $.26 pre-market today would have been snapped up by somebody. now the 'ask' has jumped to $.29 but there is still no pre-market trading.
The difference between Usec and so many worthless DOE "investments," such as those made in wind and solar, is that ACP works and the government owns it.
So who is the real loser? The government likely wouldn't have developed ACP any better or cheaper than Usec did. That's my view.
But we'll never know. All we can say for sure in the public interest is that this outcome is far better than typical for the DOE given its history.
What I also sense now, though there were many hints of it in the past, is that there is a bitter rivalry and real contempt between the parties.
Seems like the public has actually gotten a pretty good deal out of Usec.
Management and the Company have paid a heap of income taxes over the years (though not much from the Company recently) and the Company has fallen on its sword (spent all of shareholders' equity) developing the ACP in conjunction with funds from DOE, meeting all benchmards.
Now the government owns the benefit of that engineering success (the technology and 100 spinning machines) and the Company's owners have been virtually wiped out.
Not that bad a deal for Uncle Sam, eh?
Oh, great. A 2011 research report written at the behest of Patrick Leahy (D., VT). Now there's a reliable source.
Regardless, it says, "Since 2005, revenue losses associated with the renewable energy production tax credit have been increasing, suggesting an increase in renewable energy production and domestic renewable energy capacity. By 2010, revenue losses associated with tax incentives for renewables exceeded those available for fossil energy resources."
The only two specific incentives for the O&G industry that are mentioned in this report are the two recurring bogeymen: Expensing of IDCs and Percentage Depletion. But those are only tax timing differences for moneys actually spent on oil and gas exploration and development. In other words, the O&G industry only gets to deduct what it spends. But then, I wouldn't expect you to understand such concepts and am not going to try to educate you.
Done with you.
Just for Dana:
So all you can do is reply with C&P blather, and lefty unspecific claims from international sources?
Sounds sorta like some of the climate change claims, doesn't it? Tell me, if you can, what are the specific U.S. government (or state) paid subsidies (including so-called tax expenditures) to the oil and gas industry?
All I see and hear are reiterated baseless claims from the left fringe, each sourcing some other left fringe, with no specifics. Like everybody just knows it's the truth so why bother citing the details.
Now I recall why I don't respond to your posts.
Bye. Hope you get a grip on reality before your trust funds run out.
Okay, Dana, I wrote that I wouldn't respond to you. But please specifically identify the oil and gas industry subsidies that you're concerned about. I'm having a bit of trouble putting my finger on them. Specifics, please.
"Highlander alone could bring in $1 for GULTU over 20 years."
FCX has a $10 call on GULTU units that will likely be exercised long before 20 years.
"It'll be stupid to pay off the bonds especially when bond and preferred holders have agreed to swap most of their debt for equity which does not obligate the company to any periodic interest payments."
If they go through with the bankruptcy plan, they interest jumps from 3% to 8%, though accruing on a smaller principal, so they certainly would have interest expense. If they don't go through with the plan, the bonds mature on 10/1/14 so they'd have no choice.
FWIW, I went long yesterday at $3.25, just a few sportin' shares for fun. That doesn't mean that I'm going to start singing praises of management!
Mostly I own the bonds (for a few more bucks), which I consider a distressed equity investment.
Also, "USEC is slated to take creditor questions [today] in Delaware, in preparation for an April 21 hearing on the voting materials for its proposed balance sheet reshaping."
Normally these hearings can generate some fireworks but I wouldn't expect anything newsworthy today since only the parent company is in reorganization, the major creditors are supportive, and others are scheduled to get 100 cents on the dollar.
Assuming that Usec can pull this off, of course.
Also from Dow Jones yesterday: "USEC spokesman Paul Jacobson said Monday that 2013 was a year of extreme challenges for the company, and executive pay reflected a change from long-term incentives to shorter-term rewards. The special board committee that sets executive compensation retained an independent consultant that concluded USEC's CEO, who had not received a raise since 2012, was underpaid, Mr. Jacobson said."
These consultants only exist to give the answers that the board and management want to hear. That's the reason that executive compensation keeps ratcheting up relative to all other employees. Step-by-step, the boards keep justifying higher and higher levels of compensation because they don't want their guys to be below the median.
Everybody needs to be "above average," so you know what that triggers. $3.7 million for Welch? What a sick joke. He can't even read that speeches written for him by others (at great expense) without stumbling.
From Dow Jones last evening:
"USEC executives took $15 million out of the company in the 12 months prior to the bankruptcy filing, most of the money in bonuses, according to reports filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del. Chief Executive John K. Welch was the highest paid leader, at $3.7 million."
The saga of Usec wont't end the debate over privatization, in part because we'll never know how much better or worse DOE would have done if left to the same challengers. The history of government enterprises is not so great.
Myron wrote, "USEC leased the facility, took taxpayer money all through the process and even worked off government technology from the 1980's. Privatization was a sham from day one!!"
Hmmm. Are we seeing evidence of the bitterness and ill will that's always been somewhat hidden from public view but very much a part of the Usec v. DOE picture?
Continued . . .
After the testimony, USEC issued a statement saying it was pleased that Moniz had “confirmed the importance of maintaining a domestic uranium technology to support national-security objectives."
Paul Jacobson, a spokesman for USEC, said the parameters of the arrangement are still being set. “The scope is being determined,” he said.