Selling the Company now would not serve the interests of the shareholders well. If management was going to do that, they should have done it seven or eight years ago. In fact not selling for whatever the fair value was at the time was the single biggest error or prior management.
As for GE, I don't think Immelt would take the risk. He only buys sure things, usually mature assets.
"Has anyone seen any estimates or guidance for financial performance going forward?"
Historically, it's been a black hole. Management needs to provide guidance, then qualify it by the identifiable risk factors (in defiance of their lawyers, if necessary).
That's what LEU is doing today.
That also makes my trivial purchase at $6.66 yesterday look good.
Oops, I'm starting to sound like Roscoe. Sorry.
TiresomePost, that's what your name should be. It's getting a little stale, no?
We're sorry you lost money, or got fired, or whatever bad happened to you at Usec.
So, beyond the winged one, why not offer some new insight about the future of Centrus?
"[ Better sell what is remaining of the pitiful value in LEU now!"
You're really starting to sound like the un-Roscoe.
FWIW, I added on today's sell-off.
But what do I know?
Thanks to Canuck for this effort, and gojeera for the review. Much appreciated.
"It saved Sponge from serious losses . . . ."
Amen to that, King Ed.
FWIW, I added yesterday at about $7.10 and again today at under $7.
I want another bite of the apple! But it's not for widows and orphans.
"CRT capital group 7563600. (What!!!???? 7mil!!!, thats over 70% of the company)"
No surprise. They're distressed debt fund managers. But I'll bet they don't own over 70 percent. Watch for an amended filing.
FWIW, I just confirmed that these bonds trade in one-dollar increments. So they can be bought in thousands of a bond to round up to an even whole bond should that be your fussy preference (as it is mine).
Schwab finally started yesterday to report the value of the Centrus Energy Corp. 8% 2024 notes (CUSIP 15643UAA2). Now if they can only get it right.
Yesterday the notes traded in a range of 58.75 to 62.375, but Schwab reported the overnight value as 57.62.
"[DOE hires] independent consultants to do their LG evaluations for them, and the applicants have to pay for that."
Hmmm. Where do I sign up?
I always find the word "independent" to be troubling. For example, are these so-called independent consultants all alumni from Senator Markey's office?
"For R&D though, how can you disagree with needing those criteria to capitalize expenditures?"
Usec wasn't conducting experiments in some lab with petri dishes and test tubes. They were building a fully functional cascade, and it works! Getting there wasn't a straight line, I realize. But they were building a capital asset and it belongs on Centrus Energy's balance sheet so that they don't have to 'splain to the capital markets that they really do have a net worth of more than chump change. If management were stronger, they would have and should have pushed back hard on PwC when the issue came up two years ago.
That's my view anyway. And that's the problem with GAAP, which no longer means generally accepted accounting principles. It means government approved accounting procedures. The principles part has been trampled by the academics and bureaucrats so as to become totally meaningless. It's complex and simplistic at the same time.
As for "other comprehensive income," I don't have that big a problem with it if the fair value adjustments were only applied to marketable securities.
'nuf said on this subject before we bore everybody to death.
And my response is that GAAP did not come up with the right answer regardless of the laundry list of criteria. Sometimes accountants over think the issue and add complexity that is of little value on a cost-benefit basis. Accounting for income taxes is another example.
And then there's all the fair-value accounting that helped trigger the death spiral in financial institution balance sheets in 2007-08. I discussed this issue once with a member the FASB and he acknowledged as much (privately, of course).
Simplicity is better in most cases, at far lower cost. Then provide sufficient disclosures that financial analysts can use to make their own pro-forma adjustments leading to credit and other investment decisions. The CPAs have struggled to create the perfect financial statement. They'll never get there. All the academic complexity coming out of FASB and their ilk is an unnecessary burden. The SEC exacerbates it all by wanting to protect its gatekeeper status for all information.
Companies need to be free to tell their stories. Centrus Energy is the poster child for opaque financial reporting that results from the defensiveness created by the excessive complexity (and also the threat of litigation, but that's another topic).
". . . the program would set aside $2 billion for fuel cycle projects, including those providing fuel fabrication and uranium enrichment and conversion."
Certainly looks targeted for the ACP!
Everybody knows that the Company needs $4+ billion to build out ACP. Then the question becomes what equity capital the Company needs in order to raise additional debt and obtain the necessary loan guarantee.
I'm waiting to see the post-emergence balance sheet. Too bad the Company wrote off most their investment in ACP. It makes the Company look far weaker than it may be. They were really screwed by the CPAs in that regard (and now the Chairman of the Board is an ex-PriceWaterhouseCoopers number cruncher to boot). Sometimes conservative accounting is bad accounting. It was in this case.
So the biggest cloud now hanging over the share valuation is the threat of a secondary offering that substantially dilutes the existing shareholders. If the Company can show profitable operations at its new reduced size the pain of a secondary offering will be far less than if they try to raise funds while still showing losses.
So then the question becomes whether LEU will be profitable selling Russian LEU and earning management fees for spinning the DOE's centrifuges.
One thing for certain, I will be #$%$ if the current operations of the Company continue to be burdened by any shut-down costs for the GDP, or any other legacy costs like pension benefits from the past. That should all be history now. They just better be all accrued or the Company's inept financial managers will have messed up again.
C'mon, the Cuyahoga hasn't had a good fire since the Browns moved to Bawlmer.
Once the new Browns start winning again, I'm hoping to have a real blaze at the Flats.
Well, actually, a tax accountant would tell you that losses in a Roth provide no tax benefit whereas capital losses in a taxable account provide shelter for gains on other securities and up to $3,000 per year against other income.
But who's splitting technical hairs . . . .