"WHAT HAPPENS TO THE 29% SHORT INTEREST?"
29% of 5% is a pretty small number, no?
"We have relatively post-confirmation trading . . . ."
I meant to write, "We have relatively stable post-confirmation trading . . . ."
We have relatively post-confirmation trading of USU shares at about $4.25. That suggests that LEU should open at around $52 and that the old notes should be trading now at about 85. But the last customer purchase of the old notes was at under 40 within the last half hour.
Crazy, eh? Wonders never cease.
So my fearless forecast is that LEU closes at $40 per share on the opening day of trading.
But what do I know!
Okay, okay. No jokes. Here is the Company's explanation: "The new corporate name, Centrus Energy Corp., symbolizes the key attributes of the reorganized company. The name “Centrus” reflects the role the company’s advanced centrifuge uranium enrichment technology will play in its future and conveys the strength, reliability, leadership, innovation, technology and energy that are the key driving forces behind the company. The Company will operate as Centrus on the effective date of the Plan. The operations and the names of the Company’s subsidiaries will remain unchanged after emergence from bankruptcy."
The "RUS" in Centrus must stand for Russian. I'm wondering what the "CENT" could stand for, but am affraid to ask.
I'm wondering how long they expected people to take to start making jokes about the name, and how much they paid some consultant to come up with it.
From a Bloomberg article on Usec today: "The atomic fuel has advanced as much as 18 percent from a May 20 low of $28 a pound, according to data from Ux Consulting Co. in Roswell, Georgia, which provides research on the nuclear industry. Prices closed 0.5 percent higher at $32.65 yesterday and have averaged $31.80 in 2014."
". . . chances are you are a psychopathic killer so I will pass."
I gave it up after my second wife, I think.
By coincidence I will be in Wilmington, DE on other business this afternoon but will not attend the hearing. I'm not expecting any surprises.
Next week should be interesting. GLTA.
FWIW, I posted a comment to this string yesterday that yahoo either blocked or mishandled technically. I tend to think that it was a technical goof since I didn't write anything offensive, or even a four-letter synonym for feces.
Regrettably, it was a fairly long post on the inefficiencies of the bond market which I won't attempt to recreate.
In short, don't ever buy bonds based at the posted bonddesk.com price (as obtained via E-Trade). Always request an "offer" for the number of bonds you want to buy.
Okay, okay, it should have been Thursday, 8/28, not Wed. The week must have been dragging for me.
So what happened Friday, 8/29?
Again, only one trade, a 14-bond customer buy at 40.10. That's a recent high but it was only a few bonds, so nothing of significance.
With only a few days left for the bonds to trade, we likely won't see any major movement in my view. Who would sell at this point? But there may be a few buyers out there at higher offers. If there are more trades rising into the 40s, it would say something nice about the value of the new common. Obviously.
"I have not seen anyone here spend any time evaluating USECs financial statements to come up with a fair valuation."
That's only because the financial statements are almost meaningless. They're an embarrassment. Almost all of the intangible assets have been written down to zero (by well meaning but misguided accountants) and the cost of shutting down Paducah is buried in cost of goods sold (rather than all reported on one line as discontinued operations). I really do think part of the problem is that the internal financial management is limited by a go-along-to-get-along inside-the-beltway mentality and has been incapable of defending the financial statements from the overly conservative outside bean counters.
So, faced with all the future events that are largely outside management control, Usec's financial statements are of little benefit in predicting the future value of the new common shares to be issued sometime in the next ten days or so.
That doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion of (maybe "hope for" are better words) the what the share price will be, it's just not much based on the historical financial statements.
"The whole Ukraine and potential sanctions further crimps the view."
My view is that it makes the need for ACP and in "American" all the greater. Hopefully Usec's antagonists at DOE will concur. We shall see.
Lewis, if you buy the stock now, I fear you will be very disappointed. (Of course, I would also love to be wrong on that score.)
On the other hand, I'm recommending that snort-dana ask the bank if he/she can get next quarter's trust fund distribution early to buy USU heavily before the POR is confirmed.
I see only one trade today, a customer buy of 10 bonds at 36.73.
Even though the price continues to creep up, it makes me nervous that there is so little interest, even at such a deep discount to par.
"What have I missed?"
We will likely only have another week to ten days 'til we know whether the bonds were a great find, or one of the stoopider moves of my life. Based on what I've witnessed of other pre-packs, I'd expect the interest to be paid on the old notes, and the new notes and stock to begin trading within a couple of days of confirmation.
Should be interesting.
Okay, I looked at it. See "There is No Current Public Market for the New Common Stock . . ." on the Disclosure Statement at page 111.
These "risk-factor" disclosures are just boilerplate stuck in the filing, by cutting and pasting by some junior associate of the law firm. There is zero risk that there will be "no public market," even if it's OTC pink. My expectation is that the shares will trade from day one on the NYSE, where they trade now. Once the Company comes out of bankruptcy, it will surely be more acceptable to the gnomes at the NYSE than it is now.
So quit your hand-wringing. You're starting to make me nervous.
One of my problems with Usec's ham-handed management over the years is that they don't push back at the lawyers who come up with #$%$ like that, and at great expense.
Certainly, asking I.R. to provide clarity on something like this is the waste of a phone call.
But what do I know?
Mike, old sport, what king of an unfounded preemptive strike was that?
"Plus, there is not necessarily going to be a market for the stock."
Don't be silly, Ed. What evidence is there that there WON'T be a market? If there was any such anticipation, it would need to be disclosed.
Haven't seen it myself. My expectation is that the NYSE listing will continue in the absence of any indication that it won't.
At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.
At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.
Last year, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology made headlines in the liberal media by claiming that 2013 was Australia's hottest year on record. This prompted Australia's alarmist-in-chief Tim Flannery - an English literature graduate who later went on to earn his scientific credentials with a PhD in palaeontology, digging up ancient kangaroo bones - to observe that global warming in Australia was "like climate change on steroids."
But we now know, thanks to research by Australian scientist Jennifer Marohasy, that the hysteria this story generated was based on fabrications and lies.
Though the Bureau of Meteorology has insisted its data adjustments are "robust", it has been unable to come up with a credible explanation as to why it translated real-world data showing a cooling trend into homogenized data showing a warming trend.
She wrote: “Repetition is a propaganda technique. The deletion of information from records, and the use of exaggeration and half-truths, are �others. The Bureau of Meteorology uses all these techniques, while wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda.’’
This is a global problem. Earlier this year, Breitbart reported that similarly dishonest adjustments had been made to temperature records by NASA and NOAA. Similarly implicated are the UK temperature records of the Met Office Hadley Centre and at Phil "Climategate" Jones's disgraced Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
One of the many disingenuous arguments used by climate alarmists against sceptics is mockingly to accuse them of