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
I can't help myself. Just bought more.
"I'm just a guy who can't say no,
I'm in a terrible fix,
I always say, "Let's buy more notes,
Just when I ought to say nix."
King Ed, you forgot the accrued interest, payable in cash upon emergence.
It's approaching $30 per old note (it's over $27 as of today and climbing). In my view it's too material to ignore because it's in cash and it's one of the few things in this matter that's actually predictable with some degree of confidence.
"The Schwab lending program paid 20% and now 18% for shares to facilitate short sells."
I'm out of the stock now, of course. Upon emergence, I will be a shareholder again with almost all of the shares will be custodied at Schwab.
Believe me, they and I are going to have a conversation about their lending program.
"Does anyone in their right mind think that USU common equity is going to trade anywhere near the equivalent to a $500mm market cap?"
Easy, King. Get a grip.
With $350 million in debt (at cost) and all the preferred being converted to common stock, getting to $500 million in market cap may not be the stretch that you imagine.
By the way, a $500 million market cap on 8 million shares implies a price per share of $62.50. That would make the compliance cops at the NYSE very happy.
But what do I know?
"My personal experience (confirmed by other postings here) is that no brokerages allow retail investors to short USU. They all claimed they couldn't borrow the shares."
My take is that the available USU shares have already been loaned to the institutional shorts who are paying to borrow them, with more unmet demand than the shares "available for rent." Lending desks are big profit centers for the brokers. Retail "longs" that own their shares in margin accounts are generally unaware of the money being made in this manner. Institutional longs get paid to lend shares (then the broker marks it up) but retail longs usually lend their shares unknowingly for free.
I don't think that naked shorting is an issue with Usec. Or at least I see no evidence from my perch.
I agree that the the short squeeze in July 2013, to the extent there was one, was also accompanied with a lot of new day-traders and program traders that contributed to the spike. That's what caused the daily trading volume to substantially exceed the float.
The question remains, could it happen again?
Off the top of my head:
1. Yes as to the share class ownership.
2. Yes, the accrued interest should be something close to a year's worth, approaching $30 per note.
3. Upon emergence, the market value of the new shares should trade for about 12 times the value of USU the day before, give or take computer-driven and day-trader whip-sawing.
4. The Company has fought to stay on the NYSE and I would expect the new shares to continue to trade there, probably with a new symbol, though I don't recall anything stating that for sure.
Please don't rely on my posts to trade. Discuss the risks with your broker and perform your own research. Good luck to you.
USU's current short interest is about 1.3 million shares.
There's still plenty of opportunity for somebody to get burned here. And it will almost certainly happen, one way or the other. The only real question is, burn whom?
One of the elements of the impending capital re-restructuring is that the current 4.92 million outstanding USU shares will be converted to about 400,000 new shares (equal to about 5 percent of the 8 million shares to be issued).
That may have the same impact as a 1 for 12.3 reverse split. I'm guessing that most of the other 95 percent of new shares will not be in the float and available for sale. Should there be a large short position to be covered as the Company emerges from bankruptcy, we could have a giant short squeeze just as occurred in July 2013 after the last reverse split.
Could be interesting. But what do I know?
bamorr01, I don't think that "kinged" is short. He's been a long-time poster here. He just doesn't understand the effect of the impending capital restructuring and he's a little short on testosterone, maybe, but not short the stock.
"When was the last time USU had a market cap of $500mm? Based on USU's current situation, it is hard to imagine a value of $200mm let alone $500mm."
Oh, c'mon. You do realize that $330 million of debt and a boatload of preferred stock are being converted to common stock, right? When combined with the current market cap of common stock, those items get you to about $500 million all by themselves.
"If, on the other hand, I am right and the market cap is not more than about $200mm . . . ."
Go back and re-read the second paragraph beginning with "Oh, c'mon."
Did you buy yourself a few bonds today?
" that's the question my trading boss used to ask me (chicen or egg first type question)"
My trading boss asks, "Chicken or egg salad sandwich for lunch?" And I respond, "Whatever you prefer, dear."
"Did John Seward put out bad information?" I don't happen to know the esteemed gentleman.
His words sound like an old quote. Such language is standard boilerplate, written by attorneys, and always accompanying a company going into a reorganization. The auditors had already placed a "going-concern" qualification in the report accompanying the 12/31/13 financial statements (I believe, without double checking).
Coming out of bankruptcy, the Company will be using so-called "fresh-start" accounting. That change and conversion of substantial debt and preferred equity to common stock will substantially clean up the balance sheet. Then the future is heavily dependent on Usec being able to generate positive cash flow from operations. The other key is whether they have patched up their relationship enough with DOE to obtain the needed loan guarantee.
Of course, Team Usec has a long history of ham-handed financial management. So the situation will continue to have plenty of risk.
So do all lottery tickets.
Coming out of bankruptcy, there will only be 8 million shares outstanding, plus the management-incentive shares. Current shareholders will only own 400,000 (5 percent) of those new common shares.
Way over half of the outstanding shares will be locked up in the vaults of the institutional investors (old note holders, and preferred stock owners Toshiba and B&W) who won't be selling. And management won't selling their shares either. So that means that the small post-emergence float may continue to be VERY volatile. The small float implies to me that we could have a giant short squeeze post-emergence just like we did in July 2013 following the earlier reverse split.
Nothing would make me happier, of course.
My guidance is to short Usec at your peril. It could go nuclear. Or, as some say, nucular.
". . . new 8 percent bond with a par value of $337 . . . ."
That should be $377, since there will be $200 million new bonds distributed in exchange for the $530 million in old bonds. That is, $1,000 x 200/530 = $377.
As a wild guess, the new bonds will trade at a 40 percent discount to par, or $226 each, which would give them a current yield of about 13 percent (inclusive of PIK interest).
• Net loss of $28 million on lower sales volume and significant non-production costs
• Oak Ridge National Laboratory exercises option to extend American Centrifuge demonstration program into 2015
• Chapter 11 voting concludes; Confirmation hearing scheduled for September 5
Go to the website for the entire press release, etc.
I'm sure that day traders don't like my approach since they can't trade in and out of the bonds as they can the stock.
My hope is that the bonds are selling at a discount to their intrinsic value rather than the shares selling at a premium. Of course, the reality likely lies somewhere in the middle.
But who knows where we will be in a year or two?