It seems to me that in a conference call a few years back someone asked if ending the Cuban embargo would benefit ATNI and that the answer was yes, because of our foothold in the Caribbean. Can anyone confirm this recollection? I am getting old enough to conflate wishful thinking with remembrances of things past. For example, I think I remember passing chemistry, unlikely as that may be.
What would you say? ":prolongs life, will prolong life, does prolong life"? Show me a press release with no fudge words in it. Everything I've seen says the data "appears, strongly suggests , supports" . If I were the CEO and nobody died, I would still err on the side of caution and let the data speak for itself.
I'm certainly not going to agree to this, but I would buy the product, if I could find a reasonable way to do so.
Here is the problem that I see. We have borrowed money at 13.5% at a time when interest rates are at historic lows in order to produce a product whose value has declined by about 25%.
Well we are in the same boat, so I may as well stop complaining and start paddling. I think PDO was better positioned to withstand the decline in oil prices. I'm not saying we had wonderful reserves or that we would have been hedged up to our ears, but PDO was the oldest listed oil company in the world, and part of the reason for its longevity was that it did not take on much debt. I am glad that YUMA was able to sell the preferred stock, but the timing seems to me to have been poor , perhaps even desperate. So I still believe PDO stockholders should have tried to avoid the merger. But here I am a YUMA stockholder, and I promise to stop whining.
Narrow minded here with the hopes that someone can broaden my understanding of YUMA. I remember owning an E&P company that had hedging losses when the price of natural gas spiked. The company guessed at the top and missed, but that seemed reasonable and prudent to me. Were our losses incurred by PDO, or were they incurred by the present management of YUMA? Or did I misread the report and we actually had hedging gains? What sort of hedging gains/losses can we expect going forward? BTW in my experience, in general it is not a good investment strategy to assume that when a company makes new low after new low at levels not seen for years, the people selling are misguided.
I appreciate your forbearance. I think we can see the gap I mentioned: judging from the stock chart, I would guess that some lawyer had an inkling on the 10th that there would be a settlement on the 11th. I agree with others that the stock is now a buy. Suddenly it appears that both our legal problems and our production problems are behind us.
Of course I am not privy to the terms of the settlement, but I know the position I would have taken, had I been arguing for CYAN: We incurred large legal fees, because the other party dragged us in to court, and the court itself has ruled that the other party's insistence that the matter be settled in court, rather than by the agreed upon arbitration, was in error. Therefore I would have claimed payment of our legal costs.
I am not a lawyer, and I have learned first hand that lawyers make their living on the thin spit of land between what is legal and what is just. This is just a layman's view. If I turn out to be wrong, please don't sue.
I have had accounts with E*trade, Ameritrade, Scottrade and Merrill Edge. IMO E*trade is the best of these. Scottrade is OK if you don't want to buy bonds and are confident that the stocks you buy won't trade below a dollar. (The commission jumps on trades under a dollar there.) You can't even get a quote and size on some smaller stocks at Merrill Edge, but if you are just trading large cap stocks, Merrill is fine. Merrill must have huge bond inventory, but you'd never guess it from their Edge platform. Stay away from Ameritrade. Here's a simple test you can perform for yourself: go to the AMTD message board and notice that about 2/3 of the messages deal with complaints. I don't know how far the messages go back, but the complaints have been on going for years.
AS Twain put it, "it's difference of opinion that makes horse races," but if the CEO is so clever, how come we had to issue a convertible pfd yielding over 9%. Of course, I haven't been driving the price down to lows not seen in ages; I'm just expressing the opinion of the market. BTW we have made another new low today.
yet another new low.. I wonder if the poster who wondered why anyone would want to oppose the merger has caught on yet. It was a great deal for the YUMA shareholders though.
I got interested in the market as a kid, and my father who was a broker on Wall Street had a book, "Technical Analysis of Stock Trends." I'm pretty sure Magee was the author, but I don't recall Edwards.
Actually you don't have to wait till next quarter: look back to see the last time PDO closed at $3.21 a share, or ask yourself why YUMA had to pay extreme interest rates to float a preferred, which it sold to the public in the teeth of declining oil prices.
I hope that the people who shorted AXDX in anticipation of the panicked selling caused by the hatchet job they sponsored are still short. Unfortunately, it's likely they have already covered and gone long. You wouldn't think the CDC would partner with the sort of company the hatchet job implied AXDX to be.
PDO did not sell at $3.40 a share in the past five years. If you were a PDO share holder and you did not vote against the merger you were a fool.