I suppose one other possibility is there was a payment in kind from IAT to investors, and the investors sold some of the shares, accounting for the above average volume last quarter - I don't know enough about IATs structure to know if this is a possibility.
you're trying to win the master of understatement aware aren't you?
Mylan should have sold. Perrigo should have sold. They both thought their businesses were worth more than they are.
But shareholders wanted Mylan to sell. Management didn't want to lose their cushy spots. But they did #$%$ away alot of their own shareholder value as well - no matter, they'll make it back in comp in the next year or so.
Wish there was a way for the activists here to force down the management comp, which is a total, total joke.
This is not that bad a business, but management is completely self serving.
John, help us out!! Put the hammer on these aholes...
I don't see a long term sentiment option for 'hopeless', but that's where I'm at.
On company itself, my guess is they more or less hit 1Q number, lower full year to $4.50. Next year probably closer to low $5s. Stock is still cheap, but management...well, I already expressed my views there. Geez...
yeah, good point - tough to read much into the published change - it looks like all his major positions, including Mercer, Nam Tai, and Berkshire, just to name a few, were substantially reduced, as were overall assets -
also, in the final three months of 2015, 8.3 millions shares total of MFC traded open market in total - so even if Kellogg were 100% of the share sales, which obviously he wasn't, he couldn't have unloaded 13 million shares. My guess is he did not sell any, just moved to other accounts as you suggest.
Thanks for details - just out of curiosity, how did you get the numbers on this?
Wouldn't MFC be ahead of most debt holders as a secured lender and aren't there a fair amount of assets here, implying a pretty good recovery?