Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
didnt say it was unusual. And henry ford II was about the worst CEO ever, and the rest of the line can not be considered to be running a company successfully. The Donald? How many times has he bankrupted his shareholders/debtholders?. I grew up in one of his dads buildings in Brooklyn. How bout disney? Jr screwed that one up also.. How bout the DuPonts? There's a dysfunctional bunch of offspring. Rockefellers? its hard to screw up a virtual monopoly, unless you get eaten by natives. And the Alonzo's will never be confused with the rockefellers.
Yep, absolutely no nepotism on this deal whatsoever. If they want it run like a family business, I suggest they go private. How bout that independant Board of directors. sheeesh!
like talking to a broken record. and not like 715 home run broken record, either.
does that warrant PBLS to make an announcement that portrays their shareholder equity at 80 million, since that is a snapshot of the companies they purchased prior to their acquisition, remembering that assets are on the books for acquisition costs minus accumulated depreciation?
And how can a company be both under-valued and under performing? must be in pretty bad shape if it is.
And yes, it would be good if they were buying in the open market, but there was rumor that they are still only buying in cert form, which is outright idiotic. They can buy and get certs like everyone else.
It is so easy to hide behind this NSS thing that they have taken carte blanche and blame it for all their ills.
and since they only do that for cash equivalents, depreciation of those assets is not a concern.
That is also a possibility, and i hope you are right. I have been around the block too many time to not think that we are the 10 billion flies that can't be wrong. (I hope you got the reference) It just seems everytime they communicate with the public, its a total debacle, ie. the internet radio "announcement" that was a clear violation of reg. FD
and yes the buyback was 100% real. No arrguements there whatsoever.
The only thing they mark to market is their cash equivalents, which are financial assets, ie. stocks and bonds. That is not what we are talking about with PBLS. They Record all other assets at acquisition cost less accumulated depreciation. Nice try though.
The real point is that if they are buying assets that were once on the books of the acquired company for 80 million more than what pbls paid, they are buying UNDERPERFORMING ASSETS, Lets look at this logically, what comapny in their right mind would sell their company on the cheap to a public company that doesn't report, will not say how many shares are out, (how can an acquired comapany not care what the share structure is? My only answer is that the acquired companies had no one better to sell to) ..The other point is that if the street believed pbls for a minute, there would be have been a plethora of investment banking firms lining up to get them to where they need to be, ie. a reporting company. Instead of hiring an investment baking firm to do this, we get an IR department (1 guy) that has a serious case of the kool-aids. I have never seen an IR department as imcompetent as this one is.
This is MY THEORY. 1- the companies they bought are real, but are performing nowhere near the level that mgt has talked about.
2- I believe that PBLS has mismanageged their capital structure to a point that they cannot be fully reporting due to many violations of SEC rules, which would place them in serious criminal and civil jepordy. (selling unregistered shares to non- qualified investor,making misleading and innacurate announcements, ie. claiming bestjets is a wholly owned subsidiary, making outlandish revenue projections, etc.)
You guys can visit there all you want, but you never get to see the ONE THING we all need to see. No one can ascertain if a company is profitalbe by just visiting their operations. If they cant get a 10-k done, How bout a look at their tax returns?
3- Talk of a dividend is just that- TALK.
I am totally bagged in this stock, as many of you are. I am trying to show how bagged we are , and create some pressure on management. VISITS TO SEE A BUNCH OF DUMP TRUCKS SHOULDN'T CUT IT ANY LONGER
there isnt anything in sarb/ox that says you can't commit murder either. Sarb-ox outlines what you need to do to comply, and does not tell you what you can't do.
Why don't you either show me a reporting company that uses that method of valuation of their assets, or post where sarb/ox says it is permissible.
read it, can't find anything to support your arguement.
The SEC does not allow that for reporting purposes.
The reason a company uses the "Market Value" for assets of greater value is they get a larger Depreciation write off, the assets are valued at what they are actually worth, and the cost for selling the asset is far less.
You have got to be joking. Assets are ALWAYS on the books for acquisition costs less accumulated depreciation. Show me 1 reporting company that values their non cash assets at market value. You can find that in any 10-k .. you will usually find this, Property, Plant and Equipment, Net
Property, plant and equipment are stated at cost. Depreciation and amortization are computed using the straight-line method based on the estimated useful lives of the assets except for land as follows:
This was taken from the 10-k of symm.
So you are saying that the companies we bought reported false information as to the value of thier assets to the IRS? And those assets are only worth what we paid for them? Does that mean I don't really have an extra $8,000 dollars in my pocket for selling the car???
PBLS HASN"T BEEN SELLING "CARS" THEY HAVE BEEN BUYING THEM
No. I am saying that pbls bought those assets at lower than what they were carried for on the books of the previous owners. Book value is an accounting measure that DOES NOT neccessarily reflect market value. Those assets will be reflected on their books at aquisition cost. If a company pays more than what it the assets are on the books for (which PBLS did not do), the difference is accounted for in "goodwill".
Yes, those assets are only worth what you paid for them, WHEN you bought them. Any asset is only worth what is can be sold for.
Again, PBLS hasn't sold any of the businesses.
You do not carry that car on your books at 18k just because you believe you can sell it there.
Obviously you know nothing about how to account for an acquisition.
BTW, your entire argument is based on you selling the "car" at a profit. PBLS has not sold any of the "cars" they havepreviously bought.
Answer. You carry the car on your books at 10k. when it is sold, you book a gain of 8k. if it appraises at 18k, and you do not sell it, you do nothing to your books. It is still carried at 10k (less accumulated depreciation).
First thanks for making my point for me. If you buy a car for 10k, that somone else had on their books for 20k it is on YOUR books at 10 REGARDLESS where it appraises. If you sell it for more, then it is a cap gain. What they did was buy assets on the books for (x +80) for the purchase price of x. if you have a house that you bought for 500 k, and you sell it for 350, they buyer has it on his books at 350. Next....You believe they have earned 80 million? Good for you! Look at their announcements. They claim the companies they own NOW earned 7 million in 2005, some of it BEFORE they owned them. So, I'll give you 5. Where's the other 75 million in earnings?
Let me pose a question to you. Assume that the management owns a boatload of stock. Assume that they do in fact have tangable shareholder equity of 80 million. What would you do if you were management? Would you do everything in your power to file your financials? Would you hire an actual investment banker to "maximize shareholder value"? Would you get a competent IR department that clears announcements with corporate council? (Another glaring error/misrepresentation. One announcement best jets is 80% owned by pbls. the next announcement it is "wholly owned"!!! What is wrong with these guys????) Or would you sell unregistered company shares to finance acquisitions? A few years ago there were something like 400 million shares. now after two buybacks there will be 815 million (if you believe what they say). NO other reasonable conclusion can be made other than that they have sold UNREGISTERED shares into the open market/or to private parties.
whether it is a correct metric to ascertain the value of PBLS is immaterial to me. I am pointing out another possible inconsistancy/misinformation that may explain the erosion in the price of the stock. I will go out on a limb and say that the shareholders equity of PBLS when and if they ever report will be nowhere near 80 million. Smarter people than us have already figured at least that much out. And so what if the sellers are NSS. NSS'ers do not sell shares of companies they believe will succeed, they NSS the ones they believe will fail. I have been combing over every announcement looking for inconsistancies, hidden disclaimers, etc to figure out why the NSS'ers are all over this stock. And boys and girls, I am begining to see that they are probably right. I just hope there's something left for us longs when we file the lawsuit.
And to answer your point, claims of book value were made in an announcement, not passed around like a cheap bottle of wine. 80 million. In black and white.
Face it, these guys are amatuers, they can t even get an announcement right . "net pretax revenues of Phoenix could reach 10% of gross revenues". This is pitiful. There wasn't even another announcement to correct this... Well, boys and girls, my theory is that they threw us a curveball. they were never talking about "pretax profits" they just wanted us to assume that. Any company that had an IR deparment run by anyone with a IQ higher than a clinical imbecile would have issued a corrected release. Not these guys. Once again, I can only come to two conclusions, they are either of very low IQ, or outright liars.
Prove me wrong, issue a 10-k.
for one thing, it means no one is willing to sell at 1.60. If something happens, there isn't much supply.
have at it, it's your money...... for now.
quit your whining. that trade went off at 15:54, leaving plenty of time for other trades.
we may all believe the company is real , but I do not believe the books are. I will bet that the audited financials are not even close to what they claim, especially as far as book value goes. I am not going to argue the point with anyone, since I do not have the time or the energy to teach accounting 101 and 102. But trust me, that shareholder equity number that they are waving around will be nowhere close to what they will sign off on under sarb/ox on the 10-k, if they ever do so. It's really just common sense when you realize that the equation just doesnt add up. Bookvalue/shareholder equity is built 1 of 2 ways. either through earnings, or buying assets. We know they havent earned 80 million. and we know there was only 2.5 million of preferred shares @ $10 to use for acquisitions. Now, if they did buy 80 million in assets (over and above the acquisition costs,) ie. a company (or a group of companies) with 105 million of book value for $25 million of preferreds, (or some combination of prefs and common or cash) then the question for the auditors is "Are the assets really worth 105 million?" The answer is it is not. What PBLS management did in the annoucement that had the unaudited financials fpr 2005 is simple, yet innacurate. They merely added up the 2005 financials of the companies they bought as they were before they bought them. The actual book value of what they bought is what they paid for it. That book value will never show up on their audited financials, and based on how they made that announcement, they do not have to . The disclaimer they placed before those unaudited financials made that OK.
the only way a stock can be legally loaned is if it is in a margin account.
the original point was what was on a short position list. NSS does not appear on that list, since it is really a long sale that fails to deliver.
those short positions are from mm's that carry either short or long positions for liquidity issues. A retail customer that you allude to cannot short a non marginable position legally.
pocket change
buying only in cert form is a total crock. 1- what price are they paying? the market price when the cert is delivered? some other price offered to a select secret few?
This is taken from their announcement of august 8, 2006
The Company further indicated that it is now in the process of an open market buy back of its common stock, up to one hundred million shares when combined with the shares that may be repurchased under the above program that is being rescinded.
what does open market mean? it doesn't mean buying in cert form only. More fodder for the shareholder lawsuit.
there ARE NO loanable shares. This stock cannot be shorted leagally.
can you repeat that in english?
Also, if you look at most companies' Share structures, very very few have a 50%+1 or more shareholder. effective controlling interest lies in control of the BOD.
actually, controlling interest isnt an issue in a company with a stacked Board of Directors. All they would need to do is to grant themselves enough options. Not an issue.
if they have what they say they have in the way of shares, and depending on how the preferred are accounted for, its a huge hit. If they don't its a huge hit for the attorneys. I have no doubt that they have what they say they have as far as businesses, the question is the capitalization. It is obvious the street does not believe any of the numbers they have thrown around. This one is like a long term option, its an all-or nothing deal.
That is what makes this so confusing. Someone big has got to be way wrong about this.
I have done that in my original post that you got so worked up over. read it again, the facts are there.
How many IR guys are there? there is only 1 listed on their press releases. Figure it out.
I am done discussing why I am here, why I bought the stock, who sent me here, etc. Why don't we discuss the glaring inconsistancies I brought up?
I do not wish to discuss those particulars with you.
It is obvious you believe I have posted under a different name in here. I have not. Why do you ask?
You really shouldn't assume that I have previously posted under a different name.
What are you going to say to them? it has to be better than "my stock has fallen, and it can't get up, and I was told by the IR guys that there are "bad guys" naked short selling".
It's pretty obvious that they had the TA gagged because they were selling unregistered (meaning w/o a registration or offering statement) shares to raise capital. I would imagine a large part of the audit has to do with the accounting of all the shares issued w/o a registration statement. I do not think it would preclude them from being fully reporting. I am not in the mood to contact the SEC or an attorney to figure out the answer.