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.
shmoopy38 re MFIC:
Is this good news or bad news?
I wish the company would make some money.
Steve
DigiTech re CHAR:
I have not sold any of my shares. I kept expecting the selling to stop -- at $6, then at $5, then at $4, etc. So my crystal ball on this one has been lousy.
I have an average price per share of $5.65, and doubt that I will ever be moved to sell at a loss. Before all the Lukoil noise, I thought $8 would be easy, and $10 a possibility, by year end. I am expecting to see $6 by the end of November, although I assume that the Lukoil cloud will hang over this thing for the foreseeable future. If we get to $6, and I have someplace else that I would like to put the cash, I may sell. But the stock is worth a lot more than that, and I just don't understand the panic that set in a month or so ago. Never made sense to me, and I just could not bring myself to sell into it.
I would be interested in what researcher59 and others on this board still holding have to say.
Steve
VPHM and Zanger report:
Whatever it is, it must have a following. VPHM up $1/share in first 3 minutes, on huge volume.
With this push behind it, and shorts getting squeezed, VPHM may see $25 by the end of the week.
Steve
VPHM:
According to a poster on the Yahoo message board, VPHM received favorable mention last night in the Zanger report. Went to the website, and it is a members only service at $70 per month. Does anyone know anything about the Zanger report?
Thanks.
Steve
VPHM:
From recent (10/14) Piper biotech report:
"ViroPharma—Outperform
PJ Estimates (Millions except EPS)
| |3Q05 |2005 |
|Vancocin |$31.6|$115.3|
|Reported EPS |$0.27|$0.97 |
|Adjusted EPS*|$0.13|$0.60 |
*fully taxed, and assumes LLY royalty is expensed instead of amortized
VPHM (TBA): Piper EPS $0.27 vs. Street $0.21. We currently have the Street-high Vancocin 3Q sales estimate of $31.6 million, based on strong prescription trends seen for the quarter but factoring in a modest (and expected) seasonal decline. As a reminder, historical patterns of Vancocin use have shown a yearly peak in the April/May time frame, lagging the season of peak antibiotic use during the winter. The cumulative 3Q Vancocin Rx show a 3Q 2.8% Q/Q decline. Our 3Q Vancocin sales estimate is based on the 2.8% Q/Q seasonal decline in Rx, and incorporates the Vancocin price increase taken in mid-August. We expect ViroPharma may take the opportunity to raise Vancocin 2005 sales guidance ($100-$105 million) again on its 3Q call. We currently project$115.3 million for 2005 Vancocin sales.
We also expect that VPHM may update investors on the restructuring of its 2007 debt during the 3Q call. With the final conversion of all the 2009 debt during this quarter, VPHM is left with $86.7 million in debt on its current balance sheet. ViroPharma's board authorized the company to purchase an additional $8 million in 2007 debt this year, which we expect may be increased given the higher-than-expected sales of Vancocin. ViroPharma indicated on its last conference call that it will look to refinance the 2007 debt in a non-dilutive fashion after the 2009 debt is retired, possibly with the use of Vancocin product rights that had been used to secure the 2009 debt.
Upcoming milestones include: 1) top-line data from the Phase I proof-of-concept trial of HCV-796, an oral Hepatitis C drug (4Q05); 2) top-line PhaseII proof-of-concept data for Maribavir (1Q06). We continue to believe that VPHM represents an attractive small-cap biotech play, with upside to the valuation on Vancocin sales alone and a free call option on the pipeline
assets."
Steve
CHAR:
Nice to see it up for a second day. I think the selling has been completely overdone.
Steve
Bobwins re oil sands:
I know absolutely nothing about oil sands, but did enjoy this transcript of recent remarks from Don Coxe. Oil sands mentioned along with a number of other comments that make good reading on the weekend:
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21838876
I particularly enjoyed this:
"Arthur Gray: Good morning to you, Don. Following up on Tom Fitzgerald’s question, areas to invest. Is it too soon, or is it time to look at another area, such as uranium with the nuclear possibility becoming more of a probability all the time?
Don Coxe: [sigh] Yeah, I get asked this question so much in client meetings and I have to give you a weak answer, which is, that for the past four years I’ve been trying, in my work, to get institutional investors to overweight commodity stocks. And it’s been an uphill battle.
Finally, in the last year it’s started to come true. And particularly with US institutional investors that I see, it’s a tough sell. Largely because of the demography, when I go in to a meeting where we’ve got all these recent graduates from Ivy League schools sitting there and they’re interested in technology and what they consider growth stocks. And they consider the mining and oil industries old, polluting industries that are sunset industries and all we’re talking about is a short-term speculative play.
So, what I have to do is take them through the arguments for oil, gas, copper, nickel and zinc. If I go to uranium, I know, that given where they went to university, that they were part of a group which was demonstrating against nuclear plants when they were in college. And so I’ve got a very much bigger problem because I have a basic ideology of theirs to deal with.
So, frankly I’ve decided it wasn’t worth my while to make that case. Because this is a case in which left-wing ideology of the Parlor Pinks and Latte Liberals is so deeply entrenched that it’s much easier…you can get them to finally believe because they do drive cars and they do heat their homes, that oil, gas and metals can be attractive investments, at least for a while, until something better comes along.
But as soon as you talk about nuclear power, what you do is you velicate a whole set of emotional ganglia and the meeting is lost. So that’s why I haven’t done it and that’s why on conference call, if I take up the subject I’d be buried under. So it’s cowardice, it’s sheer cowardice. Thanks, Arthur."
"Vellicate a whole set of emotional ganglia." You gotta love this guy.
Steve
tackler re Don Coxe:
Thanks for a terrific post. My first exposure to Mr. Coxe.
"Vellicate a whole set of emotional ganglia." You gotta love this guy.
Steve
Unsolicited email:
The following unsolicited email (from "Rocking Stock Times" no less!) landed at my office email address today:
Rocking Stock Times Selects: GFCI
GFCI is a real winner l@@k at this company.
Insiders tell us breaking news is expected
next week that can make this company go very
high immediately!
Company: Grifco International
Symb0l: GFCI. PK
Last Trade: .32
Rating: Very Strong!
Grifco Completes Phase One of 'Global Oil Tools Libya'
HOUSTON, TX-- Grifco International announces it has received final "approved to form 'Global Oil Tools Libya' certification." GFCI now has final approval to export technology, conduct operations, and establish a manufacturing facility in Libya.
In a statement by CEO Jim Dial, "Our approved to form package has been authenticated and sealed by the U.S. Department of State (Document 05028356-13). Concurrently, the finalized Global Oil Tools Libya has also been certified by Libya's Foreign Affairs Department in Washington, D.C."
"We are pleased with the expedient processing of the requirements by Lyamec & Associates. We look to immediately move forward on expanding our market reach through Lyamec by reviewing and finalizing applications on Tunis, Qatar, Jabal Ali, and Morocco and to establishing corresponding logistic and point of sale offices in the North African coast," added Dial. "Libya's manufacturing facility is the thread which will weave a framework to build and distribute products throughout the region. Eventually, all of GFCI's technology, including the product lines of Grifco, Global Oil Tools, the Silver Hawg, and Coil Tubing Technology (CTT), makers of the Jet Motor and Jet Nozzle, will be working in the fields throughout Africa and the Middle East."
Grifco International is a leading provider of oil and gas services equipment, specializing in the conception, architecture, and development of tools for the coil tubing, wire line, and snubbing industry throughout the United States, China, Mexico, South America, the Middle East and Africa. Grifco's patented products are known and used throughout the world. In addition to our patented tools, Grifco holds and owns design rights and manufacturing facilities for producing more than 6000 products for the oil and gas industry with more than 150 clients, boasting the biggest names in the business, including Halliburton, Exxon, and Schlumberger.
Be Sure To Get In Immediately Breaking News Is Expected Fast!
GFCI.pk + GFCI.pk + GFCI.pk + GFCI.pk + GFCI.pk
Steve
October blues:
Up 7 places this week and since 9/30. Hard to believe, given the beating the real world portfolio has been taking. Still, nice to cross into the top half of this group, whatever the explanation and even if it should turn out to be a short visit.
Steve
MPAD:
Featured in Knobias Small-Cap "ClipReport," whatever that is.
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/051024/098916.html
Any visibility for this stock would be a blessing.
Steve
Crude and ngas prices:
Per Matthew Simmons, crude and natural gas prices could double or triple in the months ahead:
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2005-10-19T213650Z_0...
Steve
earthfarm:
Thanks. Your birdy is much appreciated.
Steve
earthfarm re birdy:
Any song yet for this week?
Steve
DigiTech re CHAR:
FWIW, I really like this PR. I am very glad that I have not sold.
Steve
OT: stylecounciler re TTRIF:
Be gentle. My adventure with that stock still hurts.
I got out in late 1998; I don't think the daughter was in the picture at that time, although there is no way to tell anything for sure since all company pronouncements were a pack of lies from day one.
For the record, there was something to the technology, and a facility was in fact built. But the people running the show were crooks -- no doubt about it.
Steve
GFCI:
I sold this puppy at a 10% loss on August 26, spooked by a PR from Medical Services International (!) that described a $100k payment from the company for "access" to China. It just didn't make sense to me. The price has apparently dropped another 10% since then.
The biggest scam that I ever got involved in was a Canadian outfit called Thermo-Tech, TTRIF. Bricks and mortar are no guarantee that you are getting the full story.
I hope that it turns out to be a 10 bagger. If reliable financial information ever arrives, and the numbers are good, I will try to climb on for the last 5 bags.
Steve
DigiTech re CHAR, Nelson Resources:
As a result of the earlier post to which this message replies, a question arose about valuations and when a valuation might be immune from attack in a merger setting. The inquiry was in a PM, but the inquirer has suggested that my response be reposted publicly. So:
The first securities class action that I defended during the years 1983-1986 grew out of a "going private" transaction. The founder of the company had taken it public about 10 years previous at $35 per share, retaining 60% of the stock. Ten years later, displeased with how the market was valuing his company, he sought to take it private at $7 per share. This price represented a premium of about 10% over the market price of the stock at the time the deal was announced, and 15% over the average market price for six months prior to the sale. The non-control (minority) shares approved the sale by an overwhelming margin (the 60% control block could not vote). And the company got sued anyway. The debate was over liquidation value, and whether the market was undervaluing the company.
It was a time when money was chasing real estate, and stocks were out of favor as an asset class. Today, if the price being paid is greater than the market price on the day of the announcement, and especially if the public shares have had a right to vote on the deal, I think that once the deal is approved it is almost bullet proof. Whatever one thinks of the market's prospects going forward, stocks today are not "dirt cheap."
I am less confident that the company is "immune" if the price mirrors some average share price during the recent past. And I really have a tough time with the Lukoil/Nelson deal: a 13% discount to market on the day of the announcement, and the majority shares are apparently going to be counted when the vote is taken on the overall merger transaction. It seems to me that the minority is taking an immediate 13% haircut to insure a market for the majority to get all out of the stock in an orderly, profitable way. I have not seen anything explaining why the combination with Lukoil is good for Nelson. And if the combination is good, and will add value, the historical market price is really an inadequate measure. The availability of "synergies" -- to be realized by the post-merger entity -- is a component of the value of the disappearing company on the day of the merger.
Finally, I think the company is almost bullet proof if there is full, accurate disclosure in proxy materials, and the shareholders have had a chance to vote. If 75% of the shares outside the "majority" or "control group" vote in favor of a sale, a court is very unlikely to permit "tyranny by the minority," whatever the class action attorneys may scream about fair value.
Steve
DigiTech re CHAR, Nelson Resources:
I note that the latest news describes Nelson as a "Bermuda-based company." Things start to get pretty exotic from a legal standpoint if Bermuda law is applicable!
If there is consideration of any kind being paid to the majority that will not be paid pro-rata to the minority in a cram down context, I think the majority may have a problem under California law, and suspect (without really knowing) that it may have one under Canadian law. I don't want to hazard a guess on what happens if Bermuda law is important here.
If the difference in consideration paid to the majority is material, there may also be a problem with the disclosures that have been made, but I think that is likely to be a matter of Canadian securities laws, and don't know much of anything about that law.
The majority shareholders are individually liable for their conduct, as majority shareholders and as board members, and that liability should survive any disappearance of the corporation.
Steve
DigiTech re CHAR, Nelson Resources:
Sorry to be slow in responding to your post. I have been in court myself during the past few days, and have not had time to frame responses to the questions you ask. I am going to assume that they refer to the Lukoil deal with Nelson Resources. The Nelson board's conduct in relation to the deal is probably governed by Canadian law, and I don't actually know what duties the majority shareholders have to the minority shareholders under Canadian law. With that caveat, however, and looking at the situation with reference to California law, I would offer a few thoughts:
1. The usual "sin" of majority ownership has to do with preferential treatment -- conduct by the control group/person that rewards the control group/person unfairly in relation to the minority. Here the Nelson PRs are quick to point out that steps are being taken to insure that all shareholders have an opportunity to participate in the sale to Lukoil at the same price as that being paid to the 65% majority. The problem here, as I understand it, is that many of the minority shareholders do not like that price, and don't want to be a part of that deal.
2. As far as I know, under U. S. law the majority can sell its shares for whatever it wants.
3. One of the PRs I've seen indicates that the majority shareholders have agreed to vote their shares in favor of a deal that will result in Lukoil owning all shares. To that end, the Board is getting a fairness opinion relating to the transaction. If Canadian law is anything like U. S. law, then in any cram down scenario a fairness opinion is essential.
4. I'm sure the fairness opinion will be the best opinion money can buy. As an intellectual matter, it is possible to say that the value being paid is fair, even if that price is below market value. However, it does seem to me that it is a tough case to make and a tough case to sell in court.
5. I am not aware of any law in the U. S. that would require the Board to seek/invite competitive bids in this context. However, if the Board does receive a competing offer -- especially one that is at market -- the Board would be foolish not to take it seriously and give it a full airing.
6. A 10% shareholder can bring a lawsuit. I am not aware of anything else he can do.
7. I don't think Board members have to abstain in connection with the vote.
The CHAR Board will have similar obligations and operate under similar constraints, if Lukoil comes knocking at the door. But I don't personally understand why CHAR has sold off to the extent it has.
Hope something here is helpful.
Steve
Len:
Sorry. Scanning about 200 posts, I just read it too fast.
Steve
Len re new index:
VPHM has been much discussed and promoted during the past 5 months. Are you only looking at stocks that were actively promoted throughout the 10-month period?
Steve
OT re Uranium spot price:
Per Trade Tech on October 7:
"This Week in the Uranium Market . . .
The emergence of new demand adds pressure to already rising prices. Driven by expectations of further demand increases, sellers continue to raise offer prices. As a result, TradeTech’s Uranium Spot Price Indicator rose to $33.00 per pound U3O8."
Ux Consulting Company, another authoritative source, publishes weekly spot price on Tuesday evenings, but for some reason there was no posting last night; website still shows $32 price as of October 3.
http://uxc.com/
It is beginning to appear likely that $35 will be achieved by year end, and that $40 is not out of the question.
Len, if this kind of update should not be on this board, let me know.
Steve
SSKILLZ1:
I agree with your approach. The reason I ask is that Schwab does not do that on my account statements. At the end of a day, if a stock didn't trade, it is valued in the account at the current day's closing bid price regardless of the last actual sale. No big deal where my account statement is concerned, but Pick Six is another matter. And I am pleased to know that the 500 shares of MPAD that someone bought yesterday for $8.00 will count as the closing price for the week!
Thanks to you and Len for this contest and for all the time you put in on it. Great fun, and great stock ideas gathered in one place.
Steve
SSKILLZ1:
If a stock did not trade at all today, do you use last trade from yesterday, or the bid at the close today, to determine price.
Just curious.
Thanks.
Steve
CHAR and minority stock ownership:
Without reference to the specifics of the CHAR situation, as a general rule minority stockholders have no real power, absent help from the courts. While there are duties owed by the majority to the minority, legal duties are not self-enforcing, and so it is very misleading to say that majority shareholders "must" do something just because they have a legal obligation to do so. Majority shareholders will do what they want unless/until forced to do something else.
Accordingly, and again without reference to CHAR, the outcome of these kinds of fights depends upon minority shareholders with resources, the ability to organize, and the will to push back.
Incidentally, FWIW, I own substantial shares CHAR and have not sold any. Seems to me the selling is way overdone.
Steve
cleverrox re rgylf.pk and Schwab:
You can call Schwab global desk, a 1-800#, to get spread in US$, and bid the US pinksheet version online in US$ after you get the bid/ask quotes. Same commission as any other stock. The phone call takes a minute, but I think the quote is as current as you can get.
Steve
stock_peeker and swanlinbar re CGHI:
I have not followed this situation closely and don't know what to make of it.
Originally I bought some shares in the $.37 range and expected them to go to $.50 on the strength of the announcement(s) of an acquisition. The details were vague, but it seemed that the price would be $.60 or more.
When nothing much happened I sold most of what I had at about $.39, but kept a very small amount. That small amount went steadily downhill, but I held on to it anyway.
I interpreted recent announcements as signaling that things were on track, and in view of insider buys, bought some more yesterday at $.255. However, the announcement this morning was enough to spook me (thanks swanlinbar!), so I sold everything at $.221, at least until I can get a better feel for what is going on. I'm sure when you net it all out, I have a small loss on this one.
I have no idea whether there is still a deal to be made, or what the intrinsic value of the company is if a deal does not go through -- obviously good reasons for me to stay out of the stock right now. You have to wonder how the CFO is feeling right about now. At a minimum, it looks to me like the company misread the situation badly.
Steve
swanlinbar re CGHI:
Ouch.
Thanks for the more recent information.
Steve
stock_peeker re CGHI:
SEC 4 filed 9/28:
http://www.secinfo.com/d12TC3.ztF7.htm
SEC 8-K filed 9/27:
http://www.secinfo.com/d12TC3.zT7m.d.htm
The 8-K identifies buyer (Minmet), and the Minmet "commitment letter" is included with filing. If there was any question about it, $.60 is the price identified.
FWIW I bought more shares today at $.255.
Steve
"Uranium's New Kid on the Block Will Be the Biggest":
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=13270
Steve
MSGI re VPHM:
Amen to that. Carnac knows all and can see all. Just hope I have the nerve to hang on for the entire ride. Forget about zip code changes -- it would be a life changing event for me.
Incidentally, Plecfan over on Yahoo has been talking about $100/share for at least as long as I have owned the stock. He has consistently reminded everyone that, while Vancocin has been a fortunate accident, the real value of the company is in its pipeline -- especially HCV-796. And apparently he owns 395k shares.
Looks like the next 3 months are going to be pretty exciting.
Steve
OT re Carnac the Magnificent:
Back from work and catching up on posts.
Easily the most depressing of the day are those asking who Carnac is/was. There's something wrong with a country where intelligent people can remember something Cramer has shrieked, but do not know/remember Carnac. As Carnac himself would say: "May your platform shoes fail you in a camel pasture."
A small sampling of the wit and wisdom of Carnac:
http://www.tvacres.com/words_carnac.htm
Steve
VPHM and Pleconaril:
Schering Plough IR department has apparently confirmed that it will announce plans for Pleconaril on November 1 during a business development webcast.
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=7077380&tid=vphm&sid=707...
Steve
OT: Uranium
During the past week the spot price for uranium is up another $.50, to $31.20/lb.
http://uxc.com/
Looking for $35 by the end of 2005 and $45-$50 by the end of 2006.
Steve
oasdihf:
Thanks. Very encouraging.
Steve
oasdihf:
Is this posted somewhere before it is posted at UxC website on Tuesday p.m.?
Thanks.
Steve
"Cheap Uranium Play Flying Under the Radar"
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=13132
Steve
OT: Jim_WI re flood insurance and politicos:
I agree completely with everything you say.
I haven't seen Hood's suit, but as a legal matter I can't believe it has merit. That said, judges of all ideological stripes have been known to react to political pressure, regardless of the law . . . .
As for politicos generally, I side with e. e. cummings:
"a politician is an arse upon
which everyone has sat except a man"
Steve
OT: Jim_WI re flood insurance:
I did not mean to imply a criticism of the insurance industry. Sorry if my post(s) sounded that way. I thought they were neutral. However, since you raise the issue . . .
At one time or another I have in fact read just about every kind of insurance policy there is, and argued about many of them in court, sometimes on behalf of the industry and sometimes for sophisticated corporations who have been denied coverage they thought they had purchased. Insurance policies are not exactly user friendly. The idea that the sorts of folks who have been displaced by Katrina or will be displaced by Rita should be charged with an awareness and understanding of the interplay between these two provisions because they should have read their policies seems a bit attenuated to me. Certainly it would come as a surprise to that large and well paid segment of the legal profession specializing in insurance coverage issues (and litigation!) to learn that the scope of insurance coverage is self-evident to anyone who takes the time to read the policy. I know from experience that not only juries, but most judges as well, find insurance policies to be unintelligible; and, since terms are not negotiable, they tend to hold the industry responsible.
As you say, the flood exclusion has been around for some time. My guess is that there is considerable legal precedent relating to this particular issue.
Although the last place I would go to buy insurance is from the federal government, part of the problem may be claims handling under the FEMA-run National Flood Insurance Program:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1144113&page=1
Finally, if the mortgage industry has its way, this Congress may come to the rescue anyway:
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2005-09-21T204653Z...
While the property owners are suffering enormous personal pain as a result of these tragedies -- a pain that is impossible to measure -- I suspect that in our highly leveraged real estate market, and absent insurance and/or government money to rebuild, much of the financial loss resulting from damage to and destruction of real estate may fall on those 100% loan-to-value lenders that Len has been warning us about.
Steve