Stick to what you know. You'll be glad you did.
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.
Exactly. I thought you were saying that it showed them still with 650K as of 12/31..sorry..I was confused.
Maybe he'll invest his money with ARM Holdings.. I'm not sure if you actually believe the guy is legit, or if you just take up for him because of the sweetheart deal he gave you in LPH back in '09..
I checked it around lunch time and it was still showing 9/30 for the last update on Ardsely. I sorted it by date, and Ardsely was on page 4.. If you sorted it by largest holdings to smallest holding, Ardsely would have shown up #2 on the list prior to the update..
Yep, but it hadn't been updated since 9/30..it didn't get updated until this afternoon.
Ardsely out in Q4... Institutional holdings up to over 5M shares as of 12/31 though, around half the float.
If you bought anytime after April of 2010 then you bought after the bashing began..
BSPM/LPH - Added 2k/each here.. $2.46 & $2.60.. I like those odds..
CCME - Is that on the bid or ask?
Somehow you blocked me, I think.. It won't let me PM you either, saying that one of us blocked the other.. It doesn't appear like I've blocked you. If the Ignore button doesn't allow someone to see public messages, can someone relay that message to HW?
NEP - I wouldn't count them out just yet.. They still have over two months to go..
The reason I think is most likely the cause for the lag is this reason you gave below. Also, they are much smaller, and require more capital to grow making it a less attractive business..
They had a very poor 3rd quarter
The shorts are just as tense. They should be more and more tense as we get closer to March..
Well, you have to understand the outside forces that caused that drop, right? Without the accusations from Citron and MW, we'd be at $30+. When the company clears its name (Deloitte audited 10K will do that), we'll head back in that direction. Keep on keeping on.
That's a fine post there Koufax. Thanks
I understand.. This is the part that is the issue.. That should be $8.97 Revenue Per Share...not Earnings Per Share. Not trying to nitpick, but that distinction is pretty important.
$8.97 EPS
Yes, but you're mistaking Net Income for Revenues in your figures. Check that out again.. You show EPS at $9.00, when really that is more aligned to what the revenues would be if/when they get to 43K buses.. Net margins have been somewhere around 50%, so you can cut those figures in half and get a more realistic view of net income and EPS..
I'll take a look. I thought I had seen it somewhere before, but it appears that MCT's numbers were calculating $20 per day per bus as net income rather than revenues.. I was just pointing that out to him to make sure he was clear on what to expect.. Didn't want him expecting $9.00 EPS too quick..
Isn't $20/day per bus the revenue per bus, not net income? Also, keep in mind that the amount per inter-city bus is going to be a little below the average per bus, as the airport express bus segment raises that average as they get around 8X what the I/C buses get.
Hey, I'm not complaining..just not what I expected. I meant relative to some expectations. If you had no expectations, then it's nothing but good news. I'm way more interested to see what the heck all these institutions do this quarter than what they did last quarter..
Well, I think we are only disappointed in a relative sense. After hearing they had finished there DD and were adding to there position and likely would be the largest holder of the stock, it's a bit disappointing.. I'll be more interested to see where all these funds are at the end of this quarter rather than at the end of Q4'10..
This is typical of a private business owner. It would have taken something like these attacks to have CZ feel the need to release this info about it's customers and bus companies. Many private companies keep things on both sides of the supply chain top secret. It makes sense until you have a wide investor base that you have to look out for as well.. It doesn't really surprise me that many people haven't heard of them...if you're going to commit fraud though, you don't come up with a business plan that can be verified in the public domain, (ie I/C Buses)..
Both...eom
I agree 100%...eom.
Asking him doesn't prove anything. Bashers will simply say that he is lying. He's certainly not going to show you his bank statements, if that's what you are hoping for..and even if he did, they'd claim these were fake statements. It's a no win situation with the shorts. You just have to deal with the volatility they create temporarily and they'll eventually move on.
For one, I'd say the low capex needed for growth in CCME versus a manufacturer (lack of need of future cash infusions), the size of the company (scalability), and the sector difference (advertising in China is in a secular bull market) is the main things you need to look at. ONP also had a terrible Q3 from what I can tell, which would make the stock lag regardless of the hit pieces, IMO.. They haven't reported since that disappointing quarter, so maybe all they need is to get earnings and revenue back on track before they move higher.. I'll admit, I don't follow ONP so I don't know the specifics and may be wrong, but the revenues were off YOY in Q3 considerably according to google finance.. That may have had more of an effect than the allegations..
Most frauds would try to imply lower margins. If the company were totally fraudulent, why wouldn't they try to show a much higher cost of growth, therefore they could show impressive growth, but with more needed capital, therefore they could justify multiple secondaries, rather than a dividend.. Frauds look for ways to get more money from investors, not give it back..having "too good to be true" margins and earnings does not help them accomplish getting more money from the investor base. It just doesn't make sense.
Yep, that's exactly my thoughts. They also have to think, well if I don't advertise this billion a year ridership of consumers, and Pepsi or other competition does..then they're going to start getting more well known than our brand by this demographic. That's a pretty damn big demographic that they'd begin losing market share to. But the main point is, if these brands are already advertising through CME's network, then they themselves should feel pretty confident that CME isn't a fraud. After all, the whole point of the short argument is that CME doesn't have any big contracts to sell ad's to...so the customers themselves already know that is not true and that the fraud allegations or bogus.
They may try...but my guess is by the time the 10K comes out, the key players will be moving out of this stock and on to another. Shorts are looking for maximum impact in the shortest amount of time. Just like with UTA, TSTC, CHBT, etc, they don't continue to harp and harp.. That's not to say they won't come out with something here and there, but the barrage of attacks that we've experienced lately will likely go away...leaving room for an occasional short piece here and there by Johnny Short Lately.. It should be beyond debate when Deloitte comes in and signs on the 10K, especially after all the allegations of late. Deloitte isn't going to sign off lightly, IMO. When the dividend is announced and distributed (despite being seen by many as "paltry"), that will go a long ways to changing public and investor perception.. I'm actually with Rato on the size of the dividend needing to be increased, at least temporarily, to put matters to rest...but I wouldn't set any precedent of 100% net income as a dividend. If they did 20%, that would be significant enough to prove the company legit, IMO, and that alone would keep the share price at this level or higher based purely on the dividend yield. Considering growth on top of that would increase the yield over time, you'd have yourself a nice cash.
I think this thought is not targeted towards the bus operators, but rather the Coke and Pepsi's of the world... They would not be as inclined to advertise on a network where the operator has been alleged of fraud. To that I say, in this case it is very different. For one, who has accused CME of fraud except a couple of boiler room bloggers. Two, Coke and Pepsi aren't buying directly from CME, but rather through the ad agencies. If they already know that they're buying from CCME, then they also know that CME isn't a damn fraud. They can also rely on CTR and likely the Nielson report would be show to them if there were doubters. I'm sure CME will have CTR to update this info, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Starr go back and have Nielson do a little more DD.. Another reason why Coke or Pepsi isn't going to just stop advertising on CCME's network is that how else are they going to get there ad's delivered at such cheap prices to such a mass audience of China's middle class anywhere from third tier cities to top tier cities.. They can't, and thus they won't stop using the CME network.
Rato, you always bring good commentary and thought provoking ideas, and I hope you weren't offended by my response.. I don't agree with calling you a short and not sure why anyone jumped on you, and that wasn't my intention. I just think 100% of earning given as a dividend is not smart and doesn't show proof of a long-term vision. If you were to adjust that to 20-50%, (as you did go to 50% in a latter post), then I think you're very correct, it wouldn't stay here long and would fend the shorts off. My point however is, we don't know the ultimate costs of SWITOW yet. We don't know what the tour bus segment might cost, we don't know what possible acquisitions they may want to pursue in the future, and we don't know how expensive it will be to keep current contracts once they're up for renewal..especially if they don't get that renewed contract from the TTAVC. My response was meant more like the response I gave to the thought of a monthly dividend that someone posted..I think it is overkill and beyond reasonable.
This post might represent the shortest term viewpoint I've ever seen from you... 100%? Come on....
Maybe so..but name one company that has ever done a monthly dividend. It's just overkill. I'd like to see it go quarterly, and then they can base it on the quarterly numbers, which would crush any thoughts of "the 10Q's aren't audited"... I'd also like to see that 5-10% go to more like 15-20% of net income.
A monthly dividend doesn't make sense, IMO. I believe companies have to pay someone to distribute the dividends throughout shareholder base (which is world-wide), and doing anything more than quarterly would be expensive overkill, and a waste of money.
CCME is on Reg SHO and IB shows no shares available..the shorts haven't gone anywhere..
I don't disagree with you, of what the intent of the letter was.. I just don't see where it makes much difference. It certainly doesn't scare me or make me nervous..although, I guess it could have that effect on some.. Personally, I'd love to know that Deloitte was doing all these things before signing off on the 10K.
Well said..
For the record, since I'm being accused of trying to scare people and of needing someone to confirm my beliefs or fears; I have a long position. I do not currently have any intentions of selling this long position. I'm using, what I feel is a temporary period of fear and panic to build a position of long and short term call options, as well as shares in CCME. At various times that I feel less comfortable with the way the market is going, I will buy put options to hedge from short term concerns that I may have. I sold the large position I had for most of 2009 in CCME between $15.50 and $18 last week, and currently my position is much smaller than it has been in a long time. I don't use some of the tactics that some people use to instill fear, and never will. If I post things that take a devil's advocate point, it is not to instill fear, but rather provoke thoughts. Some might say this is useless, however, I find it to be helpful when it provokes good thought processes and new perspectives. To each his own..
I'm not trying to "scare" anyone. I'll leave that to the criminals that are coming out with hit pieces everyday. If I was trying to scare anyone, I wouldn't have sent that via PM, and frankly, I don't appreciate you putting something in the public domain in which I sent privately. To make things clear, I simply stated that there was a fallacy in your view of projections on what the market may value the stock relative to typical metrics. The market doesn't seem to believe the critical inputs of these metrics, therefore to try to base a possible bottom on these metrics doesn't make much sense.
You're trying to rationalize something that currently knows no rationality. That's all I was saying. I'm not trying to scare anyone, and my conjecture was simply pointing out my thoughts on your post. I won't make that mistake with you or your posts again. I'm certainly not looking to you to confirm or deny any biases I may or may not have.
One thing that seems to be overlooked here, is that Deloitte already audited CCME once, and validated a 42M net income/ 95M revenue year in 2009. This was before the airport bus segment, and before the embedded ad segment, as well as a 15% rate increase. Sure, the level of scrutiny will likely be stepped up a notch on this one due to the allegations, but it's not like they weren't already audited with numbers a year ago that would imply a value of $15 + cash on hand.. We're under valued by last years figures...so even if the earnings were overstated, the company is worth what we're trading at now. Of course, any fudging of numbers by management would be terrible for the share price and market confidence going forward, but just something to consider.. It's not like the company hasn't been audited before and there revenues showed to be way more than 17M or 600K last year...
Hmm..this is true, good point. However, a dividend of ~ $.25 per year on a stock that is trading in the teens (and we're hoping for much more obviously), won't hold but so much weight, IMO. You're talking for the year, to have a dividend that is roughly 2.5-3M dollars distributed amongst the public shareholders (the float is only 10-12M shares, right?). The rest would be to insiders, so that doesn't validate all that much, IMO.