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.
Remember when I gave you guys ENDE at .017. It is now trading at .054 and has a lot of steam left. They are about to surprise the market with a big increase in oil production from their first horizontal well. Besides ENDE my next pick is UPDA. I am 99% sure this stock will take off within a month or so. Buy between .015 and .02.
How come I'm not on the leader board? I gave you guys ende at .017!
I have been watching upda for a little over two years now. I only invest in commodity (oil/gas/uranium) penny stocks. In my opinion this hasnt been a buy until now. I personally believe the company has turned themselves around by making these key aquisitions in continental fuel and heartland oil and gas. The Geer truck purchase is huge.
Here is my main reason:
"Revenues of nearly $8 million per month are being generated from its energy trading business (Continental Fuels) and revenues of $0.3 million per month are produced from its oil and gas exploration and production business (Heartland’s Oil and Gas)."
.12 - .15 soon em
Good luck to all here. Our time is near. em
I honestly believe we have bottomed. We might see levels around .015 again, but it would only be temporary. I believe there is some big big money on the sidelines waiting/preparing to jump in. Oil and gas is the place to be, and UPDA has been positioning themselves to greatly benefit from this. Any buy under .05 is a deal, any buy under .02 is a steal.
thanks em
Lexit, I think you should go and buy some more umng shares. I think a few weeks from today you'll be very happy you did.
Its a strong buy and hold. em
Looking better every day. em
.052 and moving!!
Whats a golden cross?
Potential remains for .50+ em
I agree with that. I was just saying it should be no lower than .05. With future revenues, which we should be pretty close to hearing about...what do you think? .15-.25??
Regardless, there is going to be a massive increase in revenues coming in. This stock should be trading no lower than .05 right now.
BUT, If this actually does pan out we are looking at a much much much higher stock price maybe .50 - 1.00.
It would have been nice to wait until it actually was signed. Well, all eyes and ears will be waiting until the end of February.
I just dont see how we can fall below .015.
How low do you think?
Thanks
buy buy buy this baby is gonna fly!
.049! and going! em
FYI
Multi-Nationals: Financing of Special Dividends
Canadian subsidiaries now may be able to borrow to enable their U.S. parent to use a one-time U.S. tax incentive for capital repatriation.
The U.S. government recently enacted The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 that added new Section 965 to the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (IRC). In general, the new legislation creates a temporary incentive, proposed by the U.S. Treasury Department, to encourage U.S. multi-nationals to repatriate capital from any subsidiary which is a “controlled foreign corporation” (“CFC”). Subject to limitations touched upon below, the U.S. parent of a CFC will get favourable tax treatment for a cash dividend that it receives from its CFC and reinvests in the U.S.
One of Lang Michener’s bank clients, Bank of Montreal, asked us about the various legal implications of providing credit facilities to the bank’s Canadian customers that are CFCs in the context of Section 965. We consulted our colleagues at the U.S. law firm Nixon Peabody LLP, and together with them, we developed some guidelines to consider if Canadian CFCs wish to borrow to finance dividends paid to their U.S. parents to allow their U.S. parents to take advantage of this opportunity.
Under new Section 965 of the IRC, a CFC may incur debt to fund a cash dividend it pays to its U.S. parent, and if the U.S. parent uses the dividend proceeds to make a permitted investment, the U.S. parent may elect, for one taxable year, to take an 85% “dividends received deduction” (“DRD”) with respect to the dividend received from its CFC. In other words, the dividend is received almost tax free. If the U.S. parent uses the dividend proceeds to repay debt it owes to an unrelated party, the U.S. parent may be able to demonstrate that the repayment is a permitted investment even though the total debt of the U.S. parent and its CFCs, taken in the aggregate, is not reduced.
In addition, and most importantly, if the facts and circumstances are such that, in substance, the U.S. parent (rather than its CFC) is the obligor of the debt nominally incurred by the CFC, DRD treatment will not be allowed. This is the holding of the U.S. courts in the Plantation Patterns case and its progeny.
The legal issue for the U.S. parent and its Canadian CFC is how to eliminate or minimize the risk that a bank loan taken out by the CFC to finance a dividend will be assessed by the IRS as being “nominally incurred” by the CFC. Here, in summary fashion, are four of some seven suggested guidelines we developed for consideration, subject to the general caveat set out below:
Generally speaking, there can be no argument that the debt has been “nominally incurred” where the CFC actually incurs the debt on its own without any guarantee from its U.S. parent, or any other agreement between the U.S. parent and the lender (such as a put agreement or inventory repurchase agreement) which might have the effect of allowing the lender to look to the U.S. parent for repayment of the loan in addition to the CFC.
The U.S. parent could consider entering into an agreement with the lender in the nature of a comfort letter, as opposed to a guarantee. The U.S. parent could agree not to change its contracts with the CFC in a way that would be materially adverse to the CFC and could agree to maintain a minimum capital contribution or equity in the CFC. However, if this type of an agreement is to be in lieu of a guarantee, the agreement cannot alter the basic premise that the CFC should be able to succeed or fail on its own without an assurance that the U.S. parent will save it.
In circumstances where the lender nonetheless requires that a guarantee be granted by the U.S. parent out of custom or habit, the U.S. parent’s tax position will be improved to the extent that it can demonstrate that the CFC is not thinly capitalized and that the CFC would have been able to incur the debt by itself on normal commercial terms (such as debt service, leverage, earnings ratios, etc.).
The CFC could consider engaging a third-party business valuator to give an opinion to the U.S. parent on whether the CFC is thinly capitalized and whether there is a reasonable expectation that the business will succeed on its own.
The Plantation Patterns case outlines some factors used by the IRS to determine whether a loan, obtained from a lender that holds a guarantee from a shareholder, would be viewed as debt or equity. These factors are not enumerated in this edited article but are obviously significant and are set out in the unexpurgated text available, without cost or obligation, from us.
As a general caveat, the reader should be aware that the factors identified in the Plantation Patterns case are not equally significant, nor is any single factor determinative. Moreover, due to the myriad factual circumstances under which this question can arise, all of the factors are not relevant to each case. The tests used by the various courts have been less than consistent and clear safe-harbors are not available. Accordingly, there is an element of risk in structuring these loans with any guarantee or credit enhancement provided by the U.S. parent.
Under the Income Tax Act (Canada), interest payable on money borrowed by a CFC to pay a dividend in these circumstances will generally be deductible in computing the CFC’s income, provided that the amount borrowed to pay the dividend does not exceed the CFC’s retained earnings computed on an unconsolidated basis. To the extent that the amount borrowed exceeds such accumulated profits, the interest referable to the excess amount will not be deductible.
The requirements of Section 965 are complicated and there are technical limits on the amount of any dividend which is eligible for DRD treatment. Also, Section 965 specifies the requirements for investment of the dividend by the U.S. parent in the U.S. in an authorized reinvestment plan. Appropriate consultation should be made with legal and tax advisors in both Canada and the U.S. to ensure that any proposed dividend will be eligible under Section 965 and any related borrowing is properly structured.
EarnestDD...you need to do a little more DD.
Its called "Dividend recapitalization"
In corporate finance, the process of borrowing additional money to pay out a special dividend to owners or shareholders.
A process by which buyout firms issue junk bonds or syndicated loans to finance a dividend and allow them to quickly recoup all or most of the cash they used to acquire a company while still retaining ownership and control.
A gambit recently popular with private equity firms, which have used it to extract more than $50 billion from their investments in the past two years, according to Standard & Poor's.
By one estimate, the source of half of the returns that private equity firms have paid their investors in the last two years.
A byproduct of an era of cheap and easy corporate finance.
not true. You can.
It obviously wouldnt be practical if they didnt get this contract, but if they did recieve a huge contract worth mucho dinero then it could very well be viable.
Not necessarily, They can actually use money from financing.
Think of it this way. We have this huge Africa deal on the table and we have a lot of mining claims in Canada. I personally think that management is aware of the worldwide Uranium shortage and understands that there will be a huge demand for the stuff for many many years and they positioned themselves with some key claims. If they get this Africa deal and its really worth a lot of money like some have said then think of the possibilities and doors that can open. At .015 one would have to weigh the downside risk to the upside potential. I mean come on, lose a thousand or make ten thousand. Secondly, if the company DOES pay a DIVIDEND like Howard exclaimed just think of the investors that it would attract.
Howard, A dividend would be awesome, it would attract a lot of attention, and investors, and it would greatly benefit management and those holding the control position shares. If they can make that happen it would be a HUGE victory for everyone involved in UMNG.
It seems a "DIVIDEND" might be the only thing that can get investor confidence back from the public.
What is this?
"Management had formally submitted this offer to one of Comitrag's principal associates for his ownership position in the company, a position that represents 75% of the controlling shares of Comitrag."
(controlling shares of comitrag????) I thought Comitrag was Private?
sorry last post was wrong board.
looks like the market doesnt buy it. em
"The associate, who had expressed initial interest in accepting the offer, officially agreed to U Mining's offer late last night."
"Management of U Mining has received non-binding agreements from financial institutions to provide the necessary first-phase financing, contingent on the acquisition of a controlling stake in Comitrag."
"Further information related to purchasing the control position of Comitrag and the planned financing of the Project will be disclosed to shareholders this week."
Looks like Comitrag is slated to finance the preliminary work too!
"This preliminary work, which Comitrag is slated to finance, will provide an accurate valuation of the proven resources, as well as facilitate the construction of the primary extraction plant. Management of U Mining has received non-binding agreements from financial institutions to provide the necessary first-phase financing, contingent on the acquisition of a controlling stake in Comitrag."
Sounds very good, but,
The question is, Can we believe them?
I like it. em
Greed??
i was talking about post 18526