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.
Personally I get very very leery of such share count 'manipulation', specially from a company with a history of paying for bills/debt with shares versus capital it already has. I remember in 2009-2010, there were shares being added and SIAF kept reassuring us that the shares would be 'cancelled' and the dilution was not real (They were doing a big swap from restricted shares, etc)... Back then we had sub 55M shares outstanding. A year later, we have quite a bit more than 55M. Shrug.
This idea that the stock price is down because of someone selling who got shares (for debt) at $1.5 seems weird to me. If a company owes me X dollars via debt, I accept shares at a price of $1.5 -- Do you think I will be selling those shares for below $0.75 and take a 50%+ loss on the debt? Specially while the company has tons of positive equity? Insanity -- Debt ranks HIGHER in the capital structure than common equity, why would they take a loss before shareholders take a loss?
This makes me believe the following:
1) Either the person selling is NOT the person who converted the debt into shares at $1.5...
2) If the person selling is the person who got the $1.5 shares-from-debt-conversion, then I'd start looking for shenanigans. I'd be worried about the company constantly 'feeding its pipeline of shares to sell' by giving away shares for 'debt' to someone who then unloads it on the market. If this is what happens, it would explain why the person who converted from debt-to-shares even ACCEPTED that $1.5 conversion price.
Ok, enough ranting from my side. I'm annoyed that I can't get myself to buy this company at this price given whats happened, even though their Q3 was good. Bleh.
-Fernando
The problem with 'talking the book' is when someone does it and they do not HAVE A CHOICE in their book being what it is.
A lot of mutual funds/investors have to buy and own certain assets -- So they pump that asset class, even when they might not believe in it personally. If your a high-yield-bond-only manager for a fund, you go on television and talk positively about high yield bonds -- Talking your book in this scenario is a bad thing because it misleads people into thinking that if you were free to invest ANYWHERE you'd pick high-yield bonds...
Just an example.
-Fernando
You need to focus on Brent, not WTI. The spread has been tightening simply because US sources are selling to Europe as fast as they can...Pipelines have been expanded to accomplish this faster, etc (ongoing process).
I completely ignore WTI personally, gasoline goes based on Brent anyhow.
Oil is not a good barometer of the economy though, not at all. Its too manipulated by traders / geo-political events / natural events like hurricanes / etc.
Copper price is a better metric to use, although it is also imperfect since it is geared more towards emerging-markets and not Europe/US economic factors.
-Fernando
GSL: It could get cheaper (I hope to get more around $1.5-$1.55 but who knows if i'll get any at that price)... Personally I own a chunk with a cost basis of around $2 now (Bought some more today).
Reminds me of 2009 when I bought at $1.8 and kept buying as it went to $1.1 (chuckle, close to the all-time bottom). One important thing to note is that the company has paid $1.7 per share of DEBT since 2009... So I would be surprised if we see it go back below $1.5 for any extended period of time, as that would be significantly 'cheaper' than the lows of 2009.
To compare: At some point in 2009, the LTV was over 100% and CMA_CGM (single charterer) was in a big restructuring. Right now we are about to see a Nov-LTV test of 75-90% and CMA-CGM is much stronger than before. So its a very different situation than 2009 and the overall economic macro-situation is certainly better as well (at least for now).
-Fernando
Haha yep. I don't believe in shorting these high fliers while they are in an uptrend, gotta wait for the technicals to break down! I'd feel better shorting NFLX at $220 than $300 and GMCR at $80 than $110.
If I didn't listen to this methodology, i'd have shorted sooo much crap at INSANE P/E's only to watch them triple (ie: NFLX at $100 was a good short, then it went to $300...LOL).
-Fernando
Thank god we are buying individual companies and not the stock market as a whole, eh? ;). We just need this super-high correlation between individual stock names and the overall market to start breaking down...
At some point the market-cap over-evaluation from names like Salesforce and OpenTable has to shift to worthier names, eh!
-Fernando
As an elderly population starts dying off, I expect alot of people will die with more debt than assets (Specially with so many being underwater on their homes) -- Thats not going to be good for banks, thats for sure. I can see them charging higher rates for older people, or slowly cutting their credit-access as they age depending on assets (laugh). Morbid thought, huh?
Inflation with rising debt service would definitely be a problem. The thing though, is that such a highly debt-loaded economy cannot support high inflation. As inflation occurs, debt service rises, which cuts into disposable income and consumption drops off -- Causing inflation to ease again. Such an economy has to settle for slow growth and low inflation -- It inherently can't support more than that. Thats assuming 100% exposure to spot interest rates of course -- I'm curious how much of that debt load is locked at 4% mortgage rates now yielding low debt-service level and immunity from interest-hikes. Such a setup could enable an economy to achieve higher-than-expected growth and inflation anyhow.
The new normal.
Anyhow with debt service only at 8-9% of disposable income -- People do have some leeway for significantly higher debt service and higher inflation/rates than we currently have ;)...Just not up to the old levels we had historically.
-Fernando
A bit strong of a term, yes. But credit growth has picked up noticeably lately.
"Why the last 20 years only? Historically, the appropriate P/E for a deleveraging economy is not the same as for an economy where credit is rapidly expanding (1982-2007). "
Thats my point, we have no evidence that we are in for a protracted long-term deleveraging economy. Government deficits will need to be reduced -- thats for sure -- But that does not mean general ongoing deleveraging for the private economy.
We had a few years of reduced credit, although that was MAINLY due to foreclosures/etc and in the housing domain. Non-housing credit has grown significantly in 2010/2011.
So I can reasonably argue that we are NOT in for a protracted deleveraging-economy...Which changes the outlook of things a bit, eh?
Regarding China:
Shanghai index is up right now (slightly). In fact, its higher than its been since early September.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=000001.SS+Interactive#chart1:symbol=000001.ss;range=3m;indicator=dividend+sma%2850,100,200%29;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined
With Europe entering a recession and China not yet stimulating, why should Shanghai boom anyhow? Too early yet.
We shall see when they stimulate, I bet you in Q1 we see them reduce bank reserve requirements some. That will be the first step IMO.
-Fernando
2008 was not a simple recession, it was a financial wasteland where credit froze. Recessions see a 28% avg correction in the market, not like what we got.
The problem with all this 'debt party ends' theorizing is that nobody can predict when it actually ends. Sure Government deficit spending will go down, corporate profits will go down some, etc. That doesn't mean everybody is going to be delevering when their debt-service is below 10% of their disposable income. Heck right now, if you remove housing-related-credit, you have booming credit growth to both consumers and business (Specially in the last 3 months). Certainly doesn't seem to be ANY change from what we've seen in the past 20 years aside from housing.
What was the average P/E ratio on earnings given in the last 20 years again? What would the market be if we gave it that multiple with a EPS of $75 (We have a $94 EPS run-rate from last four quarters btw)?
Just like we might give the market a P/E of 12 when earnings are 'frothy', that does not mean we should give it a P/E of 12 when earnings are less 'frothy'. Wouldn't you agree?
$70 EPS * P/E of 15 = 1050 S&P. Much closer to what I envision :). Might we have a sharp drop lower for a short period? Sure thing since the market can over-correct, but I don't think we stay down there for very long at all.
Of course, this is from a simple recession. If Italy blows up, the European union disintegrates, etc...Thats a different ballgame.
-Fernando
"Do you want to buy that chart b/c "stocks are cheap"? Every reliable mode of valuation suggests stocks are overvalued by at least 40%.
Now tell me why I should go long, OTHER than b/c we've had a relief rally so far, and lots of people are talking bullish. After all, they were talking bullish the whole year. How do I know I'm not late to the party, like I would have been had I listened to them at any other time?"
Care to tell me the last time these valuation methods said stocks were fairly valued for more than a 3 month period (March 2009 for example) in the last 20+ years? ;).
When evaluation methods keep saying something is overvalued for 20+ years, I think those evaluation methods need adjusting. Just IMHO.
Lets not get into the whole 'That was a credit expansion period, we are now in a different environment with contraction, its different now than before, etc etc etc' please =).
Just saying its a fact those 'evaluation methods' are constantly assigning a lower value to the stock market than the actual investors do. Thats why I don't foresee a 850-900 S&P barring a world Armageddon type crisis.
-Fernando
Its simply a matter of beta. Their portfolio beta is higher than the market's on average.
You can see all their stock positions if you google 'active HDGE' and click the first link.
-Fernando
It wasn't just Greece that had a 'spiral' problem after 7%...Ireland and Portugal did too, thats when all the bailout talk starts.
Start mapping out the Italy yearly deficits assuming no growth in 2012/2013 and 7%+ yield 10-year debt with 120%+ of GDP in debt. Bringing deficits under control in such a scenario becomes awfully hard since deficits grow with larger debt-service and the more austerity they do, the worse the growth profile in the short term.
They better do lots of privatizations or get some kind of ECB-backed bailout if this happens. If I was Italy i'd be terrified right now and passing LOTS of non-austerity structural reforms to improve their growth profile in the hopes that saves me.
Now just imagine what Italy's 10year would be at if the ECB was not buying that bond?
-Fernando
All I gotta say is: Watch Italy 10 year bond rates. If that thing keeps inching higher and Italy gets into trouble (Some say 7% is a magic threshold number) -- No way in hell will the S&P hold up at these levels.
-Fernando
Actively managing 50+ positions, not daytrading a few. I think your definition of 'active' is very different than theirs =). Especially given they probably expect the stock to go sub 25 in the coming months.
Shrug, I find value in the HDGE fund personally.
BTW, they had 5.3% of the portfolio in OPEN before, after yesterday it was 4.3% -- So they did cover some since it wasn't down 20%+.
They aren't daytraders, lol. I bet they only cover when the stock goes to below $25 :P.
Just like the outperformance yesterday was due to OpenTable, the under-performance today is due to OpenTable (laugh).
-Fernando
HRBN: Could be anything but the DTC has not received the funds yet...
HRBN: Just on CNBC, the deal is not yet FUNDED which is not usual at this point in the process. Will be fun to watch :).
-Fernando
HRBN: Hey, its Halloween. If a nightmare scenario happens, i'll chalk it up to the holiday =P.
-Fernando
HRBN: If the stock is still trading at $23 tomorrow, i'll buy some yes. Go ahead and buy the puts ;).
Your argument describing the risk-reward is a bit one-sided though: The only reason SOKF was able to go private at the evaluation it had was because of the overall sector environment. If the US markets had not became so toxic to fair real Chinese companies like SOKF, we would not have seen them bail on the US investor. Its too bad, since we have now missed the opportunity to get a great exposure to a solid growth story.
-Fernando
Want another name I always liked and was legit? SOKF. The money was paid on that one, eh? We've had other gone-private deals too, haven't we? Too bad investors threw those companies into the trash-bin, forcing them to go private.
An awful lot of names still trading peacefully. YONG, TSTC, LPH, LLEN, etc. I'll bet 5 years from now, many of these RTO's you have written off will still be around -- Probably at much much higher evaluations. At the same time, we will probably see a few more blow up.
UTA is halted but is also up to date on its filings. That one has not been concluded yet.
So yes, I am debunking your 'They are all frauds' which you said so many times (chuckle). Many of them HAVE been frauds, more than most of us here thought a year ago, your definitely right there.
Heh, I think buying HRBN puts is throwing good money after bad...But do whatever floats your boat ;). In my mind, this is a done deal with almost 0 probability of the money not going through.
-Fernando
HRBN: I made money on HRBN but I didn't hold through the vote. I sold my calls awhile back =D. I did post here how I thought it would go through months ago though.
Your right that the money has not been moved to people's account yet. I'll post when thats happened, ok? =P.
When did I say HRBN has committed wide-scale fraud? I certainly do not think Citron proved that. How much money did HRBN raise from US investors and how much are they paying for the company again? Wow they must have invested that money awfully well ;).
So yes, if/when the money is tranferred, IMO that shows bears were simply WRONG on HRBN. Completely, utterly wrong. Sorry but at that point none of the 'conspiracy theory' works anymore, its all hollow bullshit. They didn't simply fool a private equity investor, they got the money from Chinese state-bank sources for the deal -- Quite a different story, especially after all the scandals this year.
I respect Shinisaurus, who is definitely a bear in this HRBN case, for coming out and admitting being wrong. Nothing bad about that, we are all wrong at times -- I certainly was on CCME.
-Fernando
Well, I just try to distinguish between my bias for the markets and my bias for my select long portfolio ;). My market bias is to the downside just like yours (Although not as negative), I just have more faith in the names I picked than I do the market (laugh).
If we keep seeing huge correlations between individual stock names and the indexes, then my faith in my individual names will be misplaced. If we see that correlation break down, as I expect it will at some point when we have less system-ending-level problems, then the stock-picking portfolio should outperform.
Given the way those correlations have behaved the past 2 years, your method of hedging based on beta is probably wiser. I just can't help but think that stock-picking has to add significant value at some point, I can't see a fully-producing BAJFF trading below $1.2 in 2013 even if the S&P is at 900 for example.
Meanwhile some companies are taking BIG advantage of these massive correlations making their stocks be too cheap. Take SFI for example, this last quarter they bought back 13% of their freaking float at below HALF their book value. Talk about accretive!
You often talk about dividends being lower than historically...But buybacks are roaring, companies are spending more on buybacks than on dividends in fact (Which I think is silly if their stock is above-book or their P/E isn't very low). I wonder what companies spent on buybacks vs dividends 50 years ago?
-Fernando
Almost all the shorts entered in the 14-17 price range. By the time the stock sustained $20+, they were mostly all already in the position.
Shorts not only are getting a big painful hit in this name, they have been paying interest for a HECK of a long time throughout this process.
If we look at how many RTO going-private deals have worked out versus failed, I think someone could make a strong case to bet FOR the next buyout succeeding. Odds seem to be in your favor if you do.
-Fernando
I did not mean to imply you argued against this strategy =).
Where we differ is the 'beta basis' hedge point you made. Even if I think the market is going lower, I am ok with maintaining a net long exposure through names I truly like -- Knowing that my shorts will not fully protect me from short-term losses if the market goes lower.
I guess I simply have more faith than you that my longs will massively outperform the market in most given scenarios over the medium time period (up or down markets) -- and I want my portfolio exposure to reflect that.
Its funny because if I considered the S&P to be a company, trading significantly above-book at the current P/E with its given growth profile and debt load -- I'd never own it. Then again, none of the companies I do own have anywhere NEAR the metrics of the S&P. Based on this alone, I should always be short the S&P and long names I like (laugh). Of course, the S&P is a big average -- So I could take this a step further and simply short the 5% worst companies and buy the 5% best companies (By whatever metrics I like). This is one reason I like HDGE, since they try to focus on finding those worst companies to bet against -- Leaving me free to focus on finding the companies I do like (Works great for those people with retirement accounts that can't short too!).
-Fernando
HRBN: Come on out, all you unashamed doubters out there. Admit it, the black-colored glasses made you miss this one badly ;).
Just goes to show how easy it has been to assume a unrelenting 'Its trash' mentality with companies in this space. I bet most of the doubters will still say HRBN is a fraud, that its simply covering its tracks, etc etc. Give up fellas, admit you were wrong and move on. Nobody spends this much money from a state-bank in China to 'cover things up'. They could have easily pulled a PUDA, CCME, etc instead.
The fact is, $24 is a cheap price for HRBN. The money has spoken and thats the loudest voice of all.
-Fernando
Nope, I have no position in LPH. Looks like your 0.89 buy is doing well =).
-Fernando
I simply don't understand why it has to be 100% or 0%. The fact is, one can find amazing individual stocks trading at massively undervalued prices right now -- Even if the market is 'frothy'. So what should someone do, if they don't want to 'gamble' at market timing/etc? They should buy some of these cheap individual names, short the market to hedge those positions and then wait for the mispricing on those individual names to correct itself.
Can these undervalued companies get cheaper if the market goes down? Of course. Does it really matter to me as an investor? Not really, since my hedges will go up and I can then buy more of those companies I like cheaper for greater future profits.
Doing this, one does not need to constantly jump hoops trying to gauge what is going to happen to the world economy. I'm quite cautious now from a macro perspective but if i'm wrong and everything ROARS back -- I don't care, my undervalued names will massively outperform the market over time anyway and i'll make money.
Yes i'll adjust my long/short/cash levels depending on how frothy or cheap the market is -- Not saying don't do that. I just disagree with the philosophy that one should be either outside the market or purely short (or purely long) at this point. Why take the risk of making a directional call when you don't need to?
Playing things both ways allows me to benefit massively from a rally like we had this last month. If S&P prices drop down back to 1100 by the end of the year, i'll profit massively again from my shorts. Being so concerned about 'calling the direction of the market' from a long-term mindset would have kept me out of the market when we bottomed a month ago, which is why I suggest 'tempering' any such leanings. Yes, you can *maximize* earnings if you are perfectly correct and call things perfectly -- But thats simply being TOO GREEDY.
Play the probabilities. Market goes up, get less long and more short. Market goes down, get more long and less short. Simple and you can sleep at night because you didn't miss a 15% rally you did not expect.
-Fernando
Yep, i'm still long 40% of my portfolio with stocks I like...Although I took some profits on this surge.
Now 25% short via different instruments (HDGE, specific names, etc etc)
Remaining 35% in cash and agency reits -- Such predictable trading in these things (chuckle).
I don't see too much more 'surge' remaining, we have moved up 13% in one MONTH. The best month ever in like 40+ years? Most of the good news is out by now, we just need to wait for the 'problems' to start arriving -- And by next month we will have the US Super-committee cutting dialogue owning the headlines. Note that the Euro is back to $1.416 now, alot of the market gain we saw was currency-derived.
So my strategy is pretty simple: The higher the market goes, the less long I become (Even though I like my stocks alot and see big profits in them at some point), and the shorter I become. At some point soon i'll probably even become net-short (chuckle).
Name of the game is capital preservation, and I refuse to give away all the massive gains of the past 3 weeks because I was not prudent ;).
-Fernando
I tend to agree and long-term GSL will be paying a large yield. They have temporarily stopped it because they don't want to trigger LTV convenants. In the last 1.5 years they have paid down 100M in debt though and the next LTV calculation will be done in November. I expect/hope that unless ship evaluations crater again, they will start a nice juicy dividend by mid 2012 (Who knows it could start by end of 2011 depending on how that Nov LTV evaluation goes).
I used to like NNA alot in the low 3's but I couldn't resist the parent company NM when it got below $3. It gives off a 8% yield at that point, and the yield is ultra-safe since it is more than covered by the dividend NM receives from NNA/NMM (which come from long-term contracts that have charter insurance). At $3 its a steal IMO. I've been kind of trading this one though, buy at $3 and sell 60% of the position at $3.85. Done it twice now the past 2 months =D. Trying not to be too greedy in my positions given the macroeconomic trends...
-Fernando
SSW is a solid company, I still own sub-$6 shares from 2009.
However, if you can get GSL shares below $2.5, I think the risk/reward there is simply better at these price levels.
Either way, both solid ways to play the container sector via long-term contracts.
-Fernando
Translation: We can't make any fees from capital raises so why keep wasting money covering these guys?
Joe, I don't think CCCL's downward chart is any different from pretty much every single name in the space. If thats all you have against it, I can probably use the exact same sentence about any name you do like =P.
At least Ceramics has had a independent trusted third party verify its production facilities, workers, product pricing, etc. Thats more than I can say for LPH which you said to buy at $0.89 for example. That stock is down the same from its height as CCCL, it must be a fraud! (I have nothing against LPH, just illustrating how ridiculous the 'people are selling it' argument is). Heck, GSL a non-china name, went from $7-$8 to $2 a couple of weeks ago -- It must be a fraud, people are selling it (chuckle).
You don't need to buy CCCL, nobody does. Just funny that you get a 'gut feeling' and are so vehement against it when this is one of the few names you can have any certainty about regarding China on-the-ground truth. Doesn't mean there is no risk, of course, but good luck getting 100% confidence in any name.
I've become somewhat bearish on the overall macro trends lately, so the stock will probably go lower before it goes higher. So I recommend people sell all their China RTO's personally, unless they are hedged (I am more short than I am long, so am fully hedged the space and will remain so).
-Fernando
Buyout offer was fake to inflate PPS? ROFL, thats insane given the way the BoD reacted to it IMO. Even assuming it was solely done by the shareholders, thats very unlikely since they could have done it in many different ways that would have been more effective (and cost less).
If they wanted to inflate the price, they would have done a non-binding offer at $10 (Nonbinding till they did more DD, etc etc) and made the price-point VERY prominent in any announcement.
Besides, look at the volume. Most of the selling happened BEFORE the buyout stuff came out.
-Fernando
OGXPY - Did you miss this too? (chuckle)
"Brazil's Eike Batista ups stake in OGX by $309 mln
Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:36pm EDT
* Billionaire adds 1.45 pct stake in oil and gas start-up
* Batista formerly had 61 pct share of OGX
SAO PAULO Oct 10 (Reuters) - Brazilian billionaire Eike Batista poured another 544 million reais ($309 million) into his oil and gas start-up OGX, the company said on Monday, consolidating his controlling stake after its shares lost nearly half their value this year.
OGX said in a security filing that Batista's Centennial Asset Mining Fund bought up structured notes equivalent to 1.45 percent of the company's capital.
An OGX spokeswoman said the parent company bought notes linked to 46,812,700 common shares for an average price of 11.63 reais per share. Before the operation Batista held a 61 percent stake in OGX.
Shares of OGX (OGXP3.SA) closed 4.8 percent higher on Monday at 11.92 reais per share, but are still down 43 percent on the year as debt woes in Europe have spurred investors to flee the perceived risks of emerging market assets.
The broad-based sell-off on the Sao Paulo stock exchange has hit Batista's natural resources companies especially hard, as many are in the pre-production phase.
However Brazil's richest man has insisted his projects are flush with cash and he sees no need sell stakes in OGX's offshore oil prospects to raise capital.
For details, see [ID:nN1E77329M] and [ID:nS1E78M22Q]
($1 = 1.76 reais) "
-Fernando
Thats my biggest beef with TSTC and CCCL. Where are the huge insider/company buys when the stocks trade at these levels? TSTC's CEO did a few token buys months ago in the $5.8 area but nothing since then.
Ah well...
-Fernando
The overall US market? Caution is warranted.
I'm holding what, for me, is extremely high levels of cash (40% or so). What I own is extremely undervalued and I am prepared to buy more as they get cheaper.
Things you might want to look into owning:
Agency Mortgage Reits, AGNC is probably the best choice. Good during economic down-cycles and very solid yield.
GSL at around $2 and NM around $3 are extremely solid entry points.
RSO at below $4.5 is great
GKK below $2.5 if you can get it will be a gift.
OGXPY is a buy right now and i'd be grateful if I get to add lower
BAJFF(Baja Mining) is a buy right now and i'd be grateful if I get to add lower. I'd probably only have a 20%-of-full-position-size in this right now though, so you can back up the truck the other 80% if it drops back below $0.65. This stock will be $3.5+ by mid 2013 IMO. Fantastic risk/reward IMO.
SFI below $5 is where i'd start nibbling, if I can get any shares there.
ETC ETC ETC. Just gotta be very selective and keep dry powder available. I like to keep alot of my 'cash' in things like agency-reits which give a huge yield since I understand that business model and can gauge its inherent risks if the overall environment changes.
If you want to short something, to hedge parts of your portfolio being long, Ratobranco introduced me to HDGE -- It seems like a good safe choice for such a position.
-Fernando
Its not necessarily a 'market is stupid' required situation (Although the market certainly is at times!). Yes the stock has behaved horribly for quite a long time, but then again so has OGXPY and PBR.
The fact is, Petrobakken/Petrobank's cost to produce oil is fairly high and that makes them inherently very levered to the price of oil. With the reduction we have already seen, and the prospect of a recession around the corner, people are bound to 'price in' a lower price of oil in the stock than we currently are seeing.
Combine that with the fact that the company ran up debt (Leverage is not a bad thing as long as things are semi stable, but it certainly adds risk to the model) significantly this past year, its a matter of very bad timing. If oil prices drop down to $60 for example, their payback period on those wells will become MUCH MUCH greater than they predicted (Their netbacks would go from $50 when oil was $100 to like $10).
Note: PBN creditors have NO recourse to PBG. I can see a long PBG/short PBN strategy working but the dividend makes that strategy very painful IMO...Specially given that PBG does not produce any oil yet.
Something else that has contributed to this company's long decline has been the issues they had with water seepage, below-projected pace of new wells and production being brought online, etc. In the past 1-2 months this seems to have reversed and they are finally turning 'on' wells they had prepared awhile ago. That may change the stock's relative-to-peer behavior going forward, at least to similarly oil-levered peers.
-Fernando
Disclosure: No position in either PBG or PBN.
CCCL: I believe that 'voting agreement' was done a long time ago. Keep in mind these activists were original investors in the SPAC. It could be that they got the voting-proxy as a condition to not liquidating the SPAC in late 2009. They must not be happy with Paul Kelly's actions on their behalf and are now looking to replace him with his own share-votes.
-Fernando
CCCL: I believe they think those guys are not properly representing shareholder interests and want their own representation on the board to apply -pressure-.
Investor activism at its best.
-Fernando