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.
You're welcome. I'm sure you caught this major typo too, but just in case..
" 100 shares of the stock for $60100 and sell them for $6100. Take out your $30 fee and you just turned a $70 profit on a $30 investment "
Should be
"100 shares of the stock for $60000 and sell them for $60100. Take out your $30 fee and you just turned a $70 profit on a $30 investment"
Typing a post on a mobile device is tricky sometimes.
Typo Edit - "$6100" should be "$60100"
When you buy a call option contract you are paying a fee to have the right to buy the stock for a certain price anytime up to the expiration date. Each regular contract represents 100 shares. Mini contracts represent 10 shares. Pricing that you see is the fee per share.
If you buy a contract for $600 March 7 calls and pay .30 you'll be buying the right to pay $600 per share for 100 shares anytime up until March 7th, and for this right you'll pay $30. As soon as you pay that $30 it's gone forever because it's a fee you paid for the rights you got.
If the stock doesn't reach $600 by March 7th your right to purchase expires and you lose your $30. If the stock goes to $601 on March 6th, you can buy 100 shares of the stock for $60100 and sell them for $6100. Take out your $30 fee and you just turned a $70 profit on a $30 investment (less brokerage/trading fees). You don't have to actually buy and sell the stock, you can just sell the rights to buy, which is selling the option contract.
That's the very basic explanation of how call options work. You can get huge returns, but you can also lose it all. Do your own research on how options work.
The Street is quoting Cramer's ridiculous statement thestreet = Cramer. So this is Cramer quoting himself.
It really doesnt matter if the Pope says the same thing as Cramer. Cramer is still wrong and anyone that comes to the same conclusion as Cramer is wrong.
I gave you a link to the PR and letter from the company that made the offer. Give it a read.
If Cramer said that, he's an idiot. Here's the math. The C shares will be created at a 2:1 ratio from the A and B shares. The C shares do not currently exist and will be non voting. I'm long SIRI, but let's keep it real.
Sirius public shareholders would become shareholders of Liberty in a tax-free transaction in which each share of Sirius common stock would be converted into 0.0760 of a new share of Liberty Series C common stock, and, immediately prior to such conversion, Liberty intends to distribute, on a 2:1 basis, shares of Liberty's Series C common stock to all holders of record of Liberty's Series A and B common stock to create a liquid trading market for Liberty's Series C common stock. (The foregoing exchange ratio would be equivalent to a 0.0253 exchange ratio prior to the distribution of the Liberty Series C common stock dividend.) Upon the completion of the proposed transaction, Liberty expects that Sirius' public shareholders would own approximately 39% of Liberty's then-outstanding common stock.
http://ir.libertymedia.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=816960
I'm in control of a measley 100 shares. $600 jan 2015 bought a week ago. I'm not sad right now :) not sad at all.
August $2 calls are the ticket. I've got some and will likely add more.
Well then we are in a state of concurrence, because I concur with your previous post. For the record. I don't think they'll make the threshold....I don't even think it'll be close.
Press releases that make APCVZ look like an equity, when in fact it's not.
If you were a trader with an itchy trigger finger, and you read this:
http://www.tradershuddle.com/20110126153399/Press-Releases/APP-Pharmaceuticals-Announces-Agreement-with-Teva-Pharmaceuticals-to-Manufacture-and-Market-Gemcitabine-HCI-for-Injection.html
If you only read this PR, wouldn't you think you were buying equity when you bought APCVZ?
I would guess that each of the dates you mentioned have simmilar PRs that lead folks to believe that APCVZ is an equity.
By the time they figure it out it's too late. They see the momentum and jump in and by the time they figure out it's a CVR the run is diminished.
TD Ameritrade allows a stop loss on OTC stocks. It's a stop-limit, not a stop-market order.
You enter the trigger price which triggers a sell order with a bottom price limit.
I've done it plenty of times, but Not with ACTC. Unless there's a fundamental change in the results or potential of the science, I'm in it for the long haul. I'm not even trading it. Just sitting and watching and waiting.
Yes it is. Leave no stone unturned :)
Sometimes I think that form T trades are related to the fail to deliver data as well. I think that there's a fail to deliver when a MM has bought or sold shares to another MM and hasn't delivered because the shares are stuck in form-t-ville...or something like that. Also there's the 90 second rule, but do they have to be recorded the same day? There's also VWAP trades that could be settling up, but it wouldn't have been a VWAP from today.
My suspicion is that it's MMs settling up on various trades from Monday.
Also, those shares could have already been sold today as part of a fail to deliver, if they were from a Monday deal.
Just a guess.
One thing I'm sure of...It's nothing to be concerned about. No self respecting human would sell 400,000+ shares for 10% less than they could have sold them for 15 minutes earlier unless they're using the reasoning "just because"
What would the 4Q 2010 EBITDA have to be for the value to be $6?
kewlman,
You need to do your research. This stock is not what you think it is. I've posted enough on this board to get you started so do yourself a favor and take a look. This stock is best compared to a call option, not equity.
Congrats to the longs that held through the last quarterly report. I hope you took today's opportunity to do the right thing.
Maybe start here kewlman:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=130431&p=irol-cvr
If you put your life savings in to this CVR it'll be a life changer for sure, but not in the way you're hoping for.
What I'm saying is that the price that this CVR trades at has no bearing on what the company will or will not pay you at the time of expiration.
The amount that the company will or will not pay you for your shares is SOLELY dependent on the cumulative EBITDA as noted on the company's website.
I will reiterate that any additions to EBITDA that appear to come from the value of the CVR are washed out on other pages. The trading price of the CVR does not affect EBITDA.
I didn't say .25 was unrealistic. I just said it won't be .25 tomorrow. The market is speaking, I'm just listening and passing on what I hear and see. If it was going to .25 in the next few weeks we would already be over .10 right now. I was here and have been a shareholder through several short term runs.
There's been significant dilution since it last hit .29 and the political and financial climate was very different then than it is today.
I obviously believe in the company, thus my statement in my last post.
"Long" means I hold shares and believe the price will go up. Don't take things so personally.
Real is real.
Soon is a relative term. I can see .25 in 6 months or so.
Otherwise rumit, I'm in total agreement.
I'm long ACTC and have been for 1 1/2 years or so, but I still like to keep it real.
Thanks GekkoStarr,
I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers. I've seen Teddy's analysis, but I still disagree.
EPS can be directly tied to the actual value of a stock, I agree. I also agree that the PPS is driven by buyers and sellers and is sometimes irrational. However, I find no evidence whatsoever that the CVR was constructed in a manner that it affects the EBITDA or the EPS. If it does then it's a circular reference and whoever created it to be like that should be hung out to dry and should have their license pulled.
I understand that you are saying that the PPS affects EBITDA, that is probably because Teddy, or some other person, is looking at the last page showing the EBITDA calculations, which I referenced in my previous post. It's clear that the number is washed.
I don't subscribe to theories about MMs shorting without reason, they (and others) short when something's overvalued and shorting has a place in the market. Naked shorting is illegal. I also don't subscribe to the theory that "the man" is bringing the price down so they can load up and sell at $2+. If "the man" thought it was going to $2 he would just quietly accumulate for his ~75X gain. No way would someone that thinks this is going to $2 is going to short it. No way.
I appreciate the discussion and wish you the best of luck, and I hope you are right and I am wrong. I've said all I can say. You guys are over analyzing a very simple financial instrument. Don't bet more than you can afford to lose.
CVRs don't have an EPS.
Page 25 adds it in. Page 32 takes it out. It's a wash. Therefore the price of the CVR has no bearing on the Adjusted EBITDA. There is a cost basis that was arrived at by taking the average trading price over the first 5 days of trading after the CVRs were issued, that's the only reason that it's even mentioned in the calculations.
Use common sense, the price that an option contract trades for has no bearing on the profits of a company.
Do you have another explanation as to why it's added in and then taken out?
Thanks GekkoStarr,
CVRs can be set up a number of different ways. This one is set up very clearly:
"Each CVR represents the right to receive a pro rata portion of an amount equal to 2.5 times the amount by which cumulative Adjusted EBITDA of APP Pharmaceuticals (Fresenius Kabi Pharmaceuticals Holding, Inc.), and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis exceed $1.267 billion for the three years ending December 31, 2010."
Translated, this means that 2008, 2009, 2010 cumulatively must have an EBITDA of $1,267,000,000 and everything over that is multiplied by 2.5 and spread out among the shares. There's really nothing else to it. There is no factor from any share price that will affect the EBITDA. EBITDA is earnings. Earnings are not affected by stock price.
Furthermore:
"If Adjusted EBITDA for the three years does not exceed this threshold amount, no amounts will be paid and the CVRs will expire without value. The maximum amount payable under the CVR Indenture is $6.00 per CVR."
So there's a cap of $6, protecting the company from having to pay out 1 gazzillion dollars.
Concerning the price that these trade at now:
"The value of the CVRs traded on NASDAQ will be determined by market demand."
Just speculators speculating. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm betting against the threshold being broken. If I could short this I would, but I can't. MM's probably can and likely are.
A very important note:
"Does the adjusted EBITDA of the parent company Fresenius factor in to the value of the CVRs?
No, the Adjusted EBITDA metric is that generated by APP Pharmaceuticals (Fresenius Kabi Pharmaceuticals Holding, Inc.) during the three years ending December 31, 2010. "
So far as when do shareholders get paid...Once the full year 2010 financial report is published:
"and will be payable June 30, 2011."
Basically they'll publish the report, the shares will stop trading, and then if there's any value the company will buy the shares for whatever the EBITDA dictates on June 30th 2011.
All this can be found here:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=130431&p=irol-cvr
I don't usually cite other posts as a reference, but rather use them as a starting point for my own research. Your posts and many others have been very helpful in getting me started so I appreciate the efforts.
I do hope I'm wrong, which is why I continue to post. I'm not posting to try to call someone out, rather to see if I'm missing something that would send this baby to the moon. So far though I feel good about my decision to stay away.
The news is too fresh to have a link to point at. Are you questioning the existence of a partnership or are you questioning the extent of the potential financial gains for CBAI? Just call AHIP for yourself and you'll find there's a partnership/agreement between them.
You don't have to put more than one question mark behind your questions, I get it with just one. Multiple question marks don't make your question more meaningful and it doesn't discredit my opinion.
Why wouldn't there be an agreement? There are lots of reasons for health insurance companies to encourage cord blood storage. The mechanics of how that's done is yet to be seen, but I believe that this partnership is opening the doors to serious thought and discussion about how to encourage cord blood storage. Once they figure it out, and more people start doing it, CBAI will grow to profitability and continue to grow.
Has CBAI ever told a half truth before? It's a real company. I'm not saying they never will lie, but they haven't yet and I don't think that they're starting now.
The viability of the business may be a big question mark, but they don't lie.
If you can show me where they've lied before then I'm all ears.
Respectfully, you are very wrong. There is no loss coverage involved. If the cumulative EBITDA does not meet the goal then these shares will be worth zero. Zilch. Nada. $0.
The stock will stop trading once the 2010 financials are released. At that point, if the EBITDA value is met or exceeded, the company will buy your shares from you per the agreement. Until then these shares openly trade.
Here's a scenario about how these shares come to exist....
Let's say I own a company named ABC and it's just started to make a profit and it looks like we are really about to bust lose and start raking in the cash. All the long term shareholders are really excited that they've waited out the storm and are looking forward to some green.
Now, out of nowhere, comes XYZ company with a buyout offer. XYZs offer is close to being acceptable, but the CEO and shareholders believe that there's a lot more potential for future profits and that the sales price doesn't properly reflect that future income.
So an agreement is made. XYZ says, "we don't think we'll make that much, but if we do then we'll give you everything over $X in EBITDA"
This satisfies ABC shareholders, so in order to spread out the profits properly stock (CVRs) is given to ABC shareholders to reflect their interest in ABC and the merger is done.
Now ABC is no more, and XYZ is running the show. So as long as XYZ meets or exceeds that EBITDA number, the CVR shares have value. Otherwise, it turns out that XYZ was right all along and that what they paid for ABC was correct, or maybe even too much.
Study up on options, that's what these CVRs are most like. Options expire with zero value all the time.
APCVZ is not a company. The APCVZ shares are CVR shares which is like an option contract and can expire with zero value. These shares are not equity. Please do your research.
My understanding is that the share price in the EBITDA calculation on the final page (as I believe you are referring to) is a wash because it's added in to one of the other numbers in a previous calculation.
I don't think the share price will affect the EBITDA in the way you are explaining. I'm no financial expert or balance sheet expert, but maybe someone else out there can explain better or dubunk my theory.
Common sense dictates that the share price of the CVR shouldn't affect the EBITDA. The CVR should be treated and looked at as though it's a call option and nothing more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_value_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_%28finance%29
I sold my shares when the financials came out and will not buy them back. The share price fluctuation we are seeing is simply gamblers making bets, and in my opinion is not based on financial probability. I mentioned the greater fool theory in another post, please take a look here to get a better idea of what's going on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory
All of this is simply my opinion, and I recommend that anyone reading this dig deep in to the information provided by the company and make their own decision. I am merely providing a perspective that I don't see illustrated here.
Only time will tell. For those holding long I hope I'm wrong, but IMO it's a bad bet.
Look like the volume and price are starting to move. Anybody know whats going on with SCVM?
Check out the greater fool theory. Just fools playing a fools game. IMO.
There could be something that I don't know that'll skyrocket this bad boy in to the stratosphere, but I can't see it.
Be careful guys and girls. Use your head, not your heart.
"Adjusted EBITDA $999,847,000 cumulative for 1-1-08 through 9-30-2010
So add another 1/3rd for Q4 and you get to 1,333,129 for the year which looks good as it exceeds the target 1,267 billion required by 66,129 Million. "
Bad math Scotia..
Why would you add 1/3rd of a cumulative number that is derived from a total of 11 quarters to predict a result for one quarter?
I hate to say this, as I'm long on APCVZ and hold shares, but your second prediction looks accurate to me :(...There is one saving grace, and that's the fact that each quarter has been increasingly larger EBITDA. There's still a possibility that there could be some value.
Also, the payout is based on 2.5X of the value above the threshold.
Adjusted EBITDA $339,058,000 cumulative for quarters 1-3, 2010
Adjusted EBITDA $999,847,000 cumulative for 1-1-08 through 9-30-2010
Humphries is being sued in Arkansas. Seems like a really trustworthy guy. Maybe he could get together with Miro Z and they could fondle each other while they steal money from everyone.
Humphries allegedly changed a power of attorney from a limited time frame to an unlimited time frame. He is being sued for $75,000 for breach of fiduciary duty, as well as some other pretty nasty things.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/arkansas/arwdce/5:2010cv05150/35562/
Christopher Humphries.
Possible. But I don't think so. Christopher would have shown up for court.
It's because SH sold his interest and therefore has nothing left to gain from winning a suit.
I wonder if SH is Here?
http://tx.idoget.biz/Casa_Creativa-Business-102598
He's registered with the Texas SOS as the registered agent.
I bet he's there.
If you sign up for Pacer you can view this:
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/doc1/17715261052
The case has been dismissed unless the plaintiff shows up by October 14th.
Here's the deal. The attorney for the plaintiff (Connie L.
Cantinchi) removed herself as the attorney for Gold Recycle Corp. because SH disappeared and she hasn't been able to contact him. The only contact info she had was his yahoo email address. SH told Cantinchi that he had sold his controlling interest in Gold Recycle Corp., but wouldn't say who he sold it to.
It's fine if you don't believe what I'm telling you here, just sign up for pacer and see for yourself. It's listed in the northern district court of Texas. Just search for "Gold Recycle" in the business name box and it'll come up and then you can view the docs. This one was the last one, #19. It costs all of 24 cents to view.
Here's a quote "At the hearing, Cantinchi stated that her employment as in-house counsel had been terminated by Humphries who had sold his controlling interest in GRC and told her to collect her personal belongings from his soon-to-be closed office."
Post Unavailable
Additional Information
Why should investors have to use so much imagination to decipher the message in HTDS press releases? Seems like every PR is littered with vague statements and many are news about other companies. There's a reason they connect the dots for you. Ask yourself the question, Why would they want me to speculate well beyond what's actually been accomplished in their own lab?
If I had shares I was selling, I would want the buyers to speculate as far in the future as the imagination would allow, that way they would pay the most for the shares. If I was buying shares, as the share buyback program suggests, I would only put out news that was directly related to HTDS and that was solid, or news related to material events of the company.
If Sony comes out with a new TV you won't see a PR from Panasonic saying how great it is and how they are working on one that's just like it, although they are way behind in progress, unless Sony and Panasonic are in partnership or share some licenses. So how are Geron and HTDS related? Do they share licenses? Are they in partnership? To my knowledge the answer is NO on both questions.
Awesome Dave! Thanks for sharing the details. I have a question.
You noted "iHub also filed sworn affidavits and evidence with the court showing the plaintiffs' extensive undisclosed postings on iHub, none of which carried a carried a 17(b) disclaimer"
Isn't that something the SEC should know and isn't it something that should be prosecuted? To see these guys fined would be wonderful. I've seen posts describing where the info could be found (in Canada) but I don't live there so I can't get it.
I have been to many real estate closings. Every single dollar that has changed hands has been deposited in the attorneys escrow account and disbursed from there. Whether it was a cash deal or a financed deal has made no difference. The money goes in to the attorney's escrow account, all the money, and is disbursed from there. There has not been a single instance that a check has been written (certified or otherwise) from buyer to seller. Never. Not a single time. I have bought and sold a lot of real estate ranging from tens of thousands to millions of dollars and what I'm telling you is fact. There are tax prorations, recording fees, all kinds of things that are more easily sorted out by the closing attorney.
I'm not arguing whether or not you are in breach of contract. I'll take your word for it that you are not in breach and that FNM owes you a deed. Getting that deed though is a whole 'nother story.
If you deposited the purchase money with the attorney, and he (or she) put it in his (or her) escrow account (which is usually a trust account) and he (or she) sent out your money to FNM without giving you a deed, then you would be able to go to the attorney and say "where's my deed?". It's the attorney's duty to handle that, whether he's working for you or FNM. Instead, now you have to go to FNM, which is surely a nightmare since you're not in the loop and probably can't even get to the right person. I would bet that where FNM is concerned that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. The person that signs the deeds probably doesn't even know you've paid for the property and had a closing.
I'm not trying to bust your balls (just a saying, I know you don't have balls if you're a female), and I'm not trying to say that FNM is God's gift to real estate. But for you to say that FNM is a bunch of crooks and swindlers is way off base, especially when you admittedly decided to throw a wrench in their modus operandi.
FNM is obviously on the ropes, but not because they are crooked. It's because they are an insurance company with way too many claims and did not charge enough for the policies.