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.
Sskillz - Nice catch.
From wiki:
As of December 27, 2005, the deadline for filing for large accelerated filers was still 75 days, however beginning with the fiscal year ending on or after December 15, 2006, the deadline will be 60 days. For other accelerated filers the deadline will remain at 75 days and for non-accelerated filers the deadline will remain at 90 days. For further reading, see the Final Rules [1] section of the SEC's website, referencing Rule 33-8644
As their market cap is under $75M they should have 90 days.
With their Year-End as of May 31 they should have until the end of August.
However,they have filed their 10-K the past five years.
9-13-2013
9-14-2012
9-16-2011
9-14-2010
9-15-2009
They have filed NT each time for the last 10+ years. I'd expect the same filing and then a release around their normal date.
Thanks for the note to check it.
I wish I would have been the person who sold the shares to the order at $.40- $.45 on friday. never use market orders...
Aahhh. I forgot it was their year end and I had it marked wrong in my files. You are correct that its due by the end of Sep. Their last 10k filings were at the end of the second week of Sep so I'd expect the same. We may be looking like a date of around 12 Sep.
Aren't Financials due today?
I thought that a company has 45 days from the End of the Quarter to file their annual 10Q?
Their Quarterly release is similar to prior.
6% sales growth for the Quarter and for the last 9 months. They have earned $.11 thru .03 and $.04 in this quarter. Lets give them an annual earnings at $.16. Since they are growing at 6% say a 15x = $2.40/share.
At its current price the yield about 4% which is pretty good so I don't see it declining but I don't see any reason to add here.
Like the company, like the Cashflow but its not screaming cheap.
Agreed. I simply don't understand what is taking so long.
I had pulled the Wellpoint but didn't get to read it in full last night. Will try today at lunch.
There is zero chance, imo, that Brooks will see a dime back of whatever has been confiscated at this point, but for the life of me I can not figure out why this dipsh!t can't see the obvious and make nice with the victims with a GS and try to get a couple years off his sentence.
I think its his hubris. When he was CEO he was God and clearly no one told him no, ever. I think its a bit of both between his arrogance and his lawyers milking him.
Do you have a copy of the transcript? I wonder if there is anything intereting in there?
I have no idea if anyone is still even watching this.
Any thoughts on Docket #1829. If true it makes a case against PBSOQ. Love to hear your thoughts...
Also, how does one get a copy of the transcript 1826? My calls to the number provided have gone unanswered and unreturned.
Absolutely agreed. I realized after I posted the message that you were taking the numbers out of the article. As you said the trend is correct and continuing. The trend is your friend in that the smaller guys will consolidate over time. The banks aren't going away they are merging and its a good business plan to invest in low BV and profitable banks that will get gobbled up by others.
I know more about the Credit Union side that they feel that the consolidation they are seeing is only accelerating which counters what people would naturally think about what would happen. People naturally assume the consolidation would happen in the recession and then slow down. Its actually the opposite. During the recession nobody can buy anybody as they are all worried about their own book and ratios.
Then you see a little bit of consolidation coming out and then growing the last two years. The first wave of consolidation is the survivors buying the very weak through some sort of deal either with gov't assistance (think FDIC or NCUA) or just outside it. Then the deals in the last year or so are as boards are seeing that the margins (spread) are not coming back like pre-Recession.
Historically small community banks made their money by collecting deposits and loaning to commercial property. Credit Unions did the same but lending was focused on the automotive side. Credit Unions used to have deals with local dealerships for offering loans, now with the automakers having their own credit companies that business is shrinking.
Add in the cost of compliance and its taking a huge hit.
Chevy -
I'm not sure if your numbers pre-recession are correct. Are you using pre 2007 numbers or 1987 numbers?
The numbers I have were in 1980 were over 20k, now there are 6,812 as of the end of 2013. My understanding is that they are following a similar model to the credit unions where I have better data:
2007 - 8,332 CU
2008 - 8,215
2009 - 8,066
2010 - 7,710
2011 - 7,442
2012 - 7,165
Back in 2007 85% of credit unions had less than $100M in assets and 1.5% had more than a billion. Its now down to 79.6% under $100M and 2.7% over $1B. Regulations and the shrinking spread in loans are driving it.
Chevy-
MLPs are in big demand as interest rates are real low and income investors want yields.
I think that the end game here is that is ends up as an MLP but I think that is a few years out. The biggest negative as an MLP as I understand it is how one values the assets that go into the MLP and that you can't add to it over time.
My understanding is that there is a tax bill upfront so an old asset that has no book value is a struggle for companies to put into an MLP as the MLP has to be valued at current asset values meaning it would create a large tax bill. This is what happens with pipelines where a company won't put old pipelines into the MLP as gains the remaining company would have to pay would be too large. For a company like BDCO this is not an issue.
I expect that our majority owner knows the difference in valuations and sees this as an end game. Otherwise it made no sense for him to put this asset into BDCO in the first place. He owned 100% of the Nixon refinery and sold it to a business where he owned 81% and yet owns 100% of the company that works and manages the facility. Why give up 20% of the refinery or atleast make the refinery break even and pull the money our by overcharging for mgmt.
Instead I think he we eventually sell the refinery outside of Corpus to BDCO and then once BDCO gets that going you then turn that into an MLP. I think he hasn't sold the refinery to BDCO as part of the refinery is under EPA review/analysis for contaimination. (It may be a superfund site - I cannot remember). The field testing was supposed to be done in April and now Aug/September. Assume that results are reported out this fall and everything is good I think we could see a deal go through. I believe the concern is around the storage tanks on site and not the refinery itself. If I was the BDCO board I couldn't approve a purchase with this outstanding liability nor do I think a bank would finance it. EI- your thoughts on this.?
Once you have two refineries and the fact that I believe the Corpus refinery is 2x larger I think you uplist off the OTC and get a rerating. Then turn into an MLP and rerate again.
Geez, I think I just talked myself into adding to the position.
Yesterday it looked like they wanted to sell. I was referencing on Wednesday. Somebody picked up 47k shares @ $.27.
Just check on this once in a while.
Think equity gets something?
BTW, thanks for this reply from a while back.
Seems like someone wanted to buy 50k shares today. Not sure why. Nothing that I see in PACER but then again I only looked at the criminal case and the PBSOQ bankruptcy docket.
Think we see any resolution by the end of 2014?
You still in this one?
Saw some other news on these guys and we are back to where you first started talking about these guys.
Denny the two are linked. They need more generation but need debt to buy the assets to make it happen. Lets look at generation capacity:
They have 129MW of renewable power of which all is privately owned. However 10MW of wind generation isn't equal to 10MW of coal generation as wind isn't a base load. This amount is its theoretical load power and wind averages around 30% of that.
The rest of the generation is 5,159MW and all but 900 of that is owned by PREPA and is 90% oil powered/10% coal. Like almost all islands they are paying probably close to $.40-$.50/kwh for that fuel.
I've seen something out of Guam (which has the same problems) in that they are a pushing for solar + battery storage which will make these project much more expensive than solar alone but will not stress the grid as much.
Long term there is a lot of money to be made by whomever can put together good plans for islands to get off oil.
As someone who has worked with the utility authority in Jamaica I expect that Puerto Rico isn't different. A capable mgmt. team who is willing to restructure would do great things but it would take a while to figure it out.
Chevy is right. BDCO is a very interesting investment. As long as the spread between WTI and Gulf pricing BDCO should do very, very well.
Found an article last night that stated the real output of the Nixon plant may be 20k barrels/day up from 15k. Supposedly the previous plant ran quite a bit at 17k and could and would run at 20k for periods of high demand.
I spent some time on TCEQ website and was not able to find any requests to increase the facility size.
I also understand why BDCO may have not purchased Ingleside Plant (near Aransas Pass) from Lazarus. Its a Superfund site with analysis/sampling of the plant and its environment being completed in 2014. If its not too horrible I would expect to see it sold in the future as it had a historical capacity of 40k barrels per day.
EI, Chevy or others,
Have you seen the writeup(s) on Rescap? Seems similar to this one. Thoughts on a comparison between the two?
Generally I don't attend Shareholder meetings and I have no plan on attending this one either.
For shareholders the biggest question is "When can you write new business?. They can't and won't be able to answer that at the meeting. Nor will they comment on the legalese of Detroit/America Roads/Puerto Rico/other MBS items. Therefore no reason to go.
I do look to go to other small companies in microcaps and often you get a tour of the operations or atleast can look the mgmt. in the eye and see if you like them/trust them with your money.
Bob-
I like you $19 target and you are correct that we could see that amount if we have a few quarters together of positive results.
That said here are some of my concerns:
- Mgmt concentration. This thing is basically owned by the President (LEH).
- Related Party transaction(s) - Property was bought from LEH and staffing to run the plant is done by 100% to LEH. Why didn't LEH just do this on his own instead of sharing 19% of the business in BDCO that he didn't own.
- Capital Investments going forward. My understanding is the diesel they produce is not wholly salable but instead must be blended with other refinery outputs. I believe the cost to upgrade to the higher diesel standard was estimated at $50M by BDCO in a prior Q.
Positives:
the basic ban of refiners in the US has created this opportunity as they save on shipping/logistics costs. I expect this to continue.
-However other refiners in the Texas region are growing capacity so margins may get hit in 2015 when some come online.
- Even further upside if they end up buying the shuttered plant in Corpus Christi from LEH or if they become an MLP.
All in a good position to have.
Bob-
Its been a week and no response. Well it would have been nice. Did you ever hear back?
As long as mgmt. hits what they said they were going to do in a reasonable timeframe they are probably doing all right. I've watched too many companies with the same song and dance each quarter.
Yes, I'm looking at you PMFG and AXPW. Different stories but mgmt. trots out the same story about how the turn is coming. It never does.
Chevy -
Those sales equate to a price of approximately 25k per room in aggregate.
Baymont - $26k
Super 8 (Omaha) - $15.8k
Super 8 (Boise) - $26k
Super 8 (Iowa) - $41.2k
That may make sense as the property in Clarinda is the only hotel in town on an interstate and looks fairly new only. The one near Omaha has more competition and is older.
FD: No position but I like stalking Chevy as he has great ideas.
Agreed with everything you posted Denny.
It just seems that with the going concern language removed this shouldn't be trading at 40% on the dollar but close to Par.
Agreed on the Preferreds waiting but if I was an activist HF I'd be buying the preferreds and common and using my postion in the preferreds to get a seat on the board. Not sure what good it would do right now but I can see value in it long term.
Actually I may need to apologize. It seems that this business, which is 45 minutes from where I live has had some problems the past few years.
Original Sale:
http://packagingrevolution.net/pallet-maker-trienda-sold/
http://www.americanswindlers.com/kentucky-businessman-loses-control-of-wisconsin-company-after-major-loan-default/
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20130425/NEWS/130429942/zamec-back-as-president-of-former-trienda-thermoforming-plant#
Here is an article from the local newspaper.
http://www.wiscnews.com/news/article_a05b5591-b2ee-5303-9465-46d638c34a89.html
The business mix isn't just pellet products but actually an extension of their business line into other specialty plastic pallets.
http://www.trienda.com/Assets/CorpBrochurelr.pdf
Corp Website:
http://www.trienda.com/
Thanks. I get why they would try to get vertically integrated. But if a $70M annual business is sold for $13M that tells me that margins in this business are rough and commoditized.
In general I'm not a fan of trying to get vertically integrated. I'd rather focus on the sales/distributor relationship but this may help them on price as they eliminate a distributor and say 10% margin from their supplier.
Thanks Denny.
For whatever reason I thought that the preferreds were based on par of $25 and were trading on the assumption of a PAR +catch-up payment (for deferred dividends) like most bank stocks. Should have spent some time really looking at them. At a trade of $40 it would still be quite the run to $100 and you are getting PIKs right now.
I may trim some of my common and move partly up the ladder.
Wait a second. I've only been watching the Preferreds rise in price on a nice to know basis.
Are the preferreds trading at $40 out of a par value of $100 or a par of something like $25.
What was the coupon rate on these?
The NYDFS report is what I've been waiting for. We get that and the shareprice is going places.
Bob-
I reached out to the company this morning. I will let you know if I get any response.
EI or Chevy-
Did either of you attend the annual shareholder meeting that was last week?
I decided to sharpen my pencil in a futile attempt to keep my investing analysis clean and functioning. Ran into one big red flag for me.
The head guy owns 80% of this investment but he owns 100% of the business who owned the plant and owned 100% of staff. He easily could simply make the plant breakeven and line his pockets at above cost operating contract. Your thoughts?
I have a few other questions for mgmt. and will post them if I get a response for them. Its one of the most interesting stocks I've seen in quite a while. I simply have no idea how you found it.
Good to see you here Chevy. This has been a position of mine for a few months now.
I've given up my PM abilities but hope all is well with your and yours. There is a good writeup out there on VIC I believe.
Hank-
I agree with your concern. Goldman has acted unethically and illegally (imo) for the last several years here. However they own 60% of the preferred and 100% of the common.
I wonder if they were getting some heat from the SEC asking questions so they figured the best way was to "make everybody whole" ignoring the fact of how they obtained the 60% of the preferreds?
Does anybody know of any other situation where Goldman or another IB where they have acted as bad as they have here? A leopard doesn't change its stripes.
JPMs handling of DIMEQ warrants were similar in that there is/was contradictory evidence that shows that it was never transferred from WAHUQ to JPM yet they testified it was.
Congrats EI and Chevy (all all others)-
First post on this board was Fall of 2011. If you got your shares then it was trading under $2 so way to go. Nobody deserves it more than you two. Too bad one didn't get in this in 2010 for $.10/share but I assume that's when Goldman got the majority of their shares.
I'm happy with the 100 shares and I'd be buying more right now here if I could. My current role requires me that I have no access to my trading accounts as per my employement contract so I have simply have them in equity accounts except for a small amount of money that is in my wifes name. If this pays out this year even from right now that is a hell of a return. EMH my ass.
Nice to see you Chevy. Just bought 100 shares of this. Simply for entertainment. I hope its profitable but more importantly I want justice served. Add 1 more to the shareholder list.
Wall-
Do you have any idea of who still owns shares in this?
I'd assume that most of retail sold when they went BK. I'm wondering if any of the original firms who wanted this a few years back is still in or do you think they sold out. I'd guess they still hold some but not as much.
I wonder when our great national nightmare will be over?
Like the previous poster stated. Its generally impossible for the normal retail investor to short an OTC stock. However it can happen. I've used interactive brokers and been able to short high flyers in OTC land as they were willing to do so using shares owned by other IB account holders. They will charge an interest rate to do so and IB is generous in that they split that fee with the guy who is willing to lend his shares out. (i'm not sure how the rate is determined as I've never asked)
*****************************************************
In discussions with an old securities lawyer he told me that he believes the vast majority of short sales on the OTC stocks are basically an offsetting position created by market makers. This happens when a MM may be trying to put together an order say for 500k shares for a buyer at a certain price. Hes buying up shares at a little less but say he gets only 360k of what he needs. He doesn't want exposure overnight so he goes short the amount in his book. Then the next morning he removes his short, fills the rest of what he needs and then sells the full 500k shares to his buyer. Its generally an accounting position for the MM in OTC. Its also used during the T+3 time when companies have issued shares to people and the people want to convert them to be tradeable. My guess is the jump was teh MM trying to fill some large orders and couldn't by EOD.
Most of the time in these thinly traded securities you are selling to or buying from a MM. The MM then holds what he bought from you and then sells it for a few pennies higher. I believe this to be the reason you are seeing the ask move with the bid as the MM(s) are looking at the order books infront of them and moving both sides in tandem. They are just trying to scalp a penny or two/share. It also leads to somewhat a double counting of the shares traded.
Now, a caveat. When lots of volume is moving the MMs may just move aside and let the action trade against each other which then eliminates the double count of share volume but can lead to larger bid/ask spreads when either the buyer or sellers go on strike.
Enough with the FOUR.
I used to own 4Kids back in 2012 when it was in BK. Bought in the 20s and sold in the low 70s. Unfortunately it was a small play but half of that is what I used to buy SYCRF. Sadly I only own 20k shares unlike some others on here.
FOUR has a little bit of cash, a whole lot of NOLs and hope that they get some money from the Lehman estate and their new business model works. Very different than Syncora.
There was an article published over the weekend on SeekingAlpha that laid out a case that the $2 non-US award was still probable even without the US approval.
If that is true, and I'm not saying it is or isn't a $2 payout in a little more than 2 years from now is still a very solid annualized return for people.
Good to see you here. I doubled my position at $.34. My opening position was at $.68 after the first drop.
Think there is a good shot for $2 on the non-US sales but it will take some time.