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.
UVIH: It was definitely Bobkubecka that brought it
Rawnoc's claims to the contrary were just more of his lies.
He was a fraudster and identity thief.
Details here:
https://investimonials.com/twitter/reviews-twitter-rawnoc.aspx
CNCG: A bit of hair
Numbers look good but multiple class actions and Wells Notices outstanding.
Lucas Class Action
On June 19, 2020, USCF, USO, John P. Love and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a purported stockholder class action initiated by Robert Lucas, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated (the “Lucas Class Action”). The Lucas Class Action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740.
The Lucas Class Action complaint alleges that, beginning in March 2020, in connection with USO’s registration and issuance of additional USO shares, USCF, USO, and the other defendants in the Lucas Class Action failed to disclose to investors in USO certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. Plaintiff alleges that USCF, USO, and the other defendants in the Lucas Class Action possessed inside knowledge about the consequences of these converging adverse events on USO and did not sufficiently acknowledge them until late April and May 2020, after USO suffered losses and was allegedly forced to abandon its investment strategy. The complaint seeks to certify a class and award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial.
On August 18, 2020, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4, motions were filed seeking to consolidate the Lucas Class Action with (i) a purported stockholder class action initiated on June 31, 2020 by Moshe Ephrati, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, that is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06010 and in which the same defendants named in the Lucas Class Action were also named as defendants (the “Ephrati Class Action”), and (iii) a purported stockholder class action initiated on August 13, 2020 by Danny Palacios, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, that is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06442 and also named the same defendants as in the Lucas Class Action and the Ephrati Class Action (the “Palacios Class Action” and, together with the Lucas Class Action and the Ephrati Class Action, the “Class Actions”). Each of the complainants in the Ephrati Class Action and the Palacios Class Action seeks to certify a class and award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial.
The claims made in the Ephrati Class Action and the Palacios Class Action are substantively identical to the Lucas Class Action, except that the putative class period in each of the Ephrati Class Action and Lucas Class Action begins on March 19, 2020, whereas the putative class period in the Palacios Class Action begins on February 25, 2020. The Class Actions have been designated as related, and have been assigned to the same Judge and consolidated into a single case.
USCF, USO and the other defendants in the Class Actions intend to vigorously contest the claims made therein and move for their dismissal.
Mehan Complaint
USO was named as a defendant in a complaint dated August 10, 2020 (docketed August 19, 2020), filed by purported shareholder Darshan Mehan, asserted derivatively on behalf of USO, against defendants USCF, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, Malcolm R. Fobes III, and USO as a nominal defendant (the “Mehan Complaint”). The complaint is pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda as Case No. RG20070732.
The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to USO and that USCF failed to act in good faith in connection with a March 19, 2020 offering and certain extraordinary market conditions that caused demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants possessed inside knowledge about the consequences of these converging adverse events on USO and did not sufficiently acknowledge them until after USO suffered losses and was allegedly forced to abandon its investment strategy. The complaint seeks compensatory damages at an amount be determined at trial, restitution, equitable relief, attorney’s fees and costs.
USCF, USO and the other defendants intend to vigorously contest such claims and move for their dismissal.
SEC and CFTC Wells Notices
On August 17, 2020, USCF, USO, and John Love received a “Wells Notice” from the staff of the SEC (the “SEC Wells Notice”). The SEC Wells Notice relates to USO’s disclosures in late April and early May regarding constraints imposed on USO’s ability to invest in Oil Futures Contracts. The SEC Wells Notice states that the SEC staff has made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against USCF, USO, and Mr. Love alleging violations of Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in each case with respect to its disclosures and USO’s actions during that period.
On August 19, 2020, USCF, USO and John Love received a Wells Notice from the staff of the CFTC (the “CFTC Wells Notice”). The CFTC Wells Notice states that the CFTC staff has made a preliminary determination to recommend that the CFTC file an enforcement action against USCF, USO, and Mr. Love alleging violations of Sections 4o(1)(A) and (B) and 6(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6o(1)(A), (B), 9(1) (2018), and CFTC Regulations 4.26, 4.41, and 180.1(a), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.26, 4.41, 180.1(a) (2019), in each case with respect to its disclosures and USO’s actions.
A Wells Notice is neither a formal charge of wrongdoing nor a final determination that the recipient has violated any law. USCF, USO, and Mr. Love maintain that USO’s disclosures and their actions were appropriate. They intend to vigorously contest the allegations made by the SEC staff in the SEC Wells Notice and the CFTC staff in the CFTC Wells Notice and expect to engage in a dialogue with the SEC staff and CFTC staff regarding these matters.
Cantrell and AML Pharm. Inc., Complaints
On August 27, 2020, USCF was named as a defendant in two actions filed by purported shareholders Michael Cantrell (the “Cantrell Complaint”) and AML Pharm. Inc. DBA Golden International (the “AML Complaint”). Both the Cantrell Complaint and the AML Complaint are asserted derivatively on behalf of USO, against defendants USCF, John P. Love and Stuart P. Crumbaugh, as well as USO directors Andrew F Ngim, Gordon L. Ellis, Malcolm R. Fobes III, Nicholas D. Gerber, Robert L. Nguyen, and Peter M. Robinson, as well as USO as a nominal defendant. The Cantrell Complaint is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06974. The AML Complaint is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06981.
The Cantrell Complaint and AML Complaint are nearly identical. They allege violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 21D of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and common law claims of breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. These allegations stem from USO’s disclosures and performance, and defendants’ actions in respect thereof, in light of the extraordinary market conditions in 2020 that caused demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The complainants seek, on behalf of USO, compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial, restitution, equitable relief, attorney’s fees and costs. The plaintiffs in the Cantrell Complaint and AML Complaint have marked their actions as related to the Lucas Class Action.
USCF, USO and the other defendants in the Cantrell Complaint and AML Complaint intend to vigorously contest such claims and move for their dismissal.
LUVU: That wasn't the CEO
The boring guy on the call was the CFO. He said the CEO was away.
SNFCA: 126K block sold at the close at 6.28
Lots of selling the last half hour before that.
Congrats on snagging the low.
CODA: A new warning in the Q
The Q filed today has this, which wasn't in the previous Q:
Exporting to China
The change in both the US and UK Governments attitude towards trade with China, directly affects the sale by our Products Business to customers based in China. Our real time 3D sonars which are rated above 300 meters along with our inertial navigation and attitude measurement sensors (F180® series) are subject to export control for certain countries, including China. This means that before we export an item which is subject to export control, an export license must be obtained.
Recently, the UK Government refused an export license for the first time in 25 years of our dealing with the UK Export Control Organization for a significant order we had received from a repeat customer in China. The curtailment of access to this market due to Government Restrictions is likely to significantly impact our revenues from Asia.
The removal of China and potentially the European Union as trading partners, would have significant negative impact on our revenues.
Nor is this a political statement
The purple frog yearns for the least despicable conundrum.
Still pretty darn opaque. Does Google have a Swampboots translator?
SNFCA (6.60) Posts $1.07 vs. .19
https://seekingalpha.com/filing/5125291
HBP: Giant after-hours block being whittled away
Someone started with 130000 shares and walked them down from 2.30 to now 2.02. 40000 left rotating between EDGX and ARCA on Schwab's trading site.
5 minutes later...just 30000 left at 2.03 on ARCA. Get 'em while they're hot.
I think it's a different AMS in the news
Mistaken Identity?
This AMS is Austrian. https://ams.com/ams-start
ams Provides Sensor Technology for Medical Technology Startup midge medical to Develop Rapid Test Device for COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)
PRESS RELEASE Businesswire
Aug. 4, 2020, 02:20 PM
ams (SIX: AMS), a leading worldwide supplier of high performance sensor solutions, provides the latest sensor technology to midge medical, a German medical technology startup from Berlin, to develop a disruptive technology for science-backed rapid genetic and blood testing in a home and professional healthcare environment at a lower cost. midge medical’s current focus is on developing a pocket-sized COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) genetic test. Test results can be read-out using a smartphone in as little as 15 minutes. ams and midge medical’s collaboration aims to provide a technology with the potential to move the current market forward.
IKNX joins the party - up 40%
KIK: MPAD Pretty ho-hum
I expected a bit more than the 5.9M sales. They didn't convert as much backlog to sales as some recent quarters. Their quarter ended 2/29 so maybe their productivity is lower during the holiday season.
Negative book/bill with 5.6M of new orders but backlog remains strong.
With $11/share TBV and still nicely profitable, I'm hoping for a panic dump to $10 to add shares.
ASFI buyout finally announced at $11.47
Asta Funding, Inc. Announces Going Private Transaction
Wed April 8, 2020 6:44 PM|GlobeNewswire|About: ASFI
GlobeNewswire
ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, N.J., April 08, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Asta Funding, Inc. (ASFI) (“Asta” or the “Company”) today announced that it has entered into a definitive merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) under which the Stern Group, comprised of Gary Stern, Ricky Stern and certain related parties, will acquire the outstanding publicly held shares of common stock of Asta through the merger of Asta with a wholly-owned subsidiary of Asta Finance Acquisition Inc. (“Parent”), with Asta surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (the “Merger”).
Each share of outstanding common stock will be purchased for $11.47 in cash. The purchase price represents a premium of approximately 36.9% to Asta’s closing stock price on April 7, 2020, the last trading day prior to this announcement.
The Merger was unanimously approved by the board of directors of Asta (the “Board”), acting on the unanimous recommendation of a special committee of independent directors (the “Special Committee”) that was granted full authority to conduct a comprehensive strategic review and evaluate, and if warranted, negotiate an acquisition proposal.
The Merger will be financed by a committed loan facility provided by Bank Leumi USA.
The Merger is expected to close in Asta’s third fiscal quarter of 2020 and is subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions as well as the approval by Asta’s stockholders other than the Stern Group. The Asta Board recommends that Asta’s stockholders vote to adopt and approve the Merger Agreement. Upon closing, Asta will become a privately held company and as such, the Company’s shares of common stock will no longer be listed or traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market.
Researcher: one possible change to your equation
If you use "stolen quality-years" as a unit of cost rather than just "stolen years, " your point is further strengthened.
Those years in the 80s just ain't the same as years in the 20s in terms of quality and enjoyment. I'm not quite there yet but I'd trade two years in front of me for another one in my 20s in the blink of an eye.
Mermelstein: Great post
That sounds completely right.
This virus thing raises lots of philosophical questions. I tend to be pretty utilitarian in my thinking. Whatever produces the most overall happiness....
Does shutting down the world for months and causing massive economic disruption really make sense to avoid the virus, if indeed it even succeeds? Hard to decide without putting a price on life, which is difficult.
Do all the 25 year olds who are losing jobs and now can't make rent support a lockdown policy when they have about a 100% survival rate even if they get the flu?
Are we punishing the young to protect the old and unproductive (like me)?
Even if 10,000,000 people died, that would be about 0.13% of a massively overpopulated world. Would that be acceptable if it avoided global depression, government defaults or hyperinflation, massive unemployment, rising crime, and perhaps aggressive militarism a la the rise of WWII?
I don't know any answers but sure have a lot of questions.
AFINP: Coverage and Cash Flow
Check this out:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4320646-american-finance-defend-your-income-this-7_5-preferred
AFINP: 11 years average lease term, 17%+ yield
Also, 75% exposure to investment-grade tenants.
Gonna take some hits but I'm betting they survive.
Gilead: Check out AFINP
Looks overly punished at 11.52
Worth the time to place lowball bids
I got 2500 OSS at .59 at the open. Crazy.
TNP-C,BRG-A: Lots of panic in the preferreds
With more oil supply, tanker rates have been skyrocketing
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3550780-daily-tanker-earnings-hit-300k-in-saudi-led-tonnage-frenzy
Yet tanker companies are getting slammed.
TNP-C is a preferred which redeems 10/31/20.
Dropped nearly $3 today to 22.36. About 30% annualized for a hold of less than 8 months.
Tsakos should be taking advantage of the higher rates and recently sold some older ships to add liquidity so they should have no trouble redeeming the issue.
BRG is a multifamily REIT. It's "A" preferred has a holder put at $25 on 10/21/22 and mandatory redemption if their coverage falls below 200%. It tanked to $21 which is about a 17% yield to the put date.
Tons of others.....
AEY: Overpriced + broke = S-3 filing. No surprise.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/874292/000144526020000021/forms-3_03022020.htm
Nelson: Sideline on AEY
I think it would be a good short if plenty of shares were available.
They aren't, at least at Schwab.
Checked to see if any options traded to consider puts, but alas no options.
AEY (4.40) rocketing. Short squeeze.
Forced covering at some brokers.
Thought MPAD 10-K was great
Ended the year strong.
Put up a big quarter a bit ahead (timing wise) of what I expected with better quarters likely ahead.
Over 9.2M of new orders in the Q so a book/bill about 1.2
Added to backlog as expected with that b/b.
With recent price gains, this is a top 5 holding for me.
DPDW is interesting but governance has been terrible
I've watched this for years. The founder, Smith, led the company through an endless parade of loses, disappointments, stock price devaluation, and mismanagement.
Even with the company much smaller than it was a decade ago and steady annual losses, he continued to loot the company. Took comp of 550K or so and threw another 210K at his ex-wife who was on the board as a "retainer" in case they needed her for up to 15 hours a week. Alimony paid straight out of DPDW?
So, 3/4 of a $million, way too much for a tiny company.
Recently, Smith quit and his wife was booted from the board, Smith didn't go quietly though - 350K to exit and 2 years of "consulting" thru 2021 for up to 15 hours a week at $15K/month. Less per hour for doing maybe nothing than his ex-wife got for doing maybe nothing. Not sure what to conclude from that.
Tried to sell the company last year but concluded the process with nothing done.
That privately negotiated may well have been a purchase from Smith, who was on record for wanting to sell 300K shares.
Trade date in US, settlement date in Canada
I remember an argument on this board about this many years ago between 2 folks who were both right - turned out that one was Canadian.
ESOA (.66) Announced .05 dividend
Stock down 20%
OT: The term is "Bated" breath
Bated breath is a phrase that means to hold one's breath due to suspense, trepidation or fear. Bated breath is a phrase first mentioned in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. The word bated is an abbreviation of the word abated, meaning to lessen in severity or amount.
Hate to think what baited breath might be...maybe what comes out of your mouth after eating a bag of anchovies or herring.
OSS: Thanks, Dave
Sure seems that 45% drop from last month to earlier today was a bit extreme.
OSS (1.85) getting hammered every day
Anyone have a theory why?
SOT-UN Discount to NAV is about 33%
The NAV of 8.86 is in Canadian $, I think.
The stock price of 5.93 Canadian is about a third off of NAV.
I have been accumulating this for a while for the same reasons you are.
All dollar amounts are in thousands of Canadian dollars, unless otherwise noted.
ASFI (6.95) gets buyout offer at 10.75
..from CEO.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1001258/000143774919021292/ex_162356.htm
Dear Members of the Board:
I am pleased to submit this non-binding proposal (the “Proposal”) to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the common stock of Asta Funding, Inc. (the “Company”) at a cash purchase price of $10.75 per share, representing a premium of approximately 60% over the closing price of the Company’s common stock on October 29, 2019, and approximately 60% over the average closing price of the Company’s common stock for the past 30 trading days. Given the premium to the market price, I believe that this Proposal presents a highly attractive opportunity for the public shareholders of the Company.
I anticipate that the transaction would be in the form of a merger of the Company with a newly formed acquisition vehicle that I would control. I expect the Company’s management to remain in place following the merger along with the rest of the Company’s valued employees. I am presenting this Proposal on my own behalf, but I may approach family members and related entities to join me in this Proposal.
I expect that you will establish a special committee of independent directors (the “Special Committee”), with its own independent legal and financial advisors, to review the Proposal on behalf of the Company’s public shareholders. I will not move forward with the transaction unless it is approved by the Special Committee. In addition, any definitive acquisition agreement would need to include a non-waivable majority of the minority vote condition.
You should be aware that I am interested only in acquiring the outstanding shares of the Company that I do not already own. I am not interested in selling my shares in the Company to a third party or participating in any merger or other strategic transaction involving any third party, and do not intend to vote in my capacity as a shareholder in favor of any such transaction. Nevertheless, I assure you that if the Special Committee, after consulting with its advisors, does not approve this Proposal or the requisite vote of the minority shareholders is not obtained, my relationship with the Company would not be adversely affected.
In accordance with my legal obligations, I will be filing an amendment to my Schedule 13D, and will include a copy of this letter.
I have retained Bayard, P.A. as my legal advisor in this matter.
I reserve the right to withdraw or modify this Proposal until such time as definitive agreements are entered into with the Company.
I look forward to the opportunity to discuss the Proposal with the Special Committee and its advisors. Should you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
/s/ Gary M. Stern
SCX Annual Report is on their website
https://www.starrett.com/about/investor-relations/annual-reports-(with-proxy)
If you download the zip file, the report is there.
That also mention the undervaluation of the stock but don't say that they plan to do anything about it.
Seems they should have issued an 8-K with the report included.
MPAD WAG
Looking back at previous quarters' bookings, backlog, and revenue,
the periodic correlation was more variable than I hoped.
So the WAG is very WA.
Since Q2 was a down bookings quarter, I'm guessing that Q4 might be down - maybe 6M and .30.
Backing into Q3 bookings, it looks like they booked about 8.6M in orders and enjoyed a book/bill close to under 1.2. To me, that portends a quarter of over 8M in revenue and earnings of maybe .60. Probably not Q4, though, unless they turn a lot of recent orders around awfully quickly.
MPAD: Gotta get back to you on that
I am out in the boonies fishing for a few days but will be able to WAG
probably Sunday.
My guess..with no data at hand right now..is that sales will dip next quarter and then recover subsequently with strong profitability all along. I say that only because I think backlog dipped a bit then recovered so I thought revenue would do the same with a time lag.
Gotta see if the timing of the backlog is spelled out in the Q.
Right after I catch and release a bunch of trophy fish.
MPAD($12): .46 vs. .10
Backlog over $20M suggests more nice quarters ahead.
Tangible book over $10. Cash over $5.50/sh.
SPRT: 5% holder tired of scummy management
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1104855/000101143819000131/0001011438-19-000131-index.htm
The JDS Persons believe that the Board appears to be using its purported Section 382 purpose for the Current Plan as cover to obfuscate the Current Plan’s real intended purpose as a tool for board entrenchment. Such a strategy is contrary to the best interests of the Company’s stockholders and the Board’s fiduciary duty to serve those interests. The lack of responsive Section 382 analysis from the Company further confirms this intention. Additionally, the Company’s actions imply that the Current Plan was enacted as a direct defensive response to the JDS Persons increased ownership position in August 2019, rather than for Section 382 purposes. The reality of the Board’s entrenchment activities and internal tactics with respect to the Current Plan stand in stark contrast to the Company’s stated Section 382 purpose. The JDS Persons obtained their ownership interests under the belief, and continue to believe, that the Company’s intrinsic value has not been fully realized in the Company’s current share price in light of the foregoing actions by the Company and its Board.
SCX: There it is - extra 9488000 in pension liability
Earnings look fine, otherwise.
OPXS: Quantifying Q4
It looks like they're expecting 6.7M of the backlog to be delivered in Q4.
It's on page 10 of the Q. Tried to paste but it jumbled.