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.
Good time to exit this sinking boat. 9.5% monthly interest? Ouch. What are they? Loan shark? The financing terms are ludicrous.
Sapphire to get lift from Apple Watch
2015-03-10 09:23
Shanghai Daily Web Editor: Qian Ruisha
The Apple Watch is expected to benefit Chinese sapphire suppliers by driving demand for the highly durable sapphire glass, a Taiwan-based research firm said yesterday.
More smartphone and consumer electronics manufacturers are likely to adopt sapphire material for their future products, according to analysts.
Apple Inc was set to launch the Apple Watch yesterday in California. The watch glass is made of sapphire glass which is supplied by Chinese companies.
"Apple has provided an unprecedented, game-changing opportunity for China's sapphire industry," said Figo Wang, Trendforce's senior analyst.
"The sapphire production will likely become a globally competitive segment of China's materials industry."
Apple is expected to sell 20 million Apple Watches in 2015. Except for the Sport series, all other Apple Watch models use sapphire glass cover, Wang added.
Chinese companies, including Lens Technology and Harbin Aurora Optoelectronics Technology, may benefit from the expected Apple Watch wave.
Eventually GTATQ will become zero, like 95% of the Q stocks. But till then we have some room to play. This is a musical chair game, IMHO.
As usual, this too will fizzle. I think people tend to be quiet when it sinks 50% and overjoyed when it gains 15%. Company mighty skimpy on details.
I don't see Fidelity asking court for the permission to trade equities. This concerns claim trading, not equity trading.
Absolutely irrelevant to GTATQ shareholders for whom major sales must happen within this month or next month -- the POR cannot just contain wishful thinking; creditors will be all over it.
Irrelevant to GTATQ shareholders. GTATQ will most likely submit the POR by this June, at the latest.
You might be able to buy them for a penny each soon.
Since the Apple settlement, just about every indication has been negative so far. No furnaces sold. Other business revenues have been anemic. Shareholders' equity is under. Management argued massive escape of employees is imminent unless KEIC is approved. BlackRock sold out long ago.
Any wonder pps drops everyday?
Wishful thinking does not get one anywhere.
I really wish there were something to cheer for, but there is none at the moment for GTATQ.
The judge's got common sense, unlike TG and his cohorts.
It's losing a good 7% everyday.
The management is showing utter incompetence. Apple was just one problem it seems. Their revenues in other businesses are anemic, costs in them are skyrocketing, even after they stopped Apple operation and fired everyone. I think they would have filed for CH11 anyway even without Apple; Apple merely accelerated the downfall.
TG must have some balls to propose his own compensation plan. Of all people! Why, if it is not granted, he would leave and work for someone else? Jail is where he belongs. If it were a Japanese company, the CEO must have committed a harakiri.
Wellington filed 13g in early November. Look it up. 13g shows (i) how many shares you currently have as of the last day of the last month and (ii) whether this represents change in 5% ownership status from last 13g filing.
I would not trust this data - it has not been updated since 9/30. Wellington sold out already.
This explains pre-open spike. News must have leaked and someone took a position. Any Apple news is a good news. GTAT's survival hinges on it.
That is the page the judge will sign if he decides to grant the motion. Lawyers are supposed to submit the prepared form; it does not mean it has been granted. I do not have the time to explain the basics.
We do not yet know if the court will grant this extension. The only thing this request proves is that the "guys" may not want to give everything to the creditors, which is what will happen if they submit the POR now. Since equity holders do not have the EC to represent them, it is crucial that the company will not desert them.
Actually, one of the few good news to hear in recent generally dismal GTATQ days. This indicates the company will not submit a haphazard plan that will put the company on a plate and surrender it to the creditors. (If the company has to file POR within the next few weeks, it has no other alternative, because it has the burden to prove the company is solvent to the creditors, which is not easy.) Also it weakens the suspicion that the management is colluding with the creditors, to a certain extent.
Many things could happen in the next 2 to 3 months.
I still think the odds of survival are slim absent Apple's purchase of the furnaces though. We shall see.
Maturity date has nothing to do with reinstatement. To reinstate a prepetition obligation, a debtor must:
1. Cure any prepetition defaults;
2. Compensate the lender for any damages incurred as a result of reliance on acceleration of obligation;
3. Compensate the lender for any actual loss arising from the failure to perform a non-monetary obligation; and
4 Ensure that the POR does not otherwise alter the legal, equitable, or contractual rights of the lender.
Reinstatement thus requires that the reorganized entity comply with all financial covenants such as the requirements to maintain certain financial ratios or certain level of earnings (typically "EBITDA") following consummation of the POR. In addition, consummation of the POR itself cannot result in a breach of covenants under the loan (bond) documents.
Reinstating the bonds is a must to avoid the whole cram down process, regardless of their maturity dates. And it isn't easy because of the covenants.
Argument for EC: The way I see it, it was a very difficult argument to make.
If you go for assets>liabilities route, you fail convincingly because bonds' market price indicates otherwise.
The only narrow route open to you was somehow the debtor will "reinstate" the bonds. But then, you are assuming the debtor's intention here. Debtor may refute that assumption and that is the first hurdle. The second hurdle is, even if debtor does not deny it, bondholders may say the debtor will not be able to repay the principals when due, and capital restructuring would still be necessary.
It was an uphill battle to start with. I do not doubt RG's intention here, but this was not easy.
At least it was rejected with no prejudice and that is a big consolation.
After much personal experience, people will realize it is better to get 5 cents than nothing. Some people bet 200 million shares when each is traded at 5 cents; when the equity gets cancelled, their loss ends up being the same as those who bet mere 200k shares at whopping 50 dollars per share. This way, they do get hit by the bankruptcy - even though they were safely out of the harm's way when it was filed. They have only themselves to blame for it; they voluntarily tied their fate to the bankrupt company.
Things HAVE changed. Despins had said a furnace will fetch at least 500k, but now the company is stepping back, saying it would be lucky to fetch 200k. If so, we are in big trouble.
All hope for equity hinges on furnace sale, because that is the only asset whose value can be confirmed prior to POR. All the rest will take a long time to materialize and all too late for shareholders.
If EC is denied by the judge, POS will take a hit. It does not matter how poorly the case was argued and presented. No EC does not necessarily mean a wipeout, but it is never a good news for equity because it means the judge does not think equity needs representation.
Prior to bankruptcy, only interest payments had been made, not the repayment of principal. They gave a haircut to the principal in the MOR. It means the management may well do the same in the POR. If so, sayonara to the reinstatement.
The company already appears to be considering writing off massive amounts of debt.
On its balance sheet, GTAT has lowered the amount owed to bondholders from $434 million to $292 million. Furthermore, the remaining bond debt and about $213 million of other (non-Apple) debt was identified as “liabilities subject to compromise.”
1. With what money will GTAT be able to pay the bonds principal when it becomes due in 3 years? I don't think bondholders will feel comfortable about the prospect of being fully repaid.
2. Management already "impaired" the bonds in their latest MOR, giving them a substantial haircut. I would think they may do the same on the POR.
Busted.
The management is definitely not to be trusted. They said, via their lawyer, each furnace would fetch AT LEAST $500k just two weeks ago, and now are saying that was a dream price and more realistic price is $200k?
Wow. What a bunch of liars. And now they demand how much cash bonus?
Do you still think so?
This was of course grossly exaggerated to illustrate my point because you never seem to get my point; of course in real life things would be much subtler.
But the logic remains the same: without price protection, the plan fails to align shareholders' interests with the managements' interests.
Let's say the current going rate (ie market price) of an ASF furnace is $500k. Seller however asks for $200k only, for a very quick sale. Would Buyer say, "Oh my, you are being too nice. You should not be doing this to me. For justice' sake, I will pay the full market price of $500k to you."
Market does not set the price. Seller does. Current incentive plan will "motivate" the seller (ie management) to sell at under-the-market price to increase the sales volume per year, a practice that may be in conflict with shareholders' and creditors' interest.
It also may motivate them to distort the timing; for instance, even if they can sell certain units this year, if this year's total sale volume does not seem to make them eligible for the bonus anyway, they will be motivated to postpone the sale of those units to next year, the year they decide to funnel all sales strategically to maximize their bonus.
Well then it certainly would not hurt to put in a minimal price protection, would it?
Mind you, they don't need to disclose the actual sale price at all. All they need to do is to confirm if all their sales were above the minimum price or not.
Read their motion. There is nothing on the minimum price per furnace. It just says ANNUAL furnace sales revenue.
One of the reasons I did not like the management incentive plan was that the plan's furnace sale portion was tied only to the total annual sales volume target, and not to any price-per-furnace target. That is plain wrong. The management has the incentive to sell the entire 2,000+ furnaces at $200k per furnace in the first year, still become eligible for the loftiest incentive bracket, get paid cash bonus handsomely, and then drive the company to CH7 the following year.
There must be a separate and independent restriction on minimum price for furnace.
Shareholders are NOT 89-90 insty. Most such sites have not updated info on insty holding. BlackRock sold out - read power of attorney; one of them reported on behalf of the entire group, and that's why they checked >5% change in ownership. When a stock plummets from 12 to 1 dollar, you can be pretty sure there is a heavy insty dumping.
I would not be surprised if current insty ownership is less than 30%. Also I would not be surprised if TG currently has almost none.
Look at the negative shareholders equity. You know what that means, I hope. Look at the anemic revenue. Look at the operating expenses. It seems almost certain creditors will claim current equity value is under. Heck, creditors would even have to get some haircut. Just look and watch.
It doesnt matter how much potential a company has. If it cannot prove with current profit PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF POR, the potential belongs to somebody else, not to current shareholders.
To a large extent, valuation is a power game, not a mathematics or science. In the absence of hard profit numbers, an enterprise can be valued 1% or 1000% of its true potential. And shareholders are last in line in this power game.
Which part are you not getting?
(1) BlackRock increased their holding to 9 million in December 2013 and so they filed 13g the following month to report it.
(2) BlackRock started selling and reduced their holding to 7 million - this does not require any reporting so they never filed 13g for this.
(3) BlackRock sold out their position in October 2014, which triggered another 13g filing in early November.
I've been wondering about that myself, and yet the court does not seem to care and nobody seems to make an issue on it. But the fact remains - they sold out.
No math needed. There is no way to get around this simple, hard fact.
---------
13G
Item 5
Ownership of 5 Percent or Less of a Class. If this statement is being filed to report the fact that as of the date hereof the reporting person has ceased to be the beneficial owner of more than 5 percent of the class of securities, check the following [ X ].