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.
$1.05 it gets crazier and crazier in the other direction. Seems cheap based on the fact that EPS was 0.31 for 9 months in their last earnings report. Of course, for that argument to hold you have to believe that these earnings reports are non-fiction. They are non-fiction right?
Was trying to figure out what was up with this stock.
Best I could find:
http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/your-inside-track-to-the-next/506380?source=ihpsitcag0000002&lidx=3#comment539931
Probably still a solid hold? Maybe even worth chasing?
Catalyst #8:
7.7 billion pounds of copper, 8.1 million ounces of gold, 584 million pounds of molybdenum, and 69.4 million ounces of silver. And that's before the looming resource expansion from highly successful 2010 exploration. Any project of that scale is a catalyst for share appreciation in its own right within the ongoing bull market for precious and base metals.
I won't chain my price targets to precise timetables, since too many factors are at play with respect to permitting, metal price volatility, etc. But I will say I fully expect to hold my shares (whether as a standalone company or subsequent to any potential dealmaking), to a target of at least $4 by, roughly, the end of 2012. That is a very conservative projection, in my view. I'd be guessing at a high price for 2011, since it's shorter than the timeframes I normally consider, but I could throw $2.50 as a cozy target for the year.
There are risks, not unlike those facing any pre-production resource company. But weighed against potential reward, and especially given the persistently low valuation of Schaft Creek reflected in the shares, I view Copper Fox in a very favorable light.
Look at the bright side. Whoever stole the ore will probably be more adept at processing the ore than TARM is <ng>. Not clear that it would be a good investment to pay a guard to watch over it, based on TARM's results to date.
Maybe there is a reason that most companies firm up a resourse estimate before they start mining? Just asking! I'm still hoping that Rich will someday pull a rabbit out of the hat.
And I suppose you think everyone is our friend and wants to help us? The truth is very much in between. The SEC has their own agenda, and I expect they won't go out of their way to help companies that thumb their nose at all their stupid rules and regulations. More likely the SEC will try to make things difficult for TRGD (and if some small investors get hurt in the crossfire it's not really their problem). This is exactly the type of situation where an organization like the SEC can make it appear (at least to themselves) like they are powerfull and doing something useful, and it doesn't require any intelligence or aptitude on their part. I would expect that they will take full advantage of this opportunity.
Since 4/20/10 (date of the BP blowout) BP down 40% and ATPG down 53%. Unfortunately that is probably appropriate: ATPG will likely have more negative impacts than BP. The government probably wants to make sure all the drillers have deep pockets now (and not worry about fine details like taking adequate precautions etcetera).
65 billion barrels of "shale oil" sounds like a lot! But probably meaningless without a concurrent estimate of the cost of production? (If cost of production is $100 per barrel than the current economic reserves are zero)
I'd be satisfied with the 400 million barrels potential estimate in the article below (the only problem is taht it sounds like hype and will only be believed when they have significant "proved" reserves to back it up):
http://www.toreador.net/images/press/TRGL_Remaking_Toreador.pdf
FWIW I bought some KCAP @ 4.51. When they initially delayed the 10Q because of the accounting issue around NOv 10 it did find support here so it has a chance. (But unfortunately I can't say I would be shocked if it continued to decline into the new year).
Is there some discussion of MILL (Miller Energy Resources) somewhere? Amazing run the last two weeks, but looks to be correcting back down a little. Having tripled in 2 weeks it should be due for a rest.
I agree. If one thought that the parties (KCAP and their accountant) would resolve the accounting issues in the near term it might be wise to aggresively accumulate KCAP shares here. However it appears to be that discusion between the parties is at an impasse so I am not expecting a quick resolution. I am expecting the next move to be down. But I have been wrong many times.
Best Regards,
hercules
KCAP is having accounting troubles (Their accountant doesn't like how they value some of their investments apparantly http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1372807/000114420409066325/v169934_ex99-2.htm). Consider that relatively small writedowns result in violating the 2:1 leverage maximum this is a significant problem.
I would be buying if it gets hit down to 4 and especially at $3. Book value is $11 so Mr Market seems to recognize that it is probably worth less than book value.
I think it is worth more than $4.73 but given the uncertainty surrounding it I don't see the upside catalyst in the near term.
The rest of the story:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article15854.html
Seems to me that selling because the SP TTM PE is 89 could be similiar to buying the homebuilders in mid 2007 because the PE was so low.
Here was an article on OIL.to that held out some hope that something positive could happen. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081218.WBstreetwise20081218152044/WBStory/WBstreetwise
Can't say it makes much sense to me. If they wanted to sell the dilution in the refinancing doesn't make much sense. Does it?
Here is an article that looks at the 2X funds (and how the ultra-long fund and the ultra-short fund can both be down over a period of time). http://seekingalpha.com/article/104703-explaining-inverse-and-leveraged-etfs?source=article_lb_articles
I didn't mean to imply that the rumour is true. It appears to me to be message board speculation, which is generally not reliable information. I just thought it was interesting, and a nice change from watching the TRGD price decrease.
http://www.stockhouse.com/Bullboards/SymbolList.aspx?s=CGC&t=LIST
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33409041
Little bit of buzz on Tara Gold...
Still listed as a board favorite (trading sub $0.04).
The buzz is on the stockhouse CGC.TO board where they are speculating that CGC may make an acquisition with Tara being a possible target.
There's something about CGC execs joining Tara's board of directors and Tara properties as being a possible next project for CGC which has its first open pit gold mine working pretty well.
FWIW.
I looked again at GSS and was hoping to find a reason to add. But for now I'll add to DGP and SIL instead.
Good GSS analysis:
http://www1.investorvillage.com/beta/smbd.asp?mb=4923&mn=53223&pt=msg&mid=5083487
I think you could project EPS of 0.02 per year and a share price of 0.20 without dreaming too much (but thats my 15 minute analysis of the company and may be way off). It looks cheaper (from the chart)than it is IMO. Too bad that Stratahan well didn't come in. Personally I wouldn't invest serious money in DOIG unless it becomes clear that my projections above are way low.
Should be interesting to see what they come up with. Based on reviewing ABKs information, I don't think things are as dire as some suggest (GS for example estimates that ABK common is worth aproximately $15 per share if they go into runoff mode and slowly liquidate their liabilities). Thinking out of the box, if ABK is insurring CCI for an expected loss with a present day value of $x, it might be possible for CCI to relieve ABK of the liability in return for a prefferred equity stake in ABK of x (or 115% of x). Something like that could be a win-win solution for CCI, ABK and the financial markets. But other solutions are also possible IMO.
Here's a marketwatch article with some speculation:
Banks may recapitalize Ambac in bid to save AAA rating
6:43 PM EST February 22, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- A group of eight banks that are major counterparties to AMBAC Financial Group may recapitalize the struggling bond insurer in a bid to save its crucial AAA rating, two people familiar with the situation said Friday.
The negotiations have progressed in recent days, the people said, on condition of anonymity.
The plan could be unveiled Monday or Tuesday, according to one of the people. But the other person said no firm timetable has been set. Both also noted the plan isn't a done deal.
Barclays PLC, BNP Paribas , Citigroup Inc. , Royal Bank of Scotland Group, Societe Generale , UBS AG, Wachovia Corp. and Dresdner Bank, owned by German insurer Allianz , are the banks involved in the talks, the two people said.
The group recently hired boutique bank Greenhill & Co. to help with the negotiations.
"We have a lot of alternatives. A capital raise has always been an option to stabilize the rating," said Vandana Sharma, a spokeswoman for Ambac , in an interview. "We're trying to do the best by all constituents, including policy-holders, shareholders and counterparties."
Sharma declined to comment on specific plans.
Ambac shares surged 16% to $10.71 Friday.
Other bond insurers also climbed. MBIA Inc. gained 2.4% to $12.18 and Security Capital Assurance rose 2.7% to $1.55.
Splitting up
Bond insurers agree to pay interest and principal on debt in a timely manner in the event of default. The $2.4 trillion business relies on AAA ratings to win new business. But those top ratings are in jeopardy now because of concerns insurers like Ambac and MBIA will have to pay big claims from guarantees they sold on complex mortgage-related securities known as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs).
If the situation gets bad enough, regulators including New York State Insurance Superintendent Eric Dinallo are considering splitting bond insurers in two. That would separate their steady muni bond businesses from the more troubled structured finance units, which are being pummeled by CDO exposures.
Indeed, FGIC, a big rival of Ambac and MBIA, submitted a plan with some of those attributes last week.
However, splitting up bond insurers would be difficult, pitting policyholders against shareholders of the bond insurer holding companies.
"The lawyers have already begun gearing up on that one," said Josh Rosner, a managing director at research firm Graham Fisher & Co.
Injecting capital
So Dinallo and others have also been working on other solutions that focus on attracting more capital into the industry. As part of that strategy, the New York regulator has been trying to persuade big banks that are counterparties to the industry to help boost bond insurers' capital.
Many banks have tried to hedge CDO exposures by buying guarantees from bond insurers in the form of credit default swaps (CDS), a type of derivative. If lots of bond insurers are downgraded or if some collapse, these banks may suffer more write-downs because these CDS contracts will be worth less. See full story.
One proposal involves banks injecting roughly $5 billion of capital into specific bond insurers and also providing a $10 billion line of credit.
Another idea involves commuting, or effectively tearing up, CDS contracts between banks and bond insurers. In return for dropping their claims, the banks would get a preferred equity stake in the bond insurer.
"Putting capital into an insurer is more of a contract issue between the companies involved, rather than a regulatory issue," said James Gkonos, vice chairman of the Insurance Practice Group at law firm Saul Ewing. "That would be the simplest and most efficient way to do this."
A forced splitting up of a bond insurer by a regulator such as the New York State Insurance Department would be an "extreme scenario" that would involve public hearings and litigation and take a long time to complete, he explained.
Still, any re-capitalization of Ambac by bank counterparties would present its own problems too, because it could dilute existing investors in the company.
Such a plan would also use up capital that banks may need to help them through other problems thrown up by the global credit crunch.
"Sometimes there are problems that just can't be solved," Rosner said. "At some point, the market is going to realize that there is not always a best solution. There is often just a least worse solution."
I think that maintaining the insurance backstop on AAA securities is critical to stabilizing the financial markets (and also the stock\financial stocks in general). A plan that keeps ABK\MBI solvent is critical to stabilizing the credit\financial markets IMO.
If you're short the financials, busting ABK\MBI is exactly what you have to hope for. If you can get all the financials to mark-to-market and assume that their securities are "A" rated rather than "AAA" rated you can make some serious money.
I think I paid in the 90's for them (12.5% coupon 12/01/2009).
I'm not sure Schwab gives a good quote as there is remarkably little fluctuation in their quoted price over the last few weeks and months. (Probably very thinly traded, and perhaps manipulated but I would think some hedge funds would load up if there were a significant number of bonds available at a large discount to fair value)
Has anyone looked at the bond prices as a barometer of the potential for survival of the equity.
Schwab shows my SCR bonds (which are in arrears of interest for a couple of years) as bid at 63 (par = 100), which would indicate to me that the bond investors are not counting on coming out whole. In which case the equity owners shoulld be doubly screwed??
I think he is quoted out of context here. Greenspan was on one of the Sunday shows and I think what he really said was that he would rather see the government put up the funds for a bailout, than try and freeze house prices or put a freeze on foreclosures or something else just totally ridiculous (did Hiliary really suggest that, hopefully she was likewise quoted out of context?).
Another case of an analyst downgrading his rating before he heard what the company had to say happened last Friday with Terayon Communication Systems Inc. (OTC BB: TERN.PK). Jefferies & Co. sent the stock crashing 16%, after its analysts downgraded it to “Neutral” from “Buy” on Thursday evening, and said that they did not expect that the company would be sold that quickly because of its lukewarm results up to September 2006.
Terayon then held its first conference call for some time on Friday evening and it had a few surprises in store. Its fourth quarter sales guidance of $18.6 million was 20% higher than Jeffries’ estimate. As the fourth quarter has been and gone, Jeffries will now have to take this figure as final and update their forecasts accordingly.
For me, the big surprise here was that this gap was due in its entirety to preliminary sales of around $3 million in the sexy field of television broadcasts over telephony networks - better known by the acronym IPTV. Asked to name the telephone companies which would be providing IPTV broadcasts on Terayon’s platform, the company’s managers replied, “The only name we can give you is that of our customer, Motorola Inc. (NYSE: MOT), and we can’t tell you who its customers are.”
The word on the market is that the IPTV customer in question is AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T). Judging from the tone of Terayon’s managers at the conference call, I would not be surprised if the company decides to hold off on a possible sale, since 2007 could be the year of the big breakthrough in home digital video broadcasts. As I understand it, Terayon will have what to offer if that comes to pass.
http://www.globes.co.il/serveEN/globes/docView.asp?did=1000173208&fid=1176
Here's another one:
http://www.newratings.com/analyst_news/article_1456074.html
I wonder if they have clients that want to accumulate prior to the conference call. Oh wait: that would be a conflict of interest <g>.
The Light Reading story says that “several industry sources say Motorola and Cisco are both angling to take out Terayon for an estimated $225 million to $275 million sometime in the next few weeks,” and that Harmonic and possibly Arris are bidding as well. The story asserts that “Terayon is considered a hot property primarily because of its sought-after CherryPicker line of digital video processing products.”
http://ce.seekingalpha.com/article/22265
I think either of these companies would do well to take it over before the market recognizes the value here.
It's refreshing to find a TERN board with some meaningful discussion. Nice Job.
I meant to check this out late this year with the intent of averaging down. It's nice to see that I have the option to average up instead. The way it broke above the October high, and the 200d moving average is most impressive.
OT: Dumb Tax question
If you bought 100 shares at 20 ($2000) and end up with 200 shares after 2 for 1 split your cost basis is $2000/200 = $10 per share. For 10% dividend the cost basis is $2000/110.
It should also be noted that the UPL 2006 EPS estimate is about $1.93 (not 1.38) up from $1.35 in 2005. The ability to consistently grow production (organically rather than buying it like CHK and building up a lot of debt) is a reason that UPL commands a premium valuation.
http://www.smartmoney.com/eqsnaps/index.cfm?story=earningsforecast&symbol=UPL
I think UPL is also very conservative in booking reserves relative to say CHK and that on a EV to actual BCF reserves basis UPL may be the superior investment (although CHK looks to have a significant advantage if you compare EV to proved reserves).
That said a strategy of shorting UPL and buying an equal amount of CHK would likely pay off if natural gas prices stay > $8/mcf for the forseeable future. Even in this scenario you would likely get better results by buying CHK and not hedging IMO.
The london attacks are tragic. However it does indicate the terrorists are getting weaker. In 2001 the scum buckets were able to destroy thousands of lifes. Now the best they can do is a few dozen lives. Heck a couple teenagers with rifles could probably do that.
I know how you feel. I sold OSCI yesterday, but I should have sold SGTL and kept OSCI. But SGTL may still work out for me. If the NAZ can take 2100 and the SMH 35 it could go to the high twenties in short order (next several weeks) IMTO. Longer term ML 32 target is not aggresive at all IMTO. If we have typical summer slop and chop, the 24 area might be a good place to sell for a short term trade (or maybe girlfriend will post her sell points).
A gap open (setting up the island reversal) or a retest of yesterdays lows would probably entice me to add some shares.
If it takes out 21 on volume, it's time to look elsewhere.
Sorry bad link. Try this instead
http://messages.yahoo.com/?action=q&board=sgtl
and select message 7151
SGTL. Looks like a good setup for an island reversal. I vote for that!
Apparantly ML slashed their estimates and targets this AM. (The target was cut to $32 mind you). Hopefully people have already done the knee-jerk sell thing and will read the report tonight and act a little more sanely tommorow.
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1606609275&tid=sgtl&sid=....
plus next two posts to recview ML comments.
Doing anything with SGTL this morning? I'm loaded but a break of 21 on volume(gap fill from several months ago) makes me worried my optimism for SGTL may be misplaced.
I like KBH while I wait for SGTL to awake from it's slumber. JPM increased 2005 and 2006 estimates by about 20% after last weeks earnings report and stock is only up 5% since then and retraced about 72% of Fridays gap. Gotta use stops though.
(Edit) Also bought some OSCI for a trade.
SGTL intraday pattern has been a U shape the last three days. I'm thinking that pattern might repeat again today.
I'll add CHAR to my watchlist. Sometimes things are cheap for a reason though. Hasn't there been lots of political instability in that region lately? You refer to earnings potential of $1 per share. What analyst/firm was that estimate from and does it account for the slower drilling rates that they note in their latest release? What are their total proved reserves? Thanks for any information, and if you are only interested in pumping feel free to ignore my annoying questions.
SGTL - If you want negatives inventories were way up last quarter and competition may reduce their margins over time. I guess they are going to go in the discount bin like OVTI. But I nibbled anyway, although another stairstep down wouldn't shock me in the least. It does look like the selling pressure may be abating.
MHK - Like PD the hourly chart looks better than the daily. For a long I like the S&P 500 better than either PD or MHK with a stop around 1170. (I don't like the potential 50\200 moving average crossover for MHK either, and possible resistance at the 200 day sma).
I took a look at a one hour PD chart and can offer an opinion (not necessarily a good opinion):
Personally I think it was a decent short at 86 (decreasing) with a stop at 87 or so. Right now the 60 minute chart looks more positive than negative IMO [positive MACD and money flow and some positive divergences (MACD, accumulation and RSI) not confirming the most recent lows].
I'm ambivalent on the stock fundamentally. If you think the copper futures prices are a good estimator of future prices it is undervvalued. If you believe that global economic growth will slow significantly than it is overvalued.