E*Trade Appears Ready to Climb 32 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
It appears that the mandatory regulatory repositioning of E*Trade (ETFC) stock is complete. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings show that E*Trade’s largest shareholder, Citadel, has now sold off $206.8 million over the last couple of weeks. These sales reduce their stake to a more comfortable level of 9.4% of the shares outstanding.
Citadel’s primary purpose for selling is to stay below the 10% mark; bank stakes above 9.9% require investors to submit intensive federal oversight that a hedge fund like Citadel desperately wants to avoid. Citadel actually owns much more than 9.4% of E*Trade but because of an agreement that restricts their ability to convert E*Trade debt into stock, they are able to escape the regulatory headache. Citadel may want to continue to reduce their holdings in order to have increased wiggle room underneath 9.9% for future conversions but the rate of sales appears to have moderated significantly.
The selling pressure caused by Citadel as well as E*Trade’s own capital raising efforts have created quite a burden on E*Trade’s attempts to go higher. The burden is over. Now we can focus on fundamentals. The fundamental outlook for this company is as solid as it has been in over two years, yet the stock is still priced for failure. Now that the structural selling pressure has subsided, E*Trade stock will be free to run in a unique window of opportunity spanning the next six months. Consider the following catalysts:
1) An Improving Landscape
The mortgage losses that have slammed E*Trade are on the verge of becoming a positive for shareholders. The bottoming process in housing is taking root. On Monday, the Treasury Department announced that Blackrock Inc, Wellington Management Company LLP,. and AllianceBernstein LP will commit $1.94 billion to purchase troubled real estate assets in the governments Public Private Investment Program (PPIP). The purchasing power of the 3 funds will increase to $7.74 billion because of Treasury financing incentives. So far, there is $12.27 billion in purchasing power through PPIP with that number expected to rise to $40 billion. This program will serve to boost a mortgage market that is showing signs of improvement on its own.
The Financial Times reports that the Q3 rally in toxic securities could deliver a significant boost to US banks earnings if the institutions choose to recognize the short term improvement. These mortgage securities that forced massive ‘write-downs’ in 2008 may be on the verge of ‘write-ups’ as we near 2010. In the last three months, the Market ABX Index, which tracks securities backed by home loans, has gained more than 30 percent as investors have rediscovered their risk appetite and the US government flooded the debt markets with liquidity.
In a recent upgrade from FBR Capital, the analyst commented, “investors should focus on evidence of continued improvements in delinquency trends in Etrade’s $8.8 billion HELOC portfolio, as well as stabilization in delinquencies in the $11.4 billion one-to-four-family portfolio.” E*Trade expects total net charge-offs of $375 million during Q309 representing a sequential improvement over Q209. Analysts from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup have joined FBR in upgrading E*Trade because of signs of improvement in the mortgage portfolio.
2) A Thriving Core Business
Even during the carnage of 2008, E*Trade was able to grow its core brokerage business by adding $6.4 billion in customer assets. 2009 has witnessed more growth. CEO Donald Layton said on the Q2 conference call, “Our online brokerage business in thriving...volumes are up versus last quarter, our average commission per trade is higher, and interest spreads are much improved.” The movement to online trading continues to be a high growth trend. As high speed mobile Internet access becomes increasingly available, this trend will continue.
E*Trade is a company perfectly situated for success in the tech revolution. Layton is stepping down at the end of year and I expect the naming of a new CEO to be met with optimism from shareholders who are looking for a new beginning. A renewed emphasis on E*Trade’s strength should be applauded by Wall Street. Surviving the financial crisis was no small thing.
3) Buyout Potential
I rarely buy a company for its buyout potential because of the uncertainties involved, but this one is different. The mere speculation of consolidation within the industry will fuel a stock rise whether it happens of not. There may be multiple suitors for E*Trade beyond TD Ameritrade (AMTD) and Schwab (SCHW). An institution looking to become a major player in the online brokerage business like Wells Fargo or Goldman Sachs might actually be a better fit with E*Trade because the mortgage portfolio wouldn’t be as much of a problem. As evidenced by the recent success of PPIP, firms are actually beginning to view mortgages as a positive.
I’ve been looking forward to October as a prime opportunity to increase my position in E*Trade. I made my first purchase in March with the stock under $1, and I’m adding to it now because it appears the dilutive improvements to the company’s capital structure are complete. I believe E*Trade is ready to resume its climb. I'll be purchasing out of the money $2 April 2010 calls and $2.50 January 2011 calls.
DISCLOSURE: LONG ETFC
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 32 comments:
As much as I would like the payoff of a buyout offer, I would much rather the company turn profitable next year and climb to new heights on their own. And I really see no reason why they cant.
"
“On August 25, 2009, as described in the preceding paragraph, CEF exchanged approximately $800 million face amount of Springing Lien Notes and approximately $230 million face amount of the 8% Notes for a like face amount of Class A Debentures. On September 15, 2009, the Reporting Persons sold approximately $754 million face amount of the Springing Lien Notes and $50 million face amount of the 7.875% Notes in privately negotiated transactions for cash. On September 17, 2009, the Reporting Persons sold approximately $46.6 million face amount of the 7.875% Notes in a privately negotiated transaction for cash. Following these transactions, as of September 17, 2009, the Reporting Persons owned approximately $1,030 million face amount of the Class A Debentures, no 7.375% Notes, no 7.875% Notes, no 8% Notes and no Springing Lien Notes.”
"Citadel will keep converting and selling shares until they have less than 25% of the company per wishes of OTS."
How is he privy to the wishes of the OTS??
Have you seen that info anywhere else , I certainly haven't?
And while I have your attention , last April 15 you stated ETFC would refi its way out of their bad loan portfolio , are you still harboring that delusion?
You also bring up a good point about Citadel dumping their non-convertible debt. Absolutely nobody is bringing this up at all, but it is a very interesting development. Citadel may be looking to divest themselves completely of their Etrade holdings, or they could just be looking to reduce their exposure, and selling the bonds was most likely a lot easier to accomplish then their steady conversion/selling of common stock. Which brings up another good question, how come nobody is asking why doesn't Citadel just sell the convertible bonds to private investors instead of converting them and selling the common? You would think that the debt would command a premium considering they basically act like a 9 year option, that still pays face value assuming the worst happens and Etrade ends up going BK. It would also relieve some of the pressure on the share price of the common.
The mortgage portfolio really isn't that big here. I think the author's reasoning that this is a play on a housing recovery is not that far-fetched. The stock is priced to succeed. I'm in.
You made the claim , I believe it's incumbent on you to back it up. A specific claim like that needs a quote or a link to one.
Maybe Jason should enlighten us with a link since he jumped all over it like it was gospel??
What do you think Griffin would have to price his debentures at to both be happy and attract buyers? I think that's your problem.
As for the pricing of the debt, I'm sure Griffin would be happy to take any premium over the current stock price. Its rather surprising that he either hasn't been able to find, or hasn't looked for a potential buyer. Instead he is going through the slow and painful process of converting/ selling shares 20-50 million a day. Heck, he'd probably be happy with selling it at its current market value, if he could off load it in bulk. Its just surprising to me that this hasn't happened.
That's incredibly weak.
If I came here and declared that Layton said he was going to sell another billion shares of stock , Id bet you'd demand a link.
If instead you'd like to continue to discuss Etrade, and what direction you think they're going in, I'd be happy to do that. Like another fact nobody really brings up, how while they may be short on capital, they're liquidity rich. About 60% of their liabilities are in the form of deposits, which is a huge plus. CIT is a great example of how the composition of liabilities can greatly change the outlook of an individual company. If Etrade was mostly funded by wholesale funding, they'd probably be dead in the water at this point.
They have about 4 Billion in Repos and FHLB loan advances due this year, but after that, they have no significant debt maturities until 2013. They have about 6 Billion in cash at the bank so they should be covered. This means that unless their loan losses balloon, they can wait until their brokerage unit earns their way out of this mess. With less than 20 Billion in current loans on the books, (which are decreasing at almost 1 Billion per quarter) no significant debt maturities over the next couple of years, and the proven ability to tap the capital markets when needed, I'm pretty sure its a safe bet that Etrade will be able to survive this mess. And with the stock still priced with some BK risk in it, buying here is a good play.
What it looks like to me is that instead of looking for the quick buck with HFT, they are actually taking ETFC as a serious investment. I am getting more and more bullish on this stock at these prices.
On Oct 09 03:00 PM Jason Schwarz wrote:
> Citadel isn't unloading shares because they no longer believe in
> the Etrade story. They are doing this for regulatory purposes.
> Evidence of this theory is in the eerie trading range of Etrade stock.
> These sales have been carefully orchestrated by Citadel & friends.
> Who are the friends? I don't know. But it is obvious there are
> large institutions buying the shares that Citadel is selling. If
> this weren't the case, you would see huge swings going on.
OK Jason,it's obvious you've bought into redbeard's OTS thesis,should be easy for a pro like you to provide a link to the OTS pronouncement???
I think Griffin is voluntarily leaving as fast as he can , he wants out. That's one reason the non-debenture bond sale was significant.
The Dow Jones story yesterday implied internal squabbling with ETFC Mgt.,doesn't that make you think regulatory concerns are secondary if they even exist??
Below is the Dow Jones article,pertinent paragraph third from bottom:
Oct 8, 2009 14:40:20 (ET)
By Joseph Checkler
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Ken Griffin's Citadel Investment Group LLC sold 58.1 million shares of E*Trade Financial Corp. (ETFC) between Monday and Wednesday, but the sale is a formality stemming from E*Trade's debt exchange this past summer in which Citadel played a big role.
According to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Citadel converted debentures on most of the shares at $1.03 each and then sold them at $1.71 a share. The $1.03 price is set, although it is subject to some limitations.
Citadel still owns 9.9% of the online broker's outstanding shares, based on nearly 1.85 billion common E*Trade shares as of Wednesday. E*Trade's share count was about 1.5 billion Sept. 15 and 1.1 billion Aug. 25, according to Citadel's filing.
The share count has increased because of E*Trade's $1.7 billion debt exchange, in which Citadel agreed to exchange $1.23 billion in debentures.
Citadel still owns $826.9 million in Class A E*Trade debentures.
Citadel made a big investment in E*Trade in November 2007, and while the hedge fund company has said the investment has been profitable, there has been friction between the two sides. Earlier this year, Griffin took a seat on E*Trade's board. Last month, E*Trade announced that Chief Executive Donald Layton will leave at the end of the year.
Shares of E*Trade recently traded up 2 cents at $1.71.
The company's stock is down about 32% over the past 52 weeks due to heavy losses within its bank's mortgage portfolio.
www.marketwatch.com/st...
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Citadel Investment Group, run by Ken Griffin, plans to return some money to investors in October, a sign the redemption freeze in the $1.4 trillion hedge-fund industry is thawing.
Citadel told investors Tuesday that it will distribute $250 million on Oct. 1 and plans to return more money at the end of this year, according to a person familiar with the situation.
Of the firm's 25 largest investors, 23 have indicated they plan to stick with the Chicago-based hedge-fund giant, the person added on condition of anonymity.
Citadel suspended redemptions from its Kensington and Wellington hedge funds late last year after they lost more than 50%. However, the funds are up more than 44% this year through July, as the firm shut down some capital-intensive strategies and focused on more liquid investments.
One question for you...Citadel has already significantly reduced its Etrade position by probably 50% if you consider the bond sale and the conversion sales. What is the hurry in divesting the remaining amount of the stake? Why does it have to be all done in October?
One possible reason that they are choosing to sell in the open market could be due to an potential acquiror picking up the shares. No acquiror would want to go through the headache of buying debentures and then having to conform to the debenture indenture agreement of the 9.9 percent ownership. Thoughts?
I find it hard to believe that Citadel is going to conform to the 25% ownership limit indicated by the OTS given the possibility that Etrade shares could go much higher. Why would a company sell its shares in a constrained timeline putting pressure on stock to conform to the OTS? Why could it not be done in say early 2010.
I think Citadel is in some rush to raise cash...and thus this selling pressure and timeline.
Your thoughts.
On Oct 09 09:56 AM redbeard20000 wrote:
> I know what I know, and don't feel like spending the 20-30 minutes
> to look up the information again. If you don't believe me, then base
> your trades off your own research.
>
> As for the pricing of the debt, I'm sure Griffin would be happy to
> take any premium over the current stock price. Its rather surprising
> that he either hasn't been able to find, or hasn't looked for a potential
> buyer. Instead he is going through the slow and painful process of
> converting/ selling shares 20-50 million a day. Heck, he'd probably
> be happy with selling it at its current market value, if he could
> off load it in bulk. Its just surprising to me that this hasn't happened.
Core Brokerage: Approximately $2.00 per share (Citigroup analysts appear to be in the same ballpark).
Mortgages: $22B portfolio....$4.5B loan losses already realized...approximately $2B more to go...net interest margins in the $1B+ range. The losses are primarily coming from the loan loss provisions and mark to market accounting issues not from the long term cash flow in this business. Hard to value but I think this could easily fetch $0.50 to $2.00 per share depending on the market conditions.
Deferred Tax asset is worth another $0.50 a share in my opinion.
Worst case: $3.00 valuation.
Slightly improved mortgage market conditions: $3.00 - 4.50.
Improved mortgage market conditions with WRITE UPS instead of loan loss provisions....we could head into $6.00-8.00.
The mortgage piece is very very volatile. Frankly as Jason mentions if these mortgages are sold at reasonable prices in the PPIP program or they just turn around...this stock is worth well north of $5.
"One possible reason that they are choosing to sell in the open market could be due to an potential acquiror picking up the shares. No acquiror would want to go through the headache of buying debentures and then having to conform to the debenture indenture agreement of the 9.9 percent ownership. Thoughts?
I find it hard to believe that Citadel is going to conform to the 25% ownership limit indicated by the OTS given the possibility that Etrade shares could go much higher. Why would a company sell its shares in a constrained timeline putting pressure on stock to conform to the OTS? Why could it not be done in say early 2010."
Great,now you join redbeard and jason in posting unattributed,unlinked and very suspicious OTS pronouncements to ETFC!!
Yours is 25% ownership limit , would it kill you guys to tell the rest of us where to find that OTS mandate to Citadel???
Maybe you define ownership differently from Dow Jones which says Citadel must stay under 9.9%??
In addition,this is from the 13D filing dated 10-8-09:
" The Reporting Persons own 166,162,027 shares of Common Stock of the Issuer (not counting shares issuable upon conversion of the Debentures) and approximately $826,910,000 face amount of the Class A Debentures. The Class A Debentures are convertible into Common Stock of the Issuer at the price of $1.034 per share subject to certain limitations upon such conversion. Pursuant to section 12.01(b)(i) of the indenture for the Debentures, no holder may convert Debentures to the extent that such conversion would cause such holder to “beneficially own, as defined in Rule 13d−3 of the Exchange Act, in excess of 9.9% of the Common Stock outstanding immediately after giving effect to such conversion.” In light of the number of shares of Common Stock outstanding and the number of shares of Common Stock owned by the Reporting Persons, the Debentures held by CEF are presently convertible into 18,382,616 shares of Common Stock."
So I'm thinking Griffin must stay below 10% common ownership??
Also remember that the debentures are not owned common shares and carry no voting rights and as such I believe allowed Citadel to hold apparent "control" of up to 50% of ETFC and that I also believe required OTS approval.
We're seeing Griffin simultaneously convert and sell debentures which I'm guessing allows him to not violate the 10% ownership rule.
Yes,it's complicated but the overall direction of Citadel is "out the door" and it's pretty obvious..
Per my understanding they currently are under that threshold. I am not expecting any major sales by Citadel going forward. I agree with you that Citadel's sales are not just regulatory....they appear to be selling to restucture their Etrade investment. They restructured the debt and aided Etrade but for them to sit on it until maturity is asking too much.
This is itself does not tell me that Citadel is out of the door. You are reaching too far with that conclusion.
Read the part about the new relaxed rules for private equity investments in banking institutions. And please dont come back and say that Citadel is not being treated as a PE shop by the OTS as far as this transaction is concerned.
www.troutmansanders.co.../
Finally...the 25% bright line voting test for these PE institutions is real. My analysis indicates that Citadel is slightly under that number right now. I disagree with Jason and redbeard that they have to sell another 275-300M dollars worth.
On Oct 10 05:37 PM User 488509 wrote:
> Golden gate wrote:
>
> "One possible reason that they are choosing to sell in the open market
> could be due to an potential acquiror picking up the shares. No acquiror
> would want to go through the headache of buying debentures and then
> having to conform to the debenture indenture agreement of the 9.9
> percent ownership. Thoughts?
>
> I find it hard to believe that Citadel is going to conform to the
> 25% ownership limit indicated by the OTS given the possibility that
> Etrade shares could go much higher. Why would a company sell its
> shares in a constrained timeline putting pressure on stock to conform
> to the OTS? Why could it not be done in say early 2010."
>
> Great,now you join redbeard and jason in posting unattributed,unlinked
> and very suspicious OTS pronouncements to ETFC!!
> Yours is 25% ownership limit , would it kill you guys to tell the
> rest of us where to find that OTS mandate to Citadel???
> Maybe you define ownership differently from Dow Jones which says
> Citadel must stay under 9.9%??
> In addition,this is from the 13D filing dated 10-8-09:
>
> " The Reporting Persons own 166,162,027 shares of Common Stock of
> the Issuer (not counting shares issuable upon conversion of the Debentures)
> and approximately $826,910,000 face amount of the Class A Debentures.
> The Class A Debentures are convertible into Common Stock of the Issuer
> at the price of $1.034 per share subject to certain limitations upon
> such conversion. Pursuant to section 12.01(b)(i) of the indenture
> for the Debentures, no holder may convert Debentures to the extent
> that such conversion would cause such holder to “beneficially own,
> as defined in Rule 13d−3 of the Exchange Act, in excess of 9.9% of
> the Common Stock outstanding immediately after giving effect to such
> conversion.” In light of the number of shares of Common Stock outstanding
> and the number of shares of Common Stock owned by the Reporting Persons,
> the Debentures held by CEF are presently convertible into 18,382,616
> shares of Common Stock."
>
> So I'm thinking Griffin must stay below 10% common ownership??<br/>
>
> Also remember that the debentures are not owned common shares and
> carry no voting rights and as such I believe allowed Citadel to hold
> apparent "control" of up to 50% of ETFC and that I also believe required
> OTS approval.
> We're seeing Griffin simultaneously convert and sell debentures which
> I'm guessing allows him to not violate the 10% ownership rule.<br/>Yes,it's
> complicated but the overall direction of Citadel is "out the door"
> and it's pretty obvious..
Citadel post its sales owns less than 33% of Etrade on a fully diluted basis.
They have 9.9 percent of the company from a voting perspective.
At this point they satisfy all the OTS rules for ownership.
I am not expecting them to sell more stock in the open market. We shall see.
Refer to the link in the previous post to see what I am talking about.
Jason, redbeard, would be interested in your thoughts.
On Oct 10 06:11 PM Golden Gate Sings wrote:
> Unsure why you have a porcupine up your backside....but the 25% rule
> is a voting rule that the OTS enforces. I am not in agreement with
> redbeard that Citadel needs to sell all the way down to 25%...they
> need to sell all the way down to 15% voting influence.
>
> Per my understanding they currently are under that threshold. I am
> not expecting any major sales by Citadel going forward. I agree with
> you that Citadel's sales are not just regulatory....they appear to
> be selling to restucture their Etrade investment. They restructured
> the debt and aided Etrade but for them to sit on it until maturity
> is asking too much.
>
> This is itself does not tell me that Citadel is out of the door.
> You are reaching too far with that conclusion.
>
> Read the part about the new relaxed rules for private equity investments
> in banking institutions. And please dont come back and say that Citadel
> is not being treated as a PE shop by the OTS as far as this transaction
> is concerned.
>
>
> www.troutmansanders.co.../
>
>
> Finally...the 25% bright line voting test for these PE institutions
> is real. My analysis indicates that Citadel is slightly under that
> number right now. I disagree with Jason and redbeard that they have
> to sell another 275-300M dollars worth.
Let's review what I believe is relevant.:
"Recent Regulatory Policy Changes by the Federal Reserve Encourage Minority Investments by Private Equity Funds
In September 2008, the Federal Reserve relaxed many of its discretionary policy guidelines that it uses to determine what ownership thresholds, board representation levels and active conduct in a bank’s management constitute a “controlling interest.” The new Federal Reserve policies encourage minority investment by private equity firms and principally include the following guidelines:
* A minority shareholder may own up to 33 percent of a bank’s or bank holding company’s total equity before the Federal Reserve presumes that the shareholder possesses a “controlling interest,” provided that the investor does not own or control the power to vote more than 15 percent of any class of voting securities. The “25 percent ownership of any class of voting securities” threshold, as established by the Bank Holding Company Act, remains a bright-line test for control of a bank and bank holding company status."
The 33% level mentioned is what I believe Citadel got special permission to circumvent. Recall Citadel exchanged 1.3 billion in notes for debentures and owned approx. 180m common after the secondary. That got them right up against the 50% threshold , not 33%. Again remember the focus on non-voting rights debentures which allowed the OTS approval of the life saving debt exchange.
Maybe Citadel's deal with the OTS allowed them to own up to 50% as long as voting right shares stayed under 10%.
That seems to be the logical deduction but again I'd like to see the filing that spells it out.
I repeat,it's complicated.
Glad we agree that Griffin is NOT under regulatory pressure to reduce his holdings.
As to whether I can positively conclude Griffin will completely abandon ETFC , true it's a stretch on my part but the direction is speaking to me ,if not you.
Further , all this activity by a BOD member tells me any current deal discussions are very unlikely.
Not true. As of the end of June, Citadel owned 16% of voting rights.
The issue is not what the OTS allowed. It is unclear under what circumstances OTS gave Citadel is free pass...but I am working under the 33% ownership and 15% voting assumption that Citadel may want to get to get out of the other requirements that came with the free pass.
The 10% ownership limit is completely different from this discussion. That has to do with disclosure...if they own more than 10% they have to disclose a lot about their fund and holdings which they dont want to do. Else the 15% voting threshold is relevant.
Either way, we will see...if trends are what you follow then trading on Friday should have indicated to you that Citadel was not aggressively selling or stopped selling.
On Oct 10 07:05 PM User 488509 wrote:
> That's all I wanted,a link -THANK YOU.
> Let's review what I believe is relevant.:
>
> "Recent Regulatory Policy Changes by the Federal Reserve Encourage
> Minority Investments by Private Equity Funds
>
> In September 2008, the Federal Reserve relaxed many of its discretionary
> policy guidelines that it uses to determine what ownership thresholds,
> board representation levels and active conduct in a bank’s management
> constitute a “controlling interest.” The new Federal Reserve policies
> encourage minority investment by private equity firms and principally
> include the following guidelines:
>
> * A minority shareholder may own up to 33 percent of a bank’s or
> bank holding company’s total equity before the Federal Reserve presumes
> that the shareholder possesses a “controlling interest,” provided
> that the investor does not own or control the power to vote more
> than 15 percent of any class of voting securities. The “25 percent
> ownership of any class of voting securities” threshold, as established
> by the Bank Holding Company Act, remains a bright-line test for control
> of a bank and bank holding company status."
>
> The 33% level mentioned is what I believe Citadel got special permission
> to circumvent. Recall Citadel exchanged 1.3 billion in notes for
> debentures and owned approx. 180m common after the secondary. That
> got them right up against the 50% threshold , not 33%. Again remember
> the focus on non-voting rights debentures which allowed the OTS approval
> of the life saving debt exchange.
> Maybe Citadel's deal with the OTS allowed them to own up to 50% as
> long as voting right shares stayed under 10%.
> That seems to be the logical deduction but again I'd like to see
> the filing that spells it out.
> I repeat,it's complicated.
> Glad we agree that Griffin is NOT under regulatory pressure to reduce
> his holdings.
> As to whether I can positively conclude Griffin will completely abandon
> ETFC , true it's a stretch on my part but the direction is speaking
> to me ,if not you.
> Further , all this activity by a BOD member tells me any current
> deal discussions are very unlikely.
investor.etrade.com/re...
Your original article hardly paints this as a speculative investment. Its nice to be able to cover your backside with a little postscript to your original article.
Goldengatesings
On Oct 12 01:13 PM Jason Schwarz wrote:
> Trying to interpret hedge fund activity is a tricky game to say the
> least. I submit that Citadel could be doing a little of all three:
> redemptions, 25%, and 9.9%. These conversion sales could be killing
> three birds with one stone at any given time. The only thing we know
> for sure is that Citadel is selling and it continues to be a burden
> on the stock. Watch the rate of change of Citadel sales for the real
> indicator. The reason why I only mentioned the 9.9% in the article
> is because it is the only verifiable regulatory issue. The others,
> including Etrade sales being used as redemptions, are speculation.
> Citadel could pay off redemptions through other means. A reminder-this
> investment is highly speculative. Don't plan on ever having a 100%
> grasp of Citadel's intentions.
seekingalpha.com/artic...
On Oct 14 12:32 PM etfcfan wrote:
> if earnings turn positive next year, what would be the impact of
> a reverse split?