Thomas Wagner

Thomas Wagner
Contributor since: 2008
Company: Quantitative advisors Inc
bankstocks, Whenever I get involved in a small conversion I expect to hold for a minimum of three years. Its great buying higher cap conversions and having the bulk of the appreciation realized in the first 12-18 months, but if you want a large discount you need to go fishing in the small cap conversions and be prepared to hold for the long term.
Here is an updated list of holders according to yahoo. Looks like im in good company.
Name shares % owned dollar value date
Maltese Capital Management LLC 486,000 9.87 5,389,740 Mar 31, 2015
Castine Capital Management, LLC 311,540 6.33 3,454,978 Mar 31, 2015
AllianceBernstein, L.P. 196,973 4.00 2,184,430 Mar 31, 2015
Raffles Associates, LP 177,000 3.59 1,962,930 Mar 31, 2015
Hutchin Hill Capital, LP 127,600 2.59 1,415,084 Mar 31, 2015
Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) 77,656 1.58 861,205 Mar 31, 2015
PL Capital Advisors, LLC 74,200 1.51 822,878 Mar 31, 2015
FJ Capital Management LLC 64,000 1.30 709,760 Mar 31, 2015
Seizert Capital Partners LLC 62,555 1.27 693,734 Mar 31, 2015
Stilwell Value LLC 20,000 0.41 221,800 Mar 31, 2015
Once again you speak that of which you do not know.
Here are the inside filings
Maltese Capital Management LLC 486,000 9.87 5,389,740 Mar 31, 2015
Castine Capital Management, LLC 311,540 6.33 3,454,978 Mar 31, 2015
AllianceBernstein, L.P. 196,973 4.00 2,184,430 Mar 31, 2015
Raffles Associates, LP 177,000 3.59 1,962,930 Mar 31, 2015
Hutchin Hill Capital, LP 127,600 2.59 1,415,084 Mar 31, 2015
Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) 77,656 1.58 861,205 Mar 31, 2015
PL Capital Advisors, LLC 74,200 1.51 822,878 Mar 31, 2015
FJ Capital Management LLC 64,000 1.30 709,760 Mar 31, 2015
Seizert Capital Partners LLC 62,555 1.27 693,734 Mar 31, 2015
Stilwell Value LLC 20,000 0.41 221,800 Mar 31, 2015
Why don't you posted your real name ? In the mean time I see little purpose continuing a dialog with someone who hides behind a screen name making unfounded statements and engages in libel.
Im very happy with Coastways stock performance. The banks you reference have all been public much longer than Coastway and are much larger. If you knew anything about mutual conversions you would understand the distribution of returns is related to the time from conversion as well as other metrics . The risks associated with the stocks you reference are also very different. You also seem to be under the impression that my entire portfolio is CWAY which it is not.
I believe the author is citing page 7 of prospectus which applies to pre conversion shares not fully converted shares. Please see page 38 of prospectus which states 11.11 at 68,500,00 so at 71MM its slightly less but avg comp of 136.48 % of tangible (page 6) should imply a price of around $15.10. So at 10.80 IMHO its quite a nice buy. But Im long, so once again please refer to prospectus. Its all clearly stated.
BTW I'm sure that the reason this article was removed from public view was so that it could be covered by the Pro user agreement.
Check your facts. This article was published on 1/22 and stock fell from 10.80 to
10.04. While you and this author were misrepresenting facts the insiders have been steadily buying and so have the institutions. Price is the ultimate b/s detector. Hopefully the Rhode Island securities regulators and the SEC will look into your comments.
http://bit.ly/1sZOKPF
http://yhoo.it/1sZONe8
I think everyone who sold based on this article should be asking some questions as several hedge funds took positions right as this article came out. Stock is now 10 % higher at 11.00
My numbers indicate that the original reserve estimate is wrong. Which is why I have taken issue with each and every article and analysis that uses this simplistic time value of money approach to valuation.
Daniel:
I think you may be missing my point. Your using a PV 10 based on a proven reserve number established by the engineer prior to drilling. Now that we have drilled wells and an established production curve the reserve estimate can be recomputed or imputed by looking at the existing production and the actual or experience production curve. Have you dont this math or are simply using the initial reserve estimate?
Daniel
You can also go to :http://bit.ly/RmCcRO and look up ECT production by well. Take a look at the wells that they drilled in 2006-2008 and you will see that production drops off about 40% -50% in the first three years then its a pretty steady decline thereafter still in the -7% range but should drop off to about -3.5% which means were on track to produce more product than the PV-10 analysis your valuation model relies on. Plus and at the end of the trust life unit owners should get 45% of the proceeds of the well sale right ???
Last well was drilled in 9/2011 so were about 3 years out and the curve has flattened to a drop off of about 7% per year. Im expecting 2014 1Q to come in at about 1,623,000 MCF with an avg price of $4.50 and $400,000 Quarter in trust expenses your looking at about a .39 2014 1Q distribution. Production curve should avg -3.5% per year over next 16 years. Now the question is do you expect NG to rise by more than 3.5% per year over the next ten years ? If so you have an increasing payment not a decreasing payment as your curve suggest. Oh and by the way unit owners get 45% of the sale price of the wells thereafter when gas should be back to its normal $7-$9 MCF.
You can also go to :http://bit.ly/RmCcRO and look up ECT production by well. Take a look at the wells that they drilled in 2006-2008 and you will see that production drops off about 40% -50% in the first three years then its a pretty steady decline thereafter. So the above curve simply does not fit the actual well data.
Your beating a dead horse. Why don't look at the annual reports since inception and calculate the volume variance of natural gas produced. Then take a look at the price variance and tell us all what you find. When you do, I think you will understand what I have been saying. BTW the "current well information" is not what the engineer used to issue his original report, he used a theoretical curve out of a text book. The curve used in this article is " based on a forecast of future production". Who's forecast? A microsoft excell power curve that forecast termination of all production prior to 2020? As I have stated before there are wells that are still producing after 50 years.
MBA investor has been using his articles to short the stock. Perhaps you are doing the same. Regardless, that game is over. What you are seeing in the propane market will happen in the NG market as more LNG facilities come on line. 5 years from now you will be looking an NG shortages as the majority of our supplies are shipped overseas to Japan and China. Nothing like a good short squeeze. With a little luck we should see exports to Europe as Russian production falls.  I should further add that those looking to profit from the comming move in NG should use ECT as part of a larger trading strategy. One that combines ECT high cash flow with an investment in a NG company with large reserves selling at a discount.
I agree which makes PV-10 as well as all of the other valuation techniques this author and others like MBA value investor use meaningless. They are simple restatements of a failed investment valuation model. I've humored these guys since they are creating periodic panic sell offs and great buying opportunities for the astute trader. IMO these articles are also being used to support short positions in these stocks that are covered each month before the distribution is announced. Now that the tide has turned on NG prices we should see these manipulators exit the short side and the units return to fair value.
Patrick:
PV-10 is a weak attempt at YTM. Trying to value these trusts like a bond is ridiculous. That is why the astute trader can capitalize on the difficulty in valuation.
I would also like to add that none of the articles on ECT valuation that have been posted take any forward looking pricing into account. Most of the Author's like MBA value investor simply regurgitate the overly simplistic PV-10 math that the SEC requires. Not particularly impressive or useful and certainly not what a real trader would consider.
supply vs demand = price basic economics. Less wells means higher residual prices not a difficult concept.
Patrick:
Like housing, all gas is local. If what you say was true gas in China would not be $12.00 while gas at the HH is $5.00.
Patrick
Fewer new wells means higher gas prices and increased terminal values of the trusts reserves. The "land value" has nothing to do with it as these trusts do not own the land, they own the drilling rights.
I have SNL but historical is different depending on time period you look at.
DJAG, Thank you for your reply. Im interested in you comments. However, i'm finding it hard to very your stats. Where did you come up with 65% probability of an acquisition 3 years after conversion. I would appreciate a citation to your raw data.
On the monthly and weekly chart I see a rising trend line. 12/11 low of 38.89, 6/12 low of 39.00. Last 5 trading days have been week but were in an area of very low valuation. Good cash flow to support dividend and a low P/S ratio as compared to its competitors. I also like activist position in stock. As always this is my opinion and not investment advice. Please contact qualified counsel prior to acting on any information that I post.
Assuming your correct, which I do not believe, CWAY book value should be 14.25 X .90 = 12.82 in a year Buying now at 10.45 will theoretically yield a 23% return in under a year. As you should be aware the probability of CWAY buying back stock is far greater than PEOP getting sold. Now your point is????
From Newport's recent 10Q
"For the six months ended June 30, 2013, deposit balances decreased by $8.6 million, or 3.0%. The decrease in deposits occurred in NOW/Demand accounts (a decrease of $2.9 million, or 2.2%), money market accounts (a decrease of $3.5 million, or 7.8%) and time deposit accounts (a decrease of $2.4 million, or 3.2%), partially offset by a slight increase in savings accounts (an increase of $149,000, or 0.4%). As interest rates continue to be at an all-time low, customers are placing their deposits with alternative resources, earning higher interest yields."
Coastway's deposit base should be more stable due to its former operation as a credit union. It also looks like Newport had a history of high credit losses. Accordingly I do not find you book value comparison convincing.
I was very happy how WBB in Milwaukee turned out now up over 30%. As far as relative value I am long AF and HTBI. Once again my opinion not investment advice. And in full and fair disclosure I am long all of the above.
I would be interested in your comments about how "this bank got pretty screwed up".
This was my initial response to this articles misstatement of stockholders equity. Unfortunately this article is rife with misstatements about CWAY. I do believe consideration should be given to CWAY's history as a credit union. Now that they are a public bank, I would expect management to focus more on efficiency. In my opinion comparing TBV without an analysis of the market value of the underlying assets is flawed. I also believe you cannot compare a bank to a credit union as the objectives of these two types of entities is very different.
I think your comments about managements ability to deploy capital are purely speculative. If you have a basis for such statements please share them in a coherent fashion. I think you may be surprised how well CWAY management creates value as a for profit public bank. As for WSBF please see my comments below.
The resignation of the CFO concerns me. I am closely following his stock transactions. I think in this case Id rather be a big fish in a little pond instead of a little fish in a big pond.
In my opinion the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling striking down a key provision of the Marcellus Shale Drilling Act requires an upward revision in all terminal value projections for these type of trusts. If my reading of the ruling is correct local towns now can restrict future well sites. Should make existing sites worth substantially more if this ruling survives.