ramisle's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/215412/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/1449891/comments?source=feed#comment-19091481 19091481
And I made it very clear that the dividend is the big carrot on a stick here. I didn't leave it out of anything.

The shareholders are happy every time their dividend is deposited.
But watch out for the share price with the dilution.
And if there is a dividend cut.
From the posts on DCIX, that doesn't seem to cross their minds.
But a close look at the business model raises those flags.

For the people who paid $7 for this stock, they can count their dividend, but they may not catch up to their capital loss for awhile.
Depending on what the company does with the money they raise, it could be very hard to maintain that dividend, with all the added shareholders.

Sure I believe in Global Growth.
It just happens to be at a slower rate than the growth of the fleet.
New ships coming on line are bigger and more efficient.
The 1990's era Panamax are not going to find employment in the by the time rates climb to profitable levels.

And that's only part of the picture.
The big container lines are changing the logistics in shipping.
They have hundreds of their own ships laid up with no work.
The only reason they lease the small, old ships that DCIX is buying is because of the big up front payment DCIX pays for the ship.
Maersk and the other big lines are going with the big ships, and they are skipping the Panama Canal.
So if Diana wants to get in on that game, they will need to put up some big money for modern tonnage, and survive on poor rates for a couple of years.
Then DCIX will still lease to the big companies, they don't compete with them, and they can't expect high charter rates.
The poor rates that are being paid don't sustain a nice dividend.
See how many shareholders stick around after a dividend cut.
You aren't being "paid to wait", if the share price drops more than the dividend pays.]]> Tue, 21 May 2013 17:45:17 -0400
And I made it very clear that the dividend is the big carrot on a stick here. I didn't leave it out of anything.

The shareholders are happy every time their dividend is deposited.
But watch out for the share price with the dilution.
And if there is a dividend cut.
From the posts on DCIX, that doesn't seem to cross their minds.
But a close look at the business model raises those flags.

For the people who paid $7 for this stock, they can count their dividend, but they may not catch up to their capital loss for awhile.
Depending on what the company does with the money they raise, it could be very hard to maintain that dividend, with all the added shareholders.

Sure I believe in Global Growth.
It just happens to be at a slower rate than the growth of the fleet.
New ships coming on line are bigger and more efficient.
The 1990's era Panamax are not going to find employment in the by the time rates climb to profitable levels.

And that's only part of the picture.
The big container lines are changing the logistics in shipping.
They have hundreds of their own ships laid up with no work.
The only reason they lease the small, old ships that DCIX is buying is because of the big up front payment DCIX pays for the ship.
Maersk and the other big lines are going with the big ships, and they are skipping the Panama Canal.
So if Diana wants to get in on that game, they will need to put up some big money for modern tonnage, and survive on poor rates for a couple of years.
Then DCIX will still lease to the big companies, they don't compete with them, and they can't expect high charter rates.
The poor rates that are being paid don't sustain a nice dividend.
See how many shareholders stick around after a dividend cut.
You aren't being "paid to wait", if the share price drops more than the dividend pays.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1449891/comments?source=feed#comment-19087391 19087391 By then they will have double the share count.
A bunch of really old ships that nobody wants to hire.
And in order to participate in the next bull market.
They will have to sell a massive amount of shares to buy a fleet.
There is nobody in the container ship sector that can honestly say that demand will outstrip supply in the next three years.
The amount of ships sitting idle in the fleet is now 5.3% of the fleet total.
New ships continue to be ordered, and they are all larger, and more fuel efficient.
Not one of you bulls ever come up with anything positive from ship brokers.
Only the wishful thinking of other bulls, and the best case scenario stated by company management.]]> Tue, 21 May 2013 16:14:31 -0400 By then they will have double the share count.
A bunch of really old ships that nobody wants to hire.
And in order to participate in the next bull market.
They will have to sell a massive amount of shares to buy a fleet.
There is nobody in the container ship sector that can honestly say that demand will outstrip supply in the next three years.
The amount of ships sitting idle in the fleet is now 5.3% of the fleet total.
New ships continue to be ordered, and they are all larger, and more fuel efficient.
Not one of you bulls ever come up with anything positive from ship brokers.
Only the wishful thinking of other bulls, and the best case scenario stated by company management.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1449891/comments?source=feed#comment-19085091 19085091 Not even the PR department at DCIX would attempt to put out such a load of bloated hyperbole as this.

I'll tell you what the DCIX business model is.
DCIX sells shares to the public, uses that money to pay shareholders a high dividend, and pay management a commission.

I'll be more specific:
DCIX sells shares, and adds in some debt to buy an old ship from one of the big containership companies like Maersk, that is upgrading it's fleet to modern larger tonnage.
DCIX will buy a ship for $30 million, while the actual market value of that ship is worth $9 million.
In return for receiving an above market price for its ship, Maersk will give DCIX a charter for three years, worth a total of $21 million.
That charter is also well above market rates.
They call that a pre paid charter.
Those artificially high charter rates make for some impressive revenue and earnings numbers.
At the end of the charter, DCIX sells the ship for $9 million. The whole deal looks like a wash. But, after the dividend cost, expenses, and commissions, the shareholders are happy, but the company has no assets, no savings, and continually growing share count.
DCIX takes the cash left after the debt is paid off, adds another secondary public offering. buys another old rust bucket, wash, rinse, repeat.
And a 99% fleet utilization rate is very common on all these shippers.
Usually the only thing that keeps a ship from being chartered for the full amount of time it is available. Is for dry-docking.
And DCIX doesn't keep them long enough to dry dock.
The costs associated with the fourth and fifth special surveys is not worth it, for the current charter rates.

You can try this at home if you like.
Say you only make $50,000 per year.
Sell your house, and give your Boss a $300,000 interest free loan from the house money.
Then he can give you $100,000 per year salary for six years.
Your friends and neighbors will be very impressed, but in six years you'd better hope that inheritance comes through.]]> Tue, 21 May 2013 15:29:43 -0400 Not even the PR department at DCIX would attempt to put out such a load of bloated hyperbole as this.

I'll tell you what the DCIX business model is.
DCIX sells shares to the public, uses that money to pay shareholders a high dividend, and pay management a commission.

I'll be more specific:
DCIX sells shares, and adds in some debt to buy an old ship from one of the big containership companies like Maersk, that is upgrading it's fleet to modern larger tonnage.
DCIX will buy a ship for $30 million, while the actual market value of that ship is worth $9 million.
In return for receiving an above market price for its ship, Maersk will give DCIX a charter for three years, worth a total of $21 million.
That charter is also well above market rates.
They call that a pre paid charter.
Those artificially high charter rates make for some impressive revenue and earnings numbers.
At the end of the charter, DCIX sells the ship for $9 million. The whole deal looks like a wash. But, after the dividend cost, expenses, and commissions, the shareholders are happy, but the company has no assets, no savings, and continually growing share count.
DCIX takes the cash left after the debt is paid off, adds another secondary public offering. buys another old rust bucket, wash, rinse, repeat.
And a 99% fleet utilization rate is very common on all these shippers.
Usually the only thing that keeps a ship from being chartered for the full amount of time it is available. Is for dry-docking.
And DCIX doesn't keep them long enough to dry dock.
The costs associated with the fourth and fifth special surveys is not worth it, for the current charter rates.

You can try this at home if you like.
Say you only make $50,000 per year.
Sell your house, and give your Boss a $300,000 interest free loan from the house money.
Then he can give you $100,000 per year salary for six years.
Your friends and neighbors will be very impressed, but in six years you'd better hope that inheritance comes through.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1444331/comments?source=feed#comment-19029801 19029801 So, one final attempt.
The $10 million in "amortization" is not cash, and not revenue.
But yes, the $33 million is revenue.
And that's great, it is better than getting shafted by a bankrupt customer.

But, whenever anyone looks at the earnings of a company they always take into consideration the one time items.
In some of your posts you were insisting that this was a good sign, of an improvement in revenue. As if business was picking up.
It's not.
EGLE will go right back to a $ 2 per share loss next quarter.
If you don't care about that, then enjoy your stock.
But seriously, the market doesn't usually agree with that.
And when they figure it out, I really can't see the stock price holding up.

If a company suddenly missed earnings by $2, the bulls would be screaming about a one time charge that should be taken out to get a clean number.

This is a very transparent sector, analysts are usually very close on Earnings. They adjust their projections every time these companies sign a new charter at a significant rise or drop.
There was no rise in charter rates last quarter.
You can check the charter rates for Supramax every day.
And if EGLE signed a charter rate for a higher amount, they tell you.

Analyst give their earnings estimates that are based on normal operations, unless they are aware of the special item.
So, when analysts are this far off on their estimates.
They usually come out quickly and explain the discrepancy.
And reiterate their earnings projections for next quarter.

Most people claim they look several months ahead on a company they invest in.
I get the distinct feeling you are going to hear the next earnings report and say, "Hey, what happened?"

The KLC contracts have NOT been tying up any ships.
Follow the news from this company. Read the earnings reports.
They took back their ships last year and chartered them out to someone else at much lower rates.
They then made a deal with KLC for them to pay the difference between what was owed, and what EGLE earned from the new charters.
The $33 million is that settlement.
And it's not enough, it doesn't cover the difference.
Hence the word settlement.]]> Mon, 20 May 2013 11:53:05 -0400 So, one final attempt.
The $10 million in "amortization" is not cash, and not revenue.
But yes, the $33 million is revenue.
And that's great, it is better than getting shafted by a bankrupt customer.

But, whenever anyone looks at the earnings of a company they always take into consideration the one time items.
In some of your posts you were insisting that this was a good sign, of an improvement in revenue. As if business was picking up.
It's not.
EGLE will go right back to a $ 2 per share loss next quarter.
If you don't care about that, then enjoy your stock.
But seriously, the market doesn't usually agree with that.
And when they figure it out, I really can't see the stock price holding up.

If a company suddenly missed earnings by $2, the bulls would be screaming about a one time charge that should be taken out to get a clean number.

This is a very transparent sector, analysts are usually very close on Earnings. They adjust their projections every time these companies sign a new charter at a significant rise or drop.
There was no rise in charter rates last quarter.
You can check the charter rates for Supramax every day.
And if EGLE signed a charter rate for a higher amount, they tell you.

Analyst give their earnings estimates that are based on normal operations, unless they are aware of the special item.
So, when analysts are this far off on their estimates.
They usually come out quickly and explain the discrepancy.
And reiterate their earnings projections for next quarter.

Most people claim they look several months ahead on a company they invest in.
I get the distinct feeling you are going to hear the next earnings report and say, "Hey, what happened?"

The KLC contracts have NOT been tying up any ships.
Follow the news from this company. Read the earnings reports.
They took back their ships last year and chartered them out to someone else at much lower rates.
They then made a deal with KLC for them to pay the difference between what was owed, and what EGLE earned from the new charters.
The $33 million is that settlement.
And it's not enough, it doesn't cover the difference.
Hence the word settlement.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1441851/comments?source=feed#comment-19005551 19005551 I just posted this to another article.
See how you run the numbers.
EXM used to count the "amortization of below market charters" as revenue for several quarters.
It's a load of non-cash, nonsense bunk, an accounting trick.

This is how they counted revenue:

Gross time and voyage charter revenues in the quarter ended March 31, 2013 were $73,618,991, compared with $54,823,130 recorded in the comparable quarter in 2012. The increase in revenue is attributable to the settlement agreement with KLC, pursuant to which the Company recognized revenue of approximately $32.8 million, offset by lower charter rates earned by the fleet and a marginal decrease in voyage charter revenues. Gross revenues recorded in the quarter ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, include an amount of $10,280,559 and $1,228,764, respectively, relating to the non-cash amortization of fair value below contract value of time charters acquired of which $10,106,247 relates to the KLC settlement agreement in the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Notice the part about a decrease in voyage charter revenue?
Notice the non-cash "amortization of time charters"?

So, the clean number is a loss of $2.54 per share.
When you exclude one-time items.
Below expectations.]]> Sun, 19 May 2013 17:36:12 -0400 I just posted this to another article.
See how you run the numbers.
EXM used to count the "amortization of below market charters" as revenue for several quarters.
It's a load of non-cash, nonsense bunk, an accounting trick.

This is how they counted revenue:

Gross time and voyage charter revenues in the quarter ended March 31, 2013 were $73,618,991, compared with $54,823,130 recorded in the comparable quarter in 2012. The increase in revenue is attributable to the settlement agreement with KLC, pursuant to which the Company recognized revenue of approximately $32.8 million, offset by lower charter rates earned by the fleet and a marginal decrease in voyage charter revenues. Gross revenues recorded in the quarter ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, include an amount of $10,280,559 and $1,228,764, respectively, relating to the non-cash amortization of fair value below contract value of time charters acquired of which $10,106,247 relates to the KLC settlement agreement in the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Notice the part about a decrease in voyage charter revenue?
Notice the non-cash "amortization of time charters"?

So, the clean number is a loss of $2.54 per share.
When you exclude one-time items.
Below expectations.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1444331/comments?source=feed#comment-19005361 19005361
Gross time and voyage charter revenues in the quarter ended March 31, 2013 were $73,618,991, compared with $54,823,130 recorded in the comparable quarter in 2012. The increase in revenue is attributable to the settlement agreement with KLC, pursuant to which the Company recognized revenue of approximately $32.8 million, offset by lower charter rates earned by the fleet and a marginal decrease in voyage charter revenues. Gross revenues recorded in the quarter ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, include an amount of $10,280,559 and $1,228,764, respectively, relating to the non-cash amortization of fair value below contract value of time charters acquired of which $10,106,247 relates to the KLC settlement agreement in the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Notice the part about a decrease in voyage charter revenue?
Notice the non-cash "amortization of time charters"?

So, the clean number is a loss of $2.54 per share.
Below expectations.

However, if believing in fairy tails makes you feel better about your investment.
Then have at it.]]> Sun, 19 May 2013 17:27:16 -0400
Gross time and voyage charter revenues in the quarter ended March 31, 2013 were $73,618,991, compared with $54,823,130 recorded in the comparable quarter in 2012. The increase in revenue is attributable to the settlement agreement with KLC, pursuant to which the Company recognized revenue of approximately $32.8 million, offset by lower charter rates earned by the fleet and a marginal decrease in voyage charter revenues. Gross revenues recorded in the quarter ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, include an amount of $10,280,559 and $1,228,764, respectively, relating to the non-cash amortization of fair value below contract value of time charters acquired of which $10,106,247 relates to the KLC settlement agreement in the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Notice the part about a decrease in voyage charter revenue?
Notice the non-cash "amortization of time charters"?

So, the clean number is a loss of $2.54 per share.
Below expectations.

However, if believing in fairy tails makes you feel better about your investment.
Then have at it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1443611/comments?source=feed#comment-18996301 18996301 Those dilutions were well received because charter rates were so good, and the deals were accretive to earnings.
But the stock offerings from companies that have to come up with cash to be in compliance with loan covenants, are not usually received so well.

SBLK just announced a massive offering that was well received because it suggests that the money will be used to buy ships at bargain prices.
Personally, I think they will need to use some of it to comply with collateral maintenance ratios and general expenses.
It is structured to make it possible for insiders to accumulate a large chunk of the company, which always makes shareholders happy.]]> Sun, 19 May 2013 11:09:53 -0400 Those dilutions were well received because charter rates were so good, and the deals were accretive to earnings.
But the stock offerings from companies that have to come up with cash to be in compliance with loan covenants, are not usually received so well.

SBLK just announced a massive offering that was well received because it suggests that the money will be used to buy ships at bargain prices.
Personally, I think they will need to use some of it to comply with collateral maintenance ratios and general expenses.
It is structured to make it possible for insiders to accumulate a large chunk of the company, which always makes shareholders happy.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1415601/comments?source=feed#comment-18990411 18990411 ""I think it's ridiculous that Genco is valued at just 60 million. 53 vessels must be worth much more than that.""

Yes, those ships are worth around $840 million.
Unfortunately, they have loans against them for $1.6 billion.
Which is why they have been in breach of loan covenants.
Which is why they will need to restructure their debts.
Which is why the share price is so low.
Because there will be nothing left for shareholders.

You should look up the costs related to a "warm layup" of a ship.
And a "cold lay up".

But most importantly.
A ship that is laid up does not generate commissions for Peter.]]> Sat, 18 May 2013 19:32:38 -0400 ""I think it's ridiculous that Genco is valued at just 60 million. 53 vessels must be worth much more than that.""

Yes, those ships are worth around $840 million.
Unfortunately, they have loans against them for $1.6 billion.
Which is why they have been in breach of loan covenants.
Which is why they will need to restructure their debts.
Which is why the share price is so low.
Because there will be nothing left for shareholders.

You should look up the costs related to a "warm layup" of a ship.
And a "cold lay up".

But most importantly.
A ship that is laid up does not generate commissions for Peter.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1444331/comments?source=feed#comment-18989231 18989231
Diana has more cash than debt.
And has never been in breach of loan covenants.
Or needed a reverse split to keep from being delisted.

EGLE has far more debt than asset value.
And has had to make a desperate deal with it's lenders because it doesn't make enough earnings to pay it's bills.

Very soon, one of the shipping analysts will explain this earnings "beat" to the masses.
And the one time settlement and the amortization of below market charters will be exposed for the folly that they are.

You bottom pickers are going to lose your shirts if you don't take your profits before they vaporize.]]> Sat, 18 May 2013 18:12:51 -0400
Diana has more cash than debt.
And has never been in breach of loan covenants.
Or needed a reverse split to keep from being delisted.

EGLE has far more debt than asset value.
And has had to make a desperate deal with it's lenders because it doesn't make enough earnings to pay it's bills.

Very soon, one of the shipping analysts will explain this earnings "beat" to the masses.
And the one time settlement and the amortization of below market charters will be exposed for the folly that they are.

You bottom pickers are going to lose your shirts if you don't take your profits before they vaporize.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1443231/comments?source=feed#comment-18988991 18988991 Millions of shares of dry bulk companies were traded the other day, in a knee jerk reaction to what "investors" perceived to be a better than expected earnings report from EGLE.

How long will it take them to realize that the "beat" was because of a one-time settlement with a company that defaulted on charters.
The settlement was for $33 million and without it, EGLE had a huge loss, as expected.
Business is horrible in the dry bulk sector in general.
And for EGLE in particular.]]> Sat, 18 May 2013 17:52:48 -0400 Millions of shares of dry bulk companies were traded the other day, in a knee jerk reaction to what "investors" perceived to be a better than expected earnings report from EGLE.

How long will it take them to realize that the "beat" was because of a one-time settlement with a company that defaulted on charters.
The settlement was for $33 million and without it, EGLE had a huge loss, as expected.
Business is horrible in the dry bulk sector in general.
And for EGLE in particular.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1443611/comments?source=feed#comment-18985711 18985711 Since EXM has $1.4 billion in debt.
EXM has 39 ships, with carrying capacity of 3.6 million dwt.
They are small.
So is EGLE.
TBSI had 52 old rust buckets, and I don't remember how much dwt.
Nor do I care.

My reference to those companies has nothing to do with the make up of their fleets.
I'm talking about the DEALS they make with lenders.

If anything, the fact that lenders did foreclose on that old small fleet of tweendeckers and handies from TBSI.
Then the lenders would definitely take the new Supras from EGLE.
And I am not suggesting bankruptcy for EGLE.
I'm talking about the DEALS that have been made with lenders, and the DEALS that will be made with lenders.
And how they have left the management with something and the Banks with something, and shareholders with nothing.
They will also get diluted.
Massively.

When the market figures out that EGLE's beat on earnings was only because of a one-time item.
And that without it, EGLE lost money again, as expected.
Then the share price will fall.
The fact that several dry bulk shipping companies had huge rallies after EGLE's earnings, shows that the market doesn't have a clue about shipping.
The BDI is falling, and will continue to do so this summer.]]> Sat, 18 May 2013 14:35:23 -0400 Since EXM has $1.4 billion in debt.
EXM has 39 ships, with carrying capacity of 3.6 million dwt.
They are small.
So is EGLE.
TBSI had 52 old rust buckets, and I don't remember how much dwt.
Nor do I care.

My reference to those companies has nothing to do with the make up of their fleets.
I'm talking about the DEALS they make with lenders.

If anything, the fact that lenders did foreclose on that old small fleet of tweendeckers and handies from TBSI.
Then the lenders would definitely take the new Supras from EGLE.
And I am not suggesting bankruptcy for EGLE.
I'm talking about the DEALS that have been made with lenders, and the DEALS that will be made with lenders.
And how they have left the management with something and the Banks with something, and shareholders with nothing.
They will also get diluted.
Massively.

When the market figures out that EGLE's beat on earnings was only because of a one-time item.
And that without it, EGLE lost money again, as expected.
Then the share price will fall.
The fact that several dry bulk shipping companies had huge rallies after EGLE's earnings, shows that the market doesn't have a clue about shipping.
The BDI is falling, and will continue to do so this summer.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1253241/comments?source=feed#comment-18985161 18985161
As long as you refuse to do any real research for yourself.
You can close your eyes and call everything untrue.
Because if you never see the real facts for yourself, you can deny their existence.

Enjoy being oblivious.
As you bask in your ignorance.]]> Sat, 18 May 2013 14:04:55 -0400
As long as you refuse to do any real research for yourself.
You can close your eyes and call everything untrue.
Because if you never see the real facts for yourself, you can deny their existence.

Enjoy being oblivious.
As you bask in your ignorance.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1443611/comments?source=feed#comment-18984551 18984551 I'm aware of the cycles of the shipping industry.
The one reason why the BDI bubble of 2007-08 is unprecedented is because of the inclusion of China into the WTO.
China and it's voracious appetite for raw materials is also responsible for the rapid growth of the other countries in the so called emerging markets. BRIC
Find another country that could possibly emerge, and have as significant an impact as that.
The world was simply not ready for that.
The worldwide fleet is now ready for a 20% increase in demand, and the worlds shipyards are now efficient enough to ramp up and launch 100 million dwt of bulk ships per year.
Sure, the bottom of shipping cycles happens when a glut of ships causes orders to stop, and deliveries to end. And after a period of rate stagnation, the demand starts to outstrip supply. Anf the cycle starts again.

I've heard a lot of people calling the bottom for the last four years.
Deliveries haven't stopped, and they haven't slowed below the rate of demand, even including scrapping.
As for scrapping, it continues at a high pace, but there is still a net gain in the size of the fleet.
And don't expect owners to keep scrapping ships less than 20 years old after rates climb to profitable levels.

And again, the cycle was not what I was debating.
My point is that by the time rates reach profitable levels, several of the companies in dry bulk will have huge payments that were put off for years. They already have higher interest rates as part of their debt negotiations. And they are likely to be facing massive dilution.]]> Sat, 18 May 2013 13:35:47 -0400 I'm aware of the cycles of the shipping industry.
The one reason why the BDI bubble of 2007-08 is unprecedented is because of the inclusion of China into the WTO.
China and it's voracious appetite for raw materials is also responsible for the rapid growth of the other countries in the so called emerging markets. BRIC
Find another country that could possibly emerge, and have as significant an impact as that.
The world was simply not ready for that.
The worldwide fleet is now ready for a 20% increase in demand, and the worlds shipyards are now efficient enough to ramp up and launch 100 million dwt of bulk ships per year.
Sure, the bottom of shipping cycles happens when a glut of ships causes orders to stop, and deliveries to end. And after a period of rate stagnation, the demand starts to outstrip supply. Anf the cycle starts again.

I've heard a lot of people calling the bottom for the last four years.
Deliveries haven't stopped, and they haven't slowed below the rate of demand, even including scrapping.
As for scrapping, it continues at a high pace, but there is still a net gain in the size of the fleet.
And don't expect owners to keep scrapping ships less than 20 years old after rates climb to profitable levels.

And again, the cycle was not what I was debating.
My point is that by the time rates reach profitable levels, several of the companies in dry bulk will have huge payments that were put off for years. They already have higher interest rates as part of their debt negotiations. And they are likely to be facing massive dilution.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1443611/comments?source=feed#comment-18959391 18959391 You should look into the deal that TBSI made with it's lenders.
The Banks got the ships.
The CEO got to continue managing the fleet.
And the shareholders got the shaft.
If you want a clue as to how shareholders can get screwed, watch what happens to EXM.]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 15:53:43 -0400 You should look into the deal that TBSI made with it's lenders.
The Banks got the ships.
The CEO got to continue managing the fleet.
And the shareholders got the shaft.
If you want a clue as to how shareholders can get screwed, watch what happens to EXM.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1349731/comments?source=feed#comment-18959131 18959131 ""The problem is that the biggest buyers in the world actually don't have any money. They just pretend they do."""

You are talking about Donald Trump, right?]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 15:49:26 -0400 ""The problem is that the biggest buyers in the world actually don't have any money. They just pretend they do."""

You are talking about Donald Trump, right?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1433521/comments?source=feed#comment-18958871 18958871 You haven't specifically researched the supply issues of Iron Ore being shipped into China.
Such as, more is coming from Australia, and less from Brazil.
Which reduces tonne miles.

And the most optimistic estimates for an increase in shipments of Iron Ore into China, pale in comparison to the continuing arrival of newly built ships to service those imports.
The Valemax ships arriving could handle the increase just by themselves.
Add in the VLOC's and Capesize ships being built, and they will be oversupplied with ships for years.
And by the way, the optimism has recently been downgraded.

There have been record amounts of of iron ore being shipped.
Last Fall, at the same time as the charter rates for shipping iron ore fell to a 15 year low, there were record amounts of deliveries to China.
The glut is that bad. And it overwhelms all else.

At best, rates will be slightly above break even.
Unfortunately, due to it's debt, DRYS will have a higher break even than other shippers.

It would take many pages to go into the details of the issues pertaining to DRYS.
I've written many pages about it.
DRYS will perform much as it has for the last four years.]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 15:45:00 -0400 You haven't specifically researched the supply issues of Iron Ore being shipped into China.
Such as, more is coming from Australia, and less from Brazil.
Which reduces tonne miles.

And the most optimistic estimates for an increase in shipments of Iron Ore into China, pale in comparison to the continuing arrival of newly built ships to service those imports.
The Valemax ships arriving could handle the increase just by themselves.
Add in the VLOC's and Capesize ships being built, and they will be oversupplied with ships for years.
And by the way, the optimism has recently been downgraded.

There have been record amounts of of iron ore being shipped.
Last Fall, at the same time as the charter rates for shipping iron ore fell to a 15 year low, there were record amounts of deliveries to China.
The glut is that bad. And it overwhelms all else.

At best, rates will be slightly above break even.
Unfortunately, due to it's debt, DRYS will have a higher break even than other shippers.

It would take many pages to go into the details of the issues pertaining to DRYS.
I've written many pages about it.
DRYS will perform much as it has for the last four years.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1443611/comments?source=feed#comment-18957811 18957811 The share offering is a given.
I have no idea why you think that will be anything but a detriment to share price.
It will take a massive share sale to bring them in line with covenants.

Share sales are only received positively if they lead to accretive acquisitions.
Not when the money goes to just paying down debt.
And this is not the kind of debt payment that leads to a better balance sheet.
This payment will be merely to bring them in line with the drastic drop in asset values.
There will be no improvement in shareholder equity.]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 15:21:50 -0400 The share offering is a given.
I have no idea why you think that will be anything but a detriment to share price.
It will take a massive share sale to bring them in line with covenants.

Share sales are only received positively if they lead to accretive acquisitions.
Not when the money goes to just paying down debt.
And this is not the kind of debt payment that leads to a better balance sheet.
This payment will be merely to bring them in line with the drastic drop in asset values.
There will be no improvement in shareholder equity.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1433521/comments?source=feed#comment-18957421 18957421 DRYS was up because EGLE had a higher than expected earnings.
Which was completely the result of a one time settlement with Korea Lines, who defaulted on charters for a slew of EGLE ships.
Without that one time item, EGLE's earnings were horrible. As expected.

The fact that so many other dry bulk companies had such price increases shows how woefully uninformed the traders are who bought them.

Comparing DRYS to Maersk is absurd.
Maersk is one of the biggest container shippers in the world with a completely different business model.
What's good for Containers is by no means good for dry bulk.
A pick up in the demand for containerized freight is not a reflection of a pick up in bulk.
Even a pick up in the economy is by no means a significant relief for the dry bulk sector.
The seaborne transporting of dry bulk goods has risen far above where it was in 2007-08, the peak for charter rates.
The dry bulk sector suffers from a massive oversupply of ships.
And DRYS suffers from a massive debt.
And mismanagement.]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 15:13:11 -0400 DRYS was up because EGLE had a higher than expected earnings.
Which was completely the result of a one time settlement with Korea Lines, who defaulted on charters for a slew of EGLE ships.
Without that one time item, EGLE's earnings were horrible. As expected.

The fact that so many other dry bulk companies had such price increases shows how woefully uninformed the traders are who bought them.

Comparing DRYS to Maersk is absurd.
Maersk is one of the biggest container shippers in the world with a completely different business model.
What's good for Containers is by no means good for dry bulk.
A pick up in the demand for containerized freight is not a reflection of a pick up in bulk.
Even a pick up in the economy is by no means a significant relief for the dry bulk sector.
The seaborne transporting of dry bulk goods has risen far above where it was in 2007-08, the peak for charter rates.
The dry bulk sector suffers from a massive oversupply of ships.
And DRYS suffers from a massive debt.
And mismanagement.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1443611/comments?source=feed#comment-18956641 18956641 What you are referring to is the book value listed on the ER.
And the book value is the price paid for the ships minus accumulated depreciation.
Eventually they will have to take an impairment, most other shippers already have.
The prices paid for 22 of those ships was $41 million each. That's too bad because you can buy a brand new Supra now for $25 million.

If you are going to call out that other author for his ship valuation then you should be concerned about actual ship values.
The fact that EGLE has debt that far exceeds the resale value of it's fleet is far more important than it's stated book value.
That is why EGLE was in violation of it's collateral maintenance ratio. That is why it had to renegotiate with it's lenders.
That deal with lenders was not a cakewalk.
Read it.
Yes the banks do not want to foreclose on those ships.
But the deal may leave very little to shareholders in 2017.]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 14:54:09 -0400 What you are referring to is the book value listed on the ER.
And the book value is the price paid for the ships minus accumulated depreciation.
Eventually they will have to take an impairment, most other shippers already have.
The prices paid for 22 of those ships was $41 million each. That's too bad because you can buy a brand new Supra now for $25 million.

If you are going to call out that other author for his ship valuation then you should be concerned about actual ship values.
The fact that EGLE has debt that far exceeds the resale value of it's fleet is far more important than it's stated book value.
That is why EGLE was in violation of it's collateral maintenance ratio. That is why it had to renegotiate with it's lenders.
That deal with lenders was not a cakewalk.
Read it.
Yes the banks do not want to foreclose on those ships.
But the deal may leave very little to shareholders in 2017.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1443611/comments?source=feed#comment-18955791 18955791 Wilbur Ross took a large stake in Diamond S.
A product tanker company.
And he is investing in LNG tankers.
Not Dry Bulk.
If he ever does buy into dry bulk, he would buy the distressed assets, not the distressed companies.

Are you seriously going to lump all shipping into one.
I wouldn't even lump all tankers with other size tankers, if you want to make an accurate analysis of a company.
Same with dry Bulk.
EGLEE owns all Supramax. Yes it has two Handies.
DSX has mostly Capes and Panamax.
And the future is different for each size.

You think when Containerships, or tankers, or car carriers, start doing better, then so will dry bulk?
They are completely different, and have different demand metrics.
One thing they do have in common is a massive glut of ships that have reduced charter rates to below break even.

You didn't make a single reference to the supply glut, and it is the single most important factor in this sector.

I have no idea where you are getting your ship valuations.
But you should get them from the shipbrokers, who record the sales of ships.
Try this one: http://bit.ly/12hlho8
or http://bit.ly/sdP9nU
Where you will find that a 5 year old Japanese built Supra is worth $20 million, and a 10 year old Japanese built Supra is worth $15 million.
Japanese built ships have higher resale value.
EGLE has a fleet list so you can do the work yourself.
So the $800 million fleet value stated before is accurate.

But given some of the wild statements made by you in your article.
It appears this conversation is not worth having.
EGLE never had a share price of over $100.
Any thoughts about this company being worth $400 per share is absurd.
The perfect storm of events that led to those astronomical rates in 2007 was a one time event.
The dry bulk sector will be oversupplied for at least the next three years.
After that, the supply demand ratio may meet parity.
But since 9 million dwt. more ships have been ordered already this year, then reaching the point where there is a shortage of ships like 2007 is a fantasy.]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 14:34:22 -0400 Wilbur Ross took a large stake in Diamond S.
A product tanker company.
And he is investing in LNG tankers.
Not Dry Bulk.
If he ever does buy into dry bulk, he would buy the distressed assets, not the distressed companies.

Are you seriously going to lump all shipping into one.
I wouldn't even lump all tankers with other size tankers, if you want to make an accurate analysis of a company.
Same with dry Bulk.
EGLEE owns all Supramax. Yes it has two Handies.
DSX has mostly Capes and Panamax.
And the future is different for each size.

You think when Containerships, or tankers, or car carriers, start doing better, then so will dry bulk?
They are completely different, and have different demand metrics.
One thing they do have in common is a massive glut of ships that have reduced charter rates to below break even.

You didn't make a single reference to the supply glut, and it is the single most important factor in this sector.

I have no idea where you are getting your ship valuations.
But you should get them from the shipbrokers, who record the sales of ships.
Try this one: http://bit.ly/12hlho8
or http://bit.ly/sdP9nU
Where you will find that a 5 year old Japanese built Supra is worth $20 million, and a 10 year old Japanese built Supra is worth $15 million.
Japanese built ships have higher resale value.
EGLE has a fleet list so you can do the work yourself.
So the $800 million fleet value stated before is accurate.

But given some of the wild statements made by you in your article.
It appears this conversation is not worth having.
EGLE never had a share price of over $100.
Any thoughts about this company being worth $400 per share is absurd.
The perfect storm of events that led to those astronomical rates in 2007 was a one time event.
The dry bulk sector will be oversupplied for at least the next three years.
After that, the supply demand ratio may meet parity.
But since 9 million dwt. more ships have been ordered already this year, then reaching the point where there is a shortage of ships like 2007 is a fantasy.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1433521/comments?source=feed#comment-18924191 18924191 Your profile says you are a swing trader.
In which case I would assume you would take your profit today.
Congratulations if you did.
Today's jump was merely a result of an earnings report from EGLE, which apparently no one really attempted to read.
There was a one time gain from a settlement on defaulted charters. Their situation remains grim.
For "investors" to somehow plunge into shipping stocks, based on that, shows a complete ignorance of the shipping sector.

Your article attempts a fundamental analysis, and a longer term outlook.
First, you are using the consolidated earnings reports for ORIG and DRYS, to state that there was a revenue increase.
But the dry bulk and tanker segment has had no such increase.
Just the drill rig segment, and it is solely the result of an increase in drill ships, not revenue per ship.
ORIG revenue means nothing to DRYS shareholders, only ORIG's share price. It is just currency.
And every time DRYS sells it's shares of ORIG, the value of DRYS goes down.

And charter rates are not on the rise.
I suppose on some weekly time frame there might have been a slight uptrend.
But, rates are not rising, and the futures contracts for rates this summer are worse.
This summer will suck, try reading a shipping publication.
There was a recent, temporary rally, from the port congestion when there was a bumper crop of soybeans, which had the effect of raising Panamax and Supramax rates all the way up to not quite break even. A slight, and temporary bump in Cape rates to about half of break even.

Calling DRYS ships young, is a stretch.
Their dry bulk ships average 8.4 years old.
The sector average is 10.6 years old.
Certainly not a competitive advantage.
Diana is younger, so is EGLE, and Navios
And DRYS expenses are high because of their interest and finance charges, as well as far too many fees charged by George.
They pay higher interest margin because of their multiple breaches of loan covenants.

Diversification only helps if the tanker sector was supporting the dry bulk sector during a lull in bulk charter rates.
Or, vice versa.
That's not happening.
Both sectors are oversupplied, and while demand is expected to increase, the rise is not expected to outpace supply for some time.
For now, diversification just means, misery loves company.

The troubling issues that are specific to DRYS are far more damaging than any perceived improvement in the sector, or the economy.
And the outlook for the sector and the economy, continue to be downgraded.]]> Thu, 16 May 2013 20:37:08 -0400 Your profile says you are a swing trader.
In which case I would assume you would take your profit today.
Congratulations if you did.
Today's jump was merely a result of an earnings report from EGLE, which apparently no one really attempted to read.
There was a one time gain from a settlement on defaulted charters. Their situation remains grim.
For "investors" to somehow plunge into shipping stocks, based on that, shows a complete ignorance of the shipping sector.

Your article attempts a fundamental analysis, and a longer term outlook.
First, you are using the consolidated earnings reports for ORIG and DRYS, to state that there was a revenue increase.
But the dry bulk and tanker segment has had no such increase.
Just the drill rig segment, and it is solely the result of an increase in drill ships, not revenue per ship.
ORIG revenue means nothing to DRYS shareholders, only ORIG's share price. It is just currency.
And every time DRYS sells it's shares of ORIG, the value of DRYS goes down.

And charter rates are not on the rise.
I suppose on some weekly time frame there might have been a slight uptrend.
But, rates are not rising, and the futures contracts for rates this summer are worse.
This summer will suck, try reading a shipping publication.
There was a recent, temporary rally, from the port congestion when there was a bumper crop of soybeans, which had the effect of raising Panamax and Supramax rates all the way up to not quite break even. A slight, and temporary bump in Cape rates to about half of break even.

Calling DRYS ships young, is a stretch.
Their dry bulk ships average 8.4 years old.
The sector average is 10.6 years old.
Certainly not a competitive advantage.
Diana is younger, so is EGLE, and Navios
And DRYS expenses are high because of their interest and finance charges, as well as far too many fees charged by George.
They pay higher interest margin because of their multiple breaches of loan covenants.

Diversification only helps if the tanker sector was supporting the dry bulk sector during a lull in bulk charter rates.
Or, vice versa.
That's not happening.
Both sectors are oversupplied, and while demand is expected to increase, the rise is not expected to outpace supply for some time.
For now, diversification just means, misery loves company.

The troubling issues that are specific to DRYS are far more damaging than any perceived improvement in the sector, or the economy.
And the outlook for the sector and the economy, continue to be downgraded.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1441851/comments?source=feed#comment-18922431 18922431 Perhaps Soph didn't emphasize enough the fact that this is a one time item.
A settlement from a bankrupt company that defaulted on their charters.
And shares of a company emerging from bankruptcy, into a still dismal sector.
That's encouraging.
And they intend to value the amortization of above and below market charters as revenue?
EXM pulled that charade for years, before it was realized as folly.
EGLE still has a dismal future.
RBS sweeps all cash above $20 million.
The deal they made with lenders pushed principle payments out two years.
Leading to a sizable, lump sum payment.
Which they have no chance of paying.]]> Thu, 16 May 2013 19:29:06 -0400 Perhaps Soph didn't emphasize enough the fact that this is a one time item.
A settlement from a bankrupt company that defaulted on their charters.
And shares of a company emerging from bankruptcy, into a still dismal sector.
That's encouraging.
And they intend to value the amortization of above and below market charters as revenue?
EXM pulled that charade for years, before it was realized as folly.
EGLE still has a dismal future.
RBS sweeps all cash above $20 million.
The deal they made with lenders pushed principle payments out two years.
Leading to a sizable, lump sum payment.
Which they have no chance of paying.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1404191/comments?source=feed#comment-18691851 18691851 ""Recently, some Chinese shipping companies have declared impressive earnings and charter rates are improving. There are two reasons for the improving charter rates: The decrease of vessels in the industry, which was one of the key reasons for the fall of the industry, and increased trade volumes."

The seaborne trade volumes increased every year from 2010 to 2012 to new record highs. At the same time as the BDI fell to a new 15 year low.

I'm aware of Chinese container companies that have profits.
But not Dry bulk Shipping companies.
Maybe you could point them out.

What charter rates are improving?
Over what time frame?
The seasonal grain trade that resulted in some Supramax and Panamax rates to rise to break-even?
Or the recent rise in cape rates from $4,000 per day, to $6,000 per day. Which still leaves them well below break-even.
These little fluctuations in the BDI, that is still below 1000 mean nothing. and they certainly do not represent a sustained rise in rates. Anything below 1200 is horrible.

There has NOT been a decrease in the number of vessels in the dry bulk industry.
And 2013 will yet again see a net increase in the size of the fleet.
And, since a further 2.5 million dwt of ships has been ordered every month this year.
It if far too early to call the end to the oversupply anytime in the next two years.]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 17:40:47 -0400 ""Recently, some Chinese shipping companies have declared impressive earnings and charter rates are improving. There are two reasons for the improving charter rates: The decrease of vessels in the industry, which was one of the key reasons for the fall of the industry, and increased trade volumes."

The seaborne trade volumes increased every year from 2010 to 2012 to new record highs. At the same time as the BDI fell to a new 15 year low.

I'm aware of Chinese container companies that have profits.
But not Dry bulk Shipping companies.
Maybe you could point them out.

What charter rates are improving?
Over what time frame?
The seasonal grain trade that resulted in some Supramax and Panamax rates to rise to break-even?
Or the recent rise in cape rates from $4,000 per day, to $6,000 per day. Which still leaves them well below break-even.
These little fluctuations in the BDI, that is still below 1000 mean nothing. and they certainly do not represent a sustained rise in rates. Anything below 1200 is horrible.

There has NOT been a decrease in the number of vessels in the dry bulk industry.
And 2013 will yet again see a net increase in the size of the fleet.
And, since a further 2.5 million dwt of ships has been ordered every month this year.
It if far too early to call the end to the oversupply anytime in the next two years.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1404191/comments?source=feed#comment-18690751 18690751 Almost half it's fleet of bulkers is over 10 years old.
And 15 of it's Panamax are between 10 and 14 years old.
And while that doesn't make them ready for the scrap heap, they are not young enough to save on maintenance.
And they are soon becoming a burden, as more Eco ships are ordered and being delivered every day.

It's stunning how many people celebrate the transaction that has DRYS shareholders PAYING someone to take those two tankers off their hands.
Yes it's a reduction in Capex.
it's also the admission of a big mistake. One of several made of the same sort.
This Tanker purchase was from Dec 23, 2010, After the glut of ships was well known. The falling ship values was also obvious.
And it comes after several other failed purchases that resulted in forfeiture of deposits, and penalties for ships that were ordered, mostly from related parties, despite an obvious, and constant, deterioration in ship values.
In three years, 13 ships were bought and cancelled. Hundreds of millions in penalties paid.
How many times is management allowed to throw away money on ships they can't get financing for, before you call it either corruption or incompetence.
Here's a hint: Most of those forfeited money went to Cardiff marine, a company owned by George Economou.]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 17:13:09 -0400 Almost half it's fleet of bulkers is over 10 years old.
And 15 of it's Panamax are between 10 and 14 years old.
And while that doesn't make them ready for the scrap heap, they are not young enough to save on maintenance.
And they are soon becoming a burden, as more Eco ships are ordered and being delivered every day.

It's stunning how many people celebrate the transaction that has DRYS shareholders PAYING someone to take those two tankers off their hands.
Yes it's a reduction in Capex.
it's also the admission of a big mistake. One of several made of the same sort.
This Tanker purchase was from Dec 23, 2010, After the glut of ships was well known. The falling ship values was also obvious.
And it comes after several other failed purchases that resulted in forfeiture of deposits, and penalties for ships that were ordered, mostly from related parties, despite an obvious, and constant, deterioration in ship values.
In three years, 13 ships were bought and cancelled. Hundreds of millions in penalties paid.
How many times is management allowed to throw away money on ships they can't get financing for, before you call it either corruption or incompetence.
Here's a hint: Most of those forfeited money went to Cardiff marine, a company owned by George Economou.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1382421/comments?source=feed#comment-18439381 18439381 Well if they buy some Supramax, I would say it's a good move.
Especially the new Ultramax.
I'm really surprised that Supra rates have held up so well.
Since much of their contracts came from shipping Iron Ore out of India.
This is a huge dilution, but this could be the bottom for Newbuild ship prices. Not charter rates, and not second hand prices, but this could be as low as a shipbuilder can go.

And at this point, if they put 40-50% down, it could be an accretive acquisition.
It's been a long time since I could say that.
Up until now, too much of the proceeds have gone to staying afloat.
And to pay down debt.
Nothing wrong with paying down debt, but it isn't like paying down debt to increase shareholder equity.
Most of these companies have been paying down debt to balance out the drop in net value of the ships.]]> Sat, 04 May 2013 10:13:24 -0400 Well if they buy some Supramax, I would say it's a good move.
Especially the new Ultramax.
I'm really surprised that Supra rates have held up so well.
Since much of their contracts came from shipping Iron Ore out of India.
This is a huge dilution, but this could be the bottom for Newbuild ship prices. Not charter rates, and not second hand prices, but this could be as low as a shipbuilder can go.

And at this point, if they put 40-50% down, it could be an accretive acquisition.
It's been a long time since I could say that.
Up until now, too much of the proceeds have gone to staying afloat.
And to pay down debt.
Nothing wrong with paying down debt, but it isn't like paying down debt to increase shareholder equity.
Most of these companies have been paying down debt to balance out the drop in net value of the ships.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1382421/comments?source=feed#comment-18407911 18407911 A company that is already burdened by large debts, that are in excess of the market value of their fleets, and are paying higher interest costs because of their past breaches, will be losing money at those rates.
Especially companies that had to have interest and principal payments pushed back two years because they couldn't pay.
Those companies would be EXM, GNK, EGLE, and several others who have, and continue to renegotiate with lenders.

Why would they do it?
These companies are publicly traded, and can go to the SPO well to raise money. Especially when their stocks rise on speculation of a less dismal future.
These publicly traded companies usually have outside management of their fleet, usually a private company owned by the CEO of the public company.
The private company will make healthy commissions regardless of the public company earnings. Many of them changed their commissions from 5% of the charter, to a straight daily charge of $3,000 plus per day, because the percentage was not enough since the drop in charter rates.
The guys deciding to order ships, are the same guys that make more money by managing a larger fleet.

The Bloomberg article that quoted brokers as saying that the ordering of new ships was a sign of optimism in the industry.
Well those same people ordering ships now, ordered many more Capes three years ago. And those Capes are being delivered today to some of the lowest Cape rates in years.
The idea that "The Greeks have an eye for this sort of thing", is absurd.
The Greeks or any other ship owner has in the past ordered ships when they see an opportunity to get a good price on a ship.
That doesn't mean they are any more prescient than any of the other owners who have shot themselves in the foot continuously over the last six years. And produced this massive glut.

Don't blame it all on an unforeseen recession.
There is more dry bulk being shipped now than ever before.
If they thought 10% growth per year, was guaranteed forever, then they should not be depended on for their foresight.]]> Fri, 03 May 2013 12:12:55 -0400 A company that is already burdened by large debts, that are in excess of the market value of their fleets, and are paying higher interest costs because of their past breaches, will be losing money at those rates.
Especially companies that had to have interest and principal payments pushed back two years because they couldn't pay.
Those companies would be EXM, GNK, EGLE, and several others who have, and continue to renegotiate with lenders.

Why would they do it?
These companies are publicly traded, and can go to the SPO well to raise money. Especially when their stocks rise on speculation of a less dismal future.
These publicly traded companies usually have outside management of their fleet, usually a private company owned by the CEO of the public company.
The private company will make healthy commissions regardless of the public company earnings. Many of them changed their commissions from 5% of the charter, to a straight daily charge of $3,000 plus per day, because the percentage was not enough since the drop in charter rates.
The guys deciding to order ships, are the same guys that make more money by managing a larger fleet.

The Bloomberg article that quoted brokers as saying that the ordering of new ships was a sign of optimism in the industry.
Well those same people ordering ships now, ordered many more Capes three years ago. And those Capes are being delivered today to some of the lowest Cape rates in years.
The idea that "The Greeks have an eye for this sort of thing", is absurd.
The Greeks or any other ship owner has in the past ordered ships when they see an opportunity to get a good price on a ship.
That doesn't mean they are any more prescient than any of the other owners who have shot themselves in the foot continuously over the last six years. And produced this massive glut.

Don't blame it all on an unforeseen recession.
There is more dry bulk being shipped now than ever before.
If they thought 10% growth per year, was guaranteed forever, then they should not be depended on for their foresight.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1382421/comments?source=feed#comment-18362751 18362751
You've been reading too much Motley Fool.
There's blood in the streets over at EXM.
Which will be followed by bankruptcy.

Do you want to get in early on that?]]> Thu, 02 May 2013 12:53:50 -0400
You've been reading too much Motley Fool.
There's blood in the streets over at EXM.
Which will be followed by bankruptcy.

Do you want to get in early on that?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1294831/comments?source=feed#comment-18152191 18152191 Or, the deal with banks will leave virtually nothing for shareholders.

First will be EXM.

The rest in no particular order:
EGLE
FREE
NEWL
GNK

And the ones most likely to see much more dilution.
PRGN
SBLK
ESEA]]> Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:12:59 -0400 Or, the deal with banks will leave virtually nothing for shareholders.

First will be EXM.

The rest in no particular order:
EGLE
FREE
NEWL
GNK

And the ones most likely to see much more dilution.
PRGN
SBLK
ESEA]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1349731/comments?source=feed#comment-18019251 18019251 ORIG doesn't pump oil, they don't have any oil leases, they don't own a drop of oil. They have no need to transport oil.
They drill a hole and move on.

George doesn't dump his nonperforming assets on ORIG.
He dumps them on DRYS shareholders.

And Aframax, and Suezmax rates are expected to get better before Bulk rates do.]]> Wed, 24 Apr 2013 04:30:14 -0400 ORIG doesn't pump oil, they don't have any oil leases, they don't own a drop of oil. They have no need to transport oil.
They drill a hole and move on.

George doesn't dump his nonperforming assets on ORIG.
He dumps them on DRYS shareholders.

And Aframax, and Suezmax rates are expected to get better before Bulk rates do.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1332601/comments?source=feed#comment-17970191 17970191 Charter rates will be lousy for several years.
The low debt companies will do better.
If the shares of ORIG were sold, and the older Panamax were sold off, DRYS could become a lower debt company too.
And George would be the one to turn it around.

The problem is George has done too many things over the last five years that would suggest that is not a priority yet.
Buying OCNF was absurd. There is no logical explanation for it other than he was bailing out his nephew, Anthony.
He paid too much, and he paid using some ORIG shares, immediately after Anthony became 51% owner of the company.
In buying OCNF, he got some Panamax that were the same age as ones that he was getting rid of at DRYS.
He got some Capes with decent charters.
He took on more debt, which is handcuffing him now.
And he got some new builds that have fallen in value, and he can't get them financed. If he walks away from those newbuilds, he will have forfeited a total of $2 billion on ship deposits over the last six years. That's shareholders cash.
This isn't just perfect hindsight. These moves were criticized by shipping analysts the whole way, because everyone knew the prices were too high, and the financing was not there.
George knew too. He's considered one of the smartest guys in shipping.
Many of the ships were bought from his private company, Cardiff.
So Cardiff kept the deposits and the ships.
DRYS bought the six Aframax Tankers, and six Suezmax Tankers for too high a price also. And has recently PAID someone $21 million to take 2 of them off DRYS hands. Nice "investment".
Not coincidently, Cardiff ordered six Aframax, and six Suezmax Tankers a year before DRYS made that purchase.
Given George's past of self dealing, it is speculated that those Tankers are one and the same.
The forfeiting of millions of DRYS cash for Cardiff Capes and Panas in 2007, and 2008, in a failed transaction, are not speculation.]]> Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:03:59 -0400 Charter rates will be lousy for several years.
The low debt companies will do better.
If the shares of ORIG were sold, and the older Panamax were sold off, DRYS could become a lower debt company too.
And George would be the one to turn it around.

The problem is George has done too many things over the last five years that would suggest that is not a priority yet.
Buying OCNF was absurd. There is no logical explanation for it other than he was bailing out his nephew, Anthony.
He paid too much, and he paid using some ORIG shares, immediately after Anthony became 51% owner of the company.
In buying OCNF, he got some Panamax that were the same age as ones that he was getting rid of at DRYS.
He got some Capes with decent charters.
He took on more debt, which is handcuffing him now.
And he got some new builds that have fallen in value, and he can't get them financed. If he walks away from those newbuilds, he will have forfeited a total of $2 billion on ship deposits over the last six years. That's shareholders cash.
This isn't just perfect hindsight. These moves were criticized by shipping analysts the whole way, because everyone knew the prices were too high, and the financing was not there.
George knew too. He's considered one of the smartest guys in shipping.
Many of the ships were bought from his private company, Cardiff.
So Cardiff kept the deposits and the ships.
DRYS bought the six Aframax Tankers, and six Suezmax Tankers for too high a price also. And has recently PAID someone $21 million to take 2 of them off DRYS hands. Nice "investment".
Not coincidently, Cardiff ordered six Aframax, and six Suezmax Tankers a year before DRYS made that purchase.
Given George's past of self dealing, it is speculated that those Tankers are one and the same.
The forfeiting of millions of DRYS cash for Cardiff Capes and Panas in 2007, and 2008, in a failed transaction, are not speculation.]]>