Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View ramisle's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Paragon Shipping: Following Up With CEO Michael Bodouroglou [View article]

    Thank you again.
    There are two more points I would take Mike to task for.
    First he made the statement;

    """The loan earned 5% interest above Libor at a time when we did not need the cash and our bank deposits were paying us less than 0.1%."""

    Well, if they didn't need the cash, then why did they start a sale of stock on Oct, of 2010.
    And it was ongoing at the time of the IPO.

    """As of March 1, 2011, 6,374,900 common shares had been sold under the controlled equity offering with net proceeds to us amounting to $21.6 million."""

    Again, it's my assertion that they diluted PRGN shareholders in order to give TEU that loan. And since Paragon was paying some of it's creditors Libor plus 2.75%, it wasn't worth the "investment".

    In March just before the IPO, one of their charterers, Korea lines announced they would default on payments for one of the chartered ships. Korea Lines also was a charterer of other of their ships.
    That would have sent up a red flag, that maybe, you might just need the money after all.
    By Dec, 2011, Paragon was in breach of security cover ratios, and also the liquidity requirements with RBS.
    And yes, I think they should have seen that coming.

    As to the future, there are 800 ships on order for 2015. And specifically to the new Ultramaxs they have ordered. There are 743 Supramax and Ultramax on order over the next three years.
    I wouldn't say the matter of continued oversupply is a matter of "if". But a certainty.
    I'm done, good night, and good luck in your investments.
    Jul 2 09:57 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Paragon Shipping: Following Up With CEO Michael Bodouroglou [View article]

    Mikes most recent purchase was Dec, 2012 when he paid $10 million for 4.9 million shares.
    It was a great move.
    He has also received many shares over the years as part of compensation.
    As well as the ones awarded to Loretto.
    Jul 2 07:35 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Paragon Shipping: Following Up With CEO Michael Bodouroglou [View article]

    Mike's answer that TEU could not take the containerships and their continued expenses, and their additional debt, off the hands of Paragon shareholders hands, because TEU could not afford it, is absurd.
    Obviously, PRGN couldn't afford it either.
    And they couldn't afford to give anyone a loan.
    As evidenced by the continued dilution, and continued decline in the value of it's fleet. And the continued breaches in loan covenants, the result of being overstretched.
    The new containers on order declined in value more than the aforementioned Kamsars that were cancelled.
    The answer that TEU wouldn't have been able to pay a dividend if it had taken the ships is of little comfort to PRGN shareholders.
    It's quite obvious that TEU was handles in a shareholder friendly way, at the expense of PRGN shareholders.

    """"This question is another example of how easy it is for people to be disoriented if they do not follow up the story from beginning to end."""

    Yeah, Mike, I have followed you and your company from beginning to end.
    I'm not disoriented, I know which companies and their CEO's handled the crisis better than you did. I'm just trying to decide if your decisions were the result of incompetence, or self serving.

    So, let's do a review of Mike's management performance over the years. I think it's fair. I don't care if he's a nice guy. This is money. It's serious.
    Who doesn't want to look at that before investing in a stock?
    The venture into container ships was horrible.
    The very poor decision to buy the Handies and Kamsars in 2010, while ship values and charter rates were declining, and when the order book for dry bulk ships was set to double the size of the fleet. After deciding that the Kamsars were the wrong choice, they went from bad to worse, by changing that order to containers.
    And they decided to convert them one month before the IPO of TEU.
    They should have known by then that TEU couldn't afford them. They definitely knew that PRGN was going to have to pay off debt to be in compliance with loan covenants.

    Rates continued to fall, as well as ship values, not a good time to order ships, when you have declining revenue, and loan issues.
    Management at DSX was warning that things were going to get worse, so were shipbrokers. Why didn't you know?

    Last Fall and Winter, DSX took advantage of the increased rates to sign one and two year period charters for some of their Panamax, in the range of $12,000 per day.
    Not great, but profitable for a company with low debt expense.
    Mike, you insisted that PRGN keep their Panamax ships on spot, despite Panamax being the most oversupplied ship class on the market.
    The first half of 2014 has been horrible for Panamax spot.
    Rates are below $4,000 per day.
    It will take a monumental rally in rates for those ships to average a break even TCE for the year.
    FFA's for the 4th quarter are at $12,000.
    Again, a bad decision.
    If you want to wait until year end to make that judgement, be my guest.
    That would be hindsight.
    Jul 2 07:31 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Paragon Shipping: Following Up With CEO Michael Bodouroglou [View article]
    First of all, the author has been very civil to all, including the dissenting posters, and to the CEO who he obviously admires.
    And I have been less civil, I find it entirely appropriate to hold the managements feet to the fire. They should have a thick skin. Especially if they have made as many mistakes as the dry bulk CEO's have.
    I have never judged them on being "Greek".
    I've been reading every bit of possible information on all the dry bulk stocks on a daily basis, since 2006.
    And I expect the CEO's to know more than I do. So some of their moves have not left me wondering why, but instead to look at whether the move was made to benefit the shareholders, or the private companies owned by the CEO.
    I feel as though what I'm doing is giving a fair analysis based on years of research, not sour grapes, or any kind of vendetta. I'm a short term trader, and these stocks are great for that. But I also think I can offer information, not advice to those that have a longer investment horizon.
    My posting history on SA dates to 2008, and it is almost exclusively about dry bulk. I made money on the rise in the BDI in 2006-2007, including after the IPO of PRGN. Which I sold soon after.
    But, I am not a "bitter bagholder", nor a disgruntled shareholder. I continue to trade dry bulk stocks, and post about them, because that is what I know.
    I've been criticizing PRGN and Bodouroglou since Sept, 2009.
    Including the venture into box ships right after the IPO. And the loss of $14.8 million for selling the first two Container ships to TEU.
    So I wouldn't call that hindsight.
    However, prospective shareholders have a right to use hindsight when deciding which of these dry bulk stocks to invest in. I's part of DD. No apologies to the CEO are necessary for calling him out for his decisions, especially when they have resulted in such dilution, and destruction of shareholder value.
    Before you say it was a result of an unforeseen, and unavoidable circumstance, you need to do a peer comparison. After all, you are making a case for PRGN to be the choice amongst many comeback companies in this sector.

    As to Mikes answers:
    Speaking about Lorretto and Allseas in the third person doesn't distract from the fact that both companies are you Mike, The question for many companies whose shareholders have been losing all their money, is why is management still getting paid huge amounts while the stock tanks. Lorretto is you Mike, why do you need to have a consulting company owned by you, to advise you, the cEO on matters pertaining to financial arrangements? Why, on top of a commission for each and every financial transaction, does Lorretto need to be awarded shares for free? Your shareholders get diluted.
    Mike's answer, that all the other shipping companies do it, is not good enough.

    Mike's answer that """Incentive plans such as these align the interests of Allseas executives to where we need them, and drive the performance of the staff.""
    That's really not a good answer to a complaint that your compensation is excessive.
    We know it's compensation, we know it's incentive. Does Allen Mullally need a consulting firm owned by him to advise himself on financial matters?
    What exactly are the duties of the CEO of PRGN?
    How often did Allseas visit the shipyard building it's ships, that they deserve such a percentage of their cost?

    Saying that PRGN did not order the containerships, but that it was a "conversion" of an order for Kamsars. Is semantics. I'd call it something else, but.....

    No, the loan to TEU did not cause Paragon to be in breach of loan covenants. But a breach of a security cover ratio, is remedied by cash, cash to pay down debt so that the assets are valued at 130% of the debt. PRGN didn't have the cash, they loaned it to TEU. So PRGN shareholders were diluted once again. Great for TEU, not fair to PRGN shareholders.
    Jul 2 06:38 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • DryShips And Affirmation Of My Bullish Drybulk Outlook [View article]

    "Also remember that in the anticipated coming fall cycle upswing, many of the capsize contracts will be starting to expire and the company will be heading strongly into the spot market."

    I know what the charter contract situation is.
    The Raiatea can be returned from the charterer, any time between May, 2014 and Jan, 2015. it is chartered for $26,000 per day, if the charterer can't get a better rate than that, either on the spot, or period market, then the charterer will not return the ship until it has to, in 2015. Just as rates rise in the 3th quarter each year, they also suck in January of each year.
    The Robusto, Cohiba, and Montecristo, all have earliest redelivery this year, but the charterer is not obligated to return them for a long, long, time.
    And, there is nothing to say that there will be an appreciable increase in revenue above $26,000 per day. Last year there were a few Cape charters that reached over $40,000 per day but not all and not for long, the depressed Cape rates in the 1st quarter 2015 will wipe that out. And last year a record low level of inventory of iron ore at the Chinese ports led to the rapid rise in spot rates, this year, even though demand should be high, the inventories are also very high. So don't expect the same reaction.
    There is only one Cape, the Partagas, that is coming due, and is also going to get a nice raise in charter rates. That is the Partagas, which is earning $11,500.
    Everyone that saw the rise in the BDI last Fall thought that DRYS was going to be rolling in dough. Didn't work out that way.
    The $15 million quarterly dividend from ORIG will make up for the putrid Panamax spot rates.
    It's a good trade, just don't hold on too long.
    Jun 30 07:18 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • DryShips And Affirmation Of My Bullish Drybulk Outlook [View article]

    ""Year to date, all of the dry shipping stocks have been clobbered. Ocean Rig has seen the least of the damage, off 1.51% for the year. DryShips has been mauled to the tune of 31.5%."""

    Why are you including the price action in ORIG in a discussion of dry bulk?
    Just because DRYS owns 59% of ORIG does not make ORIG part of the dry bulk sector. And ORIG doesn't trade off of the fluctuations in DRYS stock. The only time DRYS has any influence on the price of ORIG is when DRYS sells some of the shares it owns of ORIG.
    The uninitiated don't seem to understand it is not a dilutive event.
    ORIG trades based on the prospects of the Deep Water Drillers, as it should.
    It is absurd to lump them and their stock performance in with the seasonal action in the dry bulk sector or the BDI.
    Everybody knows about the seasonal moves in the BDI, few seem to realize that when Cape rates triple for just a few months, it will have minimal effect on DRYS revenue. and if Panamax rates triple, DRYS will still be losing money on a GAAP basis.
    But it is a good trade.
    Jun 30 05:49 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • DryShips: Don't Miss The Turnaround [View article]
    I'm not sure how the charts have been working for you.
    By all means they are useful.
    But, I remember a lot of people saying that the charts were telling them to buy at the end of December 2013, as well as a few TV talking heads.
    But the chart they should have been looking at was the one that shows what happens to the BDI before the Chinese New year.

    What will happen in the second half of 2014 is that the BDI will rise from the miserable rate it is now. More iron ore is being shipped to China as they use less of their domestic ore due to price. And the steelmakers, and miners always load ore into China before winter.
    But, the stockpiles at the ports are still very high. Last year at this time, the stockpiles had fallen to a below normal 65 million tons. So, Cape rates might not rise to the $40,000 per day level that they did last Fall.
    Jun 20 04:33 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • DryShips: Don't Miss The Turnaround [View article]
    I'd just like to add something to what tencjedd posted.
    There is always a huge stigma for a CEO to sell his shares. CEO's rarely sell shares, he would have made a fortune if he sold at the top. And he claims he foresaw the end of the bubble.
    And it is more likely that he can take advantage of tax laws in the country that Cardiff is incorporated in, and to structure the payments so that they are made to Cardiff. Selling shares would be personal income.
    Most of George's pay is paid to Fabiana Services, incorporated in the Marshall islands. Fabiana is George.
    Then there is a consultancy agreement with Azara. And yes, Azara is George.
    There is also a consultancy agreement with Bassett, that's not George, Bassett is Georges nephew, who used to own OCNF before George bought it with way too much of DRYS shareholders money.
    Now the nephew is executive VP at ORIG.
    Vivid Finance makes a commission on every financial transaction, every loan that is taken. And every loan that is restructured, which they do often. Every interest swap agreement, which they do often.
    Vivid makes .2% of the total dollar figure of all financial transactions.
    Vivid finance is George.
    Cardiff gets a commission on every charter contract. every sale and purchase, and is paid a daily fee to oversee the construction of all ships DRYS has on order. George owns 70% of Cardiff, and his sister owns the other 30%.
    Makes you wonder what the responsibilities are for the CEO of DRYS.
    George owns 60 million shares of DRYS.
    DRYS will have around 475 million shares outstanding after this latest ATM.
    It would take a massive rise in rates, and a Herculean effort on the part of George to get the share price of DRYS to rise appreciably.
    It's a lot easier to just funnel the money to Cardiff.
    All fully disclosed on earnings reports, and management agreements as usual.
    Jun 20 03:51 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • DryShips: Don't Miss The Turnaround [View article]
    That's the short term chart.
    Look at the yearly charts, it climbed with the BDI in the second half of 2013.
    And crashed in January just like the BDI. It's predictable.
    Sometimes it climbs slightly ahead of seasonal expectations.
    Rates will improve in the 3rd quarter.
    Sometimes it trades on the overall market. Sometimes it trades when fools think they are getting a dividend.
    But overall it trades on the sector, and the sector is seasonal.
    Jun 19 03:18 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • DryShips: Don't Miss The Turnaround [View article]

    I bash, and I prosper all the time. And on long trades.
    It's the long time holders like you, who haven't prospered.
    Going long can be a great trade.
    But, defending George is futile.
    Like dog paddling into a tsunami.
    Do you want to know what's really going on?
    Or do you enjoy being pizzed on, and told it's raining?
    Jun 19 02:45 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • DryShips: Don't Miss The Turnaround [View article]
    Seeking Alpha needs to have some way to get rid of authors who are unwilling or unable to do the research and give the revenue and earnings from DRYS.
    NOT the consolidated numbers from DRYS and ORIG.
    When you discuss EMC, do you add in the revenue from VMWARE?
    You may as well have posted the numbers for CSCO, for all the relevance they have to DRYS.
    The ORIG numbers completely adulterate the actual earnings of DRYS. You know when you buy DRYS you get the Dry Bulk and Tanker fleet, not the UDW's. And DRYS gets a nice dividend from ORIG, but you don't.
    DRYS doesn't trade off the value of ORIG, despite the hopes and wishes of many a bag holder. It trades on the prospects of the Dry Bulk sector, and the BDI.
    As it should.
    And sometimes it trades on misinformation, unfortunately, there's a lot of that.
    And why doesn't the author look up how accurate DRYS management has been when they tell shareholders how things will be getting better. They've been doing it almost every quarter for years.
    They lie. The comments from management you reposted in your article are lies.
    Like this one:
    """We reiterate our view that fears over severe oversupply have been overstated and the depressed freight environment we experienced in the past several years was more result of stagnant demand rather than a pure oversupply issue.""

    What stagnant demand?
    Every source in shipping will show you that there has been increasing demand for the last five years for seaborne bulk trade, there was a slight dip in 2008-2009, which was followed by new records every year since.
    And every shipbroker will tell you that it IS a problem with massive oversupply.
    Keep listening to George, you'll go broke.

    ""While charter rates for larger dry bulk carriers underperformed during the first quarter of 2014, forward charter rates and asset prices are holding up resiliently, underscoring the bullish market sentiment."""

    Well, now it's the end of the second quarter, and charter rates are even worse.
    The majority of DRYS Panamax are on spot, and spot Panamax rates are below $4,000 per day. That's horrible.
    Third quarter is about to start, the clock is ticking.
    The FFA's for third quarter are not impressive, they are not holding up, and are not resilient.
    And second hand ship values have stopped rising, and are started to fall again.

    George always paints a rosy picture when he is selling shares.
    You'd be better off listening to an honest CEO like Palios, from DSX.
    Jun 19 02:32 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Best Dry Bulk Shipping Stock: DryShips, Diana Shipping Or Navios Maritime? [View article]
    I'm not the least bit upset about the moves made by PRGN. I didn't lose any money on them.
    I'm just telling you why they should not be on anyones list of "Shareholder Friendly Companies".
    You say George is corrupt, but Mike is not.
    But, the fact that you call PRGN's moves, mistakes, rather than the theft of shareholder money, suggests your mind is made up, before you know the details.
    Your justifying the loss on the containerships, and the loans, do not absolve Bodouroglou of the fact that he is solely responsible for PRGN shareholders being heavily diluted, in order to keep TEU from suffering, a larger loss.
    He is the CEO of both companies, it was his decision, and all the damage was done to PRGN. And TEU could have IPO'd more shares and let PRGN off the hook for containerships they could not afford to finance.
    Again, PRGN's dilution, including the shares that Mike bought for $2, would not have been necessary, if Mike had not given TEU all the advantages in the spinoff.
    PRGN was in no financial condition to give anyone a loan.
    PRGN didn't have any financial muscle either.
    Why have PRGN shareholders been paying Mikes private company, Allseas, every day, a fee to oversee the building of those container ships?
    Why does Mikes private company get 2% of any and all share distributions, and not pay a penny?
    Even George doesn't do that.
    Those losses don't even consider the two Kamsarmax that were on order, but had to be cancelled because PRGN was stretched too thin with the container ships.
    You like the Ultramax? You would like the Kamsarmax.
    Those ships would have been good for PRGN.

    The new Ultramax are a good choice for the future, but considering how many have been ordered for delivery in 2015-2016, don't expect them to be raking in cash.

    One year charter rates for Panamx have been going for $12,000 per day for the last six months.
    Meanwhile Spot rates for Panamax have been lousy this year, and are now at $6,500 per day.
    You are going to need a great rate in the fourth quarter to bring that average up enough to justify not taking the one year rate. You take the expectations, I'll take the sure thing.
    So far, it's been another "mistake" on Mikes part.
    The usual rally from the South American soybean trade didn't do much this Spring. So much for expectations.
    Jun 4 12:17 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Best Dry Bulk Shipping Stock: DryShips, Diana Shipping Or Navios Maritime? [View article]
    Your comments about DRYS management are quite true.
    Which is why I am surprised you don't hold PRGN management with the same scrutiny.
    PRGN shareholders have taken a beating with the entire venture into container shipping. PRGN shareholders lost money on the original spinoff of TEU. And they continue to see that "investment" plummet in value.
    And now, again, Bodouroglou has stiffed his shareholders with a loss on selling the 4,800 TEU ship that they never should have been liable for.
    When TEU was spun off, those new builds should have gone with Boxships.
    PRGN shareholders have been paying for them to be built.
    PRGN shareholders were diluted because the company didn't have enough cash to operate.
    And yet they were loaning money to TEU?
    And they were on the hook for $25 million in deposits for containerships that they would never operate?
    Michael Bodouroglou screwed PRGN shareholders.
    And he deserves the same criticism that you have for Economou.

    And even at todays increased ship values, I would argue with that NAV you have given PRGN.
    You can start by stripping out the so called "investment" in TEU.
    That will end up being another write down.
    And ship values have risen, but not for the 15 year old Panamax that they carry on the books for $25 million each.
    I'll be generous and give them $11 million.

    Besides, I've been trading dry bulk for 7 years, and they don't trade on NAV.

    And one last thing. Spot charters have not worked out at all for PRGN. They would have been better off if they took the one year charters that DSX did.
    Last years rally in the BDI was almost entirely because of iron ore shipped on Capes.
    PRGN doesn't have any of those.
    There will be a muted rally in the BDI this Fall, last year at this time, the iron ore inventories had fallen to 65 million tons at Chinese ports.
    This year they are at 113 million tons.
    And Panamax rates will not enjoy much of a rally above break even.
    Jun 3 04:24 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • DryShips: Untangling The Books From Ocean Rig [View article]

    """It's called survival.""
    Yes, it was, but the moves George made were for the survival of Cardiff, not DRYS. Cardiff is Georges private company, and they don't have the luxury of secondary public offerings to bail him out of high priced ships.
    Cardiff had ships they needed to get rid of because of the impending collapse of the shipping market as well as the ship values.
    If you want to argue that nobody could see the collapse coming, then you will have to ignore the fact that George bragged in 2009 in an interview that he saw the writing on the wall, which is why he put the Capes on long term charters in June 2008. Well, that means he knew before selling those ships to DRYS that the ship rates, and values were about to crash.
    Even if you wish to assume that the deals were at arms length, there is no doubt that the penalties paid to Cardiff for the cancellations were exorbitant.
    DRYS paid Cardiff $160 million in penalties and a purchase option. For canceling the deal to buy 4 Panamax for $400 million.
    You'll have to look up the penalties paid by other companies for deals that were made at arms length.
    Analysts, shipbrokers, everyone was shocked at the outright theft.
    Then there is the deal for OCNF. the small company owned by his nephew, which was about to go bankrupt before George bailed him out. He vastly overpaid. He ended up paying other companies to take several of those ships off DRYS hands. (One of those OTHER companies was his)
    George is the CEO of DRYS, and sometimes he makes himself CFO, he knows whether DRYS can get the financing to buy a ship. And if he's not sure, then he should either not make these deals, or make them pending financing. He's selling ships to himself. He's buying ships from his nephew. DRYS shareholders should not have paid over a $1 billion in penalties for cancellations.
    Yes, most reasonable people are sure the deals were not "at arms length"

    You mentioned the companies that diluted, and made lousy decisions to "survive".
    Two didn't survive, and EGLE will be next.
    You should instead look at companies that did survive, didn't dilute it's shareholders into oblivion, and were able to buy more ships for the recovery.
    Instead of paying people to NOT take delivery of new ships.
    That would be DSX and the Navios companies. Take a long look at the moves made by them to understand what is shareholder friendly.

    I own shares of DRYS, I also intend to make a profit.
    I'll sell, not based on share price, but because of seasonal factors and fundamentals.
    Jun 2 01:43 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • DryShips: Untangling The Books From Ocean Rig [View article]
    Sorry, I need to correct that.
    TMS Bulkers (formerly Cardiff), gets $2,000 commission per day, plus 1.25% of all monies earned by bulk ships.
    And $2,300 per day for TMS Tankers plus 1.25%.
    Jun 1 06:20 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment