Confirm

Confirm
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
  • Transocean - Statoil Has Elected To Terminate The Contract For The UDW Discoverer Americas  [View article]
    One additional thought. -- I am an RIG investor, a LT long, and I had also caught the discrepancy between today's disclosure re the contract cancellation and the Fleet Status Report which indicated an end date of March 2016 for this contract.

    The May/March mistake seems kind of understandable, confusing the months, on one hand, but on the other hand -- in this environment of news re contracts that is so drastically important, not to have caught a mistake like this and thereby to have made the circumstances look worse than they are...???

    If they did mess up the dates, indicating erroneously that this contract was scheduled to run until May, when it actually was due to conclude in March -- that's a pretty significant mess up in the context of this market environment.

    And if it was a mistake -- shouldn't they be catching it and correcting themselves by now, if we're catching the inconsistency and seeming mistake?
    Dec 17, 2015. 11:43 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Transocean - Statoil Has Elected To Terminate The Contract For The UDW Discoverer Americas  [View article]
    Not sure I follow the logic that Statoil was inclined to cancel this contract with only three months left and pay a substantial penalty, only to apply money saved to another drilling project elsewhere. If that were so, couldn't they have negotiated a better rate through March or even maintained the same dayrate through March and extended this contract with Transocean at a substantially reduced rate, going forward?

    Transocean is demonstrating a willingness to work close to costs in order to make deals happen in this troubled market. It seems they would have made any all all reasonable concessions, not to see Statoil commit resources to a competitor.
    Dec 17, 2015. 11:30 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Transocean CEO Shows Leadership, Impresses  [View article]
    Anthony,

    What are your thoughts on this piece http://on.mktw.net/1Nq... ?
    When we talk about trends and try to project our thinking into the future things become so murky!

    But, doesn't it seem like one of the significant considerations referenced in this piece and being discussed elsewhere -- refracking -- that we should know already, or quite soon, from experts, whether re-fracking really is viable and changes the projections for US shale output and duration?
    Sep 9, 2015. 09:04 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Transocean Partners Beats Q2 Estimates, Is Undervalued Unless Parent Company Absorbs It  [View article]
    Anthony -

    I think I misunderstood. Correct me if I'm still off here...but I think you are talking about the possibility of a tender which WOULD require adherence to the Agreement provisions/ formula...but in the event of a really depressed market, price could be less than the $15-$17 you estimate on the low end, inclusive of dividends? So, is this the scenario that you attach an approx $12 minimum to?

    Also would appreciate your thoughts on low volume observation and the possible impact on the bid/ask spread.


    Thank you
    Sep 9, 2015. 08:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Transocean Partners Beats Q2 Estimates, Is Undervalued Unless Parent Company Absorbs It  [View article]
    Anthony -- Thanks for your response. I'm excerpting here from it -- My worst case (combining distributions and a rock-bottom value for the owned rigs) is $15-$17/share in value (unless RIG does a tender, which is an unknown).

    If RIG did a tender for RIGP shares -- I'm trying to figure how that might work -- They would either offer to buy all outstanding shares of RIGP, (those that RIG does not already own), or enough shares to reach the established threshold per the agreement, which I think you referenced as 80% of outstanding shares?

    The potential tender -- at least to get to the 80% ownership threshold -- would not have to follow the formula per the existing agreement? In other words, if RIG handled the share accumulation drive as a tender, the price of the shares RIG would be absorbing could potentially be simply the market price that enough RIGP shareholders would be willing to accept to sell their shares?

    Also, on another note, what are your thoughts re liquidity of RIGP shares, in the general context, (not in a RIG buy-back scenario)? The volume seems pretty light and the spread seems like it could get a bit steep, no?
    Sep 9, 2015. 08:22 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Transocean CEO Shows Leadership, Impresses  [View article]
    Anthony -

    If you find the page info, please post. Meanwhile, this is a very well reasoned and presented piece. Thank you for it.
    Sep 9, 2015. 08:03 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Transocean Partners Beats Q2 Estimates, Is Undervalued Unless Parent Company Absorbs It  [View article]
    Anthony,

    What is the basic agreement provision that gives RIG the option of buying RIGP? Do you see a possibility that RIG could reabsorb RIGP for less than $12/ share?

    When does the first of the 3 contracts for RIGP expire? There was some indication on the last call in response to questions about prospects for extensions of that contract or other potential interest in that rig, in which the marketing exec for RIG/RIGP characterized that rig's capabilities as unique -- has the ability to drill two wells at once, is it? -- and made its marketability sound somewhat more promising than most rigs in this pressured market.

    So, maybe odds of add'l work as an extension of the existing contract or otherwise are decent?

    But, if that does not occur, what then for RIGP? If the payout is reduced due to a fall in income does the stock possibly go lower and then does RIG have an opportunity to reabsorb RIGP for even less?

    Appreciate your thoughts very much.
    Sep 4, 2015. 06:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Nuance's Prospects Look Up After Years Of Underperformance  [View article]
    Charles,

    This is an interesting post on NUAN, a company I've traded in and out of over the past 18 months or so. There's something I'm confused about here though. -- If, as you say, a break-up of the company is unlikely due to its book value, and there is a possibility that Icahn won't agree to an extension of the poison pill agreement with management.... where do you see the opportunity? If Icahn can't sell the company off in pieces because of its book value then why would he take it over?

    Perhaps I'm just not understanding. If the poison pill goes away -- which admittedly I don't have enough of a handle on the circumstances to handicap the odds, - but if that happens, then what do you expect -- Icahn to insert his choice of management leadership and a better managed company, I suppose, right? But where's the big recovery for Icahn who at that point will have been in this co a long time and down many many millions. I mean, how does he spin off the parts or sell the parts with the book value circumstance and with nobody having stepped up to buy the parts of this company in all this time.

    I'd like to get back in. What's the argument though re Icahn in the event the poison pill goes away? What do you think Icahn's strategy and end game might be?

    Thank you
    Apr 9, 2015. 03:03 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Recent Bounce In Transocean Doesn't Mean Anything Yet  [View article]
    From the standpoint of a fellow long-suffering long, your points here are interesting and appreciated. But, I think you may be suffering from the wearying effects of holding a position gone south which we are all subject to, with resolve weakening, at what could be the most inopportune moment.

    While oil prices are difficult to call - like any other market - in the short term - there are a variety of reasons that suggest we've seen an approximate bottom in oil and that oil prices may continue to recover in the coming weeks and months.

    Transocean management continues to take a tough love approach with itself in many regards and the market over time should accord respect for management for doing so.

    Who's right, the longs or the shorts? Both, I think, as is usually the case. The shorts are right until they aren't and that's when we longs will have our opportunity to be right. The people who will lose out are the folks who lose faith along the way and sell.

    Ask yourself what the worst is that can happen, reasonably speaking, that hasn't already happened and contributed to the stunning discount in the price of the stock. Sure, it's never impossible that a company can fold, but that's not a reasonable possibility here.

    This company can sustain more bad news, (rigs coming off contract without new contracts and new contracts at lower rates), and still be turning a profit, with cash flowing into its accounts.

    The much more reasonable question is whether the dividend will be reduced or suspended and even this is not at all a certainty.

    Is there further downside if oil prices don't rise or slip a little further, perhaps there is a little - and we could retest the recent lows that we powerfully bounced off of -- But the upside, should oil prices recover - no matter that earnings will be down in 2015, (that's old news), is likely to be large, as shorts, no longer right, are squeezed out, as the market looks at an enormously slashed stock price and ahead at a company positioned to enjoy several points of recovery.

    Less earnings in 2015 doesn't necessarily mean a bad 2015 for the stock. It could be a great year if the market can see a recovery in 2016-2017.
    Dec 22, 2014. 05:45 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Cimatron - Entering The 3-D Printing Software Market With Record Growth And Trailing P/E Of 16  [View article]
    Dave -


    That's very interesting. Can you provide a link to the SEC filing? I've only seen the "there are no insider holders..." indication on NASDAQ... The other thing that seems a little odd and I mentioned it in my earlier comment, though no one thus far has shared an opinion... is that they paid out a good deal of money in dividends in 2013 for a micro-cap company with growth plans/aspirations, though they've not paid any dividends thus far in 2014.
    I'd really like to get behind the company again. Indeed, I was excited about my investment in their shares .... But, I need some substantiation that clarifies the info on NASDAQ that there is insider ownership.

    Mar 12, 2014. 07:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Cimatron - Entering The 3-D Printing Software Market With Record Growth And Trailing P/E Of 16  [View article]
    Gary,

    Yes, but following the link provided -- I see the indication that "there are no insiders for this security." Granted, this is not the same thing as a record of insiders selling, though if this is correct and there is no mgmt ownership, that's pretty odd and for me at least, is concerning.

    Have you or any of the other folks commenting here confirmed that mgmt does not own any shares of the company? Also, has anyone been able to confirm whether or not mgmt sold shares in the share offerings of 2013? (Perhaps it's just not showing up on Nasdaq? Is that possible? Or could it have occurred just over 12 months ago and thus not be within the parameters for access via NASDAQ...ie insider transactions that occurred greater than 12 months ago are not accessible on NASDAQ).

    What are your additional thoughts?
    Thank you
    Mar 12, 2014. 06:44 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Cimatron - Entering The 3-D Printing Software Market With Record Growth And Trailing P/E Of 16  [View article]
    Hello -

    This comment is in regard to the three comments that precede it. I would welcome a response from you guys.... Let me first disclose that until earlier this week I had a long position in CIMT, and while I have not gone short and am not considering doing so -- I think proper vetting of the company regarding the arguments in favor of a long position requires some answers about the allegations of mgmt's having sold nearly all of their personal shares in recent secondary offerings. I see one of the commentators mentions that he's had some dialog with management. If you have access to these folks - would you be willing to ask them why they sold and to confirm that indeed they have sold most, if not all of their personal holdings? To the extent I've been able to check on insider holdings of this company, the information I've seen indicates that there is no insider ownership. Does anyone know if this is accurate? Also, the dividend history - significant payouts last year -- seems a little odd for this small a company with plans to really accelerate product development and growth. Gary, et al....what are your thoughts and what information do you have re these points?
    Mar 12, 2014. 06:21 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A 3-D Printer In Every Home?  [View article]
    Thank you for a very thoughtful analysis. However, the conclusion you reach regarding 3D Systems being in the best place should industry technology improve and pricing decline significantly... what is the basis for this conclusion?

    Stratysis' Makerbot line and their design community appear to be surpassing the Cube line in sales, satisfaction, etc.

    Also, there are several consumer targeted models of 3D printers produced by smaller companies, (most of them private, some domestically based, others from China), that seem to be far better received than 3D Systems' Cube and Cube X printers, based upon the volume and spirit of comments on Amazon and other retailer sites.

    Yes, 3D Systems has a size advantage compared to some of these other firms, which could result in distribution advantages, (though this point seems to apply equally to Stratysis), but if 3D's products and approach to customer service, etc, are considered inferior, to date, when compared with SSYS and smaller firms, and there's more competition all the time... (with the certainty of larger competition when/if the consumer market becomes more meaningful, as you note), why do you think 3D stands in the best place re future possibilities for the household market?
    Oct 16, 2013. 12:07 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Chanos: Analysts fooled by tech acquisitions  [View news story]
    Re 3D Systems, thank you for calling our attention to this interview segment and Chanos' nod. Notably he did not mention 3D Systems, but didn't disagree with the reporter's placing DDD in the context of tech cos and the issue discussed ie companies who are acquiring their growth. If the market came to lose interest in funding this company via secondary stock offerings or if there sooner or later aren't cos worthy of purchase, ("printing" icing and confections?), where would they be in terms of growth? At some point, (the timing is always the hard part to call), we will see.
    Sep 17, 2013. 03:16 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 3D Systems Is On Track To Growth  [View article]
    getgl - I appreciate your thoughts. Are you available to continue the discussion offline?
    Aug 22, 2013. 09:13 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
16 Comments
23 Likes