Seeking Alpha

Bryce_in_TX

Bryce_in_TX
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Bryce_in_TX's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Cramer Dumps Linn, Should You? [View article]
    "It is not added back in to cash, it offsets values in the "Discretionary adjustments" because the number you are looking at is not a cost, it is the value of an investment."

    Yes, it is added back to figure if they have sufficient DCF. Note on page 64 of the 10K, at the bottom of 2012, the $82,340 of "Excess (shortfall) of net cash provided by operating activities after distributions to unitholders and discretionary adjustments considered by the Board of Directors." All you need are the first 9 words, "Excess (shortfall) of net cash provided by operating activities". They count the cash paid for put options in the DCF formula. I don't know why you are trying to twist things, but to me you are. It's obvious this is part of the DCF calculation. You can't see it. Fine. I can't try and reason with someone who makes no sense to me.

    "They do not consider it part of DCF or they would have distributed $500m+"

    They distributed $596,935,000 in 2012. They did distribute $500m +. Again, i can't try and reason with someone who makes no sense. I'm out.
    Mar 19 12:02 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena: Setting The Record Straight [View article]
    "It's a hellish time for those folks who were conned by positive spin articles to buy in at $4, $5, and above $6."

    If you are referring to GALE, I don't find that much influence that the DTG articles had on GALE's price. The assumption that the DTG work significantly influenced the stock price was my assumption as well before doing this research. You will have to show me where and how the DTG articles influenced the stock price to believe that a lot of people were conned by the spin articles. And the articles themselves I don't believe were "spin", but factual.

    There was a lot of institutional buying in GALE in the 4th quarter.

    I still have this blog even though I've sold out of the stock now. Take a look at how GALE's pipeline of products appears to have propelled the price higher, not so much the DTG articles. There are a few links which no longer work because they were DTG articles (I wasn't aware at the time that they were created by DTG)

    http://bit.ly/1qmuWaQ

    Institutional ownership seems to have disappeared in the link except for mutual funds. Here's a link to institutional ownership:

    http://bit.ly/1qSqzof
    Mar 18 11:07 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Cramer Dumps Linn, Should You? [View article]
    Dsandman999,

    "It is not added back in to cash, it offsets values in the "Discretionary adjustments" because the number you are looking at is not a cost, it is the value of an investment."

    I am weary with arguing. Yes, it is a cost. It is an asset under GAAP and tax regs, but all assets cost money. On a cash basis, there are no assets. What is paid out in cash becomes an expense immediately.

    Sorry, but I see it differently than you and all the ramblings wear me out. I'm out.
    Mar 18 10:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena: Setting The Record Straight [View article]
    Dude,

    I respect the author of this article, highly. If you can't, I'd suggest keeping your comments to yourself.

    In the first 18 months of the Phase II Neuvax trial, Neuvax was found to be clinically effective with a p value of .04. They followed the protocols. Then later:

    "Later, it was observed that late recurrences in the vaccinated group corresponded to waning immunity, as demonstrated by decreased levels of E75-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs). This finding suggested that a booster inoculation may be necessary to maintain significant immunity. Toward that end, we instituted a booster program and recently reported the booster to be safe and effective in restimulating E75-specific immunity in patients who had failed to maintain significant residual immunity after initial vaccination."

    So, it appears that the vaccines strength was decreasing over time. With boosters instituted they were found to be effective in restimulating immunity. That explains the reason for the p value rising over .05 at the 24, 36 and 60 month marks.

    The doctors' conclusion (see the list of doctors on the study) was:

    "CONCLUSIONS:
    The E75 vaccine has clinical efficacy that is more prominent in certain patients."

    http://bit.ly/1gry7fp

    You know more than the docs do you? You certainly have all the attributes of a GALE basher to me.
    Mar 18 10:00 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena: Setting The Record Straight [View article]
    I am always suspect of first time posters on a controversial thread be they pro or con on the subject. Hang around here long enough and you will be too. I have no position in GALE. I do believe in its pipeline of products, but not its management.
    Mar 18 09:45 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    P Man,

    I have never been negative on GALE's pipeline. I consider myself to have been duped by the management in regards to DTG. If calling a spade a spade is bashing then there's nothing I can do about that. I'd like to see all GALE top management leave the company, for the good and the sake of the patients and doctors involved with the on going trials.

    I don't care what you think about my credibility. I just thought the statements by Abraxix were a bit "out there".

    Keep drinking the GALE management kool-aid. These are some of the dumbest decisions I have seen a company management make in a while.
    Mar 18 05:13 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    Abraxix,

    Try and stay within the boundaries of reality, rather than fantasy. If you want to be taken seriously, what you say needs to have some credibility. A short group corrupting DTG is simply not credible or believable, not even to the GALE bulls, I don't think.

    If Ahn and company didn't know, after reading published DTG articles, that a disclaimer was necessary, then they are some of the most incompetent management I have seen in a while. Stock sales the same. What the heck were they thinking that 6 insiders could sell at the same time? Just dumb. At best these guys are clueless, a few bricks short of a full load. And that scenario just doesn't fly with me, that they were so clueless. They need to go, IMO.
    Mar 18 04:24 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Cramer Dumps Linn, Should You? [View article]
    "No, they subtracted Distributions from the CFO, then a set of discretionary adjustments which included the premiums. Your example varies, they have chosen to keep the Distribution the same and they "adjust" the expenses, even borrowing to keep the amount working without change. The premiums are in that set of expenses."

    Look at page 64 of LINE's 2013 10-K. See the columns 2013, 2012, 2011 under "Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Continued"? Look at 2012. See "Premiums Paid for Derivatives" of $583,434? That is ADDED to "Excess (shortfall) of net cash provided by operating activities after distributions to unitholders, NOT SUBTRACTED. It IS NOT an expense here but considered as available cash for distribution. Note that Discretionary reductions for a portion of oil and natural gas development costs is in parenthesis and is deducted from cash available for distribution. But the put premiums are not in parenthesis, they are ADDED.

    http://1.usa.gov/1d98Xks

    It is as I stated:
    "In 2012, LINE spent $583 million on puts. That was deducted from Cash Flow from Ops (CFO), but LINE added it back for DCF."

    My words:"Accrual, Tax, or cash basis accounting, there is no accounting principle that would allow only recognizing the proceeds from the derivative while ignoring the cost."

    Your Response: "Obviously there is because they have the year end statements where they both don't and do in their SEC filings."

    No, there is no principle or theory that recognizes the proceeds while ignoring the costs. It is LINE ONLY who thinks they can get away with it through non-GAAP shenanigans. They never account for the cost of the put options in their calculation of DCF. LINE says they are FREE and don't matter. Baloney.

    As long as they can keep borrowing, issuing equity, and or sell assets, they may be able to keep the cash shell shuffling game going, maybe.

    However, to state that profit doesn't matter to an MLP? Totally not credible. You have to break even at the least to keep the entity solvent. You have to.
    Mar 18 02:46 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    Ross, on the Abstral sales, are you referring to 4th Qtr. guidance? Looks to me like they met full year 2013 guidance with $2.5 million. Fourth Qtr was $1.3 million I believe. What was the estimate for 4th Qtr?

    Could the Abstral coupon promotion have had an impact on 4th Qtr. sales and is that a short term program ending in 2014? Could the upward guidance for 2014 be explained by the coupon program ending?

    Not interested in spin, pro or con, just objective analysis, if that is possible.

    Their cash position looks good for 2014. Plenty of cash to fund everything into 2015. No dilution anytime soon it doesn't look like.
    Mar 17 05:52 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Cramer Dumps Linn, Should You? [View article]
    DSandman999,

    What I have been saying is summed up from this quote from a Barron's article:

    "It's the gain or loss from the derivative transaction that must be reflected in pre-tax accounting income, not merely the proceeds derived from the sale or disposition of the derivative," says New York tax expert Robert Willens. "I can't think of an accounting principle or theory that would permit recording only the proceeds from the derivative while ignoring the cost."

    http://on.barrons.com/...

    I can't think of an accounting principle or theory that would permit recording only the proceeds from the derivative, either, and that is what I have been arguing here. Accrual, Tax, or cash basis accounting, there is no accounting principle that would allow only recognizing the proceeds from the derivative while ignoring the cost.
    Mar 17 05:27 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Cramer Dumps Linn, Should You? [View article]
    Some of what you have said I simply don't understand.

    "A reduction in the current cash would be a new Put purchase. Depending on their internal formula, they might do another Put (10%) or they might do a SWAP (90%). Using your example, distorts the cash available at this time. "

    In 2012, LINE spent $583 million on puts. That was deducted from Cash Flow from Ops (CFO), but LINE added it back for DCF. So, a new Put purchase would NOT reduce current cash available for DCF because LINE adds it back. That's why I am deducting its cost upon settlement, because LINE has added it back and never deducted the cost from available cash.

    If borrowed money solves all the problems, so that you don't count any borrowed money as a reduction in DCF, then you should borrow money instead of earning it.

    I don't see where the $583 million is recouped under LINE's DCF calculation. It is all paid out it looks like to me.

    "Since these Puts are for different years and cost different amounts, their costs are averaged in the depreciation. By the time the Put expired, the company has already recouped the cost against 5 years of depreciation, so current cash is again not changed before or after the expiration."

    You are combining cash basis accounting and accrual. You can't do that. You use either one or the other. There is no depreciation in cash basis accounting.

    "The debt went up and interest expense will go up and reduce future DCF."

    What about principal of the Debt? DCF only factors in interest expense, not principal.

    "So 2 - 1 does not equal 2, but the 1 is handled differently than the example and the IRS, SEC, etc realized that it was being handled in a way that accounted for it and did not affect how DCF is calculated,"

    DCF calculated the traditional way as Adjusted EBITDA less Maintenance Cap EX less Interest Expense (as LINE is now forced to define Adjusted EBITDA) yields materially less DCF than how LINE calculates DCF. LINE moved the goal posts.

    Yes, you are right that current cash, in 2013, is the cash settlement and does not include the option cost. But, the option cost was deducted from CFO back in 2012, yet LINE added it back to DCF? Makes no sense. On a cash basis, the cash went out in 2012, it is spent, you can't add it back, makes no difference if the cash came from a loan, sales, whatever. When the cash is gone, it's gone. You can't magically add it back with the pen.

    In looking at a put option on commodities as a transaction, not the timing of when the cash is spent to pay for it and when it is exercised and the company received cash settlement, the cash paid out is $360 and the cash received is $2800, making total cash available from this transaction equal to $2440, not $2800. LINE never recognizes the $360 paid out in its DCF calculation. On a cash basis, where is that money recouped?
    Mar 17 12:23 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    scott,

    The ethical failings are still there, IMO, no matter whose responsibility it is to add the disclaimer. It was dumb for GALE to get involved with DTG and dumb for 6 guys to make huge stock sales all at once. Can you say dumb and dumber? No, I will not regret selling. I am very glad to be out of the stock.
    Mar 17 11:22 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Cramer Dumps Linn, Should You? [View article]
    "'sale of the underlying stock '
    This is not a put on a stock."

    The tax accounting is going to be the same. Why is the put option on commodities accounted for the the same as for stock options? It's very simple. To figure the Gain or Loss on any sale of property, the tax code says to take the amount realized, the cash settlement in this case, and subtract the asset's adjusted basis from the amount realized to determine Gain or Loss. For the example I provided that would be to deduct the $360 cost of the option (basis and adjusted basis) from the $2800 cash settlement.

    There is significant leeway allowed for non-GAAP calculations. That doesn't mean the SEC approves it. The fact that Adjusted EBITDA must now be calculated by deducting puts that settled during the period from it is confirmation of that.

    From a simple cash accounting perspective, $360 cash was paid for the put and $2800 was received upon cash settlement when the option was exercised. The actual cash available from the transaction is $2440, not 2800 as LINE is reporting. That is the jist of it. It is no more complicated than that. 2 - 1 does not equal 2
    Mar 17 03:45 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    That does make it sound like the monkey is on DTG and not GALE.
    Mar 17 02:06 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    "Bryce. Has it crossed your mind that Galena wanted to have its own IR department proof read the DTG articles before they were published to ensure that they were factual? "

    That's what I have been saying, that GALE's marketing dept. would review the material before being published, not just to insure it is factual but to insure everything is there as it should be, including the disclaimer that this is a paid advertisement by GALE, before they would release it. No disclaimer tells me they were aware there was none.
    Mar 17 01:58 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
2,367 Comments
2,995 Likes