Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View tincupinhand's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • SSCA August Salvage Declines 89% From June, Funds OMEX Losses 3 Days [View article]
    Blue: "Rear view mirror investing" should be the title of your next title piece to support your short premise. Following the same logic, other names who had past failures and stock prices to reflect the same (say F, APPL, etc.) once failed, always failed...just brilliant theory! Did you ever see the definition of insanity? It messes with your mind when you are on the wrong side of a trade such as OMEX. Maybe you have been another unsuspecting victim of one too many short & distort campaigns that have been highlighted across the Internet? The time to short was in the $3s (unfortunately for me where I started my long position) and now should be covering before we see the "mother of all short squeezes" as Roland Perry states in his SA analysis. Go read his piece which I find pretty much factually correct (I attempt to correct factual mistatements I find on SA and other boards) but, of course Perry's analysis ending in a table pounding long recommendation (he also misjudged the short campaign nastiness and was premature in his entry point however). With such polar opposite opinions on OMEX, there certainly will be big losers and winners...sooner than we might imagine. Disclosure: Long OMEX
    Aug 22 03:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • SSCA August Salvage Declines 89% From June, Funds OMEX Losses 3 Days [View article]
    The 8k information sited by our author is very helpful in understanding the new $10 million funding deal. As either being short or long OMEX, the key issue is that the parent company decided to structure the deal most importantly without having OMEX shares used as collateral, nor for the conversion mechanism. Not only does this potentially preserve $10 million of cash when the deal matures in 2016, but is let's the market know that additional shares of OMEX will not be coming to market. I believe that is bad news for the shorts and good for longs. Otherwise, long or short, which subsidiary has borrowed is immaterial since all reporting of debt needs to be consolidated in the next 10Q filing, and so it would be most appropriate for the Company to disclose such matters in an SEC filing (next 10Q) as opposed to the chat from a less visible board forum. Since the author has already established for us the complete lack of value of both the Oceanica and Neptune subsidiaries, the Company appears to have pulled off a brilliant funding with the conversion feature into shares of one of these subsidiaries. Amazing how easily investors will part with $10 million these days for a parent company reported to be on the verge of bankruptcy.
    Aug 20 02:17 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Oceanica Did Not Have Permission Of SEMARNAT For Core Sample Drilling [View article]
    Gonzalez tengo copia de una correspondencia que puede aclarar la evidencia que existe. Yo personalmente puede que no entienda el contenido en espanol, pero si puedes comunicarte conmigo en privado por medio de este sitio, tal vez podamos arreglar que usted comparta la evidencia con RM y establecer si es lo que la compania indica que es o no. Gracias
    Aug 20 01:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Oceanica Did Not Have Permission Of SEMARNAT For Core Sample Drilling [View article]
    Harriet: I appreciate your concern and I also believe that sharing facts which may be lacking or miscommunicated is part of what SA wishes to happen in these comments. I have contacted the SA in response to another previous deletion so they can educate me on what is considered a comment insinuating "bad faith motivation" of an author. I hope that my agreement with Ryan Morris as to his being motivated by his fund's short position somehow is just a factual statement of motivation. I wouldn't describe my comment as bad faith unless SA believes the short thesis motivation is somehow not to be mentioned by a commentator? Hopefully my request to SA to clarify their policy will allow me to "clean up" any offending comments since your sentiments nor mine matter in this regard. SA can police their site as they wish and so I will be doing my best to comply once SA responds to my request for more insight into the offending verbiage I will repost a compliant version.
    Aug 20 12:10 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • SSCA August Salvage Declines 89% From June, Funds OMEX Losses 3 Days [View article]
    Author’s reply » How much upside on the SSCA do you think OMEX gave away with this most recent loan?

    This looks like a tricky question so I'll just take a guess: did they use shares in LEI?
    Aug 19 01:56 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • SSCA August Salvage Declines 89% From June, Funds OMEX Losses 3 Days [View article]
    I hope to provide relevant fact-checking insights to assess the accuracy of the title statement:
    " SSCA August Salvage Declines 89% From June, Funds OMEX Losses 3 Days"
    In the title statement above, the author is using and mixing very different meanings for the term "value" within the same statement... namely "face" value versus “collateral” value and ignoring the "commercial" or GAAP and Cash value of the inventory? It is the latter value(s) that will go to fund “OMEX Losses”.

    On the one hand, the author's article indicates that the 89% "value" differential is based on the actual "face" value of the recovered coins and bullion. That is, a $20 dollar coin has a "value" of $20. If we were discussing recently minted, virtually identical coins in similar physical condition, the comparison could be valid. However, it is a very well established fact that old gold coins, especially of the nature of those coming from a historic wreck such as the SSCA, have value for their rarity, also known as numismatic value, which is what enhances the actual market value of the coins by very significant multiples. Even with only casual knowledge of this basic fact of rare coin valuation, the author should know that any single $20 gold coin minted in the late 1850's can have market value into six figures per individual coin! In fact, any individual coin in this inventory if of high “uncirculated” quality, can have a commercial value in excess of the $300,000, which is of course the total value cited by the author in their article. In fact the $300,000 as presented by the author, is based only on their estimate of a “collateral value” formulation of a working capital loan, which most observers would find is an ultra-conservative advance rate, and which will be exceeded by a significant seven figures when the commercial value is realized (the latter being the basis for Odyssey’s remuneration under its recovery contract is earned). Thus given the importance of the commercial value to both the GAAP and Cash results the Company will report in future SEC filings, why is no attempt made by the author to even acknowledge the existence of a commercial value, nor much less to estimate the range of commercial value of the inventory? This gap in the author’s analysis is a very relevant, major and disturbing omission that unless clarified, leads the reader of the article’s title (and article itself) to erroneous misunderstanding of the most meaningful value representation of the recoveries in question. The title has been presented with two conflicting value statements, focused on “face value” and “collateral value”, while the “commercial value” that the Company will receive under GAAP and Cash accounting is ignored. Thus, the value of the inventory as described by the author ($300,000) in the title is misleading since it bears virtually no relevance to the total seven-figure funding Odyssey will receive for this current inventory under GAAP and/or Cash accounting.

    For proper balance, I wish to note that even Odyssey does not attempt to place a commercial market value on the inventory at this time, nor does the Company make any public statements as to their belief as to the GAAP/Cash value of the inventories they have recovered to date. Why? well without a lengthy process of individually examining the recovered coins (which will take place under over the coming months), it is virtually impossible for anyone today, including the author, to establish with any accuracy how the current market value will translate into the cash commercial value. Thus for the author of this article to say with conviction that the current inventory of valuable coins "...Funds OMEX Losses Three Days" is a statement that applies a partial estimate of debt collateral valuation on the inventory and ignores the real market value of rare coins of numismatic qualities. The commercial value, while not determinable with precision until significant diligence is completed by an expert coin reviewer over the coming months, is clearly so far in excess of $300,000, so as to make the omission of any discussion of the realizable commercial value less than credible financial analysis to rely on in publishing an article on Seeking Alpha whose policies discourage “Bombastic” titles that are not supported by diligent analysis.
    Aug 17 07:21 PM | 14 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • POOF! There Goes The Short Thesis: Molycorp Receives $400MM Lifeline [View article]
    Bill: appreciate the response. Glad MCP had a pocket of unsecured collateral since this Oaktree deal was pretty compared to what a convert might have looked like. If the assets are important enough, that will hopefully stop any other (now) junior creditor from threatening to exit of their own accord. My takeaway is that MCP needs to buy time for some disruption in the REE market to provide some wind in the sails. A strategic with very long term horizons would be nice! Otherwise, I'm afraid that eventually the shorts will have their way so all I can do now is to go work on my gainers to offset these loses.
    Aug 15 02:00 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Adding Odyssey Marine $OMEX To Watch List. [View instapost]
    Finally got to this...good read. Appreciate the effort made to frame the issues in a coherent way that a person can follow.
    Of course any short who thinks they are smarter than the who's who shareholder filers didn't understand Oceanica because that is why we have the smart money long on OMEX. And of course, the squeeze will be a great pleasure to the long suffering longs.
    Aug 15 12:04 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Oceanica Did Not Have Permission Of SEMARNAT For Core Sample Drilling [View article]
    Meson Capital has made an emphatic, straight forward statement in the title of this SA article: “Oceanica Did Not Have Permission of SEMARNAT for Core Sample Drilling”
    Note: SEMARNAT is the environmental protection ministry of the Mexican government.
    This line has been widely circulated across the Internet and many financial news web sites, doing untold damage to OMEX in the process. The statement stands alone when seen in these other venues. Clearly Meson Capital chose to not use the words “we believe” or to end the statement with a “?” , which has been their practice in prior articles. So it appears that Meson Capital decided to change their equivocation, as compared to what we have seen in prior articles on SA, which attempt to hedge their certainty when making statements which are detrimental to the company they are writing about. So with the author from Meson Capital, this time being so certain of his facts, chose to not hedge this statement… well I had to take notice and ask, what is the source they are relying on?
    To my surprise, it seems rather curious that the author from Meson Capital goes on to publish on SA material that is liberally quoted, but did not provide reference for the material’s source other than to say the source was a “new investigative report by local reporter in Mexico…”. Now does that disclosure satisfy a reader (or SA editorial staff) ? Do we have sufficient insight into the factual content of the article from which Meson Capital quotes quite liberally? Does the author of the article, or as Meson Capital calls it a “Report”, have a name and an organization behind them publishing the material?
    By way of example, if we are told that the article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, we better understand the editorial slant and reporting cross-checking of “factual statements”. The same material sourced from, say the Drudge Report, might cause the reader a completely different reaction as to the author’s biases or believability of their “facts”.
    So I bothered to dig a little deeper to see if I could find the source material of this article that Meson Capital has essentially re-published on SA. What I found is that, based on the relatively identical content in Spanish, the blog (report?) was contained in a “blogsphere” site from the Mexican State of Baja California Sur entitled “BCS Noticias” posted on the Internet on July 28, 2104 by a person named Carlos Ibarra.
    The next question that comes to mind is who is this "news" organization? Their web site has a tab of “Quienes Somos” or “Who Are We”? I paraphrase ( see the web site for full content) which says: “BCS Noticias somos un grupo de jovenes entusiastas, comprometidos con Baja California Sur. … una noticia de Blogspot si puede cambiar el mundo que habitamos.”
    English translation: “BCS Noticias, we are a group of young enthusiasts, engaged with Baja California Sur. … a news item on Blogspot can change the world in which we live.”
    This background insight is not what I had expected. It appears that BCS Noticias has a very social agenda and which in Mexico is viewed as a radical, even leftist in its orientation. Their “reporters” appear to have a self-described activist orientation to their work. While I believe that such people have every right to have a social or political agenda, I also believe that, as a reader of SA, it is highly cynical to have an SA author quote anyone’s work liberally without sharing knowledge of their source, as only then we can decide for ourselves how credible the quoted material is. From what I can see so far, Meson Capital chose to use content created by BCS Noticias with a social agenda, and worse, choosing to not provide any source references or cautionary statements about the biases of the editorial policies of their source.
    There would be a lot less reason for me to raise concerns about this failure of Meson Capital to reveal its source, which after was not a highly regarded source in Mexican news, but rather is another blogsphere available over the Internet. However, what caught my attention this last Monday August 11th, is that during the quarterly earnings conference call the President of Odyssey Marine categorically denied the factual content of the headline statement made above by Meson Capital. So I then needed to ask myself, who is telling the truth? The matter is fairly simple, is the statement true or false?
    Again doing some research, I was able to find a statement by another analyst who has published in SA previously, which stated that they went directly to the Company to question this headline statement, and in return received a copy of a SEMARNAT letter addressed to Oceanica indicating that their core drilling program would be in compliance with Mexican environmental law. Green River Capital, which many readers of SA will recognize as a author of well researched analysis, made disclosure of this fact on the Harvest financial web site. This fully supports the Company’s President conference call statement challenging the SEMARNAT statement made by Meson Capital as a falsehood…it appears that the Company has told the truth. Did Meson Capital also do their fact-checking by asking the Company for a clarification prior to publishing an inflammatory statement as fact…”Oceanica did not have approval from SEMARNAT…”?
    So where does that leave us to decide the truthfulness of, not only the headline statement from Meson Capital, but how the statement has deceived readers of the headline across the Internet. Bottom line is that the material that has been published on these pages of SA appears to have been lifted and translated directly from a source with a stated social motive and dubious facts (and at least one major fallacy) to support their work.
    On days like this, it is hard to be cynical enough!
    Aug 14 09:53 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • POOF! There Goes The Short Thesis: Molycorp Receives $400MM Lifeline [View article]
    As Truth has pointed out, it was surprising to see that Oaktree could wiggle itself into a senior secured position ahead of the other senior creditors. I wonder if there was an inter-creditor agreement required to get you know Truth?
    If the biggest danger in the downside scenario is that Oaktree is now able to protect themselves via asset coverage but what would they gain by pulling the trigger? The value of their warrants go to zero. The value of their asset needs to be considered net of the sizable expense to recover their original principal. What is the upside to Oaktree in a BK dissolution?
    Ironically, if only Oaktree has viable asset cover on its exit alternative, that typically should keep other exposed debt holders away from the BK trigger...thus a safety net for MCP longs (?)
    This Oaktree deal doesn't change the strategic reality of China's ability to manipulate the price of REEs, but does perhaps buy more time for the short cover to offer a little comfort to us bleeding longs. Truth, your thoughts on the deal's downside scenario?
    Aug 13 03:07 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • POOF! There Goes The Short Thesis: Molycorp Receives $400MM Lifeline [View article]
    SE you had a valid short premise...if I had gone short MCP rather than long years ago, I'd still have a lot of room to cover at a huge profit. However, mostly I wanted to applaud you for not hiding and instead taking the professional high road and reversing your call when circumstances mandated. You may want to keep the thesis on the shelf since MCP is far from clear sailing given the headwinds from China.

    Agreement or not with a long or short investment thesis is something SA professes to encourage and your style of writing is done responsibly. By counter, my most compelling long (NASDAQ:OMEX) is awaiting a short squeeze in the next week or two (as gold from the California gold rush of 1857 makes or breaks the short premise), in which case the author of a series of short & distort articles has been allowed by SA to be published as if in a penny stock trade rag...they have no professional integrity in their analytical content.
    Thus your professionalism is appreciated and kudos for a quick and very public reversal of your short call.
    Aug 7 08:01 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Barbarians At The Rare Earth Mine: Molycorp Equity Holders Could Get Cooked [View article]
    As much as I've felt bad being long this year+...I sure feel better than if I were short tonight. If nothing else it gives some of us a trade catalyst. At this juncture "shareholder dilution" is not the key issue. Try to go cover your short tomorrow with sale leaseback paper. MCP was between a rock and... this deal is the best shareholders could have hoped for...good corporate finance.
    Aug 7 03:03 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Oceanica Did Not Have Permission Of SEMARNAT For Core Sample Drilling [View article]
    Long: The Crestway isn't appropriate for coring operations. It also would not be appropriate for the mining activity since its dredge is rated for 33 meter max and its hopper belly (6,000 m3) is way to small for this job. With many dredgers being capable of dealing with up to 100 meter depth dredging, the hopper belly capacity may in the end be more of the defining measure. The big girls bellies are in the 35,000 cubic meters category.
    But your instincts on the picture are dead on...the image of surface discharges are a favorite of naysayers. We heard yesterday that the Boskailis plan is to do discharges via a pipe that is very close to the bottom so as to significantly reduce the plume dispersal zone.
    Jul 30 05:33 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Hartford Financial Is Firing On All Cylinders In A Competitive Environment [View article]
    Wow that was some earnings release!
    Any color to offer Ashley?
    Jul 30 05:14 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Oceanica Did Not Have Permission Of SEMARNAT For Core Sample Drilling [View article]
    Long: you are pretty much right about the drilling permit requirement only relating to those materials reserved for the Nation. There is no pre-approval from SEMARNAT required for other prospecting functions on a mining claim during exploration phase. This should be known to any professional who has due diligenced his sources properly, there are many competent attorneys who know Mexican mining and environmental law and one told me that the issue is far-fetched and clearly politically inspired. Why doesn't our author pay more attention to his self-professed guru Warren Buffet who once stated: "...intelligence, energy and integrity are all requirements, but the first two don't matter if you don't have the latter". Those who have now been exposed to six months of these OMEX updates seem to opine that the author has hit a new low in not having the facts supported but rather relying on repetition from biased sources to provide himself plausible legal deniability. Has there been a miscalculation? Is this where he has been given enough rope to hang himself?
    Jul 30 11:31 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment