Brennus's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/99698/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/61751-5-china-stocks-on-this-week-s-watch-list?source=feed#comment-113123 113123
Really, station count is a canard. Pent up demand is so large that both companies could double their projected station counts & probably still not have any one station in radio contact with the other's stations. The real question is whether or not they'll be able to get the gas contracts to meet demand. In both cases, the answer seems to be 'Yes!'.

Bottom line: SNEN is not in a race against CHNG. They are each racing the clock only.

Regarding china grain controls, 'industrial' in this case means 'ethanol'. A lot of SGTI's corn starch output is sold to food & beverage companies. Choking off starch to food and beverage companies in order to keep grain prices low sorta defeats the ultimate purpose, which is to keep the public passive.

Glucose, on the other hand, tends to trade at a pretty constant spread over the price of corn. Since SGTI doesn't operate in a vacuum (who is getting cheap corn prices these days?), expect glucose prices to respond to corn prices. The top line will change, the line right under the top line will change, the bottom line won't be affected much.]]> Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:31:46 -0500
Really, station count is a canard. Pent up demand is so large that both companies could double their projected station counts & probably still not have any one station in radio contact with the other's stations. The real question is whether or not they'll be able to get the gas contracts to meet demand. In both cases, the answer seems to be 'Yes!'.

Bottom line: SNEN is not in a race against CHNG. They are each racing the clock only.

Regarding china grain controls, 'industrial' in this case means 'ethanol'. A lot of SGTI's corn starch output is sold to food & beverage companies. Choking off starch to food and beverage companies in order to keep grain prices low sorta defeats the ultimate purpose, which is to keep the public passive.

Glucose, on the other hand, tends to trade at a pretty constant spread over the price of corn. Since SGTI doesn't operate in a vacuum (who is getting cheap corn prices these days?), expect glucose prices to respond to corn prices. The top line will change, the line right under the top line will change, the bottom line won't be affected much.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/59606-seeking-stocks-with-cheap-safe-dividend-streams?source=feed#comment-112966 112966
The problem is, WFC share count has increased by over 26MM over the past year. That's almost a percent increase in the share count. So those share buybacks have been going into the pockets of somebody else.

So much for the advantage of a stock buyback. The company is probably buying back the options granted to executives.

I've never had anybody take my dividend away from me.

Does anybody ever actually check this stuff?]]> Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:59:48 -0500
The problem is, WFC share count has increased by over 26MM over the past year. That's almost a percent increase in the share count. So those share buybacks have been going into the pockets of somebody else.

So much for the advantage of a stock buyback. The company is probably buying back the options granted to executives.

I've never had anybody take my dividend away from me.

Does anybody ever actually check this stuff?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/43846-china-security-and-surveillance-systems-best-opportunity-i-ve-seen-in-years?source=feed#comment-93184 93184 CSCT) must repurchase them at a price which provides 15% CAGR to the lender. There are mandatory conversion clauses if the stock price is $40 in february of 2010 or $45 in february 2011. Cash interest payment on the notes is 1% annually.

According to GAAP, CSCT have to record interest expense as if the make-good, repurchase bogey were an actual cash expense. Which is to say they are recording interest expense as if they were paying 15% on the note when in reality cash interest expense is only the 1%. That's a lot of dough...17MM annually & 4.25MM per quarter.

Per their most recent 10q, basic share count was 34.94MM. So we are talking about a 12 cent per share non-cash interest expense charge every quarter. You mention a 17x 2007 EPS multiple...does your 2007 EPS model contemplate this non-cash charge to earnings or do you back it out (since it's non-cash)? If you're rolling it in & still think the company will earn ~ a buck on 07, this stock really is a buy.]]> Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:52:25 -0400 CSCT) must repurchase them at a price which provides 15% CAGR to the lender. There are mandatory conversion clauses if the stock price is $40 in february of 2010 or $45 in february 2011. Cash interest payment on the notes is 1% annually.

According to GAAP, CSCT have to record interest expense as if the make-good, repurchase bogey were an actual cash expense. Which is to say they are recording interest expense as if they were paying 15% on the note when in reality cash interest expense is only the 1%. That's a lot of dough...17MM annually & 4.25MM per quarter.

Per their most recent 10q, basic share count was 34.94MM. So we are talking about a 12 cent per share non-cash interest expense charge every quarter. You mention a 17x 2007 EPS multiple...does your 2007 EPS model contemplate this non-cash charge to earnings or do you back it out (since it's non-cash)? If you're rolling it in & still think the company will earn ~ a buck on 07, this stock really is a buy.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/43276-the-long-case-for-sinoenergy?source=feed#comment-92863 92863
Container & conversion kit business aren't contemplated in the (long term) model. Any contribution from these segments >0 will add to results. Recent history indicates results from these segments is >0.]]> Sat, 04 Aug 2007 14:24:03 -0400
Container & conversion kit business aren't contemplated in the (long term) model. Any contribution from these segments >0 will add to results. Recent history indicates results from these segments is >0.]]>