lessthaniv
-
Posts
861 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by lessthaniv
-
-
NO PR from MERC to pull the offer yet, I take that it means they still plan to get forward, hopefully the remaining 54% will tender shares them.
1) I think you find out next week that Steel head has tendered to ABH.
2) That gives ABH control and kills the MERC deal.
3) ABH will extend the offer again under the same terms to allow remaining shareholders to tender without the competing MERC offer in the way.
For those comfortable in following FFH et al into ABH, I think the proper decision was to sell FBK and immediately repurchase ABH over the last two days. FBK could be had for around $.98 after the Supreme Court Decision was made. ABH traded below $13. ABH stock is priced at $15.83 in the deal. So, this manual transaction gives you 22% more ABH shares not including friction costs. Volume was there to support larger trades. Just under 9M shares in the last 2 days.
And, at least you could enjoy your weekend knowing you upped Prem by 22%. ;D
(Hopefully, ABH doesn't reprice the deal above that! :'()
With RFP pushing to $17.50 today ... the highlighted transaction together with the recovery of RFP have put me back into the money with my SFK.un / FBK purchases......
Took a while but with RFP looking very undervalued, I might get out of this with a nice profit yet !
-
-
"Wait 'til all the Leno/Letterman jokes and morning shows get a hold of this......women will think twice about ANYthing with the LULU name on it.....they don't want lookloos scrutinizing (and drooling) all over their body, OK? We're not just talking the 17%....we're talking the whole image getting spattered with black ink. Head for the hills, bro. "
That looks like one of "these" posts from Yahoo and that is where it comes from, but think about it seriously. It makes a lot of sense and is indeed a very smart observation.
Cardboard
I just don't see a run for the exits on the brand. Women will continue to buy them because they are comfortable and they make them look good. I don't dispute the rich valuation Cardboard and I don't want to come across as defending them. I simply think its risky to short it.
-
LULU
Short at will!
Cardboard
I agree this is trading at ridiculous multiple (implied earnings growth) and I am short a few similar hot stocks myself (Salesforce comes to mind). But the problem is that these are 'story stocks' and there are no clear catalysts in sight. Shorting them will be painful :). In the long run if you short a basket of them you will probably do well. But for the next year there is nothing that could stop these stocks from doubling. Management can nudge the numbers a little bit, talk about growth and as long as nothing big happens the stock will only go up. And the most annoying thing here is that your exposure to them keeps getting bigger if your idea doesn't work out in the short term; potentially forcing you to rebalance at very unfavourable prices. I.e. you sell at 100, cover half at 300 because your exposure has tripled, and then the stock goes down to 50. Do you make money? Nope. So I keep these positions very small, and probably they are still too big ..
So aside from my basket I'd like to short things with a hard catalyst in sight. Things like these. Unfortunately opportunities like these are often hard to borrow.
Maybe I'm just stating the obvious.
I agree Writser - things can stay irrational for a long time.
RE: STP - The put option premiums tell the story on that one.
-
Morningstar:
Lululemon notified the investing community Monday of manufacturing concerns regarding its signature Luon black pants. Coverage of the fabric is weak, causing sheerness in the pants. The company has removed from its shelves the units that do not meet its stringent technical specifications. While this sounds like a small concern, the press release noted that the affected items were nearly 20% of all women's bottoms in the retail channel and that there would probably be a shortage of these styles during the first quarter, lowering profitability. Before last weekend, the company was on track for double-digit comparable-store sales growth and expected revenue of $350 million-$355 million for the first quarter. Since discovering the problem, management has revised its forecast to include comparable-store sales growth of 5%-8% and revenue of $333 million-$343 million for the first quarter. We expect this to weigh on the gross margin and selling, general, and administrative expense ratio over at least the first two quarters of 2013 as the company experiences a mix shift away from these high-margin and high-volume items and has to spread its costs over fewer units. Lululemon is currently trading at $63, slightly above our fair value estimate of $62.
Duly noted. Still rather short the S&P with puts though.
-
LULU
Short at will!
Cardboard
While I don't dispute this on valuation ... just think its a risky proposition. An aside; I've always thought UA and LULU would be a good strategic fit. Male dominanted specialty line coming together with female dominated specialty line.
-
is there a way to track dividend yields?
-
if you study the past relationships between; ichan, ackman, einhorn, chanos, stienhardt, milken, boesky, peretz, loeb, cohen and many other network associates ... it sure becomes hard for me to believe all this public infighting is for real.
and that's a great question, is it for real?
the oldest games within this network are bear raiding, pipes and stock parking. if you take a step back from all the media attention and realize that ackmans 8-9 month short sale which would appear to be in the money, is the main reason affording ichan the opportunity to buy up to 25% of the stock at significant discounts and get 2 board seats ... it all seems a little strange? all this fighting but both are probably in the money right now.
i silently wonder if all these clowns won't find themselves huddled around a hamptons fire pit reliving old stories one day.
-
"Papi"
I think it's "Uncle" according to client #9
-
my spidey sense is tingling. something stinks with this whole debacle.
-
You're underestimating or ignoring the power of faith and prayer!
Buffett and Gates are agnostic. They've done alright.
-
I joined in 2005. It has been life changing. Thanks Sanjeev!
X2 - Great community here.
-
-
Oh geez! I'm sure Sam Antar and Gary Weiss will finally crawl back out from under their rocks to write about this! Like I said before, what the hell is wrong with Americans and their obsessions with guns?
You just have a frickin' loaded Glock lying around in a gym bag in your closet? Loaded...no trigger lock...and just sitting in a bag where anyone can get their hands on it, not to mention a relatively high-profile CEO accidentally packing his luggage in it and trying to board a flight. You guys are retarded down there! ;D Cheers!
Agree with your comments but at least he is licensed to hold a concealed weapon and nothing was loaded in the chamber. Probably a slap on the hand and long lineups at the Airports to follow. But, it's certainly the wrong time to make such a mistake. Then again, when you learn the guys story - I can understand why he got his concealed weapon license.
-
8% decrease in G/A and Tech led to a 29% increase in contribution.
That pretty much confirms the March/2012 thesis.
-
The twitter universe is active with tweets that Shane Doan is down to Pheonix or Vancouver and will decide by 5pm ET today.
He'd look great in the blue and green.
Fingers crossed,
<IV
-
I think Buffett's comments were more likely directed to a management teams presentation of EBITDA to its shareholders, rather than the calculation itself.
The calculation is what it is, but many management teams attempt to present positive EBITDA numbers as an ultimate "win" for their shareholders which is rediculous.
Therein lies the problem.
-
-
Any others on the board. I did Whistler on Saturday and thought it was fantastic. Any other good cities to think about hitting?
-
-
Mephistopheles,
Start by reading this fantastic Letter to Shareholders (circa 2004) from Jeff Bezos.
http://library.corporate-ir.net/library/97/976/97664/items/144852/2004_shareholderLetter.pdf
I'd apply the same framework to Overstock. Cash flow is driven primarily by increasing operating profit dollars and efficiently managing: working capital; capital expenditures and the share count. Have a look at what Overstock is accomplishing by analyzing closely these components.
Think about how the following things will effect OSTK's cashflow/share in 2012;
1) reducing the head count yoy from 849 to 706
2) reducing debt
3) reducing legal costs to a more normalized level
4) regaining topline growth
5) improving contribution margin back to 12.5% range
6) continued shift of direct revenue to fulfillment revenue which is more profitable
7) consider the need for tech investments
8.) consider the companies ability to potentially expand payable periods in the future thereby reducing working capital needs.
9) as is being discussed above ... what if share count is reduced using debt or simply through a buyback with the excess cash?
The company has excess cash. It's debatable how much. I'll leave that for you to decide but once removed the operations seems to trade at a low multiple to free cash flow. And, my belief is that Revenue has lot's of room to grow in the future. We'll see.
-
You could take most of the cash out, if they were within Fairfax and had access to a $50M line of credit. As well, if they eliminated the direct business altogether...have no friggin' clue for years now why they are even in this business...and you would have a company that cycles through their inventory about 38-40 times a year. Margins are better in the affiliate business, with no inventory risk as their purchasing is not very good on the direct side.
If they just stuck to the affiliate business, kept expenses tight with none of this legal expense, they would be profitable every quarter (except the third as they ramp up G&A/Technology for the big 4th quarter), and could run the business solely on internal cash flow and if necessary the line of credit...and that would be on slim margins of about 1.5-2% net. Cheers!
Parsad, on 1.5-2% net margin, which I was assuming as well, how cheap do you think the stock is?
$1 billion in revenues, and assuming a $175mn market cap ($7 stock X 25mn shares diluted), that works out to a P/E range of 9-12, which doesn't look to cheap. I know I'm not assuming any growth, but that is far from a sure thing in such a competitive industry. If we back out net cash of $65mn, then it works out to an EV/E of 5.5-7, which looks attractive. If revenues were to grow by 25%, then that range decreases to 4.5-6, but again, that isn't a sure thing.
I know your question wan't directed at me but I'd suggest this is a free cash flow story similar to Amazon. That's how I think it should be viewed.
-
I don't know this company as well as you guys, but based on a market cap of $160 million it seems fairly priced relative to free cash flow. If it was consistently growing like Amazon, it could get a higher multiple, but sales and cash flow are quite erratic from year to year.
So here is my question, how much of the cash could be removed from the business and not impact their growth and current business? I am asking since there is a large imbalance between current assets and current liabilities if you exclude cash and the line of credit. This reminds me a bit of Danier Leather which always kept a large cash balance to finance its Fall purchase of merchandise. They could have used instead a line of credit, but chose instead a safer method of using cash. How much can be extracted from there can certainly help the thesis around the company.
Cardboard
You could take most of the cash out, if they were within Fairfax and had access to a $50M line of credit. As well, if they eliminated the direct business altogether...have no friggin' clue for years now why they are even in this business...and you would have a company that cycles through their inventory about 38-40 times a year. Margins are better in the affiliate business, with no inventory risk as their purchasing is not very good on the direct side.
If they just stuck to the affiliate business, kept expenses tight with none of this legal expense, they would be profitable every quarter (except the third as they ramp up G&A/Technology for the big 4th quarter), and could run the business solely on internal cash flow and if necessary the line of credit...and that would be on slim margins of about 1.5-2% net. Cheers!
I could also see Prem and Francis doing a straight debt deal to buy in stock as was suggested. OSTK basically has no debt at the moment. Prem and Francis have been recent holders of OSTK debt. If they did a straight debt deal they could put a chunk of money to work at reasonable rates. (Say even $60M at 9%). It costs about $5.4M annually. The cash gets used to buy in stock of which both Prem/Francis amung the largest holders. The buyback concentrates a larger piece of the pie into their hands, raises the stock price significantly given the high short interest, puts $60M more to work in a safer part the capital structure at a reasonable rate.
Everybody wins!
Yup, that works too, but I have a hard time seeing Byrne agree to a 9% yield. He probably would be looking at 7.5% at best, otherwise something like this would have been done by now. It would just make sense, and I think it hasn't happened because Fairfax probably wants a higher yield for the investment risk than Byrne is willing to pay. Cheers!
Yes, i think that's more reasonable. I just pulled a number out of a hat - intentionally high to show the cost of funding (even at a higher rate) could be much less than the benefit of buying back stock at these levels.
-
It's a big investment for Larry Sarbit as well. He discussed it in some detail at the presentation I went to a few months ago here in Vancouver. He mentioned something about looking at other items outside of movie rental and coins, but didn't elaborate on exactly what. Cheers!
... did you look at six flags yet?
Resolute Forest Products Commences Takeover bid of Fibrek
in General Discussion
Posted
doh!!