KJP

The release says: " If consummated, the Proposed Transaction would apply directly to record holders of the Company’s common stock. Persons who hold shares of common stock in “street name” are encouraged to contact their bank, broker or other nominee for information on how the Proposed Transaction may affect any shares of the Company’s common stock held for their account. If you hold in “street name” fewer than 10,000 shares in any one account, the Proposed Transaction may apply indirectly to your shares as described in the proxy statement to be filed in connection with this Proposed Transaction. Normally this is not an issue and the reverse split occurs at the individual account level, not at the aggregated broker level. But the disclaimer is interesting. If I was going to hold through the transaction, I'd look at the proxy statement and then contact my broker.

More today on EPD's view: https://ir.enterpriseproducts.com/news-releases/news-release-details/enterprise-build-new-natural-gas-processing-plant-delaware-basin

That is possible. But take a look at insider ownership. The structure suggests to me that they want to cash out as many as possible. EDIT: It's enough of an issue that I wouldn't buy this at, say, $4.80 today. I bought pre-market and my limit sell order already hit for most of those shares. I'm going to keep an eye on it and see if the spread widens out again.

Ashford Inc. go private transaction via 1 for 10,000 reverse split: https://ashfordinc.q4ir.com/news-events/press-releases/news-details/2024/ASHFORD-INC.S-BOARD-OF-DIRECTORS-APPROVES-PLAN-TO-TERMINATE-REGISTRATION-OF-ITS-COMMON-STOCK/default.aspx Stock price has been volatile this morning, but IRR would be good if deal closes on time. According to the press release, they don't appear to be aggregating across accounts either. So, if you're comfortable with the deal, you could put a decent amount of money into this. Subject to shareholder vote with targeted closing in summer 2024. "

Slides 29-35 of EPD's investor presentation may be useful here: https://ir.enterpriseproducts.com/static-files/7dfd6fce-afdb-4869-af76-5f745faa7ba2 I have no idea how accurate those forecasts will turn out to be, but you can see from their CapEx that they are putting their money where their mouths are.

William Penn Bancorporation

In today's presentation, Charter projects $2,000 - $2,500/passing (doesn't include cost of the drop) for its greenfield footprint expansions. See slide 11: https://ir.charter.com/static-files/ba52d4ff-3a83-415b-8c1a-1f0a9a12df8b On slide 12, they show post-subsidy cost/passing for the rural buildouts. It's well over $3,000/passing. On slide 13, they show margin profile of rural buildouts. They claim 70% gross margin with some of the revenue being video and mobile. So broadband only would appear to be above 80%. Based on the dot plot on slide 13, average penetration appears to be ~45% at 15 months. I believe these subsidized rural areas have some of the weakest current broadband offerings in the country. So, someone overbuilding an average existing cable broadband system with fiber likely would not achieve a similar penetration timetable.

What is the incremental OpEx/SG&A after a new subscriber connects? Assuming this is just broadband, and not video, it should be very low. So, incremental operating margin, which is probably the best way to assess incremental new build CapEx, is likely much higher than 20%. Also, 60% gross margin on broadband seems low. Tucows claims much higher. See slide 25: https://ir.tucows.com/wp-content/uploads/2023-Q3-TCX-results-investor-deck.pdf Put those two things together and you'll get much higher (claimed) margins. See slide 26. I do want to note that I've never been able to reconcile that slide (which they've long had in their presentations) with the segment numbers. The CapEx/passing in the segment financials always seems higher than what they put on that slide. [The slide is showing cost per passing, not cost per subscriber, and doesn't include the cost of the drop to the house of a new subscriber.] I also agree with you that there are other costs besides CapEx that must be incurred to get the system to steady state/50% penetration (marketing, etc.) so the EBITDA losses should be included, not just the CapEx, when looking at returns on capital.

I think Asbury is a good to very good (and well managed) business trading at less than 10x normalized earnings. I recognize, though, that earnings are likely to come down as new car margins normalize.

Asbury Automotive Rand Worldwide

Revenue is lumpy because they record significant one-time revenue when they initially sell a system (and system sales vary significantly from period to period) and then ongoing maintenance revenue for all installed systems. The maintenance revenue has been steadily increasing over the years. See, e.g., page 7 of the latest 10-Q to see the lumpiness in system sales: https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1090396/000143774923031496/tbltrc20230930_10q.htm

Truxton Trust (TRUX) FFB Bancorp (FFBB) United Bancorporation of Alabama (UBAB) Citizens Bancshares Corporation (CZBS) OP Bancorp (OPBK) Exchange Bank of Santa Rosa (EXSR) M&F Bancorp, Inc. (MFBP) These are all very small US banks.

There are several threads about small caps and nano caps on this board, but they don't get much interest. See, e.g., the threads on Terravest, Keck Seng, Black Diamond (now Clarus), Hamilton Thorne, ECA Marcellus Trust, Unit Corp, New Lease Office Properties, Macfarlane Group, NIcholas Financial, Hirequest, MachTen, Hingham, Solitron Devices, Calloway's Nursery.

On micro/nano vs. large cap and management quality, amount of work, etc, compare these two documents: https://www.citigroup.com/rcs/citigpa/storage/public/citi-2022-annual-report.pdf https://ir.truxtontrust.com/static-files/a30c48a8-5f9a-4bac-9273-062f5f3dad41

Keck Seng Investments (0184.HK)