Jump to content

5xEBITDA

Member
  • Posts

    274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

5xEBITDA's Achievements

Contributor

Contributor (5/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Dedicated
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. 10 business days following the actual notice of redemption at the special meeting of shareholders.
  2. He plainly states in more than several of his videos that the stock had a very high short interest and a short squeeze could happen. I think he's still under investigation, which doesn't really bode well for him since its not like he only ever talked about the fundamentals and the short squeeze was a surprise.
  3. I agree with this, but am curious how much skin the game a sponsor would typically have? Between d&o insurance, underwriting, listing fees would the sponsors typically be putting up say 5% of the amount raised? Be curious for any rule of thumb... Yes, typically it is 4-8% of the amount raised. So, unless the sponsor funds their investment out of an existing PE or HF vehicle, I think its fair to say they have a good amount of skin in the game. If they are funding with LP $s then the promote is really for the benefit of the LPs and the GP maintains their existing fee terms.
  4. It's less of a "finders" fee and more of a "success" fee. People like to talk about how if the SPAC doesn't find a target, or the investor doesn't like the target, they can redeem their money and get everything back, even in a liquidation. In a liquidation, the sponsor loses all their money. So the promote is really compensation for assuming all of the downside risk in the event they liquidate. It's not perfect, but the risk/reward profiles are very different for the sponsor vs. investor and I do think its appropriate for the sponsor to have higher economics because of this. However, 20% may be high.
  5. I think the option to pay in stock is good from a credit perspective as it gives OXY a way to issue equity in bad times and probably allows OXY to argue that the interest on the prefs need not be included in any kind of credit metric, just a speculation, no basis in fact for this, i feel like 5XEBITDA would know this. Whether or not pref-related interest is included in a credit metric covenant would be laid out in the Company's credit agreement / indenture, but most likely the CA. If I had to guess, it won't be included because 1) interest can be toggled between cash and stock, and 2) pref is only debt-like and not a true loan or bond, and most financial covenants only seek to govern metrics related to pure debt securities. I haven't looked at OXY, but would be surprised if the pref can freely opt between paying cash or stock with no other penalties. I've heard of prefs / converts with structures like this, but in practice they're rare. Even rarer are those that promise cash but can jam you with stock upon maturity, but have seen.
  6. This forum can be hostile for absolutely no reason sometimes.. wtf is wrong with you people. I thought the sarcasm was obvious :( isn't sarcastic and obnoxious worse than just obnoxious? Perhaps, but not worse than a buzzkill!
  7. This forum can be hostile for absolutely no reason sometimes.. wtf is wrong with you people. I thought the sarcasm was obvious :(
  8. A trash company rollup being connected to organized crime doesn't even crack the top 10 of the most interesting things I hear in a given day...
  9. Value investing does not have a problem. Value factor, which most "value investors" unknowingly (or knowingly?) traffic in, has performed horribly for good reasons.
  10. The twitter posts referenced compare a capital and most populous city in all of Scandinavia (Stockholm) to the average for all of NY State, much of which is very rural and sparsely populated. New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland and Delaware all rank as more densely populated that NY State. I am confused. Over 70% of NYS cases are in NYC, so this seems like a fair comparison to make?
  11. Hi passing by distressed investor here without a dog in the fight. The answer is yes to all of the above three cases due to company specific issues that the initial March/April shutdown caused.
  12. Hey sorry, I don't understand this part. Q1 cash was $209 million, but only $62 million was held within the US. Of the non-US cash, $88 million of cash was in China. My prior discussions with the Company indicate that while it may be possible to get non-US, non-China-based cash back to the US, they cannot get the China cash out easily due to the need to dividend it out of a specific subsidiary which requires both US and Chinese regulatory approval. Assuming all $209 million cash is available, I still don't understand the net cash part. They have $111 million convertible debt outstanding, a $373 million unfunded pension liability, and another $200 million of convertible preferred stock all ahead of the equity. The equity was (and still is?) significantly out of the money and based on some work I did back in April I felt they would require bank debt amendments in order to avoid triggering covenants over the next several quarters. Edit: From what I understand, the government financing is only an LOI and still has some hurdles to clear. Further, their facility has not been built / renovated / approved / etc. Think this is way overdone. On 7/27, 9,312 Robinhood accounts owned KODK stock. At the close today, 113,464 Robinhood accounts owned the stock.
  13. Being long stressed, performing credit has been a great 2Q trade, although I'm not so certain it will be going forward as things have settled down and those credits still stressed are those with the most amount of hair on them / likely to actually restructure. Hard for retail investors to participate in these trades given minimum purchase size requirements, worse spreads vs. institutions, and you should be aware that as a retail investor you are knowingly putting yourself at a disadvantage in restructurings vs. institutions. Not a disadvantage in the sense you're not as smart, but a lot of restructuring plans will purposefully exclude / offer a worse deal to non-QIBs because institutions don't like the headache of dealing with retail holders in these situations so they prefer to clean them out of the structure.
  14. I would hesitate to call distressed debt investors bad actors (am I one?!?), although there certainly are those who are worse than others. The grievances mentioned in this thread so far...I mean, they are just another part of the analysis you do and a risk that is understood. Someone else mentioned that if it is on your side it is genius, and if on the other side it is bad acting. That's probably a fair way to look at it. I am under no illusion that because me and Mark Brodsky own the same bond we are on the same side. So, I just don't do that. Or if I do, call a lawyer first :) Maybe because I'm exposed to it so often I'm a little desensitized for it. For example, I thought the Brookfield thing with TOO was pretty smart and don't blame them.
×
×
  • Create New...