Categories
Articles

Thursday’s Upgrades and Downgrades


UPGRADES
Amer Italian Pasta (AITP)- DA Davidson Underperform » Buy
Liberty Prop (LRY)- Stifel Nicolaus Hold » Buy
Administaff (ASF)- First Analysis Sec Equal-Weight » Overweight
Kensey Nash (KNSY)- Susquehanna Financial Neutral » Positive
ASM Intl NV (ASMI)- Jefferies & Co Hold » Buy
Endurance Specialty (ENH)- JP Morgan Neutral » Overweight
Mueller Water (MWA)- Robert W. Baird Neutral » Outperform
Borg Warner (BWA)- Lehman Brothers Equal-Weight » Overweight
Smith & Nephew (SNN)- UBS Neutral » Buy

DOWNGRADES
Mentor Graphics (MENT)- DA Davidson Buy » Neutral
Bankunited Fin (BKUNA)- Friedman Billings Mkt Perform » Underperform
Methanex (MEOH)- UBS Buy » Neutral
Bankunited Fin (BKUNA)- Sun Trust Rbsn Humphrey Buy » Neutral
Infosys (INFY)- Susquehanna Financial Positive » Neutral
Platinum Underwriters (PTP)- JP Morgan Neutral » Underweight

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Thursday's Upgrades and Downgrades


UPGRADES
Amer Italian Pasta (AITP)- DA Davidson Underperform » Buy
Liberty Prop (LRY)- Stifel Nicolaus Hold » Buy
Administaff (ASF)- First Analysis Sec Equal-Weight » Overweight
Kensey Nash (KNSY)- Susquehanna Financial Neutral » Positive
ASM Intl NV (ASMI)- Jefferies & Co Hold » Buy
Endurance Specialty (ENH)- JP Morgan Neutral » Overweight
Mueller Water (MWA)- Robert W. Baird Neutral » Outperform
Borg Warner (BWA)- Lehman Brothers Equal-Weight » Overweight
Smith & Nephew (SNN)- UBS Neutral » Buy

DOWNGRADES
Mentor Graphics (MENT)- DA Davidson Buy » Neutral
Bankunited Fin (BKUNA)- Friedman Billings Mkt Perform » Underperform
Methanex (MEOH)- UBS Buy » Neutral
Bankunited Fin (BKUNA)- Sun Trust Rbsn Humphrey Buy » Neutral
Infosys (INFY)- Susquehanna Financial Positive » Neutral
Platinum Underwriters (PTP)- JP Morgan Neutral » Underweight

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Macalope: Keep Trying Pal….

So the Macalope is at it again, only this time he is left with little more than a pathetic insult and fact twisting. Actually that is all he had the first time also but why quibble with little things like facts…he doesn’t. Thanks to John who emailed me the post.

First, his diatribe:

Now. Where is his pathetic insult? Here:

“Then he threw out the other rotator cuff patting himself on the other shoulder just after the keynote and jacktastically put quotes around “suckers” as if it were something that Jobs actually called people who bought the original iPhone. Quotation marks, Todd. They mean something. You might want to brush up on their proper ironic usage.”

Now if we go to the post I wrote and actually read it (apparently the Mac did not) we see the second sentence in says….”By the way…Jobs did not actually say it”………

The he says this “Sadly, Todd’s brilliant analysis would hold a little more weight were the iPhone 3G not actually more expensive than the original iPhone”

Ok. Now stop laughing and let’s look, really, stop laughing. 1st iPhone came out and was priced for purchasers at $499. New iPhone comes out and I can buy it at $199. In Macland this is more expensive…

Here is where he plays with facts. The phone IS $300 cheaper. But depending on your data usage plan with AT&T, you may end up spending about the same or $100 or so more AFTER TWO YEARS. If you are not a heavy text user, the phone and its plan are CHEAPER. Also Mac, what about the 1/4 to 1/3 of iPhones purchased that are eventually unlocked? Aren’t they stunningly cheaper, or are we just ignoring them because they do not fit our argument?

Wasn’t the very reason Apple said they lowered the price was to “spur sales”?

Why are Apple (AAPL) folks reduced to playing with the truth? The phone is cheaper…period.

When I wrote the first post I was waiting for a sniveling reply…..got it…

To be honest, I expected a little better, not much ,but a little.

What this all boils down to is people who spent enormous time and effort justifying the $499 price when the phone came out to those of us who laughed and said it would not go mainstream without a huge price cut. Now that we have been proven right by none other than Steve Jobs and Apple, they have nothing left but to resort to questionable recitations of statements and fact.

I was asked by a commenter after the last posts on the subject “to leave Apple fans alone”. I replied that I could care less about the phone or the company but do so enjoy getting their blood pumping. The vitriol and threats that spew from them over a phone and a computer is hysterical. It also happens to be even more fun that we were dead on regarding the price……

Anyone own an Apple TV?

Disclosure (“none” means no position):None

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

More on Western Sizzlin’ (WEST)

I have posted here before the work from George over at Fat Pitch regarding Western Sizzlin’ (WEST). Now it is Jeff Annello’s time to bat…

Annello does a great job in this post. He then follows it with this one.

I do not own shares of WEST but it does look enticing. If you want to wait, the restaurant biz will likely suffer for a bit so you have time…

Disclosure (“none” means no position):None

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

More on Western Sizzlin' (WEST)

I have posted here before the work from George over at Fat Pitch regarding Western Sizzlin’ (WEST). Now it is Jeff Annello’s time to bat…

Annello does a great job in this post. He then follows it with this one.

I do not own shares of WEST but it does look enticing. If you want to wait, the restaurant biz will likely suffer for a bit so you have time…

Disclosure (“none” means no position):None

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

More on Bond Insurers MBIA (MBI), Ambac (ABK)- Update

Hedge Fund Manager Tom Brown of Second Curve Capital, has recently taken a long position in MBIA’s stock. He recently responded to an email sent by Whitney Tilson.

In looking at this lately, it seems like the Bear argument against the stocks has gone from a strict dissertation of fact to a bit of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Even Ackman has been extremely quiet lately about the subject preferring to talk more about short selling in general vs. just about the insurers. Perhaps this is because he has drastically cut back or totally eliminated his short position in both.

In the post, Brown says:
“Next, Whitney slams the company for changing its plans for the $900 million. He argues the company once said it would downstream the cash, and is outraged it has had a change of heart without (until now) informing investors, customers, the rating agencies, and regulators. He then suggests the company’s actions might constitute fraud and market manipulation.

Say what? That’s as harsh as it is inaccurate. Here are the facts. Management only expressed an intention to downstream the $900 million, and didn’t do so right away so it could receive more clarity on future actions by the rating agencies. The New York State Insurance Commissioner was certainly involved in the discussion of where the money would go, since one of the company’s options under review was (and still is) the possibility of downstreaming the $900 million into a new subsidiary to write new business. So this is not fraud and market manipulation. It’s simple, above-board capital allocation.

Whitney goes on to claim MBIA has denied policyholders money that’s been promised to them so that management can keep their jobs. Policyholders are thus “screwed.” He then ends his tirade with a nice piece of thundering self-righteousness:

MBIA seems to have forgotten that they’re a regulated entity and that they’re not allowed to balance their “obligations to policyholders with optimizing returns to our shareholders”. The deal with any insurance company is that policyholders come first and only if there’s money left over does anything go to the holding company, which is why MBIA is [likely to fall further] and why we’re still short it.

The good news is that, based on what I’ve read, NY State Insurance Commissioner Eric Dinallo is on to these guys and I assume won’t allow these . . . actions.

Whoa! Can we get back to Insurance 101 for a second? Whitney surely understands the difference between a holding company and an insurance subsidiary. Dinallo regulates the insurance sub; he has no jurisdiction over the holding company. What’s more—and I’m sure Whitney understands this, as well–Jay Brown and the other members of MBIA’s board of directors have a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders. It is very, very simple. “

He then finishes with:
“If the rating agencies don’t rate MBIA’s insurance sub AAA, then the insurance subsidiary (which was overcapitalized even when it was rated triple-A, recall) is extremely overcapitalized at its new rating. The last thing the board should be thinking about, therefore, is sending the unit another $900 million. Especially since, with the company writing little new business, its risk exposure is declining.

Don’t forget, MBIA already exceeded S&P’s stated minimum capital requirements for a triple-A rating by $900 million at the end of the first quarter, and exceeded Moody’s minimum by $2.8 billion.

Despite what vocal shorts like Whitney Tilson have to say, neither MBIA or Ambac have capital or liquidity shortfalls. Interestingly, in eviscerating Jay Brown’s letter to his shareholders this week, Whitney let the following comment stand: “we continue to feel comfortable with our economic loss estimates embodied in the reserve and impairment figures we provided to the market in our last earnings call.”

So the company is manifestly well-capitalized, and continues to be comfortable with its loss estimates.

Whitney, maybe, just maybe, the outlook for MBIA isn’t nearly as bleak as you insist. It might pay to take a harder look! “

Now, I am a fan of Whitney and readers here have known for some time that I am as I regularly post his appearances in and his writing on a variety of subjects. That being said, I think the short story for both monolines is done. The only thing left is insolvency which, NYC Insurance Commissioner Dinallo will not allow. If that is true, then the only way the shorts can influence prices is too scare people more.

I think Whitney may be running the risk of looking a bit like a fear monger on this one….

Read Felix Salmon’s take on it here:


Read Whole Post Here:

Disclosure (“none” means no position):None

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Phillip Morris (PM) Declares Dividend

The Board of Directors of Philip Morris International Inc. (PM) today declared the company’s inaugural regular quarterly dividend of $0.46 per common share, payable on July 10, 2008, to stockholders of record as of June 30, 2008. The ex-dividend date is June 26, 2008.

“Combined with the $13.0 billion, two-year share repurchase program which began in May this year, our first regular dividend as an independent company reflects our strong commitment to rewarding our shareholders in a generous manner,” said Louis Camilleri, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

The dividend gives the stock at today’s prices a yield of roughly 3.8%

Read Release Here:

Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long P<

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Morgan Stanley’s (MS) Results Fall: Your Surprised?

The difference here between Morgan and Citi (C), Lehman (LEH) and Merrill (MER) is that CEO John Mack has not been running his mouth around town telling everyone “all is well”.

“Given the turbulent environment this quarter, we stayed close to shore and continued strengthening the Firm’s capital and liquidity positions,” John J. Mack, Morgan Stanley’s chairman and chief executive, said in a statement. “The difficult market conditions and lower levels of client activity impacted our results, particularly in fixed income and asset management.”

See, the things is that no one (or at least no one should have) expected the results to be good. So , why tell everyone they would be.

By being quiet, Mack, at least for now has escaped the fate of all his peer except those at Goldman Sachs (GS) who, it should be noted have also kept their mouths shut.

Morgan’s profit, amounting to 95 cents a share, was down from the $2.36 billion it earned last year. Howver, they managed to slightly exceed expectations of 92 cents a share. Revenues from its fixed-income sales and trading unit fell 85% from the same time last year to $414 million, due to losses in mortgage trading and lower revenues in other products.

The firm reported a $519 million loss from loan commitments, including those made to private equity firms. While it lost money on hedges, it saw some gains from marking some holdings to market.

All in all, nothing out of the ordinary, bad, but nothing outlandish. Had Mack been running around telling everyone not to worry, he might be getting nervous about now.

Has anyone learned this lesson yet?????????

Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long C, GS, None

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Morgan Stanley's (MS) Results Fall: Your Surprised?

The difference here between Morgan and Citi (C), Lehman (LEH) and Merrill (MER) is that CEO John Mack has not been running his mouth around town telling everyone “all is well”.

“Given the turbulent environment this quarter, we stayed close to shore and continued strengthening the Firm’s capital and liquidity positions,” John J. Mack, Morgan Stanley’s chairman and chief executive, said in a statement. “The difficult market conditions and lower levels of client activity impacted our results, particularly in fixed income and asset management.”

See, the things is that no one (or at least no one should have) expected the results to be good. So , why tell everyone they would be.

By being quiet, Mack, at least for now has escaped the fate of all his peer except those at Goldman Sachs (GS) who, it should be noted have also kept their mouths shut.

Morgan’s profit, amounting to 95 cents a share, was down from the $2.36 billion it earned last year. Howver, they managed to slightly exceed expectations of 92 cents a share. Revenues from its fixed-income sales and trading unit fell 85% from the same time last year to $414 million, due to losses in mortgage trading and lower revenues in other products.

The firm reported a $519 million loss from loan commitments, including those made to private equity firms. While it lost money on hedges, it saw some gains from marking some holdings to market.

All in all, nothing out of the ordinary, bad, but nothing outlandish. Had Mack been running around telling everyone not to worry, he might be getting nervous about now.

Has anyone learned this lesson yet?????????

Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long C, GS, None

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Western Sizzlin Chairman’s Letter

Hey, this is a must read. It is an extremely candid and detailed resuscitation of the company, Western Sizzlin (WEST).

Read the letter here:

Disclosure (“none” means no position):none

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Western Sizzlin Chairman's Letter

Hey, this is a must read. It is an extremely candid and detailed resuscitation of the company, Western Sizzlin (WEST).

Read the letter here:

Disclosure (“none” means no position):none

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Sears’ "Going Private"? Not So Fast

This has been going around for a long time now so let’s take a look because as the price falls and Sears’ (SHLD) Chairman Eddie Lampert continues buying shares, some folks are claiming his goal is to take the company private and shareholders, except him, will get “screwed” for lack of a better term.

While Lampert may continue to buy shares and increase his ownership percentage, Sears’ is not “going private” for a number of reasons.

From the SEC Website:
“If the transaction is initiated by an affiliate (an insider) of the company, or the company could be deemed to be making an acquisition of its own shares Rule 13e-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires the affiliate and/or the company to file a Schedule 13E-3 with the SEC. When Rule 13e-3 applies, the company is said to be “going private” under SEC rules. While SEC rules don’t prevent companies from going private, they do require companies to provide information to shareholders about the transaction that caused the company to go private. The company also may have to file a merger proxy statement or a tender offer document with the SEC.

The filing of a Schedule 13E-3 is also required when issuer-initiated or affiliated transactions result in a company’s publicly held securities no longer being traded on a national securities exchange or an inter-dealer quotation system, such as Nasdaq.

The Schedule 13E-3 requires a discussion of the purposes of the transaction, any alternatives that the company considered, and whether the transaction is fair to all shareholders. The Schedule also discloses whether and why any of its directors disagreed with the transaction or abstained from voting on the transaction and whether a majority of directors who are not company employees approved the transaction.

Going private transactions require shareholders to make difficult decisions. To protect shareholders, some states have adopted corporate takeover statutes that provide shareholders with dissenter’s rights. These statutes provide shareholders the opportunity to sell their shares on the terms offered, to challenge the transaction in court, or to hold on to the shares. Once the transaction is concluded, remaining shareholders may find it very difficult to sell their retained shares because of a limited trading market.”

So the “Lampert can force a share sale” is erroneous. While he could take the shares off the market by “going private”, he cannot force you to sell your shares to him if Sears’ decided to go private. You could still opt to retain your ownership percentage. It is different from a merger in which you “exchange shares” from one company for another.

“Fairness of offer”. This was a large bone of contention in the failed Sears takeover of Sears Canada. Sears USA owned 53% of the outstanding shares of Sears CA at the time of the offer. The buyout was fought in court by minority shareholders who eventually prevailed. The fact that Lampert has been buying share at prices far above where they sit now, would eliminate any argument he would make that a “going private” price he is offering does NOT violate this element.

Also, current minority shareholder Bill Ackman, who lead the fight against Lampert in his Sears CA bid is now a Sears Holdings shareholder. Ackman bought in at prices well above current valuations and anyone who knows anything about him know he would fight any “going private” bid below the $100 plus a share he paid.

Let’s also not forget the conflict of interest here. Using shareholder money to eventually take the company from them for yourself despite public comments to the contrary would spark a wave of lawsuits Lampert has no interest in spending the next 10 years fighting.

That being said, roughly 60% of Sears’ shares are held by Lampert, Management and Funds that are value oriented. What is more likely is that Lampert will continue to repurchase shares and shrink the float. Now, consider this, when you subtract short shares (26 million) and shares held by long-termers, it leaves only 27 million shares actively trading or 20% of the total.

At today’s prices that means $2.1 billion can buy the remaining trading float and then you create a short squeeze like you have never seen as shorts rush to buy shares that virtually do not exist to cover their positions.

Anyone want to bet this is Lampert real game? Keep buying up what trades and then watch the shorts cut each other throats to cover. It would be justice for him and real profitable for shareholders as the buying without selling would cause share prices to rocket up.

What does Lampert gain buy going private? If the goal is to attain wealth, then isn’t having Sears publicly traded the way to go? Won’t his wealth climb faster that way than if Sears is privately held? Maybe he takes it private, “fixes” it and then spins it back out for a a nice profit? Well, if that is true, then why not just keep your shares and ride the wave? Either way, if his goal is the same as yours, where is the problem?

Disclosure (“none” means no position): Long SHLD

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Sears' "Going Private"? Not So Fast

This has been going around for a long time now so let’s take a look because as the price falls and Sears’ (SHLD) Chairman Eddie Lampert continues buying shares, some folks are claiming his goal is to take the company private and shareholders, except him, will get “screwed” for lack of a better term.

While Lampert may continue to buy shares and increase his ownership percentage, Sears’ is not “going private” for a number of reasons.

From the SEC Website:
“If the transaction is initiated by an affiliate (an insider) of the company, or the company could be deemed to be making an acquisition of its own shares Rule 13e-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires the affiliate and/or the company to file a Schedule 13E-3 with the SEC. When Rule 13e-3 applies, the company is said to be “going private” under SEC rules. While SEC rules don’t prevent companies from going private, they do require companies to provide information to shareholders about the transaction that caused the company to go private. The company also may have to file a merger proxy statement or a tender offer document with the SEC.

The filing of a Schedule 13E-3 is also required when issuer-initiated or affiliated transactions result in a company’s publicly held securities no longer being traded on a national securities exchange or an inter-dealer quotation system, such as Nasdaq.

The Schedule 13E-3 requires a discussion of the purposes of the transaction, any alternatives that the company considered, and whether the transaction is fair to all shareholders. The Schedule also discloses whether and why any of its directors disagreed with the transaction or abstained from voting on the transaction and whether a majority of directors who are not company employees approved the transaction.

Going private transactions require shareholders to make difficult decisions. To protect shareholders, some states have adopted corporate takeover statutes that provide shareholders with dissenter’s rights. These statutes provide shareholders the opportunity to sell their shares on the terms offered, to challenge the transaction in court, or to hold on to the shares. Once the transaction is concluded, remaining shareholders may find it very difficult to sell their retained shares because of a limited trading market.”

So the “Lampert can force a share sale” is erroneous. While he could take the shares off the market by “going private”, he cannot force you to sell your shares to him if Sears’ decided to go private. You could still opt to retain your ownership percentage. It is different from a merger in which you “exchange shares” from one company for another.

“Fairness of offer”. This was a large bone of contention in the failed Sears takeover of Sears Canada. Sears USA owned 53% of the outstanding shares of Sears CA at the time of the offer. The buyout was fought in court by minority shareholders who eventually prevailed. The fact that Lampert has been buying share at prices far above where they sit now, would eliminate any argument he would make that a “going private” price he is offering does NOT violate this element.

Also, current minority shareholder Bill Ackman, who lead the fight against Lampert in his Sears CA bid is now a Sears Holdings shareholder. Ackman bought in at prices well above current valuations and anyone who knows anything about him know he would fight any “going private” bid below the $100 plus a share he paid.

Let’s also not forget the conflict of interest here. Using shareholder money to eventually take the company from them for yourself despite public comments to the contrary would spark a wave of lawsuits Lampert has no interest in spending the next 10 years fighting.

That being said, roughly 60% of Sears’ shares are held by Lampert, Management and Funds that are value oriented. What is more likely is that Lampert will continue to repurchase shares and shrink the float. Now, consider this, when you subtract short shares (26 million) and shares held by long-termers, it leaves only 27 million shares actively trading or 20% of the total.

At today’s prices that means $2.1 billion can buy the remaining trading float and then you create a short squeeze like you have never seen as shorts rush to buy shares that virtually do not exist to cover their positions.

Anyone want to bet this is Lampert real game? Keep buying up what trades and then watch the shorts cut each other throats to cover. It would be justice for him and real profitable for shareholders as the buying without selling would cause share prices to rocket up.

What does Lampert gain buy going private? If the goal is to attain wealth, then isn’t having Sears publicly traded the way to go? Won’t his wealth climb faster that way than if Sears is privately held? Maybe he takes it private, “fixes” it and then spins it back out for a a nice profit? Well, if that is true, then why not just keep your shares and ride the wave? Either way, if his goal is the same as yours, where is the problem?

Disclosure (“none” means no position): Long SHLD

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Wednesday’s Links

Trump & Rosie, Dodd, Dimon, Elian

– I could not agree more

– “I was a member of a VIP Club but was unaware it would give me special privileges”???????????? WTF does VIP stand for!!!!!!!! Is there a bigger fraud that Chris Dodd?

– No kidding Jamie

Can you blame him?

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Wednesday's Links

Trump & Rosie, Dodd, Dimon, Elian

– I could not agree more

– “I was a member of a VIP Club but was unaware it would give me special privileges”???????????? WTF does VIP stand for!!!!!!!! Is there a bigger fraud that Chris Dodd?

– No kidding Jamie

Can you blame him?

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books