Categories
Articles

Andrew Liveris (DOW) Interview Part 2: US Energy Policy

In this section Mr. Liveris and I discuss US energy policy (or lack thereof) and

Todd:
US energy policy. I had several questions planned here but you have been all over TV the last week and a half answering them for me..

Andrew:
(Laughing) And I am not done yet, I am determined to shake this all loose because we are just shooting ourselves in the foot very effectively as a nation.

Todd:
There was an “American Energy Production Act” Senate Republicans just introduced recently, have you seen it?

Andrew:
The drilling one right?

Todd:
Yes, they said it would produce an estimated 24 billion barrels of oil a day and 47 trillion cubic feet of nat. gas.

Andrew:
Certainly the bill recognizes the problem. It is a Republican bill and certainly I appreciate Senator Domenici’s work on it. However, the country need a bill both Democrats and Republican can support

I was in Washington yesterday and I had meeting after meeting. I actually think I might get deported here eventually [laughter] . You know I’m just screaming from the rooftops to get real with our energy policy.

Todd:
Let’s say you left Washington and they said “this guy is right, let’s do everything he said we should”. Even if they did that and they started at the earliest next spring, after the election, what kind of lag based on your experience is it 2 years, 5 years before anything they do now actually takes hold and excess production comes online.

Andrew:
Well we went through this in 2005 with the Lease Sale 181 in the inter-continental shelf of the US. The US gulf we were told that time and I think this is still very true that there are some known fields of oil and gas that can easily be tapped into current infrastructure especially on the US gulf they could be on the street in 12-18 months. Not as big as the numbers you just quoted, because on the outer edge that would be Anwar and that could be as far away at 4-5 years because of the pipeline.

We take a window and if you said “let’s go now” I think the earliest is 18 months and the latest is five years. But something else happens which is very important. The world as speculators look at supply very differently. We have a real supply issue because demand is surging and everyone thinks that there is not enough supply. Supply is bottle-necked in two places. One is availability of actual oil and gas of course in our Country we’re not accessing it and it will take 18 months to five years to accomplish that. Overseas its ships and freight and there are not enough ships on the water to get all this oil to everyone to get all this gas to everyone. So that’s one bottleneck.

The second bottleneck is refining capacity which as you know this country won’t permit refineries. I think the only one under construction today is Valero’s (VLO) in Texas. No one wants a refinery in their back yard. So you have this ridiculous situation of Reliance building the world’s largest refinery in India and all the products are for exporting to the United States.

So those two bottlenecks will take several years, if you take those two bottlenecks out by passing laws, I think there will be an instantaneous reaction to price.

Part Three: Dow Ag

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

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Berkowitz Continues Selling TAL

In an SEC filing Bruce Berkowitz of Fairholme funds continued selling TAL International (TAL) selling 24,000 shares at $26.68 bringing his total holdings down to 2.463 million shares.

It was the second SEC sale filing in a week in the company.

Disclosure (“none” means no position):None

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

The Week’s Top Insider Buys

The week’s top insider transaction by dollar amounts.

Community Bankers Acquisition Corp (BTC)- $4,675,000
Information Services Group Inc (III)- $3,075,000
eLoyalty Corp (ELOY)- $2,297,000
Pharmacyclics Inc (PCYC)- $2,082,000
TCF Financial Corp (TCB)- $2,009,000
Perini Corp (PCR)- $1,887,000
Marchex Inc (MCHX)- $1,815,000
Powerwave Technologies Inc (PWAV)- $1,604,000
Enterprise Products Partners L P (EPD)- $1,557,000
Align Technology Inc (ALGN)- $1,467,000
Huntsman Corp New (HUN)- $1,270,000
Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc (DKS)- $1,254,000
ev3 Inc (EVVV)- $1,066,000
Insight Enterprises Inc (NSIT)- $1,021,000

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

The Week's Top Insider Buys

The week’s top insider transaction by dollar amounts.

Community Bankers Acquisition Corp (BTC)- $4,675,000
Information Services Group Inc (III)- $3,075,000
eLoyalty Corp (ELOY)- $2,297,000
Pharmacyclics Inc (PCYC)- $2,082,000
TCF Financial Corp (TCB)- $2,009,000
Perini Corp (PCR)- $1,887,000
Marchex Inc (MCHX)- $1,815,000
Powerwave Technologies Inc (PWAV)- $1,604,000
Enterprise Products Partners L P (EPD)- $1,557,000
Align Technology Inc (ALGN)- $1,467,000
Huntsman Corp New (HUN)- $1,270,000
Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc (DKS)- $1,254,000
ev3 Inc (EVVV)- $1,066,000
Insight Enterprises Inc (NSIT)- $1,021,000

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Weekend Reading

Adam, Lehman, Barnes & Noble, Blackberry beats iPhone

– Adam Warner is a tremendous judge of writing

– They are toast

– Can’t argue

– Is anyone really surprised?

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Borders (BGP) Australian Sale Agreement

In a just filed 8-K, Borders (BGP) details the sale of it Australian stores

Full filing:
On June 4, 2008, Borders Group, Inc. (the “Company “) entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Spine Newco (NZ) Limited and Spine Newco Pty Ltd (the “Purchasers”), newly formed companies affiliated with Whitcoulls Group Holdings Pty Limited (“ARW”), pursuant to which the Company agreed to sell all of the outstanding shares of Borders Australia Pty Limited, Borders New Zealand Limited and Borders Pte. Ltd (collectively, the “Subject Subsidiaries”) to the Purchasers. Funds managed by Pacific Equity Partners Pty Limited (“PEP”) are the principal shareholders of ARW, a leading bookseller in Australia and New Zealand. The following is a summary of the principal terms of the Agreement:
1. The Purchasers will pay the following consideration to the Company:
a. a cash payment of $90.8 million at closing, subject to a final purchase price adjustment to reflect changes in working capital.

b. a deferred payment of $4.8 million, payable on or about January 1, 2009 if certain actual operating results for fiscal 2008 exceed a specified level, approximating 2007 results; and

c. a deferred payment of up to $9.6 million payable on or about March 31, 2009 if certain actual operating results for fiscal 2008 exceed a specified level.
2. The Agreement does not contain any closing conditions, and closing is to occur on or about June 10, 2008.

3. The Agreement contains customary representations, warranties and indemnification provisions.

4. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Company, either directly or through its affiliates, will enter into the following ancillary arrangements with the Purchasers and their affiliates:
a. a Brand License Deed pursuant to which, subject to the terms of such Agreement, the Company will grant to the Purchasers (for no additional cost), perpetual licenses relating to the exclusive use of the Borders trademarks in Borders stores in Australia, New Zealand and Singapore.

b. a Transition Services Agreement (the “TSA”) pursuant to which the Company will provide certain services to the Purchasers for a period of up to 12 months following the closing. The fees to be paid for such services, which will be up to approximately $2.3 million dependent upon the period for which the services are required, are intended to recover the cost of providing the services. In addition, under the agreement the Company will receive certain support services from the Subject Subsidiaries for a period of up to 9 months, up to approximately $0.2 million dependent upon the period for which the services are required.

c. a Purchasing Agreement pursuant to which the Company shall be required, subject to the terms of the agreement, to provide products to the Purchasers for up to 10 years following the closing. The purchase price for products supplied under the agreement will be the Company’s costs plus a mark-up of 3% in years 1 through 3 and 8% thereafter.
5. The Company has four outstanding lease guarantees relating to the Subject Subsidiaries and will have a contingent liability after the sale for those leasehold obligations. The Company did not guarantee the remaining leases of the Subject Subsidiaries, which remain obligations of those entities.
The amounts set forth above are shown in US dollars and, where applicable, are based upon current exchange rates.

The foregoing descriptions of the Agreement, the Brand License Deed, the Transition Services Agreement and the Purchasing Agreement do not purport to be complete and are qualified in their entirety by reference to the full text of such agreements, which are filed as exhibits to this Report and are incorporated herein by reference.
ITEM 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant
In connection with the agreements of June 4, 2008 described under Item 1.01 above, the Company has the contingent liabilities described in paragraphs 3 and 5 of Item 1.01 relating to Borders Australia Pty Limited, Borders New Zealand Limited and Borders Pte. Ltd., which are no longer affiliates of the Company. The following is information relating to the potential amounts of such liabilities:
1. With respect to the contingent lease obligations described in paragraph 5 of Item 1.01 above, based upon current rents, taxes, common area maintenance charges and exchange rates, the maximum amount of potential future payments (undiscounted) is approximately $19.3 million. The Company expects to record a charge of approximately $0.9 million in connection with these contingent lease liabilities.

2. With respect to the contingent tax obligations described in paragraph 3 of Item 1.01 above, the maximum amount of potential future payments (undiscounted) is approximately $7.2 million. The Company previously reserved for this item.

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

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

The Week’s Best at VIN

Here are the week’s top stories at Value Investing News

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

The Week's Best at VIN

Here are the week’s top stories at Value Investing News

Comments on the breaking news that Moody’s will likely cut MBIA and Ambac ratings. Why now? What should these bond insurers do?

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Icahn’s Latest Letter to Yahoo (YHOO)

Yahoo (YHOO) cannot beat Icahn at this game. They know that, right?

Roy Bostock
Chairman
Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Dear Roy:

While you may take issue with the content of my letter, I take issue with
your oversight of Yahoo! Again, I stand by my characterization of your “poison
pill” severance plan and I find it humorous to see you attempt to defend it.

Roy, it is you who “misrepresents and misstates the details” of the plan.
Much like the rhetoric in many well known political campaigns, you keep
repeating misstatements in the hopes that by repeating misstatements enough
times it will convince your shareholders that these misstatements are valid. For
example, you repeated, “the plan was fully disclosed at the time of its adoption
and should be no surprise to anyone at this point.” This is simply not true. The
egregious magnitude of the dollar amount cost of the plan was never fully
disclosed, nor was the email from your compensation advisor calling the plan
“nuts.” While you keep repeating that the severance plan was in the “best
interests of shareholders”, you neglect to mention that the financial cost of
the plan could be immense. The documents obtained during discovery and released
in the shareholder complaint show that Yahoo! estimates the maximum change in
control severance expenses to be a staggering $2.4 billion if Microsoft bids $35
per share for Yahoo! You neglected to mention that the true cost to an acquirer
may be even higher as the perverse change in control severance incentives may
diminish the work effort of Yahoo! employees. In case you do not understand the
plan, in addition to the $2.4 billion of severance expenses, I believe the plan
will negatively impact employee behavior and degrade the ability of an acquirer
to successfully integrate the acquisition. In the event of a change of control,
the employee may decide not to work as hard in the hopes of cashing in on a
robust severance package that awards up to two years salary and benefits,
$15,000 of outplacement expenses, and accelerated vesting of stock options and
restricted stock units. To make matters worse, it is not just the acquirer
firing the employee that can trigger the severance package but the employee who
may decide on his or her own to resign for “good reason” at any point within two
years of a change in control. It is quite obvious to me that this plan impacts
the price an acquirer would pay. Is it any wonder than an acquirer, once fully
comprehending this plan, might not wish to negotiate any further? I again call
upon you to honor your fiduciary duty to your shareholders and rescind this
“poison pill” severance plan.

You asked, “what exactly would happen to our Company if you and your
nominees were to take control of Yahoo!” I will give you my perspective on that.

o First, I would work to have the board replace your “poison pill”
severance plan with an acceptable alternative.

o Second, I intend to ask our new board to hire a talented and
experienced CEO (attempting to replicate Google’s success with Eric
Schmidt) to replace Jerry Yang and return Jerry to his role as “Chief
Yahoo”. Indeed, it was much speculated that Jerry would serve in the
CEO role temporarily until a permanent CEO was hired after the board
asked Terry Semel to resign.

o Third, I intend to ask our new board to inform Microsoft that unless
any alternative transaction can insure a $33 or higher stock price (of
which I am skeptical) all talks of alternative transactions are over.

o Fourth, I will ask our new board to offer publicly to sell Yahoo! to
Microsoft in a friendly and cooperative transaction.
———————————————————

o Fifth, to the extent Microsoft does not want to make a proposal, I
will ask our new board do a deal on search with Google, but only if it
contains termination provisions that would in no way impede a
subsequent acquisition by Microsoft.

Now let me ask you a couple of questions, Roy:

o Why don’t you, now that you have the opportunity, remove the “poison
pill” severance plan that I find to be ridiculous and thereby remove a
major obstacle to a Microsoft acquisition?

o In my opinion, Microsoft does not believe you will ever sell the
entire company on a friendly basis. So why don’t you stop dancing
around the subject and publicly offer to sell the company to Microsoft
for $34.375 per share and promise to cooperate completely?

o Why are you still giving hope to Microsoft that there is a possible
“alternative deal”? As long as there is the possibility of an
“alternative deal”, isn’t it obvious that Microsoft will not make a
bid for the whole company?

Sincerely yours,

CARL C. ICAHN

Disclosure (“none” means no position):None

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Icahn's Latest Letter to Yahoo (YHOO)

Yahoo (YHOO) cannot beat Icahn at this game. They know that, right?

Roy Bostock
Chairman
Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Dear Roy:

While you may take issue with the content of my letter, I take issue with
your oversight of Yahoo! Again, I stand by my characterization of your “poison
pill” severance plan and I find it humorous to see you attempt to defend it.

Roy, it is you who “misrepresents and misstates the details” of the plan.
Much like the rhetoric in many well known political campaigns, you keep
repeating misstatements in the hopes that by repeating misstatements enough
times it will convince your shareholders that these misstatements are valid. For
example, you repeated, “the plan was fully disclosed at the time of its adoption
and should be no surprise to anyone at this point.” This is simply not true. The
egregious magnitude of the dollar amount cost of the plan was never fully
disclosed, nor was the email from your compensation advisor calling the plan
“nuts.” While you keep repeating that the severance plan was in the “best
interests of shareholders”, you neglect to mention that the financial cost of
the plan could be immense. The documents obtained during discovery and released
in the shareholder complaint show that Yahoo! estimates the maximum change in
control severance expenses to be a staggering $2.4 billion if Microsoft bids $35
per share for Yahoo! You neglected to mention that the true cost to an acquirer
may be even higher as the perverse change in control severance incentives may
diminish the work effort of Yahoo! employees. In case you do not understand the
plan, in addition to the $2.4 billion of severance expenses, I believe the plan
will negatively impact employee behavior and degrade the ability of an acquirer
to successfully integrate the acquisition. In the event of a change of control,
the employee may decide not to work as hard in the hopes of cashing in on a
robust severance package that awards up to two years salary and benefits,
$15,000 of outplacement expenses, and accelerated vesting of stock options and
restricted stock units. To make matters worse, it is not just the acquirer
firing the employee that can trigger the severance package but the employee who
may decide on his or her own to resign for “good reason” at any point within two
years of a change in control. It is quite obvious to me that this plan impacts
the price an acquirer would pay. Is it any wonder than an acquirer, once fully
comprehending this plan, might not wish to negotiate any further? I again call
upon you to honor your fiduciary duty to your shareholders and rescind this
“poison pill” severance plan.

You asked, “what exactly would happen to our Company if you and your
nominees were to take control of Yahoo!” I will give you my perspective on that.

o First, I would work to have the board replace your “poison pill”
severance plan with an acceptable alternative.

o Second, I intend to ask our new board to hire a talented and
experienced CEO (attempting to replicate Google’s success with Eric
Schmidt) to replace Jerry Yang and return Jerry to his role as “Chief
Yahoo”. Indeed, it was much speculated that Jerry would serve in the
CEO role temporarily until a permanent CEO was hired after the board
asked Terry Semel to resign.

o Third, I intend to ask our new board to inform Microsoft that unless
any alternative transaction can insure a $33 or higher stock price (of
which I am skeptical) all talks of alternative transactions are over.

o Fourth, I will ask our new board to offer publicly to sell Yahoo! to
Microsoft in a friendly and cooperative transaction.
———————————————————

o Fifth, to the extent Microsoft does not want to make a proposal, I
will ask our new board do a deal on search with Google, but only if it
contains termination provisions that would in no way impede a
subsequent acquisition by Microsoft.

Now let me ask you a couple of questions, Roy:

o Why don’t you, now that you have the opportunity, remove the “poison
pill” severance plan that I find to be ridiculous and thereby remove a
major obstacle to a Microsoft acquisition?

o In my opinion, Microsoft does not believe you will ever sell the
entire company on a friendly basis. So why don’t you stop dancing
around the subject and publicly offer to sell the company to Microsoft
for $34.375 per share and promise to cooperate completely?

o Why are you still giving hope to Microsoft that there is a possible
“alternative deal”? As long as there is the possibility of an
“alternative deal”, isn’t it obvious that Microsoft will not make a
bid for the whole company?

Sincerely yours,

CARL C. ICAHN

Disclosure (“none” means no position):None

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Bruce Berkowitz on Sears Holdings

The following are an attendees notes from June 5, 2008 AAII NYC Conference on Sears Holdings (SHLD). Note Berkowitz recently added call options to his Sears position.

6. Sears Holding (SHLD) ($85.26) –

A. Lampert has cards up his sleeve. He is a smart guy. The price of SHLD means you get Eddie Lampert for nothing.

B. Obvious investment is real estate for Sears.

C. Claims lots of Free Cash Flow.

D. Bought back stock at high price.

E. Think about a young Berkshire Hathaway. Buffett struggled with the ailing textile mill for over 7 years before he pulled the plug. Look what Berkshire turned into.

F. Claims that K-Mart and Sears could disappear as retailers and all is still good. If they happen to hit, merely a bonus. “What if they become a Wal-Mart?” Don’t count on it, but could happen.

G. You can’t kill Sears. If you can’t kill it you should own it.

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

Andrew Liveris (DOW) Interview Part 1: Oil

This is part one of my interview with Dow Chemical’s (DOW) CEO Andrew Liveris. In this part we talked about oil, natural gas and how the JV strategy will effect their impact on Dow.

Hello Mr. Liveris

Andrew:
Hello Todd, nice to finally put a voice to the blog. Todd its been great reading your pieces……you track us very closely.

Todd:
Thank you. In full disclosure, I have been a shareholder for a few years now and quite a bit of my sons educational accounts is in Dow stock so I’m hoping you allow us to send them to the private school of our choice, not forced to a state one.

Andrew:
(laughing) I’m in I’m in. This is one of the nations core issues, but we won’t get into that I know we have limited time. You have very thoughtfully put together some questions forward.

Todd:
Yea…let’s get started..

Todd:
With the move in production to low cost nations underway, do you see a day when $125 oil and $12 nat gas become earnings drivers for the company as the price increases you are able to push on are in excess of input price increases? For example, say I make finished OJ. If the prices of oranges are going up, so are the prices of finished OJ. But, if I partner with an orange farmer, my input prices do not rise (or if they do, at a fraction of those buying oranges from the farmer), but I am then able to either increase my OJ prices along with other producers, OR become the low cost seller to increase market share. Does the analogy hold for Dow down the road?

Andrew:
It has been an interesting phenomenon as I have watched it rise since I got appointed. I almost feel like it’s a job index, you know years in office and years of oil price rises. I don’t think I’ve seen a decline except momentarily early last year.

Nat. gas is a US regional issue but will probably become a world issue but right now its still a US regional issue. Oil though is a world issue, and to your question then, if you have rising oil prices that are global in nature and all of its derivatives and they go up steadily then your point comes true. In essence for us it actually becomes a reason to raise prices but that is only as good as the consumer’s ability to take those prices. Unlike the 70s, which was the last time this really all occurred this time around we have the Chinese consumer, and frankly that actually adds some optimism that we should be able to as a globe pay more for these precious resources in the value chain.

Now, you can’t do it overnight otherwise you will kill the consumer, but over a period of time steadily rising inputs with strong new demand from places like China and other places (India, Middle East, Europe etc) then I think margin recalibration of a high oil price input all the way through the value chain including our part becomes very, very reasonable. Actually, the margin expansion which happened in the 70’s, Dow had a whole philosophy back then if you go back and track it called Reinvestment Pricing. Others used the acronym RIP and they were having fun with us. {laughter} It really was the same scenario but at that time the buoyant demand was more the US and that actually became the big problem as it created inflation and stagflation.

But this time around we have China so there is a chance your scenario will come to pass as long as it is not surging or a surge up and then a surge down which creates volatility.

Todd:
When you make the move to the Kuwait and Saudi ventures, do you see a significant input price drop on Dow’s part?

Andrew:
Well the Kuwait venture and the Saudi projects. Yes, I mean look firstly what we do there is we take advantage of natural gas prices way below world price and where you can see from our financials we are already making a lot of money in equity income from that. That is because those countries have said “I want to diversify our economies away from just oil and gas”.

We are a great diversification hedge for them, that is why they are prepared to give us low input prices way below world price, way below US price for sure. On oil, OK the key for us there is I’d like to call it the Exxon model. I mean Exxon (XOM), which is almost like nation-state in its own right, they basically take oil at world price or they produce it at cost and when they distribute in their production systems. They are efficient allocators of resource to petro-chemicals to fuels of all sorts not just gasoline and they run their whole machine for profitability which means that net net their input costs of petro-chemicals is lower because they run the whole machine. Now with Kuwait Petroleum and with Saudi Armco that is exactly the model we’re building.

We’re building a refinery integrated petro-chemical model where the owners of the oil, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia respectively will be able to efficiently allocate the oil within that entire machine and of course we’re a half owner the shareholders will benefit from oil integration so two physical hedges the gas one which is the stranded nat. gas with nation states that want to value add the gas vs burn it and second, refinery and oil integration with nation states who have oil who want to diversify away from just exporting the oil or who want to take the oil to places like China and want to participate in refineries and petrochemicals there.

Those are great physical hedges for the Dow Chemical Co. not well understood by the investment community. We’re working really hard to make them understand it and you know the icing on the cake is that we got paid $9.5 billion for that privilege.

Todd:
So, you anticipate 2010 is the year those JV’s (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) should be up and running. ?

Andrew:
We are being conservative Todd. My recent investor presentation I showed 2011/2012 because stuff happens you know, TPC contracts capital costs etc. We’re pretty good as project managers and so are our partners so conservatively we are saying 2011/2012.

Part 2: US energy policy

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

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Friday’s Links

Primary, Touch, Oil, Settled

– All over but the pouting

– Looks pretty neat

Bubble?

– So, they really did do it

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Friday's Links

Primary, Touch, Oil, Settled

– All over but the pouting

– Looks pretty neat

Bubble?

– So, they really did do it

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Friday’s Upgrades and Downgrades


Upgrades
Phoenix Tech (PTEC)- Dougherty & Company Neutral » Buy
Cache (CACH)- Roth Capital Hold » Buy
TCF Financial (TCB)- Stifel Nicolaus Hold » Buy
CVB Financial (CVBF)- Credit Suisse Neutral » Outperform
Zoran (ZRAN)- Lazard Capital Hold » Buy
Vertex Pharm (VRTX)- Cowen & Co Neutral » Outperform
First Cash (FCFS)- Roth Capital Hold » Buy
Cogent Communications (CCOI)- RBC Capital Mkts Sector Perform » Outperform
Trex (TWP)- Sun Trust Rbsn Humphrey Neutral » Buy
Hot Topic (HOTT)- Friedman Billings Mkt Perform » Outperform
Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS)- Citigroup Hold » Buy
Northwest Airlines (NWA)- Lehman Brothers Equal-Weight » Overweight
UAL Corp. (UAUA)- Lehman Brothers Equal-Weight » Overweight
UAL Corp. (UAUA)- Soleil Sell » Hold
Cortex Pharm (COR)- Rodman & Renshaw Mkt Underperform » Mkt Perform

Downgrades
Integral Systems (ISYS)- Feltl & Co. Buy » Hold
Carpenter Tech (CRS)- JP Morgan Overweight » Neutral
Indevus Pharm (IDEV)- Ladenburg Thalmann Buy » Neutral
F5 Networks (FFIV)- Kaufman Bros Buy » Hold
Adobe Systems (ADBE)- Cowen & Co Outperform » Neutral
Regeneron Pharms (REGN)- Credit Suisse Outperform » Neutral
RSC Holdings (RRR)- UBS Buy » Neutral
United Rentals (URI)- UBS Buy » Neutral
H&E Equipment Srvs (HEES)- UBS Buy » Neutral
Hercules (HPC)- Jefferies & Co Buy » Hold
VeriSign (VRSN)- JP Morgan Overweight » Neutral
Haynes Intl (HAYN)- JP Morgan Overweight » Neutral
Allegheny Tech (ATI)- JP Morgan Overweight » Neutral
American Wdmrk (AMWD)- Robert W. Baird Outperform » Neutral
Parker-Hannifin (PH)- UBS Neutral » Sell
Caterpillar (CAT)- UBS Neutral » Sell
Kennametal (KMT)- UBS Neutral » Sell
PACCAR (PCAR)- UBS Neutral » Sell
Motorola (MOT)- Oppenheimer Perform » Underperform
Navistar (NAVZ)- UBS Buy » Neutral

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books