Ghost Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 The genie is out of the bottle, no point complaining about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddballstocks Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 The worst thing is that there is an incentive for guys like Jae Jun from Oldschoolvalue and Chris deMuth on SA to promote these deals because the promotor receives a very small benefit ($200 SA pro article fee, some ad revenue, personal promotion, more Twitter followers). But I'm really at a loss for words why they think these peanuts are more important than keeping these opportunities alive. Is it shortsightedness? Egoism? Global Sources has to shell out $5m to cash out minority shareholders, I'm pretty sure they won't do that again ... But whenever I confront one of these posters they get angry and defend their actions by pointing out that 'others do it too'. Literal reply from a SeekingAlpha article writer: do not blame SA articles for this. odd-lot thing is already widely known and covered on many blogs, forums and etc. Thus me not writing about it is not going to change the trend. As with many other investing ideas after some time they disappear. And on CoBF people are saying the same thing but are blaming SA .. Really pisses me off. This is pure speculation, but I wonder if the payout from SA for writing about this on average is greater than what one would make? You get $200 for putting nothing at risk verses maybe $3k at risk for the same $200 payout. It seems financially writing about these is better than investing in them if you can become the one guy on SA who does this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
writser Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 That is a valid point, but at the same time they destroy their future revenue stream. 10x 200 with a bit of money at risk > 1x 200. So I really don't think it is a very attractive proposition unless you care most about building up an 'online presence' to monetize later (as Chris deMuth is doing and Jae Jun appears to be doing too) or if you are really shortsighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraven Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Hielko, To be fair, a ton more people are in the market now than in 2010. Plus, GSOL was posted on quite a few sites. I wonder what the numbers were on less publicized tenders. I don't think that's the case at all. These things were very well known back in 2010, I was a pig at the trough with them back then. As far as I can remember investing odd-lot tenders have been around. There was a guy named George with a site FatPitchFinancials who used to discuss these things. He'd walk through the details and has been doing this back to 2006. What killed the golden goose in my view was when these things hit Seeking Alpha. A few hundred blog readers are never going to move the needle, but millions of readers on Seeking Alpha will surly move the needle. Seeking Alpha brought new visibility to these things. Exactly. It's a shame that people don't understand the tragedy of the commons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blainehodder Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 The worst thing is that there is an incentive for guys like Jae Jun from Oldschoolvalue and Chris deMuth on SA to promote these deals because the promotor receives a very small benefit ($200 SA pro article fee, some ad revenue, personal promotion, more Twitter followers). But I'm really at a loss for words why they think these peanuts are more important than keeping these opportunities alive. Is it shortsightedness? Egoism? Well, Jae makes his living off the site. It is pretty easy to see why he would publish ideas that increase traffic to his site and to his services. Traffic increases his earnings. Not to mention the obvious benefits of publicizing a positon: attention and clarity can cause the price to move, and the faster the price moves the faster you can move on to other ideas. Most Seeking Alpha Authors have a position in the stocks they are writing about. Lastly you get the 200 buck fee for your time. If you can put out an article with minimal marginal effort beyond what you would have done anyhow, it isn't the worst way to make 200 bucks is it? Seeking Alpha/blog visibility narrows the opportunity set, but there isn't much to be done about it. There are still opportunities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wachtwoord Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Global Sources has to shell out $5m to cash out minority shareholders, Yes, why should Global Sources care? They buy back X amount of shares, I don't see how buying them from 1 or 100,000 people should matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
writser Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 You should think a little bit about why they initiated the tender offer in the first place. GSOL's founder, ex-CEO and chairman of the board is their largest shareholder with a >40% stake if I'm not mistaken. They use this construction to transfer cash out of the company to the major shareholders (probably instead of a dividend for tax reasons). If you are the founder of a big company, you tender your shares and you find out that you receive a couple of million dollars less than anticipated because a bunch of nerds profited from a loophole in your boilerplate tender document (and explained this on a public website that is the first search result in Google for 'GSOL tender'), what would your reaction be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hielko Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Global Sources has to shell out $5m to cash out minority shareholders, Yes, why should Global Sources care? They buy back X amount of shares, I don't see how buying them from 1 or 100,000 people should matter. Because their big shareholders care if they get a significant lower amount of shares accepted in tender offers. And guess who's more important to the company: their big long-term shareholders, or a bunch of small arbs that only own the stock for a few weeks. Why do you think that you are starting to see more and more tender offers without an odd lot provision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stahleyp Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Hielko, To be fair, a ton more people are in the market now than in 2010. Plus, GSOL was posted on quite a few sites. I wonder what the numbers were on less publicized tenders. What killed the golden goose in my view was when these things hit Seeking Alpha. A few hundred blog readers are never going to move the needle, but millions of readers on Seeking Alpha will surly move the needle. Seeking Alpha brought new visibility to these things. I can agree with ya there, Nate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddharth18 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 If you are the founder of a big company, you tender your shares and you find out that you receive a couple of million dollars less than anticipated because a bunch of nerds profited from a loophole in your boilerplate tender document (and explained this on a public website that is the first search result in Google for 'GSOL tender'), what would your reaction be? I laughed out loud reading this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 big shareholders don't care. they can't be bothered. it's not on their radar. odd lot provision has a purpose. it's expensive to have odd lot shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wachtwoord Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Global Sources has to shell out $5m to cash out minority shareholders, Yes, why should Global Sources care? They buy back X amount of shares, I don't see how buying them from 1 or 100,000 people should matter. Because their big shareholders care if they get a significant lower amount of shares accepted in tender offers. And guess who's more important to the company: their big long-term shareholders, or a bunch of small arbs that only own the stock for a few weeks. Why do you think that you are starting to see more and more tender offers without an odd lot provision? Everyone who participates in a tender sells the stock. None of them are shareholders after the fact. So the company shouldn't care about either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hielko Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Global Sources has to shell out $5m to cash out minority shareholders, Yes, why should Global Sources care? They buy back X amount of shares, I don't see how buying them from 1 or 100,000 people should matter. Because their big shareholders care if they get a significant lower amount of shares accepted in tender offers. And guess who's more important to the company: their big long-term shareholders, or a bunch of small arbs that only own the stock for a few weeks. Why do you think that you are starting to see more and more tender offers without an odd lot provision? Everyone who participates in a tender sells the stock. None of them are shareholders after the fact. So the company shouldn't care about either. You might try thinking before you hit reply... All large shareholders will be prorated and own approximately the same percentage of the company before and after the tender offer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
writser Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 The amount of ignorance displayed in the last few pages is staggering. Apparently a lot of people have no clue about the dynamics of tender offers and the influence of odd-lot shareholders on the process and that's the reason why they don't see the problem with discussing and sharing them in public. Tragedy of the commons indeed ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stahleyp Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 The amount of ignorance displayed in the last few pages is staggering. Apparently a lot of people have no clue about the dynamics of tender offers and the influence of odd-lot shareholders on the process and that's the reason why they don't see the problem with discussing and sharing them in public. Tragedy of the commons indeed ... I agree that when someone post it on a blog like Seekingalpha it has a negative impact on the market (that's why I pointed out GSOL). However, my point and I probably didn't explain it well, is that, on average, I doubt that oddlots are dramatically more popular now than they were in 2010. I'd guess that if they are more popular, a big reason for that is that more people are now interested in the market - ie less efficiency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraven Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 The amount of ignorance displayed in the last few pages is staggering. Apparently a lot of people have no clue about the dynamics of tender offers and the influence of odd-lot shareholders on the process and that's the reason why they don't see the problem with discussing and sharing them in public. Tragedy of the commons indeed ... I agree that when someone post it on a blog like Seekingalpha it has a negative impact on the market (that's why I pointed out GSOL). However, my point and I probably didn't explain it well, is that, on average, I doubt that oddlots are dramatically more popular now than they were in 2010. I'd guess that if they are more popular, a big reason for that is that more people are now interested in the market - ie less efficiency. They demonstrably more popular now than they were then. People don't like it when a system is being gamed and while the goal behind odd lot retirement remains true (administrative burdens, expense, etc), many of the odd lot holders have purchased with the sole intent of getting cashed out and making a few bucks without proration. When it's just a handful of people doing it, no one cares. When it's thousands of them being done there will be people it rubs the wrong way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stahleyp Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 The amount of ignorance displayed in the last few pages is staggering. Apparently a lot of people have no clue about the dynamics of tender offers and the influence of odd-lot shareholders on the process and that's the reason why they don't see the problem with discussing and sharing them in public. Tragedy of the commons indeed ... I agree that when someone post it on a blog like Seekingalpha it has a negative impact on the market (that's why I pointed out GSOL). However, my point and I probably didn't explain it well, is that, on average, I doubt that oddlots are dramatically more popular now than they were in 2010. I'd guess that if they are more popular, a big reason for that is that more people are now interested in the market - ie less efficiency. They demonstrably more popular now than they were then. People don't like it when a system is being gamed and while the goal behind odd lot retirement remains true (administrative burdens, expense, etc), many of the odd lot holders have purchased with the sole intent of getting cashed out and making a few bucks without proration. When it's just a handful of people doing it, no one cares. When it's thousands of them being done there will be people it rubs the wrong way. I wonder why companies simply don't qualify them with an "as of date." One must be a shareholder before a tender is announced. That seems that it would eliminate it pretty quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wachtwoord Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 The amount of ignorance displayed in the last few pages is staggering. Apparently a lot of people have no clue about the dynamics of tender offers and the influence of odd-lot shareholders on the process and that's the reason why they don't see the problem with discussing and sharing them in public. Tragedy of the commons indeed ... I agree that when someone post it on a blog like Seekingalpha it has a negative impact on the market (that's why I pointed out GSOL). However, my point and I probably didn't explain it well, is that, on average, I doubt that oddlots are dramatically more popular now than they were in 2010. I'd guess that if they are more popular, a big reason for that is that more people are now interested in the market - ie less efficiency. They demonstrably more popular now than they were then. People don't like it when a system is being gamed and while the goal behind odd lot retirement remains true (administrative burdens, expense, etc), many of the odd lot holders have purchased with the sole intent of getting cashed out and making a few bucks without proration. When it's just a handful of people doing it, no one cares. When it's thousands of them being done there will be people it rubs the wrong way. I wonder why companies simply don't qualify them with an "as of date." One must be a shareholder before a tender is announced. That seems that it would eliminate it pretty quickly. I saw one that did that. Still: why would a company do that? Who cares who they buy from, they simply want a number of shares at a certain price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I for one will take advantage of the market inefficiency for as long as it is there, and like all things, this too will end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
writser Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Wachtwoord, again, did you even read the thread? The point is not that the company cares - but the major shareholders do and often they are the reason the tender offer is initiated in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillfronter83 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Anyone looking at this? FPCG plans to pay 0.55/share for shareholders with less than 2000 shares. Need approval in the annual meeting. The company reported NI of 0.1 and 0.09 per share in 2013 and 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wachtwoord Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Anyone looking at this? FPCG plans to pay 0.55/share for shareholders with less than 2000 shares. Need approval in the annual meeting. The company reported NI of 0.1 and 0.09 per share in 2013 and 2012. What is the proposed source of the funds? The have a net debt of ~4M on a market cap of <11M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillfronter83 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Anyone looking at this? FPCG plans to pay 0.55/share for shareholders with less than 2000 shares. Need approval in the annual meeting. The company reported NI of 0.1 and 0.09 per share in 2013 and 2012. What is the proposed source of the funds? The have a net debt of ~4M on a market cap of <11M According to their PRE 14A filing, the expected payment for fractional shares is only $225,000, so there is no mention of source of funds: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1003226/000119312514243976/d744327dpre14a.htm#toc744327_13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wachtwoord Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Anyone looking at this? FPCG plans to pay 0.55/share for shareholders with less than 2000 shares. Need approval in the annual meeting. The company reported NI of 0.1 and 0.09 per share in 2013 and 2012. What is the proposed source of the funds? The have a net debt of ~4M on a market cap of <11M According to their PRE 14A filing, the expected payment for fractional shares is only $225,000, so there is no mention of source of funds: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1003226/000119312514243976/d744327dpre14a.htm#toc744327_13 So they can buy out a maximum of 4 fractional shareholders. That makes me wary ... (Thanks for bringing this to my attention though :)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WideMoat Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 "We currently anticipate having the financial resources to complete the Reverse Stock Split, the costs of which we estimate to be $505,000. The estimated costs include $225,000, which is the approximate cost to satisfy the Company’s obligation to pay cash for each fractional share resulting from the Reverse Stock Split. The payments to holders who receive cash in lieu of fractional shares will be paid out of cash on hand. As of June 20, 2014, we had approximately $2.0 million of cash on hand." (2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now