> What's the best way to value companies like ARCC. Your ideas are good. They just earned > the dividend, and raised the dividend. Don't overthink it. :o)
>When did you first discover the company and what attracted you to it? I bought shares last summer. Your observation (below) about performance during the crunch is what convinced me to make the bet.
>I tend to shy away from these management investment companies as I always thought they were high risk. I agree because I got burned on ACAS. Fortunately, ACAS tanked when pref shares were also down, so I traded my losing ACAS for cheap pref shares (remember the days) which have since doubled+.
>However, their performance during the 2009 market crash has been quite good. yes -- very reassuring. the dividend only dropped a little. note that ARCC invests mainly in loans. snl.com
S&P: 5 star strong buy with a price target of $13. Currently trading just under $7. Q4 net loss of $0.10, vs. $0.11 loss, is $0.01 narrower than our forecast. FDA sets Sep 30 action date for NPS's new drug application for Gattex for short bowel syndrome. We view standard 10 month review as a modest disappointment, given its orphan drug status, but we continue to anticipate the drug's launch before year-end, and see a solid commercial outlook. We also see Sensipar royalties ($80M-$90M run rate) returning to NPSP around mid-'13. We widen our '12 loss view by $0.06 to a $0.35 loss, and set '13's at $0.30 EPS.
We estimate a per share loss of $0.35 in 2012 and EPS of $0.30 in 2013. NPSP closed 2011 with $162 million in cash, which we view as sufficient to bring Gattex to market, likely in late 2012.
Don't know much about biotech stocks, but I'm going to do a little more research on this one. Anyone follow NPSP?
My EK$ valuation shows that NXY is still 20%-24% undervalued and I see you sold you last shares in 4/2011. The stock is now 10% lower from your sale price. You pointed out these concerns:
"...1) Increased taxes in the North Sea which seems to affect them more than others.
2) Not great earnings this quarter making me question their projected p/e.
3) Questions on Yemen - Seems like their operations are still in place, but will they be forever? And their lease is up for negotiations also? Tricky on multiple levels...".
I stumbled onto the company as a result of their Horn River Shale acreage holdings located in northeast British Columbia, Canada. From their Web Site:
nexeninc.com "...We recognized the potential of shale gas early and in 2006 began acquiring large blocks of high-quality, low-cost acreage in the Horn River Basin located in northeast British Columbia, Canada — one of the most prospective gas fields in North America. In 2010, we purchased more land in the nearby Cordova and Liard basins, bringing our total land position to approximately 300,000 acres...."
I am looking for some pure E&P plays in Canada. It seems like NXY is big enough to be a player and has invested a lot in this Canadian play. I really do not like NXY's other foreign ventures but it appears they are focused on this very profitable area in Western Canada.
Paul Senior, you may have some suggestions as I know you have been finding values in this area.
Hi EKS. Have you looked at the impact of the electric car at all and would you agree with my opinion that infrastucture for this devlopment will be more immediate and easier to find investable value ideas in as opposed to the NG sector?
I followed you into ATO at 30.8$. low return (high single digits/year) but very low risk sort of situation. I figure that a 4.4% dividend yield and a 5% (maybe growth rate/year) would lead to an 9-10% estimated return (assuming multiples don't change) in my very simlpe dividend growth model.
PEP is somewhat similar, with less initial dividend (3.3%) yield but a higher growth components (5-10% range). If we are lucky we could do low single digit returns over the years. I think I'll make that a permanent position in my and plan to add from time to time. Got some for my wife's "sleep well IRA" and my own not so sleepy Roth IRA <g>.
Sorry Sergio, I really can not make a value proposition for the electric car. Unless the electricity is produced from a nuclear power plant. It is more efficient to have the power plant in the car. An an efficient engine like a diesel or hybrid are very good now.
From several of the Electric Car analysis I have read, no one factors in the cost or battery replacement and battery disposal. Replacement batteries are required after 7-10 years and the environmental disposal/recycling costs are large.
The diesel hybrid is probably the most efficient vehicle under development. I believe VW and Mercedes have prototypes under development.
There are some companies that offer LNG fueling from a device connected at your home using your NG line. It compresses the fuel and can refuel a car in about 90 minutes. The problem w/ NG is the driving range from a tank full of LNG. It's about 60% that of gas and/or diesel.
I continue to look for U.S. companies that can advance the different technologies. TRW has a division working on NG but it is small compared to the company size. TRW is sort of a value play. That is where I am looking now.
FWIW the last car I bought was a VW Passat diesel (2005) and it gets 35mpg, runs a 10% blend of bio-diesel and you can go 600 miles on a tankful of fuel.
Their 2012 models are even more efficient. I believe these cars are now built in VW's new Kentucky plant.
The battery issues pertaining to the electric car will soon be addressed as all of the major auto manufacturers are developing electric vehicles.
I see NG being used by companies for local delivery and local routes with these companies providing their own refueling and the public changing from gasoline vehicles to electric vehicles. Infrastucture will be needed to provide charging stations as these cars develop into full usage transportation as opposed to local usage only.
Adding to the recent ETF discussion...amazing how deployment of ETF's are so quick to adapt to public interest. finance.yahoo.com
<On Wednesday, Feb. 15, Van Eck launched an energy-oriented exchange-traded fund holding companies involved in what Van Eck calls "unconventional" oil and natural gas. Although energy-related ETFs abound,Market Vectors Unconventional Oil & Gas ETF has a unique mandate. The term "unconventional" refers in part to methods of exploration and extraction and as such includes oil sands, oil shales, tight sand, coalbed methane, and shale gas, all of which have become more common in recent years. Because these types of extractions may be geographically extensive or deeply embedded in underground rock formations, they may be difficult to perform without the use of developing technologies. And some of the developing technologies employed by the firms held in FRAK are controversial technologies like hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") and horizontal drilling. Fracking in particular has been opposed by some environmentalists and by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has complained that the process, which involves using pressurized fluids to create or expand cracks in underground rock formations to release oil or natural gas for extraction, can contaminate groundwater with arsenic or copper. Environmentalists also have complained that the process can cause fracking chemicals to rise to the surface. The energy industry has disputed these allegations, and asserts that the fracking process has not polluted wells that provide drinking water. Beyond fracking, the U.S. has unlocked significant domestic oil and gas reserves recently, largely because of the unconventional exploration and extraction methods employed by the kinds of companies held in FRAK. Among the new ETF's top holdings are Occidental Petroleum, Canadian Natural Resources, and EOG Resources. FRAK tracks a Van Eck-managed index of 43 firms. The new ETF charges 0.54%.