Non-Tech | Any Stock Warrants


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: SG who wrote (1877)10/15/2009 1:01:45 PM
From: lazarre   of 1916
 
why not sell a third of your position and let the rest ride....i know all about the greed curve.

That TCIXW, I sold a third 3.50 from where it is now but i'm not kicking my butt in cause I still have 2/3rds which I'm riding out.

Gee, the same thing could easily happen with AUDCW--- these Chinese up listings are sometimes like magic...but only the ones with visibility and earnings---gotta have the earnings.

L

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: lazarre who wrote (1878)10/15/2009 1:07:54 PM
From: SG   of 1916
 
Wow,

looks like I missed AUTCW!

Too greedy to sell anything while my warrants are going up.

SG

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: SG who wrote (1879)10/15/2009 1:21:58 PM
From: lazarre   of 1916
 
well, why get out of one flier that you're comfortable with and get into one you hardly know?

stay where you are but don't get too too greedy...one "too greedy" is enough.
:-)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: lazarre who wrote (1880)10/15/2009 1:27:16 PM
From: SG   of 1916
 
How can you get "too greedy", LOL.

SG

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: SG who wrote (1881)10/15/2009 3:37:30 PM
From: lazarre   of 1916
 
you know sometimes you're right....

remember GXMR or was it GMXR? the warrants.......

i sold my 2 batches TOO soon. one in the single digits and the last in the low teens.

if my memory serves me correctly that little 'ol warrant went into the low to mid twenties. :-(

lazarre

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: lazarre who wrote (1882)10/15/2009 6:47:47 PM
From: SG   of 1916
 
Yes,

I made some $ with that but screwed up, broke warrant players rule..i sold some warrants to exercise others. Bad idea. I still own GMXR shares, much lower.

SG

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Glenn Petersen12/18/2009 7:36:19 PM
   of 1916
 
Blank check company (SPACS) update

SUMMARY NOTES

Wall Street has never been bashful about recycling old products and concepts. One of the recent concepts to be recycled is the blank check IPO. Blank check companies are also known as Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACS).

As of December 11, 2009, 162 SPACS have gone public since August of 2003, raising gross proceeds totaling $22,003,690,655 (give or take a buck or two). Another 67 companies currently have registration statements on file with the SEC and are looking to raise $10,787,120,608 (once again, give or take a buck or two). If you back out the companies that filed their initial registration statements on or before December 31, 2007, there are 27 companies currently in registration that are looking to raise $3,899,000,000. Another 33 companies have filed and withdrawn registration statements; two of these companies subsequently went public on London’s AIM stock exchange, where they raised gross proceeds totaling $381 million. The companies that withdrew their registration statements were looking to raise $6,401,000,000

87 companies have actually completed acquisitions, and another 11 have deals pending. Of the companies that have completed transactions, seven have either been acquired or are in the process of being acquired. There are 59 companies that have failed to close on their proposed acquisitions and have either liquidated or are currently in the process of liquidating. These companies raised a total of $7,050,111,754 in their offerings. The shareholders of ten of these liquidated companies have extended the corporate charters for nine of companies so that they could operate as a shell. One of these companies has actually closed on a transaction.

There are 5 SPACS still looking for deals.

There have been several high profile transactions. The first was the acquisition of Jamba Juice Company by Services Acquisition Corporation International. Freedom Acquisition Holdings subsequently acquired GLG Partners and Endeavor Acquisition acquired American Apparel.

The first of the new crop of blank check companies went public on August 23, 2003.

PERFORMANCE

Of the 80 companies that have completed transactions and have not yet been acquired, the securities of only 24 of these companies are trading above their original offering price and 56 are trading below. The average company is down 15.53% versus an average decline of 5.15% for the NASDAQ Composite. The 7 companies that have either been acquired or are in the process of being acquired are down on average 75.31% versus an average increase of 17.81% for the NASDAQ Composite.

Of the 11 companies that have open deals, the securities of 10 of these companies are trading at or above their original offering price and 1 is trading below. The average company with an open transaction is up 4.72% versus an average decrease of 5.97% for the NASDAQ Composite. The securities of the six companies still looking for a transaction are up 2.20% since their original offerings versus an average decrease of 7.01% for the NASDAQ Composite.

A note on methodology: When calculating the return percentages for each of the companies, I have added the current market value of the applicable common shares and warrants, subtracted the unit cost, and divided the resulting sum by the original unit cost. In those instances where companies have redeemed their warrants, for the warrant value I have used the value that was created through the exercise of the warrant. For example, in December 2007, HLS Systems International (originally Chardan China North Acquisition) redeemed its warrants. The common stock of HLS last traded at $11.97. If you assume that $6.97 of value has been created from each of the two warrants (which had a strike price of $5.00 per share), the original units, which were priced at $6.00 and are no longer trading, now have a value of $25.91 ($11.97 + $6.97 + $6.97). The computation for calculating the return on HLS: $11.97 + $6.97M+ $6.97 - $6.00 = ($19.91) divided by $6.00 yields a return of 331.83%.

I realize that the second calculation does not include the cost of exercising the warrants. If we add the exercise cost of the two warrants ($10.00) to the original cost of the unit ($6.00), our basis is $16.00. We now own three shares with a total value of $15.60. As an alternative, we could compute the return as follows: $35.91 - $16.00 = $19.91. $19.91 divided by $16.00 yields a negative return of 122.44%.

I am open to suggestions.

When calculating the returns on the NASDAQ Composite, I used the closing index price on the date prior to each of the individual offerings.
__________

Summary statistics – December 11, 2009

Message 26188546

Profiles of closed deals – December 11, 2009

Message 26188571

Summary information for companies with closed deals – December 11, 2009

Message 26188578

Profiles: Companies or assets of acquired – December 11, 2009

Message 26188581

Summary information for companies acquired – December 11, 2009

Message 26188585

Profiles of open deals – December 11, 2009

Message 26188589

Summary information for companies with open deals – December 11, 2009

Message 26188591

Summary information for companies without deals – December 11, 2009

Message 26188595

Summary information for companies still in registration – December 11, 2009

Message 26188600

Profiles of liquidated companies (terminated registrations) – December 11, 2009

Message 26188605

Summary information for liquidated companies (terminated registrations) – December 11, 2009

Message 26188606

Profiles of liquidated companies that will continue their existence as shells – December 11, 2009

Message 26188610

Summary information for liquidated companies that will continue their existence as shells – December 11, 2009

Message 26188616

Summary information for companies that have withdrawn their U.S. registration statements – December 11, 2009

Message 26188621

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (1884)12/18/2009 8:09:50 PM
From: SG   of 1916
 
Thanks, Glenn.

SG

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (1884)12/19/2009 11:17:23 AM
From: lazarre   of 1916
 
Glenn,

outstanding work.

some of us here have made some $$ on some of these deals that have gravitas.

warrants seem to have the better risk/reward schematic, imo.

After your last post, it got me wondering why this arcane niche is such a labor of love with you.

and 2. have you been following HOL? My reason for asking is this: I can't find the specific reason why the AMEX is considering delisting. HOL has closed a decent deal with China Ceramics ( i had been in that specific business for 13 years so I have that inkling ) and the share price is @ $7---certainly a PPS that exceeds the AMEX requirements for PPS.

I am clearly perplexed. I just have a decent stanch of the warrants.

lazarre

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: lazarre who wrote (1886)12/19/2009 1:17:07 PM
From: Glenn Petersen   of 1916
 
lazzare,

My interest in shells and reverse mergers dates back to the mid-90s. I took a high tech company public in 1995, and after it ceased operations I executed a reverse merger with the shell. Because we did not have funds for an attorney, so I ended up doing all of the legal work on the transaction. It was quite a learning experience. Unfortunately, we did a deal with some guys who had some – how shall I phrase it – issues. Rule 1 when facilitating a reverse merger: Make sure you protect your own interests and get compensated.

The experience has paid some dividends. I have a fairly good track record trading higher quality reverse merger and SPAC plays and I am currently in the process of creating a shell for a client, a far easier and cheaper task than I anticipated. I should be filing an amended S-1 next week.

I have been very careful not to “pump” the SPAC concept. It has proven to be an expedient way for many second and third tier companies to go public, but a lot of them have crashed and burned. Ultimately, the success of a company is determined by their ability to execute on their business plan, not the fact that they are publicly traded.

I had no idea that I would be tracking 264 filings when I started the SPAC thread. I think that the activity will start to pick up again in 2010, featuring smaller offerings and a focus on Asia.

I have been following HOL, although I do not currently own any shares. It seems that HOL is not in compliance with Section 341 of the AMEX Company Guide. When an AMEX listed company executes a reverse merger with an unlisted entity (which becomes the surviving entity), the newly merged entity must satisfy the initial AMEX listing requirements. The AMEX does not allow “back door listings.” The NYSE and NASDAQ have comparable provisions. China Ceramics was the surviving company in this transaction, essentially a new unlisted entity as far as the AMEX was concerned. The newly merged company actually re-domesticated in the British Virgin Islands. My guess is that HOL could maintain its listing simply by filing a new application. Then again, some Chinese companies have not been too enthused about full transparency.

Regards,

Glenn

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.