Post Reply
61-80 of 670
Ya loooooooh.
ROI25per ( Date: 29-Mar-2010 15:05) Posted:
| seems like no end dropping...
|
|
seems like no end dropping...
during the *gOOd mEn Era*
there was NO INFLATION
INFLATION IS MAN-MADE fOr the BAD MEN
tO bE FiLTHY RiCH
so buy @ $0.005 and achieve a multi baggers. hahaha
pharoah88 ( Date: 29-Mar-2010 10:00) Posted:
|
iF eQuity is WiPED Off,
the wOrst it can gO is S$0.005 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
christan ( Date: 26-Mar-2010 11:08) Posted:
this will total wipe off the equity 395m, making -equity, worth nothing. better avoid
Implications of the April maturity of the US$130m loan
facility. RMT had US$110.7m in cash as of 31 Dec but the
question is if the remaining seven lenders will be willing to
release that cash to only three lenders, considering the
outstanding capital commitment of US$918.6m and the very
likely breached loan-to-value covenants on the existing
US$773.8m loans. The key determinant of the outcome is
how close the banks and the sponsor are to reaching an overall
agreement (which is in approximately month 12 of
discussions). We re-iterate that it is not in the sponsor's best
interest for RMT to default as the sponsor will end up footing
the bill for the new ships (which are perhaps worth about half
of what they cost). The lenders are probably not keen to see
a default situation either (especially if they also lend to the
sponsor). The likely outcome is that the burden will eventually
be passed to RMT's unitholders through dilution via fresh
equity.
Uncertainty driving volatility - witness thehttp://www.remisiers.org/research//Rickmers%20Maritime-100325-OIR.pdf
|
|
|
|
Once, SAGE said,
"There are NO GOOD MEN ANYMORE"
178investors ( Date: 26-Mar-2010 17:13) Posted:
170++ years history
reputable names on board... ripmer, lim how lian, lee sue loong, some ex-hk tycoon grandson, some big time ex-banker,.. etc.
decent looking management no problem lah, we still got growing cash flows leh, plus ripmer weell known in shipping mah...
ALL these meant Nothing
Just ... Nothing |
|
The problem is that most shipping trust doesn't view itself as alternative financing companies. Instead, they have the illusion that they are shipping lines and therefore take unnecessary risks.
Thank you for the response.
chinton86 ( Date: 26-Mar-2010 12:06) Posted:
|
iF eQuity is WiPED Off,
the wOrst it can gO is S$0.005 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
christan ( Date: 26-Mar-2010 11:08) Posted:
this will total wipe off the equity 395m, making -equity, worth nothing. better avoid
Implications of the April maturity of the US$130m loan
facility. RMT had US$110.7m in cash as of 31 Dec but the
question is if the remaining seven lenders will be willing to
release that cash to only three lenders, considering the
outstanding capital commitment of US$918.6m and the very
likely breached loan-to-value covenants on the existing
US$773.8m loans. The key determinant of the outcome is
how close the banks and the sponsor are to reaching an overall
agreement (which is in approximately month 12 of
discussions). We re-iterate that it is not in the sponsor's best
interest for RMT to default as the sponsor will end up footing
the bill for the new ships (which are perhaps worth about half
of what they cost). The lenders are probably not keen to see
a default situation either (especially if they also lend to the
sponsor). The likely outcome is that the burden will eventually
be passed to RMT's unitholders through dilution via fresh
equity.
Uncertainty driving volatility - witness thehttp://www.remisiers.org/research//Rickmers%20Maritime-100325-OIR.pdf
|
|
management today are nOt MANAGERS.
management today are rEally Administrators.
They just PROCESS ORDERS BLINDLY.
today, so many documents (invoice, do, receipt, letter, etc) are nOt signed
and imply churn out computers and sent withOUT even the company knowing
whether they are Right or WRONG.
Like previously, PUB Bills which were WRONG but just sent out because Management dOn't lOOk at anything any mOre.
How to manage sOmething withOut sEEing and knOwing?
178investors ( Date: 26-Mar-2010 17:13) Posted:
170++ years history
reputable names on board... ripmer, lim how lian, lee sue loong, some ex-hk tycoon grandson, some big time ex-banker,.. etc.
decent looking management no problem lah, we still got growing cash flows leh, plus ripmer weell known in shipping mah...
ALL these meant Nothing
Just ... Nothing |
|
wah!! 28cts sellQ today...looks like going down hill day by day as no further words from manager...hee gd candidate for CFD short siah! :P
I dont think ple put their full faith into both SWFs, like wat u said.
In fact many are very sceptical of all investment decisions by these 2 entities. And going by what u just said, I infer u have this mindset as well.
Nobody is saying we need to follow anything they invest in, correct?? But if you are going along the line of saying they are using "citizen's money", so we are necessarily "following" their choice, which is "not a right attitude"? Or maybe you are saying why must we take thieir decisions to be correct? That would suggest you wish the decisions would be consultational with citizens. Is that practical?
I hope I am not being too confusing here. But I just think there seems to be too much opportunistic bashing of these 2 entities whenever things go wrong, by people in general. Its as though we expect all decisions made by them to be correct. And ironically, this seems to come from many of us retailer investors which i have a strong tendency to believe are making losses just like anyone else in this bear period. Apologies if i misunderstood your meaning
178investors ( Date: 26-Mar-2010 21:34) Posted:
yah. agree with you two. so scary. Long history no quarantee of survival, so scary.
Yet in singapore, we have people put their full faith that anything Temasek, GIC has a hand in must be good and solid. Is that the right attitude? Is temasek and GIC infallible? Anything they invest in, we must follow. So GIC has a stake in minzhong, should we also buy minzhong and keep? |
|
haha...wont collapse lah....VERY likely RIGHT issues and those non-sense...hee...juz wait n see :)
yah. agree with you two. so scary. Long history no quarantee of survival, so scary.
Yet in singapore, we have people put their full faith that anything Temasek, GIC has a hand in must be good and solid. Is that the right attitude? Is temasek and GIC infallible? Anything they invest in, we must follow. So GIC has a stake in minzhong, should we also buy minzhong and keep?
Telefunken in Germany with hundred of years of history also bankrupt in 80's.
Leman brother , hundred of years also downed.
Money don't care about past history, care more about present , no even future. No money no talk.
really ah.....u think they can re-finance the loan?
170++ years history
reputable names on board... ripmer, lim how lian, lee sue loong, some ex-hk tycoon grandson, some big time ex-banker,.. etc.
decent looking management no problem lah, we still got growing cash flows leh, plus ripmer weell known in shipping mah...
ALL these meant Nothing
Just ... Nothing
so can buy the shares now? or avoid?
PST can PiCK appropriate new ships (which are perhaps worth about half of what they cost) and BiD from one-tenth to one-quarter of cost at the AUCTION.
SHIP Assets Auction by China Banks happened in 2007.
christan ( Date: 26-Mar-2010 11:08) Posted:
this will total wipe off the equity 395m, making -equity, worth nothing. better avoid
Implications of the April maturity of the US$130m loan
facility. RMT had US$110.7m in cash as of 31 Dec but the
question is if the remaining seven lenders will be willing to
release that cash to only three lenders, considering the
outstanding capital commitment of US$918.6m and the very
likely breached loan-to-value covenants on the existing
US$773.8m loans. The key determinant of the outcome is
how close the banks and the sponsor are to reaching an overall
agreement (which is in approximately month 12 of
discussions). We re-iterate that it is not in the sponsor's best
interest for RMT to default as the sponsor will end up footing
the bill for the new ships (which are perhaps worth about half
of what they cost). The lenders are probably not keen to see
a default situation either (especially if they also lend to the
sponsor). The likely outcome is that the burden will eventually
be passed to RMT's unitholders through dilution via fresh
equity.
Uncertainty driving volatility - witness thehttp://www.remisiers.org/research//Rickmers%20Maritime-100325-OIR.pdf
|
|
NO-FEAR-ERS buy nOw and
bEt spOnsOr will SAVE the SHIPS
christan ( Date: 26-Mar-2010 11:08) Posted:
this will total wipe off the equity 395m, making -equity, worth nothing. better avoid
Implications of the April maturity of the US$130m loan
facility. RMT had US$110.7m in cash as of 31 Dec but the
question is if the remaining seven lenders will be willing to
release that cash to only three lenders, considering the
outstanding capital commitment of US$918.6m and the very
likely breached loan-to-value covenants on the existing
US$773.8m loans. The key determinant of the outcome is
how close the banks and the sponsor are to reaching an overall
agreement (which is in approximately month 12 of
discussions). We re-iterate that it is not in the sponsor's best
interest for RMT to default as the sponsor will end up footing
the bill for the new ships (which are perhaps worth about half
of what they cost). The lenders are probably not keen to see
a default situation either (especially if they also lend to the
sponsor). The likely outcome is that the burden will eventually
be passed to RMT's unitholders through dilution via fresh
equity.
Uncertainty driving volatility - witness thehttp://www.remisiers.org/research//Rickmers%20Maritime-100325-OIR.pdf
|
|
No.
