User 222609
Loading...
Symbols:
Loading...
Symbols:
Hedge Fund Jobs
Job Seekers: Search jobs by category, get job alerts by email or live feed, apply online See full list of jobs »
Employers: See all recruitment options, get applications online or by email Post a job »
Trading Center
- Free E-Newsletters
- About Seeking Alpha
- About Us
- Contact Us
- What's New
- Readers Feedback
- Advertise With Us
- Contributors
- Contribute an Article
- Feature Your Book
- Our Contributors
- Anonymous Contributions
- Dispute an Article?
- Legal
- Terms of Use
- Privacy
- Copyright
Latest Comments7 Comments
Crystal River Capital: Deleveraging to Wait Out the Storm
Even if someone lost money on 100 stocks in a row, that would have no bearing on the facts posted or the quality of the analysis offered.
Are such ad hominem attacks an example of stock manipulation?
I do not know what else one would call it.
Crystal River’s Q2 Write-Downs Could Bankrupt the Company
My thoughts are those of an investor who is long the stock, and may be biased in favor of that position.
Best of luck to all who have posted here (except those who seem to have difficulty posting the whole truth - now there's a strange concept).
Crystal River’s Q2 Write-Downs Could Bankrupt the Company
When a stock falls in price like CRZ did today, lots of investors lose money. Typically, there are only two parties to sue.
First, if the company has been dishonest in its appraisal of its ability to remain solvent, pay a dividend, and go forward into this investment climate with the intention of increasing shareholder value, then the company is usually the target of a class action suit (as it should be).
Second, if manipulation, misrepresentation of circumstances, or the self-serving selection of facts is presented as "rigorous" research, then it would seem appropriate to file the suit against those parties that participated in such behaviors.
I do not see a third party in this instance, so I must believe either the company or Weston/SA will be named as a defendent in response to the catastrophic drop in share price we witnessed on Monday.
I guess my point is that someone is going to get sued, and from my perspective I think the company has been completely forthcoming all along.
YOU do the math!
Crystal River’s Q2 Write-Downs Could Bankrupt the Company
"Allowing an insolvent company to borrow $100 million in order to save an *illiquid* investment of about $5 million. Well you do the math."
First, the company would not need to borrow $100 million to cover the $25 million mentioned in their recent press release.
Second, the company would not be insolvent.
This is more than poor logic, it is irresponsible, self-serving gibberish posing as analysis. This is the same level of "rigor" SA apparently required in the original article.
Speaking of SA, is it not the case that by pulling the article and then reposting it, SA has implied the article meets the highest level of editorial standard claimed on its site? To pull the article and then repost it suggests the headline is well-justified based on the "rigor" SA's editorial staff requires of all articles posted on its site. In fact, it may be that SA's actions are responsible for the terrible hit the stock took today.
Oh the tangled web we weave. . .
Crystal River’s Q2 Write-Downs Could Bankrupt the Company
"The values of CRZ’s assets have fallen dramatically, but these declines are not reflected in its overpriced stock. Nor is the risk that the company could be suddenly wiped out by an inability to pay margin calls or meet its credit default swap obligations.
That swing has already happened, or very nearly so."
The company's credit facility has been available all along for those who cared to research the truth.
In their Credit Suisse CC, mgmt said they had deleveraged to the point they would not be going bk. They provided the figures and clearly stated their credit facility was in tact and more than enough to take care of any pressing debt. Subsequent to that call, it seems mgnt took further steps to preserve capital and increase liquidity.
My statement has nothing to do with mgnt's statement today. It is simply what I posted yesterday, what Smooth, Davis, and others have been saying all along, and what was readily available to all who wished to live up to the standards posted by the editorial board on this site.
If you do not believe the class action suit is coming, you are, in my very humble opinion, more foolish than Greg's hit piece.
Crystal River’s Q2 Write-Downs Could Bankrupt the Company
I am afraid your latest response to smoothjazz is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. Such abuse is almost always an admission that one's own position is factually bankrupt.
Plese refrain from any further personal attacks. If you feel the need to post to this thread, I suggest you post your responses to the problems many posters had with your article. Once again, no more name calling, please!
Crystal River’s Q2 Write-Downs Could Bankrupt the Company
With respect to your recent article concerning CRZ, it would seem the author and the editors, who are charged with guaranteeing “quality and consistency” along with “standards of rigor and clarity,” have failed to live up to their responsibilities.
The fact that you publicly list in your criteria for publication the following concern, “Does the article help a fundamentally-oriented investor decide whether to buy or sell the stock in question,” suggests you are not only aware of the impact such articles might have on the share price of a particular stock, but that you make such an impact a requirement. When you further state, “does it provide meaningful information about or analysis…” you are suggesting your standards of “rigor and clarity” require information and analyses to be “meaningful” in the strictest sense of the word given their potential for impact. I believe you have blatantly failed to live up to your stated responsibility and will be reporting your publication to the SEC.
Further, I do not believe the first amendment allows someone to yell “fire” in a crowded theater without basis, nor do I believe it allows someone to yell “bankruptcy” in a crowded investment community without basis. That is, both acts of irresponsibility may lead to considerable personal harm to bystanders.
The company has publicly stated they will not go bankrupt. The company has publicly stated they have $100 million in unencumbered assets, the lion’s share of a $100 million credit facility available, and have deleveraged to the point that they are now looking “cautiously” for opportunistic investment.
The article published on your web site has been termed a “hit job” by many readers. There have been numerous objections to the article ranging from a lack of full disclosure to a lack of consideration of many of the essential elements that should be a part of any “rigorous” and “meaningful” discussion of the threat of bankruptcy.
It appears the writer stands to profit from a falling share price on Monday.
If my stock goes down on Monday, I will be forced to consider a class action law suit against the owner of your site, the author of the article, and those members of your editorial staff who were in a position of authority as responsible gatekeepers for the content published on your site (and possibly those who advertise on your site).