|
Post by clinton on Apr 17, 2014 9:26:20 GMT -5
you offer a perspective that is different than mine and is needed. I lean on fundamentals more and you more on charts, balance always needed between the two I agree. I stink at the fundies in coal - but combining the two sets-up for great trading. Who do you see as the strongest coal companies out there? Would be a nice play to long a good one and short the bad ones. Would like to find a long play that works better than DJUSCL. BTU is uniquely set up to survive. when USD is strong they just sell more coal from their Australian mines to take advantage of weak AUD
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Apr 17, 2014 9:27:41 GMT -5
BTU looks like its forming an iH&S too
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Apr 21, 2014 8:34:34 GMT -5
WLT opens down 5% ouch
|
|
|
Post by huh on Apr 24, 2014 14:04:42 GMT -5
Seeing talk of WLT filing to sell 4.3 million shares of common stock. Can't confirm it yet.
|
|
|
Post by huh on Apr 24, 2014 14:15:22 GMT -5
Seeing talk of WLT filing to sell 4.3 million shares of common stock. Can't confirm it yet. Looks as if true, but old news. Registering of shares happening today. But let me see if I got this right...dilute stock by ~6.8% in order to pay a 1 cent dividend each quarter? That's ~13 year ROI to stockholders. What's the point?
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Apr 25, 2014 9:01:22 GMT -5
BTU looks like its forming an iH&S too and away it goes Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Apr 29, 2014 20:31:38 GMT -5
Just an observation (cuz I think this company is a turd) noticed a obv bullish divergence hourly on ANR Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Apr 30, 2014 8:37:56 GMT -5
ANR opens green. watching for amusement only
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Apr 30, 2014 21:59:27 GMT -5
ANR Wow did someone unload into the close\ bad stocks do crazy things that daily volume looks wrong Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by clinton on May 1, 2014 6:32:10 GMT -5
Just an observation (cuz I think this company is a turd) noticed a obv bullish divergence hourly on ANR Alpha Natural Resources announces earnings. $0.07 EPS. Beats estimates. $1.11b revenue
|
|
|
Post by clinton on May 1, 2014 6:48:33 GMT -5
Walter Energy Announces First Quarter 2014 Results The following excerpt is from the company's SEC filing.
BIRMINGHAM, AL May 1, 2014 Walter Energy, Inc. (NYSE:WLT) (TSX:WLT), a leading, publicly traded pure-play producer of metallurgical (met) coal for the global steel industry, today announced results for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.
We continued to execute well in the first quarter, operating safely and reducing costs further, said Walt Scheller, Chief Executive Officer. We also made strides in improving our capital structure and liquidity, Scheller added. However, met coal pricing was under pressure in the quarter, and the lower pricing had a significant adverse impact on our revenues and earnings. We have taken steps to reduce unprofitable production and to further cut costs. We are taking actions to make our company stronger while remaining in a position to capitalize on the value of our high quality met coal reserves when the market improves.
Walter Energy reported a net loss of $92.2 million, or $1.47 loss per diluted share, in the first quarter of 2014, compared with a net loss of $49.4 million, or $0.79 loss per diluted share, in the first quarter of 2013. The adjusted net loss for the quarter, which excludes certain unusual items, was $94.2 million, or $1.50 loss per diluted share as compared with the adjusted net loss for the prior-year period of $40.1 million, or $0.64 loss per diluted share.
First quarter 2014 consolidated revenues totaled $413.9 million, compared with $491.3 million in the first quarter of 2013, reflecting a decrease in average met coal selling prices of $25.62 per metric ton (MT) and a decline of 0.2 million MTs in met coal sales volume. First quarter results also reflected lower met coal cash cost of sales per ton, significant reductions in selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, approximately $17.0 million of charges for lower of cost or market (LCM) adjustments to give effect to the decline in second quarter 2014 met coal prices on valuing first quarter ending inventories, and $13.9 million in accelerated amortization of capitalized debt discount and debt issuance costs related to financing activities in the quarter. The Company reported an operating loss of $47.1 million for the first quarter, a $16.5 million improvement compared with the $63.6 million operating loss in 2013. Although revenues declined significantly due to the decrease in met coal prices and volume, the Companys successful focus on cost reductions resulted in the improved operating results. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) for the quarter totaled $27.6 million, and adjusted EBITDA totaled $26.2 million. First quarter of 2013 adjusted EBITDA, which excluded proxy contest expenses and other items, totaled $32.0 million. A reconciliation of Net loss to EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA is provided in the Companys Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures included with this release. Metallurgical Coal Sales Volume and Pricing First quarter 2014 met coal sales volume, including both hard coking coal (HCC) and low-volatility (low-vol) pulverized coal injection product (PCI), was 2.6 million metric tons (MMTs), representing a decrease of 0.2 MMTs compared with the prior-year comparable quarter. HCC sales volume was 2.3 MMTs compared with 2.4 MMTs in 2013. Low-vol PCI sales volume totaled 0.3 MMTs compared with 0.4 MMTs in 2013. The average selling price for HCC was $127.43 per MT, down from $154.34 per MT in the first quarter of 2013. The selling price for low-vol PCI averaged $117.26 per MT in first quarter 2014 compared with $139.23 per MT in the prior-year comparable quarter. Metallurgical Coal Cash Cost of Sales Met coal cash cost of sales for the first quarter of 2014 averaged $107.89 per MT, down 9.7% compared with the first quarter of 2013. Continued improvement in cost performance was partially offset by the impact of the LCM charges in the current-year period. Metallurgical Coal Production Met coal production was 3.1 MMTs in the quarter, compared with 2.8 MMTs in the prior-year period. The increase was largely due to a 36% increase in low-vol HCC production at Mine No. 7 in Alabama. Additionally, production of low-vol PCI in Canada increased 17%, and the Companys mid-vol mines in Alabama and Canada reported production increases of 13%. Met coal cash cost of production averaged $68.74 per MT in the quarter, down $21.04 per MT, or 23.4%, as compared with the prior-year quarter.
|
|
|
Post by clinton on May 1, 2014 8:13:57 GMT -5
ANR down more than WLT pre market
wow coal is a bad sector
|
|
|
Post by huh on May 21, 2014 8:41:53 GMT -5
Unless it closes over 7.88 (back into the flag), seeing a WLT bear flag target of 5.85. Already broken & backtested. WLT hit the 5.85 target (move of 25% since posting). Still have a longer term target of 3.75.
|
|
|
Post by clinton on May 27, 2014 23:22:18 GMT -5
UBS analyst Kuni Chen thinks it makes more sense to start thinking about bankruptcy in the coal sector two or three years down the road rather than buy-the-dip opportunities, noting that the bonds of Walter Energy (WLT), Alpha Natural Resources (ANR) and Arch Coal (ACI) are edging close to distressed levels.Some tranches of WLT debt are trading at $0.60 on the dollar, while ANR and ACI paper trade a bit better at 70-80 for unsecured debt with yields approaching the mid-teen percentages; the equities continue to be weak, with WLT down almost 70% in the last 12 months and ANR down 40%.Chen also thinks it makes sense for Peabody Energy (BTU) to sell more stock to pay down its $6B debt load, since it would provide added flexibility to weather the downturn in the seaborne coal markets should prices stay at depressed levels for a longer than expected period of time.
|
|
|
Post by clinton on May 28, 2014 9:55:11 GMT -5
WLT will BK if AUD collapses IMO Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Jun 1, 2014 17:36:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by novie08 on Jun 1, 2014 18:41:09 GMT -5
Hmmm. Just read about subsidization via tax credits of wind farms and solar. So far, this has cost the state of N.C. over $4 Billion and there are problems with both of them...but what really blew me away was an article I read on commercial reactors and our (USA) investments in ITER. Damn,if only we had done this one on our own but that apparently is not the plan by the globalists. Lots of bickering plus of course they want the U.S. to pay more (and more and more).
|
|
|
Post by jacksrbtr on Jun 1, 2014 19:43:46 GMT -5
Hmmm. Just read about subsidization via tax credits of wind farms and solar. So far, this has cost the state of N.C. over $4 Billion and there are problems with both of them...but what really blew me away was an article I read on commercial reactors and our (USA) investments in ITER. Damn,if only we had done this one on our own but that apparently is not the plan by the globalists. Lots of bickering plus of course they want the U.S. to pay more (and more and more). ITER: imho money down a rathole.
|
|
|
Post by novie08 on Jun 1, 2014 20:05:37 GMT -5
ITER: imho money down a rathole.
That's what I was trying to say. Princeton/MIT had good plans.
|
|
|
Post by jacksrbtr on Jun 1, 2014 20:13:27 GMT -5
Hmmm. Just read about subsidization via tax credits of wind farms and solar. So far, this has cost the state of N.C. over $4 Billion and there are problems with both of them...but what really blew me away was an article I read on commercial reactors and our (USA) investments in ITER. Damn,if only we had done this one on our own but that apparently is not the plan by the globalists. Lots of bickering plus of course they want the U.S. to pay more (and more and more). A buddy in the Energy Dept was up for that ITER job when it started in the mid-90s. He would've been HQ in Paris what a sweetheart job that would've been. It being a highly political appointment he didn't get it - its not only who ya know but who ya blow.
|
|