RE:RE:RE:Took some lumps on this.dosperros wrote: A question -- anyone know if a regulalor can impose convenants? E.g. "don't divest"? Could that be a barrier to asset stripping?
A second question: are contemporary technicals valid with such high institutional ownership? It should be a gauge of psych and sentiment. I am worries it might not be, in this case. I like a MACD breakout as much as the next guy, but I am (well, was) worried here. It's sometimes death by a thousand cuts, esp. w.r.t. more compelling opportunites.
GLTA!
To your first question... not sure. I know in the Ag Industry, there was heavy consolidation and companies seemed to be merging non stop about 10 years ago.... And then add the whole abolishment of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Competition Bureau was heavily involved in that sector to ensure that one firm did not have a complete monopoly in certain geographical areas and made sure companies didn't have a complete advantage over customers. So to possibly answer your question, yes. Regulators may impose restrictions.... I am not sure about lumber industry and competition.... and not sure about United States regulations either.
To your second question, I know that T/A is always easier to analyze after the fact. I use it as a bit of guideline anyway and try to learn a little more everyday. In the case of RYAM, the share price does continue to drop. I also haven't done research to see what percentage is actually institutional ownership. I can tell you this though, I won't purchase until the share price starts turning north again and shows an uptrend. I am guessing that somewhere around $12 to $12.25 could be the floor, based on the chart.... And Fundamentally, if this company can be doing $350 - $400 million EBITDA per year, as Alpha suggests, that can't be a bad thing ....
Patience required with this play me thinks. It should eventually stabilize
Good Luck to you!
FI4