Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joan Osland Graffius who wrote (15073)	8/5/2002 11:11:07 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78652

<<BWDIK>> Actually, Joan, if more investors were are conservative as you are, the melt-up in the DOW and NAZ would have been a lot less painful for many folk. -g-

To: Joan Osland Graffius who wrote (15073)	8/6/2002 3:45:08 AM
From: White Bear	Respond to of 78652

Here are some links for NAT Joan, you've seen them before. hoovers.com hoovers.com Sahara

To: Joan Osland Graffius who wrote (15073)	8/6/2002 11:25:39 AM
From: Logain Ablar	Respond to of 78652

Hi Joan: Its been a while since I've read NAT & VLCCF's SEC filings. While the companies have many similarities a few main differences are: 1) The only NAT debt is when they issued debt to buy back shares (30M?). This is paid off at the end of the 7 year lease. VLCCF actually has much more debt incurred to acquire the tankers. So @ the end of the day when the tankers have to be sold in NAT's case the proceeds go to shareholders while the ULCCF's proceeds go to the lenders. 2) NAT lease after the 7 years is 1 yr annual renewals @ BP's option and I think BP has to give either 6 or 12 months notice. ULCCF is a 7 yr lease with a 7 year renew. I can't remember if the renew is automatic @ existing terms. I think (so I really don't remember but its in the documents) NAT / BP is on same terms but ULCCF has an increase for operating expenses with all things being equal the dividend would decrease. Probably the same terms for NAT. On the insurance at least for NAT BP insurers (has to be with Lloyds) the tankers with pretty good guarantees to NAT so the shareholders are protected for the CURRENT fair market value of the tankers in case of loss.