Mathstar shareholders to vote on liquidation

Mathstar has its annual meeting on July 10th, after the original date was delayed. In the proxy statement Mathstar recommended that shareholders vote against a proposal (proposal #3 in the proxy) by shareholder Joe Gensor to liquidate the firm. I was wondering why Mathstar was suggesting a vote against liquidation and it seems that they are confident that they could pull off a merger with another firm or purchase assets and start up the firm again. In their June 12th, 2009, filing recommending shareholders vote against the takeover attempt by Tiberius, they mention the following:

The Board is considering a potential merger with a privately-held company that meets many of the criteria the Board set forth earlier regarding potential strategic transactions. The privately-held company could productively use additional cash for expansion.

The Company's Board is also considering a restart of the Company's operations based upon an opportunity to acquire and commercialize new technology closely related to the core video applications previously developed by the Company. This approach could potentially be less dilutive to the Company's current stockholders while preserving and using the Company's NOLs.


I think the second choice is terrible for shareholders. We have already seen how the company burned through millions over the years and produced no viable product. Trying to re-start with new technology acquisitions is likely to fail again, especialy given how Mathstar doesn't have much cash.


The first option is interesting, especially given how Mathstar has $140 million of NOLs. If the NOLs can be utilized, by buying out a profitable firm, it has the potential to unlock massive shareholder value. Unfortunately, I don't think this is a viable strategy for Mathstar. The problem is that the company is too small. It only has around $12 million to use in acquisitions. Even if you somehow get some additional financing (either through debt, bank loan, or issuing a ton of shares) it will barely be enough to purchase a decent company. Mathstar has alluded to the difficulties in their filing, pointing out the difficulty of maintaining majority ownership of any purchased entity, in order to preserve the NOLs. I mentioned Clarus a few days ago but that has $80m in cash, which is enough to purchase a sizeable company.

So, I think Mathstar will likely fail to acquire any decent company. Even if it were to acquire one, given the small amount of cash available, it can easily burn through that and end up bankrupt. Therefore, I think Mathstar should liquidate the firm. I voted FOR on the thir proxy choice, favouring liquidation of the firm. Given how some of the activist investors are in favour of liquidation, it remains to be seen what the result will be.

Comments

  1. Daniel M. RyanJuly 5, 2009 at 3:23 AM

    Almost $1.50 in net cash per share is a good incentive to liquidate, given the current price of the stock. No wonder Tiberius Capital II's tender offer is being extended.

    This is the first time I've seen a stock selling for well below is net cash per share. Thanks for sharing it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. SivaramJuly 5, 2009 at 8:51 PM

    If you are interested in these types of situations, do check out the following blogs (especially Greenbackd):

    Greenbackd
    ValueHuntr
    Cheap Stocks
    ShadowStock

    Credit for this idea should go to Greenbackd.

    Anyway, be careful wtih these situations. Just because it is trading below cash doesn't mean that management won't do something stupid and destroy shareholder wealth. I believe the risk here is low because the company has terminated operations and there are only two employees, but, in general, many companies with similar metrics may be burning through cash and management may not curb their cash burn.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Daniel M. RyanJuly 5, 2009 at 10:24 PM

    Thanks for the links; I've added the ones I don't already have to my blogroll.

    As for me going in myself, I'm not in a position to right now. Still, your words are wise. I've watched mining exploration stocks off and on, and have not been fooled by any below-net-cash companies in that sector. To be frank, any exploration company that sat on its hoard would attract the ire of shareholders wanting a little good news this exploration season.

    But then again, exploration-juniors is one of the few sectors where some dilution is considered, on balance, a good thing. "Better to have 50% of something" is the unwritten operating rule.   

    ReplyDelete
  4. SivaramJuly 5, 2009 at 11:00 PM

    It's interesting that you brought up the junior mining companies because a similar thing can probably be said of those biotech and pharmaceutical research companies. Some commentators at sites like Greenbackd invest in those companies but I am very wary of them. Similar to the mining companies, I think shareholders expect pharmaceuticals/biotechs/etc to spend their cash hoard trying to research and develop a product. One should be careful with them, like the mining firms, if they look at cash on the balance sheet.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Daniel M. RyanJuly 7, 2009 at 12:09 AM

    Stock Pursuit has picked up on MATH.
    http://www.stockpursuit.com/2009/07/net-cash-stock-math-special-situation.html

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Thoughts on the stock market - March 2020

Image
Right now, DJIA has a P/E of 16.8 and forwand P/E of 15.1, whereas S&P 500 is at 20.1 with forward P/E of 15.8. Source: WSJ market Data If you ignore interest rates and inflation expectations--both of these influence valuations but depends on your macro call-- the market is not cheap. Long-term P/E is around 15. Trailing P/E is around 20% (Dow) to 40% (S&P500) higher than average. Forward P/E is in line with long term average but that assumes a strong V recovery. Consensus forecast is for profits to drop 1.2% in 2020. In 2008, it dropped 25.4% so current forecast is a very mild recession. Covid-19 coronavirus is not going to last more than a few months but these forecasts are still too rosy in my opinion. So I wouldn't rely on forward P/E. The richly valued (mostly tech or high quality) have not fallen much but the distressed ones have. So if you want to outperform in the long run, I think one’s choice right now is to: • Wait for market to fall another, say
✖ READ MORE >>>

Warren Buffett's Evolution and his Three Investment Styles

Image
A Young Warren Buffett In a comment to one of my posts , Mark Carter, who incidentally appears to have a  good blog worth checking out , asked: "Buffett Prime is 1970's to early 1990's" Could you elaborate? I have vaguely indicated how I view Warren Buffett in the past, but I thought I would detail my view of his investing behaviour. This is more of an opinion piece and many others would disagree with me (if you do, I'm curious to hear your thoughts). I don't follow Warren Buffett as closely as many value investors so I may get some facts wrong. My view is that Warren Buffett went through three different phases, with each consisting of different investment techniques. The overall investment theory remained the same—what people call value investing—but his execution, tactics, and strategy differs across the three phases. Some people may break up his career into additional periods but my feeling is that the three I will describe essentially capt
✖ READ MORE >>>

Hugh Hendry discussion at the Alternative Investment Conference

Thanks to Value Investing World for bringing this Hugh Hendry interview to my attention. I may not agree with all the things—short-term orientation of hedge funds is actually worse IMO; the sharp pencil effect doesn't always work—but Hendry is a true contrarian and worth listening. Like Marc Faber or Jim Rogers, you also can't take everything Hugh Hendry says seriously. I had always felt Hugh Hendry was firmly in the deflation camp but I get the feeling that he is now opening up to high-inflation possibilities. Otherwise, his stance appears to be similar to past opinions.
✖ READ MORE >>>