So, after hours yesterday, MIND announced that they had postponed the April 25 special meeting of its preferred shareholders.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mind-technology-postpones-special-meeting-201500933.html
The meeting was originally called to vote on a proposed conversion of their 9% preferred shares plus accumulated deferred dividends for 2.7 shares of common stock. There was no mention of the vote outcome but not to hard to guess that the conversion was not approved.
Personally, I voted no on the conversion for 2 reasons. First, the vote deadline was set only 4 days before they intended to give their latest quarterly earnings report on April 29 which could potentially support preferred’s in arguing that MIND has sufficient profitability and cash flow to restart the preferred dividends. Second, I just think this offer is inadequate. With the most recent and 7th quarterly preferred divi deferral, the liquidation value for the preferred shares totals $28.94 including par value at $25 and 7 deferred divi.s to date of $.5625 or total deferred divi,s to date of $3.94. At today’s MIND close of $4.26 the 2.7 shares equates to only $11.50. Sorry, that’s just not enough.
So I’m guessing MIND management will need to sweeten the deal but hey, these guys aren’t the brightest bulbs in the room so maybe they plan to do something really stupid?
Interesting that MINDP was up 10% before the announcement. I’m hoping we’ll hear how the vote turned out fairly quickly after the 4-25 voting deadline. I’m really hoping this whole matter gets settled at a higher conversion without lawsuits.
Otherwise? the name might be worth some additional $$s for a quick trade on any improvement in their offer?
Board is open.
Beer, Whiskey and Pizza Investing Club 
Not exactly a shocker that the vote was not successful. I don’t know what to do with this name. I mean part of me dreams of actually getting $25 => but the realist in me understands that MIND is not a company that is going to make it most likely. I mean, we can wait and see the quarter numbers on the 29th, but my expectations are low.
I have always viewed this as a binary play, it’s either 0 or it’s going to be really good. I used to think more than a 50% chance of really good => but after looking hard at financials last quarter, that seems optimistic. I will just hold and hope, which is not my preferred investing strategy.
LikeLike
Saw a click bait article in Yahoo Finance about Suze Orman and her problem with insurance in Florida. It states that she has an oceanfront 2,100 Sq Ft condo in Florida and her insurance quote was $28,000! She comments how climate change is causing spikes in insurance costs (she’s not wrong), but still found $28K to be outrageous. She has decided to self-insure.
Now I am sure she is well off, so that is an option => although I’d question whether that is a smart choice (IMO the smart choice is to sell your oceanfront condo). If you don’t own your property outright, that is not an option as banks require insurance to protect their stake in your home.
The article states that the average HO policy in Florida was $10.996 and is expected to go up 7% this year! California is seeing similar insurance issues. The nationwide average is $1,760 (I need to check what I pay, but I’m sure it is north of $3,000).
People flocking to Florida don’t seem to understand or be concerned about this problem. It is going to get much worse IMO. Florida is very flat, storms are intensifying and the ocean is rising => a bad combination. I recall my former boss bought a mansion in Jupiter and I thought, “he’s crazy”.
The one thing I will fight against is Florida and their residents trying to pass along their problem to the US Govt and taxpayers. Screw them => they decided to flock there to get their lower taxes and book burning policies and they bash “bailouts” all the time.
Of course this isn’t “just” a Florida issue, it is compounded there as (1) it sticks out like a thumb and (2) the concentration of risk is enormous (insurance companies risk being wiped out by a year with a couple major storms). But CA has EQ and wildfire risks (and perhaps as the Pacific Ocean warms at some point hurricane risk). Texas has hurricane risk and then Tornado and Hail Storm risk are very material in DFW. Seattle has huge EQ risk that nobody ever talks about. Then as hurricanes intensify, New York and Boston will become more at risk too.
There is no great “solution” => the main one should be economical, encourage people not to build/concentrate in high risk areas. Sadly, instead of doing that we are more likely to find ways to subsidize those who build in high risk areas.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/suze-orman-decided-drop-homeowners-170348577.html
Of course the tragic part is not the Suze Orman’s of the world => she has plenty of resources. But less wealthy people all over the world will be at increased risk of having property destroyed and that will be tragic.
LikeLike
Funny you should mention this as I just got my proposed insurance bill for my home and cabin in MN. No Hurricanes or earthquakes here but we do get some tornadoes in southern MN near my home (none at my cabin). Mostly just potential roof damage from hail and the far less frequent potential for fire and inside water problems from broken pipes. Really zero risk of flood.
So, anyway got my proposal for the new year and my rate went up over 32% YOY. This seems really excessive so I’m out getting some competing quotes.
I think we’ve talked about this before but am I somehow subsidizing the bone heads in FLA with my very low risk Minnesota insurance??
That would be very irritating. Like you I think anyone buying or building a property on the Florida coasts or just inland should bear the full burden for their stupidity. Really, really irritates me when the Fed.s bail these idiots out disaster after disaster after disaster, primarily to get votes. I hate that my tax $$s are being used to encourage this kind of development.
LikeLike
Jeff – there is very little chance you’re subsidizing any other states. Insurance is regulated (rates and forms) at the state level and the people in charge tend to have a political bent. They know their state policyholders and voters would be upset if their was some load in the MN rates for non-MN events.
Also, national HO insurers writing business in MN have to compete with regional (like Autoowners) or state companies (like MN Farm Bureau) and those guys are 100% not building anything in for Florida or California.
LikeLike
I think I remember that we had this conversation before. Thanks Marshall, I feel better. FYI the company who just raised my rates by 32% was Auto Owners.
Looking at USAA, so far just a tad lower than AO but, based on previous experience, I do think USAA is easier and less critical with claims.
LikeLike
USAA is a great company with a great reputation. I do like Auto Owners too, I actually once went to their headquarters in Lansing MI for a reinsurance audit.
LikeLike
Actually recovered a fair amount from a crash open. Still I ended down about 33 bps.
LikeLike
I was down 50 bps.
LikeLike