Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Hot Stocks Free for All ! » FRPT 50M$ contract with US Army (Page 71)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 72 pages: 1  2  3  ...  68  69  70  71  72   
Author Topic: FRPT 50M$ contract with US Army
Jo4321
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jo4321     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
MARCORSYSCOM also advised Force Protection that its Cheetah vehicle proposal is in the competitive range for continued development and testing and will be further evaluated with modifications as part of the ongoing MRAP II competition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now what exactly does that mean then? My lover Melissa says they're taking orders from Ceradyne/Oshkosh(whom the military REJECTED from other MRAP competitions) for MRAP II. Does this mean the Cheetah is barely hanging on in the competition and DoD hasn't ordered any test vehicles from FRPT yet?

Well, I thought it meant that they didn't need to "order" a Cheetah for testing because they already have already tested it. And will continue to test it with modifications with the vehicles from the other vendors.

But if that is the case, they sure could have worded it more clearly.

Who knows anymore.

Jo

--------------------
"Great Day for Up!"....Dr. Seuss

Posts: 3387 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jo4321
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jo4321     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
UPDATE 1-Force Protection shares slump on weak MRAP order
Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:59pm EST
(Adds analyst comments, details, share movement)

BANGALORE, Dec 19 (Reuters) - Shares of Force Protection Inc (FRPT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) fell 22 percent after the maker of ballistic and mine-protected vehicles received only a small share of the $2.6 billion orders given by the U.S. Pentagon under the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle program.

The orders indicated that Force Protection's participation in further MRAP orders may be limited, Dougherty & Co analyst Joe Maxa wrote in a research note.

MRAPs are a family of trucks produced by domestic and overseas manufacturers that have a "V"-shaped hull and armor plating aimed at protecting troops in Iraq from mines and roadside bombs.

Maxa cut his rating to "neutral" and suspended the price target on the stock, saying there was uncertainty relating to orders for Force Protection's much-smaller Cheetah armored vehicle.

Cheetah is slated to compete with the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, popularly known as Humvee.

The brokerage expects the company to receive orders for 600 Cheetah vehicles in 2008, lower than Force Protection's estimate of 2,000 vehicles, it said.

On Tuesday, Force Protection received an order of about $379 million for 358 mine resistant vehicles, trailing significantly behind competitors BAE Systems Plc (BAES.L: Quote, Profile, Research) and Navistar International Corp (NAVZ.PK: Quote, Profile, Research).

Of the 3,126 vehicles ordered by the Marine Corps, Navistar's International Military and Government LLC unit received the biggest share, worth nearly $1.2 billion to supply 1,500 vehicles.

BAE Systems Land & Armaments unit won a $645 million contract to provide 600 MRAPs, while another BAE unit, Armor Holdings, won a $458 million contract to build 668 MRAPs.

On Wednesday, Force Protection said it also received approval to supply about 300 Cougar and Buffalo vehicles to the United Kingdom and Italy, valued at about $150 million.

Force Protection shares, which touched a year-low of $3.89 in intraday trading, were down $1.30 at $4.61 in afternoon trade on the Nasdaq.

They had fallen 66 percent so far this year after the U.S. government scaled back purchases of heavy mine-resistant trucks, citing improving security situation in Iraq. (Reporting by Anant Vijay Kala in Bangalore; Editing by Deepak Kannan)


© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

--------------------
"Great Day for Up!"....Dr. Seuss

Posts: 3387 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cspaude
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for cspaude     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Post ripped from rebelgirl at ihub:

TheSteet.com Versus Force Protection Inc

One of the strangest match-ups in history has to be TheStreet.com versus Force Protection Incorporated. Force Protection is a military manufacturer that has grown very quickly from a 10.3 million a year stock on the OTC exchange in 2004 to a company that had revenue of over $200 million last quarter.

Force Protection manufactures military vehicles designed to protect the occupants from mine and IED explosions. These vehicles are typically called Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. Force Protection’s MRAP vehicles are the Gold Standard vehicle in Iraq and Afghanistan with a record of 3 deaths in 3000 mine and IED attacks. One of the soldiers killed was reportedly not wearing a seat belt and likely would have survived had the belt been worn. This is a very impressive record which no other manufacturer of MRAP vehicles can match.

Force Protection’s new MRAP vehicle is called the Cheetah. The Cheetah is a smaller and more maneuverable MRAP vehicle that is faster and has more range than does an up-armored Humvee. It is able to survive large IED and mine attacks that would destroy up-armored Humvees. Force Protection has been building a new factory for the Cheetah vehicles and expects to begin production of Cheetahs early in 2008. Currently, the military is testing the Cheetah which is the only small MRAP vehicle being tested.

Although Force Protection has not yet gotten an order for Cheetah vehicles, Force Protection believes that they will sell many of them. They expect to begin getting orders after the vehicle has undergone sufficient testing to prove its capability. The British military has also tested the Cheetah and is reported to be interested in the vehicle as are several other countries.

Force Protection currently has $72 million in cash as of the end of Q3 and has a $50 million line of credit that is currently unused. Force Protection’s market cap is $682 million and it has a PE of 16.6. The average analyst estimate is that Force Protection makes $1.45 in 2008 with revenue of $1.36 billion dollars. The forward PE is less than 7.

Although Force Protection provides a lifesaving vehicle to the military, it is still very small company. The small size, and fast growth have made it a favorite stock of both small retail investors and institutions who expect the fast growth to translate into fast growth of the stock but instead, Force Protection’s price is close to a 52 week low.

Even though Force Protection’s growth makes it seem an attractive buy to many, to those at TheStreet.com based on the coverage, it must be a “Most Hated” stock. The status of being a “Most Hated” Stock gives Force Protection exceptional coverage from TheStreet.com – unfortunately for Force Protection shareholders, the coverage is all bad! Looking at the headlines, at TheStreet.com, Force Protection gets more coverage than many large companies like Microsoft, Exxon, Intel, Cisco, Google, and just about any other large company that can be named.

So what is it about Force Protection that makes it a “Most Hated” stock at TheStreet.com? One might wonder whether they get exceptionally bad coverage anywhere else? The only other mainstream news organization that regularly covers Force Protection is Bloomberg. In the occasional mention on Bloomberg, it is clear that the view from Bloomberg is much different than it is from TheStreet.com.

The titles of Force Protection articles for the six weeks from TheStreet.com are illustrative:

Battle Wounds Worsen for Force Protection
Force Protection steps on a land mine
Cutback Report Shells Force Protection
Force Protection Fan Leaves Bull Herd
CEO's Outside Ties Choke Force Protection
Force Protection Hits More Bumps
Force Protection in Reverse
Navistar Shines in Mine-Resistant Vehicle Contracts
Downgrade Dents Force Protection
Force Protection's Wild Ride
Force Protection's New Battle

The coverage from TheStreet.com is not only negative but typically inaccurate and tends to use sources such as unknown web ****gers, analysts that don’t cover the stock, unnamed employees from competitors and etc. It is not necessary to read very far in any of the articles from TheStreet.com to find a mistake. In the latest article, the first paragraph has a factual error. The article indicates that Force Protection announced plans to secure financing for its brand new Cheetah vehicle. But this never occurred and is the latest example of major errors in the coverage by TheStreet.com.

One question that might be asked is how does TheStreet.com cover competitors of Force Protection? This question is interesting because the coverage of competitors and potential competitors of Force Protection get very favorable mention. The large competitors of Force Protection such as BAE and Navistar get very positive coverage with respect to MRAP and so has the smallest competitor, a company called, “Protected Vehicles Inc”. Despite the positive coverage from TheStreet.com, Protected Vehicles is going out of business.

Any balanced coverage of Force Protection will find that the company does have issues. Force Protection does not communicate very well with analysts and shareholders and needs to communicate better. Force Protection is a small manufacturer of MRAP vehicles with large competitors. They are dependant to a large extent on additional government contracts. The military is rapidly purchasing thousands of MRAP vehicles and will have completed the major part of the purchases probably in 2008. Force Protection’s future is largely dependant on contracts for its new vehicle the Cheetah. The Cheetah is a potential replacement for the up-armored Humvee.

Without Cheetah contracts, and if the military completes most purchases of MRAP vehicles, then Force Protection’s revenue would be mainly dependant on service revenue which might be $200 to $400 million a year with new manufacturing revenue perhaps on the order of $200 to $300 million a year. The military will likely continue to purchasing Cougars and Buffalos from Force Protection for many years but probably in much smaller numbers after 2008. But the service revenue is high margin revenue and therefore, Force Protection could end up with profits in 2009 only slightly less than in 2008.

Force Protection uses subcontractors to help them manufacture their vehicles. Perhaps as much as 50% of the labor for manufacturing Cougars is done by other companies in other locations. If the MRAP program were drastically ramped down, then Force Protection will not need other contractors and can build the entire vehicle in-house increasing their margins. Without a Cheetah contract, Force Protection is a much different company but still profitable with more revenue than they had in 2006. If Force Protection does get large Cheetah orders, then that would potentially add $400 million in 2008, and in 2009, the revenue would largely make up for the decline in Cougar orders.

One of the hallmarks of Force Protection is that they take few chances. Force Protection has ramped up production of vehicles in the past only when they know that they have sufficient contracts or will get sufficient contracts to use the new production equipment. Therefore, it was a surprise that Force Protection began building a new factory for the Cheetah even before they had orders.

But perhaps Force Protection is not taking much of a chance. Members of the military have indicated several times that current MRAP vehicles are too large for many of the operations that the military must undertake. Both the Marines and Army have indicated that they would like a smaller MRAP vehicle for some operations and a vehicle like Force Protection’s Cheetah is what many have said that they need. Which makes one wonder whether or not Force Protection has not already been told that they will get orders for the Cheetah after it finishes military testing? Otherwise, Force Protection is taking a huge risk that is uncharacteristic of them.

In the “war” between TheStreet.com and Force Protection, the war is fought on two different battlefields. TheStreet.com publishes their anti-Force Protection articles for their own reasons – which might have something to do with the large short interest in Force Protection stock. Force Protection is on the SHO list indicating that is has been illegally shorted or more shares were shorted than there were shares available to be borrowed. Many believe that TheStreet.com publishes articles with a “slant” that is designed to help hedge funds friendly to TheStreet.com or to Mr. Cramer. The inaccurate and extreme negative nature of the coverage reinforces this belief. Force Protection fights their battle on the factory floor where they are manufacturing as many vehicles as they can and are ramping up quickly. They wage it by designing a vehicle that can survive explosions from IED and mines that weighed hundreds of pounds.

It is without doubt that all the negative coverage by TheStreet.com of Force Protection has contributed to pushing down the price of Force Protection stock. The question is whether the positive news from the factory floor (Force Protection is producing MRAP vehicles ahead of schedule and they are expecting large new orders for more vehicles in the next few days) will reverse the trend and once more make Force Protection shares a favorite of shareholders.

Posts: 205 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jo4321
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jo4321     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I just sold off my the last of my earliest shares that I got for $2.19 at $4.55. YEEHAW, a double!

I sold off 300 remaining shares in my dh's IRA for $4.63

There goes my impeccable bad timing again. FRPT now over $5.00.
Pentagon sees rising mine-resistant truck needs
Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:05pm EST
By Kristin Roberts

WASHINGTON, Dec 19 (Reuters) - U.S. commanders in Afghanistan have asked for more mine-resistant trucks, which could boost the number of vehicles the Pentagon will purchase above 15,374, the Defense Department said on Wednesday.

The Pentagon has about 12,000 so-called Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles under contract, including Tuesday's $2.6 billion order.

The department's total requirement remains 15,374 despite a Marine Corps decision to reduce the number it purchases, said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell.

The Army is reevaluating its need for MRAPs too, given both the improved security situation in Iraq and the planned growth in the size of that branch of the U.S. military.

Even if the Army decides to trim its purchases, Morrell said the total Defense Department requirement for MRAPs could still climb.

"We do not believe that the joint requirement, even if those (Army) needs are adjusted, would have to be adjusted downward. If anything, at this point, the thinking is the joint requirement may increase."

"I can tell you, just this week, for example, that commanders in Afghanistan are of the mind that perhaps they would like more in Afghanistan than they originally requested," he said.

Commanders in that war zone originally asked for about 500 MRAPs and now want about 600, Morrell said. The request is being evaluated by the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.

MRAPs are designed to protect U.S. soldiers from roadside bombs, small arms fire and other explosive threats. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made the vehicles the top acquisition priority of the Pentagon earlier this year in a bid to reduce U.S. military casualties in Iraq.

The vehicles, however, are not as easily maneuvered as other armored trucks, making them less useful in rough and hilly terrain, such as that found in Afghanistan.

"Despite whatever limitations there might be on these vehicles, they are proving to be extraordinarily valuable, life saving and the commanders in Afghanistan seem to want more of them," Morrell said.

The Pentagon also said on Wednesday it would meet its goal of having 1,500 MRAPs in Central Command's area of operations, which covers Iraq and Afghanistan, by the end-2007.

Morrell said about 1,525 would be in that area by Thursday.

MRAP contractors include:

-- Navistar International Corp's (NAVZ.PK: Quote, Profile, Research) International Military and Government LLC;

-- Force Protection Inc (FRPT.O: Quote, Profile, Research), which is partnered with General Dynamics Corp.'s (GD.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Land Systems business arm;

-- a General Dynamics Canadian unit;

-- BAE Systems Plc (BAES.L: Quote, Profile, Research);

-- Oshkosh Truck Corp (OSK.N: Quote, Profile, Research);

-- closely held Protected Vehicles Inc of North Charleston, South Carolina. (Editing by Richard Chang)


© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

--------------------
"Great Day for Up!"....Dr. Seuss

Posts: 3387 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cspaude
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for cspaude     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This article from defenseindustrydaily, with journalistic integrity unlike thestreet.com, clarifies some of the MRAP-II questions:
quote:
Dec 18/07: A $377.8 million firm fixed priced delivery order (M67854-07-D-5031, #007) for 178 Cougar 4×4 MRAP CAT-I vehicles and 180 Cougar 6×6 MRAP CAT-II vehicles, which include engineer change proposals to improve the vehicles and Integrated Logistic Support. The sustainment ILS will consist of Authorized Stockage List CAT-I and CAT-II, Prescribed Load Listing CAT-I and CAT-II, Deprocessing, and Basic Issue Items. Work will be performed in Ladson, SC, and is expected to be complete by July 2008. This contract was competitively procured.

The net result of this contract, however, is further competitive slippage, as Force Protection drops to 3rd place in total MRAP orders behind Navistar (37.6%) and BAE Systems (30.1%). To date, the USA has ordered a total of 3,053 Force Protection MRAP CAT-I/II vehicles (1,506 Cougar 4×4s, and 1,547 Cougar 6×6s), or 25.7% of total orders. That probably isn't what investors wanted to hear, so Force Protection's release added a pair of interesting tidbits:

"MARCORSYSCOM also advised Force Protection that its Cheetah vehicle proposal is in the competitive range for continued development and testing and will be further evaluated with modifications as part of the ongoing MRAP II competition…. We are in the process of finalizing a contract for the Buffalo route clearance vehicles to be part of the Ground Standoff Mine Detection System (GSTAMIDS) program of record."

That first item might be important, as Force Protection submitted a modified Cougar but did not receive a contract for additional vehicles under the MRAP-II competition, which aims to field vehicles that can survive the more advanced EFP land mines in theater. Rivals BAE Systems, and the i3/Ceradyne/Oshkosh team's Bull vehicle, did. The follow-on question is whether a deployable vehicle like the Cheetah, with an empty weight of only 14,000 pounds vs. the Cougar 4×4s 31,000 pounds, can be fitted to resist the 30 and 50 pound land mines being detonated at Aberdeen – in addition to EFPs, which are more akin to cannon shells being fired into a vehicle.

I pray that the Cheetah impresses.
Posts: 205 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cspaude
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for cspaude     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rising from the ashes........

McGilton stepping down as CEO. This just may be posturing for a buyout.

Posts: 205 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jo4321
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jo4321     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just want it to be over!

[Roll Eyes]

--------------------
"Great Day for Up!"....Dr. Seuss

Posts: 3387 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jo4321
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jo4321     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When will it end?

quote:
Force Protection Inc sets a new 52-week low
12:57 p.m. 01/09/2008 Provided By Wall Street

Force Protection Inc crossed below its 52-week low of $3.89 on 12:57 PM ET on January 09, 2008.



--------------------
"Great Day for Up!"....Dr. Seuss

Posts: 3387 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jo4321
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jo4321     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Three Canadian soldiers survive IED blast
Brian Hutchinson, National Post Published: Tuesday, February 05, 2008

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=287462


PANJWAII DISTRICT, Afghanistan -- There was no mistaking the loud blast Tuesday afternoon just outside Zangabad village, a known Taliban haunt in Kandahar. It was another improvised explosive device.

No one was killed this time, but it was the worst way possible for three Canadians soldiers from an explosives ordnance unit to find the IED. They hit the device while moving towards Zangabad in their Cougar, a large armoured bomb-hunting vehicle.

The explosives were apparently tucked underneath a culvert, just 400 metres or so from an Afghan National Police substation.

The Cougar was tossed sideways and the culvert partially destroyed. No one was seriously hurt. Two of the soldiers received minor injuries but all three were able to walk away from the incident. They were quickly taken by Canadian medics to a forward operating base in Panjwaii district.

"The vehicle did its job," said spokeswoman Capt. Josee Bilodeau.

The trio was leading an advance team into Zangabad. Behind it, forming a line almost four kilometres long was a large convoy nearing the end of a two-day re-supply operation here. Comprising dozens of armoured vehicles and transport trucks, the convoy was slowly moving from one police substation to another, dropping off equipment and food and picking up Canadian soldiers.

Despite taking precautions -- and having the benefit of aerial cover, sophisticated mine-detection paraphernalia, and Leopard II tanks -- those in front of the operation failed to notice the hidden IED. The explosion occurred at 1242 local time.

Soldiers waiting further down the line recognized the sound immediately.

"I thought we'd cleared that road," said one, from inside his light-armoured vehicle.

"I guess not," replied his crew mate.

The IED strike wasn't the only incident during their operation. On Monday afternoon, the same re-supply convoy wheeled into Mushan, another Taliban stronghold just a few kilometres west of Zangabad. Troops had been warned that insurgents are active there.

Maj. Trevor Gosselin, the tank officer commanding C-Squadron, Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians), told soldiers prior to departure Monday that "a lot is going to happen in the next 48 hours."

"Nobody will [mess] with this much armoured firepower and get away with it," he added.

After nightfall, with most of the Canadians already in their sleeping bags, word came that insurgents had been spotted nearby, digging on a local road. A key travel route, the road connects Mushan to Zangabad and other villages along the south bank of the Arghandab River. It has frequently been used by Canadian military convoys but is now considered very dangerous.

An airplane was soon heard overhead. Then came a flash and two loud explosions. This was not the result of another IED blast: rather, a pair of bombs had smashed onto the road. They were dropped by an American jet fighter. Two more bombs hit within the next 10 minutes.

No confirmed reports of insurgent casualties were available.

Despite everything, the re-supply effort concluded Tuesday afternoon, on schedule and without further trouble

--------------------
"Great Day for Up!"....Dr. Seuss

Posts: 3387 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stefan
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Stefan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
$123 in new MRAP contracts to the UK and Italy.

Force Protection Industries, Inc., Ladson, S.C., is being awarded a not to exceed $115,167,467 contract modification under previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (M67854-06-C-5162) to acquire 174 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles and associated test sets, spares and support services. This action consummates a requirement under a Foreign Military Sales order with the United Kingdom, Ministry of Defense. Work will be performed in Ladson, S.C., and work is expected to be completed Jul. 2009. Funds for this action are provided by the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense and do not expire. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Va., is the contracting activity.

Force Protection Industries, Inc., Ladson, S.C., is being awarded a not to exceed $8,353,715 modification under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-C-5039) to acquire 10 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles and associated support services and parts for the Italian Ministry of Defense under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Ladson, S.C., and work is expected to be completed Jun. 2009. Funds for this action are provided by the Italian Ministry of Defense and do not expire. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Va., is the contracting activity.

Posts: 83 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
minkybodl
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for minkybodl     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/automobiles/24MRAP.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref= slogin

2 page article on MRAP's, talks about Force Protection and Navistar.

Posts: 81 | From: venice, fl | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jo4321
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jo4321     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
UPGRADE to BUY from Columbine Capital.

https://research2.fidelity.com/fidelity/research/reports/pdf/getReport.asp?docke y=127-FRPT&user_sessionid=B50889CC08DA9B66

You'll have to have a Fidelity Account to access the link, but here's an excerpt:

Force Protection Inc BUY
NASDAQ: FRPT, $4.70 Upgraded 2/23/08
United States
Columbine Capital’s Investment Conclusion
The Columbine research team projects that Force will outperform the market over the next 6 to 12 months. The team has ranked it Favorable and recommends that investors buy it and hold until we recommend a sell.

Future Strong Performance
Columbine evaluated Force by comparing the company to its peers on a series of individual analytical tools that represent proven measures of a firm’s business value, its long-term growth characteristics, and the behavior of
its investors. These criteria are the building blocks we use to construct our decisions. The particular measures reported below are some of those that Columbine’s historical studies show to have the greatest impact on this company’s future market performance. We present
the individual measures in order of their significance to our recommendation. The conclusions from each of the criteria are synthesized into an overall ranking of
Force’s return potential relative to the rest of the market according to an analytic framework that is specific to this economic sector. This disciplined, consistent evaluation process has a proven track record of investment success.

Book Value is Very Attractive
Companies with high book values and low stock prices can be considered as cushioned against severe declines by their intrinsic liquidation value, and are favored in this sector. We compare the accounting value of a company to its current stock price in the form of a ratio.
Force’s ratio of price to book value is 1.31, much better than the median company.

Estimate Revisions are Attractive
In this sector companies that are the subject of
increasingly improving earnings forecasts tend to find favor with investors. We evaluate recent changes in Wall Street analysts’ estimates of a company’s future earnings on three different metrics. Over the past sixty
days the changes in the estimates of Force’s future EPS have been slightly better than the median company.

Cash Flow is Very Attractive
Positive cash flow gives a company funds for internal expansion, acquisitions, dividend payments, etc. Our evaluation looks at a company’s cash flow over the past
four quarters. Stocks favored by this measure have the highest cash flow available for their price. Force, with a price-to-cash flow ratio of 6.7 is much better than the median company.

Recent Earnings were Neutral
Exceeding Wall Street’s earnings expectations (a
positive “surprise”) suggests that prospects for the company may be even better than expected. Falling short of the expectation (a negative “disappointment”) is often punished by investors. Force’s EPS announcement for the latest quarter is too old to be
meaningfully compared with the consensus expectation.

Forecast Earnings Yield is Very Attractive
The expected return (in earnings per share) for the purchase price of a company’s stock is one of the most basic measures of a firm’s intrinsic value. By comparing the consensus earnings estimates from Wall Street’s
analysts with the current stock price we can focus our evaluation on the firm’s potential earning power. This is the most important valuation measure in this sector. At
its current price of $4.70, we consider Force greatlyunder-valued.

--------------------
"Great Day for Up!"....Dr. Seuss

Posts: 3387 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jo4321
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jo4321     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DRS Technologies and Force Protection Team to Compete for Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Program

PARSIPPANY, N.J. & LADSON, S.C., Feb 25, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- DRS Sustainment Systems Inc., a business unit of DRS Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: DRS), and Force Protection, Inc. (NASDAQ: FRPT) announced today they will team to compete for the U.S. Department of Defense's Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) Program.

JLTV is the U.S. military's next-generation family of tactical wheeled vehicles and trailers, designed to be lightweight and highly-survivable with increased mobility and payload, using technology that is both innovative and practical.

DRS Sustainment Systems will serve as prime contractor for the team, providing overall program management and system integration, drawing upon decades of experience in developing and producing subsystems and integrated solutions in ground mobility for the U.S. military. Force Protection will design and produce the JLTV base vehicle, including the supplemental armor package, leveraging the proven designs of its Cougar, Buffalo and Cheetah vehicles

Posts: 3387 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Happy Valley
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Happy Valley     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Force Protection Announces Delay in 2007 Form 10-K and Required Restatement of Form 10-Q for the Period Ended September 30, 2007
Friday February 29, 4:05 pm ET


LADSON, S.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Force Protection, Inc. (NASDAQ:FRPT - News) today announced that it will delay the filing of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. The Company intends to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 with the SEC promptly upon the completion of the audit of the consolidated financial statements for the year ended 2007.
ADVERTISEMENT


Force Protection today also announced that the Company’s Audit Committee concluded that the Company will restate its previously reported interim financial statements for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2007. The Company will file a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission with regard to this restatement decision.

The Company reached the conclusion to restate based upon the recommendation of management and the concurrence of the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors. The Company also discussed the matters related to the restatement with Elliott Davis, LLC, the Company’s current independent registered public accounting firm. Therefore, the previously issued financial statements of the Company for the third quarter of 2007 filed on a Form 10-Q on November 13, 2007 should no longer be relied upon. Management discovered significant accounting errors during its year end review, including errors specifically related to the recording of accounts payable related to inventory purchased from a sub-contractor as a result of a contract termination.

The Company continues to evaluate the impact of the matters described above on its internal control over financial reporting and the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures. Management noted it had previously identified and described material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filing dated November 13, 2007. As a result of these previously identified material weaknesses and other deficiencies identified during the review of financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2007, management has concluded internal controls over financial report were not effective as of December 31, 2007. Additionally, management does not believe that the material weaknesses identified as of December 31, 2007 will be remediated by March 31, 2008 and anticipates that material weaknesses will be identified in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2008. Therefore, management expects that internal control over financial reporting is likely to be ineffective as of March 31, 2008.

About Force Protection, Inc.

Force Protection, Inc. is a leading American designer, developer and manufacturer of life saving survivability equipment, predominantly ballistic- and blast-protected wheeled vehicles currently deployed by the U.S. military and its allies to support armed forces and security personnel in conflict zones. The Company’s specialty vehicles, the Cougar and the Buffalo, and the Cheetah, are designed specifically for reconnaissance, forward command and control, and urban operations and to protect their occupants from landmines, hostile fire, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs, commonly referred to as roadside bombs). The Company is one of the original developers and primary providers of vehicles for the U.S. military’s Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, or MRAP, vehicle program.

For more information on Force Protection and its vehicles, visit www.forceprotection.net.

Safe Harbor Language

This press release contains forward-looking statements, including statements regarding the estimated timing for the filing of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 and the restatement of our financial statements set forth in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007; our expectation with regard to management’s evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, including management’s inability to remediate weaknesses identified in this notice; the anticipated impact of certain accounting errors and related matters on our results of operations; the scope and number of material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting and their potential impact on the restatement process and estimated 2007 reviews.

Statements that are not historical facts, including statements about our beliefs and expectations, are forward-looking statements. These statements are based on beliefs and assumptions by Force Protection’s management, and on information currently available to management. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and we undertake no obligation to update any of them publicly in light of new information or future events. A number of important factors could cause actual result to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. Examples of these factors include, but are not limited to, the timing and nature of the final resolution of the accounting issues discussed in this notice and the attached explanation; our ability to identify and remedy internal control weaknesses and deficiencies; our ability to effectively manage the risks in our business; the other factors discussed in this notice and the attached explanation; the reaction of the marketplace to the foregoing; and any further errors in our accounting that we may find which could cause us to restate our financial statements for additional periods.


Contact:
Force Protection, Inc.
Company Contact:
Tommy Pruitt
Government Communications & Public Relations Director
843-574-3866
or
Investor Relations Contact:
ICR, Inc.
James Palczynski
Principal and Director
203-682-8229

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Force Protection, Inc.

Posts: 2383 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cspaude
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for cspaude     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Somebody wake me up in a few years when it's all over.
Posts: 205 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jo4321
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jo4321     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Somebody wake me up in a few years when it's all over.
Ditto.

There's no use in worrying about this one anymore. I've lost so much in it, I guess may as well just wait for however it ends: Either a buy-out at some ridiculously low price or bankruptcy.

How could something so right be so wrong?

--------------------
"Great Day for Up!"....Dr. Seuss

Posts: 3387 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TimW
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TimW     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anti-war idiots.

Waaaaa gas is $3 a barrel.

Waaaaa we dont want a war to secure oil.

Idiots.

--------------------
Buy high, sell higher.

Posts: 869 | From: Az | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stupid
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Stupid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
$3 a barrel is cheap.It is $3.39/gal here in Florida,lower than other higher taxed states like Illinois.

--------------------
DDDDD

Posts: 397 | From: Florida | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
classified
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for classified     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=77505&Itemid=9

STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich.- Land Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), has received $44 million in two work orders from Force Protection Inc. for contractor logistics and spare parts for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle program.


Force Protection (Nasdaq: FRPT) and General Dynamics have a partnership to share in the production and program management of the MRAP contract.


The contractor logistics support and spare parts are for maintaining the operational readiness rates of MRAP vehicles deployed with the U.S. armed forces overseas. MRAP spare parts will be ordered by field service technicians employed by General Dynamics Customer Service and Support Company operating from Shelby Township, Mich.


About Force Protection

Force Protection Inc. is a leading American designer, developer and manufacturer of life saving survivability equipment, predominantly ballistic-and blast-protected wheeled vehicles currently deployed by the U.S. military and its allies to support armed forces and security personnel in conflict zones. The Company’s specialty vehicles, the Cougar and the Buffalo, and the Cheetah, are designed specifically for reconnaissance, forward command and control, and urban operations and to protect their occupants from landmines, hostile fire, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs, commonly referred to as roadside bombs). The Company is one of the original developers and primary providers of vehicles for the U.S. military’s Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, or MRAP, vehicle program.


Not sure if this is good or bad...

Posts: 1075 | From: weeeeeeee | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BooDog
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for BooDog     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalysis/aerospace-defense/10405955.html?cm_ ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

Force Protection Shakes Up Top Ranks03/03/08 - 06:12 PM EST
FRPT
Melissa Davis


OKLAHOMA CITY -- Now, Force Protection (FRPT - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr) has taken aim at its own leaders.

The company said Monday that it has installed a permanent CEO, while announcing the departure of both its finance and operating chiefs. The shakeup came just hours after the company revealed that its reported profit growth for 2007 had been an illusion.

Force Protection has officially chosen Michael Moody as its turnaround CEO. Moody has been serving as CEO on an interim basis since early this year, when the company ousted Gordon McGilton following a string of disappointments.

CFO Michael Durski followed McGilton out the door on Friday, when the company announced a looming restatement of its 2007 financial reports. COO Raymond Pollard departed Monday, Force Protection said.

Frank Scheuerell, an accountant who specializes in restatements, will serve as interim CFO until Force Protection can hire a permanent replacement. The company has no plans to hire another operating chief.

"The changes we are announcing today are intended to mark the beginning of a new chapter in the history of this company," Moody said in a statement. "We demand excellence of every facet of this organization as we go forward, and we will continue to evolve our organization and management to meet business requirements and opportunities.

"There is no area of our business that will go untouched by the mandate we have to improve our company's performance."

Force Protection's stock continues to suffer in the meantime. Once a $30 highflier, the stock has lost almost 90% of its value in less than a year. On Monday, shares tumbled nearly 13% to $3.58.

--------------

Crazy. This goes along with my SCA also - my kind of plays. Just make sure you get out of the way cuz when the boulder tumbles down this hill who knows where it will end up. Class action law suits possible?? Good luck to those still in this.

--------------------
All post are my opinion. Do your own DD. Who's clicking your buy/sell button!?

Posts: 7800 | From: Virginia | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jo4321
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jo4321     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I sold most of mine today at $3.55. All I have left are 700 shares in my trading account that are down %70.39% Sad day.

--------------------
"Great Day for Up!"....Dr. Seuss

Posts: 3387 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
classified
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for classified     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
CRAP! Jo why didn't you tell me you sold? Now they're probably gonna have news of a buyout or a billion dollar contract... [BadOne]
Posts: 1075 | From: weeeeeeee | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jo4321
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jo4321     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, you are probably right about that. [Big Grin]

I did notice that they put news out about shaking-up management. I wonder if that will be good for a pop.

This stock makes me weary.

Jo

--------------------
"Great Day for Up!"....Dr. Seuss

Posts: 3387 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
classified
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for classified     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I sold out at $3.45...I like to sleep at night [Razz]
Posts: 1075 | From: weeeeeeee | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lostone
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for lostone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
grabbed a few at this level.. at 2.60's, could be a bounce
Posts: 2666 | From: san jose,ca usa | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
classified
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for classified     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by $tock Weazel:
I sold out at $3.45...I like to sleep at night [Razz]

WOW. This imploded. Trading at 2.47 AH!

I am soooooo thankful I sold...eeeeekkkkkk!!! [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080 310006374&newsLang=en


Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Files Class Action Suit Against Force Protection, Inc.
SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (“Coughlin Stoia”) (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/forceprotection/) today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of purchasers of Force Protection, Inc. (“Force Protection”) (NASDAQ:FRPT) common stock during the period between August 14, 2006 and February 29, 2008 (the “Class Period”).

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Darren Robbins of Coughlin Stoia at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr*csgrr.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.csgrr.com/cases/forceprotection/. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Force Protection and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Force Protection and its subsidiaries engage in the manufacture of ballistic and blast protected vehicles.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, financial results and prospects. Specifically, defendants continually boasted Force Protection’s dominance in the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (“MRAP”) market was due to its superior product design and rapid delivery rates. However, in a report dated June 27, 2007, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense questioned both of these claims and criticized the awarding of contracts to Force Protection on a sole source basis and without competitive bidding. Then, on February 29, 2008, after the market closed, Force Protection announced it would have to delay the release of its 2007 Form 10-K and restate its Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007. On this news, Force Protection’s stock collapsed to close at $3.58 per share on March 3, 2008, a one-day decline of 13% and an 88% decline from the Class Period high of $30.27 per share, prior to when Force Protection’s problems began to be revealed.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) as a result of the Company’s ongoing problems in meeting contractual delivery deadlines, the Company would have trouble competing in the MRAP market; (b) in audit reports, the Defense Contract Audit Agency had been critical of the Company’s finances and financial accounting system, which threatened the Company’s eligibility to compete for government contracts; (c) the Company’s accounting department suffered from material weaknesses and deficiencies and lacked the necessary staff and resources to perform its required functions; (d) contrary to the representations contained in the Company’s SEC filings, the Company’s internal controls were inadequate and easily manipulated; (e) the Company lacked effective internal controls in its financial reporting process, required to enable it to properly analyze and/or estimate Force Protection’s future financial and operational performance; and (f) defendants had caused the Company to falsely report at least its third quarter 2007 financial results.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Force Protection common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

Coughlin Stoia, a 190-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Coughlin Stoia Web site (http://www.csgrr.com) has more information about the firm.

Posts: 1075 | From: weeeeeeee | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lostone
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for lostone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ouch, lawsuit came out after hours.. lol, just my luck, good think only put in coupla hundreds.. should be bottom now?
Posts: 2666 | From: san jose,ca usa | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
a surfer
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for a surfer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
$2.40

a buy yet??

It is worth something right???

Posts: 6410 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IMAKEMONEY
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for IMAKEMONEY     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NO!!! LOL

--------------------
LIFE IS 10% HOW YOU MAKE IT AND 90% HOW YOU TAKE IT!

Posts: 9276 | From: San Diego CA | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cspaude
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for cspaude     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, even as a shareholder of FRPT, I say stay away. What seems right is wrong. Multiple lawsuits flying and the company stays silent? But, I read an article that says Friday or Monday for announcement of contracts. If FRPT doesn't walk away big, they're done. I have little faith in the Cheetah. This company is a train wreck.

--------------------
Good judgment comes from experience. Unfortunately, experience usually comes from bad judgment.

Posts: 205 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jo4321
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jo4321     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Frown]

From page one of this thread:
quote:
Jo4321
Member
posted May 03, 2006 11:02
----------------------------------------
....I got in at $2.17.

Jo

Wow, that's just sad. Two years and thousands lost later..... [Mad]

Too bad I didn't just keep those original shares and NEVER bought more. I wouldn't have made any money, but would've been better than losing.

Jo

--------------------
"Great Day for Up!"....Dr. Seuss

Posts: 3387 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PCola77
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for PCola77     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think you should have sold at $30.
Posts: 5508 | From: Southeastern PA | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jo4321
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jo4321     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I DID sell at $30.00 LOL....

.....But then I bought back many times. That is where I went wrong.

Jo

Wow! Never thought I'd see it under $2.00 again.

--------------------
"Great Day for Up!"....Dr. Seuss

Posts: 3387 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PCola77
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for PCola77     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh yeah. I forgot about that [Smile]

But it's only money. Think of the stories you'll have to tell you grandkids [Big Grin]

Posts: 5508 | From: Southeastern PA | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cspaude
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for cspaude     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm guessing some folks know about contracts coming after hours and, judging by our wonderful share price, it's bad news. The hits just keep coming.
Posts: 205 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 72 pages: 1  2  3  ...  68  69  70  71  72   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share