Monday, August 28, 2006

Force Protection--Explosive Turnaround Story.


Have you ever gazed at a stock that fundamentally looked like all the stars were in alignment for probable share price gains, but something nagged at you not to push the BUY button?

Sales at Force Protection (FRPT.OB-$6.41), a Ladson, S.C.—based maker of ballistic and blast-protected military vehicles, rocketed to $90.8 million for the six-months ended June 30, 2006, up from $1.2 million for the full FY ended December 31, 2001.

The Company, which bled red ink for five years, went from a ‘Going Concern’ being issued by its accountants in April 2006, to finally achieving profitability, recording a net profit of $568,382, or share-net of $0.01, for the 1H:06, the result of a sharp
increase in demand for the Company’s armored vehicles in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In February 2005, the Company affected a 12:1 reverse split of its Common Stock. The Company, however, has finally rewarded its long-suffering shareholders, with the stock price climbing 305.7% in the last year.

Roadside bombs, which the military calls improvised explosive devices (IEDs), are the cause of most of the combat deaths and injuries in Iraq.

According to a recent military report, insurgents planted a record number of roadside bombs last month. Approximately 2,625 bombs exploded or were discovered before they could detonate in July, up from 1,454 in January. And as the ‘conflict’ [Ed. note: O.K. CIVIL WAR!] widens in Iraq between Shiite and Sunni insurgents, more U.S. troops will find themselves in harm’s way.

Force Protection produces two series of armored vehicles—the
Buffalo and Cougar—to detect IEDs and landmines. These protective vehicles are designed with advanced V-shaped hulls to help deflect the blasts of the bombs away from the passengers within, too, and can travel at speeds up to 70 miles per hour.

The Buffalo is the heavier of the two products—weighing 22 tons—and is designed principally for route clearing activities. It integrates a blast resistant capsule with an American-made truck engine and drive train.

The Cougar—at about 14 tons—is lighter than the Buffalo—but is built to offer a similar level of blast protection. It is designed to withstand a 30-pound blast of TNT to either the front or rear axles as well as a 15-pound blast to the center portion of the vehicle. A 4-by-4 Cougar is equipped with tires that will run even when flat.

The Cougar can be configured to complete a wide variety of mission requirements. The newer, Hardened Engineered Vehicle (HEV) can serve as a mine-proof troop transport vehicle, a law enforcement special response vehicle, a weapons platform, or an escort protection vehicle.

Current backlogs indicate substantial growth in sales over the next several quarters (but are already reflected in recent stock price gains). The Company forecasts 2H:06 delivery of 164 armored vehicles, as compared to actual delivery of 37 vehicles in the 2H:05. Revenue is primarily recognized at the time goods are delivered and accepted by the customer.

The world market for mine-protected vehicles is growing rapidly. Landmines and IEDs are the weapons of choice for terrorists and insurgent groups because they are highly effective yet relatively low cost. With increasing world tensions, we agree with management that there is a need for vehicles that can provide a level of protection against these threats during a variety of missions. Such missions include troop transport in and around unexploded ordnance or mine threat areas as well as route clearance and humanitarian de-mining—which require entrance into known mine fields.

Most of these missions require operating in areas of known terrorist activities and have traditionally been accomplished using light weight wheeled utility vehicles, including, for example, the High Mobility Multi Wheeled Vehicle (better known as the “Humvee”). However, Humvees were never designed to sustain high—powered explosive blasts and these un-armored utility vehicles are vulnerable to enemy fire and offer a prime target for attack.

Additionally, trying to better the armor and blast protection of the Humvee by retrofitting heavy armor into its hull, has not worked and has increased the mechanical wear caused by the added weight, too.

Conventional armored vehicles such as the Bradley and the Abrams tank do offer some protection from ballistic and blast threats. However, even these are too often no equals for the latest batch of powerful IEDs. Further, these vehicles are expensive, and require substantial resources to maintain. They are large and difficult to maneuver in crowded urban environments.

Force Protection is working on a blast-protective vehicle capable of carrying cargo and troops. This prototype, the Mine-protected Utility Vehicle/Rapid Deployable, or MUV-R (dubbed the Mover), is a potential replacement of the Humvees used by the military.

There are an estimated 150,000 Humvees in active service in the U.S. military. The government is expected to put out a request for replacement proposals in November (with production expected to start in 2008). A contract win by Force Protection could be a future footprint of success for the Company and its stock price.

To date, the Company has experienced no fatalities in any of its vehicles.

In our view, as the U.S. military increases its focus on protecting our troops—and expands [NOT contracts] its ‘peace-keeping’ efforts in Iraq, Force Protection should witness an increasing market demand for its products.

During 2005, Force Protection depended on two principal customers, the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps. Albeit there is risk with such a limited customer base, the Company recently announced it has been awarded a contract by the British Ministry of Defense for more than 85 Cougar Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) vehicles.

As evident in the Common Stock price gain this year, investors have jumped onboard Force Protection due to the clear signs of a turnaround in the Company’s fortunes. Given growth shows no sign of slowing—why the apprehension in buying shares for our portfolio?

Financial Considerations

In the 1H:06, gross margins improved 400 basis points to 18.5%, which management attributes to increased vehicle production and increased operating efficiencies.

Many government contracts are fixed-price and maybe subject to termination or renegotiation at the convenience of the government. And, large portions of the Company’s factory expenses are fixed. Ergo, management would be unable to reduce expenses significantly in the short-term to compensate for any unexpected delay or decrease in anticipated revenues. As a result, expected profits could become realized net losses.

For the six month period ended June 30, 2006, after years of bleeding red ink, Force Protection generated positive cash flows from operations (CFFO) of 4.0 million. However, the 10Q Detective notes that if you back out the $7.2 million increase in accounts payable, CFFO flips back into the red--$(3.2) million.

The Company has (historically) depended on the capital markets to stay afloat and fund continuing operations. For example, on July 24, 2006, corporate realized net proceeds of $39.2 million through the sale of 8.25 million shares of its Common Stock (at $5.00 per share) in a private placement to institutional investors, including John Hancock and Cortina Asset Management.

As of August 14, 2006 Force Protection had approximately 51.1 million shares of common stock issued and outstanding, up from 21.7 million at FY ended December 31, 2003.

The accumulated deficit (as of June 30, 2006) was $(48.9) million. The book value was $0.08 per share.

Management is optimistic that infrastructure expenses previously incurred in connection with the production ramp-up will begin to level off or decline and that the Company will continue to experience increased levels of positive cash flows from operations as the Company increases the volume of vehicle production. Management also expects that such positive cash flows will allow the Company to pay down all or a portion of its short term debt and reduce the level of its accounts payable ($21.9 million).

In addition to growth acceleration, there is also the possibility of a growing recurring revenue stream from the sale of spare parts and other support services. During the FY ended December 31, 2005, spare parts contributed 10.9% to total sales of $44.8 million

As of June 30, 2006, the Company had $3.4 million in cash, the Total Debt was about 30.3% of Total Equity, and for the 1H:06, the interest coverage ratio finally swung positive—albeit a less than stellar 1.35 times operating income.

Corporate Governance Issues

Effective April 18, 2005, Gordon McGilton was promoted from Chief Quality Officer to CEO. Along with the usual salary [$420,000] and bonus-option incentives, the Company also agreed to pay Mr. McGilton "in kind" compensation in the amount of $20,000 (in the form of a Vortex jet boat). This "in kind" compensation was for work performed by Mr. McGilton as an independent contractor during 2001 and 2002—three years earlier?

And, it is not like McGilton could not afford to buy a NEW boat, for he received options to purchase 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.72 per share (which vest on January 1, 2007)—now worth an estimated $6.4 million.

In addition to his duties as CEO, McGilton is a principle of APT Leadership, a consulting firm the Company hired to provide various “business consulting services, training seminars and certain business software.” Through the period ended June 30, 2006, APT Leadership billed Force Protection a total of $563,120 for such services, training and software. In addition, Force Protection entered into an agreement with APT Leadership pursuant to which the Company purchased a non-exclusive right and license to use the “diagrams, methods, concepts and business operating system functionality” contained in APT Leadership software and presented in APT Leadership's training seminars. Force Protection also paid a one-time license fee of $60,000 and agreed to pay an annual license fee thereafter of $50,000 under the terms of the said agreement.

The 10Q Detective would like to know—why the need for this leadership training? According
to the APT Leadership website, the consulting firm provides motivational services designed to get employees “working together towards the organization’s goal.” The Company is selling armored vehicles—not burgers. Would not the monies be better spent on defense lobbyists? Or, given the highly politicized nature of weapons procurement programs, perhaps the monies ought be channeled as PAC money to the re-election campaign of embattled Congressman Henry Brown (R-SC), a big advocate for Force Protection on Capitol Hill.

Investment Risks & Considerations

Force Protection markets its products to a limited customer base and if the Company does not find acceptance of its products within that customer base, or if the Department of Defense (because of budget issues) cancels contracts, its business may fail. As previously mentioned, the Company did just receive a contract with the British government for 85 Cougar armored vehicles.

The Company is subject to significant competition from companies that market products that perform similar functions. This competition could harm the Company’s ability to win business and increase the price pressure on its products. The firms that Force Protection competes against include large, multinational vehicle, defense and aerospace firms such as BAE Land Systems, Iveco DVD (Italy), Textron, Stewart & Stevens, Australian Defense Industries, Oto Melara (Finmeccanica-Italy), and General Dynamics.

On June 16, 2006, Force Protection significantly improved its competitive position when it signed an intellectual property agreement to develop and market patented Blast Manipulation Technology (applicable to wheeled and tracked vehicles) with South Africa’s Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), a world leader in (blast-resistant) lightweight composite research. Still, it troubles us that corporate—perhaps to raise EPS visibility—is spending less than four cents of every sales dollar on R&D. Ought the Company be spending more on technology and research to exploit their competitive advantage?

With relatively short production runs and high fixed factory costs, contrary to what management would lead us to believe, sustainability of future profitability is difficult to predict. Force Protection is benefiting from the U.S. military’s need to and ramp-up of combat-ready protective vehicles for service in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no guarantee that the Company will be awarded procurement contracts in the future for the replacement of legacy systems (such as Humvees); and, to date, the Company has had limited success in diversifying into other markets.

Valuation Analysis

After an extended period of downsizing, followed by mergers (to consolidate excess capacity), the Land Combat Systems (LCS) industry appears to be in the midst of a robust growth period—both domestically and globally. For example, given the expanding demand for protected vehicles for military applications in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the move toward transforming legacy systems in both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corp., industry pundits predict that more than $2.0 billion per annum over the next twenty years could be infused into the domestic LCS industry.

The impact of globalization is also leaving its footprint on the U.S. LCS industry.

In our view, the trend of mergers and acquisitions are likely to continue, and Force Protection could find itself on the front-end of a merger by a foreign concern (probably a U.S.-NATO ally) looking to build a presence, competitive advantage, and an increased access to U.S. markets.

Is the Common Stock of Force Protection worthy of new investments?

Manufacturing needs of the U.S Military will keep sales (and profits) trending higher through at least the 2008 timeframe. However, we believe that the market has already discounted this timeframe (witness the 305.7% price gain in the past 52-week period). After 2008, all bets are off—new faces in the White House, compounded by rising deficits and Social Security payments, could spell cutbacks in Department of Defense spending.

In our opinion, Force Protection’s management does not have the know-how to be profitable as a ‘low-volume’ producer—with only two product lines, the Company is highly dependent on ramping up production for sustainable profitability. And management has yet to demonstrate its ability to leverage its core-competence by exporting its blast-resistant technology.

Is Force Protection attractive as an acquisition candidate? In our view, this is a probable outcome, for the Company would be an attractive purchase for a (NATO-ally) European defense contractor looking to establish a U.S. footprint to improve their likelihood of winning Pentagon contracts. FY 2005 LCS transactions sold at an average EV/sales multiple of 1.65 times.

The current enterprise value of Force Protection is $331.24 million. Assuming the Company sequentially grows sales in the 2H:06, and exists the year (optimistically) with $240 million in full-year 2006 sales, that places an EV/sales multiple of 1.38 times on the price of the Common Stock. EV/sales of 1.65 times puts the Common Stock of Force Protection
at $7.75 per share--a 20.9% premium above its current share price.

In June 2005, Britian’s largest defense contractor, BAE Systems, completed the acquisition of Arlington, VA. —based United Defense Systems (UDI), a dominant player in domestic LCS (like the M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle) and a global leader in ground combat vehicles and precision munitions. The transaction for UDI was valued at $3.97 billion, or 1.73 times trailing twelve-month sales of $2.29 billion.

In the summer of 2004, BAE Systems outbid General Dynamics (by $100 million) for Alvis Vickers, the UK's principal land systems business. BAE paid almost $651 million, or 1.03 times Alvis’ trailing twelve-month sales.

At a current price of $6.41 per share, the Common Stock of Force Protection is valued at a P/S of 1.36 times FY 2006 exit sales of $240 million.

A turnaround at Force Protection is well underway, but lingering concerns on future contract wins will likely put a ceiling on further multiple expansion. A step-up in new product flow coupled with new contract wins—especially Humvee replacement orders—are the necessary positive catalysts for additional short-term trading gains in the price of the Common Stock.

Sales growth acceleration beyond FY 2008 is cloudier. However, industry consolidation trends bode well for shareholders in Force Protection.

The 10Q Detective, however, prefers to stay on the sidelines—at least for now.

52 comments:

stonedinvestor said...

Wow what great coverage! I too have been looking at this stock in fact I bought it and lingering concerns made me sell. The CEO's being affiliated with another company doing consulting for Force Protect was the final straw for me. Nice review.

Anonymous said...

I think if you had a son over in Iraq you would be begging for him to be in a Cougar. Your little write-up about FRPT seems suspicious at best. You sound more like a short.

Anonymous said...

Please!....U are missing the big picture of FRPT....I suggest U continue to do greater DD via contacting Marc Robbins at Catalyst Financial(its obvious U didn't!), and read the FRPT Ragingbull message board(there is some really great info there).

FRPT pps will be north of $20+ next year(conservatively)....why?? The demand for FRPT's products are staggering World-wide........Again...please dig deeper...U have missed a great deal of the big picture at FRPT!

Anonymous said...

Are you kidding me? Do you think the orders stop here? They company cannot build these vehicles fast enough. I don't know which shorts you are working for but maybe you need to go to Iraq and ride in a Humvee for a day. Then let's see what your attitude is for this company.

NOMAD said...

10-Q DICK LATE TO THE PARTY FROM $0.89.THIS STOCK HAS A BRIGHT FUTURE IF MANAGEMENT PLAYS NICE WITH WALL STREET.WAR IS HERE FOR A LONG TIME AND SO IS THE NEED FOR IED SOLUTIONS.NUMBERS MEAN NOTHING AT THIS POINT IN THE INVESTMENT .GOOD LUCK EVERYONE REMEMBER WALL STREET WANTS CONTROL

Anonymous said...

Um, since when does the U.S. Army only have 15,000 Hummers in service?????????

Here is a quote from a 2004 news article:

According to Army figures, there are almost 19,400 Humvees operating in the Iraq theater. Of those, about 5,900 were armored at the factory and armor was added to about 9,100 of them later.


Care to retract that statement? 19,400 in IRAQ only!! What about Afghanistan, Germany, U.S. arsenal period?!

Anonymous said...

To date, the Company has experienced no fatalities in any of its vehicles.

This says it all. Sounds like they know how to build the safest vehicles for our troops. A good investment and an american company saving american lives. I think i will get in on this one. Thanks

Anonymous said...

Although your article was well written, your research and analysis was weak at best.

I would highly recommend you do a little more research on the DoD's FY-06 Supplemental and FY-07 budgets. Force Protection's Buffalos and Cougars are specified in multiple line items.

Also, you were remiss by failing to mention the Force Protection / BAE alliance which is supplying Cougars for the Iraqi police (over 1,000 vehicles)

Please follow-up your blog once you've had an opportunity to truly research this wonderful company so you don't artificially drive the PPS down with your flawed analysis

Anonymous said...

There are over 150,000 yes one hundred fifty thousand Humvee deathtraps in service and not 15,000 as your article says. FRPT will have 3 production lines running by end of year. Research your facts before printing a biased story like this. BTW, BAE Systems is a partner of FRPT and not a competitor. Google ILAV(Iraqi Light Armored Vehicle) and you will see. Mr. Phillips come clean on who you represent.....

Anonymous said...

Thank you for covering a great American success story. More information is available from Marc Robins, CFA at Catalyst Research.


http://catalystresearch.biz/ResearchFRPT.html


Mr. Robins's latest update, 8/15/06, projects $455M revenue and $0.95 eps for 2007, and a $9.00 to $12.00 twelve-month price target, which represents a significant premium over the current price.

Anonymous said...

Missing the proverbial forest for the trees there, Son. The reality is that Force Protection's trucks are the future of warfare. Period. After riding in a Cougar, how many soldiers would want to go back into a Humvee? What would your choice be?

Anonymous said...

I found your article to be very interesting. I took the time to do a little research on FRPT myself. I found that the DOD went sole source on a recent contract w/ frpt. As this is highly unusual, I investigated a bit more and discovered that FRPT holds the IP purchased from S.A. This blast resistant tech is obviously what is needed and I, as an observer, would have to wonder why the DOD would spend the kind of tax payer dollars to up armor a humvee that has proven faults, after the mods, in lieu of the purchase of these MUV vehicles.
Thanks again for bringing this Co. to light.
Bob B., a NEast Texas radical fundamentalist American patriot

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Phillips"

Are you part of Al Qaeda? Only Al Qaeda has a beef with Force Protection. Plus, a lot of the information you have posted is not correct. Future revenue is grossly underestimated by you and your Humvee count is off by 100,000. Be sure and tell Osama those IED's aren't working on the Cougar's and Buffalo's. Maybe you should ride in one of those Humvee's over an IED and you might have a different prospective on FRPT. Better yet, interview a young soilder sitting in a hospital missing an arm or leg because he wasn't provided a Cougar. You should be ashamed Mr. Phillips!

Anonymous said...

Interesting that short interest has increased 27.5% prior to this article being published.

Anonymous said...

August 15, FPI announced they had over 550 employees. This is an increase from around 320 at the start of 2006 and of about 165 employees since June 3, 2006. The employment ramp up is expected to continue to at least 670 employees by the end of the year as FPI continues working towards their goal of tripling their internal production that was announced July 17th.

At the start of 2006, FPI had 327 employees. About 40% of the employees were salaried employees and 60 percent were hourly employees. The salaried employees are mostly management, engineering and other technical staff. The hourly employees are mostly production workers with a few maintenance and clerical workers. Now that FPI has 550 employees, the percentage of total workers that are production workers should increase. A higher percentage of the workforce will be employed building vehicles instead of designing them.

By April 3, 2006 with approximately 350 employees, FPI could build 3 to 4 Buffalo vehicles per month and 20 Cougars. With 550 employees, FPI will have at least twice as many people building vehicles as they did in April.

FPI’s revenue has grown along with the number of employees. In 2004, FPI had yearly revenue of $10.3 million. In 2005, revenue was $49.7 million. This year, FPI is expected to have over $210 million in revenue. To help fund the growth, FPI announced July 25 that they had sold 8.25 million shares in a private placement for $41.25 million dollars.

FPI currently produces two major types of vehicles – the Buffalo and Cougar. The Buffalo was designed for use by Military Engineers as a mine clearing vehicle to keep roads and transportation routes clear of mines and IEDs. It was recently named an official part of the “IED Defeat Task Force.” The Cougar has several variations and may be used for a large number of possible missions. It can be used to transport military engineers, as a patrol vehicle, as a troop transport or for command and control. FPI has a third vehicle under development called the Mine Resistant Utility Vehicle - Rapid Deployable (MUV-R). The MUV-R is a lighter weight vehicle than the Buffalo or Cougar but is still able to survive small arms fire, mine and IED blasts. The MUV-R would be used as a utility vehicle for troop transport, patrolling and other tasks that are currently done by the Humvee.

In 2005 converted production of Cougars as much as possible to a production line. This allowed FPI to increased production of the Cougar vehicles to approximately 20 Cougar type vehicles per month by April 2006. FPI has recently added a second production line that will increase Cougar production to more than 40 per month. FPI is designing a third production line that is customized for high efficiency production of the ILAV (Iraqi Light Armored Vehicle) which is another Cougar variant.

Sales for the Buffalo and Cougar product are robust. FPI is currently manufacturing approximately one Buffalo Mine Clearing Vehicles per week but have announced that they plan to increase this to 2 vehicles per week. New Buffalo and Cougar contracts are expected in the future when IED Defeat Task force money is contracted out.

BAE and FPI won a bid on a contract to build 378 Cougars for the Iraqi Army and police. The contract may be extended to 1050 vehicles. The ILAV Cougar is FPI’s design but both FPI and BAE will build the vehicle and share in the revenue. FPI retains all rights to the Cougar design and BAE will pay FPI a license fee for each vehicle built. FPI is building Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal Rapid Response Vehicles (JERRV) Cougars for the US military at a rate of approximately 20 per month.

August 11, FRPT announced a contract to build 85 Cougars for the British. The version of the Cougar that the British are purchasing will be called the Mastiff Protected Patrol Vehicles (Mastiff PPV). The contract with spares and manuals was for $62.9 million. The details of the contract are still sketchy but it appears that they are purchasing a 6X6 Cougar. First deliveries on the new contract are expected to ship by November 2006 and the contract is expected to be completed by May 2007.

Both the British and the US military are considering purchasing MUV-R vehicles. FPI has a prototype of the MUV-R that has characteristics that both militaries are interested in. The MUV-R is designed for the ground up to be resistant to small arms fire, mines and IEDs. Up-armored vehicles can’t really compete with the specially designed vehicle when it comes to resistant to mine blasts, IEDs and small arms fire.

FPI’s Buffalos and Cougars are in demand because they have been a reliable, easily repairable and safe vehicle. They have a history of survivability in “real world” situations where they have already survived over 1000 IED and mine attacks without any reported deaths. No other comparable vehicle has demonstrated that amount of survivability. The key to the Buffalo and Cougar blast protection is the armor plating and blast resistant design that FPI acquired from South African companies. The South African design is based on over 40 years of development of blast resistant and economical vehicles.

FPI’s vehicles use commercial sub-assemblies and parts whenever possible. The Buffalo chassis is the same one as used in some Mack trucks. For the Cougar and Cougar variants, the Chassis are provided by Spartan Chassis Inc. Spartan Chassis is one of the most innovative Chassis manufacturers in the United States. For the drive train, transmissions and motors, FPI uses the best commercially available solutions from US manufacturers such as Caterpillar, Mack, Allison, Fabco and Marmon-Herrington. This ensures high reliability because they are using proven designs. It ensures the vehicles are economical because FPI is purchasing products already produced in volume. In short, FPI is able to build a highly reliable vehicle by using the best technology from many different vendors and integrating it together. FPI’s genius has been their ability to rapidly adapt, design, prototype and manufacture the best in class vehicle faster than their larger competitors.

Recently, FPI announced the acquisition of the manufacturing and development rights to a new “Blast Manipulation Technology” that may be used on wheeled and tracked vehicles. The new technology substantially reduces the blast effect on vehicles and it is possible that this technology will be one of the most valuable technologies FPI has acquired in future years. FPI believes that sales of products based on this technology are over a year away but that it might be their most compelling product.

Latest News:

August 15, FPI reported revenue of $56,074,537 and a net profit of $1,234,015. This is an amazing increase in profit considering that FPI has been rapidly hiring new employees and expanding production. Of the total, FPI received $12,309,355 from the sale of spare parts and other support services. FPI has over 200 vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan. This number will be over 700 with the ILAV vehicles included by the end of next year. By the end of 2007, revenue from spare parts and support services will be larger than FPI’s yearly sales for 2005. Spare parts and support services are a much higher margin business.

Anonymous said...

so, what you is saying is to sell force. i will follow you and sell. don't know what i would have done without you. thanks. fool!

Anonymous said...

Mr. Phillips. Thanks for the excellent DD on FRPT. I'm sure you are a man of high integrity. Sold my position in FRPT today for a nice profit. Thank you for looking out for the (little guy). So many cons out there a person doesn't know who to trust. Just look at your mug-shot, I can see it in your eyes. A true american. Now I need to find my next investment. (thought I had one here) Do you have any recommendations I can put my profits in. Thanks in advance. GOD BLESS YOU AND OUR TROOPS!

Anonymous said...

When you analyzed FRPT, you mentioned that a problem you had was the amount of R&D that FRPT is spending toward new products.

An better understanding of FRPT's business would have changed your mind about this. Approximately 20% of FRPT's staff are engineers. Many of them are working on developing new versions of the existing products such as new Cougars to be used as command and control or for ambulance duty, new Buffalos that has additional cargo or pasenger space, improvements on the MUV-R and etc.

As far as competition, FRPT has the exclusive license to 4th generation anti-mine armor from South Africa for foreign manufacture. This already forced BAE into a manufacturing agreement for the ILAV with FRPT.

New competitors of FRPT will have to overcome 30 years of development for 4th generation anti-mine armor as a first step to competing with FRPT.

FRPT is farther ahead than any other manufactures in developing the replacement for the Humvee based on having a prototype which the military has already expressed interest in.

Repoman said...

Hello blogger!

I originally posted the response detailing how you were incorrect about the Hummer numbers in service, and was generally displeased with your analysis. But now I'm glad you wrote this. There are several large holders of this stock who think it will be at $30 by December (what a bunch of clowns). They see no risks with this stock, and keep their heads in the sand whenever something "threatens" their positions. Some of your points concerning management were dead on, and these zombies are completely oblivious. While I am and will continue to be LONG FRPT, I'm glad you gave these so called "devoted shareholders" a wake up call!

Anonymous said...

FRPT is a diamond in the ruff. You have not exposed anytihng except that there is huge demand for their vehicles. They will get substantial orders once they set up the infrastructure to handle such orders. Our troops are dying everyday in IRAQ because we dont have even close to enough of these vehicles over there. This can be a billion dollar in sales company just based on providing vehicles to IRAQ. You can only imagine how many other countries need these type of vehicles. For all those who are selling please get out. I cant wait to see your reaction in 2-3 years when this stock is at 40-50 a share.

Anonymous said...

To all potential investors of Force Protection. The blogger Repoman is a shill for the shorts. Short interest was up 27% last month as they feel the run-up was too quick. In truth, sales are growing a such a fast pace that the consensis share price outlook from Catalyst Research is 9-12.00 a share for 2007 and they even say that is conservative. The Annual Shareholders Meeting is September 18 in Ladson, South Carolina and by then I expect a big contract announcement based on Congressional/Military articles made public on the Raging Bull message board. Do you own DD and whatever you do, don't invest on the advice of any Repoman...This company is the leading edge of technology our military and coalition partners need to combat IED's in this war and any conflict to come...Link to company website below...............


http://www.forceprotection.net/

NOMAD said...

I just would like to remind everyone what a schmuck and bad stock picker Cramer is. THIS GUY ONE OF HIS BITCHES.

Anonymous said...

Use the link below to get the real deal on FRPT. They have a 9.00-12.00 conservative price outlook on FRPT..........

http://catalystresearch.biz/files/FRPT_Note_08_15.pdf

Anonymous said...

the main missing piece of news is that replacement parts and services are projected to be 5 times the cost of a new unit-refer to page 2 of the Catalysts update (June 19th, 2006)-talk about the razor, razor blade model-perfect example

Anonymous said...

Question to Mr. Phillips, did you even call and talk to anyone at the company when you decided to write this hatchet job? Serious question because you left out a lot of information and you provided mis-information as well. If I were a professor your little report would not have passed. Hopefully, anyone who read this blog will do a little more homework than you have done.

Anonymous said...

I would like to know in all of your analysys why you there is no mention of the contract with the U.K. This in itself shows that the companies future is looking much brighter and has not only the need to expand but is gaining the capitol to expand. If you decide to revise your review you might want to add that part in.

RetiringonFRPT said...

Mr. Phillips, you failed to mention this company is debt free. They have no debt. They are in the hottest military sector with huge demand for IED protection vehicles, have the finest IED vehicles ( have had over 1000 qttacks on their vehicles without a single fatality). In addition, they have a British contract, a potential big Canadian contract upcoming, huge US Army & Marine contracts upcoming and now have developed an IED ambulance to protect ER responders as the terrorist have began using secondary IED's to hit arriving help. Not to mention their MUVR which is the most likely HUMVEE replcement. Go ahead and sit on the sidelines, myself I am adding shares on every pullback so I can retire on this baby. You should also read the Catalyst report. Catalyst did their research very thoroughly and I am certain you could learn alot from studying that report. They project a $12.00 pps this year. Also, they are partnered with BAE systems who in my opinion is thier most likely buyer. You are correct in one point, a buyout is likely but more the offer will be in the $18.00 -$20.00 per share range. Your research was lacking in too many important details. I am surprised at the shoddy effort you made in that regard, Best of luck to you.

==0-0== said...

Why is everyone picking on this guy? We have to take his views in perspective. INVN and ASEI were described as one trick pony's in their early days as well. They became great shorts, however, first they went up 30-40X as multibaggers.

I will considering shorting FRPT as well when it hits 50 and the story is all played out and the vehicles are no longer needed. Twas the same as ASEI and INVN, but the first ride, is the huge backlog growth and enormous EPS increases, and FRPT is only just beginning.

Pal, you are way too early, try again at 50. The short will work there if they are still independent.

Revisit your multiples too on the buyout, and don't forget to take the cash into consideration on you EV calc, you are off there as well.

Don't forget BAE is a partner, not a competitor.

Good luck. I would like to know who is dummer, you or the real person that helped you write this

Anonymous said...

CALL CRAMER AT THESE NUMBERS AND TELL HIM HOW WRONG HIS BITCH IS. SHOW 1866 778-2622/ MAILBOX 1 800 743-2622 AND HIS RADIO SHOW 1800743-2622 FUCK HIM AND HIS BUTT BOY 10-Q DICK

trustthetape said...

Enjoyed reading your take on FRPT but found it very verbose and wanted to try and summarize the points I think you are trying to make:

1. Sales are skyrocketing

2. Company turned profitable based on growing demand for products

3. Backlog supports substantial growth

4. Market for mine-protected vehicles is growing and FRPT should witness increasing demand for its products

5. Product line is strong (cougar and buffalo) and growing (MUV-R)

6. Customer diversification growing - ARmy, Marines, Brits

7. Growth shows no signs of slowing

8. Recurring revenue stream from the sale of spare parts and other support services is likely to grow

9. Has concerns with mgmts ability to continue proving itself; has issues with CEOs compensation package; recognizes that there is competition; recognizes that the customer base for their products is not infinite; future profitabiity difficult to predict

10. Company is a likely buyout candidate

11. Future contracts including MUV-R (Humvee replacement) contracts a key to future growth prospects and multiple expansion

There was also some information that I found either missing or inaccurate:

1. Failed to mention: Revenue is projected to double in 2007 to approximately $455m with earnings of $.95/share:

http://catalystresearch.biz/files/FRPT_Note_08_15.pdf

2. Failed to mention: Company has a competitive differentiator in the South African V shaped Hull technology and the South African blast protection wheel technology. There are various other competitive differentiators relative to armor and vehicle occupant protection but due to its sensitive nature I'll not mention them here.

3. Failed to mention: Production capability is being tripled and that expansion supports projected revenue growth:

http://catalystresearch.biz/files/FRPT_Update_Report_06_19_06.pdf
http://www.forceprotection.net/news/news_article.html?id=113

4. A more accurate presentation of debt/cash: Company is debt free and with recent capital raise of approximately $40m is well positioned for future growth

5. A more accurate presentation of customers: In addition to the Marines, ARmy and Brits, the Iraqi's are also a customer. The work with Iraq is being performed thru BAE where BAE opted to use FRPT products instead of their own and is paying FRPT a license fee for each vehicle produced for the Iraq forces.

6. A more accurate presentation of the benefit of accumulated deficit: Accumulated deficit of $48.9m will result in favorable tax treatment of gains in future years

7. A more accurate statement on number of Humvees: There are approximately 140,000 Humvees and all indications are that FRPT is well positioned (but not guaranteed) to capture this market.

The only logical conclusion I can draw from this blog is that you actually like the company and its future prospects but are looking for opportunities to accumulate the stock at any discount to current prices that he can possibly create for yourself (and possibly others).

Regardless, thanks for the "piece" on FRPT and best wishes with your blog.


All IMHO.

Anonymous said...

Dude,
this analysis isn't even on a 3rd grade level. Did you actually recommend paying a defense lobyist? Right...great idea. When was the last time you looked at an otc stock? Dont most of them have related party transactions (let me dummy that down for you. that means they do business with somone affiliated with the business). You display an acute awarness of the obvious in observing the accumulated deficit, but what does the deficit of a previous boat manufacturer have to do with the current regiem who apparently have a good thing going? Very amateurish at best, and middle of the road wishy washy at worst. Grow some balls dude. Make a point.

Anonymous said...

10Q Detective
Investors often overlook SEC filings, and it is the job of the 10Q Detective to dig through businesses’ 8-K and 10-Q SEC filings, looking for financial statement ‘soft spots,' such as depreciation policies, warranty reserves, and restructuring charges.

Not these investors, you were the one doing the overlooking bud!

RetiringonFRPT said...

Mr. Phillips, have to add ust a couple other comments regarding your 10Q defective work. You continually refer to the June info when the August 15th update is out. The most recent data indicated 455 million in sales forcast in the upcoming year. You also reported company debt that has been paid off and FRPT is now debt free with 40 million in cash from a PP of 8 million shares which you did at least mention that. Also, you fail to mention the company is reorganizing an independent board of directors as they have announced intent to move to an exchange listing. This will significantly improve their access to capital markets and greatly increase this stocks visibility. I believe anyone researching this company diligently should have made reference to these situations. What do you think a NASDAQ listing is going to do for this share price considering the growth they are posting? Let us all know when you think these facts over. I would appreciate your insight.

Anonymous said...

Look guys,why get all worked up over one man's opinion. This blog is nothing more than one man's thinking just like a post on Raging Bull. No sense in getting all bent out of shape. The man, Mr. Phillips made his observation in FRPT and he isn't buying. But why go to all that trouble investigating and writing on the company if you are not going to buy it? I don't think this blog gets enough exposure for shorts to try and manipulate the share price thru Mr. Phillips. I just don't get it but am a bit leary of this Blog.

Anonymous said...

In these markets at this time, interests are bought and paid for. Growth, ie Forward Demand is the essential ingrediant for picking a stock. Today everyone must realize that news organs including blogs are out put mechanisms for Rinsing Shareholders. The Rinse cycle starts with a multi faceted mixed media message campaign. These campaigns are not random, they are skilled programs of psychological operations. The author points out the issued and outstanding, but fails to mention that the float is tiny, the float, not the outstanding is what is actually traded. For the growth that has already been booked, and the dollars that might come later frpt is very undervalued.. The stock market is ultimately about supply and demand..often Short Programs main goals are to suspend Supply and demand ad overlay inertia which is the commodity used to grind out shareholder shares transfering the same to the program itself...there after it becomes a market of managed expectations to serve the interests of interconnected programs, where market cap becomes a function of WHO controls the stock......and nothing to do with the company itself. We are at the stage now where the Program interests are being revealed, this blog and its opinion have just become identified as tool of program output.

Anonymous said...

I think we ought to use this blog instead of RB. Doesn't seen to have the RB problems. And no pop up garbage.
NE TX Bob

D-LITEFUL said...

I was in and very supportive of this stock since December 2004. Wasn't happy with the reverse stock split in 2005, but will patiently wait for a true three for one in the near future. Numbers and dedication run this company. Made in the USA with dedication and technology. What a concept!

Anonymous said...

I still favor strong buy..everything points to favorable upswing. This guy seemed biased as can be. Maybe he did short. It certainly wasn't a favorable opion and a little weak in some of he nrs. As usuaL these analysts all have some freaken motive. I have always suspected they work together to make money for themselves. Cramer, u have to take with a grain of salt as he is hawking his book, his program and everything else, but once in awhile he gives a nice analysis.

Anonymous said...

I still favor strong buy..everything points to favorable upswing. This guy seemed biased as can be. Maybe he did short. It certainly wasn't a favorable opion and a little weak in some of he nrs. As usuaL these analysts all have some freaken motive. I have always suspected they work together to make money for themselves. Cramer, u have to take with a grain of salt as he is hawking his book, his program and everything else, but once in awhile he gives a nice analysis.

Anonymous said...

I think the report was very conservative with two things in mind. In this defense industry position it is a feast or famine situation. Everyone is celebrating the feast, this report is worrying about the famine.

And one thing that blocks the long term strategy of this company is that its contracts are year to year, not multi-year contracts.

Also the new product introduction of MUV-R is speculative. All new product introduction is speculative.

There is nothing wrong with FRPT, just the politics of how long we will need them for IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN. It is an issue that politicians do not readily want to run with.

Anonymous said...

It is rapidly becoming a standard army vehicle..Next the UN will want it if they haven't requested it already and just about every army in the free world especially if they have anything at all to do with that crazy middle east

Anonymous said...

I love this stock but what is this I am reading about General Dynamics being given a contract on August 30 by the Office of Naval Research to study a Humvee replacement? Does anyone have any thoughts on this? See http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/060830/1338521.html?.v=1

Anonymous said...

Here is competition.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/07/2588m-for-m1117-guardian-asvs/index.php

Anonymous said...

I have read many of Davids posts. He has always been fair. But I think on this one he just missed some stuff. Anyway he brought this amazing company to my attention and now I am a proud shareholder of great american company saving american troops lives. These shares are selling at such a bargain right now anyone not buying is missing a huge opportunity. This company is going to skyrocket in the very near future. Again thanks David, I look forwar to more posts and I wouldnt sit on the sidelines much longer on this one!

Anonymous said...

I ride in a Buffalo over here. I know about 20 different people in mt Company that have combined about $250,000 in shares in Force Protection. I am one of them. I would not have it any other way. Everyday seeing these vehicle withstanding blasts that rip apart other vehicles like a hot knife through butter sends chills down my spine. I am glad to be in one of these vehicles. I may sell my stock soon, not because of loss of trust in the company but for money concerns. When I see bad vehicles come from this company, that is when I lose hope. That hasn't happened yet! Nor do I see it happening anytime soon.

4ce1 said...

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12389-2348816,00.html

Anonymous said...

Up almost $10k since you brought this company to my attention. Thank you very much keep up the great work!!!

Anonymous said...

Can't help myself I'm back in-- this time with my wife's IRA $. Force Protect is like a drug. Non proprietary south african technology a super big problem-- but here's to the hope that AH buys them instead of competing directly!-stonedinvestor

Anonymous said...

About the South African technology. Did you miss that FRPT signed an exclusivity agreement with them. FRPT has worldwide exclusive rights to its research and patents.

Anonymous said...

Needed: A few Good MPVs (Mine Protected Vehicles)

In Iraq, mine and Improvised Explosive Device (IED) warfare has proven to be a huge force multiplier for the terrorists and domestic “insurgents”. A relatively small number of terrorists and insurgents can plant a significant number of IEDs and mines. If a mine or IED detonates near a vehicle not specifically designed to survive the blast, it is likely that the vehicle will be destroyed and the passengers injured or killed. To date according to reports as many as 70% of all military casualties in Iraq are caused by mines or IEDs.

To combat this threat, the US and allied militaries have devoted significant resources to finding the mines and IEDs before they explode and finding the terrorists and insurgents that build and plant the explosive devices. More importantly, the US and allied militaries are forced to devote a large number of resources on defensive actions significantly degrading the combat effectiveness of the military in Iraq.

Military patrols must move very slowly in order to detect mines and IEDs. This slows down patrols limiting the area that may be patrolled.

Humvees are soft targets – even up-armored Humvees. They can be easily destroyed by mines, IEDs, small arms fire, or RPGs. Since patrols must move slowly, Humvees are not only soft targets but slow moving and easily targeted. This means that patrols must be large enough to offer strength in numbers. Small patrols consisting of Humvees could be completely destroyed by enemy action.

Logistics are difficult because roads may be mined or there may be IEDs placed on them. Therefore, roads that often carry supplies must be heavily patrolled – and the patrols must move slow to make sure that all mines and IEDs are detected.

Roads that have not been recently swept for mines are dangerous for military vehicles. It is as a practical matter impossible to patrol all roads for mines. Therefore, insurgents and terrorists restrict US and allied military operations to areas that they have resources to keep relatively clear of mines and IEDs.

In short, the insurgent’s tactics are effective and have drastically reduced the tactical effectiveness of the US military.

As US tactical effectiveness is degraded, terrorists and insurgents are able to devote more resources to attacking “soft” targets such as civilians, government employees, politicians, and those cooperating with allied rebuilding efforts.

The US military has reacted to the mine and IED attacks by purchasing small numbers of MPVs. The MPVs are used for mine clearing operations and sometimes as the lead vehicle in patrols. They are also sometimes used as troop transports or for high value cargos or to transport VIPs.

The problem with the tactic of purchasing limited numbers of MPVs is that this is primarily a defensive tactic. The overall tactical situation is improved but the status quo remains. The US military is able to removed IEDs and mines more quickly. Patrols are safer. However, the majority of vehicles such as up-armored Humvees cannot move freely. Patrols still must be very large and move very slow to protect up-armored Humvees and other unprotected vehicles.

What is the solution to the problem? How does the United States render the terrorists and insurgent’s tactic of planting mines and IEDs ineffective? I think the answer is simple. Replace vehicles that are easily destroyed by mines, IEDs and small arms fire with vehicles that are not easily destroyed. The solution is to provide every soldier patrolling in Iraq with an MPV of some type. This will make IEDs and mines relatively ineffective and allow the military to concentrate on other missions such as protecting civilians, hunting down terrorists and insurgents and generally making it very difficult to be a terrorist in Iraq.

Can the US military afford to purchase MPVs for every soldier? The answer is yes. The US military is purchasing “large ticket” items for defense. Many of them are necessary for the future of our nation’s defense. Other “large ticket” items such as the “Osprey” vertical take-off plane are perhaps not so necessary yet get funding. None of the “large ticket” items being budgeted will do very much to increase the effectiveness of the military operating in Iraq. None of them will do very much to reduce the casualties both civilian and military in Iraq. But there is something that can be purchased for less than many of the “large ticket” items that will increase the effectiveness of the soldiers in Iraq, reduce casualties and improve operational effectiveness. That “item” is many more MPVs.

The cost of not replacing up-armored Humvees and other vehicles with MPVs is a large number of casualties both wounded and dead. Each time a IED or mine destroys a Humvee, it is a tragedy in human terms as soldiers are often wounded or killed. The costs to tax payers can be large. The Humvee needs to be replaced including the semi-effective up-armor kits. The wounded must be cared for sometimes for the rest of their lives in cases of amputation or other major injuries. It costs to train replacements for those injured and killed.

The cost that has not even been discussed is what is the cost to Iraqi civilians? IEDs and mines that are meant for US vehicles often injure Iraqis. If the mines and IEDs were ineffective, it is likely fewer would be placed. If soldiers were in MPVs that could survive IED and mine blasts, patrols could be smaller and move faster drastically increasing the area patrolled. How many Iraqi civilians would this save?

Force Protection has recently completed the design and company testing of an MPV that may be used to replace the Humvee. It is called the Cheetah. It is a very tough vehicle that is designed to withstand large mine and IED blasts and small arms fire. It has many large bullet proof windows with firing ports. It can be configured with a remotely fired weapon mounted on the roof for added fire power. The Cheetah is able to carry 6 or 8 people depending on the configuration, has a range of 700 miles, has better fuel efficiency than many domestic SUVs, and has a top sprint speed of 89 MPH. Unlike the Humvee, the Cheetah was designed from the ground up to survive in IED and mine infested areas. The Cheetah is much less expensive than foreign made MPVs and offers much more protection. The Cheetah is made in the United States. Force Protection also sells two other MPVs. They are the Buffalo and Cougar. There are more than 200 Cougars and Buffalos in Iraq and Afghanistan and are used in the most dangerous areas. Already they have survived more than 1000 mine and IED blasts without any major injuries.

The future of anti-insurgent warfare exists today and it is fast, well armed and maneuverable mine protected vehicles. The best of such vehicles is made in the United States by Force Protection, Inc.

FPI (Force Protection, Inc) has the stock ticker FRPT.OB and is traded on the OTCBB exchange.

Comments that you don’t wish to post? Send to amstocks82@yahoo.com

Anonymous said...

Needed: A few Good MPVs (Mine Protected Vehicles)

In Iraq, mine and Improvised Explosive Device (IED) warfare has proven to be a huge force multiplier for the terrorists and domestic “insurgents”. A relatively small number of terrorists and insurgents can plant a significant number of IEDs and mines. If a mine or IED detonates near a vehicle not specifically designed to survive the blast, it is likely that the vehicle will be destroyed and the passengers injured or killed. To date according to reports as many as 70% of all military casualties in Iraq are caused by mines or IEDs.

To combat this threat, the US and allied militaries have devoted significant resources to finding the mines and IEDs before they explode and finding the terrorists and insurgents that build and plant the explosive devices. More importantly, the US and allied militaries are forced to devote a large number of resources on defensive actions significantly degrading the combat effectiveness of the military in Iraq.

Military patrols must move very slowly in order to detect mines and IEDs. This slows down patrols limiting the area that may be patrolled.

Humvees are soft targets – even up-armored Humvees. They can be easily destroyed by mines, IEDs, small arms fire, or RPGs. Since patrols must move slowly, Humvees are not only soft targets but slow moving and easily targeted. This means that patrols must be large enough to offer strength in numbers. Small patrols consisting of Humvees could be completely destroyed by enemy action.

Logistics are difficult because roads may be mined or there may be IEDs placed on them. Therefore, roads that often carry supplies must be heavily patrolled – and the patrols must move slow to make sure that all mines and IEDs are detected.

Roads that have not been recently swept for mines are dangerous for military vehicles. It is as a practical matter impossible to patrol all roads for mines. Therefore, insurgents and terrorists restrict US and allied military operations to areas that they have resources to keep relatively clear of mines and IEDs.

In short, the insurgent’s tactics are effective and have drastically reduced the tactical effectiveness of the US military.

As US tactical effectiveness is degraded, terrorists and insurgents are able to devote more resources to attacking “soft” targets such as civilians, government employees, politicians, and those cooperating with allied rebuilding efforts.

The US military has reacted to the mine and IED attacks by purchasing small numbers of MPVs. The MPVs are used for mine clearing operations and sometimes as the lead vehicle in patrols. They are also sometimes used as troop transports or for high value cargos or to transport VIPs.

The problem with the tactic of purchasing limited numbers of MPVs is that this is primarily a defensive tactic. The overall tactical situation is improved but the status quo remains. The US military is able to removed IEDs and mines more quickly. Patrols are safer. However, the majority of vehicles such as up-armored Humvees cannot move freely. Patrols still must be very large and move very slow to protect up-armored Humvees and other unprotected vehicles.

What is the solution to the problem? How does the United States render the terrorists and insurgent’s tactic of planting mines and IEDs ineffective? I think the answer is simple. Replace vehicles that are easily destroyed by mines, IEDs and small arms fire with vehicles that are not easily destroyed. The solution is to provide every soldier patrolling in Iraq with an MPV of some type. This will make IEDs and mines relatively ineffective and allow the military to concentrate on other missions such as protecting civilians, hunting down terrorists and insurgents and generally making it very difficult to be a terrorist in Iraq.

Can the US military afford to purchase MPVs for every soldier? The answer is yes. The US military is purchasing “large ticket” items for defense. Many of them are necessary for the future of our nation’s defense. Other “large ticket” items such as the “Osprey” vertical take-off plane are perhaps not so necessary yet get funding. None of the “large ticket” items being budgeted will do very much to increase the effectiveness of the military operating in Iraq. None of them will do very much to reduce the casualties both civilian and military in Iraq. But there is something that can be purchased for less than many of the “large ticket” items that will increase the effectiveness of the soldiers in Iraq, reduce casualties and improve operational effectiveness. That “item” is many more MPVs.

The cost of not replacing up-armored Humvees and other vehicles with MPVs is a large number of casualties both wounded and dead. Each time a IED or mine destroys a Humvee, it is a tragedy in human terms as soldiers are often wounded or killed. The costs to tax payers can be large. The Humvee needs to be replaced including the semi-effective up-armor kits. The wounded must be cared for sometimes for the rest of their lives in cases of amputation or other major injuries. It costs to train replacements for those injured and killed.

The cost that has not even been discussed is what is the cost to Iraqi civilians? IEDs and mines that are meant for US vehicles often injure Iraqis. If the mines and IEDs were ineffective, it is likely fewer would be placed. If soldiers were in MPVs that could survive IED and mine blasts, patrols could be smaller and move faster drastically increasing the area patrolled. How many Iraqi civilians would this save?

Force Protection has recently completed the design and company testing of an MPV that may be used to replace the Humvee. It is called the Cheetah. It is a very tough vehicle that is designed to withstand large mine and IED blasts and small arms fire. It has many large bullet proof windows with firing ports. It can be configured with a remotely fired weapon mounted on the roof for added fire power. The Cheetah is able to carry 6 or 8 people depending on the configuration, has a range of 700 miles, has better fuel efficiency than many domestic SUVs, and has a top sprint speed of 89 MPH. Unlike the Humvee, the Cheetah was designed from the ground up to survive in IED and mine infested areas. The Cheetah is much less expensive than foreign made MPVs and offers much more protection. The Cheetah is made in the United States. Force Protection also sells two other MPVs. They are the Buffalo and Cougar. There are more than 200 Cougars and Buffalos in Iraq and Afghanistan and are used in the most dangerous areas. Already they have survived more than 1000 mine and IED blasts without any major injuries.

The future of anti-insurgent warfare exists today and it is fast, well armed and maneuverable mine protected vehicles. The best of such vehicles is made in the United States by Force Protection, Inc.

FPI (Force Protection, Inc) has the stock ticker FRPT.OB and is traded on the OTCBB exchange.

Comments that you don’t wish to post? Send to amstocks82@yahoo.com

rljp77 said...

And the company continues to execute the potential of their products. You can look at the Qtrly's all you want. What makes a good investor is vision and some common sense.

You have neither. I have a pile of FRPT shares. I don't need a blog to try and make a living.

McGiltons consulting is about making a model operate proficiently and with quality.

Good financial management is about moving money around so that one does not get into trouble...ie your comments on increasing payables to make cashflow improvements. You want to pay your credit card bills off and starve that is up to you.

I was waiting for this moment to reply to your blog as I knew the price of the stock would prove many people correct and show you to be in this for some take on a hedge fund.

I cannot see any reason why an educated person would have made an ass of himself. You must have recieved compensation from somewhere.

Looking forward to your next FRPT blog...hehehehehehe!