In general you're right about trips, but I believe the issue is more complex. Investors need to see:
- the CEO performing. The bashers on iHub undertook a massive character assassination job on Matt Dwyer and BCAP....
- the business plan being executed without massive dilution. The result here is mixed - TA up and running, name change occurred, but we had an A/S and O/S increase...
- revenue generation and then profit. A/S and O/S increase was to accelerate revenue growth by funding $RIGH and $TGGI. It's hard to explain over and over when the CEO's character is being assassinated....
Question is even if BCAP trades in the 00's, how does it undo the damage to investor confidence caused when BCAP traded in the trips?
The best thing Matt can do right now IMO is acquire a slightly smaller brokerage that will not require dilution and file for the additional licenses post factum. There are time delays with this because of the approval process, but it will kill the dilution argument. It's really a question of balance and strategy.
- the CEO performing. The bashers on iHub undertook a massive character assassination job on Matt Dwyer and BCAP....
- the business plan being executed without massive dilution. The result here is mixed - TA up and running, name change occurred, but we had an A/S and O/S increase...
- revenue generation and then profit. A/S and O/S increase was to accelerate revenue growth by funding $RIGH and $TGGI. It's hard to explain over and over when the CEO's character is being assassinated....
Question is even if BCAP trades in the 00's, how does it undo the damage to investor confidence caused when BCAP traded in the trips?
The best thing Matt can do right now IMO is acquire a slightly smaller brokerage that will not require dilution and file for the additional licenses post factum. There are time delays with this because of the approval process, but it will kill the dilution argument. It's really a question of balance and strategy.
