i completely agree and then some:
"but this stock need infos for open market, not via twitter, CC or E-mail.
all this infos for just "Insiders" will only help "manipulators"
Sorry, but in my mind Mngt. should know that. Other way they have to learn"
all of this "fantastic" news about burgeoning EIA contracts, revenues, loan guarantees, locked in SLAs and the stock has traded 561K shares today worth a mere $774. the stock remains well off its 52 week highs despite the promise of "big news" in September and more specific and frequent PRs for the future...where are they?
at this point, i dont think IR can make it any more clear that the BTL SLA is locked in for $135MM over 10 years with a optional review at year 3. that suggests a minimum of $13.5MM in revenues from BTL ALONE without considering EIA, additional SLAs, etc. with new revenue projections provided, that would put this squarely in the $0.025 - $0.05 range on a conservative growth PE and/or PS ratio. so - why does it continue to languish with virtually no volume...?
visibility. what does teh company have to lose from NOT disseminating this to the investment world in the tried, true, and respected PR outlets? Tweets suggested that company was throwing a bone to early investors/long term investors by keeping them in the loop of reconstruction and developments prior to more wide spread "marketing" of the results. it still falls under full disclosure as it is all public but one still has to take the time to look. so-taking that at face value-WHEN is the time to open up the doors? the $135MM SLA that is supposedly locked up tight is worthy of one completely on its own. that is simply ground changing for the company. and outside of 50-100 shareholders on Twitter/email - who knows about it?
now - it is entirely possible they arent concerned (as a company) because they KNOW these are locked in and the convertible debt can no longer wreak havoc on the PPS. further, if they are truly interested in buying back stock (which has been a flip flop since reconstruction efforts were disclosed - 1st that was part of 2017 plans and last week it was walked back significantly if not completely taken off the table), then it makes sense to buy back shares as cheaply as possible. if they are taking buyback off the table - loosed the reigns on information and get it out there.
i am also disappointed that Bill was not on the CC. several had asked about that on here and Twitter and they committed to his attendance. sh1t happens in business everyday but it wasnt even addressed until asked about it on Twitter. if something came up - postpone the call. further - as far as the CC format - pay for a service instead of the free version. they are relatively inexpensive at this point, sound significantly more professional, and keep the flow consistent.
i dont see how they can hit a target of $0.01 by EOY if they are continuing to rely on the same investor base that is seemingly tapped out. if they arent - why in the world are they waiting to buy when the price is 14-15 and the company is adamant that it will be 5-7 x that in 3-4 months...?! that is about as close as you get to easy money.
any mgmt team no the OTC has a daily fight with credibility due to the nature of the beast. it is an absolute. gets much worse when you deal with toxic debt and the manipulation that comes with it. however, if you have a legitimate story to tell and can back up with numbers - i have rarely seen examples where it is best NOT to disseminate that information to as large of a potential investor base as possible. by not doing so, one can easily spin the lack thereof as "proof" the current shareholders are being used as sucker bait.
as a "long term shareholder" - my investment awhile back was made largely on the original business plan that had revenues starting in earnest end of 2015 and Bill's conversations. while revenues DID start end of 2015, they did not ramp up as expected. granted, they have 4 months left in the year but IR already downplayed revenue expectations in 2016 and alluded that 2017 was now the year. again - how many times have investors in OTC stocks heard that...? "next year is the year." combined with the lack of PR on a $135MM contract that will bring in $13.5MM/year for the next 3 years when currently they only have $109K on the books - i would say that is cause to let the investment world know you have fully transitioned from R&D to sales and marketing and that the new revenue projections are steeped in reality and not BS.
"but this stock need infos for open market, not via twitter, CC or E-mail.
all this infos for just "Insiders" will only help "manipulators"
Sorry, but in my mind Mngt. should know that. Other way they have to learn"
all of this "fantastic" news about burgeoning EIA contracts, revenues, loan guarantees, locked in SLAs and the stock has traded 561K shares today worth a mere $774. the stock remains well off its 52 week highs despite the promise of "big news" in September and more specific and frequent PRs for the future...where are they?
at this point, i dont think IR can make it any more clear that the BTL SLA is locked in for $135MM over 10 years with a optional review at year 3. that suggests a minimum of $13.5MM in revenues from BTL ALONE without considering EIA, additional SLAs, etc. with new revenue projections provided, that would put this squarely in the $0.025 - $0.05 range on a conservative growth PE and/or PS ratio. so - why does it continue to languish with virtually no volume...?
visibility. what does teh company have to lose from NOT disseminating this to the investment world in the tried, true, and respected PR outlets? Tweets suggested that company was throwing a bone to early investors/long term investors by keeping them in the loop of reconstruction and developments prior to more wide spread "marketing" of the results. it still falls under full disclosure as it is all public but one still has to take the time to look. so-taking that at face value-WHEN is the time to open up the doors? the $135MM SLA that is supposedly locked up tight is worthy of one completely on its own. that is simply ground changing for the company. and outside of 50-100 shareholders on Twitter/email - who knows about it?
now - it is entirely possible they arent concerned (as a company) because they KNOW these are locked in and the convertible debt can no longer wreak havoc on the PPS. further, if they are truly interested in buying back stock (which has been a flip flop since reconstruction efforts were disclosed - 1st that was part of 2017 plans and last week it was walked back significantly if not completely taken off the table), then it makes sense to buy back shares as cheaply as possible. if they are taking buyback off the table - loosed the reigns on information and get it out there.
i am also disappointed that Bill was not on the CC. several had asked about that on here and Twitter and they committed to his attendance. sh1t happens in business everyday but it wasnt even addressed until asked about it on Twitter. if something came up - postpone the call. further - as far as the CC format - pay for a service instead of the free version. they are relatively inexpensive at this point, sound significantly more professional, and keep the flow consistent.
i dont see how they can hit a target of $0.01 by EOY if they are continuing to rely on the same investor base that is seemingly tapped out. if they arent - why in the world are they waiting to buy when the price is 14-15 and the company is adamant that it will be 5-7 x that in 3-4 months...?! that is about as close as you get to easy money.
any mgmt team no the OTC has a daily fight with credibility due to the nature of the beast. it is an absolute. gets much worse when you deal with toxic debt and the manipulation that comes with it. however, if you have a legitimate story to tell and can back up with numbers - i have rarely seen examples where it is best NOT to disseminate that information to as large of a potential investor base as possible. by not doing so, one can easily spin the lack thereof as "proof" the current shareholders are being used as sucker bait.
as a "long term shareholder" - my investment awhile back was made largely on the original business plan that had revenues starting in earnest end of 2015 and Bill's conversations. while revenues DID start end of 2015, they did not ramp up as expected. granted, they have 4 months left in the year but IR already downplayed revenue expectations in 2016 and alluded that 2017 was now the year. again - how many times have investors in OTC stocks heard that...? "next year is the year." combined with the lack of PR on a $135MM contract that will bring in $13.5MM/year for the next 3 years when currently they only have $109K on the books - i would say that is cause to let the investment world know you have fully transitioned from R&D to sales and marketing and that the new revenue projections are steeped in reality and not BS.
14
1
