Don't believe anything in here delete worthy, but not going to write all this without having a copy for prosperity! Lol
Thanks for the thought our response agri. Please bare with me as only posting this on my ipad so can't change colour of quotes...
"And you think that's good business sense, a company that people will want to invest in?? Bad for shareholders "
For me its not really about that. I've said it's not ideal, but this is not the issue I'm trying to address with Kaymeyer (and seems will never get a response). This has nothing to do with the fundamental business of TelVue.
"Really? So being illiquid is good for the investor? how do you think the pps will rise if no one sells, no one buys, and company not transparent. Being illiquid is horrible for shareholders. PPS could stay at this level for 40 years just like ETCC has, mr lenfest's other company. "
Now whilst I don't necessity believe being illiquid is good or bad for an investors other way - it can be quite the reverse of what you're showing as an example. You're making a if assumption that no one would sell if the share price went higher. Now for the moment the full financials are by request only plus the PR's they release. Are you telling me you don't believe the stock price would rise if say eps in 2yrs is $5.00? At that point, lets just say a low PE of 10 and you have a stock worth $50.00 at which some holders will think "yup, that'll do me nicely". Someone else thinks hey, a stock trading at a PE of 10 that is growing 40%+ annually, sure! And bang, you have a market/trade.
Granted these figures are all plucked from thin air, but you asked how the share price would rise. Quite an easy assumption.
"So what are the fundamentals? no one knows!! No proxy, no PR, no shareholder meeting announcement, no transparency, no information, No benefit to the shareholder. So nothing to vote on this year?"
The basic fundamentals are the company has turned the corner into profitability, growth is increasing and around 40% annually (being conservative), they are expanding their customer base, branching our into new technologies as the market demands etc. this is all just based on the publicly available info. - shareholders can go I to more depth.
This is they key fundamentals that Kaymeyer seems to look past with his predictions and what I would like some reasoning on from him, yourself, or anyone else.
As for meeting etc. - who knows how late they'll do it, that's the point they're not reporting so can do at their leisure, whether you like it or not.
"I disagree as well as to the over agressive comments of some, on both sides of the argument, but without financials, liquidity, transparency or even a known business plan, this company is not shareholder friendly, won't you be surprised when it's sold for current list price and there goes the personal ATM. Sold or back to being a private company, that's what's coming, or maybe like ETCC no shareholder value, just payments of preferred dividends to the majority shareholder. No dividends, No splits, no transparency, no liquidity, no shareholder communication at all and definitely no shorts!!
So what are the proven positives here?? Not looking for rose colored glass hope, but proven information as to why someone should invest in this company???"
I agree in regard to aggressive comments, I don't believe I have been - and perhaps that's why my repeated requests for reasoning behind some of the comments here continue to go ignored.
I don't necessarily disagree that the company is not "investor friendly", but they are it exactly "shareholder unfriendly" either. That's more a point of opinion. I'm happy as a shareholder for them to keep plugging away at the business rather than spending $5k+ pa per shareholder to officially report, spend management time and focus to go around doing analyst roadshows etc - but that's just my opinion as a part owner of the co, not right or wrong, we're all entitled to our thoughts on this one.
You could be right, if the company were sold/privatised tomorrow - we may not receive a premium. But once next financials are released, and co. is worth a lot more than current market cap. - majority holder/management would be facing a flurry of lawsuits if they attempted anything at an unreasonably low price. I realise this brings us back to the whole financials argument, but for the sake of this point, lets just assume we're talking about actual holders who are looking at the audited reports.
The proven positives are as I stated earlier, increasingly profitable, growth increasing YOY and QOQ, rapidly growing industry, new markets, new customers, advancements in technology etc. Again, no one ever seems to address this amongst the huge amount of negative posts on the co.
Thanks for the thought our response agri. Please bare with me as only posting this on my ipad so can't change colour of quotes...
"And you think that's good business sense, a company that people will want to invest in?? Bad for shareholders "
For me its not really about that. I've said it's not ideal, but this is not the issue I'm trying to address with Kaymeyer (and seems will never get a response). This has nothing to do with the fundamental business of TelVue.
"Really? So being illiquid is good for the investor? how do you think the pps will rise if no one sells, no one buys, and company not transparent. Being illiquid is horrible for shareholders. PPS could stay at this level for 40 years just like ETCC has, mr lenfest's other company. "
Now whilst I don't necessity believe being illiquid is good or bad for an investors other way - it can be quite the reverse of what you're showing as an example. You're making a if assumption that no one would sell if the share price went higher. Now for the moment the full financials are by request only plus the PR's they release. Are you telling me you don't believe the stock price would rise if say eps in 2yrs is $5.00? At that point, lets just say a low PE of 10 and you have a stock worth $50.00 at which some holders will think "yup, that'll do me nicely". Someone else thinks hey, a stock trading at a PE of 10 that is growing 40%+ annually, sure! And bang, you have a market/trade.
Granted these figures are all plucked from thin air, but you asked how the share price would rise. Quite an easy assumption.
"So what are the fundamentals? no one knows!! No proxy, no PR, no shareholder meeting announcement, no transparency, no information, No benefit to the shareholder. So nothing to vote on this year?"
The basic fundamentals are the company has turned the corner into profitability, growth is increasing and around 40% annually (being conservative), they are expanding their customer base, branching our into new technologies as the market demands etc. this is all just based on the publicly available info. - shareholders can go I to more depth.
This is they key fundamentals that Kaymeyer seems to look past with his predictions and what I would like some reasoning on from him, yourself, or anyone else.
As for meeting etc. - who knows how late they'll do it, that's the point they're not reporting so can do at their leisure, whether you like it or not.
"I disagree as well as to the over agressive comments of some, on both sides of the argument, but without financials, liquidity, transparency or even a known business plan, this company is not shareholder friendly, won't you be surprised when it's sold for current list price and there goes the personal ATM. Sold or back to being a private company, that's what's coming, or maybe like ETCC no shareholder value, just payments of preferred dividends to the majority shareholder. No dividends, No splits, no transparency, no liquidity, no shareholder communication at all and definitely no shorts!!
So what are the proven positives here?? Not looking for rose colored glass hope, but proven information as to why someone should invest in this company???"
I agree in regard to aggressive comments, I don't believe I have been - and perhaps that's why my repeated requests for reasoning behind some of the comments here continue to go ignored.
I don't necessarily disagree that the company is not "investor friendly", but they are it exactly "shareholder unfriendly" either. That's more a point of opinion. I'm happy as a shareholder for them to keep plugging away at the business rather than spending $5k+ pa per shareholder to officially report, spend management time and focus to go around doing analyst roadshows etc - but that's just my opinion as a part owner of the co, not right or wrong, we're all entitled to our thoughts on this one.
You could be right, if the company were sold/privatised tomorrow - we may not receive a premium. But once next financials are released, and co. is worth a lot more than current market cap. - majority holder/management would be facing a flurry of lawsuits if they attempted anything at an unreasonably low price. I realise this brings us back to the whole financials argument, but for the sake of this point, lets just assume we're talking about actual holders who are looking at the audited reports.
The proven positives are as I stated earlier, increasingly profitable, growth increasing YOY and QOQ, rapidly growing industry, new markets, new customers, advancements in technology etc. Again, no one ever seems to address this amongst the huge amount of negative posts on the co.
