"I really think that this PR could have had a whol
Post# of 22940
Posted On: 05/04/2016 11:36:34 AM
"I really think that this PR could have had a whole different reaction if it included the 1M in licensing revs, balanced out with the licensing agreement fees, giving us the net revs from the 1M in licensing."
several have indicated the above to IR. market wants numbers and be able to correlate their investment capital into an acceptable rate of return in a given time frame. today's PR did nothing for a new investor to "frame" that time horizon. too many "begin to", "looking forward to" etc. it tells the market "this isnt urgent that you research/invest NOW." these PRs should induce new investors to take a deep look at TPAC and expand their audience well beyond the normal OTC investor and well past the day traders. while it does provide significant foundational work, it does not provide any fundamental specifics which is what grabs investors attention and draws them in to learn more. in that vein - i completely agree the wording could have been slightly changed to include the licensing revenue and resulting profit margins on such and use the foundation being laid as a springboard to exponential revenues as outlined in prior business plan.
if i had not already done my DD on TPAC and came across this article - it more than likely would NOT have compelled me to do further research. at most - it might have made me put it on a secondary tickler list to check in one once every while. in that sense, i think the company missed a big opportunity to further their investor base and continue to shore up volatility. what concerns me with the missed opportunity is that any IR firm that has dealt with OTC stocks should KNOW this and understand implicitly how this type of PR would be digested (or not) and reacted to accordingly.
for now - buyers continue to step up in the 25/26 range. however, will they be exhausted before the selling is over? VNDM hanging around at 31 isnt doing the stock any favors as well.
news in the PR was important and could end up being extremely significant. it is now up to IR to build upon the release and highlight why the company feels this is so "huge" so that investors get the same impression/perspective.
several have indicated the above to IR. market wants numbers and be able to correlate their investment capital into an acceptable rate of return in a given time frame. today's PR did nothing for a new investor to "frame" that time horizon. too many "begin to", "looking forward to" etc. it tells the market "this isnt urgent that you research/invest NOW." these PRs should induce new investors to take a deep look at TPAC and expand their audience well beyond the normal OTC investor and well past the day traders. while it does provide significant foundational work, it does not provide any fundamental specifics which is what grabs investors attention and draws them in to learn more. in that vein - i completely agree the wording could have been slightly changed to include the licensing revenue and resulting profit margins on such and use the foundation being laid as a springboard to exponential revenues as outlined in prior business plan.
if i had not already done my DD on TPAC and came across this article - it more than likely would NOT have compelled me to do further research. at most - it might have made me put it on a secondary tickler list to check in one once every while. in that sense, i think the company missed a big opportunity to further their investor base and continue to shore up volatility. what concerns me with the missed opportunity is that any IR firm that has dealt with OTC stocks should KNOW this and understand implicitly how this type of PR would be digested (or not) and reacted to accordingly.
for now - buyers continue to step up in the 25/26 range. however, will they be exhausted before the selling is over? VNDM hanging around at 31 isnt doing the stock any favors as well.
news in the PR was important and could end up being extremely significant. it is now up to IR to build upon the release and highlight why the company feels this is so "huge" so that investors get the same impression/perspective.
(12)
(0)