VNDM - where are the shares coming from? VNDM and VFIN are two of the largest MMs for convertible debt.
what was OS told to shareholders at end of 2015/beginning of 2016? 1.8BB-1.9BB before Bill tweeted an issue with admin. that put it back to mid 2BB. it is now 3.2BB and based on constant VNDM presence would be prudent to assume it is growing even if not from toxic debt and instead straight conversions for services rendered. the OS is growing and is significantly above YE 2015 and more importantly - the TREND to what was being discussed by Bill early and mid year 2015 (about buybacks, reduction in OS, and accelerated by financing tied to M&A). several on here were looking at OS around 800MM-1.5BB based on share price and commitment to continue to buyback at that time. big difference from where we are at today.
i realize cash flow for operations has to come from somewhere. i also realize there is a reconstruction underway and original 2014/2015 plans for financing tied with significant acquisitions (relative to $TPAC size) that would have provided cash flow for operations/continued buyback has changed. however, when is the end in sight? when do revenues ramp up to the point of providing unlevered cash flow that allows operations and provides confidence for traditional lending/capitalization without dilution?
this isnt bashing. this is basic DD for long term investors. right now - this is a monster ? and no answers or guidance. previously, Bill had laid out a detailed biz plan with revenue streams as rough guidance for first 5 years once production commenced. that allowed one to look at revenues and rough estimates on GM/margins to determine cash flow and determine suitable risk based on market multiples being assigned to stock price. that remains unanswered. maybe we get the guidance at the end of the 90 days...? if so - why not just unambiguously state that updated, long term revenue guidance based on new company structure will be provided at the end of those 90 days and/or before "X" date? that continues to be danced around. telling people to "be patient" on revenues is not an answer when dealing in the murky world of OTC and imploding a biz plan that many long term investors were investing on to begin with. that is a major change in fundamentals.
SLAs could be extremely lucrative. but earliest start date so far isnt until 1Q17 which means revenues dont really come into play until then or more than likely 2Q17. what is value (or cash flow potential) of current contracts? is it enough to cover overhead? when do licensing revenues kick in? will the company need to borrow money/dilute for another couple quarters until they become self sustaining?
i find it somewhere between disheartening and frightening that some on this board think this is bashing or not having a long term approach. it becomes amusing based on some of the stated positions relative to mine and those i know that have 2-3X what i have.
you dont call serious investors bashers because they are looking for fundamental information/numbers to properly evaluate risk/reward and its impact on share price. that, again, is proper DD. if they do not want investors making informed, long term decisions, then they will be relegated to further declining share price exasperated by the short term traders and flippers. in the meantime, the longer the drop, the more likely long term shareholders will decide there are better places for their long term capital and/or risk getting out of TPAC on the assumption they can get back in later at about the same price or lower and when they are closer to being cash flow sustaining.
companies compete for investor capital at all levels (long term low risk and short term high risk). companies that are highly leveraged and must return to the equity market to sustain operations are particularly susceptible to collapse in share price due to the uncertainty. the company must continually "sell" their story and long term return on capital employed so that investors keep that capital in place and anchor the share price which buoys the supply while demand (hopefully) increases. by alienating those long term share holders by lack of clarity (or worse - trying to discredit legitimate questions and concerns), the company creates a key void needed to bolster stock price and limit the effect of future dilution.
right now - that is not happening here. this is the way the market works. supply and demand. risk/reward tolerance. risk capital being employed in long and short term vehicles to maximize reward and minimize risk. to call it bashing is juvenile at best and destructive at worst.
taking out the 500MM-600MM error on Bill's part in reporting when OS was reported around 1.8-1.9BB (I dont have exact #s with me) - how did the OS get back to 3.4BB? how is that not dilution? it may be needed but one can not say it hasnt occurred in 2016.
what was OS told to shareholders at end of 2015/beginning of 2016? 1.8BB-1.9BB before Bill tweeted an issue with admin. that put it back to mid 2BB. it is now 3.2BB and based on constant VNDM presence would be prudent to assume it is growing even if not from toxic debt and instead straight conversions for services rendered. the OS is growing and is significantly above YE 2015 and more importantly - the TREND to what was being discussed by Bill early and mid year 2015 (about buybacks, reduction in OS, and accelerated by financing tied to M&A). several on here were looking at OS around 800MM-1.5BB based on share price and commitment to continue to buyback at that time. big difference from where we are at today.
i realize cash flow for operations has to come from somewhere. i also realize there is a reconstruction underway and original 2014/2015 plans for financing tied with significant acquisitions (relative to $TPAC size) that would have provided cash flow for operations/continued buyback has changed. however, when is the end in sight? when do revenues ramp up to the point of providing unlevered cash flow that allows operations and provides confidence for traditional lending/capitalization without dilution?
this isnt bashing. this is basic DD for long term investors. right now - this is a monster ? and no answers or guidance. previously, Bill had laid out a detailed biz plan with revenue streams as rough guidance for first 5 years once production commenced. that allowed one to look at revenues and rough estimates on GM/margins to determine cash flow and determine suitable risk based on market multiples being assigned to stock price. that remains unanswered. maybe we get the guidance at the end of the 90 days...? if so - why not just unambiguously state that updated, long term revenue guidance based on new company structure will be provided at the end of those 90 days and/or before "X" date? that continues to be danced around. telling people to "be patient" on revenues is not an answer when dealing in the murky world of OTC and imploding a biz plan that many long term investors were investing on to begin with. that is a major change in fundamentals.
SLAs could be extremely lucrative. but earliest start date so far isnt until 1Q17 which means revenues dont really come into play until then or more than likely 2Q17. what is value (or cash flow potential) of current contracts? is it enough to cover overhead? when do licensing revenues kick in? will the company need to borrow money/dilute for another couple quarters until they become self sustaining?
i find it somewhere between disheartening and frightening that some on this board think this is bashing or not having a long term approach. it becomes amusing based on some of the stated positions relative to mine and those i know that have 2-3X what i have.
you dont call serious investors bashers because they are looking for fundamental information/numbers to properly evaluate risk/reward and its impact on share price. that, again, is proper DD. if they do not want investors making informed, long term decisions, then they will be relegated to further declining share price exasperated by the short term traders and flippers. in the meantime, the longer the drop, the more likely long term shareholders will decide there are better places for their long term capital and/or risk getting out of TPAC on the assumption they can get back in later at about the same price or lower and when they are closer to being cash flow sustaining.
companies compete for investor capital at all levels (long term low risk and short term high risk). companies that are highly leveraged and must return to the equity market to sustain operations are particularly susceptible to collapse in share price due to the uncertainty. the company must continually "sell" their story and long term return on capital employed so that investors keep that capital in place and anchor the share price which buoys the supply while demand (hopefully) increases. by alienating those long term share holders by lack of clarity (or worse - trying to discredit legitimate questions and concerns), the company creates a key void needed to bolster stock price and limit the effect of future dilution.
right now - that is not happening here. this is the way the market works. supply and demand. risk/reward tolerance. risk capital being employed in long and short term vehicles to maximize reward and minimize risk. to call it bashing is juvenile at best and destructive at worst.
taking out the 500MM-600MM error on Bill's part in reporting when OS was reported around 1.8-1.9BB (I dont have exact #s with me) - how did the OS get back to 3.4BB? how is that not dilution? it may be needed but one can not say it hasnt occurred in 2016.
11
