Gerry - thank you for the reply and addressing the question:
"Before they are able to attract investors they must first show revenue and growth, otherwise they could put out a million PRs and still only attract traders"
I dont understand the logic behind this. Are they referring to showing revenue on the books or signed contracts? Generally, the companies I follow put out PRs for major contract signings when they are completed - not when said revenues hit the books. The point is to inform investors of the material event and prove viability (for growing/emerging companies). This is where PPS becomes critical from a company standpoint and not individual investor standpoint - it is their primary source of leverage (perceived and actual) towards gaining capital at attractive terms AND gaining larger, longer term investors which provide long term PPS stability and installed investor base for secondary offerings (if needed). By that rationale - they should be informing these potential investors now and making them aware the company has turned the corner towards production from R&D phase AND they have guaranteed contracts on the book to give a clear path towards company meeting guidance. These investors absorb supply from traders, have a longer time horizon (which reduce volatiliy), and become a source to attract more of the same. There are multiple levels of risk for any class of investors and you arent going to attract institutional investors with ANY PR when trading just above trips. However, you can bring in new longer term investors (like myself) that look for real value and potential in emerging companies. Right now - this is nothing but a trading stock/dumping ground for MMs due to the uncertainty and constant cryptic messaging from IR. I am certainly not the only one that has asked or addressed IR looking for more clarity with their posts or answers. Further, since IR has already publicly and privately labeled me a "basher" - they arent exactly a good source for me to address questions to. On the flip side - Bill has been the opposite which he has demonstrated on the past CCs and on the phone which anyone will that has spoken to him willusually attest to.
It isnt a matter of impatience - its a matter of fundamentals and focus on the company part. I would argue I have/had a longer term horizon than 90%+ on here (not that most will admit it). I havent sold any shares since I started buying at 0.0002 even though I should have above 0.005. Instead- I was buying on the way down and more aggressively as it tanked - UNTIL the reconstruction and uncertainty came in. That was exasperated by the emergence of IR and VNDM showing up at the same time and then OS going from 1.8 to over 3 BB. Part of that was an error addressed by Bill. However - end of 2015/beginning of 2016 he was talking about getting under 1BB OS on buybacks and through M&A. Now we are 3.4BB and IR is talking 400-800MM in 6 months or so. The current guidance for EOY revenue does NOT support cash flow to make that happen. Even if the loan comes in it would be tough. The fundamentals have changed and are unclear. That is a concern. If/when they book revenue that shows they are back on track to plan and able to sustain cash flow to make that happen - it will be a much smaller concern.
OTC stocks rarely trade on fundamentals but if they are going to succeed long term - they will DO to them.
As far as happy/unhappy - that is somewhat irrelevant. Debating fundamentals, perceptions, interpretations, IR responses, intent is not bitching, whining, or complaining. It is ferreting out details and unknowns so that individual investors can properly balance the risk and reward to their own risk profile. This notion that any questioning is negative is not only absurd but destructive. Maybe that is the goal.
For the company to hit their several times now stated goal of 0.01 PPS by EOY- they HAVE to attract a lot of new and long term minded investors. Period. The more they let the stock fluctuate and increase volatility, the more traders/overhead they will attract that will specifically retard that process. They have 3 months left. They have committed to about $75-250K in revenues so far to hit 2016 books. That is NOT going to give the company a market cap of $35MM which would be what it takes to hit a penny. $13.5MM "guaranteed " a year for 10 years does that at under 3X sales not to mention the EIA potential and other SLAs. The longer they wait - the higher the volatility. Doesnt make sense (if the SLA is guaranteed). If it isnt - then IR was less than forthcoming in past communication. To me, he made it pretty clear that $13.5MM could be considered minimum guidance for 2017.
Finally - pointing out negatives and objections and having someone objectively and resolutely counter them is one of the surest ways to close a sale/win a debate. Arbitrarily dismissing them or diminishing their importance only magnifies their significance in the eyes of those holding them.
"Before they are able to attract investors they must first show revenue and growth, otherwise they could put out a million PRs and still only attract traders"
I dont understand the logic behind this. Are they referring to showing revenue on the books or signed contracts? Generally, the companies I follow put out PRs for major contract signings when they are completed - not when said revenues hit the books. The point is to inform investors of the material event and prove viability (for growing/emerging companies). This is where PPS becomes critical from a company standpoint and not individual investor standpoint - it is their primary source of leverage (perceived and actual) towards gaining capital at attractive terms AND gaining larger, longer term investors which provide long term PPS stability and installed investor base for secondary offerings (if needed). By that rationale - they should be informing these potential investors now and making them aware the company has turned the corner towards production from R&D phase AND they have guaranteed contracts on the book to give a clear path towards company meeting guidance. These investors absorb supply from traders, have a longer time horizon (which reduce volatiliy), and become a source to attract more of the same. There are multiple levels of risk for any class of investors and you arent going to attract institutional investors with ANY PR when trading just above trips. However, you can bring in new longer term investors (like myself) that look for real value and potential in emerging companies. Right now - this is nothing but a trading stock/dumping ground for MMs due to the uncertainty and constant cryptic messaging from IR. I am certainly not the only one that has asked or addressed IR looking for more clarity with their posts or answers. Further, since IR has already publicly and privately labeled me a "basher" - they arent exactly a good source for me to address questions to. On the flip side - Bill has been the opposite which he has demonstrated on the past CCs and on the phone which anyone will that has spoken to him willusually attest to.
It isnt a matter of impatience - its a matter of fundamentals and focus on the company part. I would argue I have/had a longer term horizon than 90%+ on here (not that most will admit it). I havent sold any shares since I started buying at 0.0002 even though I should have above 0.005. Instead- I was buying on the way down and more aggressively as it tanked - UNTIL the reconstruction and uncertainty came in. That was exasperated by the emergence of IR and VNDM showing up at the same time and then OS going from 1.8 to over 3 BB. Part of that was an error addressed by Bill. However - end of 2015/beginning of 2016 he was talking about getting under 1BB OS on buybacks and through M&A. Now we are 3.4BB and IR is talking 400-800MM in 6 months or so. The current guidance for EOY revenue does NOT support cash flow to make that happen. Even if the loan comes in it would be tough. The fundamentals have changed and are unclear. That is a concern. If/when they book revenue that shows they are back on track to plan and able to sustain cash flow to make that happen - it will be a much smaller concern.
OTC stocks rarely trade on fundamentals but if they are going to succeed long term - they will DO to them.
As far as happy/unhappy - that is somewhat irrelevant. Debating fundamentals, perceptions, interpretations, IR responses, intent is not bitching, whining, or complaining. It is ferreting out details and unknowns so that individual investors can properly balance the risk and reward to their own risk profile. This notion that any questioning is negative is not only absurd but destructive. Maybe that is the goal.
For the company to hit their several times now stated goal of 0.01 PPS by EOY- they HAVE to attract a lot of new and long term minded investors. Period. The more they let the stock fluctuate and increase volatility, the more traders/overhead they will attract that will specifically retard that process. They have 3 months left. They have committed to about $75-250K in revenues so far to hit 2016 books. That is NOT going to give the company a market cap of $35MM which would be what it takes to hit a penny. $13.5MM "guaranteed " a year for 10 years does that at under 3X sales not to mention the EIA potential and other SLAs. The longer they wait - the higher the volatility. Doesnt make sense (if the SLA is guaranteed). If it isnt - then IR was less than forthcoming in past communication. To me, he made it pretty clear that $13.5MM could be considered minimum guidance for 2017.
Finally - pointing out negatives and objections and having someone objectively and resolutely counter them is one of the surest ways to close a sale/win a debate. Arbitrarily dismissing them or diminishing their importance only magnifies their significance in the eyes of those holding them.
7
