this remains a major issue for long term shareholders:
"That order was for about 9M shares (filled in drips and drabs since last week). Just think, 9M shares filled AFTER being blocked by Muse/IR.
Muse/IR, you chumps reading this? I believe in $TPAC as a company. You can block me all you want."
IR/MUSE seems to be busy again today clogging twitter timelines with self congratulatory tweets on MRVB positions and condescending tweets to those looking for company information/long term shareholders.
doesnt matter how many shares they buyback - if no long term shareholders exists - only the traders will flip the swings that the buyback uplift creates. maybe that is their goal - alienate all long term shareholders until there is nothing but flippers to keep the price down. in the meantime, their people (IR group - who knows how many or what their group is comprised of) can be buying in the background and then can systematically unload during the preplanned NWE. since no long term shareholders remain, the price will tank and they can wash, rinse, and repeat until the next NWE and all the while - blame the "agenda" for keeping the price down. cynical...? absolutely! but unfortunately it makes more sense in the OTC world and what I have seen throughout my investing history than purposely alienating those that could become your staunchest advocates.
asked the question earlier but never saw an answer: how much money has MRVB "made" for TPAC so far? have had several others ask including myself for a brief, daily summary of net impact each day. after all, isnt that what investors are most concerned about - the net cash available to buyback shares and reduce OS to increase the value of the remaining shares and provide leverage going forward?
new question from tweets today - why does MRVB "performance" warrant an immediate NWE but they are still working out wording (or whatever the reason is) for a NWE on a "guaranteed" $135MM SLA that puts a definitive $10MM/year on the top line going forward? particularly when current year revenues look to be less than $500K based on last CC (could be significantly higher if company is able to force new contracts/first deliveries into 2016 but right now - that is all that has been booked or provided as guidance going forward).
that SLA would seem to have a lot more teeth for existing and potential investors going forward than $100/day trading profit to reduce OS. while $100 over 200 trading days a year is $20K and that could reduce OS by 20MM shares at current share price of $0.001 (where was share price when IR/MUSE took over?) - how much per day do they need to realize to reduce by over 3BB shares (per CC target at 400-800MM in 6-8 months)? that is 15MM shares/trading day which would require $15K in realized gains (assuming price never increases). how much capital is required in funding MRVB to get $15K in net gains per trading day? if memory serves, James thought this was possible in 6-8 months (reduced share count) so those numbers would have to be doubled or increased by 33%. i have seen the "do the math" tweets but this math doesnt add up.
for new investors trying to understand what the company does and gets on the twitter feed -how are they supposed to take the snippy remarks? in what realm is this ever considered professional? i realize the stock may be "under attack" but that is true of pretty much any OTC ticker out there with ANY volume. how does assuming every person asking questions trying to understand what is real and what is fluff is automatically a short/basher/naked hedge fund manager/etc broaden the investor base and "expand" available capital? i know there are those on here that feel that we are lucky to have the information/feedback from IR - certainly a viable opinion. However, there are certainly a number on here that feel the opposite and that their communication with shareholders has been a detriment. that is also a viable opinion even if not a particularly comforting one. since Bill quit communicating directly as the prime source, the PPS is down drastically and the OS is up substantially. how have the long term investors benefitted? it is obvious how the traders have and continue on the swings.
IR Muse may be doing a lot of good for the company/shareholders behind the scenes. i dont know. i certainly HOPE they are. however, in front of the curtains, i see them as being incendiary and condescending which I have never witnessed being successful in courting new investors or keeping long term ones.
and for the common retort with no debate - i know. i know - sell my shares. the coded tweets and not so subtle inferences are noted. however, at this point, i still believe the company (ie - long term with bearings / SLAs) can be successful despite the drag and i will get an acceptable return. no worries though, as soon as i believe that not to be the case, "you" can have them all back. not sure what you will do with them though. plenty available for the taking now and you dont exactly seem to be jumping at the offers. i am sure it is all part of "your" brilliant plan.
"That order was for about 9M shares (filled in drips and drabs since last week). Just think, 9M shares filled AFTER being blocked by Muse/IR.
Muse/IR, you chumps reading this? I believe in $TPAC as a company. You can block me all you want."
IR/MUSE seems to be busy again today clogging twitter timelines with self congratulatory tweets on MRVB positions and condescending tweets to those looking for company information/long term shareholders.
doesnt matter how many shares they buyback - if no long term shareholders exists - only the traders will flip the swings that the buyback uplift creates. maybe that is their goal - alienate all long term shareholders until there is nothing but flippers to keep the price down. in the meantime, their people (IR group - who knows how many or what their group is comprised of) can be buying in the background and then can systematically unload during the preplanned NWE. since no long term shareholders remain, the price will tank and they can wash, rinse, and repeat until the next NWE and all the while - blame the "agenda" for keeping the price down. cynical...? absolutely! but unfortunately it makes more sense in the OTC world and what I have seen throughout my investing history than purposely alienating those that could become your staunchest advocates.
asked the question earlier but never saw an answer: how much money has MRVB "made" for TPAC so far? have had several others ask including myself for a brief, daily summary of net impact each day. after all, isnt that what investors are most concerned about - the net cash available to buyback shares and reduce OS to increase the value of the remaining shares and provide leverage going forward?
new question from tweets today - why does MRVB "performance" warrant an immediate NWE but they are still working out wording (or whatever the reason is) for a NWE on a "guaranteed" $135MM SLA that puts a definitive $10MM/year on the top line going forward? particularly when current year revenues look to be less than $500K based on last CC (could be significantly higher if company is able to force new contracts/first deliveries into 2016 but right now - that is all that has been booked or provided as guidance going forward).
that SLA would seem to have a lot more teeth for existing and potential investors going forward than $100/day trading profit to reduce OS. while $100 over 200 trading days a year is $20K and that could reduce OS by 20MM shares at current share price of $0.001 (where was share price when IR/MUSE took over?) - how much per day do they need to realize to reduce by over 3BB shares (per CC target at 400-800MM in 6-8 months)? that is 15MM shares/trading day which would require $15K in realized gains (assuming price never increases). how much capital is required in funding MRVB to get $15K in net gains per trading day? if memory serves, James thought this was possible in 6-8 months (reduced share count) so those numbers would have to be doubled or increased by 33%. i have seen the "do the math" tweets but this math doesnt add up.
for new investors trying to understand what the company does and gets on the twitter feed -how are they supposed to take the snippy remarks? in what realm is this ever considered professional? i realize the stock may be "under attack" but that is true of pretty much any OTC ticker out there with ANY volume. how does assuming every person asking questions trying to understand what is real and what is fluff is automatically a short/basher/naked hedge fund manager/etc broaden the investor base and "expand" available capital? i know there are those on here that feel that we are lucky to have the information/feedback from IR - certainly a viable opinion. However, there are certainly a number on here that feel the opposite and that their communication with shareholders has been a detriment. that is also a viable opinion even if not a particularly comforting one. since Bill quit communicating directly as the prime source, the PPS is down drastically and the OS is up substantially. how have the long term investors benefitted? it is obvious how the traders have and continue on the swings.
IR Muse may be doing a lot of good for the company/shareholders behind the scenes. i dont know. i certainly HOPE they are. however, in front of the curtains, i see them as being incendiary and condescending which I have never witnessed being successful in courting new investors or keeping long term ones.
and for the common retort with no debate - i know. i know - sell my shares. the coded tweets and not so subtle inferences are noted. however, at this point, i still believe the company (ie - long term with bearings / SLAs) can be successful despite the drag and i will get an acceptable return. no worries though, as soon as i believe that not to be the case, "you" can have them all back. not sure what you will do with them though. plenty available for the taking now and you dont exactly seem to be jumping at the offers. i am sure it is all part of "your" brilliant plan.
11
