and that type of comment sounds exactly like the misdirection and subterfuge that makes manipulation tactics successful:
"this sounds like ihub has infiltrated this board by hiding in plain sight...bringing up non issues and acting innocent when brought up. imo its just a ploy to distract from all the success this company is coming into"
let iLie be the "boogeyman" while hyping the stock over here and blaming all of the problems with a tanking stock price on the "agenda." since i have been here from the beginning and my post history shows a balanced but generally positive outlook on the company and potential (until IR/OS started ballooning again) one can easily deduce that i am not a paid activist. further, i have publicly and emphatically stated my position and stance on the company numerous times as well as i have never shorted any stock ever. if i was doing the opposite - my IP could be traced, the messages tied to me, and sued/convicted for fraud. this is why you will never see the typical basher make such a public affirmation. leaves much less wiggle room. that aside, trying to stifle any legitimate criticism only makes this board the antithesis of iLie and equally illegitimate.
for all i know as an outside investor - this IR group could be being paid with shares that vest immediately or over a period of time. lets say it is 6 months. they build up the hype of reconstruction, MRVB, SLAs, etc and then when their vesting hits - they unload through a secondary or tertiary MM. VNDM has been here as long as IR. OS has gone up significantly since they arrived and keeps rising. and most importantly - when they aggressively objected to my inquiries and others on how they were being compensated (as consultants, employees, on performance, etc) we were told specifically it was "none of our business" and we didnt need to know that. as a shareholder, i have a very STRONG vested interest in knowing if the interests of those working on behalf of the company are aligned with the company and shareholders for long term appreciation. since IR has come on board - the stock price is decidedly down and the OS has increased dramatically. those numbers have been presented on this site by myself and others but "you know where to look" to confirm them.
ironically, Bill's style is in stark contrast to IR. in his previous CC and via phone, he has been very reserved with making any type of projections with respect to stock price and seems to take great pride in making sure he fully answers questions and the person asking understands. this could be why i and others have asked for his participation on the past and future CCs. he said he was going to reduce OS in 2015 and he did. he said they would start production end of 2015 and they did. the reconstruction took the place of planned M&A activity for EOY 2015 and early 2016 and that is part of business as strategies need to be adjusted.
in contrast - IR keeps reiterating $0.01 by EOY but not even discussing how that is possible at this juncture. they are limited to the number of shares they can buy back on any day based on past 30 day volume and must buy on BID and not within the power hours. the simple mechanics of reducing the shares enough to get to $0.01 is very difficult to do by year end unless MRVB generates significantly more cash than planned, they use significantly more than 10%, or they use cash from elsewhere. in a growing business that is cash strained - it doesnt make sense to use growth capital to buyback stock even if it does appear to be severely depressed. whether or not they can or should buyback stock isnt the issue so much as throwing that PPS target out there and then not actively defending it with a real plan that is able to be vetted by shareholders for viability.
when Bill put out the original 5 year plan - nowhere (that I recall) did he give a PPS target. instead, his goal was to uplist to get off the OTC exchange. now - that takes a mix of certain share price, market cap, etc and investors can infer and model from there how that might work. but putting a specific PPS target out there publicly and then getting red assed when shareholders ask how that is possible is certainly reason to debate the pros and cons and the overall effectiveness of IR for the company/shareholders that arent active traders/following MRVB minute to minute.
IR doesnt like me - fine. i am not impressed with their methods of communication, guidance provided, or the way they treat shareholders - fine. however, this forum is a forum to debate the pros and cons and why i may be right or wrong on my opinions and perspective and why others may be as well. everything is not all roses and we on the outside have NO way to confirm what is actually going on. we cant see parts being made, sold, or used. we arent in the negotiations for current or future SLAs. we dont know if any additional revenue will hit in 2016 or even 2017 for that matter as nothing is currently being produced on any existing contract/SLA (or at least nothing of any size). we have $109K booked in 2015 and still not paid for per last 10Q.
this company has tremendous potential (which is why i and others invested for the long term) surrounding (as i see it) the following key areas:
>bill's relationships and understanding of the SE Asia market with respect to bearings
>bill's understanding of the Chinese culture and personal relationships which are critical to doing business in that area (most probably dont realize how critical this is if they have never dealt with this market.
>the ability to exploit the lack of domestic production of bearings and the cost efficiencies gained (through the offsets) by producing "American" parts in china with the NAVAIR certification and US QA/QC standards but still being domestically produced.
>willingness to consider alternative channels to supplement drive forward existing biz plan and modify as necessary when opportunity presents itself. here - MRVB platform can be brilliant and provide exactly what it is being laid out as intended to do: generate revenue to supplement top line while also buying back stock/leveling out the tops and bottoms of the trading that detracts traditional investors. however, if IR goes out of their way to alienate the ones they have - it becomes rather ineffective as a tool to attract long term, stable capital.
all of this right now is in the future as far as potential (the certifications and structure seem to be in place to capitalize on it). however, none of it is even remotely guaranteed to come to fruition. the road of the OTC is completely littered with potential and success right around the corner.
so - dont use a silly misdirect that i am a short, paid basher, iLie spy, etc to deflect or ignore the question or intent of my posts or others who are being rightfully critical. instead - try actually answering the question in your own words with some facts and figures. with only 2.5 months remaining - how can PPS realistically get to $0.01 by year end? and fully expect debate on the feasibility of your answer from i or others if we dont agree with the model.
"this sounds like ihub has infiltrated this board by hiding in plain sight...bringing up non issues and acting innocent when brought up. imo its just a ploy to distract from all the success this company is coming into"
let iLie be the "boogeyman" while hyping the stock over here and blaming all of the problems with a tanking stock price on the "agenda." since i have been here from the beginning and my post history shows a balanced but generally positive outlook on the company and potential (until IR/OS started ballooning again) one can easily deduce that i am not a paid activist. further, i have publicly and emphatically stated my position and stance on the company numerous times as well as i have never shorted any stock ever. if i was doing the opposite - my IP could be traced, the messages tied to me, and sued/convicted for fraud. this is why you will never see the typical basher make such a public affirmation. leaves much less wiggle room. that aside, trying to stifle any legitimate criticism only makes this board the antithesis of iLie and equally illegitimate.
for all i know as an outside investor - this IR group could be being paid with shares that vest immediately or over a period of time. lets say it is 6 months. they build up the hype of reconstruction, MRVB, SLAs, etc and then when their vesting hits - they unload through a secondary or tertiary MM. VNDM has been here as long as IR. OS has gone up significantly since they arrived and keeps rising. and most importantly - when they aggressively objected to my inquiries and others on how they were being compensated (as consultants, employees, on performance, etc) we were told specifically it was "none of our business" and we didnt need to know that. as a shareholder, i have a very STRONG vested interest in knowing if the interests of those working on behalf of the company are aligned with the company and shareholders for long term appreciation. since IR has come on board - the stock price is decidedly down and the OS has increased dramatically. those numbers have been presented on this site by myself and others but "you know where to look" to confirm them.
ironically, Bill's style is in stark contrast to IR. in his previous CC and via phone, he has been very reserved with making any type of projections with respect to stock price and seems to take great pride in making sure he fully answers questions and the person asking understands. this could be why i and others have asked for his participation on the past and future CCs. he said he was going to reduce OS in 2015 and he did. he said they would start production end of 2015 and they did. the reconstruction took the place of planned M&A activity for EOY 2015 and early 2016 and that is part of business as strategies need to be adjusted.
in contrast - IR keeps reiterating $0.01 by EOY but not even discussing how that is possible at this juncture. they are limited to the number of shares they can buy back on any day based on past 30 day volume and must buy on BID and not within the power hours. the simple mechanics of reducing the shares enough to get to $0.01 is very difficult to do by year end unless MRVB generates significantly more cash than planned, they use significantly more than 10%, or they use cash from elsewhere. in a growing business that is cash strained - it doesnt make sense to use growth capital to buyback stock even if it does appear to be severely depressed. whether or not they can or should buyback stock isnt the issue so much as throwing that PPS target out there and then not actively defending it with a real plan that is able to be vetted by shareholders for viability.
when Bill put out the original 5 year plan - nowhere (that I recall) did he give a PPS target. instead, his goal was to uplist to get off the OTC exchange. now - that takes a mix of certain share price, market cap, etc and investors can infer and model from there how that might work. but putting a specific PPS target out there publicly and then getting red assed when shareholders ask how that is possible is certainly reason to debate the pros and cons and the overall effectiveness of IR for the company/shareholders that arent active traders/following MRVB minute to minute.
IR doesnt like me - fine. i am not impressed with their methods of communication, guidance provided, or the way they treat shareholders - fine. however, this forum is a forum to debate the pros and cons and why i may be right or wrong on my opinions and perspective and why others may be as well. everything is not all roses and we on the outside have NO way to confirm what is actually going on. we cant see parts being made, sold, or used. we arent in the negotiations for current or future SLAs. we dont know if any additional revenue will hit in 2016 or even 2017 for that matter as nothing is currently being produced on any existing contract/SLA (or at least nothing of any size). we have $109K booked in 2015 and still not paid for per last 10Q.
this company has tremendous potential (which is why i and others invested for the long term) surrounding (as i see it) the following key areas:
>bill's relationships and understanding of the SE Asia market with respect to bearings
>bill's understanding of the Chinese culture and personal relationships which are critical to doing business in that area (most probably dont realize how critical this is if they have never dealt with this market.
>the ability to exploit the lack of domestic production of bearings and the cost efficiencies gained (through the offsets) by producing "American" parts in china with the NAVAIR certification and US QA/QC standards but still being domestically produced.
>willingness to consider alternative channels to supplement drive forward existing biz plan and modify as necessary when opportunity presents itself. here - MRVB platform can be brilliant and provide exactly what it is being laid out as intended to do: generate revenue to supplement top line while also buying back stock/leveling out the tops and bottoms of the trading that detracts traditional investors. however, if IR goes out of their way to alienate the ones they have - it becomes rather ineffective as a tool to attract long term, stable capital.
all of this right now is in the future as far as potential (the certifications and structure seem to be in place to capitalize on it). however, none of it is even remotely guaranteed to come to fruition. the road of the OTC is completely littered with potential and success right around the corner.
so - dont use a silly misdirect that i am a short, paid basher, iLie spy, etc to deflect or ignore the question or intent of my posts or others who are being rightfully critical. instead - try actually answering the question in your own words with some facts and figures. with only 2.5 months remaining - how can PPS realistically get to $0.01 by year end? and fully expect debate on the feasibility of your answer from i or others if we dont agree with the model.
8
1
