rob124 - i think that is very viable. "Honestly
Post# of 22940
Posted On: 10/15/2016 10:40:20 AM
rob124 - i think that is very viable.
"Honestly CountryMac, I think the timeline is 6 months off from where it should be"
could be closer to 12 months. i also agree that there is an issue with shareholder expectations being aligned with timelines. however, IR CREATED those expectations by putting out PPS targets without providing a clear path to getting there, getting defensive and condescending towards shareholders that pushed back trying to understand how it was even feasible, and providing conflicting timelines to begin with (revenue generation from mfg, loan timelines, EIA revenues starting). if they overstated or were overly optimistic - say so and present an updated timeline. don't even provide a PPS target. instead, stick with the "goal' of enlisting on the NASDAQ and the timeframe to do so. investors can then make their own inferences to how that fits in with their risk/reward.
shareholder expectations are further misaligned by the lack of PR/NWE that was alluded to being imminent several weeks ago. i am not looking for an out - i am looking for specific validation on several fronts which is the foundation for investing further/remaining invested in this new entity that they are positioning as no longer being bearing/mfg focused (at least in the near term). why the hesitation? why the delay on the $135MM SLA? that alone warrants its own release. having trouble with the wording? i can help. many on here can help with respect to what long term investors are looking for in emerging companies on the OTC markets. it is why we put risk capital here instead of elsewhere. if they are waiting for the move into BTL and starting production on first phase - say that via Twitter/email blast to shareholders signed up. most will accept that. saying they are imminent and then nothing is generally not acceptable and further erodes trust and invites further scrutiny.
i agree their timeline is probably off by at least 6 months. i also agree that shareholder (investors -not traders) expectations are misaligned with IR timelines. i also am glad to see specific discussion on these two and the start of a discussion on the feasibility of their YE target from at least a couple of posters. thank you for those that are jumping in constructively to the discussion.
"Honestly CountryMac, I think the timeline is 6 months off from where it should be"
could be closer to 12 months. i also agree that there is an issue with shareholder expectations being aligned with timelines. however, IR CREATED those expectations by putting out PPS targets without providing a clear path to getting there, getting defensive and condescending towards shareholders that pushed back trying to understand how it was even feasible, and providing conflicting timelines to begin with (revenue generation from mfg, loan timelines, EIA revenues starting). if they overstated or were overly optimistic - say so and present an updated timeline. don't even provide a PPS target. instead, stick with the "goal' of enlisting on the NASDAQ and the timeframe to do so. investors can then make their own inferences to how that fits in with their risk/reward.
shareholder expectations are further misaligned by the lack of PR/NWE that was alluded to being imminent several weeks ago. i am not looking for an out - i am looking for specific validation on several fronts which is the foundation for investing further/remaining invested in this new entity that they are positioning as no longer being bearing/mfg focused (at least in the near term). why the hesitation? why the delay on the $135MM SLA? that alone warrants its own release. having trouble with the wording? i can help. many on here can help with respect to what long term investors are looking for in emerging companies on the OTC markets. it is why we put risk capital here instead of elsewhere. if they are waiting for the move into BTL and starting production on first phase - say that via Twitter/email blast to shareholders signed up. most will accept that. saying they are imminent and then nothing is generally not acceptable and further erodes trust and invites further scrutiny.
i agree their timeline is probably off by at least 6 months. i also agree that shareholder (investors -not traders) expectations are misaligned with IR timelines. i also am glad to see specific discussion on these two and the start of a discussion on the feasibility of their YE target from at least a couple of posters. thank you for those that are jumping in constructively to the discussion.
(5)
(1)