Trump what i actually posted was: "When TPAC m
Post# of 22940
Posted On: 12/06/2016 8:57:07 PM
Trump what i actually posted was:
"When TPAC makes me $100k+instead of TPAC making $100k+ I will be impressed, whether that be from a MRVB or selling bearings, makes no difference to me as a shareholder but I will feel more comfortable when it comes from the core business. "
I didn't say I wanted to make a $100k. With the amount of shares I have, that goal would be pretty easy to achieve when the stock gets moving again. I simply said I wasn't impressed by the MRVB.
Trump.. What I was doing was making a comparitive statement and responding to a question. Using the current MRVB values being tossed around, $100k in revenue to TPAC with 4.5 billion shares is frankly the equivalent to a chocolate gold coin. In THAT grand scheme it really means nothing. NOW as mag pointed out, and I do agree with him is that, the road they are using to compound that $100k seems to be working remarkably well, and we should be looking at the road and where it may lead and not necessarily the distance we traveled yet.
In the converse that same dollar amount of $100k to a shareholder on their investment is much more impressive and carries a lot more promise, obviously becuase $100k return with 4.5 billion shares out there represents serious income to the company where an MRVB wouldnt even have even been a strategy.That said you are indeed correct, income is income and who cares where it comes from. I as a shareholder, at least at this point am not impressed. That's all.
The compartive statement I am using is to illustrate that I would be more impressed with a
strong balance sheet and a tangebile product giving me a return rather than a MRVB investment strategy.
"When TPAC makes me $100k+instead of TPAC making $100k+ I will be impressed, whether that be from a MRVB or selling bearings, makes no difference to me as a shareholder but I will feel more comfortable when it comes from the core business. "
I didn't say I wanted to make a $100k. With the amount of shares I have, that goal would be pretty easy to achieve when the stock gets moving again. I simply said I wasn't impressed by the MRVB.
Trump.. What I was doing was making a comparitive statement and responding to a question. Using the current MRVB values being tossed around, $100k in revenue to TPAC with 4.5 billion shares is frankly the equivalent to a chocolate gold coin. In THAT grand scheme it really means nothing. NOW as mag pointed out, and I do agree with him is that, the road they are using to compound that $100k seems to be working remarkably well, and we should be looking at the road and where it may lead and not necessarily the distance we traveled yet.
In the converse that same dollar amount of $100k to a shareholder on their investment is much more impressive and carries a lot more promise, obviously becuase $100k return with 4.5 billion shares out there represents serious income to the company where an MRVB wouldnt even have even been a strategy.That said you are indeed correct, income is income and who cares where it comes from. I as a shareholder, at least at this point am not impressed. That's all.
The compartive statement I am using is to illustrate that I would be more impressed with a
strong balance sheet and a tangebile product giving me a return rather than a MRVB investment strategy.
(2)
(0)