while i certainly agree that many large corporatio
Post# of 22940
Posted On: 12/21/2016 12:40:25 PM
while i certainly agree that many large corporations used their name, stock leverage, and retained earnings/profits to become banks/brokers in complicated/intricate ways - they did so from positions of strength (in brand and in financial leverage). right now, TPAC has neither. that is not to say the idea wont become common place and they are the pioneers.
while there are certainly cheerleaders and bashers on this board, the main difference between those that are critical of company/IR vs those that are positive (exlcuding those above) is the MANNER in which IR has dealt with shareholders/communications especially when compared to the lack of direct results (specifically PPS and revenues). the MRVB certainly has potential both for the company directly and a service platform but it is still limited (only scalable to a certain degree), there is no "brand" behind it for investors/businesses to "trust," and has no financial leverage (at this point).
per the post: “You have to remember that General Electric is substantially a financial institution today. It makes half its profits just by moving money around in complicated ways. And it’s very unclear that they’re doing anything that’s of value to the economy. So, that’s one phenomena, what’s called financialisation of the economy.”
unclear to value to the economy? below are the businesses tied to GE corp. while some are able to be argued in terms of direct value (such as GE Capital being generally moving paper), most are involved in direct manufacture or infrastructure projects. makes me questions what they are referring to.
GE Aviation
GE Capital
GE Digital
GE ENergy Connections
GE Healthcare
GE Lighting
GE Oil & Gas
GE Power
GE Renewable Energy
GE Transportation
Current Powered by GE
the above represent a company that has a larger output than many countries. it is one of the most recognized manufactured brands. and it has a very strong balance sheet. that provides significant leverage on the GE Capital side to move paper and increase profits with no manufacturing through that unit. however, it is the strength of the rest of the businesses that make this possible. in the financial meltdown - GE Capital took major hits. comparable companies were wiped out/bankrupted. it was the diversity of the company, the brand, and specifically the manufacturing might that allowed it to absorb the hits and come out stronger.
right now - TPAC has none of that. further IR has continued to deemphasize the mfg side which is where they have real power in the marketplace to emerge/diversify due to barriers of entry. what is to keep competitors with significantly more brand value and financial leverage to set up a competing model to the MRVB and limiting its ability to expound beyond internal trading for TPAC revenues?
it remains an important piece for both the revenue side, and more importantly for outside shareholders - the buyback loop it supports to limit/reduce OS and keep share structure attractive. however, with the new unlimited AS and still nothing concrete on buybacks (have they begun/when will they begin - loop triggered) investors will continue to keep this at arms length. when any buyers show up - sellers are more than happy to dump supply. if this is "intentional" to drive price down to have company buyback at 3 (or 1 or wherever the "trigger" is) - that is not being transparent or responsible to long term traders who expect the company to maintain and enhance shareholder value.
while there are certainly cheerleaders and bashers on this board, the main difference between those that are critical of company/IR vs those that are positive (exlcuding those above) is the MANNER in which IR has dealt with shareholders/communications especially when compared to the lack of direct results (specifically PPS and revenues). the MRVB certainly has potential both for the company directly and a service platform but it is still limited (only scalable to a certain degree), there is no "brand" behind it for investors/businesses to "trust," and has no financial leverage (at this point).
per the post: “You have to remember that General Electric is substantially a financial institution today. It makes half its profits just by moving money around in complicated ways. And it’s very unclear that they’re doing anything that’s of value to the economy. So, that’s one phenomena, what’s called financialisation of the economy.”
unclear to value to the economy? below are the businesses tied to GE corp. while some are able to be argued in terms of direct value (such as GE Capital being generally moving paper), most are involved in direct manufacture or infrastructure projects. makes me questions what they are referring to.
GE Aviation
GE Capital
GE Digital
GE ENergy Connections
GE Healthcare
GE Lighting
GE Oil & Gas
GE Power
GE Renewable Energy
GE Transportation
Current Powered by GE
the above represent a company that has a larger output than many countries. it is one of the most recognized manufactured brands. and it has a very strong balance sheet. that provides significant leverage on the GE Capital side to move paper and increase profits with no manufacturing through that unit. however, it is the strength of the rest of the businesses that make this possible. in the financial meltdown - GE Capital took major hits. comparable companies were wiped out/bankrupted. it was the diversity of the company, the brand, and specifically the manufacturing might that allowed it to absorb the hits and come out stronger.
right now - TPAC has none of that. further IR has continued to deemphasize the mfg side which is where they have real power in the marketplace to emerge/diversify due to barriers of entry. what is to keep competitors with significantly more brand value and financial leverage to set up a competing model to the MRVB and limiting its ability to expound beyond internal trading for TPAC revenues?
it remains an important piece for both the revenue side, and more importantly for outside shareholders - the buyback loop it supports to limit/reduce OS and keep share structure attractive. however, with the new unlimited AS and still nothing concrete on buybacks (have they begun/when will they begin - loop triggered) investors will continue to keep this at arms length. when any buyers show up - sellers are more than happy to dump supply. if this is "intentional" to drive price down to have company buyback at 3 (or 1 or wherever the "trigger" is) - that is not being transparent or responsible to long term traders who expect the company to maintain and enhance shareholder value.
(3)
(2)