BigSteve - that has been one of my primary issues
Post# of 22940
Posted On: 12/27/2016 9:06:20 AM
BigSteve - that has been one of my primary issues since IR started and where things went south. They specifically replied to me they were NOT investor relations even when they were referred to as such by the company.
The only way to increase PPS is to have more people wanting shares believing they will be able to be sold higher in the future. To do this one needs to reduce share count to shrink supply, increase investor base to increase demand, and/or drive hard results to overcome/assist both.
IR did finally answer the buyback question. Over 0.5BB have been bought back so far. Would have been helpful if they updated the OS in the same tweet so investors can measure relative impact (keeping up with conversions/dilution).
As far as your question - I have yet to see a response from IR. It is extremely contradictory and a major deterrent to increasing position. If the goal is to drive down the price through attrition to maximize buyback loop at the bottom - that is NOT being transparent and completely violates fiduciary responsibility. One can not argue they were driving price down to increase value later - pretty sure that precedent was set awhile ago.
The only way to increase PPS is to have more people wanting shares believing they will be able to be sold higher in the future. To do this one needs to reduce share count to shrink supply, increase investor base to increase demand, and/or drive hard results to overcome/assist both.
IR did finally answer the buyback question. Over 0.5BB have been bought back so far. Would have been helpful if they updated the OS in the same tweet so investors can measure relative impact (keeping up with conversions/dilution).
As far as your question - I have yet to see a response from IR. It is extremely contradictory and a major deterrent to increasing position. If the goal is to drive down the price through attrition to maximize buyback loop at the bottom - that is NOT being transparent and completely violates fiduciary responsibility. One can not argue they were driving price down to increase value later - pretty sure that precedent was set awhile ago.
(2)
(0)