There would be no need for a R/S until it hampe
Post# of 15187
(Total Views: 372)
Posted On: 03/15/2017 11:23:38 AM
There would be no need for a R/S
until it hampered their growth/numbers. I would suspect that
would be around .08-.10. Meaning that no matter what they
generated in revenues, the pps would be overvalued.
This is without HJOE getting creative and swapping commons
for preferred shares. Though, I do not know how many they could
take off the books by this method of retiring common stock.
The stock would be dangerous if they could get this down under 800
million. Management would make a mint off their deferred shares.
They could hold the common for a two years and then swap them
out later, down the road.(This would be if management was proactive)
JMHO,
TS-Also, the higher the stock goes, the less the shares would be need later
for a r/s. At .08, a 3:1 or 4:1 would suffice taking this down nicely, while
only allowing shareholders to lose max 25% of their holdings. That 25% at 4:1 would allow this to grow exponentially and
realistically could reach .50 or higher....
until it hampered their growth/numbers. I would suspect that
would be around .08-.10. Meaning that no matter what they
generated in revenues, the pps would be overvalued.
This is without HJOE getting creative and swapping commons
for preferred shares. Though, I do not know how many they could
take off the books by this method of retiring common stock.
The stock would be dangerous if they could get this down under 800
million. Management would make a mint off their deferred shares.
They could hold the common for a two years and then swap them
out later, down the road.(This would be if management was proactive)
JMHO,
TS-Also, the higher the stock goes, the less the shares would be need later
for a r/s. At .08, a 3:1 or 4:1 would suffice taking this down nicely, while
only allowing shareholders to lose max 25% of their holdings. That 25% at 4:1 would allow this to grow exponentially and
realistically could reach .50 or higher....
(4)
(0)