From Moneym8ker: YOU MOST CERTAINLY CANNOT POINT T
Post# of 82672
(Total Views: 281)
Posted On: 06/02/2017 3:42:10 PM
From Moneym8ker: YOU MOST CERTAINLY CANNOT POINT TO ANY PORTION OF THE 10K or the MRQ that shows SFOR is out of money.
You cannot, because no portion of either filing exists which states that.
I'm the first one in line to be critical of SFOR's diminishing cash BUT I use facts to support my argument.
What you can do, is say "see? This quarter and that quarter and this quarter and that quarter SFOR burned around $500k per quarter.
If you keep it completely linear, SFOR HAD $308k in cash at the end of Q1. That was 60 days ago.
With the Q winding down this month, and with average cash burn rates yeah, it can appear that they're either out of cash, or running on cash vapors.
But that's if you just keep everything linear.
What we don't know is if ANY revenue bumps during Q2 have helped offset operational costs OR if SFOR has gone into crisis cash saving mode to help preserve cash.
Here's a FACT BOBODY HERE can refute:
If SFOR were out of cash, we would see at least one MATERIALLY DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT via an 8K where SFOR has inked a deal for a equity for debt swap (dilutive at best, toxic at its worst).
Since there are NO SUCH filings, they ARE NOT out of cash, yet.
PERIOD!
Unless of course you think Kay can pay for stuff with his good looks, charm, pixie dust and unicorn farts.
If they were out of money, they'd have to ink a equity/debt agreement.
No agreements? No 8k's or Press?
Then they still have cash.
How much? Not much...far less than the $308k in their MRQ.
Does ACS own the patents? Is SFOR THE RETAIL UNIT?
ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NOT!
B&R and R&G are REPRESENTING THE PATENT OWNER...SFOR!
If ACS were the patent owner, those law firms would be representing ACS.
Every single court doc CLEARLY shows that SFOR is the Plaintiff and patent owner.
Penny... you're either believing someone who's wrong...perhaps they misunderstand their relationship or the phrasing of your question, OR YOU ARE flatly misleading anyone who cares about what you say.
I do not. I know the facts. SFOR=Patent holder in every legal sense.
I see market makers are keeping up with their games today. They're allowed to do so because Kay is, as always, totally asleep at the wheel.
He's got ZERO business emailing a select few and telling them about big deals and next quarter and later this year when what he should be doing is SIGNING A DEAL and putting out press.
Kay... a few things you can count on from him is ZERO press while wolves are at the door AND it's always "next quarter".
The guy needs to wake up OR give the reigns to someone who's willing to be proactive and aggressive to do what's best for stakeholders and the company.
Such great patents and so much potential yet SFOR can't break out recently even as we head towards PROBABLE BUT NOT CERTAIN positive catalysts.
You cannot, because no portion of either filing exists which states that.
I'm the first one in line to be critical of SFOR's diminishing cash BUT I use facts to support my argument.
What you can do, is say "see? This quarter and that quarter and this quarter and that quarter SFOR burned around $500k per quarter.
If you keep it completely linear, SFOR HAD $308k in cash at the end of Q1. That was 60 days ago.
With the Q winding down this month, and with average cash burn rates yeah, it can appear that they're either out of cash, or running on cash vapors.
But that's if you just keep everything linear.
What we don't know is if ANY revenue bumps during Q2 have helped offset operational costs OR if SFOR has gone into crisis cash saving mode to help preserve cash.
Here's a FACT BOBODY HERE can refute:
If SFOR were out of cash, we would see at least one MATERIALLY DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT via an 8K where SFOR has inked a deal for a equity for debt swap (dilutive at best, toxic at its worst).
Since there are NO SUCH filings, they ARE NOT out of cash, yet.
PERIOD!
Unless of course you think Kay can pay for stuff with his good looks, charm, pixie dust and unicorn farts.
If they were out of money, they'd have to ink a equity/debt agreement.
No agreements? No 8k's or Press?
Then they still have cash.
How much? Not much...far less than the $308k in their MRQ.
Does ACS own the patents? Is SFOR THE RETAIL UNIT?
ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NOT!
B&R and R&G are REPRESENTING THE PATENT OWNER...SFOR!
If ACS were the patent owner, those law firms would be representing ACS.
Every single court doc CLEARLY shows that SFOR is the Plaintiff and patent owner.
Penny... you're either believing someone who's wrong...perhaps they misunderstand their relationship or the phrasing of your question, OR YOU ARE flatly misleading anyone who cares about what you say.
I do not. I know the facts. SFOR=Patent holder in every legal sense.
I see market makers are keeping up with their games today. They're allowed to do so because Kay is, as always, totally asleep at the wheel.
He's got ZERO business emailing a select few and telling them about big deals and next quarter and later this year when what he should be doing is SIGNING A DEAL and putting out press.
Kay... a few things you can count on from him is ZERO press while wolves are at the door AND it's always "next quarter".
The guy needs to wake up OR give the reigns to someone who's willing to be proactive and aggressive to do what's best for stakeholders and the company.
Such great patents and so much potential yet SFOR can't break out recently even as we head towards PROBABLE BUT NOT CERTAIN positive catalysts.
(0)
(0)Zerify Inc (ZRFY) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼