To my recollection - IR/SI never "promised" the $0
Post# of 22940
(Total Views: 443)
Posted On: 11/11/2017 9:12:46 AM
To my recollection - IR/SI never "promised" the $0.01 PPS target nor the OS below 1BB but both were constantly put out there as very achievable targets. I do not remember them promising to lower AS but definitely reducing the OS. Bill said that the move to Wyoming was to reduce costs/remove a prior issue with Neveda registration. However, with repeated questions on AS he said it was not to raise the AS.
James certainly guaranteed the baseline revenue for 2017 as $13.5MM due to BTL and was specifically asked to clarify that in the CC. He doubled down and also threw in another $1MM contract they had on top of the $13.5MM. This is ultimately what the company/Bill will habe to answer for because investors bought on these numbers. Bill later wrote that BTL was never guaranteed and his comments completely contradicted those from James on the CC. This has yet to have been explained other than those claiming the deal was cancelled/altered due to people calling and harassing BTL. I have been accused of calling both Timken and BTL. I wasnt around for Timken and as one of the larger non inside shareholders at the time - I certainly would have had no incentive to wreck that deal since that was the VERY foundation that I continued to hold on (despite the BS from IR). Bill has yet to explain that disconnect and that is where there is real liability. Im not the only large shareholder that continued to hold or buy based on that CC.
@IRmoneymatters (SI) keeps tweeting how the MRVBs/their platform doesnt rely on contracts or forward guidance but it doesnt excuse the company for the past guidance or projections.
If the company wants to buyback my shares - they are more than welcome. The price is based on the PPS at the time of the CC. That is certainly expensive relative to todays PPS but could end up being much cheaper than the alternative. If there was no certainty in the BTL contract - Bill had an absolute fiduciary responsibility to immediately and publicly correct James' statements.
James certainly guaranteed the baseline revenue for 2017 as $13.5MM due to BTL and was specifically asked to clarify that in the CC. He doubled down and also threw in another $1MM contract they had on top of the $13.5MM. This is ultimately what the company/Bill will habe to answer for because investors bought on these numbers. Bill later wrote that BTL was never guaranteed and his comments completely contradicted those from James on the CC. This has yet to have been explained other than those claiming the deal was cancelled/altered due to people calling and harassing BTL. I have been accused of calling both Timken and BTL. I wasnt around for Timken and as one of the larger non inside shareholders at the time - I certainly would have had no incentive to wreck that deal since that was the VERY foundation that I continued to hold on (despite the BS from IR). Bill has yet to explain that disconnect and that is where there is real liability. Im not the only large shareholder that continued to hold or buy based on that CC.
@IRmoneymatters (SI) keeps tweeting how the MRVBs/their platform doesnt rely on contracts or forward guidance but it doesnt excuse the company for the past guidance or projections.
If the company wants to buyback my shares - they are more than welcome. The price is based on the PPS at the time of the CC. That is certainly expensive relative to todays PPS but could end up being much cheaper than the alternative. If there was no certainty in the BTL contract - Bill had an absolute fiduciary responsibility to immediately and publicly correct James' statements.
(1)
(0)