not following thought process here ..
i could be wrong but imo CEO is the largest shareholder in P2O (and has been for years)
i would presume (like most aspects) various *issues* can be *negotiated* as they arise
founder is another large investor (share size) and clearly based on what was noted in the K filed in April interacts with P2O *consistently* .. personally i would not be surprised if founder was asked (or will be asked) to go on P2O's BoD ..
whether there is agreement *there* .. only the parties know .. *imo*
wealth comes about from the ability to execute .. and mgmt's ability to articulate that execution to *new* investors (not those of us established for years)
which requires flagship to perform .. as was noted in 2013 .. be sold to RC or another first buyer .. and then deliver that performance .. which will bring additional buyers .. both of the tech and the stock (PTOI)
for years now .. volume on PTOI (stock) has decreased significantly in relation to PPS compression of PTOI (stock) .. (working on IPIX's weekly tape of trades .. but will do back of napkin calcs on PTOI's *volume* and what *imo* it means in relation to PTOI's abusive short currently)
and for years CEO infused monies into P2O (company) and kept that infusion to a very small group of *trusted* investors (LL/JA/LB)
if the thinking (and i'm not saying this is what you are implying because i'm not sure what is being speculated) .. is that CEO wants to screw over every actual P2O investor (originals/founder/BoD/those of us johnny come lately's from 2009 onward) .. i'd be hard pressed to agree with that ..
and just me but having gotten to know one of the BoD members since about 2011/2012 .. i don't see that potential being played out at all .. which is why i've noted to you for months now .. key for me remaining an *active* investor in P2O is founder's retention of those 3M~ PTOI shares .. and LB's remaining on the BoD
again .. P2O (company) has numerous options .. what would be nice is for updates to accompany execution
one of the reasons a stock is taken sub 10c and held sub 10c .. is to force mgmt's hands into toxic financing .. what i'd like to see is mgmt source funding
from trusted investors who don't play the games *we've all seen played out* on OTC targets over the years (which is why OTC *SURVIVORS* are so EPIC in how handled by NR with mgmt's ability to outlast)
the caveat there of course .. is how is that done
4kids
================
Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=516...z5NEBvTgNx
i could be wrong but imo CEO is the largest shareholder in P2O (and has been for years)
i would presume (like most aspects) various *issues* can be *negotiated* as they arise
founder is another large investor (share size) and clearly based on what was noted in the K filed in April interacts with P2O *consistently* .. personally i would not be surprised if founder was asked (or will be asked) to go on P2O's BoD ..
whether there is agreement *there* .. only the parties know .. *imo*
wealth comes about from the ability to execute .. and mgmt's ability to articulate that execution to *new* investors (not those of us established for years)
which requires flagship to perform .. as was noted in 2013 .. be sold to RC or another first buyer .. and then deliver that performance .. which will bring additional buyers .. both of the tech and the stock (PTOI)
for years now .. volume on PTOI (stock) has decreased significantly in relation to PPS compression of PTOI (stock) .. (working on IPIX's weekly tape of trades .. but will do back of napkin calcs on PTOI's *volume* and what *imo* it means in relation to PTOI's abusive short currently)
and for years CEO infused monies into P2O (company) and kept that infusion to a very small group of *trusted* investors (LL/JA/LB)
if the thinking (and i'm not saying this is what you are implying because i'm not sure what is being speculated) .. is that CEO wants to screw over every actual P2O investor (originals/founder/BoD/those of us johnny come lately's from 2009 onward) .. i'd be hard pressed to agree with that ..
and just me but having gotten to know one of the BoD members since about 2011/2012 .. i don't see that potential being played out at all .. which is why i've noted to you for months now .. key for me remaining an *active* investor in P2O is founder's retention of those 3M~ PTOI shares .. and LB's remaining on the BoD
again .. P2O (company) has numerous options .. what would be nice is for updates to accompany execution
one of the reasons a stock is taken sub 10c and held sub 10c .. is to force mgmt's hands into toxic financing .. what i'd like to see is mgmt source funding
from trusted investors who don't play the games *we've all seen played out* on OTC targets over the years (which is why OTC *SURVIVORS* are so EPIC in how handled by NR with mgmt's ability to outlast)
the caveat there of course .. is how is that done
4kids
Quote:CEO, or soon to be OWNER
================
Quote:He has every right to assume all company assets.
In your opinion, will he?
I think he will. IF the tech is all it's claimed, he would be crazy wealthy. Perhaps a deal isn't done for that reason.
Call it conspiracy theory, but it's definitely a possibility. Imo
Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=516...z5NEBvTgNx
1
