I believe that those who shared information from t
Post# of 15624
(Total Views: 423)
Posted On: 02/24/2019 4:35:00 PM
I believe that those who shared information from the traveler, who they supported, indicated that there were things I didn't know that they gained by speaking with the company. Now it seems they're saying they know nothing that is insider information, and frankly that's how I felt after visiting companies in the past.
I like playing the role of Devil's Advocate, I'll admit that. If stirring the pot irritates people, so be it. I'm not happy learning that so many have taken losses and sold out, or nearly sold out their positions, but it's their choice.
If those who share the visit information are now in support of a substantial reverse split, I'd like to understand their reasoning, I strongly oppose it. Even a 1 for 10 would put our share ownership at roughly 15 million shares. At some point in the future, if the company is successful, or perhaps not, the share count will grow to the 500 million authorized, 3% of the total. To me, that's too extreme, and it's 1/10th of the lowest figure they proposed.
It's been pointed out that the company controls something under 30 million shares, if true, perhaps they can be stopped, but I don't know that's true. I say this not because of what's been disclosed, but because I have no idea of how many shares are owned by friends and family who don't need to disclose ownership, but who's loyalty will clearly be with the company.
When a partnership includes an interest in a company, if it's 30% or more it essentially gives the partner control. Why? Because it's almost impossible to defeat a proposal to shareholders when you begin with 30% ownership. I don't know that friends and family of the company's key personnel don't control roughly another 20 million shares giving them control of over 50 million, or over 30%. If that's not the case, we might vote down a reverse split, but if that is the case, they will win at whatever ratio they propose.
If the company carried out a program of informing investors what they truly represent by openly discussing products, patents, trials upcoming, etc. I believe the share price could once again exceed $1. With a share price over $1 it's clear that there are tremendous benefits to be made by going on the Nasdaq, I would consider a small reverse split to get us somewhere in the $3 range, and let the company work to achieve the additional growth, no more than a 1 for 3, and ideally a 1 for 2 reverse split.
I will admit in the past having, or following companies that did 1 for 100 or worse to their shareholders, I've yet to had one that succeeded, though in some cases they continue to trade, but do so at under a penny. In most cases these companies let their O/S grow to over a billion shares before doing the R/S, so we're better off for now, but there is no reason to shrink the O/S to under 50 million shares when 500 million shares are still authorized.
Gary
I like playing the role of Devil's Advocate, I'll admit that. If stirring the pot irritates people, so be it. I'm not happy learning that so many have taken losses and sold out, or nearly sold out their positions, but it's their choice.
If those who share the visit information are now in support of a substantial reverse split, I'd like to understand their reasoning, I strongly oppose it. Even a 1 for 10 would put our share ownership at roughly 15 million shares. At some point in the future, if the company is successful, or perhaps not, the share count will grow to the 500 million authorized, 3% of the total. To me, that's too extreme, and it's 1/10th of the lowest figure they proposed.
It's been pointed out that the company controls something under 30 million shares, if true, perhaps they can be stopped, but I don't know that's true. I say this not because of what's been disclosed, but because I have no idea of how many shares are owned by friends and family who don't need to disclose ownership, but who's loyalty will clearly be with the company.
When a partnership includes an interest in a company, if it's 30% or more it essentially gives the partner control. Why? Because it's almost impossible to defeat a proposal to shareholders when you begin with 30% ownership. I don't know that friends and family of the company's key personnel don't control roughly another 20 million shares giving them control of over 50 million, or over 30%. If that's not the case, we might vote down a reverse split, but if that is the case, they will win at whatever ratio they propose.
If the company carried out a program of informing investors what they truly represent by openly discussing products, patents, trials upcoming, etc. I believe the share price could once again exceed $1. With a share price over $1 it's clear that there are tremendous benefits to be made by going on the Nasdaq, I would consider a small reverse split to get us somewhere in the $3 range, and let the company work to achieve the additional growth, no more than a 1 for 3, and ideally a 1 for 2 reverse split.
I will admit in the past having, or following companies that did 1 for 100 or worse to their shareholders, I've yet to had one that succeeded, though in some cases they continue to trade, but do so at under a penny. In most cases these companies let their O/S grow to over a billion shares before doing the R/S, so we're better off for now, but there is no reason to shrink the O/S to under 50 million shares when 500 million shares are still authorized.
Gary
(0)
(0)