So let me get this straight... #1 isn't NP's fa
Post# of 154997
(Total Views: 632)
Posted On: 09/24/2019 11:50:50 AM
So let me get this straight...
#1 isn't NP's fault, even though the selling was precipitated by a company decision to offer a deal to (accredited) shareholders for money that the company supposedly didn't need? Remember, this was something the shareholders asked for, according to the company, after NP stated that funding through the end of the year was secured (well, they didn't have it yet, but it's secured, he hopes to have it done [last] week...). The outcome of such an offering was incredibly predictable. I fail to see how that's not directly on NP. The role of the board - which he is a member of - is to protect and increase the value of the company for shareholders. All shareholders. Not those that happen to be privileged under a questionably effective SEC rule. NP's decision to offer a "thanks" to certain shareholders certainly didn't protect my (long-term, very loyal) investment.
#2 is either wild speculation or inside information. Which is it? Careful with your answer.
Occam's Razor says it's #1, helped along by the fact that they publicized the closing date and the fact that equity trades generally settle on a T+2 basis. Meaning basically all of any sell-to-fund activity had to occur yesterday in order for investors to get the money to the company for a Thursday closing. Meaning the noteholders were acutely aware that there would likely be excess supply yesterday, and they could game the system to strategically sell and set a lower conversion benchmark, just as they've done before. Meaning we print at $0.32 intraday, and close down over 13%
This one is on NP. And he better come through with the funding that he said (twice) during the shareholder meeting was "secured". "Secured" has a meaning. "Secured" got Elon Musk an SEC investigation and repercussions. "Secured" damn well better mean "secured".
#1 isn't NP's fault, even though the selling was precipitated by a company decision to offer a deal to (accredited) shareholders for money that the company supposedly didn't need? Remember, this was something the shareholders asked for, according to the company, after NP stated that funding through the end of the year was secured (well, they didn't have it yet, but it's secured, he hopes to have it done [last] week...). The outcome of such an offering was incredibly predictable. I fail to see how that's not directly on NP. The role of the board - which he is a member of - is to protect and increase the value of the company for shareholders. All shareholders. Not those that happen to be privileged under a questionably effective SEC rule. NP's decision to offer a "thanks" to certain shareholders certainly didn't protect my (long-term, very loyal) investment.
#2 is either wild speculation or inside information. Which is it? Careful with your answer.
Occam's Razor says it's #1, helped along by the fact that they publicized the closing date and the fact that equity trades generally settle on a T+2 basis. Meaning basically all of any sell-to-fund activity had to occur yesterday in order for investors to get the money to the company for a Thursday closing. Meaning the noteholders were acutely aware that there would likely be excess supply yesterday, and they could game the system to strategically sell and set a lower conversion benchmark, just as they've done before. Meaning we print at $0.32 intraday, and close down over 13%
This one is on NP. And he better come through with the funding that he said (twice) during the shareholder meeting was "secured". "Secured" has a meaning. "Secured" got Elon Musk an SEC investigation and repercussions. "Secured" damn well better mean "secured".
(5)
(0)