From my perspective, the following applies to every stock (penny or big board):
1. The only person/people that have a direct impact on the share prices are the company managers and BOD (more generally).
2. Posters on message boards provide opinion, whether positive or negative. At most, that can arguably influence demand for shares for a very limited timeframe, but the only person that can change the share structure (direct influence through buyback/dilution) is the CEO.
3. CEO strategy is everything, especially with pinksheets that have limited resources.
4. CEO's need to honor their word and work to reduce O/S and increase revenue. Those are measurement goals for shareholders. Time has proven that combination has built the most successful companies for shareholders (wealth on a per share basis flowing to the bottom line and shareholders).
Having said that:
$BCAP deserves shareholder support. So far though, the real accomplishments have been limited, much due to regulatory requirements in the financial services industry and some to strategy.
The TA is finally open (but not accepting clients at this time). That came despite the bashing campaign. The reason the TA isn't accepting clients is because Matt felt it wasn't strategically right at that time. While I think revenue generation (even limited is the key), I can respect his decision and hope it plays out as he envisions it.
Hopefully the audits are complete soon and the brokerage acquisition is pending their completion. If that's the case, we have somewhere between a couple of weeks and a month to reach the end of the audits. The bashers cannot influence the auditors.
Timelines are still not an issue here, just real accomplishments. Once the structure is established, BCAP will either succeed or fail: either there will be demand and revenue generation or not. I don't believe the bashing campaign will have any influence on real decisions by other companies.
Whether a conspiracy theory or not, it's not in iHub's corporate interest that $BCAP succeed. That ultimately generates a fresh threat directly to iHub and it's corporate owners, so I am not surprised by the level, scope and degree of organization of the bashing campaign. I don't believe it's all iHub (there are enemies Matt has picked up over time) but it is certainly facilitated.
Matt made IMO strategic errors that fueled the bashers and undermined Common shareholder support: the stealth increase in A/S and the way promises were made around this time last year. Combined they served to break faith. Those errors are recoverable, but as you see it's taking lots of time. No-one will forget the increase in A/S even after 12 months, so IMO that needs to be addressed (share structure reduced to 1.2B or lower) once revenues are flowing. I believe this would be a huge strategic success. When the BOD is established I hope it's a goal that is set and effected.
We can certainly debate the reasons for everything Matt did. It's our cash invested in a portion of the company and it's our right (first amendment and as a matter of choice) to ask questions and decide whether and where to invest our money. After all there are many companies to invest in and $BCAP competes for our investing dollars. That's not a bashing / smear campaign.
I am still hopeful here. There hasn't been dilution for many months and over time shares can be acquired at a lower cost basis (basically soaked up). That lack of dilution coupled with the possibility real achievements in the near term is why I retain a positive outlook.
I can tell you for sure the bashing campaign has had no long term impact on whether I should or shouldn't invest in BCAP. It's basically proven to be 100% conjecture and 0% fact. That investing decision is much more influenced by Matt's words, actions and accomplishments.
1. The only person/people that have a direct impact on the share prices are the company managers and BOD (more generally).
2. Posters on message boards provide opinion, whether positive or negative. At most, that can arguably influence demand for shares for a very limited timeframe, but the only person that can change the share structure (direct influence through buyback/dilution) is the CEO.
3. CEO strategy is everything, especially with pinksheets that have limited resources.
4. CEO's need to honor their word and work to reduce O/S and increase revenue. Those are measurement goals for shareholders. Time has proven that combination has built the most successful companies for shareholders (wealth on a per share basis flowing to the bottom line and shareholders).
Having said that:
$BCAP deserves shareholder support. So far though, the real accomplishments have been limited, much due to regulatory requirements in the financial services industry and some to strategy.
The TA is finally open (but not accepting clients at this time). That came despite the bashing campaign. The reason the TA isn't accepting clients is because Matt felt it wasn't strategically right at that time. While I think revenue generation (even limited is the key), I can respect his decision and hope it plays out as he envisions it.
Hopefully the audits are complete soon and the brokerage acquisition is pending their completion. If that's the case, we have somewhere between a couple of weeks and a month to reach the end of the audits. The bashers cannot influence the auditors.
Timelines are still not an issue here, just real accomplishments. Once the structure is established, BCAP will either succeed or fail: either there will be demand and revenue generation or not. I don't believe the bashing campaign will have any influence on real decisions by other companies.
Whether a conspiracy theory or not, it's not in iHub's corporate interest that $BCAP succeed. That ultimately generates a fresh threat directly to iHub and it's corporate owners, so I am not surprised by the level, scope and degree of organization of the bashing campaign. I don't believe it's all iHub (there are enemies Matt has picked up over time) but it is certainly facilitated.
Matt made IMO strategic errors that fueled the bashers and undermined Common shareholder support: the stealth increase in A/S and the way promises were made around this time last year. Combined they served to break faith. Those errors are recoverable, but as you see it's taking lots of time. No-one will forget the increase in A/S even after 12 months, so IMO that needs to be addressed (share structure reduced to 1.2B or lower) once revenues are flowing. I believe this would be a huge strategic success. When the BOD is established I hope it's a goal that is set and effected.
We can certainly debate the reasons for everything Matt did. It's our cash invested in a portion of the company and it's our right (first amendment and as a matter of choice) to ask questions and decide whether and where to invest our money. After all there are many companies to invest in and $BCAP competes for our investing dollars. That's not a bashing / smear campaign.
I am still hopeful here. There hasn't been dilution for many months and over time shares can be acquired at a lower cost basis (basically soaked up). That lack of dilution coupled with the possibility real achievements in the near term is why I retain a positive outlook.
I can tell you for sure the bashing campaign has had no long term impact on whether I should or shouldn't invest in BCAP. It's basically proven to be 100% conjecture and 0% fact. That investing decision is much more influenced by Matt's words, actions and accomplishments.
