I've been following this symbol for years. I was pretty positive about it when I came in, but saw it as such a learning tool that I keep following it.
It's never gone up significantly. You can't see the entire chart history of SAPX easily for a few reasons, but it's literally gone down pretty consistently by 10% every week for at least 8 years. You would lose 99% of your investment so fast, for YEARS. I saw it happen. People have been saying "The asks are thin! We're going to run up!" for YEARS.
The people behind SAPX were converting share holder money into salary via dilution. (There's no sound argument that can dispute this).
There was a little excitement (in the form of press releases) a few years ago. They claimed to have big name actors lined up for movies who were no where near signed on the movie.
Their two big projects that everyone was investing on were NEVER STARTED. They stopped even saying the names of the big projects at some point. These were the big hope. These were the last hope.
They fell off of NASDAQ (but it's not like they did well while on NASDAQ). Coming off of NASDAQ means they don't have to run their company so rigidly, report so many things in the same way. Was that good for the investor? Turns out no.
Am I excited by the new CEO? No. The recent strategy is to not focus on movies - the company has a real identity crisis going on, and identity crises aren't something to invest in.
Their debt doesn't actually get smaller, despite all the "debt reduction" that they've been doing FOR YEARS.
Wireless companies? ATMs? Mining equipment? This is all noise meant to get investor money. Sit back and think "were these good moves for a company with entertainment IP to get into?". Not so far.
If they figure out how to make any of these new techs profitable, I fully expect them to also figure out how to keep that money for themselves.
I have to believe they're still plenty friendly with the Hoffmans. With some hindsight, now, the "new CEO" thing seems strategic and not a complete regime change that some have hoped.
You can't do all this stuff with wireless tech and still be saying the movies are the exciting part. It seems that reality is they're just going after lots of different kinds of IP and hoping some of it becomes more valuable to someone else.
They recently lost their movie/audio studio. It's gone. It is under a bunch of investigation by the feds for tax fraud anyway. But they gave it up (sold it) to "reduce debt". The "studio" also happened to be a really nice home (people called it the mansion).
> Get exclusively featured at the CANNES film festival
That's a huge over-statement of what they did at cannes. They were hoping to find investors. They probably paid to be there for the opportunity.
Here's what you have to know about their history with movies. They have a history of over promising and under delivering. As an example they were selling Neuromancer for years, getting investors, getting a viewing at cannes and over hyping it in a press release. The demo reels I've seen for their movies looked AWFUL, and were clearly intended only to try to get someone to cut them a check on the hopes of producing the movie for real (this is what a demo reel is - no one denies this - they're selling the idea of a movie, not the movie itself).
The list of movies that you linked to - have you watched them? Are they good? Do they have a gem that's suddenly going to be worth more than $100,000? How about $10M?
Do you know if they've ever had a theatre showing of a movie? (From just watching, I know that there was one a couple of years ago, that was supposed to be shown in a theatre, but forum participants went to that theatre and were told it wasn't happening).
Why is that list of movies worth any money from your point of view? Movies are like cars - they're worth a range of money from nothing to a lot. I think this list is worth nothing.
A list of bad movies isn't impressive.
>Investing now will mean big payoffs in the near future.
People have been saying that and have been wrong for years (at least 5 that I've been watching).
They're not reverse splitting like mad at the moment, but it would be hard to blame them if they did an RS.
You would have more luck with this symbol if you ask "what would the company do that's best for the board" and not "what would the company do that's best for the investor".
So far, they've always done what's best for the board at the expense of the investor. EVEN IF some of the stuff is worth being excited about, so far there's no evidence or reason to think the investor will be cut in on the action.
Just my opionion. But I've been right for years. This is the only symbol I've commented about in ihub. If you went through my history you could see where i bought (during hype, thankfully), where I sold, where I asked questions and realized the answers were truly scary.
I don't invest on hope.
