Capstone Green Energy Corp (fka CGRNQ)

[Wild-bill]

"legal" manipulation and coercion by the market makers, hedge funds, through 'bots' and pre-arranged transaction targets, brought this stocks price to this state of affairs along with missteps by this management's lack of leadership and with their total disregard to shareholder interest.

Amen to that. All of it!

{ ... I like all of you other shareholders must decide whether to disprove the reverse split due to the existence of the huge remaining (and not also reversed as with the shares outstanding) shelf shares that can and which probably will in part be executed thus further diluting my current shares further ... }

As much as I would like to hold their feet to the fire ... Not addressed there, because it seemed unproductive, is the same concern about the authorized not being reduced at all. If not for the feeling that maintaining NASDAQ listing and higher share price was in essance "mandatory" if we want to see pps gains I would have voted "no".

There is an option - a shareholder submitted proposal to reduce authorized by some like amount or some partial ratio. I think it would be worthwhile if we can find someone with the time and interest to draft one up and shepherd it through the process. Might not be for the upcoming meeting, but could certainly be on the ballot thereafter. If it was on the ballot for the next AGM there should not have been too much damage to that point.

One counterpoint: if CPST was ever as near EBITDA break-even as DJ suggested so many times, and if the recent cost cutting was significant, and if world economic conditions aren't forcing too much deep-discounting, and if management is now more closely managing to cash flow, and if ..., and if ..., then they really shouldn't have to have another offering.

But that's a lot of ifs. Here's one more.

If they do need to rise capital, really need it for other than raising pay and giving bonuses and chasing passenger-car pipe-dreams, ... and the authorized has been reduced, then what? Why they request shareholder approval to increase and get it because what choice is there if they are cut to the bone already?

None really.

{ ... possible 80 c-1000 turbines ... }

I termed it "DJ's hopium-induced pipe dream" at the time. Later as the Mexico orders materialized and the Russia-China pipeline looked probable it seemed less far-fetched. But things have changed a bit and it again seems far-fetched for now.

{ I think retail will take a great hit with the reverse split. }

I think that's dependent on fundamentals, which at the time I expect will be little improved. But see the littany of "ifs" above. If several of those are meaningful and realized the fundamentals could be sound enough to keep the shorters at bay, or at least very much more cautious. That would argue that the "hit" might be much smaller or non-existant.

But it is a big IF. Timing, as to the state of business and the company at the time of the R/S might be the critical element, and that's at the BOD's discretion.

{ Having ten or twenty time less shares will make it almost impossible to regain my break-even purchase prices }

I don't know. Having 33.7MM outstanding instead of 330.7MM (328.4 float) would seem to be plenty of liquidity. Yahoo shows ~40% in institutional hands, so roughly 196MM potentially "in the market" excluding those. I agree a 1:20 would likely be a killer.

{ Loading additional shares after the reverse and its possible hit again by the shorts ... }

My #1 concern. If they were ever as near to turning the corner as we were told, there should not be reason for this to occur. If it does occur it tells us much about what is really the state of affairs. The old "and other general purposes" is the killer for me. If it's for capex to meet existing and/or confirmed forward demand, OK. For anything else I know we've been lied to for a long time.

MHO & HTH,
Bill