Why Buy The Milk When You Can Buy The Cow?
The alleged contractual agreement, to which we are not privy to, may have non-disclosure information inserted into the contract by the customer. Obviously, it is in the customer’s best interest to prevent their customer from knowing who the subcontracted third party is; otherwise, their customer could have contacted us directly. Thus, (speculating here) a non-disclosure clause was inserted by the customer, into the contractual agreement that was inked between Spooz and our customer. The innocent looking and overlooked language of non-disclosure has come back to perhaps haunt Spooz ever since. In the short run, it may be causing unfounded fears, to which cannot be answered, but in the long run revealed. The problems created of course first in foremost is the lack of pertinent, quality information regarding the business activity being released to the shareholders, and second a potential scenario that may develop making Spooz an attractive company to buy and the buyer will be our customer!
A non-disclosure statement inserted into the contract may in fact better explain why the first PR posted on September 23 was removed. Remember, the legal department became involved requesting the PR be removed and the reason being "too many phone calls" were received? Since the PR had to be removed, the stock price has subsequently dropped ever since. This is bad for the management of Spooz, because just like us, their value has dropped significantly which in turn affects the balance sheet and thus an ability to secure additional line of financing for expanded operations. Since the Spooz balance sheet is not pretty, an upstart Kaitrade can open for business and acquire the additional financing requirements based on invoicing better than an overburdened Spooz. This also allows for the staff of Kaitrade to demonstrate an ability to service the Spooz product for after market customizations, leaving them with the autonomy they desired without being gobbled up by the next owner. A potential buyout scenario may better explain why any reference to Spooz was removed from individuals resume, so that a clean break is established without proprietary information leaving during the middle of a buyout.
Now I would like to put forth a hypothesis: In previous calculations of potential revenues, we focused solely on our revenue from sales of product(s) based on the original PR of up to 1200 seats. However, after thinking about the revenue calculations again based on new information in the last PR that has our attention, it may be cheaper in the long run for the customer to just buy Spooz. Based on a low share price of $0.0002, at 5B shares, that's only 1M! Even at a premium of $0.0004, it still would be cheaper for the customer to buy us out over the long run. So, the question has to be raised, at what point does Spooz become unattractive to a potential buyout based on share price? I'm just throwing a number out there, (using Birdito's previous number for starters) of $0.005 x 5B = $25M... Would that throw off a potential buyout?
Spooz is a small company, with a large number of shares, and a comparatively small number of shareholders. I would wager that those who have posted on the board collectively own a large majority of the company stock, and have been conducting the majority of the trades on this stock. We may be hurting ourselves by throwing off our extra crumbs lately at the ridiculous price of $0.0002, while keeping our cookies. Unless the share price goes up, we may lose our cookies and the entire cookie jar through a buyout. The individual, per transaction volume needs to decrease with a higher ask price, which would mirror a higher priced stock.
Unfortunately, the longs are being hampered by mm, short, pessimists and a lack of transparency. In the short term, without concrete information with respect to the contract, or positive revenue flow confirming a contract, the share price will remain. Even if the magical PR appears which would sufficiently confirm a contractual relationship to both the optimists and pessimists, new individual investors may not take the time to research the product or Spooz due to the complexity of the product being offered. They will only be concerned with the pps, charts, and/or any potential revenue that will generate potential dividends.
As the product demonstrates success, Spooz runs a risk of a buyout due to a ridiculously low share price. It would be in everyone's best interest to see a higher share price in the short and long run, with the exception being the shorts... If someone is more versed in the differences between Pink and OTC stock buyout scenarios, please advice accordingly with respect to proper notification in advance to the shareholders of record.
Thank you for your valued time and consideration with this hypothesis. I welcome comments.
JMO
