Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Hello dk, I enjoyed your post. I have been occassionally stopping in here just to keep current with latest rumors. Like you, I see downside risk fairly minimal and await the recovery of SEVU.
Wow, must be a huge number of deleted posts this evening. Who is being so bad?
FCB, sorry, what it says is the only official info that I know on this topic. I can't answer your questions and prefer not to speculate. Perhaps FG or others have sought out more specific info on this question.
FCB, I didn't get back to you yesterday on your question about how many shares via the convertible debenture. Somebody answered it on RB today by quoting from one of the 10Q's:
10q footnote # 6. CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES
In the first quarter of 2000, the Company issued 8% convertible debentures for proceeds of $2,735,237. The debentures are non-interest bearing for the first thirty days, after which, interest is payable quarterly. The debentures are for a term of twelve months. The debentures are convertible by the option of the holders into shares of the Company's restricted common stock on the basis of $.50 to $8.00 per share. Proceeds from the issuance were used to fund operations of the Company. During the second quarter of 2000, the company exchanged the $2,735,237 of
convertible debentures for 2,217,449 shares of Company common stock.
I spoke with National Stock Transfer and learned that SeaView has recently fired them and as of today they have not yet appointed a replacement. That is all I know.
FCB, I believe in this case the word "transfer" means that the actual restricted share certificates are being reissued (transferred) to free-trading share certificates. A new certificate(s) is generated to replace the old restricted one. The company (SEVU) must give permission before a particular certificate can have this legend removed.
I don't know anything specific about Archie's shares, only guessing which is always dangerous. But as an employee Archie's shares may have different restrictions than those from the convertible debenture offering. If he did not meet all the conditions associated with these restrictions the company can block the transfer.
Can anyone here, including Rich McBride, shed any light on post #26833 on RB? This was the second post by a new poster named Form 144 who only came on there today. Is this true?
By: Form144 $
Reply To: 26829 by ub43 Wednesday, 7 Mar 2001 at 2:32 PM EST
Post # of 26864
Thanks for the information - however after a call to NATIONAL STOCK TRANSFER INC, and speaking to a very nervous Leanne, I was told that no SEVU stock can be transferred at this time. She said that the company had requested this hold?? She suggested that I call Seaview directly for any further information. I understand that Rich is not around today.
OT: Hello, anybody home? No messages since 2AM?
FrankNG, most people who post normally have no reason to proclaim their honor and integrity with every post. Readers will determine your integrity based on the content of what you say, rather than what you proclaim to be.
Is there a reason you have to keep saying "NG honorable poster and does not lie?" To me it indicates that your honor and truthfullness have been challenged repeatedly. Is this the case?
I believe you would be more credible without constantly proclaiming your honor and integrity.
Printmail01, in my opinion your posts have quickly become a waste of time on this board. After reading your post on RB I thought perhaps the tiger might have changed his stripes. Looks like I was wrong.
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=SEVU&read=25601)
Many of the longs here have posted criticisms of SeaView's poor management. And a healthy discussion usually occurs when this happens. But they do not just keep beating the same old stuff to death the way you and other bashers do on RB.
It's obvious that you want SeaView to fail. But you have come to this board dominated by people who want to see the company recover and go on to accomplish great things. Naturally they are not going to welcome your constant rehashing of the same old bad news. So I would say back to you "Why do YOU even bother posting here?"
But I already know the answer, there's no one left to play with on RB but other bashers. I am sure that gets very boring after 380 posts in just 5 weeks.
I certainly hope that IHUB adds an ignore feature, you will have the honor of being the first one that I use it on.
Personally, I like it that the new management team has cleared all the old Views and PR/news releases out of the site. Makes perfect sense to me. The old PR's proved to be overly optimistic at best, and downright deceitful at worst. Many of the Views were written in a defensive and/or reactionary mode. Who needs all the old bad news now? We have the opportunity for a fresh start and a chance to get it right this time. Since the site is management's tool anyway, what's wrong with starting with a clean slate and going forward from here?
Thanks Brettin for copying update. I think I like the way George writes his PR's!
Got to hand it to FG and DK. You guys called it suggesting that McBride be replaced. I never thought it would happen and have to give McBride credit for doing what is right for the future of the company. We also got the bonus of a new COO and the addition of a CFO. New management is really needed to go into the future. Now the question of financing.
One quick question. Can we verify that this PR is fully factual?
A lot of sell orders will probably go off from $2 to $2.50 and then we could see a nice rebound.
The required list of documents appear more directed at Arch Cooks stock transactions than at SeaView or McBride! I wonder if this is primarily aimed at his sale of restricted shares, or shares as part of employee stock option plan. The SEC is very strict on preventing violations of the rules associated with employee stock plans.
Bigbizz, your positive attitude is commendable! But what we really need is positive news from McBride that is significant and independently verifiable. That's what everyone is waiting for, not more of the rehashing and pondering about past events.
dk76, it would be very scary to think some poster on these boards could enfluence the decisions of a significant number of investors in such a way that the shareprice would be affected. I don't believe it routinely happens, although it is hard to argue with the impact that A@P and his shorting cronies had on reducing and holding down Seaview's share price.
There is only one person who could have a positive impact now, and that is McBride. All he would have to do is announce that mass production (final assembly) is underway with X thousands of units to be completed and shipped by March XX. Of course investors would definitely need some independent verification that it is indeed going to happen. But with it, we would have a shareprice back above $7, maybe even above $10. Sounds so easy and sounds so good. Come on McBride...Just Do It!
Paulmk, someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that SeaView has until end of March for audited year-end financials, since they are on a calendar year schedule. Am I wrong anyone?
Madhatter, I have no problem with ignoring messages or posters that I feel are worthless. Most of us probably do this without a problem or without it being part of an organized effort. (It is certainly easier on RB with the "Ignore Poster" button.)
I also do not agree with your opinion about at least one of those on your list, FanClubBoy. Does that make me a basher deserving to be on your blacklist of ignored posters?
We all have our own opinions and they do not always agree with others. But we are all entitled to our opinions and have a right to express them in an open forum, whether others agree with it or not. For instance, I disagree with you concerning Bill Branum. I think the way he handled the reports from the Open House was very self serving. Wasn't he the one organizing the OH questions from other longs? In effect representing those who could not attend. So how does he handle this responsibility? He initially put out a reasonably positive report on Monday without mentioning that he had made the decision to sell his shares. After selling off he turns around the next day and delivers the bad news. Not exactly watching out for his fellow longs in my opinion. At least Anthony gave everyone warning about what he was doing before releasing his reports.
You say Bill made an honest mistake. I think his actions were less than honorable. He was profiting (or minimizing his losses) while leaving everyone else to suffer the consequences of his real opinion of the company. I personally no longer trust what he has to say, but I'll defend his right to say it.
Bull, you take the cake. As one of SeaView's former strongest defenders, you come back from the meeting reporting two areas of concern. One sentence voicing concern for the continued production delay. And then three paragraphs about Rich's lifestyle (hair, dress, and his rumored girlfriend) and its effect on investors.
Wow, I really expected more substance from a director of this board. I am disappointed with you. Maybe you too could do an interview with Anthony?
I just listened to the Arch Cook interview, about 30 minutes. The quality of recording is very poor. You have to crank up the volume to hear anything that Arch is saying which then makes Anthony's comments and questions overwhelmingly loud. Seems to improve a little later in the interview.
It's basically the same stuff from Ken's interview although Arch comes across less hotheaded than Ken. Nothing new in my opinion. Just another disgruntled employee wanting to take a stab at Rich.
Since there is nothing earth shattering in this interview I won't make specific quotes or references to the content as it only continues feeding stuff to the bashers. I suspect it will shake up a few investors today and might see a little extra selling, but doubt that it has any significant effect on share price.
Is it just my system, or do messages take a long time to update for others too? Seems like 30 seconds at times for next message to come up. Very fast over on RB so I don't think it is my computer. Anybody experiencing same thing?
F+G, I disagree with Frank NG and appreciate the Economic Indicator report. Keep it coming.
A couple of other things about restricted shares open for trading. You might consider setting up an account with a full service broker for these shares. From what I have heard, some of the smaller discount brokers (on-line only transactions) are not really equipped to handle the details associated with restricted shares. I have talked to a few investors who were getting some strange information from their discount brokers. Some of it directly contradicted what I was told by Fidelity's restricted share department. Don't know the final outcome they experienced, but I do know that Fidelity was able to get mine opened for trading.
Another thing to keep in mind is that settlement times on restricted share trades take two to three weeks, not the usual two to three days for settlement of free-trading shares. This delays when your sale proceeds are credited to your account.
The best place to get information about selling restricted shares is through your broker's home office. I use Fidelity and they have a department of 12 at their main office who handle all the restricted share transactions. I would suggest contacting them as soon as possible to get the ball rolling. These things take time, communications between the brokerage house, the company, the stock transfer agent, and the lawyer providing the legal opinion. You should obtain a kit of paperwork from your broker to be filed with your share certificate. It took me about two weeks to get it all done. Then the brokerage opens up a trading window based on Form 144 filing and up until the date of the company's next SEC filing (basically when the next quarterly report or end-of-year report is due).
Since McBride is not making the legal opinion available through the company, you will need to contact a lawyer specializing in Securities. (I found several in the yellow pages listing of attorneys by area of specialization.) They try to get $500 to $1000 to issue the opinion, but I was able to negotiate it down to $300. Basically I told him that is all I would pay, and he agreed to that price. The opinion is no big deal, actually a boilerplate type of document but the lawyer does have some potential liabilities if anything in the opinion, based on the information you provided to him, turns out to be false.
Again, it is really best to get your information from your brokerage house's department since they will be handling the details. (Don't waste your time with the routine trading representatives - they don't know anything about trading restricted shares.) That's the extent of my knowledge in this area, so I am not sure I can help in answering more specific questions. But if you want feel free to private message me.
Good luck.
Coming soon to a retail store near you!
Hey I like that. Hope "soon" comes very soon. Can't be too soon as far as I am concerned!
Any theories on what caused the $1+ dump in share price today (over 250K traded)? Heard A@P threatening an Arch Cook interview last week but yet to see it? Could fear of this be reason? Or is there something else someone knows that I don't know?
Also, any ideas on the major news release from Rich at open house and PR next Monday? Hope he pulls the big rabbit out of the hat and gets this stock moving back in the up direction.
Heathbar, do you have any knowledge of rumor that Arch Cook was fired for selling his shares. Think I read it on RB or SI last night or this morning. Know anything????
Yes, very nice. Maybe 5's by next week and 6-7's by open house and announcement. Keeping my fingers crossed. Shhhhh....
F&G, where's the beef. It's clear to me they are claiming that the multi-camera system will go into mass production in 6 months. Key word being system. I don't believe they have ever described the single unit SecureView camera as a system. Whoopee! I'll believe it when I see it. And not because I lived in Missouri for 18 years.
Whether the message is clear and unequivocal isn't really the issue. My beef has been that PR's continually led the reader to believe certain events were happening in a timely fashion, when in retrospect many appear to have never happened, or happened to a much lesser extent. To me this has become a problem of credibility rather than wording.
In the absense of some independent means of verifying the production activities (an outside vendor or other 3rd party) the cautious investor will assume nothing is really happening. Having been burned, many of us now await verifiable results before believing any of the company's communications.
Nevertheless I remain long and hope that the company will quit making production claims such as this. They really need to just show us some actual results. I eagerly await the 4th quarter and end of year financials.
Have any of you on this board had to deal with filing Form 144 on restricted SEVU shares associated with the convertible debenture offering? Specifically I am interested in your experience in getting the necessary legal opinion. From what I am told by my broker this is usually a courtesy provided to shareholders from the company through their legal counsel. However this is apparently not available from SeaView's legal counsel, and I have been advised by McBride to seek this opinion from an independent legal counsel at my expense.
Has anyone on this board besides myself dealt with this? I would like to discuss what you encountered with this. If so, please send a "Private Reply" to this message.
For those of you who don't read RB, you have to read what DK76 posted there. (Dave, won't you please come back? This board needs you too.)
http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=SEVU&read=20452
It's clear why so many people here spend their entire days (and evenings?) on internet message boards discussing issues they know nothing about. IMO, it's because many of them probably aren't smart enough to get a real job! You people debate the same issues for weeks, but never seem to figure out a few basic realities of business.
A few random thoughts:
McBride has a demonstrated history of announcing things before they are final. Tell us something we don't know. Personally, I believe he also grossly underestimates how long it takes to develop, test, produce, and ship products. He may also underestimate the time required to negotiate and close large contracts, as well as how to announce and treat them appropriately. He expected to have SecureView in the channel by last spring/summer. The fact that it didn't happen (and still hasn't) doesn't necessarily make him a liar. It may just mean he was wrong. He may have held discussions with numerous customers such as Radio Shack, JCP, Gov't agencies, Taiwan, and others. Why doesn't SecureView appear in retail stores or catalogs today? Because SEVU isn't producing them yet. DUH! How hard is this to figure out? Obviously harder for some here than others.
If SecureView cameras are ever going to be eligible for retail or large scale distribution, the company must first ensure a quality product, then order enough raw and component materials to enable economies of scale. This takes time. Probably more time than McBride expected.
The whole topic about breaking into a security company is really getting old. For starters, SEVU manufactures a product which may be used for security purposes, but that does not make them a "security company" any more than Firestone is an "automaker". McBride may have used the term "security company", but I think we all know better.
It's also interesting that some believe the company should publish their vendor/supplier list. It's not only none of our business, but in some cases may even be prohibited by contractual agreement (NDAs).
Another comical area if people would stop to think about it is the whole question of legal proceedings against A@P, Ken Cook, certain posters, or whomever. Do you really think that even the dumbest attorney would telegraph their case or legal strategy on an internet message board? Legal proceedings take place within the judicial system; not on the internet.
Sales reported in PR do not have to equate to sales reported on a 10Q. In fact, unless the company ships everything as soon as the order is received, there will most likely be discrepancies. Particularly when we know that the company is accepting orders, but don't appear to have been shipping product for months.
Even things like proposed stock repurchases aren't likely to happen if production is delayed. For all we know, McBride planned to be rolling in SecureView money early in 2000, at which time they could have been buying stock. In retrospect, it's pretty clear that they don't have enough cash on hand to maintain business throughout the delays AND buy back stock.
I'm not saying that all is well in Terra Verde. The company clearly has to endure many more growing pains, and they have a severe credibility problem, but I have watched them critically and closely for about fifteen months now, and I don't see them as being deceitful. Just naive.
As far as I'm concerned, the future looks promising. McBride will either wake up and run the company in a more professional, crisp manner, or the company will likely be bought out by someone who can. Either way, the products should carry the company.
I have a hunch there are others out there who feel the same way, or they wouldn't waste so much time trying to invent ways to bring the stock price down to either acquire more or cover short positions. Either that or they're stupid enough to continue to short a $3 stock whose primary product is about to begin shipping.
Okay kids. Take your best shot. I won't respond, although I look forward to seeing the attempts to taunt me. Most of the people here simply aren't worth the discussion.
Bull, I'll give you some help in reading between the lines what McBride is really saying about hiring a CEO. "NO WAY".
This is NOT a money issue for McBride. Something much more important to him. SeaView is his baby and he's going to either make it or break it. We're just along for the ride.
Class action suit against Anthony@Pacific? As much as I despise what he has done, I don't think a class action suit by investors against Anthony is the appropriate legal action in a situation like this. I'm certainly not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it would be more appropriate for McBride (or SeaView) to sue Anthony for libel if it can be proven that Anthony knowingly published wrong information about him or his actions in managing the company. For instance, Anthony published information accusing McBride of being a felon. I believe McBride has denied this. Anthony refuses to withdraw the accusation. If McBride is not a felon this would certainly be sufficient grounds for a successful libel suit against Anthony. I would expect McBride and/or the company to take this action directly, not through a group action by investors. And shouldn't that action include an injunction to remove the information from Anthony's site until the suit is litigated? Why isn't any of this happening? The whole class action thing seems kind of hoaky to me. But who knows?
About the open house. What possibly can be accomplished by a bunch of questions from investors rehashing last year's PR issues? McBride has already given his responses in the Views as he sees fit to everything that Anthony has raised. What is it that you would expect to hear differently at the open house? It probably will just be a nice show-and-tell about all the neat products SeaView is working on and how happy the employees are to be working there. Haven't we already heard enough of that? I really don't see this meeting having any real impact on our investment.
The key things to watch for in 1st quarter that could have a real effect:
1) 4th quarter and end-of-year audited financials showing revenue increases for the 4th quarter and improvement in the Cash vs. Receivables area. (Isn't the filing deadline 3/31/01 to keep us off the pinks?)
2) Announcement that mass-production of SecureView is actually underway with a verifiable company.
3) Announcement of formal sales contract(s) with major retail or government customers. Again, needs to be issued jointly or at least independently verifiable.
Any of the above would do a whole lot more for investors than the open house Q & A meeting.
McBride step down? Won't happen! This is his baby and letting it go isn't possible. It has nothing to do with the cost of a new CEO. He created it, he runs it the way he wants, and I am sure he controls enough voting shares to continue to do so. He will either make it or break it, but he will never give it up. Pressure to step down will only make his resolve stronger. If you can't accept that you should just sell your shares now and get out.
Bigbizz you say "even if SEVU only has 15 million in sales for 2000." I don't think you are being realistic pumping numbers like that. I predict less than $ 8 million. Two things to remember: First, Secureview revenues will be limited to hand production in the 4th quarter and they had to ship to recognize revenue. Remember Rich stated SEVU would be carrying $ 9 million in orders into 1st quarter 2001. To me that means they probably didn't build and ship very many in 4th quarter. Second, underwater camera sales were seasonally down in the 4th quarter of 1999. Go back and look at the quarterly numbers in 1999, which only represents the underwater gear; revenues fell from $214,000 in 3rd quarter to $150,000 in the 4th quarter.
I wouldn't be surprised if total revenue for 2000 comes in the range of $ 6 - 8 million. Don't get me wrong, a six to eight fold increase over the $ 1.03 million in net revenues for 1999 is really fantastic.
If you want to vote for where you think total net revenues will be for the year 2000, I'll keep track. (Total revenues for the first three quarters of 2000 was $4.4 million.)
Less than $ 8 Million: Srsnetworker
$ 8 to 12 million:
Over $ 12 million: Bigbizz
Hey FG, I disagree. If this is to become a worthwhile forum we need critics too. Everybody capable of thinking for themselves has an opinion on the other posters. I for one find Bull's "yes,man" posts just as annoying as Crookk and FCB's occassional personal attacks. But, hey, I put up with it because every organization (even this little group) has its yes-men and annoying critics. It's part of a natural balance of input that we need to arrive at something representing reality. Let it be, keep the censorship to a minimum.
Look at this, we are squabbling amongst ourselves and focusing on other things than the plight of SeaView. Stock must be going up!
Brettin, I never thought $2.56 would look so good. We have a long way to go though. Wonder what a positive PR (with solid verifiable information) do for the stock?
Brettin, you have level II, right? What's going on with SEVU. I never saw bid/ask go above 1.875/1.9688 but some trades (?) went off at $2.00.
Can you see what happened? TIA. -srs
Hey folks, it's good to see George Bernardich hanging in there with Rich. This has got to be a real shocker for him. I am heartened to see his support. This has given me reason to hang in there and see where it goes, hopefully up, up, and up...
Here you go Gotinearly:
http://www.insidetruth.com/