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.
Not to quibble, but unless I missed it, Drake currently has no CEO.
Nice rise the past couple of days. Hopefully the old dog can continue to spin a tale, attracting new fish. Green is always good. We'll see if any of the supposed PRs contain any meat, which we need to sustain any real move.
If they do that, I hope they wait a year until getting another signature on prepared documents besides Jerry Leslie's. That can't help the cause with a respected agency, to be sure.
I agree the negativity from the longs here is warranted to a degree. I don't really feel like we have experienced the promise that we were told to expect, but I continue to give credit to Finch and others for the Pneu-Logic addition while maintaining a decent financial picture overall. To me, it would make no sense to make an acquisition like that if you really had no vision or plan for cashing in on the umbrella-like product offering that you would then have moving forward. I could actually understand not meeting strict plans for simple AIDO tags if you were able to move on something much bigger in the overall business opportunity.
I continue to give credit to the longs here, who discuss things openly and frankly. To the relative short bashers, who do not own stock and can only have an agenda here which hurts the longs in the short run, I cannot give any credit, nor credence to. The attempts to paint the company in a negative way is just silly, otherwise.
First off, yes it's good that the company is "current." It certainly does add some credibility to new eyes and shoppers. I'm guessing that's part of the plan to raise more money moving forward, smart business.
The second part of your post is - and always has been - part of the bigger issue to making any real money here. First, we'll have to eliminate one of the zeros in this SP. Then, attempt to return to the SP of where this started when it changed business focus to a new business. I think it will take an explanation of a real business plan that describes actual business with some verifiable numbers by unbiased sources - which has been a sticking point for anyone who cares about this being a real business in the first place.
After that, and most important of all, it will have to actually turn into a real business, and make plans into reality, without the misfires and/or misdirections that have been the business model to date.
We shall see. The groundwork is in place to draw in speculative support and buyers, no doubt. That's good. Clayton and company have always known how to do that, so I'm not surprised any of this part has happened.
Now comes the hard part. We'll see if they are for real now, won't we? Good luck to all...I'd be initially happy if they can get back to where they started, so I can get some money back. Not holding my breath, but with another round of PRs that don't even have to be followed through with, they should be able to get close to that.
Thanks for posting all of that, it did appear different in actuality. The thing that bothers me is the poormouthing of Comcast revenues - only $75,000? He was singing the praises of what that airing was going to be, not too long ago.
ANYway, we do need to continue to communicate the dissatisfaction with any possible R/S.
company will not do a reverse split if they do not a air on a national channel
I hate these double negative comments, which leave things a little off-kilter. Does this mean exactly what it says? If we don't air on a national channel, there's no reverse split? If we do air on a national channel, then there will be?
A reverse split will absolutely crush investors more than he already has - and he has promised to not do that - and buy back shares to increase value.
So, again, it appears likely, despite what he has said, that there will be a reverse split if anything remotely positive happens on a network front? Which is the only chance we have for any kind of real rise.
Here's a perspective on what has been released - and what supposedly is some kind of excitement moving forward:
The company historically (since conception 02-02-06) has focused on exploration of natural resources primarily gold recovery, which has expanded to several different projects. Actual production is the next step in the company’s plans to expand the operations. Plans to acquire or joint venture other mining projects are being formalized and will be announced as they are completed.
Several different projects? And those are? Jackpot and what? And Jackpot doesn't meet the new company business plan, right? So Jackpot is dead, and all they have to be talking about is the new unnamed projects with the company that they are officers of. Okay, now that is creative. Weak, but creative.
The company has one subsidiary called Drake Oil and Gas, which has been formed to acquire existing oil and gas operations as well as oil and gas companies. The company was just recently formed and does not have any operations or assets. Material changes will be announced as they happen. Drake Oil and Gas is a wholly owned subsidiary.[/]
Subsidiary has no operations or assets. Changes will be announced as they happen. Which means they have nothing to show to date. Something bankable here?
The company is subject to regulatory controls from government agencies that enforce environmental concerns as well as the BLM, of which many gold recovery projects are held by this agency. The effect on the company would be the cost of compliance associated with procedures instituted to comply with the regulation and oversight. Costs may include consultants or employees needed to provide services regarding this compliance.
Didn't I read in another recent post that the company was NOT subject to regulatory controls, and that was singled out as a positive? Interesting. Many of the possible recovery projects are currently held by the BLM, and the last interaction I remember between Drake and the BLM was that the BLM did not accept the findings of the Jackpot landowner (lessor) and sent out their own geologist to verify findings. Soon after that, Drake announced a new company business plan, and that Jackpot might not fit into the new plan. Ironic? Strange? Or clear as glass what happened?
There has been limited cash spent on any research and development over the last two fiscal years but there has been 144 restricted stock issued for such services rendered which is restricted from 2 years of the date issued. The cash spent was on sampling and research on site at mining projects including: Jackpot Placer Project; Norm Pearson $13,000 and The Gault Group $13,000; Georgia, Southern Mining & Exploration $5,000.
Limited cash supposedly spent on any R&D over the past two years. More than 2/3 of that was spent at Jackpot, and that project has not, nor evidently will bear any golden fruit. A total of $5,000 was spent in Georgia on this new frontier of success for the company. Was that before or after Clayton was on board? Who knows? Does it matter? I dunno. Seems like a pretty small number if even true.
Has the company followed through with any projects to date? And shareholder benefits that were talked about? Sales of existing inventories from prior businesses (lol)? Oil well management/repair business work out well?
True enough that we are transparent, with the numbers signed and verified by a former owner/board member of the previous company that this turned into, with a history of failures, that was supposedly completely out of the picture. Surprise! Not! Beautiful.
Maybe things will take off now. Shares seem to be closely held by favorable holders. Promises are grand, about the future. Price of gold extremely high.
But this remains what it is. Nothing, until something actually happens. I hope it does...long ready to cash in with the rest of you. We'll see.
Pretty sure that they are MM signals. I've seen a list of 100/200/300/400 MM signals to let others know what they need to make their markets. Just a thought. Can't remember it specifically, but it's not about the number, really, so much, as letting others know something.
Where is today's PR? Not on the quote board, what PR are you guys referring to. Sorry if I'm slow on the uptake, been gone a few days.
Can you please name one thing this company (Drake Gold) and Clayton has started that has been a success, or even is still an active part of the company? Considering that there have been some things started that we were told to expect success from, I think that answer would be very telling.
Wow, that's interesting news, thanks for sharing. I've been gone for a few days on a family matter, and back in the saddle. Airing nationally due to the writers strike would be a huge score, and would make sense. I'd really like to get a better sense of the share situation, and if the company that was selling shares to "get paid" for past services is done (or nearly so) with that.
Trust me, I was happy to let Leslie (the past?) go, when I was told he was gone. I hardly call it "the past" when all that we have to hang our hat on currently is a set of financials signed and presented THIS WEEK by the person in question. Apparently, Jerry Leslie is squarely a part of the transparency project at the present time, as he is the responsible person for the financials that everyone is supposed to be looking at for our future growth.
Well, if you consider "bleeding money" a bad thing when they purchase other companies to become a full-service complete solution provider of something that can help some very major companies in a repeating business scenario, I guess that makes some sense.
I look at it as positioning for a bright future. But we all see what we want to see - some are shareholders, and some are not - nor ever will be. Why would the latter opinions be of much value in the long run? Can't figure that one out...
Maybe a stupid question...what good are the tags with no readers, per the contract observation you mentioned? Are they providing the readers for the connection, or some other thing?
Honestly, I don't anticipate making much money on this, best case scenario. I've already lost plenty by hoping, and much of what was hoped for has come to pass. There is a chance he can build on recent contracts, but the horribly depressed SP will cause problems in all areas. It is possible if a large share buyback occurs with profits, but what is he going to fund ongoing operations, a season, two, pay prize winners, etc., with? I just don't see an easy way, but maybe it could happen.
I don't expect much, but not worth selling what I have at this point. Just talking off the top of my head here, as you want opinions.
Unfortunately, I agree with you. I moved some $$ over here from another dormant gamble a while back, because the news and reports seemed to be lining up for upward movement in the near term. The company inferences in PRs seemed to hint of that, IMO. If they want us to continue to hold and be supportive, quite simply they need to move that needle some with some follow through and substance. The hints aren't getting the job done, nor is the promise of what COULD be.
Kind of put up or shut up time for me, with some of my holdings here. Content to hold and watch with some of it, but not all of it. That's just more of the "marrying" situation, which has killed me before.
Hey, it's certainly easy to say that he's waiting until all the financial ducks get in a row before releasing news. It's easy to say all kinds of things when there really is nothing of substance going on, when your principal business is marketing and PR...it is what you do for a living. And when your secondary business is moving in and out of companies, assuming different positions (no matter what the businesses are), and telling people you are a major shareholder in those businesses or are lining up investment entities in them, etc., then it becomes more clear that you are essentially more of an investor and profit seeker than any kind of real business person. Again, I guess there's nothing wrong with that, and I don't think that has been hidden.
It's just the reality, and to put much faith in the BUSINESS at this point is really just wishful thinking. There simply is nothing to show any other way to think, as I can see. Seriously, do any of the pumper/promotors have any concerns that he is involved with so many other companies, and HAS to spend most of his time on other things other than Drake Gold? As a shareholder, it should, in my opinion.
If you mean in the near future (like hitting a penny stock quickly, selling, and moving on...), then I'd say it won't happen. Just to grab something purely out the air...
ASSUMING the recent cable connections both in the US and in foreign markets will precipitate future operations or contracts, then I think at some point, when a new product is launched, then maybe this will leave the micro-penny area. I would guess that the soonest anyone could HOPE to make real money here would be a year. If then.
If you are looking at a quick hit here, like a month or so? Nope. No reason to think it will do much quickly.
If you are asking if I think this will ever do what I outlined above? I honestly don't. But there is always a chance, I suppose.
Yeah, maybe the Georgia land will be as good as the Arizona property was. Evidently it wasn't that hot of a property, that a new shell company could swoop in and take up "operations," but I'm sure there's a really good explanation of how Drake and Clayton were the only ones with the connections and foresight to make something happen there. I can't wait to see the gold estimates from the landowner published in a new transparent PR, I'm sure those will be very exciting, much like the Arizona numbers were.
I just love these ongoing grand generalization comments with news and things people have "heard," and what they believe.
The only thing non-transparency related that Clayton has been up to lately that can be verified are his daily e-mails singing the praises of all the other companies he is marketing for (his real job, remember?) and his investment prospectus and portfolio. Haven't seen Drake mentioned in a long time. But I'm sure that's all part of the new plan, right?
Good luck getting any clarity from that question.
Honestly, bnjmn, I don't think anyone knows anything for sure here. I certainly could not advise anyone to buy more than they already have, but I can't imagine selling existing shares would be worth doing either.
I think it's kind of a hobby for most here, and not a very enjoyable one at that. I think there's a chance you could see some success at some point, but would not bet on it.
Lol...funny stuff. Nice to see some maintaining a sense of humor in our "dark" days...
For some reason, I keep thinking the next PR will headline something like this...
"Drake Gold Resources Reaches Turning Point on Transparency Efforts."
Seriously, supporters, the performance of this stock of late is horrible. Isn't it time somebody piped in with a post or three about what a great buying opportunity this is? Surely Clayton has to realize that even the most ardent supporters are getting a little tired of waiting for something to materialize other than transparency.
Supporter or disbeliever...it's time for Clayton to put up or shut up and move on to something else. This is ridiculous, even for him.
I noticed on ESPN today that they were televising a High Stakes Golf event, featuring some of the top poker players playing golf. If memory serves, wasn't WGL entertainment going to do something like this?
Yes, O'Hurley was the host for this, and should be a big draw. He was quoted prominently in one of the PRs released a while back.
Agreed on the quality of the board recently and the recent improvements. You know as well as I do that posts that have been made lately have been allowed to stand (although the responses are pretty laughable in some cases, as pointed out) and that is a great thing. I do salute you, and your demeanor here of late.
The reason I am conditioned to respond with "you guys" comments, is because for months I had to tippy-toe with my posts to keep them from being deleted. ALWAYS, when it was a specific comment to a person, it was deleted. That seemingly has changed, for the better.
I agree with the new board style, and I will be both specific and deal with issues.
As for the positives, I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, but there are plenty of people posting hazy positives about the future all the time. The fact he was dealing specifically with info produced by the PR machine should be important.
I'm happy and encouraged with the efforts made to correct problems with the company on Pinksheets. The underlying problem is that there still is no real business progress that we can know about besides positioning and share "stuff".
All we really have here is a company that is striving for a transparent gold status. Hey, if they can make the share price go up SOMEHOW, that would be nice. The best way would be to actually follow through with some real business. Don't you fellas agree?
This is a perfect example of the content and quality on this board. A person comes on with an EXCELLENT essay on the actual company, with an in-depth look at share structure and share issuance, and one dreamer suggests this person who actually does (and shares) quality due diligence will be asking others if they want fries with that. Unreal.
Followed by a shouting of "Why are you finding fault with a Pink Sheet Company?!?" I tell ya, some of this is so ludicrous, you couldn't make it up. Funny how I guess you can only PROMOTE a pink sheet company as having a great future, but you can't ever mention ANYTHING negative or questionable (or painfully obvious) or you face ridicule and serve future fries.
I understand why you guys would avoid discussing the real issues here, I've seen it for a long time. But seriously, taking it to this level, do you think it somehow makes you look better or smarter? I just can't figure that out.
Nice commentary on the information. Maybe some of that could be addressed by Clayton, or his new boys...if anyone cared to deal with real issues, that is. Thanks for taking the time to look at things, and share your thoughts, Medchal.
Agreed. The SP performance has been abysmal for a very long time. We need to see some $$ progress in the near future.
I agree with most of what you said, Takeover. It's just that there are so many glossed-over issues with this company when it comes to actually being any kind of real business, it's just silly the way people talk - or avoid talking - about it sometimes.
The lack of business performance with this company is actually quite striking, and the only ones who will deal with that are the ones who have already grown tired of waiting on nebulous maneuvers.
Some good points posted last night and early today about the similarities in many of Claytons PRs and company updates. This has gone on for a very long time - it's as if he has all his PRs bookmarked, and he just cuts, pastes, changes a word or two, and releases them as new - for different companies he promotes. That should be a warning signal right there - that, and the complete lack of actual business success. But, anything is possible, depending on what you hope will happen. It's pretty surprising to me how many people simply have blinders on when it comes to putting their money into this "business", considering what can be plainly seen. The only way anyone can hope to make real money here is that if the business produces something real other than transparency.
Solid news release. Nice build to it, for a change. Would be awesome if the selloff of shares was completed before any move to a network contract, if it ever happens. Also, need this thing to hold onto the .002 rung and move a little up. The .001 is just a killer all the time.
I thought that was it, just couldn't remember. I would think that might be somewhat standard in this kind of thing, since revenue would be completely dependent on it airing.
I respect anyone's right to post on a board, but I think unless Zero and his small friend state why they are posting here when at least Zero has said that he would never own the stock, then they should be dispatched to do their work elsewhere.
Simple question, remains unanswered, which probably explains the obvious answer. I can assure you that this kind of thing would not be tolerated or allowed to stand on at least one other board zero controls - or at least formerly controlled.
It does matter, I think. I noticed the "IMO" in his last theory post. I'd question why his opinion matters, when he is clearly hiding his motivation for voicing his "opinion."
As for the contestants getting paid - Pagnano stated that it was in their contract that they would get paid if the show ever aired (can't remember if it was network or just cable) and not just for participating. I suppose that would make sense, but I know nothing about these kinds of fledgling entertainment endeavors. And I also do not know if that's true, but at least it's an explanation of some sort - for what it's worth.
As for the explosion of volume on a down day, I'm wondering how close the company that has been selling off shares to get paid is at this point. That could help in the long run, I suppose.
I'm wondering what the "really" comment is about regarding this part of the post?
"Then we have this?? look at a company with no revenues, no real assets, no cash in the company, and having the current price and share structure, and on top of it all, Clayton as ceo. — Really... "
Is this simply a response because you have nothing to refute this part of the post? Because I would say that this part of the post IS the important part, and is very relevant.
Or were you agreeing with it, by saying "really?" I found it a little humorous in the responses to my article on gold mining companies when people were theorizing about how Drake was going to do business (since they really can only HAVE theories as there IS no business to speak of to date), and then the person says that they might do some of the mining themselves. I thnk that pretty much says a lot about the theories about how this company will "take off." Nothing wrong with hope, but let's stick to reality for the credibility factor - if anyone cares about that here. Some do...some clearly don't.
Some interesting discussions going on here - I do salute those currently moderating for allowing the give and take - it helps everyone in the long run, if this is a real company. If nothing else, it gives Clayton fodder for creating his next update - addressing real problems with time to come up with creative "answers."
I think my favorite recent post was the comment about the share price not being .005 (when it was at .006 or so) in defending what the company can pull off in the future. No doubt, that milli-penny will help...lol.
Just because gold is syrocketing right now, that doesn't mean the company you are hinging your hopes on here will help you benefit from that. Considering the performance to date, and the fact that they don't actually have anything underway that they care to share, then I'd be even less sure about that. Here is an article that looks at the exact story that matters - cost to produce, leveraging, etc. As with most sectors, the success of the individual business doesn't necessarily follow an overal sector situation. Not to say this definitely won't do well, but some of the "best" gold miners are having a hard time doing well even WITH gold at all time highs. And Drake is far from bringing gold to market.
---------------
Gold Mining Stocks Suffering While Gold Price Reaches Record High
Wednesday, 03 October 2007 Written by Adrian Ash
What’s up with gold mining stocks?
Back in late 2003, when the gold price stood at just half today’s level, the Philadelphia index of silver & gold mining stocks traded at 30 times earnings. Today, the price/earnings ratio has slipped to 26 times, yet the spot gold market has jumped to a 27-year high.
Does that gap between the miners and the object of their mining represent a chance to nick a little value before the world’s gold stocks play catch up?
Catch-up could pay handsomely if the bulk of new analysts’ reports come good. Both J.P.Morgan Chase and Fortis, the Dutch investment bank, foresee the gold price hitting new records above $850 within the next 12 months.
Citigroup alsos forecast a test of that all-time high, with “competitive currency devaluations” by the major economies making a price of $1,000 per ounce “or higher” very possible.
Amongst gold mining stocks, Barrick Mining (NYSE: ABX), the world’s largest single gold producer, says the gold price may rise to $800 per ounce by the end of this year. Ian Cockerill, the CEO of Gold Fields (NYSE: GFI) - the world’s fourth largest gold producer - says he is “quite comfortable talking about $1,200 an ounce. That will happen in 24 months or so. It could be quicker.”
But while both gold mining analysts and executives are bullish on gold prices, the gold mining stocks they promote may struggle to rise alongside the gold bullion market, reckons John Hathaway, portfolio manager of the $1.1 billion Tocqueville Fund in New York.
“The Fed would like to think there is no inflation,” Hathaway tells Barron’s magazine in an interview this week, “but the cost of building a mine is up by roughly 50% in the last five years.
What’s more, “you would think if your product price went up by 100% in a five-year period - which gold basically has - that the companies would be rolling in cash,” says Hathaway. “But returns on equity are low. Newmont Mining’s return on equity is less than 2% in the latest 12 months. Gold Fields’ is 8%. Randgold Resources’ is about 11%.”
By way of comparison, the ROCE at the world’s biggest mining firm, BHP Billiton (ASX: BHP), stands at nearly 39% today.
The reason for gold miners lagging so badly? The cost of mining for gold is certainly rising at a record clip. Environmental groups are also hampering new and ongoing mine-works with legal challenges and direct action, too. And the dangers, meantime, of digging deep below ground to extract one tonne of rock bearing only a few grams of gold ore continue to kill and injure gold-mining employees.
All this looks very bad for public relations. Gold’s sudden return to newspaper and evening news headlines the world over will only draw fresh fire from the anti-gold-mining lobby.
For one example of the woes hitting gold mining stocks, pity poor AngloGold Ashanti (NYSE: AU), the world’s third largest gold-mining producer. It learned on Monday this week that a ZAR 2.6-million lawsuit (US$376,000) from a former employee suffering from silicosis has now been postponed until early ‘08. The court case was originally scheduled for June, and each delay adds - if only incrementally - to the firm’s ongoing legal costs.
The company also halted blast works on Monday at its Mponeng mine near Carletonville, Johannesburg, after a rockfall killed four workers last Friday. Almost 30 employees have been killed at AngloGold mines in South Africa so far in 2007.
And meantime, AngloGold’s biggest corporate investor - Anglo American, the world’s second largest diversified mining group - announced on Monday that it will sell half of its remaining 41% position in the gold miner.
“It’s been their strategic view all along,” reckons Nazeem Hendricks of Argon Asset Management in Johannesburg, “because in their view AngloGold was non-core.”
But being “non-core” - even in a world of soaring gold prices - just doesn’t fit today’s model of giant, diversified natural resource groups, led by BHP Billiton. Especially if soaring gold prices fail to show up on the bottom line. AngloGold Ashanti’s earnings fell more than 14% between April and June from the first quarter of this year. The triple-whammy of bad news out on Monday knocked the share price nearly 7% down for the session.
What can the gold-mining industry do to cap its underperformance, so gold mining stocks can start taking advantage of the ongoing bull market in gold? Bernard Swanepoel knows a thing or two about digging gold ore out of the ground. He also knows a thing or two about effective stock-market promotion, too.
Head of Harmony Gold during its spectacular growth from a single-mine operation in 1996 to the world’s fifth-largest producer in 2007, however, even Swanepoel got whacked by the ugly side of gold mining economics in summer this year.
Whether jumping or pushed, Swanepoel left Harmony after cash-costs soared 40% and output slumped by more than 10% between April and June. Looking at the future of world gold-mining output, he now believes that financing new gold projects demands a “re-invention”.
“Prefund a new gold mine with shareholder equity. Impossible? I think not,” he writes in an article for MiningMX.com.
“I’m not against debt, financial engineering, or tax efficiency or synergies or scale benefits,” says Swanepoel, “but if investors aren’t prepared to buy the story as a standalone, then perhaps we are doing it for the wrong reasons and just forcing current shareholders to follow reluctantly.”
Responding to complaints about poor management by mining-fund managers at last week’s Denver Gold Forum, Swanepoel suggests splitting the world’s largest companies into smaller equities, focused on individual projects.
“Let’s unbundle them!” he urges. “Let’s relist the mines separately and give fund managers choice! Those mines that are cash generative can be high dividend yield stocks (like South African platinum shares); the developing mines can be growth stories (like Banro Corp. and Great Basin Gold); while gold bugs can buy into undeveloped properties such as Wits Gold.”
Could Swanepoel’s gold-mining revolution revive global gold mining stock investments? It’s signal that he refers to “debt [and] financial engineering”, even if he does say he’s got nothing against them in principal. Last year, 2006, saw a record $17.6 billion spent in corporate takeovers and mergers by the gold-mining sector. Now that leveraged loans have dried up - with total world M&A activity dropping by 42% between June and Sept., and Britain’s biggest banks warning that corporate borrowers face a tougher time raising finance than even private households - the frenzy of buy-ups and buy-outs in gold-mining stocks looks to be pausing, if it’s not spent.
As it is, the widely respected GFMS consultancy based in London believes that total world gold-mining output will slip another 1.6% between July and Dec. 2007. Last year saw the lowest world gold-mining output in a decade.
Gold-mining output continues to drop, in short, even as the price of gold that’s now above ground trades at fresh 27-year highs. This only adds to the case for owning the metal itself. Whereas investors in gold mining stocks, on the other hand, might be forgiven for asking why they’re risking their money in dangerous and risky gold mining ventures.
Hey, guys...piping in here on my personal pet peeve...Arnold is exactly correct on this one. The main reason I bought in before was all of the pending patents - all of which sound good but none ever materialize. More just doesn't get my interest back...having another one ever granted would. And so it goes...good luck to you holders...I seriously mean that. Will jump back in with both feet should anything ever fire.
Yawn...lol. You must just be bored since you can't post on the other board anymore...
Breath holding not recommended.
Truer words were never typed...lol. Thanks for the humor this AM...
I really can't say for sure, it's possible. Pretty much possible with any of these sub-penny gambles.
I am giving him credit for bringing the product to cable in some large markets, and also abroad. He has followed through with what he claimed he was going to in PRs and in e-mails, at least for the past year +, with me.
Obviously a big gamble - I think most here know that. And we all are fairly sceptical that it will ever amount to much. Most invested on the concept and to invest in something they were interested in.
We'll see where it goes from here.
That's what Pagnano said for PR purposes. Cannot refute nore affirm that, although I would be very surprised if it approached that. If it would, then he surely could buy back plenty of shares.
Not expecting that. Pretty cloudy revenue picture at the moment.