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.
Even for a flip you have to believe the pps will appreciate at least in the short term. What gives you this sort of confidence at this point in time?
Yeah, I warned of the proposed Trump DOE budget cut for clean coal awhile ago. I sincerely hope you are right in your analysis of CCTC being in the sweet spot or it's DOA IMHO. We'll know for sure once the budget is signed into law and funds are dispersed to grant awardees.
I'm in shock and disbelief! I thought you didn't believe in CCTC's future at all from what you've written.
I can wait. I've got patient capital invested here because I know what I own. Long and Strong SFOR!
That can be said of many stocks.
Thanks for that tip PD. I will.
Thank you for doing so!
Correct, none of us know for sure. I asked only for an opinion. This is yet another topic we shall, as gentlemen, agree to disagree on.
Answer the question Peggy. Who do you think is picking up SFOR's Ropes and Gray considerable legal tab? Don't be shy!
The odds just like a coin flip, 50:50. Plenty of us have taken those kind of odds in various matters including investment. You either believe in the company and its patented technology or you don't at this point. It's as simple as that. GLTA!
Au contraire. Their patented process technology has been independently verified. DOE seem interested enough to have even ordered further testing! That doesn't sound like a technological failure to me at all.
Now is the time that tries CCTC share holders' souls!
It looks like manipulation to me. Sadly, they might be in charge for awhile until CTC can stop them with catalyst news that I hope comes out of the WY Mining Conference.
Yeah, you didn't know exactly what Mark Kay said did you? He sure as heck didn't say "anemic" as you quoted him saying.
Are you implying the SFOR lawsuits, taken by the best IP firm in the country, Ropes and Gray, are frivolous? If so you must more know jurisprudence than the entire SFOR legal defense team!
You're absolutely right! Each of us activist share holders brings something to the table to raise product awareness. That you tube video was great! Other people blog. I wrote hundreds of letters & encourage others to write a couple. Together, we can help make SFOR successful.
O.K. Peggy, who do you think is picking up SFOR's considerble legal tab to include a B&R retainer fee of between $300K and $500K?
Who cares? Money is being made either way by SFOR with that increasing volume of sales.
Respectfully, I disagree. TPG purchased a majority poition (51%) in McAfee from Intel. It would then be incumbent to sheperd McAfee, which has the Achilles heel of lack of key logger defense. Part of that new-found responsibility would be to plug that chink in its armor with SFOR IP. That, in addition to the stated aim to "Acquire small computer software companies in the cyber security landscape" (as the TPG partner said in his Bloomberg interview) lead me to conclude TPG is the one "picking up the tab" Time will tell.
I don't think Ropes and Gray or Blank Rome will any infringers off the hook!
"Within 45 days the Sec/Def must submit his report to POTUS. That means we have precious little time to get mention of MFA/OOBA for mil-issue mobile devices & the little company that holds the patent on it, SFOR.
Have you communicated with your Representative and Senator on this issue? If not, please consider doing so at your earliest convenience to make sure the troops get what they need for COMSEC. Thank you!
Proved your point? Au contraire. You implied he "may" have started there. My statement is that he spent years in the bucket shops which were the precursor to the pinks listed on the OTC.
Kay did not use that word. Get your quotes right.
You did a super job with that video! Thank you for performing the public service of posting it to You Tube & getting the word out about GID.
R&G "A medium for a new relationship." We're on the same frequency here. You've got multi-billion Intel and TPG sharing the same lawfirm, R&G, with small cap SFOR. Also, somebody with deep pockets is picking up the R&G legal tab for SFOR. When asked by RDY2ROCK about this Mark Kay clammed up with a firm no comment. I also like how R&Gs M&A office executes. They spun off McAfee as a stand alone, pure play, cyber security company. Now McAfee is good anti-virus. However, it has an Achillie's heel, lack of key logger protection. Gee, what small cap company has the US patent on MFA/OOBA to protect against that? Finally, wasn't SFOR getting $25K monthly from intel? Do you think TPG, who owns 51% of McAfee and is now responsible for that payment will notice? I do.
Also, whoever is paying Ropes (none of their legal fees were rected in the Q) wouldn't be doing so if SFOR was broke.
"It all depends how you look at it." Sounds like you're a glass half-full type like me. Take the red herring of looming massive dilution. The DART/Citgo note prevents that from happening. The note holder would not sit idle if SFOR tried to massively dilute. Some get excited when SFOR staff convert from perferred to common shares and scream dilution! I scream skin in the game! Why would insiders convert to common or exercise options if they thought the company was going to run out of money. SFOR insiders are not village idiots!
"Revenues have not met expectations" That is true for many. However, as a long term investor, not trader, I look at what happens over the course of a year. Over the course of that year the rate of growth was 40%. A 40% growth rate is more than respectable for any company in my book. This was organic growth. Also as ZPaul so well illustrated, SFOR has nine catalyst irons in the fire. Just one example is that a settlement could happen anyday! All this is why I am long and strong SFOR.
Mark Kay has executed on each of the prongs of the four pronged company growth plan he articulated. So "the deals never come to be" eh?
New Investors, please review what CEO Mark Kay said about the second half of the year regarding this. Thank you.
So "SFOR is broke right now!" Really, and you know this how? According to the last Q with an information cutoff date of 3/31 they had $360,000 available. That is TEN times what they had left just before Microsoft settled.
"ACS gets the (swear word deleted) money" and SFOR gets nothing? Yeah right! Review the % SFOR gets from our vendor and tell us about it.
Low volume indicates a wait and see attitude to me. People are holding fire until catalyst news, such as settlements is released.
Man, you may be on to something there! Great analysis. Him operating in the best interest of Vasco that way did not even cross my mind.
For new investors. Please be sure to follow the thread on the previous post that starts out stating "For new investors" to get a balanced picture. Thank you.
Agree. "Vasco insiders appear to be selling their shares." Thank you for finding and posting that notice. What I also found interesting is the Vasco chart with its current downtrend and the tenor of their message board. It appears their common stockholders are getting concerned about something also. Do you think Vasco management knows something negative is happening that might soon affect their pps? You've just got to wonder what it is. Could it possiby be something negative is brewing in court for them? We may know soon if that is the case. I'm so glad I'm long and Strong SFOR!
Kay took no chances with Microsoft settlement. No PR was released that even said "details not disclosed at this time because of the provisions of a NDA." Given his career in banking, Mark Kay is conservative by nature. He would not take even the slightest chance at violating the terms of a NDA.
Same reason the Microsoft settlement had no PR. Non Disclosure Agreements have the force of law. You violate them deals can be cancelled and damages awarded.
Dilution forbidden by the DART/Citgo note's stipulations which are legally binding.
Yeah, that ascending triangle is impossible to argue with!