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.
your post did not include one single company entity like TEVE that pays a monthly dividend, not one.
Oh please show us where you got this info.
This list is again, nothing but mutual funds, trusts, ishares, portfolios, REITS, Maybe I missed something here, please show one company such as TEVE that is a single entity paying monthly dividends, from the link you provided.
The only reason last quarter showed a profit is because they got rid of a lot of high level employees. The future will decide if this was a good idea or not as their R&D is nonexistent.
Once again a forward split on an illiquid stock means nothing. The percentage of ownership remains the same, the inabilitiy to buy and sell remain the same. Only ways for liquidity is a secondary offering or as has been stated the majority shareholder relinquishes some of his shares, even then, with only 600 thousand shares the liquidity issue remains the same. There is very little potential in the current stock format for investors to do well. Something must change in the future, and the sale of the company is probably the best for shareholders.
OUCH, looks like someone paid attention to the quarterly report where it states:
If you want to see what mr lenfest will do look no further than his other company etcc, 44 years in business, still a penny stock, and most of the income is going to pay the preferred share owners, not the commoner. just read the reports they are still publishing.
44 years later......patience??
First, the amounts are not accumulative, on 8-30 there was a total of 44 shares FTD, which doesn't mean anything. Here's a paragraph from the link that Fourkids posted:
Please note that fails-to-deliver can occur for a number of reasons on both long and short sales. Therefore, fails-to-deliver are not necessarily the result of short selling, and are not evidence of abusive short selling or “naked” short selling. For more information on short selling and fails-to-deliver, see http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm, http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrfaqregsho1204.htm, and http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-50103.htm.
Let's look at this from a valuation standpoint, assuming profitability continues at the current rate for the next 3 quarters.
$34,000 profit per quarter for 4 quarters= $136,000
$136,000/617,000 Outstanding shares equals earnings per share of $.22
Current stock price of $24.95 divided by $.22 equals a PE ratio of 113.
Forget about the shorts, look at TELVUE like the market will. For this year, taking the above assumption of earnings, the current price is excessively high. Does not matter what "presplit" amount is, that no longer matters. What does matter is your market capitalization and PE ratio. For an average ratio of 15 in the industry, pending continued profitability, the price should currently be at $3.30 per share. IF you want legitimacy in this company, especially since this is no longer a penny stock. The PE ratio does matter. Valuation does matter.
If profitability continues to eventually fulfill the nasdaq requirements, TEVE could be uplisted to the major exchange in 3-5 years, though major share structure and ownership must change.
Anyone can argue the future and what revenues will be, but until then PE ratio's should be in line with common sense and a proper PE multiple.
As you see below, Telvue has quite a bit of work to do.
Listing in NASDAQ Capital Market: Lowest of the three nasdaq tiers:
Under the new alternative listing standards, a security may qualify for listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market if:
$3/share price -- for at least five consecutive business days prior to approval, the security has a minimum closing price of at least $3 per share and the issuer has either:
Equity Standard: (A) stockholders' equity of at least $5M; (B) market value of publicly held shares of at least $15M; and (C) a two year operating history; or
Net Income Standard: (A) net income from continuing operations of $750,000 in the most recently completed fiscal year or in two of the three most recently completed fiscal years; (B) stockholders' equity of at least $4M; and (C) market value of publicly held shares of at least $5 million; or
$2/share price -- for at least five consecutive business days prior to approval, the security has a minimum closing price of at least $2 per share and the issuer has (A) market value of listed securities of at least $50M; (B) stockholders' equity of at least $4M; and (C) market value of publicly held shares of at least $15M.
In addition, the issuer must also demonstrate that it has:
Net tangible assets in excess of $2M if it has been in continuous operation for at least three years;
Net tangible assets in excess of $5M if it has been in continuous operation for less than three years; or
Average revenue of at least $6M for the last three years.
Nasdaq-listed securities have historically not been regulated as "penny stocks" (which subject broker-dealers trading in them to additional disclosure and other requirements) because of the exception for securities registered on a national securities exchange that, among other things, required a minimum bid price of $4 per share at initial listing. NYSE Amex benefits from a "grandfather" exception that permits lower initial prices. With Nasdaq's new alternative listing standards, it can compete with the NYSE Amex for listings in the $2-3 range. However, it is possible that companies listing under these lower standards may become "penny stocks."
To address this, new Nasdaq interpretive guidance (IM-5505) provides that an issuer listing under the alternative price requirements may become a "penny stock" if the issuer fails the net tangible assets and revenue tests after listing and does not satisfy any of the other exclusions from being a penny stock contained in Rule 3a51-1 under the Exchange Act. Nasdaq will monitor issuers whose securities are listed under the alternative price requirement, and publish on its website on a daily basis a list of those companies that no longer satisfy the net tangible assets or revenue tests, nor any other exclusion from being a penny stock. If a security subsequently has a $4 closing price for at least five consecutive business days, it can be reevaluated under the regular Nasdaq qualitative and quantitative initial listing standards and deemed listed under these standards. Nasdaq has represented that its review of the issuer's compliance at this stage will be "robust" and "wholesale." In addition, Nasdaq has represented that enhanced surveillance procedures will be used to monitor anomalous trading in securities listed under these alternatives.
With Nasdaq now competing with NYSE Amex for listings in the $2-3 range (and the relaxed registration requirements under the IPO "on-ramp" provisions of the JOBS Act), mid-sized IPO candidates have additional options for accessing the capital markets.
First I would suggest staying off of the conspiracy theories and read the FINRA reporting regs on how shorts are listed even though their is no actual short. Still the fact that some believe all these shares bought by legitimate entities are in fact "shorted shares" would have any smart individual investor running away. As we all know getting your money back for fraud is a lengthy and difficult process. But no, I don't believe this is anything but someone selling their shares for a good profit because someone actually wanted to pay the ask. With all the supposed reports to the powers that be, you'd think this would be under investigation or the stock stopped to prevent further fraud. None of this has happened. And you know the SEC has a whistleblower form to fill out if there is legitimate proof of illegal activity. Yet nothing of the sort has happened, and stock continues to trade, thus if there is a short fraud going on no one cares and the investor will only get hurt. But dividends?? Youd think you'd want the company to reinvest profits back into the business, ah the level of greed, yes its funny.
Shorts?? what shorts?? Emer stated that he bought the 100 shares that raised the PPS. No they were not shorted, yet FINRA showed they were. Like I've posted many times, there is an explanation for that and this situation proves that. Some would say this is a good thing, but if he had to sell for what ever reason, what could he get for the same shares? What could you get for yours?? less then half as much. Keep holding, so they reported profit for 2nd quarter, what about 1st quarter. And some seem not to understand the point of profitability and the reasons behind. Profit is good, yet at what cost? Firing so many people, then reporting profit, why?? what was the reason?? Sale is soon. Dividends a dream, just like there are shorts. Of which is now proven that the FINRA numbers are as previously stated, its all in the timing of the execution of trade, not necessarily a short.
Yet the public does not know why they are profitable? You can only fire so many people. A year over year comparison must be made first. And since they let go about 10 people out of 25 or so, not hard to claim profits for a quarter, what happens when they start falling behind on technology???
so much for your margin call or the short conspiracy, but dividends?? even funnier.
I'm not objecting to anything, but why the reported profits? Was it because overhead was lowered? IE reduced personnel? Are the expenses still outpacing revenue, and the profit only came from reduced personnel cost. Manipulation of numbers can come from inside as well as outside. Not saying it's bad one way or the other, but unless financials are released to the public it only stands to reason that the only way they reported a profit is because of decreased personnel costs.
Reduction of personnel at times is good, but look at who they let go, was it an act of desperation? were they only holding on for a future sale?? Profit is small, had they kept one person they would still be in the red. So the question again, did cost of increased revenue outpace the revenue itself. That's the only way to know if the company is truly making progress or only manipulating the numbers. As the PR is very vague, one can only assume.
That being said, there is one here that says the program software is now written and will sell itself. We all know that will become outdated within 6 months, did they retain the personnel needed to continue to improve? are they reinvesting the "profit" into R&D? And we all know they won an award several years ago, given to them by a magazine and self nominated, and other companies have received the award since then, they no longer can say they have the best even though some claim it to be. Doesn't mean any negativity on TELVUE, but what needs to be here is common sense business financial analysis as opposed to either short conspiracies or a sudden report of profits without any proper analysis as to all the facts. I still believe the company will be sold within the year. Again, that's not a bad thing, but what you won't see is a sudden million dollar windfall that some profess. Only time will tell. But if one does not consider basic company fundamentals wearing rose colored glasses do no one any favors.
The problem with the latest PR is that it is only a PR. If you disect it, it is still not positive knowing the recent past. First almost half of the TEVE employees were recently let go including upper management and at least one senior VP. TEVE has reported increases in sales before but expenses always increased more, is see no reason to think otherwise here. They did not report record revenues, but only a slight profit. Mr Hume's comments also lent to the vagueness of the report, which states they did some overhead reductions, the question now is with such a limited workforce will they be able to maintain any sense of technological edge in the future. Only time will tell. Since they are now "reporting" a profit, why not give out the entire audited financials so one can do a full comparison of year over year issues. Looking better to be sold to another company, which is not necessarily a bad thing for shareholders. Much easier to sell a profitable company than one that continuously fails quarter after quarter. And since the only reason that is is because of reduced personnel, even easier to sell. Good luck to all.
Let's look at the history, the constant improvements, the constant increase in market share, the improvements in clients worldwide, revenue year over year, and the exchange they are listed on, look at the liquidity? Friday up 16 percent, shares traded over 2 million; and telvue?? If TEVE is such a great stock even though they've been losing money for 15 years, and yes 15 years they lost millions. Recently did they make a profit? as some suggest they did, but only after gutting their employee base...... now put the same argument into BCOV and even more so because of the success of revenue, shares traded, liquidity, market capitalization etc. Comparing apples to apples, liquidity, growth, income. TEVE is way behind and dark, Of course the other two links also show top of the line companies well above TEVE. If Telvue wants to help the individual investor they should open up their finances for public viewing. But that alone will do nothing as liquidity does matter. see investopedia under "liquidity" to find out more. As long as they stay dark, the investor loses.
At a minimum it would be good to diversify within the cloud/video arena, keep telvue, but look at others as TEVE looks to be going nowhere and until the NDA is released and they start reporting again, this will remain stagnant.
I wonder who the "clients" were. No tweet from Mr Shenher?? And all those emails the past moderator had with him and yet no refuting of published "purported facts" during this time? Wonder who will be next as many newsletters published the same information, and they should also look at the PR's in reference to China's purported visit and contracts. This is just the beginning.
So who wants to destroy the company? Shorts do not do this! The company cannot be externally destroyed by share manipulation. The shareholder can be devestated but it's obvious in TEVE the shareholder really doesn't matter. Shares went from 100 dollars to 5 dollars, did that destroy the company? No, it effected your value, but that was facilitated by your CFO; If it goes back down to a penny, does that destroy the company? No! Again no one is trying to destroy the company.
If, as others have stated, TEVE needs no outside finances, does not need to conduct a secondary offering of shares for capital, is profitable enough to pay all expenses and expand, then the price per share means nothing for the company's success. They would be successful regardless. And, since in all of the world, there are only 250 or so shareholders, there is no pressure to become liquid, no reason to worry about share price and ultimately all this makes even more sense to go private. If financials are that good, the company has no debt, and no further capital requirements exist why have shareholders in the first place? And with only 50,000 outside of Mr Lenfests ownership, and if financials are improving then the privatization possibilities grow better and better every day.
Telvue attending NCTC conference end of July but wait: Read the following as any proper discussion as to the merits of a company is also discussing the competition and the comparisons. NCTC of which Telvue is a member is a great place to do just that.
http://www.nctconline.org/public/press/NCTC%20PeerApp.pdf
OR THIS
http://www.nctconline.org/public/press/NCTC%20Members%20Expand%20TVE%20Distribution.pdf
Or This
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/07/26/brightcove-beats-on-both-top-and-bottom-lines.aspx
and if they don't pay you because your shares don't exist what will you do then?? I'm sure a class action lawsuit would take place if that were the case, but since it isn't your problem guess you wouldn't be involved.
Thanks for posting this elsewhere, great to have multiple audiences, but the fact is no one can refute the option of TEVE going private which will in turn slap all shorts in the face. If you want to get back at the shorts, that's the way to do it.
So what you are advocating is not only buy an illiquid stock that you can only sell for 8 bucks but also pay a premium of about 10 percent in commission. Nothing like losing money. Great advice.
That's where the lawsuits come in to play that I previously mentioned. Still no windfall for the shareholder.
won't happen, concept is wrong, dividends do nothing, already had this discussion, if your shares are air shares you'll only get air dividends. But enjoy playing that game, still no reason to invest, a gamble at best. Have a great weekend.
Still haven't seen proof of Telvue naked shorting, why doesn't someone take the advice and buy all available shares, then see if any trade thereafter. But overall, if there are those who feel that TEVE is Naked and grossly manipulated, why would you want to own the stock? That paper states the investor loses, period. Naked shorters pay a pittance of what they make and the SEC is over their heads. Doesn't make sense now does it, or is this going to be a "I TOLD YOU SO" lesson from someone to feel good yet still looses thousands in the process?? Nope, until TEVE becomes a household name on a major exchange, and one more time, why would anyone want to be involved in TEVE, especially if they believe this illegal activity is going on, and now knowing the history of what happens to the investor. If this is going on TEVE would be justified in going private, waiting a few years to be able to fulfill the requirements of NASDAQ etc, then and only then becoming public again. That would stop the shorts in their tracks. But again, that does not benefit the current shareholders. No windfall here as has been professed by some.
SAC has been charged with insider trading, securities fraud, wire fraud and possible money laundering, please show where they are charged with naked shorting and how that affects TELVUE its pps or the investor?
A drip would be good for most companies, but with telvue its out of the question, they don't have the market share, the proper share structure or the liquidity to conduct one. We both know major changes must be made for any investor to see a reason to buy into this company, and so far no one has argued against the points I've made other than by stating wishful thinking, and most of which are not plausible. I wish you luck on this stock. For Luck is all you will have, Company will be up for sale soon in my opinion. Mr Lenfest and the lenfest group have other priorities. Look at ETCC his other company which is also non-liquid and doing poorly regardless of PR's. Though they are still reporting.
Deal directly with the company and you can get dividend checks paid directly to your bank account, you do not have to worry about a broker, ever hear of DRIPS? You buy one share through a "broker" such as the moneypaper, Ing direct or others, once you have that one share you buy future shares directly with the company, no broker, no chance of shorted shares, no MM. If TEVE was worried about shorts, they should set up a DRIP plan. Obviously they really don't care or are worried about it. But no you don't need certificates to get dividends paid directly to you.
Did you go to the links, 99 percent are REITS, FUNDS, TRUSTS, very very very few actual companies that pay a monthly dividend. And those that do are extremely high risk ventures. Telvue will never pay monthly, and I doubt they'll pay dividends in years if they still exist. Edward may be on to something, telvue may be a great "purchase" target. Wonder where I've heard that before.
Is that what you are relying on a post from one individual, talking about paying phantom dividend to phantom shares?? The whole idea of this individuals ranting is ludicrous, the post is four years old, and did anyone implement it?? NO. We all know this is not feasible, plausible or even in the realm of reality.
That's incorrect!!
Also why not show the SEC regulation that states when a company declares a dividend and pays 10 cents per share, as an example, that they have to pay the same 10 cents to all fraudulent shares as well as the legitimate ones? Even though that exceeds the total amount they were going to pay. mmmmm, why didn't the sharholders vote show a massive amount of illegal shares when all of you voted??
Please let us know which companies pay monthly dividends. And back to the argument, if no shares are available, shorts will just FTD and go on until sued, then a slap on the hand is all they get. Again it is a reason not to buy this stock. Please tell us otherwise if as you said:
All legitimate shares are gone:
Naked Shorting exists:
Shares are now "air shares":
Shorts can't cover because of availability:
And let me add:
Liquidity is zero
Where is the incentive to buy here and exactly what are you buying??
Alan may be correct Joe, they are all gone, so liquidity is zero, what longs are now asking people to buy are possible fraudulent shares of Telvue, and now your pps could be falsely manipulated. So why would anyone want others to buy telvue shares if all legitimate shares are gone and have been gone for some time as has been professed by the same people asking others to buy?? If There are no more shares of TEVE available, share price can never go up, no one can buy anymore. Thus to become liquid more shares must become available, real shares, that will be massive dilution, but only after the lawsuits to correct the naked shorts. With this theory of naked shorts of telvue stock the investors buying will really be hurting in the future if that is the case. Alan may be on to something in reference to the fraudulent naked shorted shares. If that's the case someone needs to show why buying telvue shares at this time is positive???
They won't pay dividends on fraudulent shares, you'll get nothing until the brokerage sues the MM's or the SEC sues everyone. No company will only pay out so much and only to legal share owners, you have air shares then you'll get air dividends, jeez...thought that was easy enough to understand.
None left?? Joe than the level 2 must be fraudulent, and your liquidity is now ZERO!! No chance of PPS rising. Too Bad!! Maybe you can wait another 15 years. While others have made a ton this year alone.
Problem with your naked short conspiracy is there is no proof it exists, and second, why would you buy shares in a company where the shares may all be fraudulent, you will not get anything but your money back after a long drawn out law suit. And more than likely you'll lose. So let's say they are all fraudulent shares, why would you continue to purchase??? That is a lose lose proposition if you believe the shorts exist. So if that's the case you all should request certificates to validate you own real shares. Would this not make sense??
Now the dream is becoming ridiculous, you've seen the financials, the assets, not a chance, but I guess its always fun to dream, regardless of how off the wall it is. Go ahead and google 6 billion dollar companies and see what it is you are actually asking for.