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.
aapl wins on motorola patents.
aapl wins against samsung
but....what i laid out was not a buyout. under that scenario, the major holders would end up with a larger proportion of the o/s, so it would work in their favor. the only shareholders out would be the small time penny players.
certainly not as fun as rawnuts on utube
it doesn't count unless it prints as you type.
if there is a buyout, it won't be at .07. the only share purchases that would happen under this scenario would be the odd lots and it would be at market. so if you can get the pps higher, no buyout will happen at .07.
nutsack will remain intact.
i mistyped....he wouldn't end up with 100% of the company. he may end up with 90% though. the 21 mil he kicks in would in large part be used in the odd lot buyout. he would not be buying any stock personally and the company would be pay the buyout at market (not depressed) prices. the other major shareholders would still own their portion. so the judgements you cite wouldn't necessarily apply.
so, he wouldn't end up with 100% of 130 mil, just 90% maybe, and the other major shareholders woud still get 10%. they wouldn't lose any position in the sharecount that they hadn't already given away.
these are round numbers for example illustration only.
it would cost him 21 mil to exercise his warrants.
it would cost him 7 mil (@.07) to buy that other warrants (maybe more).
he's up to maybe 30 mil. that's a lot more than 7 mil.
the company has enough cash to pay the odd lot buyouts.
that all has to happen before the 130 mil hits the books.
i believe in what i would be targeting were i the doctor.
plausible scenario:
1) purchase the large block of warrants he doesn't hold.
2) exercise his block of warrants.
he holds 77%
3) cancel the warrants he purchased.
4) force a 1/1000 reverse split with payout for less than
100 shares.
he holds 77% plus, caused by the buyout of partial lots.
5) if the number of share holders is small enough, file to
deregister.
6) he gets nearly 100% of the 130 mil.
figures that something with double F's would pique your interest.
in case you didn't notice, i attempted to clarify.
"Classic camel toe pattern?"
you better brush up on your TA. i mean your technical analysis. thats a classic double cup and cleavage.
you can lose your grip by remembering that she is some daddy's little girl.
i'm sure you could get a handle on that.
uuuhhh...what was it we were talking about?
th big question is: is it caf, decaf, half caf, or caf 'n' a half?
do they fly out of sf or oak?
envy, envy, envy :)
yayy...you back with fish?
well, i'll just have to see what they are coming up with before i assertain what requirements are placed on that 1.1 mil. they may be about to bite off more than they can chew with the present earnings rate. either way, the stock price will react to next q's earnings, or next years earnings, with the difference being the hype inbetween.
what i am sayin' is that if there are massive changes in their business pending, organic growth enhanced by borrowings may not adequately feed the investment required to create the size of their footprint sufficiently to raise the barrier to entry. they seemed to be hinting at these massive changes coming. changes in their plan will be accompanied by changes in their reinvestments. just sayin.
it is possible that we will see little in the way of earnings for a while. considering the comments made on the cc, we may be looking at a period of widening their footprint. that would mean investing as fast as they can to achieve some critical mass that could sustain their first mover status.
we are seeing a relentless creep toward "too big to fail". the regs are guided by the biggies in a direction they can live with. smaller banks have difficulty competing with the new regs as it is and it will only get worse. i've seen it first hand. if you carry the trend out with the reg trend in place, the small players will be gobbled up by the biggies as the barrier to entry and the barrier to inovate rises.
same thing is happening in many business sectors. we seem to be on an irreversable march to "big industry", "big banks", and "big government", with decreased inovation, decreased efficiency, and stifled upward mobility.
it's ok....we understand.
i suppose the ta would be able to tell.
i'd lay odds that many of those shares appearing are settlement shares. i'd also bet that the heavy selling induced a bit more retail trimming ahead of a scarey q than there would have been otherwise.
i would think that it won't move much to the upside until they start issuing prs about the upcoming initiatives. also, too many people need to see proof that this dip in earnings is just that, a dip. need a good quarter.
no arguement here regarding a slump in the share price. i think that there are enough holders and watchers, though, that understood that there would be some hiccup due in some part to the uncertainty over the new law and it's implimentation to lessen the blow.
if, as they said on the cc, the uncertainty is over, things will return to normal next q. we'll see.
how much do you suppose that slowdown was due to the uncertainty surrounding the new reg.s?
they were prompted to do a bit of explanation on that subject on the cc if i recall. i think on the previous cc also.
layman terms......that's the page i'm on.
a physician can perform a procedure and bill the patient.
now, there are a couple of possibilities as to what can happen.
1) the physician can hold the receivableand wait powerless.
or
2) the physician can accept a flat fee from a 3rd party and let that 3rd party hold the receivable. that sure sounds like a sale to me and other "layman".
yesss it's mostly symantics.
in return for shelling out the money up front, we get the receivable. no matter how the transaction is structured (accounting and legal) it looks like a purchase to me.
3.40???
"people owe us 150% more than we paid for it."
you mean we paid for it, but didn't buy it?
you can use any word you want.
wink wink nudge nudge????
you mean i should cancel the unfilled portion of my gtc at 3.00?
"We assume ownership of the account and bill the patient the unpaid balance."
the account is "bought" by paying the physician a set fee.