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.
I think they’ve thrown in the towel. Of course this may provoke a few responses that they have not. But all other evidence to the contrary at this point. It’s over.
They’ve grown it from almost zero. It’s like someone who weighs 600lbs- with some exercise they will be able to lose some weight in consecutive quarters. But there is no indication that it can scale and last. They is absolutely no reason to think that this can continue to actually scale.
Can I ask why on earth you would be willing to hold an investment you expect to stagnate for 12 months with all the opportunity out there?
The market is looking, and it disagrees with you.
I appreciate your passion, truly. But this is all known- and there just aren't takers. You've seen what happens when a story catches hold, right here in 2018. This story is not compelling to investors currently, and it is not because they don't have imaginations.
Where is there any evidence to support that? Because someone keeps saying it will, always the next quarter or two away? Or because they "are getting more clients every week" (despite very little bottom line traction)? Some of the growth you are continuing to believe in are from deals that are years old!!
Very possible he failed miserably. No blame to senior management, though? They oversee him.
The stock price was so much higher when he was with the company. Can they get him back?
I think they're trying and have good intentions, I am just not sure by the time they had a product that they met the market they thought they would for it.
There aren't any unsealed documents, nor activity, unless you count patent administration and an old class action that affects a specific subset of old shareholders as activity.
Given that the result was communicated and the bankruptcy was subsequently closed, it is not reasonable at all to believe anything else is coming.
Have you heard from the company in those 2 years? Any word of an employee? How could you possibly “still like the risk/reward profile”?
The question is whether that revenue is worth more than they paid for it. The market had so far indicated indifference, which makes sense given the details were not released. There is real appreciation potential if it appears to be a good deal, more so than the flagship which has really struggled to grow.
Good point. The details of the recent acquisition including its free cash flow and purchase price could have a real impact when revealed in the upcoming report. Generally I’d expect disappointment with the flagship as growth has been hard to come by there.
No, the items you mentioned aren’t insane at all. Sounds like a purchaser doing what they want with purchased assets. No comparison to the insanity level contained in “an exceptional liquidation isn’t a liquidation it’s a buyout”.
Fair enough.
I was hoping all could see the insanity around the notion that an exceptional liquidation is not a liquidation, especially when all the details are public. And have to be public, by law.
So an exceptional liquidation is not a liquidation, but rather a buyout?
Ok- who do you blame for “where we are” (down 98%)?
The question relates to whether the share price was factually better off. No opinion required.
Great question.
But liquidated, right?
Then the failure of the SISP, then the liquidation. Then nothing for a year.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
Unreal.
Generally all have lost here. That was the point.
Not a growing company. At least no evidence yet. We'll see what Q3 says.
You know LCY bought all the patents (of value) and the right to administer them or do anything else under the name Bioamber, right? And then they wrote a letter saying (paraphrasing) “whatever you do, don’t believe we will ever pay another penny more than we have for this company or these assets”.
I mean, seriously, why the continued snippet hunt? Why not turn the no hopers loose?
I don’t know this Kurt Heidolph- but what dates was he with the company? 2017-2018? Were those not far better periods for the company’s share price??
Not at all. It is absolute insanity to think "the powers that be" (lol) will reveal hints through brokerage accounts before they make an organized, clear announcement.
BTW- its closed. No one working on it.
Think you’d hear the news first on your broker account?
Hahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha
Beneficial to who? It’s now completely over.
You’ll be here a lot longer than that. But I do believe many have dropped off. Remember this is denial on a spectrum.
Usually share price first in tech, to be honest. It depends on effectiveness of management in communicating the growth story. For example, this company saw huge share price appreciation far before demonstrating any actual revenue growth, or frankly any revenue at all. The market was anticipating growth based on the Oracle deal and a feeling of "right time, right place". The market is currently not observing, nor anticipating growth here.
This is the only public company I've ever observed where investors tout it having actual clients. I mean, thats sort of the least it can do, right?
We finally at acceptance? I wasn’t sure there would ever be the day, although I have always known with certainty the outcome (of course).
Incremental increases in a revenue sub-segment from zero is hardly a growth story in the way that tech companies with high multiples demonstrate that is constantly tried to be applied here. It just doesn’t fit. Don’t shoot the messenger.
Sorry to have to state the obvious again, but there is no growth story here currently. That’s why the share price is languishing.
The reason these “clues” are often so dismissed is that the public will NEVER learn about a transaction from clues by a brokerage house. There would be a very public and clear announcement, then followed by activity consistent with the announced transaction. In this case as it relates to a “second transaction”, it would have been crystal clear in the Monitors reports. And, of course, Monitor report 5 would not have highlighted the failure of the SISP, and number six would not have contained the APA which is a liquidation. This is why the “snippets” poster always gets roasted so hard. What is the point looking for clues? It is totally fantasy to think the legal system and reporting rules allow communication with the investing public through clues.
I don’t think the comment was meant to say that “life is bad” in an absolute sense. I’m sure everyone who lost out here will live on and be fine. But life is miserable, and in fact it does not exist, as it relates to the life of an investment here. It’s completely dead, with no remaining hope unless you’re willing to express such hope in bad faith.
Does a better understanding of CCAA mean you have to believe they announce a deal, wait a year, delete the stocks ticker, wait another year, then announce another deal that was never mentioned in any way to the investing public? Sounds insane. Has that ever happened before? If not, should you even be mentioning it like this?
All they had to do was bid 4.35M and it would have been theirs.
I do agree with you completely on this.
I was just refuting the notion that the CEO didn't care about some posts, as there is evidence he did.