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 wish you the best of luck.
It seems reasonable to me that there should continue to be a nice little run up until the raise. I worry about things after the raise though, if successful.
That seems crazy unlikely. There are 2 more earnings opportunities that will be influenced by the pandemic and they’re about to dilute 1/4 of their market cap in a follow on raise.
Ok...
Yes agreed on the point that all investors want to see their investments appreciate.
But on the price, is it retail or institutional investors that “try to get cheaper shares”? How do they do this?
I think it’s an entirely made up construct.
Unless someone would care to explain.
Can you explain this:
“Many are trying their best to get some Verb shares cheaper”?
Fair enough.
What about the cheaper shares question?
Can you explain this:
“Many are trying their best to get some Verb shares cheaper”?
Also the Tesla example is like a 7X, you are proposing multiples of that.
The amount can be found on the public APA. Signed by all parties before the judges approved and Monitor was discharged.
A r/m? That concept has nothing to do with this company.
This is very possible.
So the CEOs of most companies are happy with their fair valuations but just not the CEOs of truly great companies like Tesla and Verb?
Are there any companies that would be omitted from the list of companies whose “CEOs believed their enterprise value was much higher than the market was giving them credit for.”?
Then after that the comparison stops.
I’ve been in Tesla since around 400. I can’t think of any valid comparisons, unless you’re just saying if one company created a lot of value then so can another.
A 363 sale is the sale of virtually all a company’s assets in a bankruptcy. And while I don’t recall seeing that designation in any of the final documents, the sale of virtually all the company’s assets in a bankruptcy is sorta exactly what happened, so it’s not surprising that a third party would make the designation. What’s crazy would be that anyone would think that something reported in a 3rd party report would trump the public Monitor reports and APA if there were any discrepancies.
Maybe.
My opinion for consideration:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=156625470
There is absolutely no doubt that the offering will be done at a discount to the then market price.
I wouldn’t call it a “big” question since it’s so long after closing.
But it could be meaningful to the class action participants and the timing of their little payouts.
Per the message before yours the outcome occurred in 2018.
Factually accurate.
I’d say “we’ll see”, but, unfortunately...
Of course. That’s what I just wrote. They just can’t trade again.
A cruel result, I suppose, but in fairness the handful of SEC suspensions due to delinquent filings (not “bankruptcy/liquidation”) that got reinstated didn’t really go anywhere either.
FINRA doesn’t delete tickers with an option to reinstate.
I think you’re confusing what happened here with an SEC suspension for delinquent filings that can be remedied and reinstated.
Either you were in or out. The bankruptcy is now closed, the deal approved and the Monitor released.
Haha alive and well.
If only it wasn’t liquidated, had any money, equipment or IP, had any board or employees.
Yes, and I’ve said appreciation is possible from this price. I would caution to temper that expectation to below several multiples within a few months.
Nope. Fundamentally sound companies do not lose 90% of their market value. The ones you referenced weren’t fundamentally sound during their crashes. Or else they wouldn’t have crashed (obviously). Unless they were part of a bubble. Luckily they executed successful pivots and became sound again. Hunt for a few examples that may prove my statement wrong despite it being at all other times correct, if you like. This idea that sometimes great companies just crash to the tune of 95% shouldn’t fly here or anywhere.
Those were hardly “early stage companies” - those were mature companies that encountered fierce situational headwinds and had to pivot or die.
What’s being presented here is almost like losing 5% is to be expected for great companies. And most great investments require the fortitude hang in through these kinds of losses.
You must admit that, very generally, most companies that lose 95% do so on a trajectory of going to 0, and that most investments that turn out to be great, do not have a trajectory of losing 95% on their way there.
Again, that doesn’t mean there isn’t appreciation and progress in store for this company. But to be fair to a reader, there is as much likelihood to the downside as there is upside in the medium term, and moves of 5 or 10X are extremely rare, though possible, and it is far from more likely here just because that represents a return to a past valuation.
Fundamentally sound companies do not lose 90% of their value unless they are part of an asset class in a huge bubble. And at 90% would need to be historically huge.
That’s a very high bar. Any stock would be highly unlikely to be 8X higher over a 4 month period. And in this case there is a looming follow on offering.
The assets were sold for 4.34M. Currently realizable value here is 0.
This is pure hogwash.
The judge quotes "of great or substantial value" because the judge was stating the words of the plaintiff. In the same document, the judge lays out the rational for not directly opining on this assertion (no jurisdiction), and also that it is irrelevant because of the many factors that necessarily render the contracts useless.
That is here:
And therefor, the judge rules against the relief sought by the plaintiff. Note- if the judge agreed, it would have been lawful to grant the relief sought, making the assertion that the judge agreed with the plaintiff all the more ludicrous.
Posting (72) out of context and using it as evidence that the court sided with the assertion WHILE REJECTING the relief sought in the case the assertion were true is on par with a gentleman receiving a vm from a woman like this: "Please stop calling me. You're repulsive. I would consider dating you only if you were the last man on earth", and editing it to play "I would consider dating you" and sending that to his friends as evidence she was interested.
Right, see the poker example.
I agree there will be communication around the announced plan, the question is will any of the news itself be unexpected.
I don’t think the assumption that material news is coming is wise.
It could happen, sure, but it’s like playing the lotto. Actually, it’s like playing aggressively a mediocre poker hand under the assumption you’ll catch up on the later cards.
Very possible it settles into a higher channel once raise is settled and they have an opportunity to execute on their latest initiative.
What I am most interested in communicating is an alternative theory on the near future upswing that I do think will happen, but I think will be far more modest than a price of 18 or even 10 or 5.
It shows market trends as 2013-2018 and forecast as 2019-2024. In other words, the research was compiled in 2018, prior to liquidation/suspension/deletion/revocation.
Check Error
"It is not up to the Court to analyze the merits or substance of the Crane Opinion (15- due to the jurisdiction of the Opinion being NY)"
"its conclusions" (the Crane Opinion's conclusions - NOT the judge's) are that the contracts are "fully enforceable, and of substantial value"
Then:
In other words - it is irrelevant because chasing the value is not worth it, therefor there is NO REALIZABLE VALUE
And finally:
Liquidation process over. Note- a "partial liquidation" where assets are sold off but the best ones are kept and shareholders are remunerated for them is not a liquidation.
No one short at this time would have any remaining obligation imposed on them by a broker. They are relieved of any obligation to cover their position since the company was suspended/deleted for liquidation. The idea that anyone is waiting to see if over in closed actually means over and closed is really only a message board phenomenon.
Something for consideration:
As it relates to the offering, there should be a run-up of the share price. It would be predicated by people anticipating just that, a run-up on share price due to the urgency of doing the offering at the highest price possible (and thereby limiting dilution). So the opportunity to ride the wave in some respects actually creates it. Remember you cannot hold material PRs (i.e., anything reasonably expected to affect the SP) so there WILL be a push, though I would expect it to be more volume based like the last time.
The offering will be priced at a discount to market, and the dilutive effects should cause a drop in the same manner and scale as the runup. Then likely the price would remain there until the next earnings report opportunity.
While just an opinion subject to error, consider the above both on the upswing and the downswing. And if you end up holding a stock less valuable than it is now, it is most certainly not the fault of the CEO. He will have done nothing but tell everyone what he's gonna do and then do it.