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'm certain that those of us who remain as steadfast longs will continue to hold out hope for such an outcome, yet the math involved in this would suggest that even in your most wildly optimistic scenario, the long term investor in this company still would come up short. For example, suppose for a second that a miracle occurs and the PPS rises the 5-10K times you project, do you think that would be good for everyone or just a select few that were able to scoop up a few shares during the most recent slide following the reverse split? OK, so perhaps a number of those folks might be served by such an outcome (depending on their entry cost) but how about one of the original long term investors from 1995? Say for the sake of example this fellow was unfortunate enough to buy in at the high PPS of 1257 (price adjusted for numerous reverse splits) and he/she had the misfortune to ride it down to the present price of 0.003. That poor soul needs a rise in PPS of something considerably higher than that which even you have projected here.
1257/0.0003 = 4,190,000
That's correct. Plenty of places to have our noses rubbed in the precipitous drop in PPS. The thing is that it was not a drop from a mere $99 down to .0003 as estimated - it was actually a drop from the high in 1995 of $1257.84 down to near zero today. Huge loss of capital for those riding it down from the high. Makes one wonder whether it is possible for those strapped in the for long ride from 1995 to ever break even?
$1257.84
This is per info on one of the technical charting programs readily available on the internet. Check out www.tradingview.com, plug in the ERHE stock symbol, load "all" data and check out the adjusted stock price data it charts out for you. After all the reverse splits the effective price on the stock is considerably higher than the estimated $99 price. Unfortunately, just knowing and acknowledging this really should not make anyone feel better about performance of this investment over time. Ups and downs through the Company's history? This suggests its been mostly downs...
https://www.tradingview.com/chart/?symbol=erhe
Interesting comments by Verizon CEO on CNBC regarding 5G a couple days ago:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/01/08/5g-huge-quantum-leap-verizon-ceo.html
His comments on 5G start at about 3:15 on counter.
Did you notice on that post I made earlier, one of the firm’s fined 5.5 million dollars was IB?
Yes, I had assumed that was the case before hand and the info in your post confirmed and clarified important distinctions.
Now with respect to the notion of non or under reporting, here are some examples of real financial firms subject to fines for such failures.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/15/whistleblower-vindicated-massive-trading-firm-knight-capital-charged-with-abusing-naked-shorts/
https://securitiesarbitrations.com/ubs-fined-system-failures-short-selling/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-interactive-fine/finra-fines-interactive-brokers-5-5-million-for-short-selling-violations-idUSKCN1L525H
https://www.housingwire.com/articles/finra-fines-southwest-expels-cutler-securities-naked-short-selling
https://financiallyregulated.com/2011/10/17/stock-manipulator-stiffs-finra-on-1-million-fine-not-our-problem-says-federal-appeals-court/
I'd bet at least some of them have cleaned up their act by now but it simply serves as an example of how we still need to be careful in how much faith we put in data that could easily be manipulated for any number of reasons by any number of market participants.
Thanks King. Useful information from FINRA. Now if they could only address the issue of non-reporting or under reporting...
Yes, there is obviously a requirement to report, but is everyone in complete compliance at all times? To use an example of parallel requirements that exist elsewhere in industry that others might relate to - OSHA has requirements for employers to maintain a log and summary of employee injuries. There are penalties in place for those who fail to comply. Yet at the same time it is important to bear in mind so many companies track employee injuries as one of the numerous key performance indicators (KPIs) that their respective managers are measured by in order to qualify for their certain performance bonuses. Lower injuries reported would seem to imply fewer losses and some (hope) it reflects better performance in terms of injury prevention. Nevertheless, in certain instances management teams are influenced by their own greed and personal interests to suppress such reporting so they can receive their bonuses. Every once in a while you hear of the employee who is injured at work and because of such pressures exerted on them they may falsely claim that the injury happened off the job instead of on the job. Makes the boss happy because it does not ruin their safety record. So the point in this is to ask that just because an injury is not appear on an employer's OSHA log and summary does it mean that it did not occur? No - not at all, it simply means it was not properly reported.
But how can that be? It's a legal requirement?! Can non-reporting of shorts per FINRA rules occur as well? Certainly, if the entity with the obligation to report deliberately or unintentionally fails to do so. Have there been fines and penalties levied on firms for violations relating to short reporting? Yes, take a look at some of the posts earlier about fines firms have had to pay relating to naked shorting and failure to deliver. Do the fines and penalties related to those circumstances also create some of those very same types of influences mentioned with respect to injury reporting? Do firms wish to avoid paying hefty fines and penalties in much the same way managers wish to make sure they receive their bonuses?
The question you have to ask your self is whether you believe that everyone is completely honest at all times and do what they are obligated to do? Does everyone always do the right thing? Hmmm... most of us wish to be able to have complete faith and trust in our fellow man, but are they always completely honest, diligent, forthright and trustworthy? Former president Ronald Reagan said once, "trust but verify." And we do our due diligence by going to the proper authority and doing our verification with the information we have readily available. But is that enough? By trusting FINRA but verifying by double checking elsewhere, we see what appears as conflicting information between FINRA (http://otce.finra.org/ESI) and another resource (https://www.otcshortreport.com/company/ERHE) and now we have to try to determine who is right and who is wrong. For some it simply calls out the validity of one source or another (or perhaps both) as being questionable.
You referred to the regulatory agency. This would be the same authority that requires companies to file reports on a timely basis and yet does nothing when said reports are either not filed on a timely basis or not even filed at all in some cases - leaving investors in the dark with respect to information necessary to make informed decisions? Yeah - that’s what I thought too.
If they end up owning the Company outright as a result of negotiating a settlement do you think they will care if ERHC does not pay the original amount of damages claimed in the lawsuit? Nope. Because they would have what they were originally seeking in the first place - the underlying asset.
Actually, stranger things than that HAVE happened in real life. I have seen cases where the two parties go to court and the judge gets really annoyed that the case had not been settled between the two parties are appearing before him. And he has made it clear that he felt hearing the case before the court would be a waste of the court's time and resources. I am aware of more than one situation he told both teams of attorneys to go back and work on settling it again and if they did not come to terms by X date be prepared to have the case heard (and the implication was that he would not be happy with that outcome). In at least some of those situations the tone set by the judge influenced the parties to work harder to reach an amicable agreement.
So in Krom's defense I would say that this sort of an outcome is far from impossible. And depending on the details (which we may or may not be aware of) they may not be the circumstances you envision as a page from some sort of bizarro world. If they had to go to work on figuring out a settlement who is to say that they might not propose selling the entire company outright for X number of dollars? Not impossible by any stretch of the imagination.
Love the reference to the Talking Heads song!
Loved the link to the Groundhog Day movie clip! It was funny then and funny now. Enjoyed the fact that with each repeat of that day Bill Murray's character learned from the previous experience and adapted his strategy so that he eventually prevailed. Thanks for sharing. :)
Interactive Brokers does but that strategy has not been without it's challenges for them:
https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/318781/interactive-brokers-unit-faces-fine-for-naked-short-selling
http://www.finra.org/node/86129
Oldoil - when you qualified your expectation for Kosmos' check being written for a "minimum" of $500mmUSD were you implying that you think the price might just go up quite a bit from there? Perhaps based on current events in the news? One of our former Congressmen (Ron Paul) had an interesting interview recently and the title on the YouTube video hinted at the sort of prices being tossed back and forth by some (whether it materializes or not remains to be seen but its obvious that tensions are rising as we see in the MSM. Will it have an effect? Who knows? But a lot of talking heads are doing what they do best...).
So who's right?
https://www.otcshortreport.com/company/ERHE
Different sources - and interestingly when you consider both, they present diverging representations of the facts.
So are you thinking that the $5mm revolving line of credit will not be sufficient given the potential for stepping in and helping to clean up that mess? If they have the ability to capitalize on repair work there could be a lot of business just with hurricane recovery work - to say nothing of new 5G installations.
Keep in mind that to make a market it takes participants with varying views and perspectives. For example. if there are those that think a stock is not worth keeping they tend to sell their shares accordingly to those who have a differing point of view and wish to buy such shares because they see something different that represents value to them. The whole point of a stock message board like this is to be able to share relevant information and points of view and discuss things reasonably, rationally, respectfully and logically. If you only hear one view point on a board like this it tends to be nothing more than a glorified cheer leading section.
Don't shorters have to pay interest on the value of the shares they borrow? I think I read that somewhere. And if that is the case at some point the cost for their interest exceeds their profits, so the stalemate won't likely last indefinitely.
No idea. I would think each case would be viewed on its own merits by the judicial system. At times you see the SEC reach settlements before they actually go to court. Look at the recent settlement in the news ad naseum about the SEC reached with Musk at Tesla for his Twitter statements - $20million USD and modifications to the board and removing him as Chairman. That was not a failure to deliver for naked shorting - it would seem he only issued misleading statements to boil the short sellers. Again nothing about failure to deliver in that case, but the point is they can be large penalties (OK- for Musk as a billionaire that might not be considered "large" but for others it might be).
Indeed they were! That was what was discussed in the last link which provided an announcement from the SEC which profiled such a case.
"The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two brothers living in Chicago and New York with naked short selling for failing to locate and deliver shares involved in short sales to broker-dealers."
"The SEC’s Division of Enforcement alleges that Jeffrey Wolfson engaged in illegal naked short sales while working as a broker-dealer himself and later as the principal trader at a Chicago-based broker-dealer that is no longer in business. He also taught his brother and others how to do it. Robert Wolfson conducted illegal naked short sales while trading through an account at New York-based broker-dealer Golden Anchor Trading II LLC, which also has been charged in the SEC’s enforcement action. The firm has changed its name to Barabino Trading LLC."
"“By engaging in naked short selling, the Wolfsons had a major advantage over competitors who complied with the law and incurred the costs associated with actually borrowing the securities,” said George S. Canellos, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office. “The SEC is committed to recovering substantial ill-gotten proceeds made by traders who seek to circumvent important short selling regulations.”"
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2012-2012-22htm
Look at the summary information in the section discussing section on Rule 204 in the first link I had in the other post:
https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm
If a participant has a failure to deliver that the participant can demonstrate on its books and records resulted from a long sale, or that is attributable to bona fide market making activities, the participant must close out the failure to deliver by no later than the beginning of regular trading hours on the third consecutive settlement day following the settlement date, referred to as T+6. If the position is not closed out, the broker or dealer and any broker or dealer for which it clears transactions (for example, an introducing broker)[9] may not effect further short sales in that security without borrowing or entering into a bona fide agreement to borrow the security (known as the “pre-borrowing” requirement) until the broker or dealer purchases shares to close out the position and the purchase clears and settles.
Great summary Krom - here are some additional points in some light reading for those interesting in researching the issue a bit more:
"In 2010, the Commission adopted Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. Rule 201 restricts the price at which short sales may be effected when a stock has experienced significant downward price pressure. Rule 201 is designed to prevent short selling, including potentially manipulative or abusive short selling, from driving down further the price of a security that has already experienced a significant intra-day price decline, and to facilitate the ability of long sellers to sell first upon such a decline."
"Regulation SHO’s four general requirements are summarized below:..."
https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm
"CNS did not prevent FTDs and FTRs from increasing without limit and permitted some brokers to postpone delivery indefinitely. “The fact that there is no automatic mechanism preventing the substantial buildup of short positions at the clearing corporation and of fails to receive in brokerage firms carries the potential for serious problems, particularly in the event of crisis market conditions” (Pollack, 1986, p. 69)."
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/06/06/2165019/when-fails-to-deliver-prompt-stock-market-under-performance/
What is 'Failure To Deliver'
"Failure to deliver refers to a situation where one or both of the counterparties in a transaction does not meet their obligation. The failure can be when the party with a long position does not have enough money to pay for the transaction. It can also be when a party with a short position does not own the underlying assets and so cannot make the delivery. Both equity and derivative markets can have a failure to deliver occurrence."
"Whenever a trade is made, both parties in the transaction are contractually obligated to transfer either cash or assets before the settlement date. Subsequently, if the transaction is not settled, one side of the transaction has failed to deliver. Failure to deliver can also occur if there is a technical problem in the settlement process carried out by the respective clearing house."
"Failure to deliver is critical when discussing naked short selling. When naked short selling occurs, an individual agrees to sell a stock that they borrow from their broker because they do not own it. Subsequently, the failure to deliver creates what are called "phantom shares" in the marketplace, which may dilute the price of the underlying stock. In other words, the buyer may own shares on paper which do not, in fact, exist."
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/failuretodeliver.asp
"Short sellers sell borrowed shares in hopes of profiting from declining prices. While short selling is legal, SEC rules require short sellers to locate shares to borrow before selling them short, and they must deliver the borrowed securities by a specified date. Market makers are excepted from the locate requirement when selling short in connection with bona-fide market making activities in the security for which the exception is claimed. Naked short selling occurs without having borrowed the securities to make delivery."
" As Jeffrey Wolfson stated in a recorded telephone conversation, “What I sell them is not guaranteed, it never gets delivered, it’s funny paper.” "
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2012-2012-22htm
Krom - I think it was you who casually mentioned some time ago the fact that if an individual has their shares listed for sale (even if it is at an astronomically high price by comparison to current share price) their broker cannot loan your shares out to short sellers right? I wonder what would happen if everyone in the circle of trust were to list their shares for sale at what? Say $5/share? And if it were to happen coincidentally all in about the same time frame that would be really strange for the market to see. Wonder if that would be sufficient to start your "poppity pop pop" sequence of squeezing short sellers here? After all that link you sent earlier showing all the short sales did indicate quite bit of activity in that respect and I saw LMLT's comments on short sellers as well. Your comments made me pause for thought here and the above comments are just some thoughts that your observations prompted me to consider.
But I must say your thoughts in this respect are certainly interesting if not entertaining. Noticed that you did not make this one up in the dark this time. Getting all serious on us now or what?
Yes, and in his speech to announce the new trade deal with Mexico and Canada he emphasized the fact that we were only a couple years from not having a viable steel industry in the US and that such circumstances were not acceptable - he stressed that we need a strong vibrant steel industry in the United States for national defense purposes. He also made the point that all the trade negotiations were made for the sake of re-establishing the United States as a manufacturing powerhouse [again] and it goes without saying that we need a vibrant steel industry to support this effort.
I suspect that a lot of folks have pondered these same thoughts to some extent as well. With regard to the notion of filing for BK, it occurs to me that while there may be a desire for certain parties to keep this whole enterprise going for at least a while longer, it could just be as simple as not having enough money to pay a law firm the monies it would take to get them through the process. And absent any sort of PRs or filings to indicate that there is any sort of a heartbeat from the Company it sure makes shareholders and others wonder!
As for observations/speculations regarding those shorting the stock, here is something to think about that looks at the other side of the coin (i.e., the notion that shorts HAVE to cover at some point[spoiler alert here - they don't]):
https://finance.zacks.com/happen-short-stocks-bankruptcy-8444.html
Seems like just about anything is possible in this crazy mixed up world and you may well be correct, but as Krom noted earlier, this site puts out some information that would seem to suggest otherwise and that it is actively being shorted. Not sure where they get their data from, but this is what we see when using the symbol for ERHC Energy.
https://www.otcshortreport.com/company/ERHE
And if you are even partially correct in your prediction the short squeeze that accompanies the move will only serve to turbo charge it a bit. There certainly seems to have been a bit of short selling in this name in recent days.
https://www.otcshortreport.com/company/SGSID
One word might say a lot here - CONVERGENCE
From Dictionary.com
[kuh?n-vur-juh?ns]
noun
1 an act or instance of converging.
2 a convergent state or quality.
3 the degree or point at which lines, objects, etc., converge.
4 Ophthalmology. a coordinated turning of the eyes to bear upon a near point.
5 Physics.
the contraction of a vector field.
a measure of this.
6 Meteorology. a net flow of air into a given region. Compare divergence(def 2).
7 Biology. similarity of form or structure caused by environment rather than heredity.
Wherever there is division of labor, there is association and also convergence of effort.
Creative Evolution
Henri Bergson
From British Dictionary definitions:
convergence
noun
1 Also called: convergency the act, degree, or a point of converging
2 concurrence of opinions, results, etc
3 maths the property or manner of approaching a finite limit, esp of an infinite series conditional convergence
4 the combining of different forms of electronic technology, such as data processing and word processing converging into information processing
5 Also called: convergent evolution the evolutionary development of a superficial resemblance between unrelated animals that occupy a similar environment, as in the evolution of wings in birds and bats
6 meteorol an accumulation of air in a region that has a greater inflow than outflow of air, often giving rise to vertical air currents See also Intertropical Convergence Zone
7 the turning of the eyes inwards in order to fixate an object nearer than that previously being fixated Compare divergence (def. 6)
I think you are right on this point as you certainly would not be the only one to have the unpleasant experience of having the market trade around you like that for the sake of matching those orders - as you observed.
Wish I could take credit for it, but the idea was really junkhustler's as I was simply responding to that exchange we had earlier regarding the closing price possibilities with respect to that 0.008 trigger.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=142591906
Can't say I disagree with your points and optimism though. Much like you and EM, my background provided formal education, training and experience that has allowed me to work in highly technical roles. I liked your reference and analogy "As a pharmacist I can tell you sometimes it take a toxic substance to being a patient back to health". I think there is a corollary to that which I recall they taught us in toxicology which essentially said "just about everything can be toxic - it all really depends on the dose."
I think JH was trying to drive home the point that the possibility of a reverse split coupled with that price trigger being activated could be problematic for current shareholders at some point in the future - particularly if they did the 200 for 1 reverse split and the warrant holders exercised against a smaller base of shares. JH has a point in that it could be toxic and it seems that getting that dose correct is going to be key so the patient (and its shareholders) don't succumb.
And while I am at it, I think EM offered up another good point when he suggested "One other thought, the SGSI price deadline at .0080/share today is meaningless if Ponder pays the loan off before the due date in Jan 2019."
Time will tell and it will be interesting to watch going forward!
There you go! 0.0037 is not greater than 0.008!
To your point about shareholders responsibilities and the fact they are not accountable for addressing management's toxic financing deals, since July 31 came and went, we are left to see how management is going to address the situation going forward. As EM pointed out they could always simply pay off the note and make the whole thing a moot point. Will continue to be interesting to follow.
Another good point!
Or alternatively, we might expect to see buyers stepping in so as to push the closing price above your 0.008 threshold so that provision is NOT triggered?
Yes indeed. And in the most recent case of large jackpots it was not the ERHC shareholders who won any sort of jackpot, but a single customer of Ernie's Liquor store out in San Jose California who walked away with a lottery ticket worth a half billion dollars!
So you are suggesting their “handsome salaries” are more important to them than appreciation of their shares of stock?
How is it that you are so certain that extreme dilution is inevitable?
A split in either direction does not change the proportional value of each individual shareholder's ownership of the company. Using a simple example, let's say you have a whole pie and cut it is cut up into 100 slices or pieces (analogous to your ownership in a company as with shares of common stock) and you personally started off owning 10 slices (10 percent) of that pie, if nothing else changes and they do a ten for one reverse split of that pie ownership(100 pieces now become just 10) you still own ten percent of that pie - its just expressed in a different number of overall pieces/slices/shares (you used to own ten now you own just one - but its key to note your percentage of ownership of that pie has remained the same).
What you seem to be fearing is the potential for management to then dilute the shareholders at some point AFTER such a reverse split. And at this point there is nothing to suggest this would be the direction this management team would be inclined to take. Their track record so far does not portend this sort of outcome - in fact, I think it is clear that to date the shareholder's experience has been just the opposite - you have to keep in mind these guys have been retiring shares of the common not really adding to them; this sort of behavior is the opposite of diluting shareholders. So the real question is do you give them the benefit of the doubt and trust them to do the right thing with regard to meeting their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders?
Also presented as something of a poison pill to prevent unwelcome take overs.
Are you thinking it was "fake news"?
As they step forward and enter the fray of the 5G roll-out with their specialized engineering design/construction experience we should see SGSI gain traction with a whole lot of new business. And I think this thought would be supported by the information another poster shared with this board earlier relating to the large number of job openings advertised by SGSI. This whole initiative will involve an intensive push for such installations through at least 2023 and best estimates I have seen with that at this point is that we'll likely only scratch the surface of what is possible and anticipated by the capital intensive build out. The point to keep in mind is that the economy will benefit tremendously as the internet of things goes to the next level and with it there is going to be a lot of data being pushed back and forth. It will power all sorts of advances in technology. And we need to keep in mind that while 5G is still in its infancy (standards were finalized, agreed and announced this past Dec 2017 some 6 months ahead of schedule) the ramp up we are just now seeing might just be the tip of the iceberg - particularly if Roger can effectively leverage those working relationships with former employers that are also listed as clients. A lot of things in the 5G realm are coming together rather quickly so this space will be very interesting to watch and for SGSI to be a part of!
As I went through some of the feedback on others who have already entered this segment of the market I came across some very interesting and encouraging information. For example, take a look at how quickly a small company called 5 Bars (now doing business as XG Communities) was able to ramp up (and also as interesting is how quickly they were taken over http://www.neutralconnect.com/ncn-purchases-5-bars/). For additional insight check out the video on their website (might shed some light on direction and being a part of this whole new initiative as a planner/designer/installer) ( see video here on this page http://xgcommunities.com/)
Also insightful were the terms of the contract that I dug up between 5Bars and the City of Sacramento ( http://assets.fiercemarkets.net/public/007-Telecom/sacramento-xg11.PDF?response-content-disposition=inline&X-Amz-Security-Token=AgoGb3JpZ2luEP7%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLXdlc3QtMSKAAigDBvIHIq%2B0yF84esQ9mqWk9ehmYMuPSHZxK4Fzw6YNqTUDnkplEAFY0JV%2F7UDh1wpbcbiO7qQX7oemwupdgKuvk9wts7sklc0vhZQ2gT%2FHHlSRfbus8JpLhuD7riNL2%2BeaSK08JR0OL1ZOmyDtYIYR6s11Lb8eNDABY0iGSe8AVH%2B17KYcaH4On7RAqUb9EIt9S%2FYc0goa8nKNKf1mExXz%2BvXCBzAUZ5%2BFqan1oWVdXDpemb6P5KiHgR1gi8GDAPZYz5k5RwVfviq9GQuy9dg%2FaE%2BDsGL1w3kbGshdG5xZeBxFwHHfLUz%2F7qxQDrh7OBP0jJcwwXIKNXoDdNPei54qyAMIJBAAGgwwODY0NTg5NTEwODUiDDY1m96m2cJQ07yAOiqlA9TjVlVr%2FURehAaxNKZNrFjt%2FdBzZtKF6rE3JKMKLBOQV8vFb0LXU%2FjXdc7w%2BjWPY5pDobcLBXxnLxcITksQK1s%2BqIqQUEB2S5s2cIiQoIShG7Ru4vaS9DfkbfXfuqRxNx2%2BKv%2FKjXnTKwAj0EFZvLj%2FeDrblbu6xR3Kt9t8s4j1nyB7reMOKy%2BzroBC%2BV1VcUyLwu2%2B0KrCepUHLDfbILhJUFWJ7cASaey2GHmQNU2wN%2F967z1xJc1V0tMgNcEUcbraCEtlsih0cFnZcVJguSY1EVZz9i8gs8Dg2na%2FpQoaAz2tECBRctE%2BFWpuiudsOdCxKhjp0t8kwhzQISDofDGgRS2Ob6hLo7hWOmzNi0xSarHgUzXlQCIhOjc2zZf9Cmf80OO5Z%2FfX8baMnmNjPA8QxBABIIB9sO1%2BRMxtRjEexxyOxVASobiEheo0nrZQBztsho9PAXXQLiGzRqlPGzq9r0XEPUpX%2FgVdVVbPrwPcGxBF%2BcZr5QyHYJ%2FvT%2BLZcJHF2ZtlprLahchW9XlmP%2FY8d%2F9vckb5qhdkw1h9t7wixgBW%2F0cwxayG1gU%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20180402T023716Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAJIWYZI6TOF7ZJSWQ%2F20180402%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=0c6e8acbf7d90c1a91834e8d4e86a5d6392c01e120d9683f25d4a992ab28a1e4 ). Here is an excerpt from a Fierce Wireless article that provides more info on this issue:
"The contract between the city and XG calls for the startup to “assist the city in addressing both long and short term wireless broadband infrastructure needs” as well as acting on Sacramento’s behalf in negotiations with wireless operators and other telecom providers. It also calls on XG to implement Sacramento’s small cell design requirements: For example, small cell antennas in the city must be mounted in a concealed canister, and small cell equipment should be flush with the pole it’s attached to. Arcolino explained that Sacramento wanted to prevent operators from deploying potentially unsightly equipment in crowded downtown areas.
Importantly, Sacramento isn’t paying XG directly. Instead, XG “will receive 35% of the revenue for all new leases and 25% for leases on existing towers that they implement on the city’s behalf. This is the best revenue split that we are aware of in the industry. The contract is for an initial five-year period with four five-year renewals for a potential total contract term of 25 years.”"
Suggests that perhaps there is more to the recurring revenue stream than I previously envisioned for this business. Like I said, this will be a very interesting journey for SGSI.