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.
You watch enough of these things, and you can almost begin to tell just before they are about to RIP it.
Can't believe someone would sell at .07
Should be a fun week, between this and CDO*.
Would love to see this thing get nuts.
In at .0689
Let's rock.
(even if today is red, not phased)
Okay I think - in a roundabout way - that answers my question.
For you've been asserting that "the commons are intact."
But now it looks more like you're saying, "based on the language released, they are probably intact." So I take it that you're granting/agreeing that "distribution to equity" could mean/imply a number of things here, but that you/we are betting that it means intact commons.
If somehow I've misunderstood, I apologize.
But if I haven't, I think your multiple assertions that "commons are intact," has been misleading.
I am, nonetheless, long here.
I hear all that, but you're using the phrase 'distribution to equity' again, whereas my question was about the different things that could mean.
That's why I'm asking if there is some specific/legal understanding of that phrase, or if it is open to interpretation.
After all, one might distribute any number of things to equity...
Warrants for new shares?
Lollipops?
Etc.
That's a poor argument.
The very fact that some are looking at the chart, seeing the R/S's, drops, etc., and asking about it here is evidence that people have these concerns before tossing their money in.
So you're reply that 'it's a promo' isn't sufficient, because a promo has a target audience, and you give no reason why that audience won't be equally inquisitive, curious, worried, or even put off but the stock's past behavior.
MNYC,
What are the grounds for supposing that the phrase 'distribution to equity' means/entails that the present common shares will remain intact?
Unless there is some definite/legal understanding to that particular phrase, it seems to me that it could mean any number of things.
If we're already on radars from yesterday, then let's nudge this back to its breaking point to invite the watchers in.
Doin' my part to knock out these .1275's
C'mon folks.
Hope so.
How can a run from .05's to .13 be of no interest? The stock was up 86% yesterday
Because on such a small float, such a run can be accomplished by a relatively low quantity of traders.
It is fallacious to argue from the percent gain to the scope of interest in this stock.
10 to 20 traders could EASILY have accomplished yesterday's run. Do you deny that? You'd be insane to. And I doubt you will.
In fact, a twitter user with hundreds of followers could EASILY initiate a run like we had yesterday, and thereby simulate more interest than actually exists for this stock. Know anyone like that?
But then you cannot argue as you continue to argue, i.e. in the above-mentioned manner.
Stop being so hyper-defensive of a stock you want to do well. You look weak.
I want it to do well too. I'm in.
All the same, I WONDER WHY THERE IS SUCH LITTLE INTEREST IN THIS STOCK RIGHT NOW.
I wonder why there is no interest in this stock TODAY.
Even less than there was yesterday.
nice day
Wonder why there's no interest in this stock.
how do we report ubss?
Fake wall then? Just flat out lie?
Or he just had to run to the restroom.
Well... I guess I'm in... since I just bought 24k shares accidentally.
Read my trading interface wrong, or fat fingers, or something. Because I was trying to buy a different stock.
Please go ahead and laugh. Gotta take 'em where you can get 'em.
Morning all.
Thanks.
Yeah, I am/was just using the revenue figure as a way of referring to/denoting the 1.4 spectrum.
As I said, trying to get straight on this debate about in whose hands it actually is now.
Thanks again.
Thanks for the link.
Unfortunately, I cannot view the diagram at a size sufficient to allow me to read the smaller fonts in some of the boxes.
Where on this diagram is it unequivocally made clear that whatever bandwidth/spectrum it is that is generating the 2-mil/monthly revenue is still retained by Terrastar Corp?
And if it is unequivocally clear, then why the recent doubt as expressed by Powerball? (I haven't seen him concede this point yet.)
How do you know that the buys were not the shorts covering already?
And isn't this more plausible since it explains TWO facts, i.e. the huge dip and the slow rise?
Otherwise, you have to posit a conspiracy theory, which you've done here, in order to explain the first fact.
Thanks.
So the question between Bkstocks and Pwrball is about whether there are in fact the other two houses?
I'm pretty lost on this spectrum/bandwidth thing, i.e. ascertaining whether TSTRQ still has significant assets after this sale.
I ran out of posts yesterday after asking some questions, so I didn't get a chance to thank those who responded.
So thank you, everyone.
I realized that in several ways I was misunderstanding this play, or at least what some take this play to be.
On that score, JJL, your response of "exactly," to my worry that maybe Casenumber was being misleading about VSTNQ is either itself misleading (in which case I assume you're here to bash), or mistaken in a way similar to how I had been. For as others pointed out, VSTNQ had a run PRIOR to the cancellation and (crappy) warrants.
So it certainly seems misleading, at least to me, to suggest that there are no prospects on this play in virtue of the fact that the VSTNQ folks got the shaft. On the contrary, it sounds to me like the savvier ones probably made a bundle.
But there is yet MNYC's criticism/suggestion that IF this thing were going to run hard on speculation, it would have already done so. And I think there is some plausibility to this, and so I remain skeptical... yet, of course, hopeful.
Anyway thanks for your help everyone.
JJL,
Please - if you have time here for a moment - tell me what you have to say to the argument/consideration that is being floated here, i.e. that because of the size/stature of the common share holders (i.e. the institutionals) commons are, therefore, unlikely to be cancelled.
This argument has been reinforced by the claim that "no one complained" at the terms of the deal.
Now, my reply to this centered on the worry that perhaps the only reason no one complained was because it was a choice between the terms given in the deal (i.e. perhaps some fractional repayment) or NO repayment at all.
So, for instance, suppose that this was VSTNQ, and my only two options as a shareholder are between $0 per share, on the one hand, and .00734(on the dollar)/share. IF those are the only two options, then I'm taking the latter and not complaining. Now I might complain THAT those are the only two options. But that is subtly different.
Then again, I'm an idiot and don't know what to make of any of this.
Can you share with my your opinion about what I asked at the top here?
Many thanks.
And here again you make reference to VSTNQ...
visteon...old commons wiped BUT were issued a warrant for the new VISTEON
...without mentioning the specifics of the warrant! I.e. that they were for new commons at 7/1000th's of the previous value.
You have an extraordinary amount of explaining to do, it would seem.
So dude is just lying in ways that are painfully easy to verify?
I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt here.
Wait, why would you say that?
I am reading here that VSTNQ's commons were cancelled and replaced with new commons worth only 7/1000th's of their value each!
What are you talking about here????
Wait, I think I might have answered my own question.
Is it that the talk of monies left over for commons is just to say that there will/won't be cash assets left over which the market may then use to valuate the stock (i.e. in the way any stock is valued)?
Still a little confused.
Could someone help me with something here. As I have said, I am new to all of this, and know very little.
That said, there is a way of speaking about this whole situation here that keeps confusing me.
Folks keep talking (or so it seems to me, perhaps this is my mistake) as if the relevant questions is whether there will be some sum of money 'set aside' for common shareholders, or not. Almost as if the company is going to be dividing up a pie and writing checks to shareholders.
I don't understand this.
It's still a stock, right? And as such, its value is still at the mercy of the market, right? And it's only worth as much as you can get for it on said market at any given point in time, right?
What am I missing here?
I can't seem to reconcile this basic/obvious fact about a stock's value with the way people keep speaking about whether or not there will be monies from the sale 'left over' for 'commons.'
Help?
Do we know that common share holders even have the privilege to object?
I own 16K shares. Could I have called the judge and said I did not like the deal?
I don't think you're appreciating the nature of my question.
The choice between $X and 'nothing' materializes once there's an offer, no? Dish made an offer; an offer which resulted in the creditors getting 'some' return.
But quite obviously they are not going to object if the only other option is NO return.
So I say again, I do not see how, simply from the fact that the creditors did not object to the deal, it supposedly follows that the deal is the jackpot that all the true believers here are constantly asserting.
I asked Choi why he discounted the other interpretation of the facts (restated above), and he declined to answer in substantive fashion, and basically said that he was pumping.
I'm new to all of this. And I understand very little. But that is all the more reason - for me - to wonder why the above consideration is not being dealt with.
My question was about your interpretation of the DD facts which you're asserting. I am questioning your interpretation, i.e. asking what recommends it over a competing interpretation.
You cannot then merely cite the same facts over again as an answer to that question. Right?
You'll have to forgive me. I have no idea what you just said.
Exactly.
Now I have no head for these things. I'm new. But I do not understand the optimism here.
If I'm an institutional holder that finds I might get 'nothing,' then surely I'll object.
But if the choice is between getting 'nothing,' and 'something very small' -- and there are NO other choices -- then I am going to be "happy" at the 'something small.'
So, Choi, for instance, I get why you take the institutional list, as well as the concomitant article wherein it is stated that folks are 'happy,' as being good news. But I do not see how this survives the reasoning above in any promising sense.
Heck, I don't even know that it was the "commons" talking in that article. Perhaps I didn't look close enough. I'm pretty busy here.
Seriously, I second that.
A1, not to diminish your roll AT ALL.
And DMO, not to presume on your availability.
But count me among those who would feel extremely confident/fortunate having DMO running point guard here.
Tried to get in before close friday. No dice. Will look again next week.
A1, Rainman, nice to you you guys.
FACT - from the FACT that you put 'FACT' in front of your statements it does not follow that they are FACTS.
Don't you tire of being a stereotype?
Aren't there more intelligent/subtle ways to bash?
Case, not sure if you're still around. But shot you an email.
peace.
And sincerity shines through your every statement.
I simply cannot hang with you. You're on another level of communication.