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.
True, and the rest of the world has chosen other investments or simply held on to their money.
What do you call it?
When did it air? February 2012
Paid advertising from two and a half years ago.
And how long ago was that. The shares are nowhere near $70 today.
I think yoiu are referring to a time when the price was 35 cents. So he never paid $70.
First I have no idea what kind of life he's lead.
Second, busines is business. He's not going to offer any more than he has to. Loyal shareholdes? What makes them loyal?
They're in it for the noney just as he is.
Unless they particiapted in private placements the company has not benefitted from shareholders and as Joe keeps pointing out the company does not need shareholder money and never has as Gerry has funded it as neeeded.
You again fail to get the message. I said it would be silly for Gerry go pay you $70 to get your shares when he can get them for $1 if he so wishes since he owns 93% or so of the shares and can offer and accept any price he chooses.
If Gerry wants to take TEVE private he can do it at whatever price he pleases. $1 or $100 a shares. He'll set the price and with 93% of voting shares approve the offer.
Why would a businessman pay a penny more than necessary for anything? He may give money to charities, but he himself is not a charity.
Talk of $70 a share from him is silly.
And where does the market maker get the shares he delivers to you?
For all you know then half your shares may been shorted. Are your shares then legitimate?
If they are the number of shares out among shareholders would be greater than the number of shares issued.
Don't you see?
Think of it from the buyer's point of view. What shares does he hold?
LIsten careully Joe. I buy shares of Televelu from someone who sells short. I todn't know that I bought shorted sases. O can't tell the difference, so I will vote my shares not knowing ther're shorted shares. Get it?
What about those who bought those "shorted" shares. Why woudn't they show up. They woudn't know that thye bought "shorted" shares.
No, that's not what I said. i said there were sellers at the ask and buyers at the bid. But there are no sellers at the bid or buyers at the ask.
Are you suggesting that all the bids are merely market makers puting up shares?
That would mean that there really are no buyers or sellers.
That's certainly not true of most stocks as I've bought and sold shares in doens of stocks over the years.
Let's be more precise.
No one willing to buy at the ask and no one willing to sell at the bid. Hence, NO VOLUME.
In your opinion.
Not everyone votes.
You probably would. lol
It'll pay dividends - in your opinion.
It might be six months old but TEVE only recently reported and that's ther last full year performance. A loss. No dividend there.
Well you've been calling for a dividend for a year and it hasn't happened. As for profit, their full year for 2013 ended in a loss so they're not in a position to pay a dividend based on that. The rest is hearsay as the company has gone dark.
If there is a dividend, a split just means a smaller dividend per share. No difference. But I strongly doubt a meaningful dividend is coming or the sp and the volume would reflect it.
Still no proof of your short claims?
According to the company, they lost money in 2013.
Since the company doesn't release information you can't really discuss the company only what posters say about the company.
Please show that those shares are still short. (if they ever were shorted)
No thanks. I've presented my figures t support my position. Now why don't you present your figures as you are the one claiming a large short position. Please support your assertions with FACTS.
Who do you claim is trying to destroy TEVE? The discussion is whether the constant claims of large naked short positions is true or not. All facts say otherwise. So since there is no short position claims of people trying to destroy TEVE are as spurious as claims of short positions.
Besides, since the company has not gone to the public markets to fund its shortfalls, as Mr. Lenfest has ponied up some $30 million in the last few years, the share price has in no way affected TEVE's ability to fund its operations or to carry on business as it chooses.
So please explain how you think the sp, which hasn't changed much in at least five yeasr, has had any impact on TEVE's ability to carry on with its business as it sees fit.
Thanks you. So that means that claims of a short position, at least as of the end of June, have no basis in fact. Right?
If that is correct, then the two thousand shares that sold of the 5000 plus shares that were on offer before June and traded, none are currently shorted as they would have shown up at the end of June.
Thanks.
I just downloaded the date for the second half of June (the most recent data available).
TEVE does not appear even once on the list.
Am I correct then to assume that this means that there were no failures to deliver for TEVE as of the end of June?
Seems like it.
Please show us those FTD numbers then.
There is no short interest at the moment. See below
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/TEVE/short-sales
As you can see the largest short position was 100 shares for a few days. No shorts since April 15.
Now Joe please show where you get your infr if you can.
Yep, the 3000+ shares for sale is back. Now asking .27
The news came mid May. True, the sp went from 14 to under 30. But since the shareholder meeting the price has dropped again on almost no volume. So clearly the patent was not that significant of the shareholder meeting damped the little enthusiasm that was shown followng the patent news.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=teve&insttype=&freq=1&show=&time=6
This is all in your imagination.
NITE pick up all his marbles and scurry home like a dog with it's tail between it's legs
Bids and offers come and go. It'll no doubt be back.
Read the patent.
It says:
A method and apparatus for scheduling delivery of graphics and video to an on-screen display is described. The method comprises accessing a schedule comprising at least one video, at least one template, and layout information, wherein the at least one video and the at least one template are associated with each other and scheduled to run at least one start time.
Note - it's all about SCHEDULING.
A patent for scheduling video delivery? Doesn't sound very significant.
Clearly the price went up in anticipation of the meeting and the constant call for dividends being declared. When the meeting proved a dud with no dividends and a small loss the price fell as one would expect.
The money Mr. Lenfest has pumped into the company is meaningless to him. He's most likely in this as a hobby, not to make money. Most shareholders are not in his position and have a financial interest in the success of the company. Mr. Lenfest and the shareholders are not necessarily on the same side.
I'm not concerned, believe me. Just trying to explain why SOME shareholDers (not you - but ones who may want to sell) are hurt by the compay's tactics. You really don't see it?
IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU!
Thats too funny.
The same as always.
If no shareholder wanted to sell then you are right, going dark and hiding their financials from non-shareholders would make no differene.
But if anyone wanted to sell (and some have) they'll have a hard time getting any potential new shareholders to buy as they have no idea how the company is doing.
So this strategy can hurt those who might want to sell and thus depress the sp.
That's pretty funny. NOrmally investors gtather information and then decide whether to invest or not, not the other way around. lol
Because he was a genius that comes along every few hundred years. Tech companies come and go monthly.