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.
Precisely Dr. Thats the way it looks to me too; there is more than one way to cross over the bridge and it looks like Google and MSFT have done just that. As for taking either of them to court, who exactly wants to wait five years to be proven right? And do you really think that NEOM has the cash flow for such a fight; not given their recent financings with Cornell from the looks of it. I know I will get beaten-up for not blowing sunshine only here, but there comes a time when you have to move past denial and realize something with this company's annoucements, compared to execution and relative to share price is not adding up. I would greatly appreciate somone showing me how I am incorrect that a company with NEOM's recent annoucements does not get noticed and volume does not increase nor share price? Why is it that only those on this board seem to know what a great company this is?
No, I do not believe so. I have been away, and I believe my last post (I'll check) was a question about the media magazine piece a few weeks ago.
Edited: I checked my last post was wondering why no pop in volume as a result of the media magazine exposure (so sort of like this most recent post, but it was prior to the China deal); my other post from the last two weeks was asking if anyone had a copy of the media magazine piece. As mentioned, I've been away and since I scaled back my position on NEOM (substanially), it is no longer significant to my portfolio; but since I still have money in it, I check out the goings-on.
So what is your reasoning for the low volume and no price appreciation given all the exposure?
Corect!! Lots of talk, no action (price). You would think that having exposure in the media mag in the U.K., there would be some interest in a stock at 8 cents. You would think that with this 'big' deal in China, there would be interest at 8 cents. But there is not. So it makes me think that we are of no concern to the big companies that do the same aspect of marketing. I really have doubts about all these large companies, MSFT for instance, are too worried about these patents - or at least it would appear that way. Either way, when there is little interest at 8 cents, and there is supposedly all this great news - well something is not right.
What surprises me is that since this article hit the news stands, and given the audience it attracts, there has not been a surge of buying of NEOM, based on volume, since the article came out. Given the price, I would have thought there would have been a pop in volume.
Regarding Haymaket; I've been away for a bit so I may have missed it; does anyone have a photo of the piece in Media Week?
Hey they finally got some press outside of Ft.Myers! LOL
No idea what you are talking about? Please explain.
I cannot believe that I am reading posts about the company performing a buy-back. This company has no cash, hence the recent loan from Cornell for $ 5 million. This company is trying to get cash positive by cutting expenses, and this has been spun into a stock buy-back? Lets see if the doors stay open past the next quarter, before starting the thought of a buy-back.
Regarding Scottrade: Is it all OTC stocks that have that restriction with Scottrade? TIA
Thank you SS9173. Appreciate the fairness.
The IP was not required on the other financings, why this one? The fact is, Cornell is here to make money, maybe, just maybe, they like the IP too - hence they want their hands on it; which brings us back to this being played out like a bio-tech company: Great new product, great potential, but not enough cash to get to market. Then along comes a loan that gives them almost what they need, but not enough; the 'bankers' get the IP, make their money and the origianl company disappears. If I was Cornell, and had great faith in the IP, I certainly might consider doing something along those lines - unfair, unethical, no question (thus I would not do it myself), but Cornell, well, they might, IMO.
And the lien is what worries me: How cash strapped do you have to be that you would put a lien on the IP? Surly I am not the only one concerend about that? That is a big mistake for the company to have done that, it really limits their future choices, and makes the time line move along pretty quick - which I have no problem with the time line moving faster, but I have yet to see them do anything 'quickly', which is where the problem may arise. Does anyone see this, or is it just me? And please, no snide comments ect, it is a serious issue that has caused me to lose a lot of faith in this managment.
Yes, true enough; but listen to how it was phrased. Those names are doing business with the subs, and those contracts, were already in place. But what bothers me is that we do not know what type of business they are actually doing with them. As an example: A company (I will not name it)once placed a PR that they were doing business with a large company (much larger). The share price of the smaller one gained nicely. It turned out that the contract between the two was for the small company to print business cards for this very large company; the deal was really more like hiring a temp. On the surface it looked like a deal of some proportion was being done, but in reality, the big company had no idea who the little company was. So what is the deal between the subs and McDonals for example? So, though names were mentioned, I cannot, nor do any of us, really know what size of deal were are talking about - and that worries me. I would be really happy if a dollar figure were attached to some contract that leads me to think they would be cash positive and thus have greater staying power.
I agree 100% with your post. And I would be thrilled if that was the case. But my concern is this: If they have deals NOW, as they say, why not take some of these deals to a bank and get better loan deal than the one with Cornell? As for NEOM not being able to say who they are doing business with, that cannot be the case in 100% of the deals, but lets say it was in 100% of the cases: They could still go to the bank, with non-disclosure and all in place, and obtain the loan based on some of the deals surly; after all we are only talking about $ 5 million. And when you sign a deal with the bank, as we all know, they (the bank) too cannot disclose your business, or clients ect with a third party - so there should have been no problem to monetize some of the revenues. With the deal being for only $ 5 million, I get a gut feeling that they are really, really close to the bone for cash. When your that strapped for cash, you got a real problem; the IP may be great, but I think they may run out of time before getting there - hence my concerns. But I agree with your theory.
And given that they could be only be a quarter away from doing what you suggest, this is why I do not sell all my holdings; I still have a small amount of hope.
Three years ago, give or take a few months, I saw great potential in the industry and the company. Now I only see it in the industry, but not the company. I see other companies moving forward and signing deals; yet we have next to none. I do not accept this theory 'the companies we do business with won't let us tell you'. I do acept that in some cases that may be the case, but not in every single instance - that is just not realistic. And the loan deal with Cornell of $ 5 million, with the IP attached is really bothering me. A strong company gets better loan deals; a weak company has to accept poor loan deals - they accepted a poor deal. And thank you for asking. What do you see, that has you assured they will do what they say they are going to do?
Hey, I am down on NEOM (no financial pun intended), but do not paint me with the same brush as TS; no way, no how. I am down on them and cocnerned about them because of the bad loan deal with Cornell, which does not bode well for the company, IMO. A loan with bad terms is simply not an indication of strenght.
We've been hearing it takes time for a long time. I have been holding NEOM shares for, as memory serves, I think around three years now; and it has always been the same, wait for the next few months. As for allowing others to use the bridge, while they sell paint and raise cash so they can litigate others and thus come to future arrangements, this is paraphrased from a few posts earlier from someone else: Well, if you allow more people to tresspass on your land while you know they are trespassing, you are essentially giving them grounds for making the argument that they now have a right-of-way given the time they were permitted to use it without a fuss. So, I hope your theory is wrong.
Yes there are overlaps, and yes I understand that. But that is not the impression I received from the two times he spoke of reducing burn rate. This call not only did not answer my questions, like most of us here; but instead for me, has raised more questions as to why issues that can and should be addressed are not being addressed. This is only the second time in my life I actually placed sell orders while listening to a conference call - thats what this call did for me.
Thats just mean, I have no affiliation with a person of such questionable character - truly an apology is appropriate from you.
This call has been a waste of time so far; nothing new except for the part that they are reducing burn rate and will be much leaner - growing companies DO NOT have to scale back costs - in my experience.
Finally some real answers to some real questions, possibly. I hope this is not some dog and pony show.
Just finished reading todays posts; Holly mackerel! Assuming what is in the PR is completly correct, there is a serious civil case here, and certainly a criminal case. Could TS be this foolish and do this, or was he a dupe? Either way I am sure we will find out. I don't think we will have to hold our breath very long to see what unfolds; all involved are going to be moving at breakneck speed on the issues raised from this PR.
But how, or why, would you continue to keep faith in this managment team - have they delivered on past expectations? Have they mismanaged the financings, the launches, the acquistions, IMO, they have. Based on what is there to have faith in? Even they sold when the 'getting was good', are you sure they even have faith in themselves?
Given they have missed other 'launches', why believe that this one will occur?
BTW, you asked me for an example of a cheerleading post, I supplied you with two of them - no comment from you? Oh, ya, I forgot, one of them was yours - and yes if you are sarcastic to me, I shall be too.
JP, you posted this: "If the Switch was turned on (as it will be soon)". My question to you is simply, HOW do you know it will be switched on soon? Do you know something we do not, or are you simply implying you know something we do not?
I think the term you seek is Judas Goat:
From Wickpedia: A Judas goat is a trained goat used at a slaughterhouse and in general animal herding. The Judas goat is trained to associate with sheep or cattle, leading them to a specific destination. In stockyards, a Judas goat will lead sheep to slaughter, while its own life is spared. Judas goats are also used to lead other animals to specific pens and on to trucks. The term is a reference to the biblical 'traitor' Judas Iscariot.
If you believe that, why then do you suggest that they have had great growth based on a market cap of $ 70 million? You figure a penny a share, and yet you see growth - can you explain this to me?
Want one, how about # 92855 posted by you, since you asked. You posted:
..."as far as we know, NEOM's hands have been tied in regard to revealing many aspects of their business, partners, and strategies. Hence all the digging and putting pieces together here by the likes of JP, Success, DLethe, SS(number), and many others. IMO, this MUST be the case. They have too much to lose. They MUST have partners lined up who are tying their hands in terms of going public."
Your cheerlead is that there MUST be big partners, they just cannot release it - got any proof of this?
Or how about this one; # 92306 by GONEOM, who writes:
"NEWSCORP, MSFT , YHOO are lined up to use QODE..."
Got any proof of this, or is it hope / hype cheerleading?
There are two, want more?
Forget about dot connecting, we've done that for two years plus now, lets see this company provide some proof of these partners, contracts, revenue?
You are not alone in being amazed at some of the continued cheerleading here; I think there are many who's minds run along your train of thought. I just wonder, how many have realized how many posters here fall into the class of the childrens tale of 'The King has No Clothes' based on their endless supplies of 'wait till tomorrow'?
You are correct, they did announce Cellfun, and you are correct, it is a small contract. Cellfun, one million people playing their game, one million people from the net, wow. And the size of this contract is huge right? How much was it for...too much to say out loud I guess?
As for $ 0.07 / share x 100 million shares = $ 7 million
compared to
$ 0.07 / share x 1 billion = $ 70 million
Thats great, lets get to
$ 0.05 / share x 2 billion shares = $ 100 million.
Talk about twisting statistics to show a growth pattern, thats a reach that no shareholder can logically accept.
Shhh, maybe they are in a self-imposed quiet period. I think they got away with that excuse for close to six months as memory serves.
"as far as we know, NEOM's hands have been tied in regard to revealing many aspects of their business, partners, and strategies."
How do we know this? In all seriousness, besides the hypsters saying it, when did NEOM say they had their hands tied?
Why is it that companies that sign contracts can speak of them, yet we are to believe that ALL contracts signed with NEOM are ALL being kept quiet - does that really make sense to you? And if they had actual signed contracts, that they purposely are keeping quiet, you beleive that they would not take these signed contracts, with real revenues attached, to the bank and get a short term loan with a better rate than they got from Cornell recently? No, I am sorry I cannot agree; if they had contacts they would not be in need of cash from Cornell. If they had contracts they could negotiate a better deal with a bank, than signing over the IP to Cornell for $ 5 million loan. If they had contracts they would be PRs about at least one of them; unless there is only one, for a really small amount not worth mentioning to the bank and not worth mentioning in a PR - that makes more sense, assuming there is even one contract.
I have seen very little coming from NEOM itself - so I cannot conclude that they are full of confidence. At the same time, I have seen great offers of thing to come from posters who elude to being in the know, but nothng has come of it, so I wonder what, if anything, besides possibly good intentions there is to any of it.
What was the deal with AMERITRADE? Yesterday some here were posting that they could not place an order to buy via AMERITRADE due to some restrictions specific to NEOM; what was that all about? Anyone know? TIA
Excellent post. I am amazed that with the realistic thinking by some here, we are still reading posts by cheerleaders who believe that TS's conclusions are all wrong, and that the thought that the company is working on the right direction are still being rolled out. If there is such a thing as a paid basher, than surly there are paid pumpers on this board; easy to figure which ones are what.
Thats what happens when a company offers a new product, and delivers the product and manages the company well; also explains why NEOM is at seven cents.
Come on, you are not comparing YouTube to NEOM or making some sort of theory that the space is geting bigger and trying to connect some non-exsistent dot with another non-exsistent dot are you?
Very well said. eom
Hope so too; still have money tied to this; but hope is fading by the day on this one. Its the truth, is it not?
You better have a small ass and a long time. LOL