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.
Everyone in my family has celebrated a birthday since when I first heard that.
Confetti falls from the ceiling & fireworks!!!
Dr. Ted Kavorkian, the death Dr. of the business world. Euthinization specialist of the business world. 99% success (failure) rate.
Hey! My KoolAid is so thin it barely has any color anymore...
Other ways to dilute other than ATM. We have seen that as reported in the filings with shares going from 1.6B to 1.68B Nov-Dec. I wonder how high the O/S is now.
18th is deadline. Then NASDAQ sends a letter to HMNY not sure how long it takes for them to get it, but then HMNY has 4 days to announce letter received. Then they have 7 days to ask for extension.
Substantial change to price of plans on the MP website. Drastic potential offset with my earlier worries of cost usage neutrality. I'm not saying that my sentiment has shifted 180°, but it does appear as though the iron clad intention of Mitch and the $9.95 price point has been abandoned for a far more plausable figure. It all comes down to MP maintaining a consistent delivery on services to the consumer. Still have the de-list deadline and nothing can be done at this point but pray for extension. Also the public image is in need of heavy polishing. With the service being allowed to carry on this long with the sudden drastic shift I also am wary of intentions to allow investors the opportunity to benefit from the changes and the Goodwill which it will generate. With subscriptions for 2019 being sold now, would the income generated count for Q4'18 or Q1'19?
So what's your feeling the 2.2 value is what it is because of the 3/wk opportunity or even with 3/mo it would potentially be 2.2 still?
Looking at the MP website and the new plans seems to show that the new price plans are significantly higher than what their announced rates would be. More financially responsible but another action contrary to public announcement. But it balances usage against subscriber revenue.
Are your opinions at all going to be altered after the outcome and events tied to the annual shareholder meeting or due to the non binding vote on compensation and the singularity on executive affirmation the outcome is static and already known, so no effect on opinion.
I guess I base most of my opinion of usage off of Reddits MP threads. All anyone is focus on doing is getting to watch anything over 1 which jumps the usage to a full 2.0 and if someone is going to go any less than 2 twice monthly the Hassel isn't worth the effort for minimal savings.
I have checked my settings, I will have to check again. But pretty sure I don't have anyone blocked, even you know Blu. I mean 'who'.
I was rude. I appologize. That statement was wrong. I'm lucky enough to have not lost money. Sorry guys, I'm the only male in a house with my wife and two daughters. I didn't mean to get hissy. I took the statement wrong, I hope. But I still disagree strongly about the usage. You made up for the missed month by seeing two this month and that doesn't factor in other months. We are talking about an entire year only using 14 sessions of 36. 18 movies renders 1.5 monthly rate, 24 movies annual use is up to 2.0 It's just not going to hold up when the new plan come online. Also there have been many "emergency subscriptions" allowed that are lured in with less than normal cost plans. No way to account for these memberships and how badly they affect the bottom line, other than substantial negativity on the balance sheet.
Im smart enough to have not lost money on this security, I can tell you that. Many on this board can't make that statement. And if that's the case why then is the usage rate only below 1.0 as of lately? We know it's MPs active restrictions correct. Not subscribers genuine behavior.
Just so you know. Your shareholder seniority places me in a position of subordinate class. I understand this. You have been through the whole ride and I wouldn't try to imply that I know more than you. And I feel as though your experience is the most knowledged on this board. Your PM lockout of me is a deep wound and I am embarrassed that we should have to miscommunicate like this in public forum.
So it looks as though we definitely disagree on the "some subscribers will go less than once per month" I totally don't think so. Why would anyone pay for a service they don't use.
This next question isn't an attack. I just am curious. Have you as a subscriber used your service less than at least 1 per month?
This proves my point regarding the lost in transmittion analogy because I need you to clarify are you using the national average ticket price or are you using a figure that includes the big city price of $17 or are you accounting for the 1.5 times cost? You have referenced all according to different posts at different times.
As I stated I use the national average because it is not a median caculation it is the overall average.
And I still stand on anything over 1.0 being a loss. I don't care what Mitch has said. There is a potential for 1.2 to create a cost neutral balance. But HMNY/MP has not succeeded at the steps necessary to make it a balance at that usage rate. And the debate is not even worth time to pursue due to it long term plausability as I have said and referenced against your usage stats. Nobody is going to continue a service where they use only 14 viewing sessions out of a potential 36. New plans will accomplish nothing. Cost out weigh the usage goals of the consumer. Usage will never be consistently at a range that low. My "guess" is that if given the opportunity to stabilize the usage would be 2.3-2.4
I think I'm simply too wordie and that my message gets lost in transmittion. It always seems as though there is some form of static between our communications when I'm fact I respect your knowledge and opinion the most on here. Can we perhaps collaborate on a joint venture to theorize on a usage ratio that we believe defines the line of balance neutral? Or is the assumed figure what MP has given enough us as 1.2?
HMNY destination OTC. I think it's where they want to go. The benefits out weigh the negatives for them. They have been unable to aquire funding on NASDAQ so it serves no purpose for them to strive to stay on the big board. Apparently they have extinguished their liabilities and if are closer to being debt free, no reason to need funding. If they do achieve sub cost neutrality then yet another reason to not need to be NASDAQ listed. Plus I have a theory as to how HMNY has been funding it's daily operations costs and it would fit along with the potential for the larger spread opportunity OTC would provide. Once it goes to OTC the public attention it receives will be far less as well. Everyone expects it to go there and once it does will be forgotten about in the publics eye. Maybe someday we see the MP list on NASDAQ only goal would be to aquire IPO opportunity. But all in all I really see MP going private. This week should be something to experience.
I understand. I just don't think they allow for a high enough utilization rate. MP uses terminology of "up to 3 movies per month". Consumers interpret and assume 3movies per month. The consumer is going to target attending 3 movies and maximizing their value. MP is going to have to restrict subs from full observed utilization. This will continue to loss subs. As a subscription service MP offered only one fundimental investors had interest in, growing subscribers. It exponential growth is what made it interesting. Who cares if they have 1M subs and are break even. Big deal, wow they are basically a charity at that point. Which in reality they have become. Lots of investors taking the right off on this one this year. I'm all good with giving to the Starvin Marvin charities, but this Seymour Movies charity isn't one anyone wants to willingly contribute to.
One caviot to the overall evaluation is the fact that the infringement case does still have a scheduling conference set for Feb 11th. Which will be relatively close to the Q4 filing release. I'm sure this is by design. I'm also forcasted a revisit to the R/S concept. Many will let go of shares due to the game of chicken HMNY is playing with NASDAQ. By then a fresh set of shareholders with a new date of record potentially giving the go ahead on R/S
Agree, which is why I have about 9k shares at this point. I have come to the conclusion after 2 delays in R/S vote then the cancellation of the vote all together means HMNY does not care either way. Which after their clear disregard for investors in the past only ratifys their continued disregard of shareholders. The upcoming vote for compensation is non binding so shareholder vote is not important anyway. I can only imagine that due to shareholder non support HMNY has manifested it's own reason to hold a grudge against shareholders. Thus creating a self satisfying circle to displace blame from themselves and feel no emotional responsibility toward the shareholder. Simply ignoring the fact that the shareholder is upset with the managment decisions of Executives, which shareholders rightfully should based upon said mismanagement.
The only consumers interested in signing up for MP are individuals intending on maximizing it's usage opportunity. The moral hazard of subscribers is not deminished simply because of the movie opportunity being brought down to 3 because there has been an obvious subsiquent decrease in subacribers, from 3.2M to an assumed under 2M if not closer to 1M. The high use subscriber is now simple calculated at anything above 1.2 How many people are going to sign up with the thought that they are going to only use 14.4 movie attendance opportunities that year. And quite simple, if that is the working number that MP has calculated why not simply promote that number. "MoviePass 14.4 movies any movie anytime within 12 months for $119.40". The equivalent offer they present is 36 movies for $119.40 The expectation that consumers are going to practice concervative moral hazard in a situation where the presented offer is more opportunistic for liberal moral hazard. This is the optimistic fantasy that MP has self hypnotised itself and investors into believing.
The main shortcoming I have with MP model is the turn around time on policy to premium. Yes most insurance companies try to balance policy cost to claims made but there is a significantly longer time period between policy revenue to claims paid. Giving the insurance company time to invest for profit generation. With the MP model policy holders/subscribers immediately max out their claim allowance. Out spending the policy cost at almost the same time as opening the contract. This is equivilant to getting into a car accident within days of starting insurance coverage. And then continuing to make claims against the policy each renewal period. The time for investment of those funds is next to nothing. This also extends the recouperation time to an almost infinite period of time. And don't forget that the normal policy holder with this particular insurtech is a high risk customer with and expectation of maxing out the policy coverage. Insurance is able to provide balanced rates based upon the fact that it's customers goal is to not need to make a claim against their policy. I can either care to do my best to not have accidents and have affordable coverage in the event of an accident or I can get high risk high cost insurance and be accident prone. There are no policy holders with MP that intend on being low risk. Mixing consumer value based upon use against a the company valuing low use is the issue. MPs hope we're always that people wouldn't fully utilize the service. Which is why they had to restrict the opportunity to use the service. The terminology of the "up to 3 movies per month" is deceptive and they will have to continue to discourage consumer opportunity to utilize the service they perceved as simply "3 movies per month for $9.95"
Yes, thank you. My point was that 80.3% of the population is urban so my expectation was that 60.4% of subscribers would pay a subscription amount above the median cost. Rather than paying the average cost. Thus providing MP with premium revenue on those subscribers.
Thank you for that correction. I was incorrect.
Rural population is only 19.7% of the overall populous. I would guess people in these areas have the lowest ticket cost. And I will assume an equal ppercentage of population have the highest ticket prices. Leaving the median of the population 60.6% Being that 80.3% of the poulation lives in urban settings, I believe that this group will be charged an amount above the median cost range of the MP subscription. Sure urban will be charged the most and rural will be charged the least but the mass will bare a cost above the median to render the most incoming money for MP to use to average the expense. This service is an insurtech when it is all said and done. The "policy" to cover cost of attendance "claims" will have to be adequate enough to cover an overall usage ratio of above 2.3 in my opinion . I still feel MP monthly fees fall short of this. But with their current sub count being around 1M I'm guessing their short term goal is to achieve 1 good quarter so they can simple pogo stick back into NASDAQ compliance. As time goes by they will start losing money again and have to crutch back onto shareholders. Perhaps by that time a new set of investors with a higher pps to support the continued losses.
Not so much a misunderstanding as I was disclosing my own usage variances rather than responding to the ones you were calculating. Thank you for the public observation of my supposed predisposition to and of previous misunderstandings. Again I wasn't necessarily directly responding to your calculation as much as I was voicing my own overall observed overview of usage fundimentals. I continue to use the national average because it's accuracy would be more precise to cost of ticket expense rather than a median calculation. Everywhere even small towns have a movie theater and attendance is more or less averaged equally. No reason to believe that people in the city are more prone to movie attendance than in smaller towns. Perhaps the volume is higher but the attendance is equal ratio wise. I believe that it is that volume difference that MP is using to offset expense across the board by charging metropolitan areas more than rural. Also I don't have expectations that you disclose a personal guess to overall MP usage rate. I support the thought you have stated that it is difficult to calculate and I would not pressure you to give one just to receive credibility on this board. Like you have stated with the darts comment. I myself can not begin to determine a usage ratio, nor do I find it necessary. Anything over 1.0 is a fail, I don't care what Mitch says. And I wasn't correlating usage rate to your continued subscription. I was referencing your expectation of your service attendance in relation to your continued subscription probability. My thoughts are that anyone bothering to sign up wouldn't do so unless their personal minimum expectation was to use at least 2 times per month. Anyone using less is not going to find the added inconvenience worth the money. Any subscriber plan to use two of the three opportunities as minimum. If I had to put out a "guess" at what the ratio of usage would be I would use something in the range of 2.3-2.5 The lions share of subscribers are going to strive to utilize their full usage opportunities.
Annual Shareholder meeting is on the 27th Executives want a raise. Other than that just hoping NASDAQ gives an extension.
Actually Im ok, I'm lucky I was able to make some off of a couple pops and that covered any loss. But many on here hoping for much needed recovery.
Plenty of innocent new enthusiasts. Picking the color of their future lambos.
Many on here are from B4 the R/S. Plenty of new $1 land dreamers. Lots of mis guided frustration on here lately. I used to be ultra positive when I first got on board. Been bleeding .0001 bit by bit. Not so positive as of late. Kept my avg down and haven't lost any but dumped my bag due to heavy doubts. NASDAQ de-list deadline is the 18th.
Used to be just an analytics IT outfit. Then they bought stake in MoviePass. PPS shot up till business model drained their money. Market lost faith (rightfully so). R/S and massive
A/S share increase to 5B and ATM brought O/S from 600M to 1.67B
So what's your thoughts on HMNY?
Anyone using the term "Bud" is going to be older than a millennial, enough said. What happened to your other profile?
Alias born on date kinda speaks as to the opposite. I kinda think 420man was rolling J's back when you were just twinkle in your Daddy eye.
MP needed advertising revenue, a cut in ticket cost, concessions commissions and for consumers to under utilize. They didn't achieve not one of these core fundental blocks. And now they are humiliated publicly. AMC will quit A-list as soon as it can, cause it's a loss to their bottom line. Sinemia has to have add on fees to function. It does not compute.
Syntax Error
Syntax Error
Syntax Error
Syntax Error
Syntax Error
Syntax Error
Syntax Error
Syntax Error
Syntax Error
Syntax Error
Syntax Error
... 3 movies
3 movies
3 movies
What is it about the plans providing 3 movies will ever equate to a usage rate of anything under 1? The only way MP was able to achieve a usage rate of .7 was through restricting availability. What gives the inclination that usage will average at even 1.0? Right out of the gate the new subscriber is going to "try out" their new service at the earliest opportunity. The "gym membership" theory only works for guilt based services where there is a motivation based emotion that fails to go but is reluctant to quit based upon good intention. Movies is a service that people use. Everyone that buys in does so with the full intention of using every session allowed. With the provided services set at 3 and the break even price set at the cost of 1 session. You are talking about the consumer wasting 66% of their potential opportunity. Im sorry to be so stern (everyone has been so polite today) but honestly, wake up. Nobody is thinking "maybe I use it, maybe I don't." It's a discount package deal providing 3 for 1. That's what those that bother to sign up for the service are going to target, 3 movies. The new heavy user is a 3 movie a month user. A medium user, 2 movies/mo. And a low user, 1 movie/mo. All of these will leave MP at a loss. Even the 1 movie/mo because of overhead and cost of operation. The only consumer that is profitable is the user that utilizes the service under the lowest usage range. There is just no way to mathematicly range cost against average use. MP has targeted the avg movie goer, which they claim see 4 movies a year. They hope to increase that movie goers movie visits to 8. Why then are they promoting services that range to 36? Targeting the wrong crowd. This model is a fail. Maybe it could have more of a chance e if there was a supplement to the income. But we haven't seen anything. I used to think that the indi film thing gave substance, nope it doesn't. The ratios are all wrong and just don't work. If maybe we had a retail situation with sales people pushing the product in your face impulse and pressure could aquire potential non users to buy. Bit this is a passive product and the only people buying are people who use and intend to use. StockItOut, sorry to CallYouOut... hehe. But seriously let figure out the .7 ratio and use you because your the only sub holder on here (sad fact, that tells a lot by the way. Only sub on here). 8.4 movies a year equals .7 usage rate. You mean to tell me that you are going to pay $114 for $75 worth of usage and stay a customer? What's your personal usage? Ever go a month without seeing a movie? I doubt you or any other subscriber would be a subscriber if you ever thought for one minute you couldn't on your own free will get to the 3 per month. Which was the only way MP was able to get usage down to .7, by restricting free will of it customers. Which is why we have "significant" subscriber loss. One last question, are you going to renew? And don't say it depends on if they change availability or not. Are you going to stay a subscriber if MP continues to do what they have to do to keep usage down below 1.0?
It was an easy setup, couldn't resist. You you have a MP membership huh? Would you suggest others get one?