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.
4's next week for sure IMHO... WEEEE
If I am not mistaken, the injecting millions quote was prior to the creation of 141 and was probably in reference to injecting startup capital for SWARM to trade. Notice that 141 is getting 3 million startup trading capital, which I believe is the injection he was referring to. Also we've had the recent pr's of the releasing of SpoozChartz, AlgoServer, SpoozToolz to large firms and within the year to retail, an acquisition and 141 to begin trading. I dont know about you, but after looking at all that I feel the tip of the iceberg is staring us in the face.
I agree... Also for those who do not care to carefully read the PR, please note this piece "Spooz has acquired certain technology important to SpoozToolz and the AlgoServer products." PR's aren't something they just throw together. They are well thought out pieces. Important does not equal necessary. Can SpoozToolz and AlgoServer be run without it? Yes. Will this acquisition help both products to become better and be more valuable to customers? I think so. That is the point. Spooz was able to acquire a company which will increase the value of the products they are beginning to sell. What could be so bad about this? Not only that, but we acquire the company at what seems to be a great price...
I'm sorry... Did you not read the latest PR? You might want to re-read that, let it sink in, and get your facts straight. The launch is in progress. As you asked others, please get the correct facts before posting such things ("And as usual, no word on any launch, etc...just phone call conversations.")
Thanks EBI. I just feel that sometimes we all lose focus on what we're doing here. Its great fun to debate both sides of the issues with regard to SPOOZ because there has been plenty of fodder for both sides. But remember people, we are on the eve of something that may change quite a few of our lives. If things go well with this release, who knows what happens. As has been said before we should all be playing with money that if things dont go well its no big deal. Either way you look at it, its exciting with SPOOZ.
I agree clobal. The air could be cleared on a few things, but we have to wait and see... I too like steak better than chicken.
Has anyone looked up the definition of lie lately? It seems everyone is all too willing to throw the term around. I have a question for the people willing to throw that term around. When your kid tells you they will be a doctor, or a nurse, or a firefighter, do you call them a liar when they get older and don' t go down that path? Or how bout when they say they want to Major in a certain subject in school and change their mind because they found that the previously chosen path is not one that fits them. Do you call them a liar then? When your wife says I'm making chicken for dinner, and she makes steak because chicken doubled in price.. do you call her a liar then??? Think of that before you start calling everyone a liar... From the definition, the themes I gather from the 7 definitions on dictionary.com are twofold. First, I see a theme of intent. What was the intent of the person telling such information? The second is somewhat related, but is one of knowledge. Lets apply these themes to Paul. Did Paul make some incorrect forecasts and statements? Yes he did. Why did he do it? Was it in a deceitful manner? Did he do it knowing that his forecasts and statements were incorrect already? No....I think everyone should remember this is a small pinksheet company who is trying to vault themselves from the R&D stage to the revenue stage.I feel SPOOZ needs to be open to all possibilities with the resources at hand to get themselves there. Thats what we're all in this stock for anyways right?? We're in it for the possibility of HUGE gains if it is successful in its transition.... Now please everyone lets do a little thinking before we start slinging personal attacks on anyone. This is the internet and we all get to hide behind aliases, but think before you speak.......
Its hilarious on the other side of the coin as well. Watching people bash the stock's price action on the way down when they drop the stock on 100 share orders or something in that price range. LOL. Either way, most of the action has been trivial and will more than likely continue to be so until we get closer and into January. If we get a release, the action will be anything but trivial.
welcome back snow.
Why is it so hard to understand that asking the same question to a group of people who can't provide you with an answer contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation about SPOOZ? Hence the response to keep calling the company and ask them.
I too would like to say thanks Allie. Your contributions to the board went far beyond moderating.
I agree. It would be an absolute waste of a company's resources to send out a PR every time a person sends an email like this.
yes, yes he can. Not directed at you, but why doesn't anyone here do that instead of getting themselves into a frenzy? Its sad to see the quality of posting on here degrade so quickly.
Trader412, I cant respond to PM's. Dont have access to that. Can you pm me your email, then I will respond. Thanks,
I know the debate is senseless. I was just trying to put it to rest because I am tired of seeing this board filled with useless conjecture. Thanks for the repost of the link boca, everyone who hasn't done so should definitely view the demo. I've seen the demo, done the DD. I know exactly what I have and if everything goes to plan we will all be able to ask ourselves " Where do you want to go today?"
I know that your strategy applies to all markets, what I am saying is that it is tough for many to execute properly in real time. Hence the fact that the system looks nice and rosey when looking at past situations where it would work.
I do agree, the system you describe is more reliable in the sense that you have a chance to come out positive. But on the flip side one could attempt to implement the strategy you describe and the stock could drop out on them, causing them to lose even more than the guy who just sold and never re-bought.
So, this argument should be over for everyone involved. Buying high and selling low will lose you money. Buying high, selling low, buying lower AND having the price appreciate above the selling price will make you money. You need that key AND condition in there.
I dont think there is any debate as to what you would like to have happen to you. I think the point some others are making is that I would love to be in the second group concerning spooz ( If I bought high... been in since mid .002's so it doesn't specifically apply to me) but your example is looking at a situation that has passed. The people saying weak hands expects the price to appreciate soon. Thus, they are unsure whether they can time it correctly to end up in the second scenario you proposed. That is why they hold. To those that did time it right, great job. What I am seeing here is that Wing is saying buying high and selling low is bad. This is correct. You will lose money if your system stops there. You are proposing a system in which you buy high, sell low, and then buy even lower. This is a completely different system, hence the confusion you two are having. You both are right, but your systems are completely different.
Sound good tldjr. You definitely can only trust yourself in these matters. All I was getting at was that it sounded like it was being presented as facts about SPOOZ.
Yes. The TA has had the share structure the same for quite some time. That means, no diluting. Also this isn't the SPOOZ fact board, it is a place where we can come to discuss opinions. Its just when people present their opinions as fact, then it becomes a whole different ball game. That is why I jumped on that post. I dont want to come off as attacking your or trying to stifle your discussion, just trying to clear things up since some have come on this board and taken other's opinions and presented them as fact. That's all.
They are not diluting anymore. Please stop posting this as it is completely false.
He wont know if you are an iHub member or not. But frequently people establish this in the beginning of the email. I took this statement to mean that IF one is an iHub member, that your questions are directed through the moderators since this was in response to an iHub member. Since one wouldn't see this statement if they don't frequent iHub, then it doesn't really matter except for those who are iHub members.
First off, lets end this argument right now. SPOOZ and 141 capital are not the same company. End of story. They do not submit one financial statement, they do not trade under the same ticker, they do not have the same iHub, they do not have the same website, etc. The list could go on but I'll stop there. The same management team may be heading both, but that doesn't mean they are the same. So please, lets stop with this nonsense. Second, to bucks, Paul did state that the share price would take care of itself. There was no time frame on this statement though. Think about the analogy of Mr. Market. In the short run Mr. Market is like a child with ADD who just had 2 redbulls as dinner and a coke for dessert, so his prices could co anywhere. In the long run I think the price will take care of itself, and we will be pleasantly surprised.
To the general public. Notice how the only thing mentioned in those revenue projections was STv2 revenue. Thats it. There was no mention of SWARM revenues, there was no mention of future licensing revenues. There was no mention of any of that. So, those projections are not the complete picture of SPOOZ. Keep that in mind when you are stating you are so disappointed.
As per the Expo, they used the word customer. They had their first customer in October 2007. That to me, constitutes that this has been released, but they are starting with a select group. Plain and simple, if there is a paying customer it is released. Now maybe that doesn't satisfy your version of what a release is, but the product is released if there is a paying customer. As to you thinking they are lying, I do not believe so and I wonder why you do? I dont think Paul has ever knowingly said something he believed to be false, or said something that he knew he could in no way deliver on. Have you ever created a piece of software before? Have you every invested in a company whose product is a piece of software? Are there ever delays? Yes, there are. Now just because a company plans to release software then delays it for some reason(bugs or other reason) doesn't mean they are lying. It just means that a deadline had to be stretched.
Also, Spooz doesn't have the support team in place yet to deal with a high volume of training and support needs. To release to a large group without these things in place would be a disaster. Thus I think their plan of a phased roll-out is a much better one than just releasing to satisfy a few disgruntled shareholders.
I definitely think using the wording "forgot to mention" is terrible. I do agree though that this statement of uplisting had no relevance to the audience at hand. If uplisting is in the plans as has been stated, then that needs to be PR'd because that is waay too important of a statement to come through a board member. Overall though I wish I had some more bullets because these prices are just silly.
Already there man. I am way too excited to see this.
Maybe there is a misunderstanding of my use of the word he. I should have been more specific. My "he" is Paul. So, I dont think Paul has ever said that he times PR's for the PPS sake.
Where did he say he was timing them for the PPS sake? He said they need to be well timed. That is it. I missed the "for the PPS sake" part. Maybe because it wasn't there? For instance, someone announcing 141's share structure before it can be legally disclosed, bad timing. I can create more examples, but you get the idea. There are many reasons you would want to time things right for, and they dont include "the PPS sake"
To keep everyone updated on the expo, here is some info. Spooz will be presenting from 2:50-3:10. This isn't a bad slot with lunch at 12, that way people wont be groggy. Also, here is what each company gets as far as display is concerned.
* 6’ table, chairs and signage with company logo and ticker symbol
* One 20-minute breakout financial presentation including audio visual services and audio/powerpoint Web cast by Onstream Media
* Full-page company financial profile in Expo Guide by Harbinger Research, distributed to thousands of financial professionals
* Four full-access conference registrations
* Company description and financial goals in the ValueRich Marketplace online and in front of 58,000 readers in ValueRich magazine
* 1-year profile on www.iValuerich.com web 2.0 networking site including: company page, CEO blog, and unlimited networking
* Unrestricted B2B networking for one day
What I like about this is that the financial profile will be in the hands of people willing to write checks. On that note I dont think anyone can claim as any shred of fact that checks WILL be written on day one, or any time after. But, the whole point of this Expo is so that these money managers can meet with small-caps and possibly join the ride of a lifetime. These professionals have the opportunity to meet small-caps that if all goes well with an investment in that company, could change their financial and professional lives. Thus, IMO some kind of checks will be written. To SPOOZ? Who knows, but I do know we have a damn good shot with what we've got.
I personally never expected people to rush out an buy the stock after the Expo. I know that most of those managers aren't allowed to come to pinkie land. But, I do know one thing, and thats that all of those managers have some sort of ego. Thats where I think this Expo will reap the most benefits. SPOOZ has positioned themselves to have many big time brokers on the list for STv2 rollout. Also, there is 141 capital which just licensed SWARM. Going into this Expo SPOOZ has the ability to appeal to those manager's ego's because with so many brokerages on the STv2 train , they will begin to ask themselves "why the hell am I not on this train?". Not a lot of those managers want to be the ones to sit at the train station and say "no thanks guys, you can ride the money train". to continue the train metaphor, this is the point where the brokers can ask SPOOZ "where is this train going and if I hop on, where is it going to take me?". That right there is the gold mine of this opportunity. SPOOZ is given a platform to show what these brokers are missing, and why they need to jump on the train before they are left behind. All this is MHO. Who knows what will actually happen.
What are you looking for people to address? You continually pose this quesiton, yet no one can answer you why there is no 13D. The only answer they can give is that they are sure there are none. Beyond that, its pure speculation as to why. So, please stop posting this question over and over as you are just spamming the board. Also, if I remember correctly, this is an NSOL board. If you would like to be a cheerleader for WDC, do so in PM's or on WDC's boards.
I am guessing that is one reason why 141 was setup. These investors wanted to inject money into SPOOZ so that they could be a part of SWARM's success. Now they can, with 141.
I dont understand your post here. What can be taken away or given to a competitor? If you are talking about SWARM, it can't be taken away as long as the licensing agreement is upheld. And, as long as its upheld, they get exclusive rights to use it in the futures and derivatives markets.
IF a future agreement was made, the new licensing company couldn't utilize SWARM in the futures and derivatives markets, hence the word exclusive in the PR. Thus 141 wouldnt be "brought down" since there wouldn't be a competition for capital to trade in the same markets.
I am not saying there will be future agreements, I am just saying that with the facts presented, I don't see how we can rule out a future licensing agreement. With respect to the 50 million, there is no PR or concrete fact that this is the number required to license in the future. It was stated in an email from Paul, in reply to a shareholders question. I am not taking this as fact, merely stating where it came from.
Are you quoting Verapan or voicing your own concerns? Either way, this piece is just wrong. "f that exclusive license is also "perpetual" as was attributed to Paul in an e mail he sent to someone from this board, then 141 now has effective "ownership" of SWARM, not just a license. And if that is the case, I will find it EXTREMELY devious for Paul to be calling a transaction like this a "license". A license which is exclusive AND perpetual is no different than a "sale"."
A sale is much different than a perpetual license. SPOOZ owns the IP associated with SWARM. Period. 141 gets to use SWARM as long as they uphold the agreements in the licensing contract. If these terms are violated in some way, 141 gets to keep nothing from the deal, and SPOOZ will retain SWARM, the payments received from the 1.5 million, and the 120 million shares.
"Some of the members here are trying to tell us that there would be more agreements which can be as much as 50 mil. That is not going to happen" How do you know this will not happen? You have absolutely no facts to base this off of. This is just your opinion. Also, it is clearly stated in the PR "the exclusive license to trade its Statistically Weighted Arbitrage Recognition Model (SWARM) in the futures and derivatives markets". There is no mention of not allowing others to license for other markets. The email never said that it would happen, it just mentioned the fact the it COULD happen, and if it were to happen, a number like 50M would be the ballpark of compensation. W/the 50M, I think he basically is stating that its going to take a ton of money to lock up SPOOZ in another market. But in the end, we do not know for sure whether another licensing deal will come about.
Thanks for the info Imperial. I have studied a bit of chart analysis, but this will accelerate my learning by years. Hopefully the wounds heal soon on those fingers because your posts continue to be some of the best this board has to offer. We'll continue chooglin' while you're gone.
did you already do the 2 week trail of premium accounts?
misread previous posts. My apologies and message edited. It was someones response in regards to your original post questioning why there was no talk of those 3M projections. The response made it seem as though you were questioning the ability to hit those projections and wanted a comment on why we wouldnt hit them.
Please refrain from generalizing that the "board" refuses to believe there is opposite opinion. How can you even say what people believe? Do you know anyone here? How can you comment on their beliefs? I for one know there is an opposite opinion to these "rose colored glasses" that you speak of. But, you fail to realize that people who have these opposite opinions have for the most part been unable to post facts or logic to these opinions. Also, one has to begin to question a poster when every single post has a negative connotation to it. Sure one can have an opposite opinion, but when the DD continues to "raise flags" or other such self warnings, why still be in the stock? If a poster continually has to post negative information, it gets really old and looks as though they are trying to "save" the investors. No one needs saving, they can handle themselves.
Lets take your latest post. I quote "After all that said, I am more hopeful lately that there is a great success yet to happen, but I think the time frame is longer and the scale much smaller than most posting here." I would like to know why you think it will be smaller and why it will be longer? What, out of the past or recent PR's ( with more on the way ) has led you to this conclusion?