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.
Vote YES to 5 and 6...
Streets, Kendrick, et al., I have to repeat: you're only voting away your last crumbs of value / potential value...in the name of what, pride? high ground? Making a statement? There's no VALUE in that. The vote, the "statement" will be gone with the wind along with the last shred of value. Vote yes on 5 because nothing else makes any sense from a shareholder's perspective. If 5 passes, we have a fighting chance. If 5 does not, we don't. If you vote NO on 5, you are destroying what's left of your value and your chances of growing it, period.
RE-SUBMIT YOUR VOTE / YES FOR 5 if you haven't already!
Vote YES to 5 and 6, if you hope to see ANY value for your shares. Nothing else makes any sense from a shareholder's perspective. Everything else is noise. People are choosing to form arguments around their own assumptions when it has been made PERFECTLY CRYSTAL CLEAR, perhaps for the FIRST time ever. If 5 passes, we have a fighting chance. If 5 does not, we don't. If you vote NO on 5, you are destroying what's left of your value and your chances of growing it, period.
All I'm hearing from the entire "vote no" crowd is that doing so is some kind of fantasy high ground that has the "reward" of being able to simply say "no" to LM and YA's interests; this is acting out of anger, not logic.
If NEOM is forced into BK, are all of you in the "No" crowd REALLY going to come back here and post things like "Ha! My votes helped sink any chance we had...! That's awesome! We really showed THEM!"
Any other uttered "reward" or purpose for doing so, especially the laughably fake altruistic notion of preventing future strangers from investing, has NOTHING on the reward of CONTINUANCE, of extending the opportunity.
RE-SUBMIT YOUR VOTE / YES FOR 5 if you haven't already!
YES to 5 and 6, if you hope to see ANY value. Nothing in this reply, Ernie, makes any sense from a shareholder's perspective.
All I'm hearing from the entire "vote no" crowd is that doing so is some kind of fantasy high ground that has the "reward" of being able to simply say "no" to LM and YA's interests; this is acting out of anger, not logic.
Do I like R/S? no. Of course not. But my god the situation has NEVER BEEN LAID OUT MORE PLAINLY. If it passes, existing shareholders have a fighting chance. If it does NOT, you know what happens. If that does happen, are all of you in the "No" crowd REALLY going to come back here and post things like "Ha! My votes helped sink any chance we had...! That's awesome! We really showed THEM!"
Any other uttered "reward" or purpose for doing so, especially the laughably fake altruistic notion of preventing future strangers from investing, has NOTHING on the reward of CONTINUANCE, of extending the opportunity.
Everyone should re-vote in favor of 5.
It has been stated as clearly as can be: If you want your shares to be worth a sum greater than zero, and have a fighting chance going forward, vote YES for 5. If you voted already, re-submit.
Voting NO for the purposes of making some kind of statement makes no sense. Nobody cares. We all care about getting some value for our shares, right? That's all any of us should care about at this point.
So, it makes ZERO sense to do otherwise. Vote YES on 5.
Thanks for the reply, I'm just now reading it. Am I reading correctly that a revised proxy was issued? I'm not seeing it on the wires or in my inbox. Can you provide a link?
And, has your outlook changed since you wrote this reply?
The best situation for all of us is to vote for the R/S, that much is clear, but what about the implications of 6?
This has never been a clearly told story, and I'm sure that complexity was by design (financial instruments).
I saw a recent post that your shares are fresh, ie recently purchased. I take that to mean you're hopeful that this will pass and we will continue to have a fighting chance...?
Sorry if this is annoying but I just haven't had the ability to follow this for some time now.
Thanks
Hi - hardly following the stock let alone the conversation, but I'm curious if you'd be willing to summarize your thoughts on the situation and whether or not you think this could be a turning point for NEOM shareholders. I know it's ugly, but the EU news, no new YA money for a long time...it's starting to look like there might be some value going forward.
So, YES to the authorized seems to be a popular vote then. I'm troubled by a few perspectives that I've read though. How I wish I had moved on in 2009...this has been such a financial tragedy for so many of us. I'm worn out, but it seems clear to me that voting NO to both the R/S and the authorized would be the equivalent of a total loss guarantee. Continuing via one of those mechanisms at least gives NEOM a fighting chance in an improving environment with a stronger patent position. Maybe I'm wrong, again, having been wrong on NEOM for years.
Can we keep this dialogue civil and productive? I think we're all interested, or should be at least, in whatever strategy yields the highest likelihood of shareholder value.
To all my fellow long-time co-sufferers: Yea to authorized?
Haven't been here in a while but I'm surprised to see moneyduh's post pinned to the top. Unworthy of pinnage. Where's the moderation...?
Hey, in that context, I want to be wrong again. Here's hoping. (Damn that word 'hope'.)
I've never really understood the financial instruments tied to NEOM, and people who get paid to understand these things had trouble understanding these particular instruments, so for my ignorance I take some solace in that, but not much. (Not fully understanding my investment = not something to be proud of.)
But. One factor that always confused me was that I kept hearing (at one time right from Iain's mouth) that it was better for NEOM's debt situation to have a lower PPS; that higher valuations actually hurt the company, which is the opposite of how a company's stock is supposed to work. So. What I'm wondering now is, does this latest agreement change that arrangement? Is it now NOT detrimental to their debt situation to have a higher PPS? Clearly YA benefits the most from a higher price, with their shares being fully in the money.
In other words, NEOM now has more time to grow and we can brush away the lurkers crying BK BK, but has anything more significant changed with this? The language of inclusion of previous statements casts a new layer of obscurity that seems at first devilish, but hey. Maybe that's commonplace.
I haven't had the time or inclination to follow this like I used to. I decided that I couldn't control what I've lost in this but I won't let it take any more of my time, which is far more precious. When I factor in the money and time I've spent on this, and really think about it, I start to feel puny. Angry at myself. Bewildered by my loyalty to the *idea* of NEOM. Did I say puny? Infinitesimally small. I only hope to salvage something, anything.
Dear reader, my average price would make you wince. I'm just a guy with a day job and two little kids who thought he was on to something years ago and I was both early and wrong. I made a terrible mistake, and kept making it...despite knowing full well the wisdom in Einstein's famous quote. Maybe it's different this time, and there's an impressive growth story to be had from here. But it won't reach the levels I'd need to come away smiling. I don't think it's possible with the number of O/S. So, I can only look forward to lessened losses. Barring a miracle of some kind, that is. Am I still talking? Damn martini(s)...
If there's any light to be shed on the complex financial instruments that have had their bony grip on our collective nads for years, and what if anything appears to have changed, please do share. I don't drink kool aid and I'm no fan of the "hope" thesis. I'll have the Truth with a side order of Possibility, just for dipping.
Right. It's hard to get through the spam and vacuity sometimes. I will admit that at first, I interpreted it as a positive development in the EU. Alas, just part of the confusing process and ambiguous language/nomenclature on these documents.
We should all want to know what's really up, rather than making an assumption and forming a circle in which moonshots and buyouts are discussed with childlike enthusiasm.
But, I was pleased to read the news, although it isn't perfect it does give NEOM more time to grow, and I was pleased to see what lebon seems to have deduced...although that too is largely inference.
We should all be on each others' side here. Trying to find clarity hope for higher valuations to come.
That's confusing - was that cancelled and the record wasn't updated, is this just a formalization for what we see online, or...what?
I didn't expect this. I hope it is what it looks like it is.
hey trader40. i don't watch like you do and couldn't interpret L2 activity if I tried, but your post was interesting. may i ask what the average price is for your NEOM shares? We need to get out of this subpenny hell before I can feel anything resembling optimism.
Haven't been paying attention like I used to, and haven't read much opinion here lately (doing so didn't get me anywhere for years), but I'm curious to hear your view of the current state of / outlook for neom. I didn't have any luck by looking at post titles; most are directed to individuals about specific points.
Progressive insurance, eh? Way off the radar for me in terms of a licensing partner. And to me, that's a good thing. The patents are being used by companies we wouldn't predict. The more the merrier.
Not exactly, hinch. It doesn't change the value of your holdings. They're a pain in the ass when it comes to managing ye olde spreadsheet at tax time but 100 shares held at $1 is the same as 10 shares at $10. That said, I'd rather not see one in our case because we've seen it before and all it led to was a value further from .0001 upon which to gradually decline, with a few bumps here and there. Some stocks perform better after a R/S, and who knows, maybe we'd fall into that camp. But I can only go on what we've seen so I view another R/S as a negative in terms of its possible ultimate consequences if not its immediate effect on the value of our lint...I mean shares.
SS? What have I missed? Besides about ten thousand posts, that is...
It never ceases to amaze me what good news can do to this stock.
It's outrageous that the record wasn't corrected to remove that 5000 print at .0001. Either that was an honest mistake that needs to be reversed and stricken, or it was a deliberate chart busting manipulative trade between market makers, which would also need to be reversed and stricken. There is no reason that trade should stand. Everyone should write the exchange and show the Time and Sales and how BS that was. The more people complaining about it the better.
Many things can be misleading, but intent would be the only subject that warrants some of the language you've used about this. Look, it sucks that you're down, I certainly feel your pain there, but surely you would agree that it would have served you well to have read a little more into it before making your "here we go" post which I assume shortly preceded or followed your (re)purchase.
I'm annoyed too, but I don't believe this was by design. Less than acceptable understanding of the situation or reporting of it by the personnel in charge of writing and/or editing the missives, perhaps.
I honestly think you should email laura the contents of your post (the one to which I'm replying.) Maybe we'd get a revised PR (a "correcting and replacing" pr which is fairly common when mistakes are made).
Perhaps a higher editorial standard, which I would agree with, but you are suggesting a deliberate attempt to deceive, which you cannot know. And for one I don't believe. Yes, they could have issued this weeks ago, but for whatever reason, they didn't.
Deliberate? I doubt it. That's merely your opinion, stated multiple times, with your own choice of words implying that it's a fact. So there's a little irony here in your criticism.
I think LM's quote speak for itself; she correctly described the situation.
It wasn't, although it's being vigorously characterized as such. Their patent application was allowed, which we've known about for some time. They decided to PR it because the public would have to browse the PTO site to learn about it, but the PR was not the high-impact event that some thought it was at first. That doesn't make it "fake" or some of the other words being tossed around to imply some offense. Ridiculous.
Exactly, krays. Couldn't have said it better.
Better than many here expected.
Rwandrw, I think you're completely misunderstanding what he's saying, and certainly overreacting to the presence of the word "insider".
There are no answers when it comes to predicting what's going to happen. There is only conjecture. And there has been A LOT of conjecture going back years that has not come to pass. Some of it good, some of it bad, some of it baaaad.
I wouldn't look to the opinion of strangers on a message board for your investment or trading decisions.
Nobody predicted this large investor would get involved. Things happen that are unexpected. I believe his investment portends more positive surprises but I could be wrong. And by the way, posters who admit they have been wrong and acknowledge that they might very well be wrong again in the future are the ones whose opinion I might be inclined to entertain.
I've heard 'industry insider' says THIS and 'industry insider' says THAT for years. In hindsight it never amounts to much. You seem intent on convincing the board otherwise, but there's a long post history of predictions that one can peruse as a backdrop.
Again with the crystal ball game? How do you know it will "send investors running"? These extensions are common, even for stocks on major exchanges. They're especially common when there has been a recent change at the CFO position, which we have had. So I'm not sure why you would so brazenly position this so negatively.
You're just like the rest of us: right sometimes, wrong sometimes.
hangdog! Good to see you back! How close to you is the new NEOM office?
Congrats. There's nothing better in this world.
Happy daddyhood
First, I missed the "for all we know..." setup of your original statement. Didn't go back far enough. Second, it's okay to be wrong every now and then, you know. Nobody has NEOM all figured out, no matter what they claim. Third, I could use that coctail.
There's also no evidence for what you're suggesting, if in fact you're even suggesting it. I think it's far more likely that he still has the shares he bought a few days ago. Sometimes I wonder why you choose to write in an authoritative, didactic voice. I know there's a lot of noise here, but come on - nobody really knows much about where this is going and what his intentions are. We can guess, surmise, hypothesize, but until we know, I don't think anyone benefits from posts that assert themselves as fact.
Have a nice weekend.
Yeah, like you haven't been wrong before...really...why you insist on posting in a tone that suggests that you're more knowledgeable and above everyone else is beyond me...be humble. It's good for ya.
Yes it is. Yesterday's high was .0245. Gap filled.
The gap from yesterday's high has been filled. Would like to see a high-volume bounce above .026 here.
Of course not, and no, it's not unheard of for wealthy investors to invest in small companies. Absurd notion. This place is already full of misinformation. Noise.
Wow. I'm really blown away by this. Everybody's eyes have been on the wrong implementations of the technology. Healthcare implementations based on the IP - cool, cool, cool. It was bandied about years ago but nobody has had this sort of possibility on their radar...amazing!
To post this cliche after learning that one of the wealthiest entrepreneurs in the country has taken a stake...
that's the cliche of a guy wearing uncomfortable shorts.