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.
I was sick a long long time ago. Now I just find myself sitting in the corner sucking my thumb. I cannot believe the company has had nothing to say about, well, anything. Unbelievable.
I've been shocked for some time, and now I'm finally "awed." So I guess that means about $2mil for NMPR? I believe estimates for NMPR alone were in the range of $4mil last year, so I think that tells us a lot of outside perception of NEOM. I suspect buyers knew we were on the ropes last year or otherwise the deal would have been closed a long time ago for much more. I don't necessarily blame CH as much as I see it as necessary to move forward. Would you rather have had him spend time and money on trying to negotiate a higher price given the circumstances? It would only serve to drag out the process longer and further "chip" (pun intended) away at NEOM's credibility in the market. By the time of CH's arrival I'd say the SH's had already been screwed on these deals so just close them and move on. That being said, it's time for him to start executing his idea of a business plan to make up for it. @#@&(%#@%!!!! AIMHO.
That actually felt like a conference call with a CEO who has a real vision. Not to knock the previous job holder, but Hoffman's confidence and apparent "take charge" approach is relieving. I also am relieved we will see more agreements with competitors (and yes, even with Scanbuy) moving forward. He is definitely onboard with cooperating rather than just litigating which is in all of our interests long term. If there is a real chance to be "leap-frogged" it is in getting bogged down in a strictly win or lose approach while everyone else is out there trying to sell or develop. If they are paying licenses to us then haven't we won anyway? I think there is some inherent recognition as an industry leader if your "competitors" are paying you licenses. With the state of Neomedia's current integration into the market (or lack thereof) I think it would be extremely risky/ too risky to allow a judge or jury decide this. We'll see if the pps holds up, but I personally am at least a little relieved by the call. I really wish we could've thrown out the R/S question at least to hear his initial reaction. I tried but didn't make it. Anyway, all IMO.
I think we will get a "bull by the horns" approach with some recognition of (but unwillingness to rehash) past mistakes. If he comes out with a deer in the headlights approach and says he is still getting up to speed with things, then I think we are in for a long afternoon.....again. I think/hope he knows he has to restore some integrity to managment. Also, as a former military officer I'm betting he is very "results oriented" with less time and patience for espousing long term "super-company" ideas. I guess those are the 2 best intangibles I'm hoping he brings to the table, integrity and mission oriented results. Fingers crossed...
Ps. I have been absent, but unfortunately haven't sold a share.
OT: Clawman- I'm with you. It sounds corny but if the legal practice has taught me anything one thing is most certainly the importance of vocabulary. Then again, I suppose it really depends on what the meaning of "is"......is. LOL What a classic line--he should have been a litigator. I felt like asking to amend my ballot after I heard that.
I missed something a while back. How did we establish the PP / TS connection in the first place? Is it verifiable? Regardless of whether he knew, he comes out looking like an *&%^*. If he knew then it has the appearance of simple manipulation/corruption. If he didn't know then it takes away a LOT of credibility from his service.
Very interesting. Keep in mind that the PL won because the DF failed to appear. In other words, the case was not decided on its merits. The jury only considered arguments and evidence regarding damages. Nonetheless, judging from TS's infantile response I agree and think it is good advice to be calculated in criticizing him.
They are not allowed to name names pursuant to contractual restrictions.
If it is SS who was in settlement talks with NEOM, then it sure makes sense of the past year and his coverage of NEOM. It would explain why he was miffed by NEOM and why he would have an interest in not covering the company objectively in hopes the price would gradually fall until he signed the settlement agreement. It would have been interesting to see what coverage he would have given NEOM after the settlement closed. I am surprised in that he seems/seemed to be an intelligent person, but if this really happened as it appears, then it was a complete bonehead move. Ironically, one of main differences between humans and all other primates is our ability to create complex ideas and new technologies---in other words, "are you ******g kidding me, if that's the best you could come with to make some extra cash then you're nothing more than your average run of the mill primate." LOL You may want to sell your tech portfolio and buy energy, perhaps petroleum...
Re: Chartist and Jonsieatl- for those of you who are trying to better understand their point of view I would recommend "Trading for a Living" by Alexander Elder. It's a great book for beginner investors/traders (as I consider myself) and has a good section on psychology in the market. IMO both have provided, and I'm sure will continue to provide, very valuable input. That being said, did I follow Chartist's advice re: Neom? No. Do I wish I had, and did I learn ANOTHER lesson? You bet.
Jen: I'm still feverishly trying. Again, bad timing I think. I also still haven't re-subscribed for the PM's but will do so soon.
OT: Pampalon. I just read over your post very quickly (obviously) and didn't follow the entire history, so I didn't catch the "cut and paste." I must admit it did appear out of character so I should have gone a little further. My sincere apologies. To the real author, however, consider this a repost of my earlier post (exclamation points added), and I hope my foot flies out of my mouth and hits you in the @$$.
OT: Pampalon. Your argument about the O.J. case and attorneys in general is fundamentally flawed. Attorneys are generally not witnesses against their clients and therefore aren't telling lies in their defense. They are simply arguing an interpretation of the facts based on the admissible evidence (that which the jury will be instructed to consider). The entire "Dream Team" could have known O.J. was guilty and yet still be bound by ethical obligations to make the arguments you are criticizing (and thank the Lord for that by the way).
Johhny Cochran was never questioned under oath as to whether O.J.'s hand was cut before he got on the plane, and therefore did not make any misrepresentation. Had he been questioned (never would have happened based on privilege) and had he known the hand was cut, he would have had to testify accordingly or perjure himself. Again, he did not misrepresent to the jury the condition of O.J's hand--he simply made an argument/representation favorable to his client based on the evidence/facts (the people who didn't see the cut). If there were no such evidence he could not make that argument before the jury (it would be objectionable as argumentative as not based on evidence). I personally think O.J. is guilty as sin but think Johnny Cochran did an absolute textbook job at defending him (unfortunately).
How does that relate to us NEOM Ihubbers? Well, I would be objecting on a daily basis to mainy of the "bashers" AND "pumpers" here for making arguments not based on the evidence. Much of it is absolutely absurd. I have been extremely busy these past months and haven't been a very active participant on the board, but I have to say I'm not sure I would have been all that active based on some of the nonsense I have seen. They are not interpreting facts. They are making misrepresentations, period. They are simply throwing spitballs hoping one or two stick every so often, whether it is to simply seek some self gratification by ruining someone's day or making themselves feel better about their investments.
As for Clawman, as far as I'm concerned he has contributed far more to this board than many here (definitely including myself) and if he wants to throw out the occaisional name then have at it.
By the way, if you want to know of someone not under oath who told a lie and went to jail, just look to Mr. John Karr. He lied about killing Jon Benet Ramsey all the while not under oath and was subsequently taken to jail for it. There's your "case." How's that for a misrepresentation?
OT: Success: Hopefully I'll have something for you in the next couple of days. I feel like the "Lil' Engine" here. Just haven't had any luck yet--bad timing it seems.
Aktienbraut: Unfortunately the author is only talking about Fosfor Gadgets and how it has come up with a list of the 10 most stylish cell phones. He/She goes on to express some disagreement with the certain phones in the classification. That Qode site looks like it's from Qatar and not really relevant to us. It talks of "Qode" discovering a vulnerability in the web browser of Nokia phones that can leas to a crash. I only gave this a quick "look over" but it doesn't seem to be of much relevance to us. :(
Personalizit. Honestly, I don't remember the exact time frame. From what I recall, however, it was over a period of a few days and it ran very quickly to .43 or .44 intraday and then closed in the .10's or .20's. When I have a moment I'll have to go back and and look at the charts, but that's how I remember it.
.44 Run. It did in fact happen in September of that time (don't remember the exact time though). That's what first called my attention to the stock as well.
OT: Beam- the basis of contract law is "consideration" which does not have to be monetary. I'll get back to you later on the China and fact issues you raised. Gotta run for now.
Success: Thanks, and good to see you again--although I have been "watching" you, but just from a distance. lol.
Fluff PR? Hmmmm....let me think. What would I rather have? A fluff PR to give the pps a little boost, or silence and a pps that falls through .20. I'll have to get back to you on that.
Some people need to see the forest throught the trees. These PR's are an important way that your company communicates with you. You have to read between the lines sometimes (or should I say through the fluff). Take a moment and think about what else may be inferred from the PR. Look at the facts (if you believe them--otherwise don't waste your time).
OT: A long overdue hello to those who may have wondered if I sold out and moved on. Still holding every share, although I won't buy more until I have a better idea of how many cylinders our business plan is hitting on at the moment. I've just been working 18 hour days for a long time now and have a new daughter that assures I'm occupied the other 6. I can barely keep up with reading the board these days. Hopefully things will slow down a bit this summer and I can participate more.
OT: Nutsoc, that guy can have all the change in my piggy bank, LOL.
Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble.......As per the PR it looks like this is our last acquisition for a while. I wonder what that means for Scanbuy? I think Clawman is right. They probably see the writing on the wall (they are that last little piece in the corner with no ghosts in sight) and the tortious interference is an attempt to up the sales price. At this point though, with the "super company" that NEOM is constructing, can Scanbuy really compete? Seriously, if you are a product owner, who are you going to call? A small, private company with an interesting technology that they most probably don't own rights to or the "super company" that appears to have created and owns the technology and who has proven "built-in" marketing components with their own established clientele with fortune 500 companies? I think NEOM with its agressive posturing over the past few weeks just indirectly bought out Scanbuy.
Great post SS. Let' start "strategizing.
Saskwatch is correct IMO. THere is no need for an actual vote given the SH agreement. The ballots will be mailed primarily for the dissenters to make sure the last "t" is crossed under FL law. Other than that it is not necessary.
Tortious Interference:
Below is a nice summary/explanation. I can say it is EXTREMELY difficult to win that type of argument. I don't have time to break it down further but the explanation below is pretty good. I hope that's their best argument--if so this will be easier than we thought:
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE TORTS WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
Nature of the Tort of Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
The elements of that tort of are: '(1) an economic relationship between [the plaintiff and some third person] containing the probability of future economic benefit to the [plaintiff], (2) knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the relationship, (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship, (4) actual disruption of the relationship, [and] (5) damages to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.' (Buckaloo v. Johnson (1975) 14 Cal.3d 815, 827.)
It seems clear that this tort is the broader of the two so-called interference torts. The other is interference with contract. The tort of 'interference with contractual relations has its roots in the tort of 'inducing breach of contract.'' (Seaman's Direct Buying Service Inc. v. Standard Oil Co. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 752, 765.) The latter is merely a species of the former. The principal difference between them is that 'the existence of a legally binding agreement is not a sine qua non to the maintenance of a suit based on the more inclusive wrong.' (Buckaloo, supra, at 823.) 'Both the tort of interference with contract relations and the tort of interference with prospective contract or business relations involve basically the same conduct on the part of the tortfeasor. In one case the interference takes place when a contract is already in existence, in the other, when a contract would, with certainty, have been consummated but for the conduct of the tortfeasor. . . . Rather than characterizing the two as separate torts, the more rational approach seems to be that the basic tort of interference with economic relations can be established by showing, inter alia, an interference with an existing contract or a contract which is certain to be consummated, with broader grounds for justification of the interference where the latter situation is presented.' (Builders Corporation of America v. U.S. (N.D.Cal.'57) 148 F.Supp. 482, 484, fn. 1, revd. on other grounds (9th Cir.'58) 259 F.2d 766, see also Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co.(1990) 50 Cal.3d 1118, 1126.)
In either case, '[A]s Justice Tobriner said in the context of voidable contracts: 'The actionable wrong lies in the inducement to break the contract or to sever the relationship, not in the kind of contract or relationship so disrupted, whether it is written or oral, enforceable or not enforceable.' ' (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., supra, 50 Cal.3d at 1127.) However, it must be remembered that these torts are intentional torts.
In discussing the related tort of inducing breach of contract, the Supreme Court has stated: 'The act of inducing the breach must be an intentional one. If the actor had no knowledge of the existence of the contract or his actions were not intended to induce a breach, he cannot be held liable though an actual breach results from his lawful and proper acts. ' Imperial Ice Co. v. Rossier (1941) 18 Cal.2d 33, 37.) The Restatement of Torts explained it this way, 'The essential thing is the purpose to cause the result. If the actor does not have this purpose, his conduct does not subject him to liability under this rule even if it has the unintended effect of deterring the third person from dealing with the other.' (Rest., Torts, section 766, com. d, emphasis added.) It is not enough that the actor intended to perform the acts which caused the result -- he or she must have intended to cause the result itself. Although these views were expressed in the context of the tort of inducing breach of contract, the expansion of that tort into the broader wrongs of interfering with contractual relations or prospective economic advantage has not altered the requirement that the defendant act with culpable intent. (Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., supra, 36 Cal.3d at 766.) '[T]o prevail on a cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, plaintiff must plead and prove 'intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship.' ' (Ibid., quoting from Buckaloo v. Johnson, supra, 14 Cal.3d at 827.)
A Party To An Economic Relationship Cannot, As A Matter Of Law, Commit Or Conspire To Commit A Tortious Interference Therewith
There is an important limitation to the use of this tort as a remedy for the disruption of contractual relationships. It can only be asserted against a stranger to the relationship. '[C]onsistent with its underlying policy of protecting the expectations of contracting parties against frustration by outsiders who have no legitimate social or economic interest in the contractual relationship, the tort cause of action for interference with a contract does not lie against a party to the contract. ' (Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 514.) 'It is obvious that if an action is brought for interference with contractual relationship by one party to a contract against another who is also a party to that same contract, the grievance of the plaintiff is, in essence, breach of contract; and, in such case, plaintiff is entitled to recover all damages flowing from the breach. In such an instance to allow the plaintiff to sue under the tort theory of wrongful interference with contractual rights would not only be superfluous, but also would enable him to recover tort damages (e.g., punitive damages, damages for mental suffering) to which he is not entitled under California law.' (Dryden v. Tri-Valley Growers (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 990, 999, emphasis added; see also Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 24.)
Over thirty years ago, an appellate court did hold that one contracting party, by use of a conspiracy theory, could impose liability on another for the tort of interference with that contract. (Wise v. Southern Pacific Co. (1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 50, 71-72.) This decision was accepted and followed in a number of appellate cases. However, it was never accepted by the Supreme Court.
Now, in Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., supra, 7 Cal.4th 503, the Supreme Court has firmly rejected the Wise rule. It cited two reasons for doing so: '(1) t illogically expands the doctrine of civil conspiracy by imposing tort liability for an alleged wrong -- interference with a contract -- that the purported tortfeasor is legally incapable of committing; and (2) it obliterates vital and established distinctions between contract and tort theories of liability by effectively allowing the recovery of tort damages for an ordinary breach of contract.' (Id., at 510.)
'One contracting party owes no general tort duty to another not to interfere with performance of the contract; its duty is simply to perform the contract according to its terms. The tort duty not to interfere with the contract falls only on strangers -- interlopers who have no legitimate interest in the scope or course of the contract's performance. [para.] The invocation of conspiracy does not alter this fundamental allocation of duty. Conspiracy is not an independent tort; it cannot create a duty or abrogate an immunity. It allows tort recovery only against a party who already owes the duty and is not immune from liability based on applicable substantive tort law principles. Because a party to a contract owes no tort duty to refrain from interference with its performance, he or she cannot be bootstrapped into tort liability by the pejorative plea of conspiracy.' (Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., supra, 7 Cal.4th at 514.)
As a matter of law, there is a threshold causation requirement in order to establish the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. What is required is 'proof that it is reasonably probable that the lost economic advantage would have been realized but for the defendant's interference. (Youst v. Longo (1987) 43 Cal.3d 64, 71.) 'Over the past several decades, California courts analyzing the tort of interference with prospective economic advantage have required such a threshold determination. In Buckaloo v. Johnson . . . , where we set out the five elements of the intentional form of the tort, we stated that the first element requires 'the probability of future economic benefit.' Although varying language has been used to express this threshold requirement, the cases generally agree it must be reasonably probable that the prospective economic advantage would have been realized but for defendant's interference.' (Id., at 71, fn. omitted.)
2nd TRANSLATION:
Ebay is completing it’s 5th birthday and to celebrate this important event the entire Community is invited to a big event that will take place in Milan on Sunday, February 5th.
Music, Talk Show, shows , and performances will accompany you for the entire day until the cake cutting and more…
Entrance is free. Register soon for the event.
There will be space dedicated to the different categories, a stand for PayPal, one dedicated to PMI where the community can talk with the Ebay staff.
It will also be possible to freely participate in some sessions at Ebay University, to assist inhe miraculous performance in body painting and to participate in a live auction.
Otherwise it will be worth celebrating the 5th birthday of Ebay.
Click here to have all the information and a map on how to reach the place
TRANSLATION:
Hey everyone. I'm going to be pretty absent in these days as I have been in the past weeks. I'll try to chime in when possible and I apologize for not answering any posts that have been directed to me. I simply haven't been able to. Seems like things may be heating up though.
Translation for the first link:
"To register for the event insert your information here below: you will receive an email confirmation containing your PASS which is valid for access for 1 person.
Print it and take it with you and present it to the hostess in the appropriate credit area.
Don’t forward the email: the PASS is not transferable; it’s reserved for you and gives right to only 1 access. If you want to get your friends involved, invite them to register furnishing their addresses to the following page:
It’s nolonger possible to register online. You can do it directly on Sunday at the entrance."
I think this is the PR that sets the stage for the ending of the QP. I'm thinking/hoping the timing is no coincidence and that this PR tells everyone that they own the toll bridge to mobile marketing which will be followed by an avalanche of news/marketing campaign showing interested parties how and why they should cross the bridge. The anticipation is killing me......
Success: I agree. This just seems to be a CYA sort of thing knowing the cell phone will be the primary platform. This is definitely a good thing IMO. I don't have to time review this this at the time (I have a "colicky" baby in my arms) but didn't Scanbuy file for a patent similar to Neom's at some point? If so, it would be interesting to compare dates and specifics, etc. (whether it was just for the cell phone or the general bridge idea). Also, to play devil's advocate (pun intended), if I were Scanbuy's attorney or any other company wanting to break the patents I would try to argue that this new patent is further evidence that the previous "general bridge" patents were too broad. Problem for Scanbuy is that if you win on that argument and defeat the "general" patent, you've got today's new patent waiting right behind it. Gotta run
OT: SOG: Agreed and also agree it is time to move on to other fish. I think JP was right that this has cleared the way, so let's get it done!LOL. Gotta run for now.
I gotta say there was something hypnotic about that post of yours. All I know is that at the end I had a mental image of Nemo carrying a coffee bean "football" wearing a Starbucks helmet and getting stuffed on a 4th and 1 (all the while little minnows are cheering "Gimme a P...P!..Gimme a G...G!")
OT: Pimps: Good to see you are still around. I'm still here, lurking more than anything else lately. My days just keep getting shorter and shorter so it hard enough to just be able to keep up with reading the board--actually posting is a luxury that I indulge in every so often.
As for the World Cup, did you see that USA and Italy are in the same group? I've already opened wagers on the game--I'm even calling the USA by 1. Is that crazy or what? Anyway, glad to see you still here and I'll keep you posted on the Azzuri.
Clawmann: All good points and I agree with you and think it was the announcement and not the signing hat triggered the SEC scrutiny. I too hope they will ratchet up the "regulatory compliance dept." in the future. I'm sure it has been somewhat embarassing for them as well that it has taken so long to close the deal, especially if they are in talks with the Microsofts and Googles. As for the filings, I know me and when I have a blatant typo or something in a document with my name on it, it drives me NUTS!--especially if it is getting filed somewhere with an indefinite "shelf life." I think I am still just terrified my old legal writing professor is going to somehow stumble across it and track me down, LOL (he was ruthless!).
Clawmann: It is my understanding that NEOM was surprised in that the SEC had never requested that sort of information in the past. IOW, there was no precedent even for their counsel to think they would have to include the audited financials since it was a non-binding LOI. Add to that a certain learning curve that goes with merging with a public company and the mistake, although disappointing, is more understandable. It's not like these guys are Microsoft or Google or have bought a bunch of public companies in the past.
I'm a stickler for the detail thing as well, but we all make mistakes (just go back a few months and check out my posts regarding Scanbuy--ooops). What would really trouble me is if they were to repeat the same type of error.
Anyway, that' just my opinion and if there's another amendment I take it all back, lol. By the way, are practicing?
OT: Movieguy and Allin: Sorry, I was so busy typing I didn't check to see if someone else had already responded. Didn't mean to "pile on."
Some of you folks are unbelievable. Or should I say shame on you JP for not completely dropping your own personal life and career during the holiday season to spoon feed us impatient I-hubbers? If I were JP, I personally wouldn't lose another minute's thought about posting notes from the SHM. It's a favor to all of us that he, and everybody else who went to the SHM, are going to take/have taken their personal time to take notes at the SHM and post a follow up. If it were so important then perhaps it would have been a good idea to purchase a ticket and attend in person. Besides, last I knew my subscription fees to Ihub were not making it to any of the Moderators pockets. And last I knew JP was nolonger a Moderator, and, even if so, what exactly ARE the "obligations" to any of us?
I personally found a lot of info in what Neom posted on their website combined with the comments made by those who did attend, AND I suspect you won't find a whole lot more in what JP posts (and bebfore someone makes the suggestion, it's not that I'm saying JP doesn't have something valuable to add, it's because those that did attend seemed to have covered most angles if you mesh it with the Neom presentation). Again, thanks to those that attended and shared, and thanks to you JP if you find time to post your comments. I definitely wouldn't inconvenience myself. Falalalalalalalalala.........
Sorry for the delay (I've been away) but I wanted to say thanks to everyone who attended the SHM. Great job on your "reporting" --- it's good to get the different perspectives. And glad to see nobody rioted, lol. Thanks again.
Personalizit: I'm not sure about that $3 requirement for AMEX. I thought so as well but I believe Covad moved there last year (now DVW) when their price was around $1.30. Will need to check on that. As for the European spellings in the presentation, my guess is that could also have been Mr. Copus.
PocketPool: Savor this moment because it's the only time I will respond to you. Just wanted to point out that as I don't know you and you don't know me (and unless you are my wife playing some kind of silly joke and posting under an alias) you have no idea on what basis I invested in this stock. Maybe I saw the letters n, e, o, m in a dream. Maybe my dog whispered it in my ear. Maybe my secretary slipped and told me we were out of paperclicks and I saw that as an omen. Or maybe I just wanted to buy them a pot to piss in. So I appreciate your concern with my investment but the bottom line is you really have no idea why I invested. GLTY
Pimpster: I have had my share of sleepless nights and I'm not saying I don't sit in front of the mirror every now and then and curse at Neom. I just don't do it on the message board. I like to think of this thread as a professional forum of all different levels of experience which deserves professional behavior. I personally don’t like to see whining or baseless pumping as both are distractive.
That said, I do have a decent sized position (for me at least) but did not turn positive until around this year. I also bought a bunch more at substantially higher levels than we are right now during the "runup." I know how these folks are feeling and I HAVE sold at a substantial loss in other stocks for the exact reasons I posted to Personalizit. For example, I had an average (large) position of 1.77 and sold at .49 and on another an average position of around .92 and sold at .72 or so. So I do know what it's like to have that sinking sick feeling to be down that much and to lose sleep over it.
As for being in over my head, that 1.77 to .49 stock was one of my first and was purchased with a 20k loan (it takes money to make money and I had none starting out). So instead of repaying that loan off in a few months as planned, I had the pleasure of making those monthly payments over a course of 4 years at a time when student loan payments came into repayment and when I was planning an international move. So I know how people are feeling but I’m just saying be professional about it and if you feel like your money is not in good hands then by all means take it back. Good luck to you my friend.
Personalizit: In fact, my stance wouldn't change at all as per what I previously wrote. If I had had personal conversations with management and felt that I had been lied to or that they had miserably overstated performance to an extent that I had lost confidence in them, I would sell. No questions, no discussion. I have done it before and I would certainly do it again. The hardest part is meshing the feeling that there is incredible potential in the technology and the future share price with the feelings of disappointment, betrayal, etc. from being told something that has not panned out or seems to have been deceiving. The anxiety and stress created by the collision of these opposing emotions often manifests itself in anger and pure negative energy. In other words, you know that the company can, and suspect that it will, do great things but you are exteremely pissed off that it hasn't performed as expected or as promised, but you know as soon as you take your money off the table it will start running. That's a tough spot and I myself have been there and I finally sold (I even peek in on the old stock now and then). I will do the same here if or when I reach that point with management. So to make a long story short, no my position wouldn't change if I had the same conversations you did. It may have changed my "position" in this stock but that's about it.
Personalizit: I respect everyone has a timeframe but here is my 2 cents. I was set close on a villa back in September with NEOM proceeds. Had the partial financing set up and everything, expecting some great movement at the end of September. My wife was extatic and I was pretty pumped myself. Needless to say, we didn't close for obvious reasons and I was extremely disappointed while my wife was completely beside herself ("Italian mad" if you will). I took that on the chin realizing it was MY deadline that NEOM didn't make. I didn't take that opportunity to take shots at mgmt for missing it, nor did I adopt an increasingly negative outlook to all that NEOM seems to be doing. I evaluated the situation, still felt comfortable with my investment and moved on. I've tried to always maintain a pretty fair and unbiased approach to what the company is doing. I'm as disappointed as anyone that this QP has been drawn out for so long, etc. (By the way, for those who insist that there is no QP please pick up the phone and find out for yourselves and if you still don't believe it or think you are being lied to then sell your shares). The fact that I lost what, for us was a dream house, did not, I hope, enter into my posting on this thread. That said, the Monday Morning Quarterbacks, Chicken Littles, and, for lack of a better word, whiners, are becoming intollerable. I can't for the life of me can't understand people who are seemingly so unhappy and disgusted with a company would choose to continue to entrust their hard-earned money with it.
Of course everyone has a timeframe but that's just it. It's theirs only and if things don't fit their schedule then sorry but too bad. Take the money off the table and play elsewhere rather than constantly spewing out negative energy. I'm all for the unbiased criticism of the company but NOT for criticism that comes in the form of sour apples. My age and financial obligations are MY problems and NOT Neom's and I certainly don't want them making business decisions based on them.
For those that can wait, great it's good to have you let's hope this thing works out. For those that can't, well it's been great having you, sorry you can't stay, and best of luck to you. Stop in and say hi but please don't linger around trying to spoil it for the rest. Now where's my damn pink pill....?!
Moderators, please delete Steeler's post 45299, LOL.