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.
Spread (.12 / .30) speaks volumes (no cynical pun inteded) about both the stubborn hands that hold as well as general apprehesion to diving in...
Scratch that (I just noticed the fine print)
TXPO implications?
Why? Just seemed like an innocent enough, homey little positive fluff piece. What's the downside?
From one who has paid pratically no attention to this stock since I sold in autumn '05 ($0.50 share), my opinion is based 100% from: 1) Price action, 2) Neom-specific news releases, and 3) issued/authorized activity. In other words, if there's any real third party "buzz" about neom's prospects, technology and/or patents, I just simply wouldn't know (I had long jaundiced on the "dot-connecting" intrigue that found the board so riddled with what can now be viewed as non-impacting articles, news releases, technological papers, etc).
Jonesie, you have hit the nail on the head when you invite all comers to provide just one single example of a company in neom's current shape that has gone on to find soundness or even solvency, not to mention anything like grandeur.
Stocks with billions and billions of sub-penny shares just don't make it. Period. As far as the technology goes, my couple of years away from this stock and this board (for the most part) has found me noticing the key purposes and substance of the techology being achieved in so many different ways by so many other companies, I just assume that neom's train left long, long ago.
As to charges that former management were well aware of what they were doing in the toxic-financing deals, I'm not prepared to conclude that the patents and the tech hype were mere window dressing for a common penny-paper game. But I wouldn't be surprised if the proportions were less than a somewhat honorable mix (i.e. 51% we believe in the product / 49% we'll make money even if the product sinks (and our shareholders' resources right along with it)).
Jonesie, Do you have any real "reasons" for not looking at the stock as a strong buy, or are you just continuing to be motivated by "feelings"?
I see $0.45. It never traded below $0.43 today.
Interesting. Thanks much....
Is there something concrete that points to a near-probable relationship between txp and fugitsu as it relates to this fugitsu-verizon contract?
I'm thinking the transaction was most likely between the company and Cornell. I'm not sure that a share buy-back by the issuer is a reportable event (treasury stock).
It would be a positive move with the only concern being the use of precious working capital for the purchase. If that is the case, I don't doubt that all of the implications have been thought through....
If that's the case, it would have been a very shrewd transaction indeed. While my thinking may be faulty, that would 1) allow Cornell to capture some profits on a portion of it's shares without causing havoc in the trading while at the same time, 2) allow Von Ehr to exercise some of his .40 warrants (?). (I'm not sure how that would work: it assumes that he has readily exercizable warrants at .40 (the recent ones aren't exercizable until one year), and I'm not sure it's possible to exercize warrants other than directly through the company (i.e. I'm not sure TXP could pair Cornell's willingness to sell shares with Von Ehr's desire to exercise warrants at the same price. That, to me, would somehow run afoul of rules for calculating a company's fully diluted shares position: i.e. there's no dilution if, rather than issuing new shares per the rights of a warrant holder, a willing seller is simply willing to sell already existing shares at the strike price to the warrant holder).
So, it's still a bit perplexing to me. Certainly, given von Ehr's hefty share count (actual and warrants), he didn't simply say, "hey, I think I'll buy another 1.5mil").
Yes, that makes good sense, except that that sounds like a private placement, which would avoid the tape (a couple of weeks ago Shores bought shares from a former TXP executive in a private placement and that did not hit the tape at all: 400k shares @ .22). I'm wondering, given your reasonable thought that this was also a private placement, what could be the difference between this transaction and that one in the past that this one showed up on the tape and the other one didn't.
Trading mechanics question(s): Regarding the AHS: does the 1.5mil transaction represent a) a market maker taking the risk of purchasing all those shares for its own inventory (albeit at a currently attractive price), b) a pre-arranged transaction between a buyer and seller at a pre-arraned price (but wouldn't that be a private sale and bypass the tape altogether?) or, c) something else?
In reference to a) above: I'm not sure that a market maker would shackle itself with such a relatively large position on its own. The attractive price is very relative (a couple of weeks ago, .40 would have been fairly rich. The low float seems to me to argue against a market maker incurring such risk).
In reference to b) above: Could two concurring private parties do such a thing through the tape? That would seem to me to contradict the efficient public market presumption that is the basis for bid/ask movement.
Another question: since the trade was done after hours, what will the "last price" show when the market opens tommorow? The heart of this question goes to transparency: if the last price stays at .64, wouldn't public perception be mislead (the very gremlin whose demise is the aim of so much securities regulation)?
Is there anybody here who has some real clarity regarding any or all of these issues? Your thoughts are much appreciated.
And vaporized is that pesky little "going concern" blip for the time being as well.
Nice. More of the ideal type of financing: Bank loans guaranteed by the company's principal. The limited number of warrants in exchange for the collateral guaranty insure minimal dilution (and the warrant price is not excessively cut-rate).
Well, no one will ever accuse this board of being a bastion of endless chatter and hype....
What the heck was that? Tumultuous sideways flurries pressed into a concentrated time period...Even the illusion of activity is welcome with this stock....
It's interesting that this guy who also owns a bunch of warrants to buy stock (and who has clearly shown some committment to the company) wanted to get himself another 1mil shares at what was the current approx. market price (without, driving the price into the stratosphere...)
Definitely not a bad sign. A good sign? Maybe...
Pwood, that gave me a chuckle. But, hey, we're not in the business of censorship...
Yes, Caddie, I'm convinced regarding the increasing growth (probably dramatic). But my inquiry has to do with costs and margins. The financials show that, as growth increases, so do losses. Now, that is typical of a start-up as infrastructure costs precede the business that will flow from that infrastructure. But I'm very interested in Shores' perspective on what the "stabilized" cost structure will look like. Clearly, growth is not helpful if, for every $1 received, it takes $1.01 in costs to support the sale.
But it makes perfect sense that one might initially spend $10 in year1 if that $10 is going to result in $20 of future sales in years2,3, etc. It really doesn't matter that sales of $1 in year1 result in a ($9) loss in year1 if it can be shown that there are still $19 more in sales to come in years2,3,etc based on that initial $10 cost.
My point is that I'd like to get a clear idea of the profitability model that I'm sure Shores has plastered at the back of his mind's eye at all times.
Extension Filed. No 10Q for a while....
http://secfilings.com/companies/1171749/Txp-Corporation/secfilings.aspx
Operating losses and net losses need to be explained strategically (by Shores). In Q306 the net loss (not including a non-cash derivatives gain) was ($500k). Q307 it's ($2mil). One obvious reason is the purchase of the Siemens platform (personnel,etc). But that's been nearly a year now.
I think it's time to get an idea of what the stabilized margins really are regarding the business lines. Revenue increases are only positive if there is not a direct, positive correlation between increased revenues and increased losses. I'm sure Shores is focused intensely on the margin issues and has a clear grasp on the existing cost structure, but it's time to communicate clearly, in some detail, what is the path to profitability.
Wow, check out the link. These guys took Wal-mart and Tyson Foods public... 13th largest investment bank in the country...lots more... These guys are the real deal.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1990/02/12/73062/index.htm
Alas, Steve, while I sympathize with your feeling isolated as it relates to what appears to be a running monologue regarding txpo, rest assured, you are well read (by me), but not so well understood (by me) that any meaningful response may be offered (by me).
My very layman's take: Tellabs is experiencing demand for a product in which txpo specializes. Tellabs needs to improve its margins. The product could be outsourced to txpo at a cheaper price than Tellabs can produce on its own.
I very much appreciate your adding so much muscle and tissue over that bare-boned skeleton I've outlined above.
Thank you again.
Sean
Clearly, this stock is a "story" stock and as such, does not/will not show correlation with the overall market. That works against us on the market's good days and for us on the bad days. I like that Shores has not engaged the huckster-promoters, penny shamsters and charlatans in a bid to play the penny momentum game (99.999% of "hot" penny stocks are "hot" as a result of that type of manipulation accompanied by a never-ending stream of pr's filled with innuendo and "forward-looking" language). Nope, Shores' shares (and yours and mine as well) will rise as real revenue and margins are brought to bear. The greatest comfort I take in what has become a long-term holding (2+ years so far) is the absence of any/all penny games....
Yes, that Google quirk does make it a bit easy to miss a post here and there. I like I-Hub best but saw such little activity on the txpo board, Google seemed the natural home (I never check RB anymore since, at the time of the board's inception, there was some technical glitch that never got resolved.
It does seem that Cornell is treating txpo with dignity (shoot, I'm in commercial lending and there ain't NOBODY charging 6% today (that's about libor + 60bp: in other words, stellar credit risk). Clearly, Cornell is doing it for the warrants and those aren't structured nearly as scarily as with some of their other "clients".
I was actually very surprised to see that m.shores didn't raise the additional equity. It does concern me. I've got to believe it was his top priority since 3/31, and he fell short. Of course, that's not to say that the $$ isn't there just waiting to be confirmed. But one would think, given what appears to be a highly favorable position in its market space, there would have been folks that would have gladly stepped up, $1mil in hand...
I hope there's something in the works other than a phone directory and a lot of hope.
I'm wondering how, specifically, this high profile mention might show more promise than the historical high profile mention neom has received over time. I know there are at least several folks here who could in very short order produce an impressive list of various media in which neom has been touted as a player in FuturoWorld. Is today's excitement limited to the fact that the NYT is super-duper high profile (as opposed to just very impressive, etc)?
I'm sure it is no news to anybody here that journalists are notoriously subject to the heard mentality. I believe it is this reason (combined of course with the fact that neom truly is one of a small handful of companies in this space) that we've seen neom's name in these types of pieces over the years. But someone has said it and it is very true: A journalist's propensity to grab the most easily accessible info to bolster his deadline copy is not by any means indicative of the subject company's future prospects (i.e. it makes a good read but not necessarily a good investment).
But I am certainly open to the fact that I may be missing something in today's excitement. Again, is it anything more than a mention in a high profile publication?
Very shrewd, FHanen, buying when the world is fleeing in horror. That is a tribute to your market saavy. Tell me, is that your $7.28 worth of stock that is the sum total of shares traded so far today by 12:30pm? If so, I think I see your strategy, buying "under the radar" and all. Lord knows, there's a real shortage of worthless shells out there and your shares will command top $$ in the future!
Bird, JP IS CKYS. There is no one to throw him out! Why do you keep posting in that same presumptive vein that assumes there is some sort of real company that exists separately from JP? Many people have clarified the fact for you that the only thing here is a worthless shell.
So again, what EXACTLY do you mean when you say "I hope CKYS throws him out on the sidewalk and never look back or anyone involved in frauding the people (investors) trying to support in building the company."
That is nonsense. Who is "CKYS" that "CKYS" can "throw JP out"?
Come on Bird, clearly that's not what you mean when you speak of someone else stepping up to the plate to make this company work. Ok, you got me there. It was set up as a legal entity with a tax id#.
Or, are you proposing that someone actually execute the ckys business plan (re-sell/brand commodity items)? If that's what you're seeking, take great comfort in the fact that there are, like, a gazillion companies already doing that. Take your pick. I would just refrain from investing in one though ; the margins are razor thin and the competition is brutal (that was a MAJOR tell-tale sign of JP's lies : he was claiming 40% NET margins on reselling chinese commodity technology).
Bird, there's really nothing left. The lights are out. Sure there's a shell, but there's no shortage of shells available. All's it takes is a little $$ and a sleazy attorney licensed to do business in Nevada.
Bird, hello!! THERE IS NO COMPANY. THERE NEVER HAS BEEN A COMPANY. There are no other employees. JP bought a sign, rented office space, hired a webpage consultant, purchased advertising, issues lying PRs ALL TO SELL WORTHLESS PAPER to you. Flashdrives were the window dressing.
Bird, you could do all of the things listed above and, once you were arrested, you would laugh at the folks you screwed if they said things like, "Well, maybe now that Bird's gone, the company can start being run effectively..."
There's no company, Bird. None. None at all, Bird.
Folks, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that JP has been posting on this very board all along (and still may be). Think about it. His only real business was to make sure the shares were hyped so that he could sell into the hot air. Investorshub is (arguably?) one of the most frequented places that investors and would-be investors gather to deceive eachother, errr, I mean, share information. Plus, his ego requires his involvement here...
Yep. Have no doubt. JP's been here all along. Hmmmm, and his alias would be....?
Don't you get it??? There is no legit company; never was one! Re-selling commodities is nearly impossible to do profitably. As for the SQUM product (non-commodity), that was a farce : JP stole the product (didn't pay for 90%) and, to the extent he actually sold any, had to mark the price way above everybody else's selling price.
JP needed the illusion of a company in order to sell shares (approx. $1.5mil per the pr). When anyone talks of the need for "JP to step down" and have management replaced, what they are really saying is that it's time for some other guy sitting in his underwear on the side of a bed in his mom's basement to hire a webpage consultant and sleazy penny creating attorney in the state of Nevada to get the paper machine cranking again.
Flipping? That is LUDICROUS! There are no market makers for these shares. There is absolutely no one who can daytrade a stock where the spread between the bid/ask is 500-1000% (at least not profitably)!!
No, these are just more of the same proof that we've seen for weeks that JP has been a serial diluter.
Good grief. It's humorous to re-read some of this righteously indignant tripe. Everybody was at fault except the guy running the scam. "Naked Shorters", "SEC Operatives", blah blah blah.
Oh yeah, it just so happens that that poster fell on her head in the last couple of days (per a self-proclaimed "best friend" who ran from the hospital to start opening and responding to the victim's mail ("quick, I must notify Renee's internet friends, whoever they may be....")).
It's ok to make mistakes. But to persist in that rant when it was all so obvious for weeks, and then to "disappear", that's just so bush-league. Don't you think?
The SEC allows the stock to trade today. The point is, the SEC knows that suspending a stock is (should be) the death knell to a stock like this. It pretty much states that on its education site. The problem is that people just wouldn't believe reality as it beat them over the head. How many posts were written SHOUTING that, with the suspension, this stock was toast? But people wouldn't believe it even though no one could produce a SINGLE EXAMPLE of a pinkie stock that went on to recover and thrive after an SEC suspension. NOT ONE!
Hey, but look at it this way : some people are still buying even as we speak.
I always wondered what exactly OJ was thinking when folks would step up to the microphone to defend his innocence. It must have been a tough place to be mentally/emotionally : the folks he could respect (i.e. those who were convinced of the TRUTH), hated him because he was obviously a brutal murderer. And, of course, he couldn't respect the folks who appeared to be "on his side" because, well, they were dupes and couldn't accept reality even as it was thwapping them in the face...
I wonder what JP thinks as he reads the missives of hopeful defenders. Does anybody still think that JP has not diluted?
It would be a great thing if this board got some traction given 1) Ragingbull has never fixed some horrendous glitch present in the txpo board start-up and, 2) Google is a newcomer and is less likely to be accessed.
However, there just aren't a heck of a lot of shareholders which, of course, is the primary reason for the lack of txpo postings on any board...
Seabiscuit, what do you mean, "when CyberKey is allowed to remedy their indiscretions and move forward..." ? What indiscretions are you referring to? Your post history props JP up as a bulwark of honesty and integrity.
Again, what indiscretions? Is scamming and lieing an "indiscretion"? Or, is it more like slightly misrepresenting the substance of a $25million contract? I'd be very interested to see the points of separation that you may employ when parsing out the differences along the way between "indiscretion" and "blatant, shameless dishonesty".
Are you at liberty to share your matrix?
Audited Financials will NEVER EVER be released for this company. To cling to that hope is as futile as it is telling about a poster's grasp of what is happening here.
I sense the same disconnect on this board as I've witnessed in the eyes and demeaner of the poor victim who has thrown down his $10 bill by the peanut/shell game scamsters outside the subways and in public parks. He knows that the peanut just has to be under shell #2. He can't even believe his own eyes when it shows up under #3 (but it never was under #3, or #2 or #1 for that matter; the scamster tricked him. From the beginning, it was never a fair contest...)
There won't be any audited financials folks. Keep in mind that $0.004 is 4x better than $0.001.