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'm not sure I'd compare a car salesman with developing and releasing a new product. I'm sure there were lots of reasons for the delays in bringing SecureView to market, but it's painfully obvious that McBride et al grossly underestimated the time and/or expense required.
Test marketing is a critical aspect of any new product introduction. It's better to selectively advertise a product that's not yet available and measure consumer interest than to spend much more money to manufacture a product, only to learn that it won't sell. I agree with you that in the case of SEVU they run the risk of customers losing interest, particularly when the final production runs are as late as we have witnessed, but if a superior competing product hasn't been introduced by the time SecureView is widely available, cancelled orders will most likely be replaced by new orders.
WOW, this board is beginning to resemble Raging BS in terms of volume of posts. I guess I contributed my share yesterday. Sorry about that.
Anyway, Cabos, which part of Proxime's post do you find surprising? I thought the whole thing made sense. Admittedly, some of the "best case" scenarios seem a bit optimistic, but he did qualify them as "best case". Am I missing something here?
Thanks
I received a PM today from someone asking if a comment I made earlier was intended to accuse FG of something covert as a result of his relationship with McBride. It's obvious that FG and I disagree on the issue of filing suit at this point, but it was not my intent to accuse him of anything illegal. Francois, if you read my comments that way, I apologize. I'll challenge your strategy, posts, comments, personality, or just about anything else, and I welcome the same about myself, but I'm not going to accuse you of anything illegal unless I have first hand knowledge, which isn't likely to happen.
Sure there's potential to benefit shareholders if all of those things were to happen. I just don't believe you can build a case to make it happen.
I'll repeat my previous offer Ken: If you can prove that I work for SeaView, either now or in the past, I'll give you all of my ten cent shares.
I tell you, in no uncertain terms, that I am in no way related to, nor do I have any ties or connections to anyone at SEVU. FG knows my history.
That being said, I do understand what's going on. I just don't think suing them is the best course of action. As an investor, the whole situation sucks. I'm trusting the SEC to take action if SEVU has broken any laws. I expect a proportional response from them. The fact of the matter is (IMO) that there are some battles we can't win. Even if one or many of us were to join together and successfully sue McBride and/or SEVU, what will we recover at the end?
I believe the best course of action is to let the SEC investigation run it's course. In the interim, let the company spend what little money they have on production and sales.
My strategy may turn out to be completely wrong, but that's the approach I'm choosing to take.
Will you believe me if I say I have no relationship with SEVU (other than being a shareholder) or anyone working for the company?
I'm not denying any of it, nor have I said that a suit may or may not be successful. All I'm saying is that I believe it would be counterproductive.
As for "friendship or fondness", this is business. I am constantly amazed by some of the absurd claims or comments people make on these boards. It's obvious that many who post here have no clue about how businesses and laws work.
SeaView has screwed up. Big time, and on many occasions. What else is new? A couple of other things that aren't new is that they have a promising product, supposedly capable new management, and are under close scrutiny of the SEC. What do people here know that the SEC doesn't? I'll go out on a limb and assume that the SEC has more facts and details than all of us combined. If SEVU or McBride is as dirty as some believe, they would have been shut down following the A@P allegations. Doesn't the fact that it didn't happen tell you anything?
"The truth" probably lies somewhere between the bashers stories and that of SEVU. Most of the people we hear from are polarized one way or the other. The most objective (and important) opinion should be that of the SEC. Personally, I'll wait for them to act before attempting to convict anyone.
Sorry FG, but your "answers" don't always carry the credibility you'd like us to believe. I'm sorry if you find my posts misleading.
You're welcome to play word games all day, but you still seem to be missing the point. Filing suit, even if successful, would most likely be counterproductive. If you feel it's something you need to do, so be it. I'm just suggesting a slightly different approach.
Unlike you, I don't claim to have all the answers. A big difference between you and me is that when I feel strongly enough about something, I go to the source. You seem to prefer meaningless message boards. I suppose that's beneficial if you want to be noticed, but it doesn't do much to rectify the situation.
Two issues to consider in answering that one. First, I would LOVE to see the terms in their entirity. Both from a curiosity standpoint and from the more important investment perspective.
Unfortunately, disclosing that info here would mean the company is posting internal business documents on a message board. That would be extremely inappropriate and would set a dangerous precedent.
I think I'd rather see some sort of announcement from the company, acknowledging the PP and summarizing it's terms. It does seem pretty weak that the info was buried in a 10Q with no further explaination. This is a big issue. I'm not familiar with selective disclosure laws, and I'm not sure I have an opinion about how the info could be presented. It doesn't seem like a PR type issue. Someone recently suggested posting some form of statement on the SEVU website. That would seem like as good a place as any, if they were to make it public.
I don't disagree with you, but have you ever heard of "choosing your battles"? If there's no benefit at the end, what's the point of proceeding? I'd rather take my chances that new mgmt can deliver. McBride is no longer CEO.
Francois, it's funny how you, of all people, accuse me of contradicting myself. I guess you ought to know what it's like.
As for posting "misdeeds" simply because they have been documented elsewhere, most evidence that's involved in a legal matters exists either in the form of testimony, has been documented, or is tangible. All I'm suggesting is that it makes the Defenses job much easier when they know farther in advance what they will have to defend.
As for participating in a lawsuit, I see no reason for me to do so. For starters, I'm not convinced a suit is warranted or potentially beneficial. I'll admit there are lots of unanswered questions, and it's quite possible that the company is guilty in some areas. So what? Even if a suit is successful, what do you hope to gain? Removal of an approved PP that hasn't even become effective yet, and may never be fully exercised, or are you going after more? Perhaps you're hoping to shut down the company. That would really be a good idea. In the unlikely event that you win, 1200 shareholders can divide very few assets. That's assuming there's anything left after the legal fees. That sounds like a brilliant strategy.
I submit that you're threatening to sue because you didn't get what you wanted from this company, so you've decided to take your toys and go home. If you can enlist enough others to share your expenses and bitterness, you may file suit on your way out the door. That would be good because you could stroke your ego and feel like you had the last word against McBride, but it wouldn't accomplish much for anyone else. You claim to have such a strong case, yet it's not intended to be a Class Action suit. If your "case" was so strong, you'd go after them yourself so you could brag about it for years to come. If in the end I end up receiving a "free ride", I'll be forever grateful. I have no interest in paying to get where you're going.
Let's not go down this road again. Buying stock in the company does not entitle you to dictate their actions unless you hold greater than 50%.
That's as absurd as buying a share of Boeing and demanding that they stop producing airplanes.
Francois, since you were kind enough to grant me permission to have an opinion (see post #11145), I'll offer a few more examples of it here.
I posted yesterday (#11141) that I believe you're sudden attacks on McBride are a result of your desire to distance yourself from McBride out of fear of being implicated with him in the event of a legal attack. Since that time I have seen nothing from you but more posts to reaffirm my previous beliefs. The "Hand-in-till" is a great example. IF you're truly interested in suing McBride, what value do you gain by posting those statements here? Any half way decent attorney representing you would attempt to silence you, but your ego would likely prevent that from happening. "Ego" you ask? Ref: Post #11028: "BTW, you should thank me to have made McBride declare he would refund in excess of $277,000 in Cash to SEVU's Treasury, instead of trembling for the value of your shares... But, I don't expect gratitude....". Comments like that, and your "you heard it here first" attitude would make you difficult to represent, at best.
I also find it interesting that you suddenly support so many of the allegations that have been made by SEVU critics for many months. None of these allegations are new, yet you claim that a single 10Q has changed your mind about them. You criticize others when they fail to do their own DD, but so many of the claims you now make against McBride and SEVU have been on the table for more than a year. Now you suddenly embrace them? How much DD did you perform yourself? My assumption is that you probably studied the situation very carefully, but some things weren't in your best interest to acknowledge until now. The sudden change of heart leads one to wonder why. Personally, I think it's either because you have realized that you aren't going to obtain something you previously believed possible, or you're afraid of being implicated in case McBride or SEVU is found guilty. The answer to the first possibility could be anything, although I doubt you're attempting a grand scheme to take over the company. That would really be a joke. I'd guess it's more likely that you were sucking up to McBride in hopes of gaining opportunities or insights to the company that you could use for personal monetary gain. I also believe you fear implication because of your ties to McBride, but there's where you ego gets in the way again. I doubt the SEC or anyone involved cares about what you do. Too many big fish available.
Before you jump all over me and tell me how wrong I am, I'll save you the trouble by reminding you that these are only my opinions (which you graciously allow me to have). I may be completely wrong about you, although odds of that being the case are about 50/50. I'm either mis-judging this week's version of Francois or last week's. I'm probably right about at least one of them.
I'll tell you what Ken: You prove that I work for SEVU, and I'll give you all of my ten cent stock!
Thank you for granting me permission to have an opinion. I was a little worried about that.
Another long post from DK76.
I may be really slow, but I'm still analyzing the whole situation with SEVU, McBride, FG, etc. Some things are obvious. The 10Q reflects a number of issues that don't appear favorable to shareholders. I'd like some factual details, as would everyone here, but I don't believe this is the most reliable source of information, and so far this has been the only place I've seen anything on the subject. As I have stated so many times, the stock price has already endured the freefall, so there is minimal remaining downside. I haven't seen enough to motivate me to sell yet.
The actions of SEVU aren't the only ones I find questionable. The overnight 180 on the part of FG is extremely suspect. We all know FG has been in close contact with Rich for at least the past 18 months, and possibly much longer. That has been verified by both parties. FG is obviously much more than a "casual observer" when it comes to SEVU and McBride's actions, so I find it hard to believe the recent 10Q was a major revelation to him. If anything, he may realize that SEVU and/or McBride are now under even greater scrutiny, and he wants to distance himself from them and do so with great fanfare. If his "case" is so strong, why is he trying to enlist so much support from the rest of us? Is he going to sue SEVU or McBride? If he is truly long SEVU, it would seem as though suing them would be counterproductive. I don't know how successfully anyone could sue Rich in this case, nor do I know the true assets of the company or McBride, but I find FGs attempt (or even willingness) to enlist others very suspect. I think he's afraid of being implicated with Rich or SEVU, so he's trying to make it appear that all is a surprise to him. I'm not buying that one. I also don't believe his "case" is nearly as strong as he claims. If it was, he wouldn't be discussing it publicly or inviting others to join him. Telegraphing your legal plans on a public message board is just plain stupid, and I think FG is smarter than that. Besides, if he were to prevail, he would then have to share any settlement with others. I don't think he's that generous.
Personally, I found it easier to suspect SEVU a year ago when Rich was running the company. I don't care if his failures were the result of lack of expertise, bandwidth, or deceit, it happened during a period when the SEC wasn't watching as closely as they are today and the company didn't have the experienced leadership they have today. People can argue that Rich is still running the company, but Bernardich is still responsible for company actions from a legal standpoint. He also knows the scrutiny the company is enduring today, so while they may be doing things the shareholders don't like, I'm not sure they're illegal.
As much as I enjoy the entertainment value this company provides, it's still about the products. I don't know if the current share price is reflective of true value or not, but I do believe the reason so many here are upset is because the price has been so much higher. It's important to remember that the true value of this company was never even close to five dollars per share, much less twenty-eight. Future potential is obviously a major factor in any investment decision, and we were lead to believe the future was brighter and nearer than it turned out. Maybe we were intentionally misled, maybe we weren't, but in terms of marketable products and qualified management, it seems the company is much better off today than they were a year ago. It's unfortunate that there appear to be many more outstanding shares than one would have expected by now, but if the alternative may have been bankruptcy the products wouldn't have made it to market. Maybe the stock price will one day reach five dollars, rather than the ten it would have been without dilution. Maybe we'll never see anything above fifty cents again. I just think it's wise to consider the bigger picture, rather than focusing on the distractions. If the distractions outweigh the big picture, then it's time to sell our stock and move on. I'm just not ready to sell yet.
Sorry for the long post.
DMWIG, you're wasting your time trying to explain operational realities to this crowd. There are obviously many diverse experiences and skill sets represented here, but I have a hunch there isn't much first hand experience with any of the issues faced by SEVU.
Personally, I haven't made up my mind about the recent reported actions of McBride or SEVU. My stock certificate has SEVU's name on it, yet they seem to be the only party we haven't heard from (except for a recent positive PR and a 10Q with some questionable entries).
There are lots of valid questions on the table, but this isn't the appropriate forum for a response from the company. I'm still trying to figure out why people aren't calling or visiting the company for answers.
Wow! I sure hope that if I'm ever involved in a lawsuit that my opposition will document and telegraph his case all over the internet!
Sure would make it easier to prepare a defense.
But is CaseyOne Ken Cook?
I vote yes.
Well, that one sums it up for me. FG, I don't care if you're right or wrong. You have now lowered yourself to a level below any I have seen here or on RB. Congratulations. That's very low!
Sounds like Ken has returned.
I don't CARE if he comes clean. It's up to each of us to make our own decisions, but from where I sit, I consider it wise to gather as much info as possible. Whether he tells us the truth or not, I don't think it's reasonable to prevent him from responding to all of the allegations and questions on the table if he wants to do so.
Whatever. You just seem a little "conveniently selective" in my opinion. I'm not going to debate it with you. I tend to make up my own mind on things like this. It just seems a little strange to attempt to silence the person everyone is accusing, rather than letting him respond.
I agree with Zagdad and others about your attacks on McBride. You may be understandably upset, and even betrayed, but I think the bigger problem I have with the situation is your apparant attempt to keep McBride from posting. You let Printmail post 3rd hand BS for months, yet when the entire IHub community is asking questions and making accusations about Rich, you seem to want to block him from responding.
We can choose to believe or not believe what he says, and I've stated before that I wish he wouldn't post here, but if there was ever a time when he deserves to be heard, I'd say it's now.
Even the guilty have a right to speak, and McBride has not been proven guilty.
He has put up with endless BS from posters on this board and RB. Regardless of whether he's right or wrong, it seems he deserves to speak his mind if he chooses.
I hope that some of the more vocal posters call or visit the SEVU offices tomorrow, rather than endure another day of speculation. SEVU may respond with "No comment", but that response would be a comment in itself.
Call me crazy (you wouldn't be the first), but it sure seems like a worthwhile idea to ask for clarification from the company that issued the report, rather than endlessly debate it here.
It's on their website. Item No. WW22-93784
$299
I'm not sure what the appropriate method of communication would be at this point, but I'd say the shareholders deserve a detailed explaination of what's going on. It doesn't seem appropriate for a PR, and I don't know the laws of selective disclosure if they were to issue a direct mailing to shareholders, but we certainly deserve something....... and it had damned well better not be a Message Board post!
Has anyone considered calling SEVU and asking them?
In the unlikely event that anyone here is interested in my thoughts, I'll post them. Seems reasonable, since there are others who post whom I have no interest in reading.
First, I'm not an Accountant, nor have I studied every aspect of the 10Q or any other formal or informal report. I do watch this board pretty closely however, and a major question today seems to be surrounding dilution and what the shareholders received in return. I haven't studied the numbers to figure out if/how much dilution may have taken place, but assuming it exists, I submit the following:
The return to shareholders is that the company is still afloat and is finally building and shipping a marketable and presumably profitable product line. The internal and external events of the past eighteen months would have tanked many companies, but SEVU managed to survive. McBride severely underestimated the time and expense necessary to bring SecureView to market. He made a number of other mistakes along the way, making it easy for critics to jump on the bandwagon and attack him with plenty of ammunition that he was kind enough to provide.
As has frequently been stated, the criticism generally focuses on McBride and other peripheral issues, rather than on the products themselves. Rich may not be the best CEO we've ever encountered, but he does appear to have a degree of technical expertise and vision to enable him to create unique and marketable products. Assuming the company can stay afloat long enough to produce those products and generate a revenue stream, the prudent investor should pay primary attention to the future potential of the company, rather than the past. It's always necessary to consider the past, particularly one as colorful as SEVUs, but if McBride was truly the source of damage (as well as success), it's important to note that he is no longer CEO, COO, or CFO.
On the subject of dilution, we need to ask ourselves if and why it occurred. My assumption is that it happened to some degree, as a means to maintain production and day to day operations. Certainly not an optimal situation, but this is a small company and doesn't have a ton on cash on hand. If the company had attempted to secure a different means of financing, a percentage of earnings per share would go to repaying he debt. The result would be less dilution, but less EPS as well. Either way, someone has to pay the bills.
Bottom line is that SecureView appears to be selling and the future looks promising. Personally, I'm glad my cost basis is low on the stock, and I can't blame people who have lost money for being frustrated, but if I were in the market for an inexpensive stock with tremendous potential and minimal risk, I'd be all over SEVU.
I agree with Diverdan. Printmail (and a few others) have absolutely no interest in SEVU, either financially or otherwise. In the case of printmail, he is obviously begging for attention wherever he can get it. I submit that an appropriate post at some point (long ago) would be something like "Hey, we've all been unnundated by the pop-up ads for x-10 cameras. I did some research to see if they may be a competitor to Secureview, and here's what I found...".
A discussion may follow, and we'd all move on. That's a simple example of how things could work if all parties were truly interested in facts, but that is clearly not the case here.
I doubt anyone here is ignoring the problems and risks with SEVU, but it's important to remember that this is still a very young company with much to learn, trading on the BB. There are reasons they're still on the BB, but there are also reasons why they're still trading and selling product.
I'm cautiously optimistic as well, but I wouldn't invest my life's savings in it.
I know better than to ask you this, and I'm confident you won't offer a response, but why are you so interested in all of those things? Will you buy stock if you see answers that satisfy you? You must be a very lonely person.
You need a pen-pal or something. Why don't you volunteer your time at a retirement home or something? Perhaps you can find a deaf person to read to.
Printmail, for once we agree!!
I too believe that FG has failed in an important aspect of the Chairperson's role, although it's not the same reason as you. If I held his role, I would have banned you from the board months ago. Instead, he has gone far beyond what anyone would conside reasonable by letting you continue to post and speak your mind(?).
Everyone knows how you feel about the company. You're doing more to harm your cause than to enhance it. Most people don't have to be told the same exact things over and over. It doesn't matter if you're correct or not. People aren't listening to you.
Are you saying the price fluctuation was only $3.50 during the period? I haven't checked the numbers, but that seems awfully slim. If that's the case, a person could only lose a few thousand dollars, at best. Hardly worhy of a suit.
What am I missing here?
Did SEVU ever announce that the $80M Taiwan deal was signed, or just that they were in talks and the potential was there? I don't recall for sure, but I think I'd remember if they claimed it was a done deal.
Similarly, didn't they typically state things like "we are in talks with", etc.? I'll certainly agree that they eluded to the deals being more than they have turned out to be, but in the strict sense, did they "lie"?
Again, I don't remember for sure if they did or not, but as I recall it, they didn't.
It's interesting to consider the numbers. If someone held 400 shares and bought at the highest price (approx $28), they could theoritically have lost about $10K if they sold for pennies. I don't know the price range for the class period, but I'm pretty sure it's not that low.
I'm not familiar with this area of law, but I assume Counsel is working for a percentage of settlement. What kind of ambulance chaser would file for a percentage of $10K?
I'm sure glad I'm not banking on a successful class action suit!
"Theft" may be theft, although in the case of SEVU, it's not a foregone conclusion. Using your logic, though, I could argue that "speeding is speeding", although I doubt you'll find many radar traps set up 100 miles from the nearest town in the middle of Montana. Morons are morons, although only a qualifying moron would be foolish enough to think the FBI cares about the trash on this board.
As Printmail likes to say, let's be realisic about the class action suit. IF there are enough shareholders who lost a significant amount of money on SEVU, there MAY be cause for a case to determine whether or not SEVU was guilty of anything. All I'm suggesting is that if anyone is relying upon someone who held only a few hundred shares as a "Lead Plaintif", it seems reasonable to question the magnitide of real damages.
If you were a lawyer, and this case is as blatant as some claim, wouldn't you enlist someone with more than a few shares to sit at your bench?
I realize it's based on the merits of the case, but if there's no evidence of significant damages, it's much less likely that a suit will proceed. Court dockets are very full. No judge will waste the time on an inconsequential case.
I think I understand your point Shamus, but whether we support or condemn SEVU, don't you find it interesting that someone with only 400 shares would even be considered a candidate for Lead Plaintiff? If the damages are really as great as some seem to believe, I'd expect the point of entry as Lead would be MUCH higher.
Does anyone know if the number of shares held by Leads will ever become public knowledge?
Nice try genius. Printmail = Accident.