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.
Cargo Hauler is a great contrarian indicator for this stock it's true. It would be great to get this new "CH Oscillator" added to the ibox; when his bullishness breaks 80 it's time to sell.
On a side note though, it's great to have others objectively looking at this stock again, a departure from the unrealistic overoptimism.
I think it could more accurately be interpreted as a lack of desire to SELL. While I may not see the same inflated underlying value present in this company as you and cargo, I do believe that irrational optimism will inevitably create a more profitable liquidation point.
What are you waiting on? I’ve stated on more than one occasion that I’m a shareholder. And this information is available by sifting through my post history, as I frequently do with other regular posters on this board until my BS alarm goes off – urging me to post. Incidentally, this exact thing happened today with a post by cargo_hauler:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=30071780
Nevertheless, simply being a shareholder should never translate into losing one's objectivity with a position.
You seem to promote furthering people’s knowledge of COPI, which is great. You expound frequently upon the numerous positive qualitative factors of the company i.e. management, sales prospects, ethics, etc. But then you take an overly-defensive posture when any of the potentially-negative quantitative characteristics are referenced, like diluted equity per share for instance – which we at least both know is a very unflattering number at the moment. That’s not to say that it won’t improve, but advocating ignorance about it – and indeed referring to it as “scare tactics” – should make any rational reader of this board question the objectivity in your analysis – are you really considering COPI’s present financial state dispassionately as you should with any investment? If you have done so since the later part of last year I must have missed it.
What exactly would that variable (diluted equity per share) invalidate? Furthermore, what would it detract from?
Well, the first response you got to this was certainly in-line with your prediction. It truly seems like ignorance is the opiate of the masses.
Also, how would knowing the fully diluted value of each common share invalidate any reasoning you have for believing in the success of this company? If it would then your faith in this company is oddly shallow contrasting your decidedly bullish comments.
Please reassure me that you’re not really trying to categorize my desire to know what fraction of COPI I own - as a common shareholder - as scare tactics. I mean seriously, how do you value a business without knowing such a fundamental variable – through the examination of goat entrails perhaps? It’s funny (to me) that you say this can’t be compared to Enron when, like you, Enron also wanted the common shareholder to ignore how much equity each of their shares actually represented.
It was a hypothetical question by another poster. But ultimately it boiled down to a very fundamental question about how much fully-diluted equity each common share represents.
Actually, the only reason I’m even interjecting by bringing it up is because the original response irked me as being overly simplistic, evasive to the true value, and almost insulting in regards to the level of presumed ignorance it would require to take it at face value.
Fivestar, for the second time now, I’m not questioning COPI’s use of preferred shares, I’m questioning a comment from cargo_hauler where he explicitly said that cancelling the preferred shares would be a logical move for the company in distributing a hypothetical dividend. The post in question can be found here:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=30071780
And an excellent post it was for explaining that. I'm all for the preferred shares in lieu of the previously toxic financing.
That seriously flawed argument doesn't work with fully-reporting companies. In effect what your advocating are pro-forma figures that ignore the possible effect of full dilution. Clearly a good approach, I mean look how well it worked in the dot-com bubble.
How would knowing what fraction of a company you own as a common shareholder be silly?
Wow, no offense fivestar but what are you talking about and did you even read my question? I asked why they would CANCEL PREFERRED SHARES you answered with why they would use preferred shares to eliminate toxic debt. In fact, your voluminous response is so off topic that the word "cancel" isn't even in it.
Could I please get you to possibly elaborate on how you think cancelling the preferred shares would be the logical thing to do? I'm having trouble seeing how this could be interpreted as the most logical move from either the company's or preferred shareholder's perspective.
Actually, I think he was wanting the answer for the case where the preferred shares were not cancelled. Which I notice you adeptly avoided answering because it's a very unflattering number. Indeed, on this same subject, I would love to see a running tally kept of exactly what fraction of diluted ownership each common share represents in the ibox.
Indeed it would.
But "Those 6 billion calls are obviously accounted for in the SEC filings". Perhaps you could point it out to me since it's so obvious. Indeed all I'm finding is the unitemized revenue you referenced since "We haven't seen itemized call count accounting".
And I'm simply curious how you think those 6 billion calls are so obviously accounted for in their "SOX compliant audited financials" since "We haven't seen itemized call count accounting".
In fact you seem to contradict yourself in the same post: "Those 6 billion calls are obviously accounted for in the SEC filings", but "We haven't seen itemized call count accounting".
EDIT: This post was meant to be in reponse to cargo, not myself, in reference to his earlier post here:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=29246279
My complaint is directed primarily at your defense of a baseless, and I would argue ridiculous, figure for the call counts. There was also a question in there; how is it that you believe 6 billion calls are accounted for with ~500k in revenue?
I shouldn't have to, this isn't a private company.
If they are so obviously accounted for in the SEC filings then that would imply that their average revenue per call is $0.00008 or 8 thousandths of a cent. How do they even quote prices like these - in pesos?
I think it's a pretty safe bet that there's nowhere near 6 billion calls. And now I'm wondering where this figure for 6 billion calls came from.
I agree actually, that's why I started posting on this board. But, overall it's gotten slightly better and a bit more objective. At least I'm not seeing the same volume of absurd posts concerning the "rock solid" strength of their patent - those specifically really got to me before. I mean it was almost as if some people didn't even bother reading their patents, and just took the word at face value.
I doubt it, as I pointed out the last time this was brought up, there was only a failure to deliver of approximately 1.5% of their OS, if it was around 10% then maybe, but a squeeze on 1.5% - get real. We'll see what the next report says.
Also, the amount listed on the SHO atm isn't even one standard deviation outside of the avg daily volume. So again, I just don't see anything that points to a potential short squeeze with the current numbers.
Waiting for the eminent buyout huh? That’s a fairly speculative event, good luck.
< 1% of my portfolio and not enough to require me to register. I still see a good deal of risk inherent in this company's prospects so I have very little desire to invest anything more.
And you firmly believe their patent is rock-solid? Because, to be blunt, I do not. It's very general, overly broad, and unremarkable. All it’s describing is a database cross reference that’s been around since ~1950, probably earlier.
The naivety in that statement is discouraging. Lack of objectivity with any equity could be the difference in your children’s Harvard vs. community college education (while there's nothing inherently wrong with community college, the bar is definitely set lower).
I'd be more inclined to take a larger position in this if I also had the capability to purchase some PUTS for insurance. Right now there's a good deal of uncertainty contrary to the general bullish overtones of the board. I'm especially concerned about the strength of their patent.
With as often as their "BUYING THE CHEAPIES", I would expect them to have to report their ownership stake by now.
This is the funniest post I've ever read on this website. Thank you.
Interactive Brokers - you can short just about any security through them as long as they have it for you to borrow.
Yeah, the company.
They authorized a substantial option-compensation package for senior officers that will eventually affect (increase) the OS relative to its current level. Details are here: http://biz.yahoo.com/e/080219/copi.ob8-k.html
My first post mentioning this, while abrasively to the point, was not against any of the rules of this board yet it was deleted. I won't be as understanding of this one getting deleted (assuming of course that it gets deleted) as it actually has content.
I’m sorry, perhaps you could elaborate on what exactly you think it is that differentiates “COPI's TeleBlock Patented technology” from what I said: a cross reference to an index of public information. Clearly in my haste of confusing “COPI's TeleBlock Patented technology” with “your typical run-of-the-mill scrubbing ability”, I have misread the second sentence of “COPI's TeleBlock Patented technology” patent (“The system reviews outgoing calls by a telemarketer, compares it to the general do-not-call lists and the specific customer company do-not-call list and override permitted call list to make a determination if the call should be completed.”).
Thanks for your time.
P.S. I don't know how much success they would have using their attorney's to copy “COPI's TeleBlock Patented technology”; personally, I'd much rather hire a hungry college intern at below-market wages to write the code for me, since they'd be perfectly capable of doing so.
Hi, I’m a long time reader, first time criticizer on this board. With all due respect, while I’d love to see the company succeed financially, as I am currently long the stock, this boards’ overstatement of the protection offered through their patents is getting a little out of hand lately.
At its heart their flagship product simply cross references a database of public information prior to allowing a call to go through to a given number. And a large company, with enough cash to spend on the right legal team could tear into instances of possible prior art with this, but they haven’t because it simply doesn’t make financial sense for them to do so currently. For example, right now it’s cheaper for Verisign to pay COPI for this service. However, without a future buyout of COPI by a larger company, and if COPI’s revenues continue growing at this rate, I fear said larger company may eventually find it more financially prudent to challenge COPI’s patent. And I’m sure you’re aware that a civil suit involving patent infringement can be quite pricey; currently, COPI certainly doesn’t have the kind of reserves to go it alone if it would happen to come up.
25 million is the new million though; you can't even self-insure at 1 million.
They seem to have a financial incentive to continually perform special "corporate actions" - $50 to convert shares is becomming a legitimate income stream.
That's a fascinating angle actually. I'm curious how much profit was realized by her during the last corporate action.