While I agree with you on the perception of mistrust, I disagree on the reasons for it.
- Share structure: The share structure itself is pretty standard in the pink world. What exactly do you need to be disclosed (that isn't already). You cannot take uncertainty out of the markets.You will never find a company that will disclose possible corporate transactions in foresight.
- Company history: None of the past management or BOD is present. The entire old debt has been paid in cash by new management. All new operations. I don't see how the company's history may influence a buy or sell decision.
- Control: I have yet to see a company that is "controlled" by the public. The only difference may be that with UCPA there is only one class of (common) shares outstanding. There are no preferred shares with exorbitant voting rights here that would make your common shares insignificant from the start as is the case with so many other otc stocks.
- Potential dilution: There is no single stock exempt from the risk of dilution. But unlike most others, the company managed to fund growth in operations and old debt from internal sources alone - during times of economic distress. Why should they start diluting now and to whom?
- The company is not "foreign", it is incorporated in Nevada and they have to abide to US regulations. The company's operations are still largely foreign, but honestly who cares where revenues are generated as long as they are generated?
- type of business: There nothing mysterious about the is advertising business. The company also made it clear where expansion potential exists in terms of added services (business intelligence, automated trading), physical presence (US) and the method of entering new markets (partnerships). What remains unknown, yet, is how revenues are accounted for in a partnership deal, but that will be disclosed in Q2 financials. Q1 looks promising.
- Employee Shareholders: I sure would like to see more interest from within the company, but employees without management status are not obligated to report shareholdings. So, in reality, we simply don't know who might have bought how much over the past 3 years just as us longs have accumulated over an extended period. We can only conclude that 3 BOD members have not disclosed any share ownership. 5% of shares were transferred from Carl and Niclas to Lars Bönnelyche when he was named a "partner" in Tre Kronor.
The lack of volume, to me, really comes down to an opportunity cost created by the stock's illiquidity. No one is buying because no one else is buying. But contrary to you, I believe that continued growth will correct the situation over time.
I think management truly works for the benefit of the company. But they don't work well for the benefit of shareholders.
Over time, the two objectives will coincide. I see it like owning a stake in a private equity fund. The vesting period is long, there is little influence from stake-owners in the mean time, but the chances of success and above-average returns justify the long-term commitment.
