Innuendos and assumptions? Phil is a fraud, and a liar. That's not innuendo, that's calling it the way it is. And it's not based on assumptions.
FACT: In Q3 and Q4 of 2004, Phil/VTI loaned Phil/NMKT $5million.
FACT: As of Dec 31, 2004, only $3.8million was outstanding. The terms: convertible at 10cents per share (80% discount to market), earning 8% interest while he waited to convert. What happened to the other $1.2million that was just loand 3-6months before? Probably converted, given that 25million shares were issueed to convert debt during that period.
FACT: Phil, on April 25, 2005 issued a letter to shareholders denying that he was a beneficiary of a stock deal. That was a lie.
FACT: Phil issues an email to Telephonics admitting to the fact that he is the beneficiary. However, he lists several reasons why he would never actually convert.
FACT: In Q1 Phil converted 2/3's of the balance, earning $5-$7million on a $2.2million loan balance, at the expense of massive dilution to shareholders.
FACT: Phil has refused to file SEC forms disclosing his transactions (Form 4) , and his stock balance (Form 16) or VTI's.
I don't see where the innuendo is, nor are there many assumptions (there are a few, just because Phil refuses to file 8k, form 4's and form 16's....any theory on why?)
I know you are mystified as to why NMKT is not at $1...or why it's not on amex...perhaps it's because NMKT isn't what Phil says it is? He is a proven liar.
