Home > Boards > US Listed > Alternative Energy > SunWorks (SUNW)

I never will understand why people keep talking

Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (2) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
Intotheblack Member Profile
Followed By 55
Posts 3,288
Boards Moderated 3
Alias Born 01/21/14
160x600 placeholder
Sunworks and Auric Solar Partner to Better Serve California’s Central Valley "GlobeNewswire Inc." - 1/12/2018 8:00:00 AM
Reed's, Inc. Announces New Board Appointment "GlobeNewswire Inc." - 1/11/2018 8:30:00 AM
Sunworks to Present at 20th Annual Needham Growth Conference on January 17th "GlobeNewswire Inc." - 1/9/2018 4:36:01 PM
Current Report Filing (8-k) "Edgar (US Regulatory)" - 12/19/2017 4:52:46 PM
Sunworks Announces Streamlining of Board of Directors "GlobeNewswire Inc." - 12/19/2017 4:05:00 PM
Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership (4) "Edgar (US Regulatory)" - 11/28/2017 4:31:48 PM
Quarterly Report (10-q) "Edgar (US Regulatory)" - 11/14/2017 7:23:47 AM
Current Report Filing (8-k) "Edgar (US Regulatory)" - 11/14/2017 7:16:26 AM
Sunworks Reports Third Quarter Revenue of $18.8 Million and Net Loss Per Share of ($0.09) "GlobeNewswire Inc." - 11/14/2017 7:00:00 AM
Sunworks to Announce Third Quarter 2017 Results and Hold Conference Call on November 14, 2017 "GlobeNewswire Inc." - 10/31/2017 4:05:00 PM
Uptick Network Interviews Sunworks CEO "GlobeNewswire Inc." - 10/18/2017 9:30:00 AM
Sunworks Partners with Clean Focus to Develop an Innovative Community Solar Program for Roseville Electric Utility Customers "GlobeNewswire Inc." - 10/18/2017 7:59:00 AM
Sunworks to Complete 521 kW Solar and Battery Installation for Angelus Temple in Los Angeles "GlobeNewswire Inc." - 10/3/2017 8:00:00 AM
Sunworks Announces Largest Contract Award to Date "GlobeNewswire Inc." - 9/29/2017 8:00:00 AM
Current Report Filing (8-k) "Edgar (US Regulatory)" - 9/28/2017 5:11:59 PM
Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership (4) "Edgar (US Regulatory)" - 8/22/2017 7:46:55 PM
Quarterly Report (10-q) "Edgar (US Regulatory)" - 8/10/2017 7:23:23 AM
Current Report Filing (8-k) "Edgar (US Regulatory)" - 8/10/2017 7:16:49 AM
Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership (4) "Edgar (US Regulatory)" - 7/25/2017 6:25:38 PM
Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership (4) "Edgar (US Regulatory)" - 7/20/2017 6:30:32 PM
Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership (4) "Edgar (US Regulatory)" - 7/5/2017 7:31:29 PM
Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership (4) "Edgar (US Regulatory)" - 6/29/2017 7:31:45 PM
Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership (4) "Edgar (US Regulatory)" - 6/26/2017 7:32:22 PM
Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership (4) "Edgar (US Regulatory)" - 6/21/2017 7:02:10 PM
Sunworks Co-Hosted 2017 Almond Board Leadership Program at Chamisal Creek Ranch "Business Wire" - 6/21/2017 6:55:00 PM
Intotheblack   Wednesday, 05/24/17 06:18:21 PM
Re: drugmanrx post# 60760
Post # of 62063 
I never will understand why people keep talking in "pre-split" prices, especially when it was done solely for the purpose of uplisting to a major exchange several years ago. It's almost as if it's a cheap attempt to lessen the credibility of the company, or a reflection of some true "lesser value" of the company's stock, but nobody would ever do that right?

The stock went from .37 cents, or "pre split .014" around October 2013, to $8.88 (pre-split .34) on Feb 2015 on the move to Nasdaq. So in roughly 15-16 months, not even 1.5 years, the company's stock price sky-rocketed a ridiculous 24X... 2400% Had you invested 10K$, in just 16 months you would have had a quarter million dollars. Absurd. If you think anything fundamental changed to the tune of a 24X increase in value, please let us all know. Otherwise I would say this was all due to wild speculation, which is what traders do and indeed happens from time to time. It took wild speculation to drive that run that far.

Fast forward 3 years and we're still at $1.50, (5.7 cents pre split)...
This would still be a rise of 4X, or 400%. So yeah, sorry, I'm gonna "spin that" as you say... if you can un-spin math, please do.

If you thought that the company and/or traders were going to keep a 24X gain in that amount of time, on a company that had zero revenue very shortly prior, and just transitioned to revenue generating, you shouldn't be trading at all. Time to take some off the table. I know I did. I was never one of those "I'm never selling a single share" guys.

Now lets not forget how much money went back into growth over the last few years as well. So again, whereas the pop on the chart did not relate to reality when the company had just moved to NASDAQ, since then they have expanded geographically, as well as internally, which imo is why the chart has stopped the major falloff, and has leveled out over the last year. It's clearly leveling off. Dare I even say maybe found bottom?? At some point the valuation will reach a level of investability that many will be on board with. Maybe that time is upon us, maybe it's in the future still. Speculate all you want.

So, I totally disagree with this statement, "5.9 cents a share pre-split after 3 years of operation (Sunworks acquired Feb 2014) is not a good call no matter how you want to spin it. "

JN's naivety is relative to the knowledge JN had at the time. That's the best part of being ignorant, it's not a bad thing, it's not "stupidity" it simply means you don't know. If you don't know that you don't know, you are ignorant of being ignorant, you just don't know. JN apparently was ignorant of the complexities. IMO he was unaware of the fact that he was naive to the manufacturing process. So he could spout off all he wanted about the process... he didn't know what he didn't know, and when he found out, clearly he begin to change the direction of the company. Again, the fact that there are ZERO facts related to the timing of this epiphany, leaves us all to speculate and leaves ZERO proof that he misled anyone.

The "experts"... well that all depends on exactly who that was and what THEY knew. I have no idea, no facts, only speculation there as well, as to what the experts knew. What kind of expert were they? Where they experts in Solar Panel Design? Or Solar Panel Design Theory? Were they Experts in Solar Panel Manufacturing? Or simply Experts in Semi-conductor Manufacturing? JN was working with scholars, who had some sort of "experience" in semiconductors, or manufacturing... or both. However at some point they clearly came to realize they there was a disconnect between theory and reality in manufacturing processes and the costs associated with both.

So, I don't know the answers to your question, "Was JN the one that was designing the cell to fit conventional manufacturers setups", but given his background being in finance, I doubt he was the one calling the engineering shots here. Clearly he had a direction he wanted to go, but the at some point they must have realized, this isn't going to work, ergo, Sunworks.

"Are you trying to say the experts JN hired to to do the scientific work on the cell were naive too." Clearly there was some sort of naivety, as the process didn't receive the US patent, but then again, something must have been valid enough to receive the Chinese Patent. End game here is the company changed direction, so yes, somewhere along the line, someone "didn't know something" enough to "make it happen" in the end.

There is no proof therefore timing will always be questionable relegating the argument to pure speculation.

There still is no proof. The fact that the company "publicly stated it was BEGINNING a NEW direction" (integration) is not proof that they knew the cell wouldn't make it, through patent process or manufacturing... Nor is it a declaration that cell is dead. Nor is it proof that the company was going to eventually SOLELY pursue integration. The only thing it is proof of is that they found a new way to make money and decided it was worthwhile to move in that direction.

The fact that they used the (at the time still) "patent pending" cell in the prospectus, is proof of nothing except that there was still a chance that the patent could be issued and therefore a greater monetary potential existed at that time.

So I retire this conversation with again, "There is no proof therefore timing will always be questionable relegating the argument to pure speculation."

I'm sure the argument will now pivot to something else completely irrelevant, laced with plenty of speculation woven in as falsely portrayed facts.


Only invest what you want to lose.
Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (2) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
Follow Board Follow Board Keyboard Shortcuts Report TOS Violation
Current Price
Detailed Quote - Discussion Board
Intraday Chart
+/- to Watchlist