It'll be quite interesting to hear what the terms of the SWARM licensing are, and even more so to see what they bring to the bottom line of Spooz. Of course, there is an implicit consequence here which may account for the PPS drop: Spooz no longer pockets the full profit of SWARM. If 141 Capital solicits money from the general public, then it's an even harder life for SWARM, as it must make money for those investors, presumably taking a cut for the house, which is less than what they could have made by only investing firm-side money.
I don't understand why they would take 141 Capital public right away other than the fact that there's no money to get it off the ground. If Spooz is "sponsoring" this IPO, then it would be logical to reason that Spooz stands to benefit from the sale of these securities to the market by being the primary shareholder? In the world of investing, typically you prove yourself first, then open up as a public company, although I'd be interested to hear counterexamples to my perception.
It's most definitely logical to have SWARM be a separate entity from Spooz, but this is a well-known fact amongst ISPs in the trading industry. It follows that if you're selling a software trading strategy that you would not sell it if it could make you money by using it yourself. Thus, by selling the software to implement a "sure thing" strategy, you imply that you're selling snake oil. I'm confused as to why SWARM wasn't initially presented as more of a research wing that was intended to be spun-off, if successful. Also, they could've licensed this to the already-existing 141 Futures if all they wanted was to reduce risk to Spooz shareholders.
As much as the board doesn't want to hear it, as September draws to a close, STv2 is still vaporware, at least as far as is known before we see the Q3 financials. The company has continued to pursue avenues that don't seem to include the release of the software that is supposed to be the purpose of the company. I've been really biting my tongue on this, but it my opinion that the Spooz pricing module and "auto-spreader" are nothing revolutionary (or "disruptive", if that's how you like to think of it). The monthly cost of these modules is merely an undercut of the widely-used and proven TT software suites. If you think Spooz is doing something genuinely original by incorporating Excel into the mix, then here's some reading:
Yes, the TT AutoSpreader can use Excel for customized calculations. It's going to take more than a little price-break to lure professional traders away from their TT software comfort-zone. Even with a cost of over $1000 per month, TT's software is available right now and is being used by thousands of traders. I realize that there's a licensing agreement between Spooz and TT for use of the TT exchange gateways, which can provide confusion when you realize that some of the Spooz modules are attempting to compete directly against the TT bread-and-butter screen products.
Getting back to the bottom line, Spooz seems to have broken their "quiet period" with news that doesn't appear to have been able to have caused the silence. I would think that if some private financing had been the cause that Spooz would only break that silence to report on securing additional financing. If such financing was obtained, Spooz has an obligation as a public company to inform shareholders of such an event, as it could have serious implications if the financing were secured with Spooz shares or if it entails some debt structure that will impact any future revenue streams. I'd hate to think that such financing news would be held back until the Q3 financials release, since there was clearly a countdown on the cash supply based on the numbers in the Q2 financials.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
