Ok - a direct e-mail from Paul.
He wanted me to post my exact questions with his exact answers. Here we go:
1. You mentioned in an e-mail about the start of the quite period and people wanting to "inject millions into our company". Can you now say who wanted the quite period and where the millions are coming from and going to?
Answer: I can not comment on this at this time.
2. Constant requests for this: When/if will SWARM results will be PR'ed. Many are quoting the shareholder meeting saying that SWARM results were suppose to be release monthly.
Answer: They will never be reported by Spooz due to compliance restraints. Firstly, Spooz is an unregistered entity and while it may publish internal results, it can not do so to facilitate, supplement or participate, in any way, with the solicitation of public trading capital. Since 141 Capital will solicit public trading capital using the same trading system Spooz traded with internally, we believe this to be a conflict of interest and may, therefore, confuse the National Futures Association (not a good idea). What our shareholders need to understand it that we had three options regarding SWARM: 1) shelve it forever; 2) sell it outright; 3) license the software to another entity. The first option, given SWARM’s preliminary trading results is simply not good business. The second option is also very unattractive because selling trading systems for significant sums of money necessitates a detailed look under the hood. So, you have 50 potential buyers, everyone looks but no one buys. To your amazement there are suddenly 25 systems that trade identically to SWARM. Is this likely? No, the reality is that there would indeed be 25 systems that trade identically to SWARM, but since Spooz insisted upon execution of a well written NDA before providing the prospective buyer a look see, we would never find out about them.
Someone might suggest that we simply trade SWARM internally with Spooz’s own capital, in other words, leave the trading division as is and in tact. We have learned a few things over the last few months about why this is not feasible in a company the size of Spooz. Here’s why. The trader feels he is the most important person on the planet because he is evaluated by every trade. Professional traders in a prop environment are very tightly wound, instant gratification people. When it comes to help with the technological aspects of trading, they are also very impatient and insistent. The developer views himself as a artist and intellectually superior to the trader. Since he/she has been employed to develop software (SpoozToolz), he/she becomes resentful of being placed in a position where he/she feels subservient to a trader’s needs. You can see how this might cause confusion. Is Spooz a trading solutions company? Is spooz a proprietary trading operation? If Spooz is both, will the risks associated with SWARM returns affect software sales? Confusion reins! Focus is so important that shelving SWARM entirely is a more attractive solution than diluting our efforts to complete the Spooz mission. In my opinion, we came up with the best, the only, workable solution. We are blessed because this solution also provided us with the means to enhance shareholder value. Viola … thought through to its only logical conclusion, this is what is commonly termed a “no brainer.”
3. Will the license for SWARM to 141 Capital expire? If yes, can it be renewed under different terms?
Answer: It is perpetual.
4. Is there any talk of creating a hedge fund with SWARM (I guess in 141, Capital now)?
Answer: I can not comment on this at this time.
5. Do you think Spooz is still on track to meet the $3 Million revenue projection this year?
Answer: We are working on any number of deals that could potentially cause this to happen, but a comment from me regarding projections some months old could be construed to be misleading, therefore, I will not comment at this time.
ITGuy
"When we are able to put aside our differences, only then may we say we've evolved."
