oceans11,
I never said I disapproved of a US company supporting the US military. I said that it is not a PR worthy event. Maybe a nice story on the company website, not a PR. I have absolutely no problem with Savi (or any other company) supporting the military; in fact I think it is admirable. I thought the PR itself was very amateurish, I had no problem with the act of supporting the Army personnel. I already explained this to you in a prior post.
I also explained to you in a prior post the difference between a customer and an investor. You do understand this distinction, don't you? I buy shares of stock for one reason only: because I think the share price will be higher in the future than it is now and I will therefore make a profit. Whether or not I purchase the company's products does not need to be a factor. In fact, although I am aware of the Peter Lynch ideas that DFW previously posted about (investing in the companies that you do business with), I think this method actually runs the danger of becoming emotionally attached to a stock, which I don't think is a good idea. (Thus the saying to never marry a stock).
I will be as happy as you to see news of a "slam dunk major contract", but I would not discount the positive impact that even the sales you used in your example would have. I don't know with certainty the total number of units that have been sold, but I can make an estimate. I have heard that previously the price was essentially $500. (Lately I am hearing a possibility of $300, but $500 is what I had heard before.) This year, until the time of the Disclosure Statement, they had revenues of around $26K, and all of last year around 2 grand, for a total of approximately $28K. If the price was $500 per unit, this would make a total of about 56 units. Therefore, if the sales in the few months since the Disclosure Statement exceeded all previous sales, then this would be of interest to me. It wouldn't need to be an itemized total like in your example. However, a PR stating that Savi sales in the past month exceeded the total of all previous sales, with some additional language regarding the anticipation of further increases in sales in the coming months, would likely generate much more interest in the investment community than a PR about their support for the military.
And if my estimate of approximately 56 units is even close to correct, it shows that the vast majority of shareholders do not own dynovalves, as the shareholders of record are over 500, and the actual number of shareholders is higher still. So, even if the real number of untis is double my estimate of 56, it still means that the vast majority of shareholders do not own dynovalves.
