Yesterday's filing came across my platform and I gave it a pretty good look, the same as you. As of then I have not received an amended report as you mention. My platform still list the IH as holding 15.2 million shares. Nevertheless, the pps is off almost 3% today, although an argument could be made it is in sync with the market as a whole.
I don't stress over whether this particular Institutional Holder sells shares as it is CPST's largest and most aggressive shorter A 75% mistake in a SEC filing by a major holder of a penny stock is unlikely. On the other hand the sale of that many shares would certainly have a depressive effect on the pps and could certainly move it in the direction most favorable to them could it not?
You have mentioned that you are covered on both sides--lately the shorter's have been booking more profits than the sellers. Good for them. Its just not my cup of tea to bet against a company I believe in, although I do believe in protecting my assets and taking gains when warranted. I am not adverse to taking a loss if that seems to be prudent to me--I don't fall in love with a stock.
Apparently you missed the huge swings that afforded you opportunities to make tremendous, profitable trades. If you would have traded them, you would still be bug eyed with a bundle of $, I assure you.If you remain glassy eyed, you will miss your opportunity again.
You have mentioned previously that you "could care a wit about my trading style." But here you go doing just that. That being said I do take some gains when the opportunity arises. As I stated the "glassy eyed" view comes with hearing the same mantra repeated about once a month. Quite a feat for you to assume to know what I may and may not have done. No problem though.
one reason for these new buyers was that there was a substantial factory warranty to back up the new and innovative technology. Buyers continue to line up with the C-200s
Yes, but even so, do you think the buyers would have been in such a rush, regardless of the warranty, if they knew there was a possible warranty issue looming? I would suspect that Capstone Management wasn't aware of the issue and it started appearing after the units had put in substantial field time. Taking a unit off the line has consequences. The bragging about shipping the initial units before scheduled in retrospect appears to be a not so good choice, but I would think that the newly hired DJ wanted to demonstrate he could perform JMO. That performance has come back to bite the company real bad. Has he stepped up to rectify the situation. Yes. Has he before? To some extent as I understand the CCs. It according to my interpretation is a growing phenomena that isn't going away anytime soon (listen to the CC)to which DG hired the ace from Rolls Royce. Perhaps this should have been done earlier, I really don't know, but it does appear to be serious.
You haven't been here long and apparently don't remember much about the reorganization and the initiation of the new sales and distribution chain which did not exist at that time or their development and improvements.
I've followed Capstone for about as long as they have been in business. Thank goodness that I didn't buy it at its peak. I venture to say that I've operated, started up, shut down, repaired, witnessed all construction phases, both domestically and abroad, and performed owner inspections on more turbines than you've seen or dreamed about. All sizes and applications. If the comment above applies to me being on this board, which I don't think you imply, you are correct. Have I learned here? Yes. Do I have more to learn? Yes. I think you need to loosen up a bit? Yes but it is your game of marbles.
Everything you complain about here is what Jamison has, himself, already reported and addressed in the CCs.
You seem to think that anything not in line with your own opinions are a complaint. On the other hand you continually encourage participants to listen to the CCs and read the annual reports. We all come away with our own interpretations you included. One of my main points in the posting is that earlier mistakes are harming the bottom line. Are they being fixed? DJ said they were and I have no problem with that--re-read my post. They must be to protect the brand. There are plenty who complain here and you take them to task also (I'm not complaining btw.) I attempt to illustrate my comments with facts as I did on the post we are debating. There is always going to be opinion just as there are always going to be analysist. Most include IMO to reinforce that fact.
There are many here who can learn from healthy dialog, even historical issues. The more we know about where the company has been hopefully the more we'll learn about where it is going.
All of that being said that are many varibles that can and will affect this technology. Listen to the CCs and you'll hear about some of them.
