It doesn't matter WHO the contract is with. UBRG and NDR can sign all the contracts they want with confidentiality clauses in them and that'd be fine by me.
What is not confidential is how the contracts are material to shareholders.
In other words, are the contracts:
1.) accretive to EPS (good)
2.) Neutral
3.) Decremental (bad)
The PR's make sure they all are enticing by saying they'll add millions in revenue but anyone who can read a Q can see that for two years (at least ) their costs of revenue exceed the actual revenue.
So they don't want to include company names, or how all these contracts are material to shareholders? Okay? Well that's maybe not how I'd do it but okay... Then how about a very common practice called "an open letter to shareholders".
They've signed what? 20-30 deals this year? How about a letter to shareholders where they address some guidance issues and wrap all of the deals into some tidy little revenue numbers?
Here's the deal...
Near as I can tell, per the MRQ, there's between 50 and 74 investors of record... With 3 Billion shares authorized that aint nothing. If any of you ever want to see this stock soar and keep gains they need to expand that SOR exponentionally and the only way they'll do it is by attracting shareholders with numbers they can sink their teeth into. That's why everyone calls the PR's fluff... Each and every one of the PR's I've read are ambiguous nonsense and when a company had a track record of these types of PR's it's not good. It raises too many red flags and MOST investors simply opt to stay clear. As the old saying goes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck... Then it's probably a duck.
