Yes.
I know who the majority "stakeholder" (chuckles at steak holder) is.
I also know they've been a majority stakeholder so it's not like its some new position.
Their motive to be a major stakeholder seems clear enough: They began offering UBRG cash in exchange for warrants, convertible notes, and shares or "units" (units are combinations of two or more securities eg: a unit might be shares and warrants, convertible notes and shares, or a package of shares, warrants and convertible notes).
The sole purpose of being a majority stakeholder is to call the shots. Just like you and I, when we invest in a company we are doing so in a few ways:
1.) we buy common shares in hopes they'll rise in value over a given period of time
2.) we buy preferred shares hoping they'll rise in value over a given period of time AND the preferred shares offer an attractive dividend
3.) we buy the company debt in exchange for warrants, shares, or convertible features in exchange for regular interest payments on the debt and the bonus of receiving shares via debt features at a discounted price to market value as added security to sell at a letter date.
4.) we directly loan the company money in exchange for shares, warrants or convertible notes for similar reasons to #3
As investors we recognize pecking order: bond holder being the most secure, then preferred, and way down at the bottom is common share stakes.
Now, lets say you really wanted a "say" that influenced the steerage of a company. The best way to do that is to become majority owner. A true majority owner (the private company is a true majority owner) gets to literally use voting power to set conversion rates, discount terms etc. In a great company where they're truly looking out for shareholders and all class of investors a majority owner can be the investors best friend. In UBRG's case I worry that it is more like the fox guarding the henhouse.
A lot of people think "they want to own shares so this must mean they see a bright future in the company" and that is a mistake to always think that way. In UBRG's case the majority owner seems to want control over terms and agreements which sets discount rates and their ownership of shares, warrants, and convertible notes is simply A VEHICLE they use to make money. It does not appear to be a bullish based ownership model.
ALL THAT SAID...It is of note THAT:
1.) UBRG has not posted this PR regarding a potential increased stake to their own website
And
2.) the private company has not listed their possible intent to increase their stake in any fashion on their own website.
Now, the private company doesn't have to list anything. They are privately held and free to keep wraps on anything they choose.
UBRG is publicly held and I don't see a reason why they wouldn't post this PR on their website...to date they have not...but they've posted other PR's to their website
In my opinion, the failure to post this PR directly to their website says "we want to distance ourselves from this PR" Why would they do that?
Now in fairness... And the final note here is this :
If, (and I mean IF) this PR is an accurate reflection of the private company's intent to buy and retire 256 million shares it would be a large positive for existing shareholders. But UBRG didn't exactly say that the majority stakeholder would buy shares... They simply said the majority stakeholder might be looking into increasing their stake WHICH if they do it through more warrants, more share issuances or convertible notes it'll destroy current shareholders through dilution.
So, I guess longs should hope this is the one PR out of dozens that UBRG actually follows through with and hope that the private company buys shares and retires them.
Me? I don't believe any of it. I do not believe that this private company wants shares to retire them.
