The earnings were not that bad, I've seen worse, however never buy a stock thinking it will get bought out, that's not the reason to buy any stock. Just because the insiders or President sells there shares there are many reasons why they sell, not because the company is in trouble. They get stock options as a bonus to supplement there salary or pay package, and the president probley sold his for income. This stock is a leader in the bank, lottery, and gaming sectors as far a there printers go, and it is not a short term investment. If you want to day trade find another stock.
Tact is turning around and will be a leader in it's field, just takes more time then most stock buyers think. So if you can't take the heat get out now.
Good luck to all longs,
edzygutis, answer to your question:
link is http://www.littlefield.com/presidents_messages.html
J Minch announced his intent during last summer's conference call. said he already owned 5%+ but as CEO, is constrained from purchasing during times he possesses non-public information. I don't know any more than that.
stockwatcher4, I'm thinking you should give up trying to explain anything to ert123 because he is only here to bash and doesn't have much to work with so makes things up as he goes. But thanks for the stats on Littlefield. I was looking for another gaming stock to place a bet on and may pick up a few shares. Know anything else about it? Do you have a link where I can verify Littlefield's CEO intends to purchase 60% of the company?
Thanks again and if you're an American, have a good Thanksgiving!
That's what I said. He owns about 30-40,000 shares directly. Not much difference between the two. And I do not base my investment decisions exclusively on whether a CEO is selling shares. This company has great prospects but the continued sale of shares by the CEO, who has a relatively small position, has and continues to preclude broader analyst coverage.
ert123: check your figures -he directly owns over 41K shares.
And I have the perfect stock for you: since you base your investment decisions on whether or not a CEO buys/sell shares in the company, see LTFD.OB. The CEO has publicly stated his intention to purchase 60% of its shares.
Less coverage better than more coverage???? I disagree. But you are right about the company's potential. I have heard all the cc's for the past two years and have a very significant position. Which is why I am frustrated by Bart's selling. Analysts will not follow a small tech company where the CEO, who has a relatively small position, is selling his stock as the share price declines. That is just a huge red flag, despite the company's obvious potential, as you have well pointed out.
While it is true that TACT doesn't have much coverage, I would agree that less coverage can be better than more coverage.
One thing I would add though-- it isn't where the company has been it's where is it going. You can look at financials from ten years ago, but it doesn't tell you anything about where the pps is going to be in six months. Again I reiterate, listen to the cc's-- take a look at the lack of debt-- look at the explosion in Wynn resorts and Las Vegas Sands and their China exposure.
A couple of tidbit's from current cc was the surprise at the response Tact has seen in the increase of floor space in Macau-- gaming could double in China. The other interesting fact was the future of Network gaming , and how TACT has some significant patents when it comes to network gaming which is the future of gaming.
You have no answer! No matter what the subject of a message is, you keep harping on your "only reason" this stock's price went down. We're tired of such ignorance.
Asking if the sister was CEO shows you miss ed�s point entirely: Financial advisors and plain common sense tell investors DIVERSIFY. Even after the sale of the shares of TACT you keep harping about, Bart Shuldman still is a major direct holder who has over $370,500 of his portfolio in TACT. For a young executive, I imagine it is a sensible, if not large percentage of his total liquid assets in one company, even if it is the one he works for.
As to your question about analysts, if you�re long, you are lucky to be invested in a stock before it gets wide coverage. Buying into TACT below $10 a share gives us the opportunity to establish a stake in a proficiently run company with no debt that supplies the global, ever-expanding gaming industry. Expect the price to return to January �05s $20.
Glad you are so optimistic. Are you aware Bart sold more than just option shares? He sold personally owned shares on the open market at continually declining prices. He should not be running this company.
I agree with you that it would be better to be buying shares of the company than selling, but who are we to say what he does with his shares-- after all they are his shares
Where I diverge with you is the thought that the only analysis and research to be done on a stock is managerial buying and selling. Have you listened to the conference calls,and have you look at the financials, the long term growth of the industry-- why start and stop your analysis with stock purchasing or selling?
I believe that the long term growth of this company is in capable hands. If you listen to the cc's you can hear the expertise and industry knowledge that Bart has; the managment team has sucessfully converted TACT into a growing industry leader in the gaming,lottery and banking printer business.