I just want to make a note on my last post. As some of you know, I own shares, and I want them to go up. I am a long term investor, and I truly don't care if the price goes up or down today. What I do want is for the company to do it's next capital round as preferred, which I've discussed extensively at IV, and I want hedge funds to begin to take positions in the company.
To my view, the more transparent those of us who believe in the company are about what we know, including things that are concerning, the more reliable the board becomes.
The hedge funds, generally, are investing with public information, whereas the institutional investors who are looking at preferred will have access to NDA-level confidential information that we don't have.
These investors truly won't care about what all the old ladies here have to say about how scary things were in the olden days, when, by gosh, there was dilution everywhere and common shareholders had to walk to school barefoot.
Good morning ME!
So if the Instys are better equipt to judge MVIS's future...why did they spend the last several months dumping 35% of their holdings? That's after, of course, we had all that great news of DGLs and Pioneer, etc.
Could it be that they DO know, as you've just kindly pointed out, that the timeline is not what MVIS has projected ( pun intended )?
MVIS has well earned their rep for playing fast & loose with the facts when it comes to their guidance...they have their job cut out for them turning that perception into a positive one.
Look at volume and price past what Daytraders push around occasionally, and there doesn't seem to be much interest in this stock. Wonder why? Ask those that have been here long enough to know more than you do...experience does count, and improves judgement immeasurably.
sharaccuda, I largely agree with you on what I think are your key points. The passive institutional funds had no business being in the stock, and by their own investor agreements, they cannot own shares. Further, the placements, such as to Oppenheimer, were likely almost entirely placed by the buyers back into the market, and the warrants kept.
I don't think we'll see the type of institutional money that you're referred to for a long time. So, I agree with what I think is the core of your sentiment.
I am doing some research on you. You are the same imbecile who keeps bringing up preferred stock. Last time under a different ID. If you find me any stock that generates negative flow that has issued preferred stock i'd appreciate it.... Also you post on the TQNT board.
I have posted here as picomems and at IV as "entrepreneur." I thought we went through that already. Why would I develop a comment pattern and then switch id's? I've commented so extensively on the preferred issue at IV, so clearly I'm up front with the view.
Do you really want to have the preferred discussion on the board? I don't think it will enhance the shorts' scary story.
I have a hunch that AT has a brilliant plan that will accomplish all of the following:
1. Fund the company until it can become profitable
2.Suddenly reverse negative perceptions about the company, its technology, patent portfolio and management
3.Precipitously boost share price, and thus
4.Reward long term shareholders for their patience
5.End the feeding frenzy the shorts have enjoyed
6.Put the company on the map in the investment world
I'm just going to sit back and watch it all unfold.
"Everything is the same until one day it isn't."
snowb, there are a few of your comments for which I have a different view.
-- The short interest is is easily at a historic low. In the, as the company neared it's the end of it's cash cushion, short interest materially increased. Instead, we're seeing a short community that is signaling a lack of confidence that there will be more common share funding.
-- The bad image of the management is a bulletin board fiction, and it's not just shorts who perpetuate this. In most past the image comes from Microvision who are angry at past dilution. Within the industry, management is highly respected. I've read this board for 18 months, and the wallowing in dilution stories is beyond tedious. I'm not dismissing how painful it's been -- my first shares were purchased at a present value of $6 -- but how much wallowing does the community want or need?
-- We're going to see, but I think that the BOD's support of Brian Turner last June indicates that the board tenor shifted from military/political connections during the Gordon era, to prioritizing more complex and strategic funding strategies.