Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Vista Gold Corp. Message Board

cherk_on 8 posts  |  Last Activity: Jun 8, 2016 12:07 PM Member since: Aug 13, 2009
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • cherk_on cherk_on Jun 8, 2016 12:07 PM Flag

    It might cost the company some money to fight with Paragon, but management can use the distraction since they're not really busy doing anything. Perhaps the proxy fight might get RBCN some attention and get some new investors as a result. While I will not vote for Paragon's candidates because I am not clear about their motivation given the few shares they own, they did do a nice proposal about how to squeeze some value from the company's real estate. I suspect Paragon is after RBCN's cash.

  • SMSI / Smith mentioned working with another that was not as big as Comcast, but also very big. Could this be it?

    "Charter Communications (NASDAQ: CHTR) CEO Tom Rutledge said his company can now potentially offer a nationwide wireless service because its Time Warner Cable (NYSE: TWC) acquisition gives it access to the same Verizon (NYSE: VZ) MVNO agreement as Comcast."

  • If BEAT fails to get 51%, the deal does not close. Gastineau's offer would become the superior offer automatically if BEAT fails to get 51% even after extending the offer.

    This mornings PR from VSCP at least confirm that the Gastineau offer was received by VSCP. While the terms cannot be considered a superior offer at this point, Gastineau can work on refining the offer. There is no time limit or deadline as long as BEAT does not get 51%.

    Bottom line, do not tender your shares. If you already did, you can call your broker and tell them you changed your mind. It is not even about choosing between BEAT or Gastineau. VSCP would trade higher even without a deal with either one of them! Frankly, I would rather Gastineau or "Company C" come in after VSCP shares have traded freely to reflect the progress the company have made recently.

  • cherk_on cherk_on May 5, 2016 10:08 AM Flag

    feeways,

    I believe my previous post counters every point from the tender doc justifying their reasons to sell. Was any of my points invalid in your mind?

    I would also like to add that the reason I believe Converse and the rest of the BOD is agreeing to sell is because 3 of the BOD members are affiliated with Loeb and Merck GHI which together represent 20% of the shares. If these large shareholders want to sell, does Converse and the other board members really have any other choice but to go along with the deal? If they don't, they will be out of a job soon enough. As I explained before, Merck GHI is of course willing to sell since they will get their original investment back after accounting for the dividend payments they received so far. As for Loeb, they are probably just tired after waiting so many years and probably just want out.

    Unlike Loeb, I am willing to wait and see how the rest of the turnaround story unfolds.

    my previous post:
    ----------------
    The growing bookings and backlogs proves that VSCP is still able to compete effectively despite its relatively small size. As for the need for continued capital investment in its technology, while that is true in the long term, there is no urgency there. Additional investment in their IT infrastructure can wait until the company is generating more cash given that they have already made some significant investments there in the past year or so.

    As for the negotiation history where it started from a low price, it was based on the lower stock price at the time, and did not reflect the progress in the recent couple of quarters. Even the $4.05 offer was made before the Q4 2015 earnings were released, which everyone probably agrees would have caused the share price to go up significantly higher than $4.05. Current offer should be based on the current state of the company and reflect the progress the company has made in the past couple of quarters; what the previous offers were is irrelevant.

  • Reply to

    Eric Converse...

    by feeways May 4, 2016 4:55 PM
    cherk_on cherk_on May 4, 2016 6:52 PM Flag

    The growing bookings and backlogs proves that VSCP is still able to compete effectively despite its relatively small size. As for the need for continued capital investment in its technology, while that is true in the long term, there is no urgency there. Additional investment in their IT infrastructure can wait until the company is generating more cash given that they have already made some significant investments there in the past year or so.

    As for the negotiation history where it started from a low price, it was based on the lower stock price at the time, and did not reflect the progress in the recent couple of quarters. Even the $4.05 offer was made before the Q4 2015 earnings were released, which everyone probably agrees would have caused the share price to go up significantly higher than $4.05. Current offer should be based on the current state of the company and reflect the progress the company has made in the past couple of quarters; what the previous offers were is irrelevant.

  • Reply to

    University of Rochester ?

    by jk522caz Apr 28, 2016 3:13 PM
    cherk_on cherk_on Apr 28, 2016 7:12 PM Flag

    Just to be clear, UofR was not part of original 20% support for this deal. The original 20% came from Loeb and Merck GHI. It's all spelled out in the SEC filing.

  • Reply to

    Can You Smell Supper

    by soisitme Apr 26, 2016 4:33 PM
    cherk_on cherk_on Apr 26, 2016 5:22 PM Flag

    You must not know how to read the balance sheet. There is absolutely nothing smelly about the numbers. I'll give you a hint, compare the q-o-q account receivable and the deferred revenue numbers.

  • Reply to

    Why is Paragon and Rubicon wasting their time?

    by cherk_on Apr 21, 2016 5:43 PM
    cherk_on cherk_on Apr 26, 2016 8:58 AM Flag

    Based on the info from letter to shareholders, it does NOT sound like any of them is Paragon.

    "
    *Consumer electronics application - the inventor, a very well capitalized company, is evaluating sapphire against other materials for use in their technology and intends to make a decision within the next six months. This application is outside of the LED and smartphone markets and has the potential to become a third major market for sapphire. If they select sapphire, Rubicon is well positioned to become an important part of their supply chain. Meaningful volumes could begin later next year with significant ramp of this application projected in 2017 and beyond. The first step, however, is for sapphire to be selected for use in this product.

    *Consumer electronics application - a major consumer electronics manufacturer is sampling six-inch sapphire wafers for potential use in chip based production outside of traditional LEDs. If this technology progresses, we believe it could also be a major new market for sapphire, beginning in 2017. Given our capabilities with large wafers, Rubicon is again well positioned to serve this market.

    *Medical devices - six-inch wafers used in medical monitoring equipment. While this would not have the scale of the two markets previously mentioned, if this market materializes, it could generate sufficient demand within the next two to three years to absorb all of Rubicon’s current six-inch capacity."

VGZ
1.25-0.06(-4.58%)Jul 25 4:00 PMEDT