Recent

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

Netlist Inc. Message Board

cherk_on 62 posts  |  Last Activity: May 24, 2016 1:59 PM Member since: Aug 13, 2009
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • 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."

  • Why would Paragon bother with trying to put two board members at Rubicon when they only have 30K shares? And why is Rubicon taking Paragon seriously considering they only hold 30K shares? What am I missing here?

  • Reply to

    Virtualscopic's Counteroffer

    by swartz211 Apr 15, 2016 8:57 AM
    cherk_on cherk_on Apr 20, 2016 7:04 PM Flag

    jk522caz, please don't tarnish the image of New Yorkers. I know plenty of New Yorkers, and none of them are a downer like you. It's not even about being a pessimistic. Your posts are basically working for the other side. If you are not, then you really need to have your head checked because as I told you before, your posts are contributing to convincing people to sell and move on.

  • Reply to

    PR today on Astral Images

    by pa1702 Apr 18, 2016 3:54 PM
    cherk_on cherk_on Apr 18, 2016 5:59 PM Flag

    Astral Images already announced a contract "that pay money", and the revenue probably booked in the quarter ended last month. 1st Detect also announced two government contracts that pays, though obviously the big payoff is when they actually start selling the final product. In the mean time, those couple of millions will help pay of R&D which is necessary for further market penetration. The Sidoti presentation clearly shows how long the process takes. It's not ideal to say the least, but anyone investing in this company better believe in their long term plans, or just sell and move on.

    I like that Warren Lieberfarb seems to be pushing Astral Images along. Perhaps his connections are helping. Bottom line, I think ASTC is a good buy at this price and while we wait for 1st Detect, Astral Images could become a positive surprise.

  • Reply to

    Virtual Scopics Patents

    by bayshorerob3 Apr 14, 2016 9:49 PM
    cherk_on cherk_on Apr 15, 2016 8:05 AM Flag

    jk522caz, I did not find anything Converse said regarding his intent to setup a stock purchase plan as being illegal or even misleading.

  • Reply to

    Virtual Scopics Patents

    by bayshorerob3 Apr 14, 2016 9:49 PM
    cherk_on cherk_on Apr 15, 2016 6:05 AM Flag

    Bayshorerob3, what about the part where they delayed the earnings report by almost a month and announced the deal on a market holiday to ensure least coverage? To me, that's price manipulation.

  • The way I see it, it's understandable why Loeb and Merck GHI would be willing to sell. Loeb is probably just tired of waiting after more than 10 years and Merck GHI is happy to just get its original investment back.

    The big question is whether other shareholders are willing to sell at $4.05 after the progress VSCP has made so far. The University of Rochester for example has been relatively patient and shown it was not willing to sell at this low price. I suspect that most of the current employees would not be very supportive of the sale either given that many of their stock options are under the water at $4.05. Smaller investors had numerous opportunities to sell above $4.05 before the tender offer was announced, so I don't see why they would tender their shares at this low price.

    We know there were other bidders and investors who were interested. They were low ball offers that did not account for the progress made by the company as shown in its Q4 earnings. Will have to wait and see if any of them are willing to come back with a higher offer after reviewing the new info from the past two weeks. These potential bidders have to get approval from their management/boards as well, therefore, will just have to wait and see.

    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.

    Here is what I am betting on:
    1. BEAT doesn't get the majority shares required to close the deal and decides to increase the offer price instead of walking away.
    2. "Company A" comes back with a higher offer.
    3. Deal doesn't close.
    4. Another bidder other than "Company A" comes out.

  • cherk_on cherk_on Apr 7, 2016 12:23 PM Flag

    At this stage, BEAT, the company can only buy through the tender offer. The BOD and other officials would likely have material non-public info that prevent them from trading the stock in their personal accounts. In any case, the numbers of shares being traded is very small even assuming they are unique shares and who knows which side those shares will be going.

  • cherk_on cherk_on Apr 7, 2016 11:48 AM Flag

    Maybe because no one believe the deal would actually close at $4.05. Similar to how BEAT had to pay a $6.4MM fine for over billing Medicare, maybe they'll have to pay a fine if they did anything fishy to get the VSCP board to support the tender offer.

  • cherk_on cherk_on Apr 7, 2016 11:34 AM Flag

    jk522caz, I do not have issue with you being realistic or even pessimistic. I have an issue with you repeating your pessimism over and over again. You can say the same thing about my optimism, but we are supposedly on the same side. Putting pessimism in fellow shareholders head only have the effect of convincing people to sell and move on. That is why I have an issue with your posts.

    And no, I do not have any insider info. What I know is that tender offers are usually at a premium, not a discount to previous day market price. With only 20% support, common sense would suggest that it is unlikely for them to get another 31% given the low price. If I am wrong, then clearly the majority thinks $4.05 is not a low price, and I can live with that. As you said, no risk in waiting to see the results.

    We also know that there are others interesting in the company based on the CEO's comments. As for whether another bidder will offer a higher price, again, we will just have to wait and see.

    Based on experience, lawsuits would likely be filed even if the tender offer was at a premium instead of the a discount as seen in this case. The chance of "winning" such lawsuits depends on the merits of each case. In this deal, the offer was at a discount, and the earnings were delay for almost a month compared to previous years and announced on a market holiday. That appears to be intentional price manipulation to support the low ball offer. The judge/jury will decide if it gets to that. That's not what I am counting on though. I am counting on shareholders not selling or a higher offer comes out.

  • cherk_on cherk_on Apr 7, 2016 10:01 AM Flag

    jk522caz, so you think spreading pessimism is a better way to spend your time?
    As I have stated before on this board, my recommendation is that shareholders who believe $4.05 is a low price, do not sell their shares.
    I am also spending part of my energy countering all these threads by hired guns, trolls, or just plain a-holes who keeping posting here trying to get people to sell and move on.

  • cherk_on cherk_on Apr 7, 2016 7:29 AM Flag

    jk522caz, you pretend to be a shareholder, yet you keep implying the low deal will get done and nothing we can do about it, with that pessimistic theme repeated over and over again. And there is the fact that your account was setup last week.

  • cherk_on cherk_on Apr 7, 2016 7:22 AM Flag

    jk522caz, did you create this new account last week just to spread pessimism?
    jk522caz
    28 posts | Last Activity: 8 minutes ago
    Member since: Mar 29, 2016

  • cherk_on cherk_on Apr 7, 2016 7:04 AM Flag

    The most fishy part of the deal is the withholding of the Q4 earnings info in order to keep the price down. That is intentional stock manipulation. That delay caused some to sell the stock because delays of that magnitude is usually bad news. We can also all agree that if the Q4 numbers were announced in the usual time, the stock price would be much higher. Add to the fact that they finally released the numbers along with the tender offer on a market holiday and intentionally did not highlight the great Q4 numbers by simply embedding the info in the full year numbers in the 10k.

NLST
1.32+0.01(+0.76%)May 27 4:00 PMEDT