Here' a math lesson Wedge. I bought my entire position at 5 prior to the reverse split and sold 1/2 at 25 that's a 400% return. So if I had sold the balance at 5 which I didn't, it would be a 200% return. In fact my return is closer to 300% a return worth investing for and the kind of return you will likely never see. The couple of points missed the last few months is peanuts, inconsequential, especially considering it may remain at this level for some time. So who really is the loser here? The person that's already made and banked a nearly 300% return or the fool with the swagger that's down 20% after the big run I missed and is euphoric now he's not down 50%. Throwing out the insults and counting my potential losses illustrates more than I possible could how big a fool you really are. At the heart of it is the jealousy you feel that you were late to the party and missed the big move that I have already profited from, that's what it's all about.
Also " buy when the blood is running in the streets" is a quote from Baron Rothschild. In any case you didn't buy when the blood is running in the streets did you? You bought in at a figure double that amount. Evidently too foolish to follow the advice of either of the two men you like to quote.
You bought @12 and broadcasted to the world. You're still 20% underwater, anyone buying today is in better shape than you, want to brag about that? I don't trade, I invest.
Rule #9 never buy on a big decline.
Rule #12 never average down.
YOU proclaimed to be a devoted follower of his trading method, nobody else. Big mouth small mind.You fancy yourself as a BSD when in reality you wear a pleated skirt and a pom pom in each hand.
So a flat year and they want the company sold??? I don't have to deal with anything, already banked my money and on the sidelines until I see those promised profits. At least you're only down about 25% now rather than 50% that's got to be encouraging.
Nope, will only invest if institutions return and in my opinion that's unlikely for the reasons I stated. Nice runs in both 2006 and 2011 and was hoping for a third chance!
O.K so why is it so undervalued and why is Ronald Chez who made a ton of money on this company a few years pushing for a sale? Why has institutional ownership dropped 20% in the last twelve months or so. Why isn't this technology being bought? Not being argumentative, just curious about your theory. What have those sellers missed in not seeing a turn around and if the company is failing to execute so badly, why hasn't there been a change in management or that even proposed? Selling a company is a desperate move, it crushes morale and you risk losing key players. Why would this even be a rumor with such great prospects?
Well that's also been my thinking too photon, but there has to be some serious concerns or issues we may not be aware of for some big investors to push for a sale. That's selling the company, not replacing the CEO. Institutional investors in my experience have far more patience and a longer view than retail, do their homework more thoroughly and have access to those running things, so it's a big concern.
When a company looks for a buyer it's generally regarded as something done out of desperation and any buyer will use that to their advantage. Certainly in Silicon Valley one can expect a premium IF you have rapidly ramping growth. Procera may have produced world class technology but it's not being bought, if it were they wouldn't be in this predicament. My forty years in business taught me at least one thing, buyers determine what something is worth and it's only worth what somebody is willing to pay at the time you want or need to sell. To me at this point in their story a sale doesn't look likely or even that beneficial to shareholders, however when you consider their cash position it would make more sense for management, maybe along with an investor or two, to take this company private, if they still believe they can execute. Of course this assumes there are not multiple buyers willing to compete and at this time I think that's a fair assumption.
Personally I don't think a sale is anything to be happy about. It indicates that this is not only failing company but one that doesn't see a future, hardly something another company will pay up for. I was hoping to see some big wins announced and some signs of growth before re entering, evidently that's not likely to happen, too bad.
timing, there is a tendency among investors, as opposed to speculators, to wait and see if their thesis is a correct one before putting their money at risk. The thesis being that under the previous management you were certain to lose and under the new management you are likely to profit. No matter how good the theory, you wait for that growth and/or profit to be achieved before adding or entering. Patience along with good judgement is a requirement to achieve ones goals. Luck is always welcome but cannot be relied on.
My issues have never been about the business, although I do question Raju's ability to manage a large company, but the structure he has created that appears designed for his sole benefit. A look at institutional investment would suggest I'm not alone in this thinking.
Until Raju makes clear his intentions regarding any future IPO in India or the sale of this company, investors will remain on the sidelines no matter how good the earnings or growth. Had he priced his private shares at market rather than a huge discount, or better still, loaned the company funds as many principals and founders do, the shares would be trading at a much higher multiple than they are now with the strong expectation of a return to at least the highs of a few years ago.
I tend to agree with you freeze but there is an Insurance company involved and they generally choose to settle rather than litigate for the very reasons you mention. The point that o08o.ugh64w • makes is a valid one, there is a difference between being stupid or unlucky and malfeasance. And there is a big difference between the handling of funds in a public company and a privately held one. It seems to me that previous management ignored their responsibilities to the shareholders of the company and should pay the price both figuratively and literally.
Interesting article in Barron's this am about huge cap spending by telecoms this year, but no mention of PKT or ALLT, too bad. They do like CIEN, HRS, RKUS and NOK however.
Does Forward buy back these shares or with the backing of major holders, litigate? My guess is they buy them back and focus on growing the business but there is obviously a great deal of animosity towards previous management for good reason.