I've been a fan of INVE for a couple of years but ultimately bailed out of all my high risk stocks in October - couldn't stand the volatility. So I don't mean to come across negatively, but your comment could easily be turned around as a negative implication for INVE instead of a positive. What crossed my mind with this announcement was I wondered why CSCO didn't exercise the same strategy with INVE that Apple did when they chose to buy out Authentic at its very low market cap when they decided to use AUTH's technology in teh then upcoming IPhone? AAPL decided to lock in AUTH's technology and growth completely for themselves by stealing the company from AUTH's shareholders when they knew the impact of their own decision to use their tech. CSCO didn't do the same thing. I wonder why? Could it be the market's over estimating the long term value of this deal or that CSCO doesn't really consider INVE's tech that far ahead of the competition? I have no answers and kind of feel like Debby Downer in even bringing it up. It's just my cynical mind coming up with alternate thought for no apparent reason. I don't own INVE anymore, and won't be jumping in no matter what, so take this from whence it comes - a cynic with no dog in the hunt and no in depth analysis done.
I haven't read an IPO prospectus in years, but out of curiosity, I did skim OPGEN. I don't know whether it's more of a comment on the company or the status of the current IPO market but it amazes me that a company like OPGEN can attempt to go public with language in their S-1 clearly stating, "The report of our independent registered public accounting firm on our financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 contains explanatory language that substantial doubt exists about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our monthly cash burn rate is approximately $500,000. Our current operating assumptions, which include our best estimate of future revenue and operating expenses, indicate that our current cash on hand as of December 31, 2014 of approximately $0.7 million, plus the 2015 convertible note funding and additional secured demand note funding in 2015, will not be sufficient to fund operations through the second quarter of 2015.
'In the event the Company is unable to successfully raise additional capital, we will not have sufficient cash flows and liquidity to finance our business operations as currently contemplated. Accordingly, in such circumstances the Company would be compelled to reduce general and administrative expenses and delay research and development projects including the purchase of scientific equipment and supplies until it is able to obtain sufficient financing."
Were I not familiar with TINY's past proven non-communications skills and ability to participate in monetization events that never translate to TINY's shareholder benefit, I might be tempted to say that with language like this in the S-1, it's no wonder they're silent.
I truly hope the day will come when MOSY shareholders are rewarded for their blind faith, but I'm actually amazed at the loyalty of the true believers.... I owned MOSY for 2 years awaiting some, nay any, signs of traction in its products via increasing revenues and every quarter the story was always the same - Len's pretty sure we're only a couple of quarters away from true greatness. Well, you guys have more faith and more patience than I, that's for sure... I gave up 5 months ago at 2.43... Good luck to the longs - I hope your trust, your diluted trust, is eventually rewarded.
Actually, this stock has done pretty much what I have wanted it to do - meaning it has been a relatively steady performer, not subject to large price changes. It's been more like the tortoise instead of the hare, but that's what I was looking for..... investing in SPE does seem to be an excercise in trust since they don't even seem to file quarterly reports no less leave much of a footprint as to what they're doing, but so far, it's been an OK performer. My largest complaint other than the lack of information available is one you won't experience and that was how they handled the retirement of preferreds. The timing of their announcements was detrimental to shareholders as I remember, and I thought it could have been differently easily, but I don't really remember the details now. But that's done. So all in all, you're right, you buy this for its annual distribution, not overall market performance. BTW, if you don't know, they post NAV weekly on their website on Fridays so you can at least track how they're doing NAV wise.
Sice - I'm curious as to why you say this about Goldstein, meaning how and where do you find out about what he's doing in the first place? By their own design, it seems as though even an investor can really find out practically nothing. Is there any source other than the what, semi-annual letters to investors? And I suppose the irony is not lost that he supposedly feasts on closed ends trading at substantial discounts when SPE itself is at an approx 10% discount.