You mean to tell me we'll only get 100% bounce on Monday? Sheesh, what a crappy stock. I demand 300% per day otherwise I wont' invest!!!
Correction: you can write off all your losses so long as you have gains against which to net them. In the absence of any other gains, you can only write-off $3,000 per year.
Agreed. This is game changing news.
You are fooling yourself. What are the chances OCN won't adjust their admin processes to dot every i and cross ever t that the state of CA is demanding.............zero............
This means the will be back in business in CA in very short order and it also means the settlement discussions won't be dragged out and they'll have to pay a big fine as they did in NY.
This is game changing news, but you are welcome to live in denial. It's your money.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Run35ok, you essentially subscribe to a perfect market theory which is bunk. "Smart money" is not always liquid. They hit their investment ceilings just like retail. They don't want to sell one stock to buy another, just like retail. They are not magic and in many ways have constrictions retail doesn't. They can't buy small lots as it is not economical etc.
It is entirely possible that your "smart money" is just waiting out this downdraft in the price and collecting the dividend like the retail.
My commenting on asymptotic dynamics was simply a result of your asinine suggestion that NQ would forever have pps drops greater than the gains.
Thanks for the great insight! Of course it is, but when it is profitable, the EPS is increased by the buybacks. And if the GAAP NI is negative, but the cash flow is positive, then the cash flow per share is increased by the BB as well.
Your penchant to employ personal invectives certainly accomplishes your goal of being annoying....but it also makes you largely irrelevant.
Argue till the cows come home bigjoke about "losing $20 million per quarter" and conveniently ignore the cash status. Forever cry about the dilution, but at some point I hope you at least acknowledge to yourself that reverse dilution has the same effect on a stocks price that dilution does going the other way. A buy back of an amount of stock that would be about 22% of market cap and about 40% or more of float is going to have a dramatic effect on the stock price. It's called earnings per share and supply and demand.
Are you still short? Do they pay you a penny per post? What is yoru motivation here? Your tenacity is impressive.
Don't be ridiculous. Cash has actually stayed flat over 2014. The losses you refer to are largely from stock based comp which will subside as time goes by and as they cease to make acquisitions. Plus, the earnings power of those acquisitions will kick in. NQ is not the first company ever to suffer GAAP losses due to acquisitions.
Make all the negative claims you want, just don't waste our time making claims that ignore accounting 101.
Nice side step from the basic issue of asymptotic dynamics, Bigjoke. If you can't win the argument, change the topic.
bigjoke, you conveniently forget that with every share purchased in the open market by the company, it decreases the float and most of that decrease comes from the non-core investors. Just like any other commodity, supply and demand dynamics are at work and when the marginal unit is in demand, its price goes up. Purchasing $80mm of share or some 15 million shares will have a much more meaningful effect on the share pricing dynamics than the first share purchased. You also need to add in the decrease in the shorted stock, which decreases the effective float 2:1. But explain it anyway that makes you feel good and allows you to crow, even if it isn't logically true.
Because the dynamic you describe bigjoke is asymptotic. And such functions have to come to an end, unless you believe the stock can go negative. That's why.
@bigjoke: Callling it $20 mm loss for 3rd straight quarter w/o qualifying those losses as mostly stock based compensation for acquisitions, which will provide growth, is just a tad bit misleading, doncha think?
Twohander44: you say "trust me". Why should we trust you? Especially when you personally denigrate everyone else? You would no more trust someone that tells you to trust them than you would be respectful on these boards.
Ya, a company that doubled its revenue in 2012 over 2011 is worthless. Oh, wait, it also doubled its revenue in 2013 over 2012, but I'm sure it's worthless now. Oh, wait, stringing guidance together and statements about acquisitions in 2014 it looks like revenue will double again in 2014 over 2013. But nqbagholder, Twohands and dipsnip, I'm sure you're right that the company is worthless. Thanks, but no thanks for the "advice".
You mean audit committee chairperson, not CEO. And yes, it was due to medical issues despite what lie the shorts want to feed you.
That is exactly what I'm doing. Buying and holding for a year plus. I'm banking on 2015 being a good year. You've offered not one scintilla of evidence why 2015 won't be a good year. All you do is extrapolate (and berate) from the past. In case you haven't noticed, stocks trade on expectations, not the past.
There you go again......."assuming" I"m making excuses. What "excuses" am I making? My only point is that until the Q's are released, we don't know if the acquisitions made in 2014 (2013 is ancient history, keep bringing it up if you want) are accretive or not. I don't know, you don't know. Yet you keep bringing up dilution as though it is akin to mass infanticide. Dilution for good purposes can be a wonderful thing. We just don't know yet whether their 2014 acquisitions were immediately accretive or not, do we.
bigjoke, you are the biggest "assumer" on this board. You assume the acquisitions that caused increased share count are economically dilutive, yet you have no proof whatsoever. What a hypocrite.