Frontline Ltd. Message Board

Juan - although Yahoo knocked out your post (for having a link in it), they send a daily email, and I saw the link. I had already looked through the cc again, but had failed to find the Needham question, so you were right.

However, it makes no difference to your worries. The F-3s were still filed. Go to sec DOT gov. It's 88m+, much as Ross said.

In the latest presentation (go to Velti's site), Moukass confirmed there was no further financing expected, though admittedly I would not believe him if he told me the Yankees are a baseball team.

But I would not be worried about further dilution if I were you. If it came it would only be another 10% max, which is chickenfeed compared to the dilution Moukass' antics have wrought in the last year. The real point is whether their business model can generate MM and MA revenues PROFITABLY in the next several years.

If it can, another few million dilution won't make much difference, and if it can't, then no amount of dilution will prevent BK.

I flagged everybody Report Abuse and Ignore User (and stockmoron for not being able to spell "their") !! WOO !!!

Read the F-3s for yourself. Or are you too short to be able to see them clearly?

Why don't YOU substantiate your claim that "CFO had said in Q1 earnings call that number of shares could increase to 90 million by the end of Q2"?

He said NO such thing (even though it's substantially happened).

Thanks for posting, Mr Rott.

Anyone any clues why FRO greeted this news with a 12% increase in the most recent session?

Mr Shores,

Won't post this every time, but please know that somebody out there is ALWAYS grateful you bring these shipping articles to our attention!

Cheers,
FRO-baggie #4235

How on earth did you find this? Never mind, next topic.

While I have no idea the economic (profit) significance of this, if any, for future royalties (and this is only P1, so some time off still), it does not do much for one's unshakeable faith that the BOD is telling us Long-sufferers everything, does it?

Quoting from your post of May 7, 2013 10:23 AM (which anyone here can verify):

"we are going to $20. You can mark my posts and you will read them again in a week, two weeks, and three."

So, just let me make sure I understand your moronic drivel. Less than 2 weeks ago it was going to $20, yet you've been long for 4 months. Is that it, you single-digit-IQ cretin?

Maybe you meant long on horse-manure, not QCOR?

And, by the way, you have your ID wrong: it should be irritating, not irritated.

Glad you came back to confirm. Lot of people here not that bright, although irritatinginvestor is now claiming "his" group bought out your chief victim in this thread!

No, young cuttlefish, it is you who continue to miss the point(s) made by alien, Nomad, me and even pharma.

Small wonder you've been looking up "projection"! Waste of time, trying to help you with your personal problems, alas for us all, your wife included, no doubt, never mind the neighbors and their dog.

More seriously for the rest of the board, you still never resolved the bald contradictions between your previous and present "analysis". I read the 10Q and the BofA conference. Our concerns remain. As Pharmaman said.

Speaking of pharmaman , you might take a hard look at how he handles himself in ALL these facets. You could learn a lot in everything from humility, accuracy, how to do research, all the way through to...yes...grammar and spelling!

I'm out of this particular discussion now. Enjoy yourself strutting before the crowd in your brown-stained clothes. I never knew cuttlefish output was brown.

This is getting old for everyone, so apologies. The point I (and many others) am/are making about Don is that he seems to know more than he cares to tell. After such a wild swing-and-a-miss, this excites curiosity. They just got through a cc where they claimed not to have a clear QUANTITATIVE idea of the elements in the miss. Now - barely 2 weeks later - he suddenly knows the effing RC was 5%? LOL.

Grammar, etc.: mikey, you are a WRITER. You seem to like analogies, so let me try that. A handsome model often parades in clothes with #$%$ smeared all over. Someone quietly suggests a dry-cleaner. "People judge you by your clothes! And if they are spattered in #$%$, we can't see them or you properly!" "Oh, no" our hero replies, "I am handsome, so #$%$ cares?" LOL :) :)

I get that you experience anything other than a kiss on the #$%$ as bashing - but that does not make it so, my young friend.

Your world view appears too black-white, and lacking in subtlety. Did you never know anyone with wonderful qualities, who yet had some problems? Did you put that person on "ignore" in your life, or did you try to talk with them?

alienvapor: your post was too subtle for them!

Hint for the gullible: he is not espousing these hypotheses! He is lampooning the automatic credibility of the "5%" statement, and the willingness (of some here) to believe an (any) alternative without evidence.

If so, this is not to say Don was lying (another false deduction from some people who missed Logic 101 along with Grammar 101). But it IS to say he offered no clear explanation. Again, there may be legal, or other, reasons for that, that we do not fully understand. He may only speak frankly to certain analysts or funds, and off the record, by mutual understanding.

Oh, and the plural of doctor is doctors, not doctor's. 6th-grade? Still too advanced.

Again, I did NOT bash you, but now I will! I neither know nor care what's on your blessed spreadsheets. The only evidence I have about you is what you do post publicly - and that hasn't been looking too reliable lately. You might want to try to take in that rejecting your info as (highly) questionable doesn't mean taking any particular trading stance.

Your responses, to everyone here, are increasingly ridiculous and your credibility is starting to sag visibly. (To alien - good posts, well said!)

Appears you misunderstood "get to the bottom of your stuff". I wasn't asking you to "share your spreadsheet". As I have already said, the information you have posted here is simply inconsistent, so it no longer much interests me.

I gave some hints about your "stuff" in another post (below) in this same thread. Usually, however, people cannot beging to see themselves as others see/experience them, until the pain of continuing as they are reaches a certain threshold (they used to call it a "mid-life crisis", I think.)

For now, I will just whisper a hint to you: even the folks who want to kiss your #$%$ so you will keep giving them what they want from you, find it irritating to have to keep walking on eggshells to get over to it.

pharma: fair enough. I had meant to commiserate with your " I expected the share price to nosedive after Q1, even with the April guidance, which I found strange. Nope. As stated, I sold the bulk of my position and missed the run up..."

I also sold 18.5% of my position at 32.50, which I had never planned to do, for same reasons (much less well researched) as you.

It must sting especially for someone of your knowledge and talents to fall prey in this way! I know it almost hurt me to see it go to 42.50 a few days ago (as my account surged), and I kept totting up how much I had "lost" through my sale. LOL.

Your mild comments about Mr Bailey's, er, "communication style" do you great credit.

mikey: am sure the 5% would change the calculations. What it wouldn't change is vials shipped versus vials reimbursed. Why on earth would I take the opposite side of your trades?

I think you are going to have to get to the bottom of your stuff.

That's astonishing about Favus, and makes little sense, at least to me. He seems to have been righter than he could ever have imagined he would be. I suppose he must have just botched the timing of his trades? Or been as gob-smacked as most us have been about the way it has traded since the cc (I do not speak for you, of course)?

I didn't say or even mean to imply that you are those things, Michael. What I said (and meant) is that you are NOT a simple person. Some days you are a researcher (and a darn good one, by all evidence), some days you a trader, some days you are a brawler, and some days you are just a mean bully. I think your moods vary a great deal (far more than average), and that you can be honest, kind and sweet, then dissembling, combative and cantankerous - turning back and forth on the proverbial dime. At all times, you are perversely sensitive to praise and criticism, though you would never admit it publicly.

You are never sure if you want to present as honest and straightforward, or as a Wounded Warrior buried into his combat position.

So I think you're probably extremely likable and damnably difficult - but that one has to read between your lines to know who showed up today. Clear enough, I hope.

pharmaman: I pretty much skip the salt for your posts because they always come with your own (judicious writing style). Your info and perspective were, once again, VERY helpful to me - and I venture to bet to everyone else here.

I know you and mikey now, apparently, feel the clouds have parted and it's becoming sunnier, but I still respect the analysis you each performed, and am simply NOT satisfied with Don's offhand 5% remark!

The last couple days, I have been trying to estimate what Q2 non-GAAP EPS ought to be, based on Don's 5%. In other words, what figure do they need to announce, so that we would all be confident that they had "filled in" the Q1 miss (ie. it was almost all due to NDC code-changes, inventory re-stocking issues and anything NOT RC-caused, and/or simply being unable to charge for shipped product).

I wanted to develop a simple array function in Excel, smoothing the latest 8 quarters (bar the Q1 0.76), which are: 0.20,0.23,0.37,0.47,0.61,0.69,0.97,1.09 - using eg. {=GROWTH( B1:B8, A1:A8, A9:A11 ) }, where B1-B8 are the EPS I just quoted, and A1-A8 are simply 1-8. Then I would produce the thing for the next 2 quarters, getting the required compensation for Q1 in Q2. But I can't get the darn thing to work, just not a dab-hand with Excel :( LOL.

Accepting that Q4 (1.09) was inflated, and that Q3 growth was abnormally good (same in 2011, eh?), I think we are looking for (in the above sense) $1.38-$1.42 for Q2.

Just one thing I'd like to add about you and your post above: it, of course, occurred to me that you may now be honey-tonguing what Don said, and building toward a new "hypothesis" about Q1 either as part of (1) cutting off a continuing line of Favus-style short-attack (2) your own trading strategy (going back long, perhaps)

I am not so naive as ALWAYS to take what you say at face-value (as I certainly am/do with what pharmaman or mho, for example, say)! :)

I would have thought your post deserved its own thread, or could perhaps be slipped into a thread where traders chat or make comparisons with other stocks. The present thread is about the recent presentation in relation to the interpretation of the Q1 results.