Interesting when one can change the polarity or letters in a word only to see the true light; shocking ! Riggy
Plug just took on two new institutional investors the hard way. Their greed rolled the dice : snake eyes
I don't think you are going to see Morgan and Barclay at the #$%$ tables any time soon. There is no way they bagged their clients or would walk away from this deal. My guess they had to closed the deal even if it meant eating the leftovers themselves or pull in an old IOU. Riggy
Cowan Analyst ? Has he been following Cap for a long time ? I hated the way Cowan provided financing for Fuel Cell and Plug recently; Coming out with a surprise deep discounted offering only to those undisclosed special interests who probably had a preexisting short positions in some "unrelated" trading account in the first place - a reverse parking hedge fund technique.
In the meantime, the rest of us are out there buying at " fair " market value. If this stock gets over 2.00, get ready for another Cowan Compromise. I believe in the company, the product and the market; its the Street that is my only concern. Riggy
Interesting how the game is played a second time. Just a theory: Assure a big guy that if he shorts 10M over 3, you promise him the co will sell 10m @ 3 and just to make it more interesting for a third time, you grant him warrants. No financial risk on his part; company gets new money to burn and the shareholders buying in over 3 have a snowball's chance in hell of making money. Wake Up SEC because you are not protecting the little guys; but then again; did you ever? Riggy
Ivan Boesky got caught parking stocks with institutions prior to takeovers back in the day. The game is the same except now the target gets to pick the parking space. Riggy
There will always be speculation that the Cap will eventually need a big industrial sponsor in order to fully leverage the investments made so far in its entity. Big names such as GE and others make for good rumors; however the true suitor will come with a history; such as Caterpillar who back in 1981, stuck its toe in the turbine waters with Turbomach only to find that a lack of understanding and foresight was too unsettling; and without that market life preserver and unclear visibility, decided to step back out in 1985 by selling to Sunstrand Industries. Definitely a lesson learned because in 1998 Cat bought Perkins Engine; a company with a distribution network and well within Cat's comfort zone of undersatanding.Cat needed smaller and faster diesel engines to complete its horsepower application range. Cat knows that range can now take on a third dimension without having the risk of power plants falling out of the sky. The icing of this cake; it that the deal comes with a significant tax carry forward and four institutional guys controlling over 20% who wouldn't mind owning a little......................... Cat. Riggy
Brian Harper's Article says it all; I am surprised he is long. Here's the risk in simple terms : The Chinese Interests can settle for 70% of the pie legally via a dividend : or transfer 100 % of the cash illegally by buying some relative' s Chinese Junk which gives them approx 42% more to play with. Given their previous track record, the odds are they may lean to that whole pie concept. Some folks just get comfortable about court.
Nice try, add a couple of retail fashion gurus to the board and dress it up a bit ? This company will continue
to go nowhere until somebody dissects this antiquated business model and glue back the pieces into a different pattern. People can buy boots, clothes etc on line so I am sure these two new board members are thrilled that someone thinks they are bringing something of value to the conference room. Selling auto parts ? The grocery boys tried, the electronic gadget boys tried, and now lets look at the clothes merchants. Sad.
Bottom line: Pep will always be nothing more than a $ 9.00 a share take over play. Riggy
Why would four institutions hold approx 5 % each of a dollar stock ?
Why does management hold so little?
What are the real warranty expenses ?
Do R & D costs really exist or are they perhaps mislabeled ?
If I could only get a handle on these questions, I would feel more comfortable being long this stock because everything else seems to be on a positive track. Any thoughts out there? Riggy
What has always been a concern is that management doesn't own very much of this company; especially when trading at a lower dollar amount. Your article may explain why there isn't an incentive by those who know more about this market that we do to invest and yet elect not to. But then again; why should one take on risk when this other " opportunity " seems to be working repeatedly. The buying back fees to warrant holders at a premium at one point, then underwrite shares at a discount, then throw in attached warrants again?????
Add in the lack of ownership ? You may have a real good case. I surely hope it is not so. Riggy
Did the Cap just issue approx 13.5 mil shares @ approx $ .62 a share net? If so; seems pretty expensive way to finance at this perceived point of possible profitability would anybody agree? Exercising under water warrants for a fee...........how could they go wrong? I mean the warrant holders! Riggy
S&W Seed's partnership with PureCircle to grow stevia leaves in California; now that's a smart way to play the stevia hype. Even PureCircle which trades on the London Exchange makes more sense that this Stevia Corp BS. Riggy
As kids, we always wondered where did that Tooth Fairy get its money; right out of thin air one would expect. Well, this Tooth Fairy, lets just call him Gouge Blankfaker Jr. for now, has created money for himself; right out of thin air one would expect. Unfortunately, every investment tooth we tuck away under this pillow of uncertainty, will not transform into coin. Best case scenario, we will end up after pulling teeth, nothing more than a cavity. I needed to put this message in a fairy tale fashion so that the long dreamers would begin to understand the risks of pulling out a perfectly good tooth, for the sake of making money. Riggy
One can only be on a sugar high or some kind of other drugs if they are seriously considering this change a name to whatever works, 1 employee, negative net worth, no sales or cash flow, company that somewhere out there the powers of being place over a $ 50 mil value. Let's not forget the hype about contractual arrangements in the Far East. Yes, there is a growing demand for stevia just as there is a growing demand for air. The trick; is making money. Question: In what year will this company have a positive PE ratio of 50,000 to 1 ? Unless you are under the age of 8,and can live to retirement, there is a chance you may see this junk still listed in this century. One would think by now that the old boiler room push wouldn't be taken seriously today. Forget the non sugar high, this thing has the potential of causing one hell of a tooth ache.
If you have time, go back and read many of H.Pokus's messages over the past several years. His information brings to light why this dog is trading at what appears to be at a favorable risk/reward ratio. Chinese businessmen thought they could take a once famous name like Emerson and win the game again with moves from the Singer Sewing Machine PlayBook. It didn't happen; so in desperation, they were forced to share the remaining wealth via a special dividend. Half was better than nothing. Bottom line: These guys aren't use to sharing anything. Riggy
I would give anything to see Craig - Hallum's book of business regarding this underwriting. Pricing an issue close to 25% under the current market price at that time did nothing for current shareholders; it did serve the Heggies . You have to hand it to Chris Cox back when he was running the SEC; Kill the uptick rule ! Heggies got to love him big time. Am I the only one seeing this game? Riggy