The only thing missing from your analysis is a reason for any of those companies to spend money buying RSH. Competitors are doing just fine plucking it's customers without buying it. That is the problem.
Why don't you break it down to loss per second and then it will seem really tiny. The loss per nanosecond is effectively zero. Problem solved.
I'm not aware that Buffett is buying more - what is your source?
I believe he's done buying. This said, his original stake is significant - he's highly concentrated in IBM along with a handful of other equities.
Consider that Buffett's been reading IBM financials for half a century prior to his purchase (he notes this in his comments on the whys of his purchase) and contrast this with some of the troll "analysis" here. Too damn funny.....
They got $1M for assets, not for Advent. The $4.8 M in liabilities remain with NOVC. Worlds of difference between the two.
I guess I'd say to take a look at the history of management purchases. The resulting volume and price bumps look very temporary to me. IMO, this is because they don't follow up with performance.
If they can show some performance, then their purchasing becomes more meaningful. Due to the excessive salaries, their purchasing is suspect and I think the lack of response to their purchases demonstrates Mr. Market's skepticism.
I said millions of dollars of market cap ago that this was a very risky endeavor. And now you hold a completely different company than you did then, currently selling for new lows, starting up in a new business that has no margins and is saddled with a mountain of debt. You really should pay attention.
Lashing out is understandable but it does nothing for rational thinking. The angrier you get, the more mistakes you'll make. You've got your long pals terrified of speaking to the reality of this gamble lest they be thrown under the bus with all the others who have gone before. I feel sorry for the two thinkers on this board (the two longs). They dare not cross the line. It's painful to watch.
This is riskier than ever but not baked yet. The company has enough cash to go for awhile and apparently they're betting the farm.
Good luck longs. Learn to read the financials for yourselves. Your gurus are out to lunch. "Hundreds of millions" for SL, How many "millions" will advent sell for? Earnings are not important. The debt doesn''t matter. Yikes.
That's a great question. Generally insider buying is a good thing.
Is there anything about NOVC whereby appearances may be a more important motivator than actual confidence in results? I can think of several reasons. That said, insiders will lose money on these purchases if the company doesn't perform.
Yeah, don't rush things. That's what management says as they continue to remove cash from the company at rates way out of whack with performance. They just love people who gottabelieveit without a shred of thought.
yowzer, you might want to rethink your priority. Answer this question for yourself: what methods of achieving positive cash flow are capable of producing positive cash flow in perpetuity? (Hint: there is only one method that sustains positive cash flow in perpetuity).
Good luck to you. You appear to be only one of two longs on this board who applies any thought to this gamble.
There are so many errors in this that it's hard to count them all. Even the alleged direct quote has errors. Typical long manipulator tactic.
Assets 1.6M, Liabilities 4.8M. How much would you pay? And that's after their one good Q and only one of their bad Qs. Imagine what it will look like in December. You can give me as many thumbs down as you like but it won't change the reported numbers, or Advent's performance one iota. Maybe Anderson pulls a rabbit out of a hat, but $8-10M? I can't imagine who would pay that.
Bingo. Interesting how the company's own actual results are "meaningless" yet some other company's results portend great things. Caveat emptor.
Bill - PB3's posts on this subject are woefully ignorant and he apparently chooses to remain ignorant because he wrongfully thinks it suits his agenda. The website he cites is pretty scammy and they rely on terrified retail investors to provide eyeballs so they can sell advertising (ad rates are all about hits, and they invite terrified, ignorant retail investors to hit the site often which bumps the ability to sell ads). Note the site's disclaimers, including receiving ad revenue from stock promoters. It takes a bit of digging but the disclaimers are there.
Read up about how market-making works, especially for illiquid stocks. They're covered as fast as the market maker(s) can find a buyer(s), and typically all are covered by the end of the day. There are some good educational materials out there from a variety of sources or you can call FINRA and ask them to explain this to you.
Good luck to you.