Hi JOE, Thanks for the "post from the past". Even though I'm a shareholder and would like to see the stock price go over $1.00, I've been more interested in evaluating the current price, why it is what it is and what factors are making it respond poorly. I wanted to feel sure that this wasn't one of those stocks that gets illegally shorted and ruthlessly driven down by cheaters who have power and advantage over us. As you know, and through you and me several others on this thread know, there has been a lot of due diligence done in the process of trying to understand the circumstances surrounding this stock. I believe we have as good a feel for this stock as many of the professionals out there and a better understanding than a lot of them. But it would be a really uninformed market maker that would expect to be able to short this to zero. Many penny stocks are just shell corporations left over from the bankruptcy or failure of a previous business, without any revenue or assets, like Araldica was the resurrection of a Texas crop. shell back in 1993, unless I'm mistaken. And here we are five years later with verifiable assets and revenue. I feel better researching and verifying the value of that revenue or those assets than I would if there were no revenue or assets to verify.
We have arrived at some conclusions about the current price, about the cloud that seems to have been following us as the price dropped below .15 recently and about what it will take to make this a $1.00 stock. We concluded that there were many people feeling that they had been tricked by hypsters and have lost their belief that this company will ever be worth anything. They take advantage of any strength in the price to unload their shares. And when there isn't any strength, the market drops several pennies on small sell orders. To them, well it may be possible for a few of them to keep following the thread and "wait and see" if the conclusions are on target. But most have never heard of Silicon Investor. There may continue to be a drift downward until some expectations begin to be met. Previous expectations of rocketing prices were hype and were over done by a long shot, BUT there is some truth behind the high expectations, it's just not going to be a miracle. Real people, working under financial realities, are giving their best efforts to turn around the image and to make the right moves. Management changes are likely to happen in this environment and I hope that the people at Araldica who really care win out.
Joe, you and I have stated different methods of valuing the company, my One Times revenue method and your 1.5 times revenue method. My One Times method is for beaten down stocks that are trying to find a bottom. The bottom will form as the last of those who want out badly are finally able to sell and that might happen when a milestone event like audited financial statements happens. Once a bottom is established and a base is formed, the factors that were "beating the stock down" are gradually discounted completely and new factors begin to drive the valuation. That is when I expect to see the transition to Joe's 1.5 Times method. For clarification, my valuation of .18 per share was using the "beaten down stocks that are trying to find a bottom" method and used only the revenue before the Danielle deal. My belief is that the attorneys are close to completing that deal and I really hope that happens because then the value using the One Times method goes to .60. Also, Jon Swan, hopefully a future member of the board of directors, is a well known innovator in the field of specialty food manufacturing and distribution. He also owns a label company and that could be a nice relationship to have as we begin to roll out custom labels if and when the wine distribution starts to get big.
Just a note, .60 at One Times revenue is .90 at 1.5 Times revenue. Close enough to a dollar. Maybe TLW or some of the other experienced "watchers" will step in and buy enough to push it over the mark. We need audited financial statements. I WANT THEM. For Araldica, do what is necessary to close the deal.
Slim |
