<<Until you take a position in the stock, you are fluff, "all sound and fury, signifying nothing!">>
mooter, since when does one have to have a position in the stock in order to discuss it in an intelligent manner? You are stooping to ad hominem arguments like your friend Johnson. I guess that is because you don't like arguing with my points.
<<You don't know who was selling other shares prior to financing - you speculated.>>
That is correct. It is my speculation that the massive selling we have seen immediately prior to each purchase by Daddy Warbucks is Daddy Warbucks pre-selling his shares. This pattern has repeated itself through 5 Warbucks purchases now. It seems like quite a coincidence does it not? Five straight times is enough to convince me, particularly since we have not seen any SEC filing by Warbucks indicating a 5% ownership of the stock.
<<If you persist in believing that things have not changed in the past months since the company has (1) financed successfully, (2) had 70% or so of the floorless converted, and (3) announced a purchase order, then be my guest.>>
I did not say things have not changed. They have gone from having no products for sale to having limited products for sale. And they've managed to sell a limited amount of product. They have raised $14 million since June (by private placements to institutional investors, who, IMO, are flipping the stock for a quick profit). And yes, 70% of the floorless has converted, although well below the fixed price which increases the dilution.
You describe these Daddy Warbucks purchases as "successful financing." I might define "successful" differently than you. For example, by raising sufficient funds to not just keep them from going bankrupt for another month, but to get them some positive working capital so they could actually support a substantial purchase order (presuming they are able to fulfill one). Some might also describe successful financing as financing in which the interests of the purchasers of the financing are aligned with the interests of the holders of common stock. A situation which was clearly not true in the case of the Castle Creek floorless, and does not appear to be the case in the Daddy Warbucks purchases.
Actually, some might define successful financing as a secondary public offering which raises significant funds at a good price. For example, ULBI's secondary public offering of a few years ago. Yet even in ULBI's case, raising money at far better terms than those VLNC has managed to get did not mean that ULBI was a good investment. So, if ULBI has stumbled for years after their own intitial PO, and after they raised money at far more favorable terms than VLNC, excuse me if I'm not convinced that VLNC is a wonderful investment after they managed a small PO of their own.
|
