The observations that you noted in your post are not the basis that I would use to evaluate this or any stock. For instance:
PROS
1. Solid Management (Gary Borglund)
I don't believe you have any direct information that would allow you to make that determination. What previous companies has he been CEO of? What was his track record? Does he have previous experience in the Internet gaming and software areas? What has your DD revealed?
 Works hard, several deals are in the works concurrently
This may or may not be true since that only information we have is from press releases. Unlike most other companies GLOW does not publish any type of information to its stockholders.
 Keep the stockholders well informed
If you mean that Mr. Borglund passes information on upcoming corporate happenings than I would have to agree with you. However I have never heard of another company passing information through a series of intermediaries to include a 16-year-old kid. Highly irregular.
 Isn't afraid to challenge decisions of past management, and undo them if necessary
I don't know what you are referring to. Mr. Borglund appears to have been president of GLOW during the Wolf Key fiasco, and several others.
 Isn't afraid to refocus direction as environment changes (i.e. focusing on providing software and management services because of legal concerns of owning the casino).
What information do you personally have that suggests that it was Borglund and not Jamieson that made that decision?
 Does an outstanding job of following through on their words, especially given it is such a small company
Here again what information do you personally have that would suggest this viewpoint is correct? He has not followed through on a single press release to date. What happened to the "unwinding" of Wolf Key? What happened to Burnt Church? Do we need to continue?
2. Marriage of two great industries!
 Gambling is a hot industry
 Anything "Internet related" is put on a pedestal by investors
 On-line gambling is projected to be multi-billion dollar industry very shortly
You can not use projections for an industry or sector as a basis to invest in a company. It is how well the specific company adapts to the challenge, dominates the industry, and creates revenue that is important. If we invested in every company that announced that they were going to do something we would all be fools.
3. Ground floor
 Market capitalization is $10-$15 million, it is far easier for a $10-$15 million company to quintuple in market cap than it is for a $100-$150 million company.
More smoke and mirrors. Who cares what the capitalization of the market is, its what the specific company is doing that is important. GLOW has not had one documented success that is producing revenue. And the old come back of "If it was it would not be a $.25 stock" does not hold any water either.
4. Very limited downside
 Based on Friday's closing price, the worst I could do is lose $.25 per share
That is undoubtedly the worst of your observations. When an investor has a $25K invested in a stock does it make a difference whether the stock is at $.25 or $25 a share. He loses it all. It's the amount invested that is lost not the price per share.
5. Huge upside potential
 This stock easily has the potential to be a multi-dollar stock in the next twelve months
One of the worst observations and the basis of most of my posts. That is the worst type of hype, fantasizing your personal opinions and stating it as fact. How did you calculate this "potential", and what numbers did you use? I am sure everyone wants to know. I know I do.
6. Bargain price, the stock price is depressed because.
 Past management (we now have new management)
What information do you have that management has changed? And one person does not make a management team! Borglund has been president for some time, are you telling me that he did not know what jamieson was doing?
 Lack of information (I consider this to be a huge opportunity, especially in light of the company's plans to become fully reporting)
Now I am starting to get some insight into your investment style. I call this the ostrich style of investing. The more information that is lacking the higher premium and potential you place on a stock. You have to be pulling my leg on this one, aren't you????
7. Is an excellent fit within my portfolio.
 Most of my holdings are "blue chip" stocks such as WCOM, INTC, MSFT, LVLT, etc.
How do you fit a highly speculative stock in with WCOM? If this is your investment style to purposely risk your capital, I don't want you around my money. Capital preservation should be every investors number one priority.
 I needed a good "high risk"/ "high reward" stock like GLOW to bring my average portfolio risk to where I like it
Another oxymoron, high risk translates to high reward. What book of wisdom did you get that from? The two events are mutually exclusive.
CONS
1. Lack of operating history - however, the industry itself is in its infancy.
Again you gave a con, and a false observation. The industry may be in its infancy, but that has nothing to do with GLOWS lack of operating history. BING is only one year old but they have filed several forms 10's.
2. Lack of available information - I personally consider this opportunity since, once information does become available, the risk will be substantially reduced which will correspond with a significant increase in stock price.
Boy! This is getting tougher. How do you extrapolate a lack of information on a company to a large potential upside if it ever becomes available? Wow!
3. "Vapor contracts" (no contracts have been finalized yet) - This con should be eliminated in the coming weeks.
How is it going to be eliminated in the coming weeks? By releasing more press releases on other potential contracts?
4. Skeletons in the closet - Gary seems to be handling them well, we'll know more with the release of the 10-K.
Aha! Finally some meat! What are the skeletons in the closets? Skeletons spell trouble.
5. Ties to the "Toronto Trouble" - It appears to me Gary isn't too impressed with these folks as he attempts to sever relationship(s) with them. I had initial concerns here myself until I did my own DD. I am personally satisfied there is nothing shady there on GLOW's behalf
OK time to produce. Bob Davis of the napeauge Letter asked for information like this and everyone feigned being deaf and dumb. What did your DD reveal?
Well am at the end of your post and still have found nothing substantive in it. What it has told me is:
1. You have done no DD.
2. You rely on press releases for your DD.
3. There are skeletons in GLOWs closet.
4. A lack of information on GLOW will drive the price up when it does become available.
Now I see why your are so sarcastic to negative posts. You have no ammunition to fire with.
Good luck.
|
