Mr. Bass,
Since you indicated that you were "leaving this board", I am sending you this message, publicly and privately, as well.
Would you please further explain your comments to me, for example as if I was a three-year-old? Since I am having some kind of comprehension problem here, for one I am not clear as to your motivation for your desire for, "saving" us.
>>After receiving some private comments on my last post, I will just add a little more basic explanation here. After that I am leaving this thread, as I have no further interest in the stock, now or in the future. This has nonetheless been an interesting lesson for me in understanding some very weird investor psychology.<<
If you believe, as you have indicated, then why do you think we would be interested in listening to your "pontificated opinions" and worse, your charges that the CEO is essentially a thief?
We are all adults, and we know that penny stocks are high risk, further, if Franklin fails in all what they have been working hard for, we are aware of what will happen to our investment.... Indeed most of the "Transferred Wealth" from us poor little peasants, to the evil man in Westlake, will indeed evaporate in thin air.
We have accepted the above risk. Are we fools? maybe, only time will tell, so far, speaking for myself, it has been a very good decision indeed. Has Mr. Peters forced us to give him our money? Absolutely not, we made our free choice.
Are you saying that Frank Peters is already guilty of a crime that has not been yet committed?
>>To quote Warren Buffett: "you can't do good business with bad people". My comments here are not on the products or technology, but rather on some very unsound (though probably legal) management practices.<<
Who exactly are you doing business with Mr. Bass, Are you doing business with Franklin? Did you do business with Mr. Peters, (buying in the Private Placement), or you simply speculated in FTEL via the open and public market and bought FTEL, then sold and made money?
When you did so, did a band of Mafiosi showed up at your home/office and pulled a gun to your head and said: "you bettera buya thisa stocka anda shutta your face, or else you will be sleepinga with your distant cousins the fishies, Signore Bass."
Therefore, exactly Mr. Bass, who are you implying that the people you are doing business with are "bad people".
>>A basic principle for an investor in evaluating an investment, is whether management's interests are aligned with yours. This means that management should be getting richer essentially because the share price is going up, and shareholders are getting richer too.<<
I do not have a problem with the above, in fact I believe in Franklin's case, as far as I can see, he has done an excellent job. In addition, (and here, I assume, we are all in the same page), the prospects of future gains are better than average. To understand this, you need to understand what the Telecommunication Industry is, represents, and how it will impact the future of everybody's lives.
However, that, is up to each individual.
>>The transactions described in my last post are emphatically not in this model, and are not at all standard practices. They represent a continuing *transfer* of wealth from minority shareholders to Frank Peters. Frank Peters is working for himself, not for you.<<
I will say it again; such "transfer" under the light that you put it is impossible to happen, why?
Because if the transfer where to indeed occur in the magnitude that you have implied, it will mean that I personally, (and I assume, others as well), will be handsomely rewarded for our risk. So how could I be the "victim" of a crime as you continue to suggest?
Under your scenario, the real "transfer of wealth" would be between the NEW investors and the present shareholders; (yes that does include Mr. Peters). Because for the stock to go up, it would require no "mystical" event, but NEW and continuos demand for the same stock.
That would mean that if a crime was committed, then the feds would have to haul every "evil" investor that participated in this gigantic "ponzi" scheme. Certainly, this would aggravate the current jail situation, already appalling thanks to our famous "(religious) war against drugs".
Frank Peters not working for himself?. Oh I see I have my own slave, right! I forgot the slave clause, does that mean that every single Franklin employee is also my slave, wow! That is great, and all this time I have been mowing the grass, and getting groceries, doing all those errands.
>>The Tempest may even still be great technology, but when things smell this bad, it's almost invariably because the whole setup is rotten.<<
The only thing that smells and indeed is rotten around here is your brain, probably because a long time ago in your feeble attempt to think, it exploded and died and no one had realized it until now. It is a good thing you posted here because now many people know, and will be able to remove it, leaving you with an empty skull! We should be so lucky!
>>These posts are obviously not directed at the tireless hypesters on this thread who consider the quality of Franklin's business an article of faith, but rather at anyone who wishes to make their own cool-headed assessment of the company's prospects.<<
Wrong number again Mr. Bass, there is no "faith" here, there is research, study, consideration, opportunity cost, and above all CALCULATED risk. As for future prospects, all you have demonstrated here is the following:
1. You know how to read, albeit not understand SEC statements.
2. For an unknown reason to me, you seem to think you are some Messiah that has come to save us poor souls of our own stupidity.
3. You are shortsighted because you can not understand the future of the Telecommunication Industry. You have no idea what the Internet could facilitate, used in the proper fashion, with the right technology and indeed, under a legal environment that will not choke the entire picture.
4. You have accused what I believe to be a hard working and honest individual with no more proof than your own idiotic interpretation of a government document. This document has been designed to present facts under a negative light so as to "protect" (by government mandate) idiots that are precluded to see beyond their short noses. You are not able to envision what true hard work, ingenuity, technology and yes, I will repeat it yet one more time again, RISK.
I am not afraid to be told that the choice I have made could possibly be the wrong one. I will be the first one to agree to question authority and "common wisdom". However, in order to do so, I need facts, intelligent reasoning, and deeds that can demonstrate the argument presented.
So far, Mr. Bass, you are full of air, or worse yet, you might be "just fishing", get it?
To Judith:
I know you do not like "argumentative" posts, but the post/individual that I am responding to with the above argument, is a necessity. Not because I am the official counter-Messiah, or anything like that. Explanation follows below.
I believe that you are a genuine individual that may or may not be invested, frankly I do not care. What I care about is that the character of the individual is open and honest in their arguments, I believe you are one of those individuals.
Because of the above I am giving you my reasoning to respond as I have done here. I do this out of courtesy to you, willingly; I do not owe you anything, nor you to me.
I could be wrong about Franklin, I have no problem with that, but I get fairly pissed off if someone attacks and accuses personally the individuals at Franklin.
I am not Franklin's "official bite the idiot attack dog" (say what, Mr. Klimpl?). However, you need to understand that if they attack Franklin, they are attacking my interest, and I will defend it, particularly if it is done in a vicious and baseless manner.
As for my wine (the drinking kind) and "known authors sayings"... all I can say, I have fun and I will continue to do so, if you are sour grapes, well add a little sugar (or better yet, some Chateau d' Yquem).
The wino |
