We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon
Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
That's it ! Thanks Molee ! Glad to see someone's reading and willing to do some research.
Again, Thank You ! Not an easy task. Kinda reminds me of doing research on AmatI back on SI back in early 1996. Back then I used the. HotBot Search Engine, and when you typed in ADSL you got 6 hits, yet I was able to find plenty of information to formulate an opinion on weather to own the stock and post good informative Posts.
Reseach is an Art, you acquire the skills with time and dedication. There are a lot of Key aspects unknown to most.
You can either do the research yourself and get into a stock early or be late for the Party.
i.e. McEwen Mining/USGL or Amati. Amati Communications Corp. Oh I could have began in vesting much earlier, as I used to do research and knew of Companies like Microsoft before the went public in 1986, by reading Magazines like Technology Illustrated but had little to invest.. But in 1995 and the creation of the World Wide Web, I could put two of my passions together, research and investing. It was not long before I was debating Engineers on the Aspects Of DMT Line Code (Amati) vs CAP Line Code (AT&T) a battle similar to the VHS vs BETA MAX for the VCR Standard. DMT the ANSI / IEEE Standardn around the year 2000.
Know the Man: It helped knowing the CEO of Amati was a Professor at Stanford and he was at AT&T's Bell Lab's when AT&T created ADSL (simply DSL as its now Known, although the are Many Types of DSL. If interested in that Research see one of my posts WHY DMT for ADSL
If you have time check out a chart of Cisco (CSCO) and see how many times that it Split 1:2 and 1:3 between 1990 and 2000 ?
Wow, Sorry, I guess I got off on a tangent there !
As far as as investing in MUX, I began research in Gold, boy was there a lot of hype back then and I caught a quote by someone who said Gold was going to $5000 oz. and I said who is this guy! LOL. The rest is history.....
Molee - Since your interested in learning more about these guys, are you at all interested in the geology as well?
I went on kinda a Geological Research Crusade shortly after investing in Ginguro and at the early stages it began with the comparisons between Witswater and Pardo. Once I found the first Gigantic Association, this lead me further and further down the road. As if a large magnetic was pulling me deeper and deeper in to my quench my thirst.
Finding little fascinating Gold Nuggets of Information keep feeding me like a drug addict always looking for another Fix or Gold Nugget, that added to the Bigger Picture, one puzzle piece at a time.
As with Amati Comm. Corp. ( from my last post) It seemed like I got hooked, and ventured again into uncharted territory that I knew nothing about.
"People on a team must be happy to be wrong as right. If their ideas hold up under strong (but fair) criticism, then great, they can proceed with confidence.
If their ideas are rejected, with good rationale then they have learned something.
A healthy team is made up of people who have the attitude that it is better to learn something new than be right."
Hear Hear, I love this JDub!
Well the answer to you CSCO question is, without research, considerably more. Back in those days companies did forward splits like changing their socks. You see, market demand for US stock shares from baby boomers and the rest of the world was going through the roof and they wanted to make more shares available while keeping the share price "reasonable for the average bear". Not like Warren buffet (lower case intentional), who has never split his berkshire hathaway stock and that is why it is well over $100,000 per share.
This is what baffles me to a degree with IVS and their reversal. Valuations were correctly pointed out to be the same forward or reverse, we know this, so why the need to consolidate (reverse)?
I was told the reason was because the stock needs to be above .05 in Canada to do a capital raise, yet in the subsequent PR it states the need stems from possible future financing's. I stipulate to you, and all that neither of these are applicable any longer.
The share price looks pretty good above .10 and I think that, as was so astutely pointed out in an earlier post, "These Guys are not stupid". I believe that they have come to the knowledge that these bulk samplings will more than pay for themselves, in fact, will make the company immediately profitable with no need for any additional financing in a "seed money aspect".
JMHO........I bet no split.....any takers? .........I will still be happy, even if I am wrong.Thanks for that post JDub!
On the Consolidation - I guess we find ourselves on opposite sides of the Fence on this Issue StemuliteWorks.
No I don't want to see consolidation. Yes I think it will take place.
Do I want to see consolidation? No, in less it would be in the best interests of the Company.
No matter how much you own. In my case especially not considering I based my Purchase on the Stock on at least going to $0.50 with the amount of shares I Purchased. I would like to see a return a on capital in the $???,000 range. Perhaps you can figure out the least amount I own. It may be greater than the minimum sum of the equation, but certainly not less.
So No, I don't want to see the Consolidation happen. But Que Sera Sera.
IMO whatever the 3 Largest Shareholders decide will happen will happen as they hold appox. 31%. and as far as I know, Institution(s) only own 1.38 M shares. See Note, there maybe other Large shareholders who held their shares.
NOTE: There are 3.7 Millions shares That are not part of the 31% mentioned that were done in a transaction in 2009 and had a 4 month holding Period. Whether this Party held those shares or not is an unknown.
NOTE: Also there are another Appox. 12M shares owned by 3 parties In 2011 (last date of record I have) by former Ginguro Associates or investors. Whether these Parties held those shares or not is an unknown.
a) Is there a retail Investor(s) who own enough where their vote might have a huge impact Vote? b) Will more than 20% of retail investors Vote for Consolidation? c) Will a large Percentage of Retail Investors that Get the Proxy bother Voting at all, thus changing the amount of shares Voted. Thus giving the Large Shareholders an advantage? d) Will it be determined by the Board after the shareholder meeting not to do a Consolidation? e) ???? f) ????
The best one can do is make sure you vote and say Que Sera Sera.
A lot of my basis for seeing the Consolidation happening is based on:
Not knowing ahead of time of the last Private Placement those participating went in thinking a consolidation was likely, Given the share Price at the time. Also in order to gain more attention by Financial entities the share price needs to be higher (Granted Share Price has improved since the last PP) .
Also the less shares the better from some people's stand point. Not a factor, although Ian Ball for one likes to see a small Share Structure for Abitibi showing only some 10 Million Shares Outstanding. Granted IVS is not the same with RZZ having a share price of $4.18 up from $3.00 in February.
In the PR I found (which is Below) it sound like the IVS wants the Consolidation to happen.
Just a couple of Quotes:
There are currently 85,183,806 Common Shares issued and outstanding. Upon the Consolidation becoming effective, it is expected there will be approximately 42,591,903 post-consolidation Common Shares in the capital of the Corporation issued and outstanding on a non-diluted basis
Those words could be interpreted a few ways. 1. Yes if the consolidation takes place, there would be 42.6 Million shares. 2. We expect the company will have 42.6 M shares post-consolidation.
Taken in context with the next quote each person must choose 1. Or 2. For themselves.
The board of directors of Inventus (the 'Board') has concluded that the Consolidation would be in the best interests of the Shareholders as it could lead to increased interest by a wider audience of potential investors and could better position the Corporation to obtain financing and pursue acquisition opportunities.
Granted it does also say:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board may determine not to implement the Consolidation at any time after the Meeting and after receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, but prior to the issuance of a certificate of amendment, without further action on the part of the Shareholder.
Disclaimer - I own shares in IVS.V The Opinions and Comments are those of my own. Do Your own Due Diligence, the make Investment Choices Based on your own Study. Good Luck at the Rigged Market Tables. JW