negative” per share numbers will simply keep compounding and the share price “would be” be made to reflect the clearly maintained “lacking profitability” associated with this Tranzeo/Aperto enterprise.Moreover, should Mr. Tocher and his fellow associates actually miss the positive per share mark during this quarter and the next, one would not doubt that the share price could be made to “crash” trough the interim
.60 cent level and could very well be made to “bottom out” at the
.17 to
.20 cents per share level.
You stated, >>”Tocher owns quite a hefty portion of the company, so I would think he would personally make sure that people aren't abusing company funds (especially in these times of such large cash needs). Also, he is independently quite wealthy, so I don't imagine he's in it to steal nominal amounts, I imagine he wants the company to succeed and have his large position increase in value.<<
Response: Let’s be clear; the possibility that Mr. Tocher owns quite the hefty portion of the company means much less to one than Mr. Tocher personally purchasing more shares at supposedly depressed “price points.”
You did suggest that Mr. Tocher is “independently quite wealthy” and others have in not so many words, suggested that the current per share price is, as would be based on the approximate $1.61 value pegged to those shares issued to the American based investor or investors, markedly devalued.
Pray tell; what would be your opinion as to why Mr James A. Tocher, being “quite independently wealthy”, is not “overtly” and aggressively reinforcing his personal holding in this Tranzeo/Aperto enterprise venture?
Why is there relatively little to no “insider buying” at such supposed markedly depressed prices?
Additionally, given the lack of perhaps expected share price performance, what we know is precisely that which we should deal with, thank you very much.
Company representatives “booked” the value of the now controlled Intellectual Properties in question at approximately 17 to 20 Million Dollars.
One is not suggesting anything other than what one knows for certain; and what you mention as being “other intangibles” e.g. brand name, customer relationships, and goodwill, are, as the should be, intentionally not factored in to any equation in order to establish some other valuation, eh.
After all, how could you attempt to establish and then assign any “subjective” value to such evaluated “intangibles?”
You can have all the brand name recognition, customer relationships and extend all the “goodwill” that you’d like, AmericanInv.
This alone does not change the very fact that this current group of management representatives have not been able to somehow “convert” such “other intangibles”; thus, somehow benefiting:
(a) The bottom line in a clearly per share positive way and
(b) The intention which all shareholders (not just CannO’Crap representatives and/or certain employed intermediaries”) may have supported or do presently support
You clearly stated you “wouldn't use that transaction as an indication of the value of the technology, as they were also likely a special interested purchaser.”
You also suggest “the vendor was likely compulsed to sell.”
Response: The vendor being somehow “compelled” to sell – perhaps due to some specific kind of “compulsion” – is indeed quite the “interesting” way in which to interpret what has transpired thus far, as pertains to the Intellectual Properties in question.
Pray Tell; did the vendor or vendors just so happen to be somehow far too indebted and had there been certain envisaged “renewed capabilities” and “mutually beneficial” synergies which a now “Canadian based” consolidation of such Intellectual properties assets could somehow “guarantee” going forward?
One would have expected that the vendor or vendors of such Intellectual Properties assets would have collectively preferred to “refurbish”, if you will, and then further “leveraged” such Intellectual Properties; all this while concurrently gaining an apportioned exposure to certain “Canadian based and publicly trading yet “internationally operating” propositions, eh?
Again, let’s be clear.
One expects that the American based vendor, rather the various private equity funds associated “stakeholders” who had been supporting the vendor/Aperto of such Intellectual Properties, would have been expecting much more than a
.60 cent share price resulting from having made the deal in question.
One would also expect that with so many top name American private investment firms/venture capital funds having elected to support the Aperto enterprise prior to its sale…
Well, sufficed to state that when you collectively place well in excess of 200,000,000.00 Million Dollars into previously backing just one half (the Aperto half of course) of this combined Aperto/Tranzeo Wireless Systems Inc enterprise, you would perhaps be a wee bit peeved, if you will, to have had the entire investment being shifted, shuffled and all too conveniently re-dealt into a Canadian based publicly trading equities issuer, eh?
One can tell you that there is little wonder as to why this company’s shares would be exposed to and would be made to experience a serious “thrashing.”
Moreover, the possibility that such a serious thrashing could have anything at all to do with the previous investment position which certain American based and internationally operating private investment firms/venture capital funds had been made to forfeit …
Well, sufficed to state that certain “American Investors” would have all the motivation in the world to keep at that which you have speculated could very well be a massaging of or “manipulation” of the share price?
Finally, would you add some more colours to, if you will, and perhaps further define what you mean by “eventually?”
After all, "eventually” could mean quite the long interval must first expire – “hopefully” (lol) long before many Tranzeo Wireless technologies Inc shareholders do, eh? LOL
HAVE A GOOD THANKSGIVING DAY, EH!
Be well and seek to prosper
Sherbet2