Eurocontrol Technics Ord EUCTF

Proof in puddding

[shawshank]

LSCFA as per usual raises salient, pertinent, insightfull and valuable points.

MS touches on issues already covered and brings them to immediate attention
in a direct and purposefull manner.

One point towards proof in the pudding.
 

Does anybody here honestly and admittedly think we would have moved from .05 a share
in January of 2015 to .20 or so by middle of June 2015 WITHOUT a unco-ordinated happenstance piece meal sponsorship campaign whereby Rowlands was quoted in writeups in interview style format stating he was buying shares at those levels based on the simple function and communication he expected three times the top line for YE and for EBITDA to be inline with what the current top line was expected at the time of $6million plus/plus?

If he had not made some sort of forward looking statements/guidance to that revenue expectation and income 12mths out?

If he had not guided expecting a couple contracts win by fall of this year 2015? (didn't happen or maybe they are in the que and that's why the deal with SICPA came about when it did...needing that footprint and access clout in already established governement contract footholds to close on the leg work they had done in pending contract outcomes? and its why
as Zen now informs us via quoting Rowlands he was headed back to Switzerland due to marketing demands and product interest happening right now vs waiting till after the shareholders vote of ratification?) if he had not guided on pending contract wins with a preamble to his dialogue of certainty to those being secured...does anybody think had we just buried some commentary in the MDandA section of a subsequent quarterly filing we would have moved from the base of the .05 levels that were so pervasive in the valuations at the time and lasted till spring 2015 when the Gold Report and I think the Midas Letter if i remember correctly were produced with commentary on EUO as an attract pick for ROI?

Short answer it would not have-and understandebly so.
 

That was a low brow-budget based sponsorship campaign complete with Rowlands on BNN TV interview session related to that same time period and commentary of favorable review by McWhitter or McWHirter however its spelt saying on ROB TV he had amassed a very larger position in EUO and it was at that time and presumably so still THEE LARGEST WEIGHTING IN BOTH HiS PROFESSionALLY MAnAGED FUND AND HIS OWN PERSONAL HOLDINGS.

It was almost near random in origin-what I am talking about is completely different in application thru a TIER ONE PR co-ordinated/contracted and co-operative program...albeit similar in descriptive terms-a comprehensive sponsorship campaign encompasses the entire gamut of professional PR when done right and by a well respected firm in the sector.

I do not think any rational/common sensed retail investor can disagaree with the above with any amount of relevance to the discussion-the "cause and effect" principle from .05 to what low .20's on just the creation of expectation with no contractual execution in that time frame that materialized at all.

We held that valuation thru out the dog days of summer and downturn in the markets inparticular to small cap companies domiciled on the venture BECAUSE we all
were atuned to Rowlands guidance of fall contracts driving top line to the $18million plus
figure that he gave us earlier on in this year-that is forward looking expectations supporting 
the valuations based on the mere principle of communication corporately provided to the masses...had it been provided to one or two shareholders vis access and merely appeared
on a bullboard as the CEO being quoted? no effect..however if its put on a bullboard
as coming from the CEO and then it materilizes in a NR-you know some positioned ahead of the market advantageously.

Point being-cause and effect...cause seeing the stock expectations put into motion WITHOUT any execution that occurred...but supported on expectations communicated much earlier.

Now we are at the SICPA purchasing and licensing agreement of GFI/Petromark and oodles of money in this downmouthed market sentiment wise upfront and a guaranteed revenue stream thru the royalty agreement that pays out $1.5mill per annum even if no future sales occur under the SICPA brandname (doubtfull...I expect traction under the SICPA name to be a mutlipler force iof 3 n calendar year 2016)-and we have XwinSys the game changer technology in the Semi C sector with several of "Thee largest sector companies" involved in the final leg of commrecializing the technology"  so now if we see a professional PR campaign tied in with execution and capital-IMO an object (EUO valuations based on expectations and execution) will not only be put in to motion as th basic  law of Physics states....but as that same law also expounds...will also "stay in motion" for a prolonged period of time as well.


The Proof...as the old grandma tale would say...is "the proof is in the puddin".
 

SS

[lscfa]

The report you refer to is here....this is what boosted the stock from $0.05 to $0.15..... https://www.eurocontrol.ca/newsfiles/Wall%20Street%20Transcript%20Interview%20-%20Jan05-15.pdf "To make a long  story short,  I think that there is a reasonable expectation that at this time next year, the contracted fuel marking business for us will produce, at least on a pro forma basis, a

[shawshank]

Thanks for the material LSCFA. SS

[lscfa]

Point of clarification. The stock did not move from $0.05 to $0.15 until the Q1 results were released on May 21, which seemed to reinforce what Rowlands was forecasting back in January.....