Portfolio Update & Latest Thoughts on HMNY

Long-time readers should note some significant changes in how I communicate in the public domain. The primary purpose of this forum is now to attract new contacts with professional industry expertise to share research and receive feedback (confirmation / refutation) regarding my investment theses.

Accordingly, this document should not be construed as an endorsement or recommendation of the companies or securities discussed herein. I am not an investment advisor and this is not an investment thesis. It is merely one part of the story, which I present for debate in hopes of determining all risks and upside potential. The disclosure at the end of this piece is critical to understanding the content of this document. Further, I frequently trade my positions and may buy, sell, or short the securities mentioned herein at any time, regardless of the facts or perceived implications of this article.

Before we jump in, I want to thank everyone for joining me here. Readership and participation have both been accelerating in recent weeks. If we include my MailChimp email subscribers (see below for more on that), the visitor count here has just topped the 10,000 mark.

We had thousands of hits on Wednesday alone (without anything particularly exciting to drive it). 79 countries are represented here, including places like China, Turkey, Oman, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Moldova, and my family’s home country of Cape Verde.

It’s truly humbling and motivational, especially in light of my 2015 run in with the SEC:

SEC

The episode certainly delivered a blow to my credibility. However, in hindsight it was one of the greatest blessings of my life… and readers who have observed the situation (and my actions over time) form the foundation of what we’re building here.

Most importantly, we’re seeing a great increase in collaboration and dialog… to everyone’s benefit.

That’s what it’s all about. Coming together to form something as strong as the big Wall Street firms. It’s a beautiful thing.

Cheers.

_____________________________

OK, getting down to business…

In recent weeks, I used the correction to increase my exposure to stocks. However, I remain cautious on the broad market. The current reigning bond king, Jeffrey Gundlach, is my favorite person to follow on this topic. I highly recommend that you do the same.

Following my own advice from Wednesday, I continue to focus on increasing the quality of my portfolio. That means trading in my more-speculative positions for companies that are poised for a strong 2018/2019 regardless of the economic / geopolitical backdrop.

My “Top Ten” from last month remains largely the same, but I’ve added a lot more SMSI and AEHR. If you were on their most recent earnings calls (or read my analysis) you probably know that both stocks are now in the best position they’ve been in years. Both appear to be at an inflection point and both are sitting at risk/reward lows. It’s a perfect set up.

So, why are they down? Simple:

  • SMSI is still working on improving its app and investors are over-focusing on the negative reviews. As I stated in past posts, 1) software is easily improved, 2) the app has improved greatly — I’ve tested it personally, 3) the reviews are improving in response, 4) the remaining negative reviews are few in number compared to the 100,000+ downloads, and most importantly… 5) they are now generating revenue from these downloads, 6) Sprint is fully-committed to them, 7) that means that Sprint’s 300,000+ customers will soon drive SMSI to profitability, and 8) Sprint will be ramping up its marketing efforts to its millions of other customers.Next week’s investor meetings in NYC will help get that word out.
  • AEHR is almost completely unknown and its numerous (albeit small) insider sells are keeping retail investors away. I’ve also covered this issue in depth. The insider sells are nothing to be concerned with. They are small and represent a diversification of wealth for employees who have never built a decent nest egg. Intel is set to ramp their order flow in the coming months and those press releases won’t give investors time to react (the stock gaps up on big news). In short, the stock should rise ahead of the Intel ramp, but I’m fine if it follows instead. I’ll be happy to load up on the first Intel production announcement. It’s all good.

I also repurchased QADA on the dip, which adds yet another subscription business to my portfolio (joining the likes of WDAY, RDWR, GAIA, and to a growing extent, RDCM). I love subscription businesses when they’re done right. They’re trickier to understand than most investors think, which gives a big advantage to those who have professional experience with them.

FYI, I’m also heavily focused on shorting low-quality names and writing call options against stocks that I don’t expect to rise markedly over the next few months. This strategy has paid great dividends by producing profits in a diverse list of companies like CGIP, NVDA, FIZZ, SBH, MDXG, etc.

I’ll try to share more of these tickers proactively (before they drop), even if I don’t have time to explain my theses in depth.

As a reminder, HMNY is notably absent from both sides of my ledger.

Since starting this blog, I’ve thought about trading HMNY (long and short), but have opted to stay away in order to maintain my objectivity in this situation. As it states in my disclosures, neither I nor anyone I know (to my knowledge) is short the stock. In fact, I actually have a relative that owns a few shares (and have ridden them all the way down, despite my pessimism on the stock).

Avoiding the stock (long and short) is meant to give everyone an unbiased voice on the situation.

When coupled with my 20 years of experience with analyzing subscription-oriented stocks, my goal has been to be the most knowledgeable analyst on MoviePass and HMNY. That focus has attracted rapid growth in the readership here, which has fostered my ultimate goal — building a strong forum for research collaboration.

As one of the people credited with discovering HMNY, I’ve been extremely close to the story. This enabled me to go long at $3, ride it up, “drop interest” in the 30s, and turn outright bearish at ~$12.

All have proven to be profitable for readers.

To be clear, I remain hopefulthat they can eventually build a profitable business! However, I have no choice but to remain negative on the stock because of the amount of cash, dilution, and time that will be required to get there.

My research has explained why earlier shareholders won’t benefit if MoviePass is successful. That being said, if MoviePass does become successful, there will be a class of future shareholders who will benefit greatly. Key word: future.

The bulls (almost entirely retail investors) haven’t taken the time to understand that a company and its stock aren’t always tied at the hip. Balance sheet, capital structure, and financing (which often requires institutional support) are often more important than the underlying business.

This is why many longs might ultimately be right about the business, but still get crushed on the stock.

I’ve said it before: Being optimistic about the business is ok, but only if you’ve made every attempt to understand every facet of the machine, both good and bad (while being 100% honest with yourself). When it comes to stocks, getting rich isn’t about being right… it’s about finding the truth and investing accordingly.

That’s why my goal is to foster collaboration here. I welcome the notion of being convinced that I’m wrong on a thesis… because all I care about is being on the right side of the trade.

So, if you’re bullish on the stock, please try to read and understand the research and models I’ve presented here. Thus far nobody’s been able to crack the implications for shareholders (on the way up or down)…

…and you can be sure that if/when the time comes to turn bullish on the stock, I’ll write it up, loud and proud (and surely take heat from the bears)!

Stay tuned!

More Research:

To get my posts in real-time, just subscribe to this free blog. If you don’t want to get all of my posts via email, just sign up for my MailChimp mailing list instead. For that list, I only send key articles and occasional recaps of all the work I’ve recently done.

Disclosures / Disclaimers: I am long SMSI, AEHR, QADA, WDAY, RDWR, GAIA, and RDCM. I hold bearish positions (via shorts or options) on NVDA, FIZZ, SBH, and MDXG.

I have no position in HMNY, nor have I traded the stock since launching this blog. Further, I am not aware of anyone who has been short HMNY or its derivatives since launching this blog.

This is not a solicitation to buy, sell, or otherwise transact any stock or its derivatives. Nor should it be construed as an endorsement of any particular investment or opinion of the stock’s current or future price. To be clear, I do not encourage or recommend for anyone to follow my lead on this or any other stocks, since I may enter, exit, or reverse a position at any time without notice, regardless of the facts or perceived implications of this article.

I am not a financial advisor. Nor am I providing any recommendations, price targets, or opinions about valuation regarding the companies discussed herein. Any disclosures regarding my holdings are true as of the time this article is written, but subject change without notice. I frequently trade my positions, often on an intraday basis. Thus, it is possible that I might be buying and/or selling the securities mentioned herein and/or its derivative at any time, regardless of (and possibly contrary to) the content of this article.

I undertake no responsibility to update my disclosures and they may therefore be inaccurate thereafter.  Likewise, any opinions are as of the date of publication, and are subject to change without notice and may not be updated. I believe that the sources of information I use are accurate but there can be no assurance that they are. All investments carry the risk of loss and the securities mentioned herein may entail a high level of risk. Investors considering an investment should perform their own research and consult with a qualified investment professional.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am receiving no compensation for it, nor do I have a business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. The information in this article is for informational purposes only and should not be regarded as investment advice or as a recommendation regarding any particular security or course of action.

The primary purpose of this blog/forum is to attract new contacts with professional industry expertise to share research and receive feedback (confirmation / refutation) regarding my investment theses.

Advertisements

43 thoughts on “Portfolio Update & Latest Thoughts on HMNY

  1. Thanks once again for your thoughts Mark. I actually check often every day for any updates you may have. Thanks again for being transparent about your past SEC troubles. The HMNY Bully Bulls love to discredit you because of it. I would just consider the source. Enough said. Again, thanks for all you do!

    Liked by 2 people

  2. You do remember that HMNY is not MP. Right? So to say that the current stockholders will not benefit is not necessarily correct. You just argued that AEHR might gap up so quickly that nobody has time to react, but you do not acknowledge that could happen with HMNY and instead you state that current shareholders will NOT be rewarded. What if MP funds themselves from now until profitability? What if there is an IPO of MP soon? What if they complete a merger? Do you not see what those things can and will mean for institutional support? Let me add a couple more things to think about. Why does HMNY own MPV and now MF? MoviePass does not own those companies.

    Have you focused on all of the operational successes lately? I know you understand the possibilities are endless beyond what we have even seen so far, but I don’t think I have ever seen you write about those things in your blog here? Why? These guys in spite of their shortcomings (Mitch and Ted) are executing and frankly I am surprised at how well they are executing.

    I am not criticizing you being bearish or not believing they may pull this off AND reward shareholders. You have gathered your facts and made your conclusions and I admit your conclusions are reasonable, but not for the reasons you state. Why you think this company is going to go off a cliff over funding is beyond me. What you are saying is going to happen would be a disaster and can easily be avoided. Your refusal to acknowledge that means to me that you do not trust management to avoid it. Management has access to all of the same data and more and they are probably are lightning years ahead of you or me on where their cash situation is going and what they are going to do about it.

    Like

    1. An interesting tidbit that Ted mentioned in an interview today is that 88% of their subs are profitable. They could turn off the 12% and be instantly profitable (not that they would though). they may be closer to profit than what meets the eye, although I still see cash as a top priority.

      I have also heard that many MP subs are fearful that MP won’t last and “get their moneys worth” early on so that just in case MP fails, they will not have lost much. I think Mitch and Ted need to address this with their conf call to instill faith in both investors and the customer base.

      With Verizon looming in the background this looks more bullish to me, I added about 4k more shares today and plan on holding long term (4-5 years). Short/Bear thesis just seems to be noise to scare investors and drive the price down so they can profit. Story behind MP hasn’t changed, just patiently waiting for Mitch and Ted to turn the pages…

      Like

      1. Good post. Also, I agree that there are bashers out there trying to profit by pushing the stock down. However, I’ve been 100% clear in saying that I’m a neutral observer simply telling it like it is. I don’t know anyone who is short and I have no plans to go short, nor do I have any interest in manipulating the shares.

        I’m very open to having my mind changed about this one. I just need to be presented with the proper empirical evidence.

        In fact, anyone is welcome to let Management know that I’m open to discussion with them. I’ve made that public proclamation already.

        Like

    2. If you truly understood financial structure, you would understand why Mark said what he did. Current shareholders have been the sacrificial lamb for any potential future success of MP.

      “So to say that the current stockholders will not benefit is not necessarily correct.”

      Like

      1. I addressed all of that in my post. I guess you just want to continue your bashing of anyone who sees opportunity here. Carry on and enjoy yourself.

        Like

    3. GREAT post for provoking thought… but I’ve thought about all of those things.

      None of the funding scenarios you presented are even viable due to the cash burn and HMNY anti-dilute clause. This is why J.P. Morgan, Goldman, and UBS all walked away. In other words, there’s not even interest from top institutions to provide support, despite the big banking implication. I have great respect for most everything you have ever said, but this one simply makes no sense.

      The valuation of MoviePass and HMNY are tied at the hip. If moviepass can start getting its own financing, it will have to be at the expense of HMNY’s stake. Either way, shareholders get diluted.

      It’s true that HMNY can gap up on some big news, like a discount/concession deal from a major theater. However, the difference between HMNY and AEHR is that moviepass is burning cash fast and will need more funding soon, while the latter is fully funded, profitable, growing fast, and trading at a modest valuation (particularly PEG).

      As for the operational successes, I’m happy to add knowledge that they are signing subscribers at it even faster pace than expected. However, I believe that is the wrong thing to do without reconciling their utilization rate issue. If the utilization rate was moderating as they expressed back in September, I would be singing their praises.

      But that’s not the case and they haven’t done anything to address it.

      Thus, I don’t see what they have done as being classifiable as operational successes. I understand and respect the opinions of those who believe otherwise, but it’s simply not wise to put ones self in the position of requiring $700 million of funding within a 10 month window… especially when we’ve seen that the majority of financiers are simply arbs looking to flip the shares for a quick buck (or a cheap/free warrant cost basis).

      As for the data, it’s largely simple math. They’ve done a wonderful job of feeding us the most critical pieces of data.

      We might need a call to go over this if you don’t understand that from my model. It’s nearly all based on what we’ve been told by them. Just comments quantified.

      🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️

      Like

  3. Would love for you take a stab at building a model. I don’t understand some people’s comments in light of the information flow. These guys have literally been the best and most transparent Mgt team in terms of providing data points for investors. Modeling (and therefore tracking) their progress has been easier than for most any company I’ve ever encountered.

    All you have to do is plug the numbers into a spreadsheet and voilà. The stock is not going down because of me. It’s going down because of what the numbers are showing institutional investors. Specifically, it is incentivizing them to short the stock (or at the very least not buy) and wait for a round of funding as an opportunity to cover.

    You have Wall Street experience, no?

    Like

  4. …And please don’t take my comments as aggressive or confrontational, Brad. I understand your frustration towards certain people and or bashers, but I’m here for healthy debate and nothing more. From my perspective let me reiterate that I have understood and respected almost 100% of what you have said to date… until your last post.

    I think I’ve been clear in saying that they CAN succeed for many of the reasons that you have astutely provided… But the funding required to do so is absolutely 100% going to come at the expense of common shareholders.

    The last two rounds of proving that to be correct and I see no reason for the next few rounds to be any different.

    To me, getting past the summer gauntlet (and the $200M+ it will bring) as a prerequisite to me even considering going on on the stock.

    Have you gone long? You seem agitated. I hope it’s not at me…. and if it’s at someone else, don’t let them get to you. You see the bashing that I take? They are all just strangers. We are seeking the truth here, not acceptance. I get that from my loved ones. 😊

    Like

    1. I think everyone on this board can agree that funding is needed to continue with the current scenario. I think the bull case tends to lean towards the fact that MP/HMNY management have levers to pull to change the cash flows. No one on this board knows the full financials and what deals may be in the works, so I trust that Mitch and Ted have funding in place to continue down this road, or else they WOULD have already altered the current cash flows with the high users. Mark, I agree with your model, it’s the best out with what is currently known. I think some of the unknowns will soon become known and will change the model significantly.

      As I have spoken to before, Mitch discussed a group/family model which I believe will encourage more family and “casual” users to sign up. 1 Pass for a family, spend $15/month for the pass, pass holder gets same deal that currently exists, family members get tix for $3 each… See were I am going..

      We should hear more about the capital structure with the upcoming conference call, I think this will be a high priority topic. With the current situation, no one knows how they plan to fund cash burn for the rest of the year. I would expect management to have a roadmap of funding already in place even before the merger occurred.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I have talked to several moms i know about MoviePass and often get feedback that unless they can include the kids they are not interested. I find that feedback interesting because I completely disagree with them. My daughters are too young, so my wife and I have a MP. They don’t. I am still happy to save on 2 of my 4 tickets when we go to the movies. And yes, we probably buy more concessions to make up for it. We are the MoviePass and Exhibitor dream customers. We used to go 5 or 6 times per year. We now go on average once per month. We take 2 kids with us and pay full price for their tickets and we spend more on concessions. It will be interesting to see what kind of user a family plan attracts. I suspect it will attract a lot more people like us who will increase usage, but not be power users either.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I’ll try to quickly touch on everything with 1 post and not be too long winded.

      1. My post makes perfect sense to me. Perhaps I am not clearly conveying what is in my head into my writing or perhaps I simply make no sense to you. I don’t know.
      2. My funding scenarios are viable if they resolve the corporate structure. At least IMO. I can tell you a story sometime as to why I believe this, but I won’t post it publicly since I am not anonymous here.
      3. I understand the values of each are tied at the hip, but if they dilute, yet increase value in the organization with the dilution then that’s a positive. I think that is what is happening. You do not. So far you are right based on the stock price, but that can change on a dime.
      4. There are many operational successes beyond signing subscribers. Signing partnership deals with theater chains and adding advertising revenue both at a faster pace than I thought are 2 examples. By the way, what do you think will get a larger chain to sign? When they start seeing the smaller players taking their market share in too many markets. That’s my bet. Usage is the #1 variable. I absolutely agree with you on that.
      5. I do not have Wall Street experience. Please do not insult me like that. 🙂 I am just an experienced (and some have even accused me of being smart) operator who understands how operational changes can drastically affect the math and I see multiple opportunities to do that with this company.
      6. I have never felt one time that you were aggressive or confrontational with me and I do not feel that way now either. I am a little surprised that you think I make no sense, but don’t worry. I’m a big boy. I can take it.
      7. Yes I am long, but have been since December or early January. This is a small position that I have also traded around to make money several times. I could sell the rest today and nobody in my family will go hungry. I promise.
      8. I may have been a little agitated when I wrote the post, but if so, that was because you claimed the current shareholders will NOT be rewarded as if it were fact. I don’t know what the stock is going to do tomorrow or next week. I don’t know how they will resolve the corporate structure and the funding they will need and getting the usage down where it needs to be. Most importantly, I do not know what achievement will start a domino effect that leads to stronger institutional support or when that achievement will occur.

      By the way, I will not be agitated if you disagree with me. I am generally ok with being disagreed with. It happens all the time. I am a male with a wife and 2 daughters. Trust me!

      Thanks
      Brad

      Like

      1. Ha. GREAT post buddy. For the record, I meant no disrespect by asking you if you were a Wall Street vet. You often come across as such, but I found your last post confusing, so I felt the need to ask. It’s important for everyone here to know each other’s strengths and weaknesses.

        I’m happy to share mine! In fact, I have long allied myself with people who complement them.

        The one point I’d like to address is #4 For me, partnership deals with theater chains and my research into advertising revenue have both been disappointing.

        Ask for getting a larger chain to sign, it will require an exclusive, or an extreme amount of leverage. I went over this in an earlier post. If movie pass is bringing extra revenue to the majors, at the level they state, they have to shut down 66% of any chain’s theaters to actually hurt them. Yes, they can help them less, but they can’t hurt them with less than a 66% shut down. Shifting market share to smaller theaters can help, but it has to be a big enough shift. Right now, they are simply adding to everyone’s top and bottom lines. They have to produce a negative impact to have real leverage.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I was kidding about being insulted. On your point about the large chains, I get it. Your math tells you that unless there is a mathematical loss (lost revenue $ > discount $) then they have no reason to do a discount deal. What I think you are missing is that these chains will become concerned when they see they are losing market share regardless of that math. That would be a huge concern to me if I were the CEO. #1 does not want to become #2 and so on down the line. I can almost assure you that everyone of them know their market share and they want to grow it.

        Like

        1. Look up the marketshare for the big five. You will see that the rest of the field will have to grow incredible percentage (and do so AS A COLLECTIVE) to put a dent in it).

          AMC alone is about 30%.

          Like

        2. Thank it out. The big guys want these guys to die. In order to survive, they will have to make the little guys big enough to force the big guys to fold. But if the big guys don’t fold, movie pass might end up in an extended financing cycle. It’s like a battle of attrition where the army waits outside the castle walls for the kingdom to run out of food.

          The question is, who folds first?

          Like

          1. I do not think it will happen that way for the reason I posted but we will see. I have looked at the market share list a number of times. All it takes is 1 to get it all started.

            Like

  5. A point Ted made I think on the cheddar interview is that MP would be #3 in tickets without any brick theaters. I think we see leverage on the current top 3 chains.

    Like

    1. Definitely some. The question is how much. How do I answer has to do with how many tickets they sell, but the bigger part of that answer comes from what percentage of those tickets they can really influence.

      This is not a data point, but they will lose me as a customer (and a casual one at that) if they cut Regal off. The convenience and my love of that cinema supersedes any savings I can get from MoviePass.

      Like

  6. Mark,

    I see that Ben R. has stopped contributing here. Did you read his most recent SA piece about MP shopping around the final 20% of their shares to other investors?

    Does that affect the ability of HM spinning MP off? Doesn’t it need to be 100% wholly owned by HM to be spun ?

    I asked Ben, but he didn’t know. It’s a very shady move by Mitch, Kelly, Sparks and the others to shop that last 20%. I’ll assume that there a contract for sale in place? Doesn’t sound ethical to me. But what do I know.

    Like

    1. Well, the question is, who owns the other 20%? Helios has an anti-dilute, so they can’t create / issue new shares. If the insiders are shopping their personal stakes, I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, I see nothing wrong with it either way. That’s business. However, if they are shopping their personal stake, what does it say about what they think about their odds of success?

      We need more details on this.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I am not a Wall Street guy so if this does not make sense jump in. That said, here goes:

        It could very well be that MP shopped around every piece they have sold to HMNY before they sold to HMNY. Why give it to them for less than you could get elsewhere? I bet they are kicking themselves for selling the first 51% for 27 million now. Whether this is true or not, here they are with 20% left and still needing more funding with an anti dilute clause in place. If they are going to sell more to fund more, they need all they can get for it. That’s how it looks to me anyway.

        Here’s an example: What if they sold another 15% for 300 million and had 5% left for the stakeholders. That 300 million gets you to cash flow positive, which allows you to build the company up to 10 billion from there because you can self fund or take on reasonably priced debt along the way. 5% of 10 billion = 500 million. Right now they have 20% of what? 300 million? That’s 60 million vs 500 million.

        My point. They probably need all they can get for that last 20%. Otherwise there may be nothing left for the remaining stakeholders. Can’t get the best deal if you don’t shop it around to other parties. I do not see anything negative about this. In fact, if they found someone to buy some of that 20% for a big valuation, I would think that was very positive for everybody including HMNY.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Mark / Brad,

        Seems like a crazy way to sell an asset. Selling a piece at a time to the highest bidder doesn’t exactly protect the HMNY shareholders who took the initial risk. No doubt HM got the first chunk at a bargain basement price. But in the process destroyed their balance sheet.

        Does this 80% ownership situation prevent HM from spinning it off as the are legally contracted to by a certain date? That was my original question and nobody has answered it. I’ve looked at the filings but my head hurts as work in construction and not m&a. LOL

        Like

        1. That’s not how it works gentlemen. Explaining the dynamics behind it all would require at least a half hour verbal discussion. You have to go through the SEC documents to understand the arrangement that was struck and how it has evolved.

          That’s critical to understanding how we got here… and where “here” is.

          Like

          1. I think I have a decent grasp of the filings although I am sure you could help me understand them better. So how does it work? So far HMNY has funded their cash needs in return for more ownership. How else would they determine a valuation without competing bids? The MP board would have to approve. Right? Why would they sell to HMNY for less than someone else would pay? Not arguing here. Truly inquisitive on how you see it working.

            Like

          2. I get that but how was the 300m decided on the last filing. HMNY has no guaranteed right on that one. Correct?

            Like

          3. The 220m was from 54 or so up to 61ish? And they wrote that option to purchase at that value when they went from 51 to 54. But from the 61% level to now at 81% I did not see anything guaranteeing a value or right to HMNY to purchase that “chunk”.

            Like

      3. You are confusing me on this Mark. MP has sold additional ownership to HMNY for cash to operate. Correct? So if that is true, I am having a hard time believing HMNY agreed to buy on a 300m valuation without a reason to go higher OR that MP agreed to sell on a 300m valuation unless that was the best offer they could get. Just trying to understand what you mean.

        Like

        1. MP doesn’t have much choice due to the anti-dilute (which, again, is critical to understand), but there’s a fairness opinion that likely helped to assist in determining the $300m valuation.

          Some things are too involved to easily explain here. I’ll have to ask you to investigate and educate yourself on the anti-dilute and how it plays into the financing options and negotiations. VERY complex for most investors to understand. In fact, many pros didn’t pick up on it until I explained it to them. Most of us (including me) assumed this was a typical anti-dilute when we first saw it.

          Like

      4. Ok, thanks. I definitely understood that the anti-dilute prevented them from issuing new shares. Did not realize it prevented them from funding other than through HMNY. I am still confused, but thanks for the response. I don’t feel too bad if many pros also are/were confused by it.

        Like

        1. “Prevent” is a LITTLE too strong. Nothing prevent someone from investing directly in MP… HOWEVER, the anti-dilute DOES “completely disincentive knowledgeable investors from funding MP directly”.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s