Further Reasons To Say the SA coverage on Nexoptic Is Very Poorly Done
In addition to all of my comments above, the SA article does an extremely poor job in regards to projecting its numbers based on its calculations as well as talking about future dilution as though that is really going to hamper the share value moving forward. Now I can't exactly remember how the article had put it but it did not use any concrete industry example in regards to the telescope market as to my recollection because if it had it would know that these space observatory telescopes can cost a pretty darn shiny penny--in today's dollars most likely about a billion dollars if not slightly more. I will provide a link showing where the average telescope costs about $500 million apiece. You can read the article to check the figures and to see whether what I am saying is accurate or not. I will base the costs on the median price points at a 10% licensing royalty (just for illustrative purposes) rate on 2 telescopes with 10 times the revenue and roughly 100 million shares fully diluted and the company claiming as to what they stated at the unveiling they can cut the costs by 50% as to my understanding and recollection. http://www.gsmt.noao.edu/documentation/SPIE_Papers/Stepp.pdf Now let's crunch these hypothetical numbers--if extremely conservatively we have 2 telescopes at a median price of $500 million each that would equal $1 billion dollar. When we cut the costs by half that would be $500 million at a 10% licensing royalty that is $50 million divided by the outstandings 50/100 that would be .50 at ten times the revenue or $5.00 share so I will argue that the share price is hardly skewed towards the downside. Now I don't know why the contributor of the article had failed to look at the average cost of space observatory telescopes at today's rate as from my understanding will be around 1 billion and decided to calculate based on whatever it was that I can't remember he or she had done. This is another reason that I feel that this article is extremely biased and actually in my own opinion a hack job where those who have presented it in truth are wilfully blind of the most basic fact on this one market alone, and this too the calculations that I have given are as I have put it extremely conservative as surely there are way more than two space observatory telescopes throughout the world. Additionally, I didn't even mention the home based market for telescopes for every interested members of the household to get in on the action. When you look at the magnitude of this market alone it is staggering and we know that with the current news release the company has also moved into the telephoto lens market for the cell phone which I believe will be either equal to the telescope market or even larger. When the contributors have stated that the share value is skewed to the downside I find that actually to be very questionable and absolutely misleading and untrue based on the information that I am presenting here and something if that contributor actually cared to do any real research would see this too. I find the article to be very sloppy, possibly self serving and very irresponsible as I have mentioned there was no mention of qualifying to the reader about shorting in which I also believe that overall the article is literally on the verge of legal slander through misrepresentation fueling shorters' referring to this article as justification as to questioning whether nexoptic has a legitimate business on the best case scenario to calling it a scam or a hoax on the worst case scenario. Because of your poor representation of facts I have decided to boycott reading any further articles as I do not wish to support or propagate works which are factually very misleading, self serving, overly biased, and destructive to potential shareholders while trying to evaluate whether nexoptic is a good company to invest in. Now like I said, I have used illustrative figures above in the most conservative way but I can not guarantee the company is looking to have licensing revenue on a 10% basis. If I was making the decision I absolutely would do so to eliminate any unnecessary costs with manufacturing and distribution, however, I gave this as a very viable option to be considered to give an idea to people that there is a whole lot more of an upside than this article has actually considered and to which unfortunately I will call is very poor and sloppy work.