Author Topic: SYTE - Enterprise Diversified  (Read 211927 times)

writser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1848
Re: SYTE - Sitestar
« Reply #310 on: February 27, 2017, 03:08:00 PM »
Ignore the troll. Criticism is always appreciated.
When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid.


Travis Wiedower

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
Re: SYTE - Sitestar
« Reply #311 on: February 27, 2017, 03:13:55 PM »
As someone on the outside looking in, I appreciate seeing both sides to the story.

+1. Most investment threads could use more comments on the bear case. Most threads are a bunch of bulls confirmation biasing themselves into oblivion.
My investing blog: Egregiously Cheap

andgroup

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: SYTE - Sitestar
« Reply #312 on: February 27, 2017, 03:37:09 PM »
Inelegant.

Sorry about the mixup with Irrelevant Investor.

That said, I am not sidestepping any issue with you. I as a fellow shareholder of Sitestar and citizen of a capitalist society do not see where Steven Kiel owes you any explanation of his investment operations nor do I acknowledge that he must seek your moral guidance before he is allowed to act. 

Nor do I see where him managing money for anyone else is any of your damn business. That's between him and his investors. Who are quite happy with him.
 
And yet, knowing all of this, the man did try to explain to you what he did and why he did it, which was a good enough reason for me. I do not think he was trying to do any harm to anyone. I think our investment is in very good hands.

Yes it is true that the shares were offered at 4.8 cents and the market was at 7-8 cents. But there was absolutely no liquidity at that valuation level, not enough to raise the kind of money he needed too to get to a size where numbers started to make sense. So he did a private placement at book for a company that had no established earning power. Perfectly reasonable. Now he is investing those funds to build up the earnings power, which will accrue to your benefit as long as you are a shareholder. I think he is doing a good job here.

Furthermore, I do not believe that just because you hold certain strong convictions about a particular issue means that you are correct in your logic or that everyone else agrees with you in your fundamental arguments.  Although some may.

After all means and ends are all relative. Every party has them including you. What ends are you after here? Because it sure seems to me that the means you are using could be called badgering, once it goes beyond a certain point.

I respect that others want to hear both sides but you've already made this point over and over again. I'm just tired of hearing it.

So you were not invited into the first round, did you participate in the second?  You probably could have purchased all the shares you wanted.

So if you'd just stop it already then maybe we could hear other things you have to say which maybe of some value. Something constructive.

Not that you shouldn't be heard. You should. But we've already heard you.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 04:22:00 PM by andgroup »

InelegantInvestor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: SYTE - Sitestar
« Reply #313 on: February 27, 2017, 05:09:33 PM »
I respect that others want to hear both sides but you've already made this point over and over again. I'm just tired of hearing it.

So you were not invited into the first round, did you participate in the second?  You probably could have purchased all the shares you wanted.

So if you'd just stop it already then maybe we could hear other things you have to say which maybe of some value. Something constructive.

Not that you shouldn't be heard. You should. But we've already heard you.
It's strange. I've been quiet. I have not said anything for a month. You chose to revisit this issue suddenly today.

That said, I am not sidestepping any issue with you. I as a fellow shareholder of Sitestar and citizen of a capitalist society do not see where Steven Kiel owes you any explanation of his investment operations nor do I acknowledge that he must seek your moral guidance before he is allowed to act. 

Nor do I see where him managing money for anyone else is any of your damn business. That's between him and his investors. Who are quite happy with him.
 
What does being "a citizen of a capitalist society" have to do with anything? Are you implying that morality is socialist?
Mr. Kiel is the CEO of the company. He is in the employ of the shareholders. He has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of shareholders, not himself. This is a public company, and the same demands he made of Mr. Erhatric should apply to him.


 Yes it is true that the shares were offered at 4.8 cents and the market was at 7-8 cents. But there was absolutely no liquidity at that valuation level, not enough to raise the kind of money he needed too to get to a size where numbers started to make sense. So he did a private placement at book for a company that had no established earning power. Perfectly reasonable. Now he is investing those funds to build up the earnings power, which will accrue to your benefit as long as you are a shareholder. I think he is doing a good job here.

The need for additional capital was Mr. Kiel's, not the company's.

As I said, I was really done debating this. However, as you've brought it up, I feel I need to respond.

andgroup

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: SYTE - Sitestar
« Reply #314 on: February 27, 2017, 06:30:39 PM »
Inelegant,

I was out of town on other business for a few weeks and I come home to see what is happening with Sitestar. Then I find myself just swimming thru all this bs again. Honestly, I'd like a chance to hear from you more. You're obviously a smart guy but we seriously disagree here.

The reason I mentioned living in a capitalist society is because capitalism is based on rational self interest which is what I assume we are all doing here, investing in order to make a return for ourselves and families. Steve Kiel has a right to do the same thing and so I hope he does.  He also has a responsibility to other people besides "just you and your wishes." 

I'm not implying that morality is socialism but I am implying that your platitudes about "ends don't justify the means" repeated over and over sort of assumes that everyone here accepts "your morality" as their own, and therefore this puts you in the right. I am challenging the whole premise that anything you are saying is right.

You are not a moral dictator here sir, and nobody here is "required" to accept "your definition" of what is moral or what isn't.

If Steven Kiel is acting as an investor himself, a fiduciary for his own investors, as well as an unpaid CEO with far more skin in the game than you and if he decides that this business could be worth far far more money in the long run as a going concern rather than a liquidation play which is obviously what you wanted. I can only say one thing. I, for one, am glad that other shareholders can vote you down because I'm in agreement with them and with my shares I will join them in doing just that.

What on earth makes you think that in the event of a disagreement about the future direction of this company that you have a lock on what is right or moral?  You don't.  Or that he is not acting as a proper fiduciary?  I disagree with you. I think that is exactly what he is doing.

So the main problem is that you are not some defender of morality as you imagine yourself to be, these are just your opinions masquerading behind a kind of moral grandstanding because you are angry that other people with far more on the line decided that this enterprise would be more valuable as a going concern. You do not have any moral high ground here.

I want Steven Kiel and the board of directors to take this company and make it as valuable as they can for as long as they can and ignore people like you.  As far as I am concerned that is the proper end goal and I have no problems with the means they are exercising to get there.

I am finished with this argument as well and I hope this puts an end to it. Everyone knows you're upset you don't have to say it again.

Now let's move on to more friendly conversations.

Respectfully.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 06:52:03 PM by andgroup »

Sunrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 534
Re: SYTE - Sitestar
« Reply #315 on: February 27, 2017, 11:22:07 PM »
group,

As someone who (marginally) participated in this debate - I really don't understand why you're going after this person with a long post. I for one certainly didn't take away from his writing what you allege, such as that he requires everyone to agree with his logic or assessment of the morality of actions. He expressed his view, others did the same. (Admittedly, that was a month ago and perhaps my memory fails me but I don't recall having that reaction/take-away.)

We all read, think, debate, disagree and sometimes are swayed; sometimes we aren't.

That is what makes great debate and, ultimately, a great society. We have too much 'the other side is evil' in discourse these days. Society is about getting along, forging compromise and enabling everyone to live within a reliable system of guaranteed basic rights (including having an opinion) that is universally respected. Sadly, in many parts of the world that basic shared understanding is under attack these days ("alt facts" anyone --- try "lie" to replace the euphemism).

Coming back to the stock at hand: I happen to be an investor in Sytestar but I share some of the concerns voiced here. I simply decided to see what Kiel does going forward. If this act turns out to have been the Canary in the proverbial then that's my misassessment, if not then great. No need to go after someone accusing her/him of something that others didn't seem to get from what was written (in my view). In many ways, that seems to be doing exactly what you allege was done to you in a gut reaction against a view you disagree with - or at least that's what it seems like reading it. Your actual motivations might be different.

Cheers!
C.



Inelegant,

I was out of town on other business for a few weeks and I come home to see what is happening with Sitestar. Then I find myself just swimming thru all this bs again. Honestly, I'd like a chance to hear from you more. You're obviously a smart guy but we seriously disagree here.

The reason I mentioned living in a capitalist society is because capitalism is based on rational self interest which is what I assume we are all doing here, investing in order to make a return for ourselves and families. Steve Kiel has a right to do the same thing and so I hope he does.  He also has a responsibility to other people besides "just you and your wishes." 

I'm not implying that morality is socialism but I am implying that your platitudes about "ends don't justify the means" repeated over and over sort of assumes that everyone here accepts "your morality" as their own, and therefore this puts you in the right. I am challenging the whole premise that anything you are saying is right.

You are not a moral dictator here sir, and nobody here is "required" to accept "your definition" of what is moral or what isn't.

If Steven Kiel is acting as an investor himself, a fiduciary for his own investors, as well as an unpaid CEO with far more skin in the game than you and if he decides that this business could be worth far far more money in the long run as a going concern rather than a liquidation play which is obviously what you wanted. I can only say one thing. I, for one, am glad that other shareholders can vote you down because I'm in agreement with them and with my shares I will join them in doing just that.

What on earth makes you think that in the event of a disagreement about the future direction of this company that you have a lock on what is right or moral?  You don't.  Or that he is not acting as a proper fiduciary?  I disagree with you. I think that is exactly what he is doing.

So the main problem is that you are not some defender of morality as you imagine yourself to be, these are just your opinions masquerading behind a kind of moral grandstanding because you are angry that other people with far more on the line decided that this enterprise would be more valuable as a going concern. You do not have any moral high ground here.

I want Steven Kiel and the board of directors to take this company and make it as valuable as they can for as long as they can and ignore people like you.  As far as I am concerned that is the proper end goal and I have no problems with the means they are exercising to get there.

I am finished with this argument as well and I hope this puts an end to it. Everyone knows you're upset you don't have to say it again.

Now let's move on to more friendly conversations.

Respectfully.

Travis Wiedower

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
Re: SYTE - Sitestar
« Reply #316 on: February 28, 2017, 04:37:57 AM »
andgroup,

Many of the things you are accusing Inelegant of:

1. He is not guilty of.

2. You are guilty of.
My investing blog: Egregiously Cheap

rkbabang

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4292
Re: SYTE - Sitestar
« Reply #317 on: February 28, 2017, 06:32:46 AM »
group,

As someone who (marginally) participated in this debate - I really don't understand why you're going after this person with a long post. I for one certainly didn't take away from his writing what you allege, such as that he requires everyone to agree with his logic or assessment of the morality of actions. He expressed his view, others did the same. (Admittedly, that was a month ago and perhaps my memory fails me but I don't recall having that reaction/take-away.)

We all read, think, debate, disagree and sometimes are swayed; sometimes we aren't.

That is what makes great debate and, ultimately, a great society. We have too much 'the other side is evil' in discourse these days. Society is about getting along, forging compromise and enabling everyone to live within a reliable system of guaranteed basic rights (including having an opinion) that is universally respected. Sadly, in many parts of the world that basic shared understanding is under attack these days ("alt facts" anyone --- try "lie" to replace the euphemism).

Coming back to the stock at hand: I happen to be an investor in Sytestar but I share some of the concerns voiced here. I simply decided to see what Kiel does going forward. If this act turns out to have been the Canary in the proverbial then that's my misassessment, if not then great. No need to go after someone accusing her/him of something that others didn't seem to get from what was written (in my view). In many ways, that seems to be doing exactly what you allege was done to you in a gut reaction against a view you disagree with - or at least that's what it seems like reading it. Your actual motivations might be different.

Cheers!
C.

+1.  I am also a SYTE investor and am grateful for Inelegant's posts.  I also have some misgivings about the first capital raise, but have decided to stay invested.   There is never harm in hearing both all sides.  And I don't think he has posted too much on this issue, I certainly haven't been sick of reading his views.  Maybe because I tend to agree with them, but still, I think the recent posts pleading with someone to be quiet about what they think are not useful.

andgroup

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: SYTE - Sitestar
« Reply #318 on: February 28, 2017, 06:36:31 AM »
I made the point that I wanted to make.

It is simply this.

I am looking to make investments that will do well over time.

On the one hand you have a company along with its stock that was totally destroyed from what? 1999-2015. So for at least 16 years, you had value being consistently destroyed.

Some investors on this board along with Steven Kiel come into the company and literally within a year, old diminishing assets are sold, accounting controls were put into place, problems with the SEC were cleaned up, the balance sheet is extremely strong now, you have a small brain trust being built out, and many opportunities for future prosperity are now a real possibility.

So that from 2015-2016 you now have a solid company that is poised for growth.

The stock price has continued to climb.

Then one investor who is obviously upset because he wasn't allowed to control the future direction of the company turns all of these developments into a negative?

Step back and take a look. You have witnessed more value being created inside this stock in 1 year than in the previous 16 years.

It makes zero sense to me. I mean if what is happening does not look positive to you then I'd hate to see the situations that you believe are really bad.

So from what I'm looking at I think the people who are disparaging this man are total fools. But to each his own.

I'm just saying I'm glad the future of this company is in the hands of the people who are now in control. They will have my support as long as they continue to create value which I suspect has a very very long runway.

I have zero problems with Mr Kiel taking control, I think we are all better off for it, and I also have no problems with him being compensated or sharing in the wealth he is busy creating for himself and all of us.

I just wanted it on the record that not everyone agrees with Inelegant. I am one of them.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2017, 06:43:28 AM by andgroup »

rkbabang

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4292
Re: SYTE - Sitestar
« Reply #319 on: February 28, 2017, 06:41:40 AM »
I made the point that I wanted to make.

It is simply this.

I am looking to make investments that will do well over time.

On the one hand you have a company along with its stock that was totally destroyed from what? 1999-2015. So for at least 16 years, you had value being consistently destroyed.

Some investors on this board along with Steven Kiel come into the company and literally within a year, old diminishing assets are sold, accounting controls were put into place, problems with the SEC were cleaned up, the balance sheet is extremely strong now, you have a small brain trust being built out, and many opportunities for future prosperity are now a real possibility.

So that from 2015-2016 you now have a solid company that is poised for growth.

The stock price has continued to climb.

Then one investor who is obviously upset because he wasn't allowed to control the future direction of the company turns all of these developments into a negative?

Step back and take a look. You have witnessed more value being created inside this stock in 1 year then in the previous 16 years.

It makes zero sense to me. I mean if what is happening does not look positive to you then I'd hate to see the situations that you believe are really bad.

So from what I'm looking at I think the people who are disparaging this man are total fools. But to each his own.

I'm just saying I'm glad the future of this company is in the hands of the people who are now in control. They will have my support as long as they continue to create value which I suspect has a very very long runway.

I have zero problems with Mr Kiel taking control, I think we are all better off for it, and I also have no problems with him being compensated or sharing in then wealth he is busy creating.

I just wanted it on the record that not everyone agrees with Inelegant. I am one of them.



It isn't black and white.  I agree with a lot of what you say, which is why I still hold my shares, but that doesn't mean I don't also agree with InelegantInvestor's analysis of the first capital raise.   CEO's aren't all either angels or devils, there is a lot of grey area inbetween.  Don't turn someone into a hero in your mind, be wary and critical of every CEO in every company you own.  They are only human after all.