Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I wouldn't think anyone doubts your seriousness about investing in Humbl, NoMoDo. If it helps, I believe you're serious. I truly hope your investment works out for you.
You've worn me out. Good luck on your investment.
Oh, you "hinted" about a confidential agreement. Good to know. That's apropos of absolutely nothing we spoke about.
But at least you can now see that your statement about the reason for the dispute being partially due to a reverse split, isn't grounded in any facts unless you have access to the terms of that confidential dispute.
I have read that and, as YOU would have seen if YOU had actually read the link you posted before you blindly posted it as some sort of evidence, YOU would have seen it says nothing regarding the reasons for the dispute. Nothing, NoMoDo.
What is wrong with you, NoMoDo?
If you were to have any actual information on the reasons for the dispute which Sharp had with Humbl about the warrants or the exercise of those warrants, I would be all ears. Other than that, I don't care to follow your speculation journey so I'm going to bow out of this conversation with you and wish you the best of luck.
Yes. That's why I wrote it as a rhetorical question so you would understand how 'moronic' it was to give George Sharp all his money back because his warrants and stock he received from exercising his warrants, went down instead of up. Do you see that? Is that why you called me a moron? Because YOU didn't understand the analogy in that lunacy of handing Sharp back all the money he invested?
Why did Sharp have a legitimate case for getting all of his cash back when his investment went in the wrong direction (at your and other shareholders' expense) yet other shareholders don't get their money back? You admit that's "moronic" for shareholders but you staunchly defend Sharp getting refunded the money he spent.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
Define 'rarely.' You just called me a moron in your previous post. I don't call you names. Maybe you feel that calling me names gives you more credibility, I don't know.
You were the one who brought up the reverse split, not me, and stated that was one of the reasons why George Sharp received all of his money back for the warrants. Your statement was so specific that it sounded like you were reciting a fact so I asked you where you read that. At the time, I didn't realize that you were just making a guess.
I see you love to fight and call people names. The only piece of information I wanted from you is where you heard that George Sharp received a full refund on his warrants because of the Humbl reverse split. It sounds like that reverse split reason was logically deduced by you and not actually written anywhere.
Good luck on your remaining Humbl shares.
It's great that you're shedding a tear for George Sharp and are happy that he was refunded the entire amount he spent. But what about other shareholders who purchased shares before Foote disclosed the 6 billion shares of dilution from the series B?? Shouldn't you shed a tear for those investors as well? Shouldn't those investors also be refunded all of the money they spent buying Humbl common shares?
Further, George Sharp said, " I made the conscious decision" to not tell shareholders about the reverse split because it would have caused "mass panic".
Tell me, NoMoDo, does that sound like a prudent and forthright decision on Sharp's part? Should material information be withheld from investors because an insider feels shareholders might react negatively?
I still don't understand why you're going to bat for George Sharp. Why are you defending him so vigorously?
Unless you can find something definitive saying that George Sharp wanted his money back for the warrants and exercise because of the reverse split, I'm going to consider all of your conjecture as gibberish.
As you can see, Sharp even was intimately involved with the Humbl reverse split. Your speculation that Sharp was against that reverse split, but still was driving the reverse split, makes little sense.
Basically it was for the $200k which George Sharp paid for the warrants and another $2 million which George Sharp paid to exercise some of the warrants. Foote refunded the entire $2,200,000.
I didn't see any details on the dispute between George Sharp and Humbl. NoMoDo seems to believe the dispute related in part to doing a reverse split, but since Sharp was involved in the reverse split, that seems very unlikely. NoMoDo might just have his facts mixed up.
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001119190/000149315222032971/form8-k.htm
It sounds like you're trying to make a point, but I don't know what point you're trying to make. You seem to be trying to defend George Sharp and say he didn't make much money off of Humbl, which seems important to you.
Before you go too far in George Sharp's defense, keep in mind that Sharp was intimately involved in the one reverse split which HMBL did, which you said was an agreement which Sharp violated. Sharp was even the one who decided not to tell investors about the RS ahead of time because he said if shareholders knew, they would have sold off Humbl shares at $1 so he wanted to "save investors from themselves."
That one agreement where Sharp was paid to 'work' was to uplist Humbl to the NASDAQ for the payment of $360,000 plus 7.5 million shares, with full payment even if NASDAQ didn't happen. Since Humbl is not on the NASDAQ, you can decide as a shareholder whether it was worth it. https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001119190/000149315221030031/forms-1.htm
You can also see how George Sharp had a lot of shares in the other filings.
I don't understand why you're trying to downplay George Sharp's compensation. Can you explain the goal of your argument?
George Sharp paid for the warrants and they didn't pan out. Foote later compensated him for the entire cost of those warrants. George Sharp also made money from his consulting contract with Humbl. That's what was disclosed.
OTC stocks are generally shortable, but whether it makes sense depends on price and borrow rate.
The current borrow rate for Humbl is 3.5%. But that's calculated after Humbl';s share price is rounded up to $1.00, so the effective rate for Humbl is 4375%. That's way too expensive to short.
On the other hand, when Humbl was trading at a few dollars per share, the effective rate was much more reasonable.
It's good that you see there's a lot to unpack. We have very different views on Humbl and seeing the differences helps us figure out why. Maybe one of us will change our view.
I see you reference the filings and that you truly believe that Foote doesn't take more than $1 per year from Humbl. So you must believe he was wealthy before he started Humbl or has another source of income. You'll agree that it would be rough to live on $1 per year. Do you truly believe that Brian takes no money from Humbl for his personal use, and where do you think he gets his money to live and buy NFTs?
For me, I've seen enough OTC companies to know that what is in the filings isn't always clean or accurate. I believe, for example, that the money for that $400,000 Blue NFT came indirectly from Humbl investors. You have enormous faith in the filings in OTC companies while I don't believe OTC companies deserve that high level of trust.
But we can agree that there have been failures at Humbl and that maybe the price was too high at $7.92. You believe Foote is learning lessons (I'll point out he's learning them at the expense of shareholders) and you believe that he's on the right path. I don't see it but that's my opinion.
I'll agree with you that it's hard to change an industry. If that's where there's money, maybe spending money to change that industry is worthwhile. I see Foote spent a lot of shareholder money, but I don't have a good gauge on how he was able to change the industry so far. With hardly anyone on the Humbl platform, it doesn't appear to me that the money was well spent at all.
If Foote has really added some actual value in the past three years, it would be worthwhile for him to effectively communicate that value to investors so that blind people such as myself can see.
Looking at the conversation between you and Surfkast, it looks like you misunderstood what he was saying. You said that Foote is delaying his pay, but Surfkast pointed out that the G&A includes his salary as CEO, which is substantial.
While Foote's actual salary is hidden in GA, I'm inclined to agree that Foote pays himself well now, not in future compensation. Not only does Foote appear to be doing well personally, he can personally purchase items like the Blue NFT for $400,000, which he later donated to Humbl and certainly received a tax break. Was Foote independently wealthy before he started Humbl so he can live well off only his previously accumulated wealth and buy $400k NFTs? If so, he must feel sticking his money into Humbl stock is a poor investment, otherwise he would be doing so. Foote's actions indicate that he doesn't seem to share your belief that Humbl is a rocket.
I also don't see the lack of understanding which you say Surfkast has. Everyone knows that businesses have expenses. I agree with you that those expenses can be substantial. The big question is whether the company creates value in excess of those expenses. Admittedly, it's tough to measure value produced, if any, but after three years, Humbl is still fully entrenched in its role of incinerating cash while the future is still a dream.
Virtually all of Humbl's revenues are from Ixaya and merchandise. It appears the Humbl's various technologies continue to produce goose eggs, not even a noticeable green shoot.
Different opinions. Like your VRUS story, I went short HMBL near the high because I felt it was a pseudo-scam. Not straight up falsehoods, but also not giving investors the full story of Humbl's situation, such as how few subscribers they were getting, etc.... Then there were tell-tale clues, such as spending a lot of money on a ticketing company and an advertising company. One would have to really stretch to imagine how either of those were synergistic with Humbl. If anything, Humbl would just be a hodge podge of items on an app. There's still nothing unique.
Was I wrong going short, but Humbl's share price just happened to agree with me by coincidence, going from $7.92 down to $0.0009? So far nobody has plausibly explained Humbl's value to me.
I can see you're now excited about the new hodge podge of items like selling tickets for the Arena Football League and the potential of providing municipal services through Humbl, but where's the value? Has nobody in Santa Cruz heard of apps before?
How is Humbl Social going to be any better than MySpace was?? What exactly is Humbl's advantage supposed to be?
If someone could put Humbl's value down in words without using vague terms spiced with unsubstantiated optimism, it would truly be helpful. I just don't see any value.
Yes. I'm pretty blind and you're pretty belligerent. That I see despite my blindness.
A couple of years ago, I defended you on this board despite our starkly differing opinions on Humbl, because I thought you were being treated unfairly by the bears. Now I fear I might have been mistaken to do so as maybe they were just keeping your incivility in check.
I've never heard of the Arena Football League before Humbl aligned with it. It's tiny. I don't see any breakthrough in Humbl's brand of ticketing, merchandise sales nor anything else. It's completely unclear what Humbl brings to the table for which it can charge any sort of a premium. While you're excited about every new pivot, I continue to be unimpressed. Unless I can see some clear, or even fuzzy, value, I'll continue to think Humbl is a zero.
I'm certain if you really think about Humbl testing their digital wallet, potential fishing licenses auto titles, dog licenses and everything else, you'll start to become as unimpressed with Humbl as I am now. There's nothing technological about Humbl, at least not what hasn't already been done to death by others.
Let's focus on that. Why do you think Humbl is about to start making money? What changed? Foote has been incinerating money and value for the past three years. What pivot did Foote do that makes you believe he's now adding shareholder value instead of destroying it? Maybe I'm just too blind to see it. Can you point out that value to me?
Of course it was due to financing--that's pretty much the only reason why shares go out the door. It's not that you're the only person who understands why dilution happens.
But it's still dilution. That doesn't negate the fact that the outstanding share count went up about 10x and that there are still a lot of convertible preferred waiting to further dilute.
If I understand you, you don't care at all about the constant dilution because you have full confidence that the value added from the dilution offsets the dilution itself. I'm sure all those people who sold off HMBL from $7.92/share down to $0.0009/share have it wrong and you're the only smart person who has it right. When do you think your superior intellect will start paying off?
To your point, Foote never said there wouldn't be any dilution, But Foote did make numerous statements about minimizing dilution, reducing dilution, mitigating dilution, etc....
You can downplay the dilution or make excuses for the dilution all you want, but the OS went from under a billion shares to over 11 billion shares in just a few years. That's heavy dilution by anyone's standards. That 11+ billion doesn't even count the upcoming series C or the remaining series B.
What I'm saying, NoMoDo, is that the first public disclosure of the series B was in the annual report filed April 14, 2021, even though the series B were apparently created late in the previous year. There were 972 million shares outstanding after the reverse split and 5.52 billion equivalent shares were introduced with those series B. That's 85% of the company which was then owned by the series B. Retail investors first found out about that 85% haircut on April 14, 21.
I'm surprised you're taking such a strong stance to defend Foote rather than being at least a little upset over the haircut.
If I sold you a house and you bought it at full market price, then after the sale I informed you that you only really owned 15% of that house and that my family would own 85% of the house and would occupy 85% of the house, would you be understanding because you feel my family probably deserved the 85%?
I'm definitely open to debate and I'm open to admitting I'm wrong if I am actually wrong, but can you be more specific? Can you tell me on what point you feel I made a mistake? I'm trusting that you're being forthright and not just telling me to go fish for no reason.
I'm definitely open to debate and I'm open to admitting I'm wrong if I am actually wrong, but can you be more specific? Can you tell me on what point you feel I made a mistake? I'm trusting that you're being forthright and not just telling me to go fish for no reason.
I'm not reaching out to you. You literally responded to my stand alone post so I replied back to you.
As far as the series B, maybe his family deserved 80% of Humbl for what they floated him. But shouldn't Foote have disclosed that liability to retail shareholders who were buying shares so they would know they were going to get a quick 80% haircut? That's not ethical.
I do hope you see HMBL at the easy $0.25 you expect it to be by April or May. I'll withhold my opinion on HMBL achieving that $3 billion market cap. Good luck.
If you want to believe Foote is a saint, that's your right.
For me, Foote suddenly giving most of Humbl to his family through the series B after retail shareholders paid full price on the open market relying on the OS at that time, smacks of being unfair.
Also, stocks don't drop from $8 down to $0.0008 if shareholders are given the full and honest details about the company. They drop that far when a company was first deceptively portrayed as being something that it wasn't.
Since you believe people might start humming a happy tune once they understand Humbl's business model, why do you think Foote isn't making an effort to help investors understand that magnificent business model? Does he just need more updates? Was three years simply not enough time to communicate to shareholders? Is he too inarticulate to explain the business model? What do you think is the problem?
I can see you can't say enough good things about Foote. That's your right. I just don't share your view.
Please stop comparing Foote to Musk and Bezos. For every Musk and Bezos, there are 10000 OTC bad companies like Humbl. Further, Tesla and Amazon were never OTC companies.
Instead of trying to paint Foote as your favorite successful entrepreneur, why not try to figure out what Humbl has which might be useful?
The best anyone can hope for, is that Foote is better at marketing than other companies because Humbl has absolutely nothing in the way of proprietary technology. Maybe there's a case to be made there since Foote and Sharp were successful in hawking worthless stock to penny stock investors. Maybe Foote can replicate that marketing success with Humbl's worthless products.
Fair enough. You believe Humbl's value is in Foote continuing to try new ideas until he finds something which works. You acknowledge that he's pivoting because he hasn't found anything which works yet, but you believe he will if given enough time and money.
I don't see anything ground breaking about Humbl's app. There are already many social apps and many payment apps. Even if Foote succeeds to get users, competition would be heavy. To me, it seems like a tall order and expensive even at 1/10 of a cent.
For you and your restaurants, you're highly motivated to get the menu right and to implement improvements which increase your returns. You're spending your own money to make improvements so you want to be sure there's a return on the money you spend. Foote has much less pressure since shareholders are funding Humbl by continued investment. It would be interesting to know if Foote would keep running Humbl with his own money if investment money were suddenly cut off.
Rather than flailing at the bashers, why don't you discuss your reasons why you think Humbl's contract with the AFL and their agreement to try to onboard members with Clear, is different this time?
Over two years ago Humbl acquired Monster Creative for $8.5 million and then acquired Tickeri for $20 million. More than agreements, actual acquisitions which promised to launch Humbl's business. As you can see, both continued to generate losses until Humbl couldn't pay to keep funding them and then both went away.
Foote announces ideas which never go anywhere. Why are you enthusiastic about the new Clear and the AFL agreements? Do you just have a short memory or do you see some reason for the Clear and AFL agreements to bear fruit where all past agreements died on the vine?
Your "yea" looks sarcastic. Omolives likely meant that a reverse merger would be Humbl buying shares of Clear, not the other way around. Clear is listed with a $3 billion market cap where Humbl is a tiny low revenue company with a tiny market cap. Humbl isn't going to acquire Clear through a reverse merger with Humbl being the surviving entity.
As far as your statement saying that Clear likely owns 30% of Humbl, my guess is that's an opinion colored by your personal belief that everyone wants to own Humbl. I don't blame you for your opinion since my opinion would be the opposite, based only on my opinion that Humbl is worthless. I would be guilty of the same type of bias.
I have a better idea. You can put $50,000 into Humbl stock and post your buy order. Then come April 18th, 2024, you can keep all the gains and we can pat you on the back. No need to mess around with escrow.
I agree that skipping the customer verification step makes it easier to sign up and anything which makes signing up easier, is positive. But I don't know if that's enough of an incentive for people to sign up with Humbl.
Keep in mind this has been three years of constant new ideas and partnerships with Humbl. So far I haven't seen anything from Humbl which I would consider novel or ground-breaking. And so far Humbl hasn't proven me wrong by demonstrating anything it did was worthwhile. It's just a continuous stream of lackluster ideas from Foote to keep shareholders averaging down.
Humbl's three year history with the accumulated deficit, shows Foote incinerated $97 million of money. That doesn't count the series B which also took their swipes at retail investors. In total with other convertibles, I'm guessing $200 million of investor money was burned. If Foote retained even a shred of that value, where is it?
Foote has been jumping from one idea to the next and none of the ideas have panned out. If he has any competitive advantage anywhere, it hasn't worked on anything.
Will Foote do a 180 with this new dilution and suddenly start adding value? If so, what drastically changed?
With facts, the history of the person shouldn't matter. With opinions maybe it's important whether the person has been negative on other stocks. How did those stocks do?
If someone has been bullish on Humbl for the past three years while the stock went from $8.00 per share down to $0.001 per share, I would take that person's opinions with a grain of salt. That person might have some big holes in his analysis that he doesn't want to address.
If you're asking whether Foote is making enough money for Humbl to be a scam, you're approaching the issue the wrong way. Instead, look what he's doing. Three years of constantly changing from one business idea to the next isn't good. Maybe he's shady. Maybe he has bad luck. Maybe he has the intelligence of an anvil. Maybe all three. But since he's personally doing well financially while investors are losing, the answer likely isn't stupidity or bad luck.
As I said, anyone can see the accumulated deficit to see that Humbl's net losses totaled $97 mlllion with Foote. Foote isn't doing shareholders a service and you can decide for yourself the reason. Foote also set up the series B holders nicely, and regular shareholders are bearing that cost as well.
Is it worthwhile to keep paying Foote $300,000 per month to run Humbl?? If he's stupid, maybe he'll eventually learn. If he's scamming then not. If that long run of bad luck keeps happening, also not.
My opinion is that high triple zips are too expensive for Humbl. Humbl has a $10 million market cap, hardly any assets, negative $12 million in book value and couldn't incinerate cash any faster unless Foote literally started burning money in trash barrels. The only value is the hope that Foote will accidentally stumble on a worthwhile business while he's learning from his mistakes.
Hold on. I said Foote probably wrung $200 million out of investors. Some certainly for the enrichment of his family since the series B convertibles were owned by his family and others close to Foote, some certainly paid to Foote personally, some in hiring people, coding apps and acquiring unrelated and unprofitable businesses like Monster and Tickeri, some wasted. That money came out of investor pockets.
Your argument about "why does he still hold all of his shares?" is non sequitur. It doesn't mean he's not compensating himself well out of invested funds. Foote is the controlling shareholder and he alone decides how money brought in through dilution, is spent. The incoming money bottleneck is in wringing money out of investors, not finding new avenues through which to funnel money into his personal bank account. Foote already has a fully working path for selling shares to investors and for paying himself out of those funds. Which shares are sold on the market would make zero difference for him. Your argument doesn't hold water.
Every app or deal Foote creates or buys, goes into the toilet. Everyone will know that the AFL ticket sales and the Santa Cruz app have also died once Foote stops talking about them. By that time Foote will have put out press releases to direct everyone's attention to a brand new useless app idea, replete with a $15000 sponsorship deal with some lower tier sports team to display the Humbl name to excite shareholders further.
I don't know why there are still so many people who carry so much ardor for Humbl and Foote amid three years of constant (and very expensive) failures. Between the accumulated deficit and various convertibles, Foote wrung maybe $200 million out of investors. Foote's family is now wealthy and Foote buys expensive digital artwork while throwing parties the company's luxury hotel suite.
Take my advice for Christmas and give yourself the gift of divesting your Humbl stock. Foote and George Sharp did a number on you and now the stock is back down to triple zips where it belongs. Breaking up is hard to do but Foote is abusing you.
You'll have to understand that nobody's opinion, including mine, makes any difference to Humbl. Asking me to move along serves no purpose.
I get that you feel that Foote is finally making progress with Santa Cruz because you feel the app will open doors. I can't put a price on that but I will admit it's worth something.
I also get that business isn't always easy. You say Foote adeptly steered clear of icebergs. But, as I see it, it wasn't you or me who charted those courses. That was Foote. And each iceberg is a business he abandoned. He simply wasn't able to work his magic on those opportunities so he pivoted to new opportunities.
But somehow, Foote is the golden boy in whom shareholders have faith that he can produce an enormous amount value. Since he hasn't shown that ability so far, what exactly is Foote's magic? What amazing property does he possess which should compel investors to keep giving him their money so he can keep pivoting and hopefully stumble onto a business opportunity where his magic actually works? Maybe he does have some latent magic, but I'm unable to see what that might be. All I see is three years of incinerating investor cash as he continues to pivot and dilute.
That's true. Eventually we will find out if Humbl will be a success or whether it will still be close to success.
As far as execution, Foote has been a complete failure but he keeps generating stories. He's never going to throw in the towel as long as investors keep paying him by buying up all of the dilution, any more than any bad employee will quit his job as long as his employer keeps paying him well. It has been three years and Foote has demonstrated his incompetence at every stage. He sits around with his app team and comes up with ideas for apps. He sells his app idea to investors by press releases and then the apps invariably fail to get hardly any users, let alone revenues or profitability. Then he rinses and repeats.
It's up to each individual investor to figure out when to fire Foote and his team or whether to keep believing in him while paying him $300k per month.
You definitely shouldn't be afraid to post your opinions just because someone might try to refute them. I post my opinions point blank despite having NoMoDo pounce on them. E.g. I said HMBL was near the all time low and he corrected me by saying I was flat wrong because $0.001/share was multiples of $0.0004/share. I said Tickeri was a failure and he again corrected me by saying Humbl successfully captured the essence of Tickeri before letting Tickeri go, basically saying that learning the art of unprofitably selling tickets was an invaluable skill acquired by Humbl.
Debate is healthy. It helps us flesh out differences in opinion and maybe even allows us all to make better investment decisions.