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.
Millions of viewers??? You do realize Oprah's last show aired in 2011....right?
Today's zero volume seems "organized". Almost like a lot of traders are avoiding this at the same time.
Sounds good. Thanks for the help.
I'm probably missing something simple, but I can't get the numbers to add up.
44% of 531M shares is ~234M Votes
50% of 301M shares is ~152M Votes
These two numbers should equal one another, if I understand your explanation correctly, and they are roughly 100M apart.
The table represents the voting power of the individuals named. All 7 total up to roughly 46%. This seems like very straight forward addition of the values given. The category is even called % of voting capital.
In the 14c they state that the vote carried with the 7 individuals and 50.42% With the numbers given, I don't see how that is possible. Either there is another voter that has been omitted or the numbers were reported incorrectly. With such an exact number, I don't think this was malicious, but something has been left out or I'm way off.
I can't get the numbers to add up. Would you be comfortable pm'ing me your email and let me ask a few more questions off board. I don't want people to think I'm bashing because I'm trying to make sense of a filing again.
Seriously mick??? I pointed out something I noticed. There was no negativity behind it. Simply an observation. I even said I may have missed something. Not everything that doesn't proclaim "to the moon" or "copper coming" is bashing.
The 14c from 08 Sep 2015 says the vote was carried by 7 shareholders with 50.42% of the shares. The table below lists 6 of those shareholders and notes that Kristul's wife is also represented. This means all 7 of the shareholders are listed in the table. When they total the table themselves, only 44.84% is noted.
I'm not sure why there is a difference of 5%
Am I missing something or should that vote not been carried?
Realize, I intend no negativity, I'm long and genuinely curious.
That's possible. But when I added percentages that were reported in the votes, they didn't quite hit 51%
I just assumed that they didn't report everything or just didn't care and checked the box.
I'm mobile right now but I'll link to the filing I'm talking about tomorrow morning and get your opinion on what I missed.
Were the zero volume days and no bid days just games as well?
Otherwise, your suggesting the most incompetent group of insider traders ever seen or you're correlating things that aren't related.
Today traded a million shares. When someone can do that with less than a day's pay. I find it hard to call it organized. There is not done secretive group behind the curtain pulling $240 worth of strings. There's new retail buying and selling on hope.
No. It didn't. And you even just said so. You were taking about weeks worth until it's pointed out that you weren't.
Because you said today's trading got your attention. It seemed organized.
You still fail to explain how a million shares traded or $240 was somehow organized.
If every share traded at 0.0002 then $240 changed hands. That's what it takes to be organized???
Previous filings claim 51% voting power to carry votes but when I added all the claimed votes up it was always in the high 40's. I think no matter what the structure they will decide what they want to do and say 51% voted for it.
Ignoring or dismissing facts don't make them any less relevant. Investing with that strategy will surely take you far. Good luck.
It just means that they previously they weren't reporting regularly and now they have.
EB says it as though this is huge, but if you look at his post history, he makes the argument that this doesn't mean anything at all in another ticker just a day it so ago. (I should point out that the other company just got the yield sign designation and he didn't like it.)
News well come when it comes. No need for pumping. It may build momentum short term but destroys trust long term.
Too bad you don't hold Francine to the same standard. Show me financials. Show me signed contracts. Show me revenues.
Believe what you want. Most of what we have posted has been written by him here on the board if you just search. You notice he hasn't denied anything.
I don't think you can have money just show up or disappear without explaining it's source with a publicly traded company. Just google 8k rules and look at the SEC website or the wiki.
Either way, if they took money from him, it would need to be disclosed. I guess when we consider the state of the company and their filings, it's possible. I sincerely doubt it though, especially considering what he told me in pm's about trying to buy the company.
He claimed to have given money to Boreal to pay down debt. Shouldn't that have been reported on an 8k if true? There is no such filing.
What you mean is your perspective is biased.
After taking with you through pm I held this longer than I should have and turned a small profit into a small loss. I looked at everything objectively and got out.
You have posted things here on the public forum that contradict statements to me through pm.
You apparently have many thousands of dollars tied up here. That's why you seen to ignore all the red flags.
If you believe in this as much as you say, why aren't you slashing the ask and going all in with everything you have?
Three auditors in a row.
How does that saying go....fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me...fool me three times....
I'll let someone else fill in what should go there.
I sent him an email almost immediately after the pr and never heard back.
there were disagreements with Mr. Heyn on matters of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or disclosure, which disagreement(s), if not resolved to his satisfaction, would have caused him to make reference to the subject matter of the disagreement(s) in the report;
That's a copy and pasted from the 8k. It very clearly says exactly what I said it did. In your words, to speculate you know anything different is absurd.
The release very explicitly stated that the auditor was fired because he refused to complete a report that didn't include comments about things he disagreed about.
Ignore that if you wish, but don't mislead others by implying it says something different.
You're right the reason was listed. He refused to put the report together without including comments where he disagreed with what he was presented.
You're being naive or dishonest if you say anything else. She also claims that he didn't work fast enough. If that were true, why hasn't someone else taken the job and gotten it done???
If you say he was dishonest and that's why she fired him, you would ask us to believe this is the third time in as many auditors that this has happened. If that's true, this is either the unluckiest company ever or Francine has no idea what she's doing.
The more likely scenario is that she has hired two auditors that she paid to lie and were eventually caught and one who wouldn't, and she fired him for it.
You're right again James!!! The filings that never seem to pan out and financials that can't be trusted for the past few years are HUGE RED FLAGS.
You're doing a good job alerting newbies that they should stay away.
Great post James!!! You make a good point about avoiding stocks like BRWC that have no requirements. You just can't trust them.
Just in case other people are still considering investing even though you make a strong case against it, check this out.
https://www.americanbulls.com/SignalPage.aspx?lang=en&Ticker=BRWC
That's ridiculous. Why would they both fold??? It seems to me that any contracts that you have with Boreal could easily be "bought" out by St Elie. Now you have one company with twice the income. Hypothetically, if you were to run the one company that was publically traded completely into the ground and let it absorb all the debt of both companies, and let it go bankrupt, what would be lost??? You would still have your privately owned, debt free, full production company.
Your DD is not that great if you think one can't survive without the other.
Maybe so, but Mo seems to genuinely care about shareholder value and the people who support him and the company.
With almost any other ticker I would agree with your previous post but here, I think the CEO does care. That's not to say that the primary priority isn't running the company day to day, but tune is made to keep us in the loop.
The stock dropped roughly 25% and Mo showed up and posted twice to reassure people. As far as I know, we haven't heard from him since right before the last pr. So yeah, he watches the pps and cares about it and what is said here on the ihub board.
Glad you could be amused by how dumb everyone else is though.
Positive trend? Did you bump your head?
All the benchmark time periods show downward movement.
An opinion?
What he said was, there are no updated or accurate financials....FACT
He also said that there ARE contracts and deals in place. Do you believe this is not a fact and just an opinion?
You do realize that this was not a negative post? He simply stated the situation and asked if anyone had any insight.
It's amazing to me that you often attack everyone's post regardless if they hold the same opinion as you or not. It's almost as if you're unable to distinguish between the opposing sides, but expect people to take financial advice from you.
They were so "concerned" with how long it was taking by your logic....right???
Why has no replacement been named in more than 3 weeks? You can't blame that lack of action on anyone but your #1 CEO. As she points out in her 8k, she is the only board member. It doesn't seem as though she is worried about how long it's taking as much as she's concerned that her practices will be uncovered.
Do as he's told and get sanctioned like the previous two auditors?
He has a duty to report accurately no matter if she tells him not to.
There's nothing to argue. This is directly from the 8k
if not
resolved to his satisfaction, would have caused him to make reference to the subject matter of the disagreement(s) in the report; should he have completed
one.
It very clearly states that he disagreed with what he was presented. He was going to make notes on the report and he was let go as a result. Nowhere does the 8k state that he wasn't working fast enough.
IMO, Francine has companies that do the same thing across borders. I think she's funneling contracts to St Elie and pocketing the money while passing on all debt to shareholders of BRWC.
Not getting the job done???
The 8k specifically says that he wanted to include a statement that he disagreed with what was being reported and therefore was let go.
This implies that the work was completed and Francine didn't like what she saw. That's very different than he wasn't doing the work.
What you should worry about is that all of the "deals" that have been pr'd are potentially being funneled to the privately held St Elie.
That and the dismal pps, even after your "GOLD" news.
Too bad the market currently values this at 0.0008.
Still sounds like toxic convertible debt to me. We'll see how the pps responds. So far it looks like the "huge news" has barely moved it. Which likely means that the market has seen through this garbage. When the ihub pumpers leave in a couple of days this will drop back to where it was.