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.
Oh I recognize where the dark side is... the FB Cult is on the other side of the spectrum. My friend, I am smack in the middle.
Yes actually I do. I guess I was a douche then... I was booted for asking questions which were against the group narrative.
Happy 4th!
You're not being factual. You're being conclusory.
An event can also be a disclosure. What do you think press conferences are?
An area resident who was either a shareholder or told a select group of shareholders. Check out misappropriation theory of insider trading. An "insider" does not = employee. That is the typical fact pattern. However, an "insider" can also be a non-corporate third-party depending upon the facts.
Insiders are people with material information about the company that is not generally known to the public. These are not Webster's dictionary definitions.
The facebook group where the information was spreading at the time of the fire was PRIVATE. I.e. you need approval to be in it. It was not a public forum. Perhaps if it was, I wouldn't be able to make this argument. Like you said though, you're being factual, right?
If someone can't follow, it's because they choose not to.
Individuals don't have to be involved with the company to be insiders. Go back and re-read some of the links I already provided. I haven't destroyed anything, you're just being overly simplistic.
A company building burning down is itself a disclosure by the corporation. The disclosure was made to selective individuals. Those selective individuals become insiders because the information is material and not generally disclosed to the market.
Let me put it this way.. if Management had the ability to put out a press release, but didn't, and instead word was spread by mouth amongst a select group of investors in a PRIVATE chat which includes possibly large % shareholders or folks directly tied to the company, such that the same information was NOT GENERALLY available to ALL investors, then that small group of select investors trading on that information... hate to break it to ya... committed insider trading.
No, it's not in the context of securities law. To be public, it must be known to the market generally. Something that happens in a pinpoint location, without a broad disclosure, cannot be said to be known generally.
Go read some case law.
No, you're taking it too literally. This is a fact analysis. A facility in the middle of nowhere Lacoste Texas that is material to the operations of a publicly traded company, that only a few firefighters and those who live nearby knew burned down, were not entitled to trade on that information before it was made GENERALLY public. "Information is “nonpublic” until it has been disseminated or is available to the marketplace in general (as opposed to a select group of investors)." https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/ethics-standards/codes/standards-of-practice-guidance/standards-of-practice-II-A#nonpublic
This was NOT information disseminated to the market, therefore it was not PUBLIC.
"Members and candidates must be particularly aware of information that is selectively disclosed by corporations to a small group of investors, analysts, or other market participants. Information that is made available to analysts remains nonpublic until it is made available to investors in general. Corporations that disclose information on a limited basis create the potential for insider-trading violations."
Nonpublic is a fact analysis as well. "Material nonpublic information is data relating to a company that has not been made public but could have an impact on its share price." https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/materialinsiderinformation.asp
In this situation, you're taking public too literally. Just because it occurred in public, does not mean the PUBLIC knew about it. "Information is generally not public if it is not available in press releases, SEC filings and other public reports." https://www.secactions.com/insider-trading-materiality-and-non-public-information/
Yes. It is illegal to trade on material NONPUBLIC information. Information known to only a select handful of individuals, is NOT PUBLIC. Whether information is material and nonpublic is a fact analysis. In this situation, folks who live locally and witnessed this, including the firefighters, became holders of valuable nonpublic information; essentially, they became "insiders" (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insider.asp). They should not have traded on the information. Those who obtained information 2nd hand (think Martha Stewart) should not have traded on the information. All involved shoulld have waited until the information was disclosed generally to the public to trade. If they did not, then they committed insider trading and dumped shares on unsuspecting market participants.
Oh no? So when the stock price dropped precipitously because of that knowledge BEFORE the company released any statement to the public .... nothing nefarious, eh?
Well it's not private like the Facebook page where material information, not generally released to the public, is somehow passed amongst a select few shareholders, who then trade on that information... like the fire in 2018.
Again, you've yet to explain what HARM has been caused by Management voting the Series A. I've asked you to do this many, MANY times. If you can't, then no harm = no breach of fiduciary duty. That makes your point worthless.
IF the YOTA deal does not go through, the best and only option is an RS. Increasing the AS does nothing. There's already a filing for a 1:25 RS. It would reduce the O/S to 36 million, resulting in a $1 PPS. You completely ignore the fact that Management owes shareholders a fiduciary duty when postulating about scenarios that do nothing but HARM shareholders. It makes no sense. This is why I can't take you seriously.
Good to see you. Last time you posted here it was right before the huge Pump in November 2020. A good omen I am sure.
"Look at the COGS on the financial statement. Look at the $22 a pound shrimp. Look at paltry production."
There are very basic holes in your "position" a/k/a opinion, which you have yet to address....
Link?
You're not answering the question. You're not proving your opinion. I'm not taking you seriously. Sorry bud.
If you're using illegal to imply criminal, then no. If you're using illegal in a non-sophisticated way, as in "the Series A have no valid legal existence," then yes. With regards to your question about timing, assuming NSI had a duty to update the May 9, 2023, stated O/S, then I believe the time in which to do so would be within (4) days of the change. With that said, NSI may not have had a duty to update that information.
"The company does not need to file a Form 8-K
if the equity securities sold, in the aggregate
since its last Form 8-K (if filed under this Item
3.02) or its last periodic report, whichever is
more recent, constitute less than 1% of the
number of shares outstanding of the class of
equity securities sold. This threshold is 5% for
smaller reporting companies."
https://assets.contentstack.io/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/blt10e8972bfb5b32d8/faq-form-8-k.pdf
Seems like NSI would be a smaller reporting company.
https://www.sec.gov/education/smallbusiness/goingpublic/SRC
No, I don't accept that in a legal sense. Yes, I do accept it in a reality sense. We've been through this before.
It depends on when it happened. If it was within a certain period of time before the 10K, then the 10K is the requisite disclosure. If not, then no, they didn't.
Won't happen unless and until the YOTA merger collapses. NSI can't do anything that would materially effect the merger as currently constituted. It's in the Business Combination Agreement you read.
If the company can't pay for raw resources, then it would say as much. In that even, saying it's supply issues would be materially misleading. Are you again implying the company is lying? Making fraudlent representations?
Where are you getting this information? Or, are you just making it up?
You obviously don't understand the tech. That's exactly the point of it.
Go on, please tell me what is false. What changes with more shrimp in the tank?
Electric is the biggest cost. It's fixed. It's running the EC and other tech whether there's 1 or 10,000 shrimp. The water is cleaned in this way. It's a 5 step patented process.
Go on, what's variable? I'm waiting.Here's your chance to prove your genius.
You're not making serious points when your entire premise is based on personal opinion and not one independent, objective fact whatsoever.
I'd ask you to consider, whether there is one shrimp in a tank or 10,000, all costs are fixed with the exception of PLs and feed. With that said, the more shrimpys in a tank, the greater the margin will be.
You're analysis, if you can call it that, is outdated. You're not accepting that the technology increases the number of ways that NSI can maximize profit margin.
I was right until yesterday. Now the company update it's filings. Now there's a new number which I will continuously represent is accurate until the company updates its filings again. I feel like you don't understand how this works. On another note, you've neglected to address any of my prior comments re: $50,000.00 in sales for the quarter. The intellectual dishonesty is tiring.
Use logic... if my comments are misleading and my comments reference company comments, then you're alleging the company's representations are misleading. I go by representations made by the company, not a TA. It's that simple.
Based on the representation in the 10K, your statement is a lie.
"plus the 32,004,038 shares of common stock into which the 5 million shares of Series A Preferred Stock is convertible."
There could be no way to get to "a 2 billion share increase in the OS." How can anyone take a comment seriously when it's clear one has not read a filing? It then begs the question, is the talking point purposefully misleading?
You're neglecting to realize that harping on $50k in Q4 is really just adding credibility to my contention that there were PL supply issues following the end of the 2020 PL contract which, before the March 2023 PL contract. Can't harvest what you can't stock. That has NOTHING to do with the tech.
It's an annual report. Go on with your selective analysis.
You mean $238,000.00 in sales?
It was for twelve months so it ended in February 2021. It was also only for 1,000,000/mo. You're like two years and 1,000,000 PL behind. What was going on between July 2022 and March 2023? That's the real question.
https://naturalshrimp.com/naturalshrimp-inc-announces-postlarvae-hatchery-contract/
Did they not say they had problems procuring a reliable supply of PLs?
Oh, right, they did... in that article: "This agreement will solve one of the supply-chain issues we encountered previously where the lack of PLs significantly impacted our ability to produce the quantities of NaturalShrimp that our customers demand."
READ!
I think you missed the point.
Please cite to your expert source where it says that 1.2 g/wk is a problem. No cite = no DOUBLE-BWAHAHAHA.
Please also go back and read my post wherein I state that PLs were a problem as of March 29, 2023. That means these sale numbers DO NOT incorporate the 2,000,000/month PL contract.
Also, from my calculations, in Lacoste, NSI is achieving the above growth rate in a density of 350+ shrimp/m^3 (considering 78% surivability). This is WELL above (2x) industry average. I think there's a ton of room to increase survivability and/or growth rate by reducing density and improving genetics.
Trial and error is really the only way to discover the most efficient use of each facility.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/naturalshrimp-announces-agreement-purchase-post-123100343.html
Announcement was end of March 2023 and therefore is not covered in this 10K reporting of sales. I think that's interesting. I also think Q2 income will be interesting considering grow out to 24 grams is 20 weeks and Niterra Licensing. IMO
It's short interest. Plain and Simple. The PA makes no sense otherwise. FINRA reporting doesn't lie.
There's most certainly a difference. It's the difference of whether you know what you're talking about or not.
Way to backtrack. Smart man.
Are you implying that people are trading the stock on information which is not publicly known? I have seen no public information that the "SPAC deal is not happening."
So you're saying your position is not a smart bet?