Either way the trade show will tell you if informed traders will take a L2 & Time & Sales module seriously or whether they will determine it is redundant to the services they already employ. Then you will have to sort through the difference between another claim of new trial memberships versus actual subscriptions. Until this is a fully reporting company their subscription numbers cannot verified.

OK, you may not be a born businessman, but spiritual realization is the best currency. Enjoy your life.

OK, I may have been too harsh on you, but I am truly fed up with people who ride for months or years on their newbie status and don't wise up. Hope you do. Good luck

Greg, you've blindly supported a total disaster. You did touch a nerve because while you support the absolute wrong cause the one thing you chose to bash was the site that gave you the forum for your dopey comments in the first place. Piracy? It is piracy? You've got the mind of a six year old.

Tips for you if you wish to do more guesswork:

NITE (Knight) and SBSH (Citibank) are the dominant MMs on OTCBBs.

Some MMs may route through a NITE in particular to mask their orders.

But when you see a PERT or HDSN or many of the other MMs down the tier they are basically trading for themselves or their clients.

But NITE is the least easy to read because they can be handling their own trades, clients, supplying fills for discount brokers or routing orders from other MMs.

SBSH may do all the things NITE does but probably to a lesser degree handle re-routed orders from other MMs.

I can use ARCA. It is not that big a deal. Any trader with routing privileges can run their order through ARCA which is an ECN and usually shows the full order size whereas most MMs veil their offers in the minimum quote. It can be a fund, a trader, an institution and you'll never know because people use ARCA to be anonymous. I've placed orders simultaneously through various routes too and you expect to see that too when the mayhem is hitting and people are doing all kinds of funny things. It gets very improvisational. While it may be fun to guess what is going on on you probably can't know. If I'm tape reading closely I can usually construct a pretty good narrative of what people are trying to do, but I'm not going to be watching this that closely.

Yes, I got my hands on the Tuohy Bros. report which was unusually short. It read:

Sell your mother, buy DPDW.

It is probably more a matter of inclusion since I too have been long term in stocks that took quite a while to conquer $2 and were held in place before they broke it down for good. The way DPDW hit $2 though makes me believe that even if it goes up and down around $2 some more the long term resistance at $2 is already proven porous which is a good thing. I've seen it at $2 and at $3, but also my point was partly that stocks which are artificially pumped up to $3 usually peter out by then. But since that doesn't really apply here due to steady market accumulation over a longer timeframe. I'll take your interpretation over mine in that case. Works for me.

Yes, correct. You did provide an example. It may not be useful, but thanks all the same.

Good. Now tell me when that extra 7B shares were diluted and you and I will both have an accurate time line to compare to the decline in share price. That would be helpful if you can convince the company to disclose that.

Simple. It was not so diluted then. That is intrinsically clear.

Sounds good. Just to help you (really), what you need to do is:

study their charts and figure out roughly what their dollar volume was at key intervals in the stock's history.

You want to find clear examples of 10B+ OS stocks that broke out of the cellar and do a rough calculation on the volume,
how many days it took,
what volume it required to sustain and hold those gains,
how long it has held them, etc.

Essentially, you need to find precedents to see under what circumstances the market gave a company with such a high OS a higher valuation.

Included in that analysis you'd need to see if the company may even have profits, but the size of the share structure keeps the share price of what would be an otherwise better company unnaturally depressed.

And most important again is what is the insider position on these high OS stocks? If you can't determine that, even dollar volume analysis is only half useful because you don't know how much float was being moved by the volume.

The next two psych breakpoints are not $2, but $3 and $5. Once past those, it is blue skies (not to say it doesn't already feel that way to some).

$3 because most stocks that have unsubstantied momo rarely get past that point.

$5 because that is the last threshold the market keeps in mind regarding all funds being freed up from the last price restriction and allowing them to invest in the stock.

Which companies with higher a OS than INXR are you referring to specifically?

Ha ha, the DPDW Camp for Refugees of Bad Stocks. Bring us your poor, your tired and hungry, your huddled masses of forlorn investors.

Exactly. All should do their due diligence and that may include considering your words or mine or anyone elses.

To attribute the current share price to anything other than management's actions is wishful thinking. You will not find cause outside of that.

The only thing people who have spoken the truth did was awaken some to exit their positions when they were worth more. If this reverse splits the same will be said in hindsight about those who sold pre-split.

Tell those people that the truth was bashing and they will most likely say thanks and be grateful they disbursed their shares while they still retained any value whatsoever.

As far as reference to companies with a much larger share base trading higher, which ones have more than 10B shares, how many shares do they have and what are their price? I deal in facts. What are the facts about this assertion about other companies?

Business development is one aspect to consider and good luck with that. It is totally incidental to the share structure now however which is a cold, hard reality and exists NOW. Valuation is the concern. That is still the greatest factor dictating what INXR shares are worth. If 3 months ago there were 3B shares and they diluted another 7B shares before admitting it to shareholders then they immediately sliced the value of stock held by more then 2/3rds what it could have been worth before the dilution. That issue is CURRENT and not in the past. It cannot be avoided.

That presumes this stock is even being shorted. If there had not been any reports of people selling stock successfully at the Ask at 2, then you'd be able to assume all stock sold at 2 was shorted by the MMs filling orders.

It appears the MMs even lifted the Ask to 3 for a 1/3 bid/ask spread to test interest in the stock. If anyone were to buy at 3, then they will have to sell at 4 to make a profit which does not seem to be a logical risk thus far. Unless you see hundreds of millions of shares bought at the Ask at 3 you can expect the Ask to come back to 2 over and over again as the MMs test interest in the stock.

But to assume they are shorting it is basically a moot point when there are a vast amount of shares that can be sold by shareholders.

If any new Short covering rules will be enforced that enforcement will start with the highest price stocks on higher level exchanges. Cellar dwelling pink sheets are the last to be looked at for enforcement purposes if they ever will be which is doubtful.

There are plenty of things they could do, but whether it would undo the damage done to shareholders in full is not likely because they are not likely to restore the situation whereby any existing shareholders holding from much higher will ever see a return to break even valuations in their accounts.

On one hand there is product. You can focus on this to the exclusion of other aspects if you want to, but it won't mask the problems that were created by the company's conduct. Therefore, the product could even gradually get better, but since there is no evidence they are even average in their programming abilities and capable of delivering a product that is consistently reliable or is differentiated for competitive market success I'd say this preoccupation to the exclusion of the deeper issues eroding shareholder value is a form of escapism.

There are two fundamental realities that affect current shareholders equity value. One might be able to fixed and one I'm afraid simply cannot.

The one thing the company can do is become legitimate. That means behave like a real company with full transparency that establishes a long-term track record of doing what they claim to be doing and doing it on time plus act on behalf of shareholder interests. But since the damage they have wrought over 9 months is so ingrained in the minds of penny stock traders, few will trust INXR again. It will take years to rebuild that trust. So that is the one thing that could help, but you won't see that trust return for a very long time. Counting on the consumer market to drive revenues to rescue the stock is not your concern any longer. It is the fact few will buy this stock for fear of being burnt.

And the other thing you cannot fix is the share structure. It is beyond repair in regards to the current value of the shares you are holding. There is no logical argument for the value of iFinix being worth more than 0.0001, therefore your shares have no fundamental reason to go up. The market is not going to reward this stock a higher valuation for valuation reasons. The only reason the stock goes up again is a massive influx of new traders speculating they can flip the stock for a quick gain and that seems improbable now.

Therefore, the only fix for the share structure is also the extinction of the current value of your shares. A reverse split will only benefit those issued new shares by the company or buyers who speculate on the stock AFTER the decline in share price that follows a reverse split of unprofitable companies. Any restructuring of the stock will sacrifice the value of currently held shares in order to pump up the value of shares acquired and disbursed after a split.

So the prospects boil down to either holding this for years hoping they become good at something they do and become responsible towards you. But that still may entail seeing your current position go down by 50-90% post-split which seems probable, therefore leaving you truly nowhere to go but up, but little prospect of ever having anything but a loss in this stock regardless of how wonderful they become after cleaning up the mess they created. Current shareholders have very little chance of seeing their positions appreciate and very high probabilities of them depreciating. The odds are not in your favor.

Is it protection of the company for his own benefit or for shareholders is what you should ask yourself then.

If he can dilute the company to 10B by giving himself and other insiders billions of shares then they could sell every last share, have no trading equity in the company and still control it via the voting powers granted by the preferred shares.

It cuts both ways.

At one point it was suggested dilution could be a good thing because a higher concentration of shares in the hands of management could act as an anti-dilution provision. It should now be perfectly clear that was a completely bogus statement with questionable motives because they will never lose control of the shell even if they don't hold a single share of the common shares.

So wondering if somebody would want to buy up the float is more of a trading topic and is not a takeover concern whatsoever.

Additionally, there is no viable scenario under current circumstances in which a buyout could benefit current INXR shareholders. Since each 1/100th of a cent adds almost a full $1M to the market cap of the stock, you'd have ask yourself why anybody would pay $5M for this company, not to mention even $1M?

So even if you wished for a buyout offer it is not likely to result in your shares being worth more than they currently are.

Another problem behind such an idea is if it involves taking the company private the company would have to make it enticing to the acquiror and that may certainly not be in the interest of existing shareholders since that may result in a negotiated value below current ones.

And if it involved a share swap with another public company that would be almost a guarantee of reduced value exchange for existing shareholders since no succesful public company would do an even value share swap for a stock trading at these levels. If anything, they'd negotiate an exchange below the market cap to protect their own interests.

Of course, if they don't actually still have large insider holdings themselves a buyout is not going to happen anyway.

Another premise that falls under the category of Walk Before Trying to Run. They are not competitors of any note at this juncture, therefore any thoughts of them being acquired would fall strictly under the heading of a pre-emptive action. You'd have to ask yourself why someone would acquire a company barely walking and not wait until there is proof positive they can even keep up a mild jog, much less run.

Since companies usually acquire other companies based on their pre-existing intrinsic ability to either immediately contribute to their bottom line or to fuel their organic growth that seems unlikely since INXR does not to date have any revenues of note to contribute to an acquiring company and they have not yet evidenced the ability to grow their bottom line. To suppose they can is merely an assumption and certainly not a given.

But to suggest further as you have that an acquisition would be to take out a competitor then you are posing an interesting question perhaps. To answer that you need to ask:

Who is INXR competing with?

Data Providers - To compete with AlphaTrade and MicroCap and take away their market share you need a product that offers more since you are coming late to the market. iFinix does not have any features to distinguish them and be considered a competitive threat to these companies.

Brokerages - Most people already get their data free. Once the large discount brokers offer pink sheet data they will remove the one distinction AlphaTrade and iFinix can offer for a price and therefore eliminate all competitive advantages providing pink sheet data provides. This is coming. Therefore innovation is required. INXR promised these innovations early in 2007 and have not delivered anything except a bare bones L2 & TS module. Only MicroCapFeed has a differentiated package for the penny stock market and iFinix has no ability to replicate their far more advanced data services. Any talk of iFinix being a broker or providing brokerage platforms remains to be seen. Any announcements to that effect will be viewed with skepticism due to past failures to deliver on promises plus no one would sensibly bet on their success until they can prove trading with their products provide the "rock solid" transactions their "rock solid" data feeds did not for many people who tried their RealTime product.

The future of the brokerage industry will continue to show brokers providing ever evolving robust investing analytics and data tools. For free with an existing account. Competition has to be dazzling to even compel a profitable subscriber base to pay additional monthly dollars for any financial services.

Since reliability is the core of any data provider, iFinix seems unlikely to inspire fear in any other provider looking at them as a competitor. The window of opportunity to impress users was there and it may already be too late. A competitor is not going to buy out a struggling operation out of fear of their success if they feel they may fail anyway.

Since a pre-emptive buyout presupposes there is something that distinguishes the buyout target and makes them uniquely threatening or useful to your business model it is clear that thus far there is nothing unique or distinguished about iFinix product, neither from a competitive threat viewpoint nor from the outlook they could help someone else grow their business. INXR product has no killer app characteristics that sets them apart, certainly not the claim of 6 decimals when the markets only trade up to 4 decimal points.

There is no reason to fear INXR as a competitor thus there is no reason to buy them out for that reason.

Yes. Good reasons for this are:

1. Low risk. Not a resource speculation play dependent on hitting paydirt.

2. The ones who made the real money in the Gold Rushes of California and the Yukon were not the dreamers panning for gold, but the merchants selling them their pans, furs and beef jerky.

3. No exclusives. You can sell to Shell, BP, Schlumberger and your Uncle Bert.

4. Proprietary advantages. Any proprietary equipment that comes into demand becomes a major source of recurring sales and cash flow.

5. I could go on and on, but don't forget the simple power of branding. Once you become a trusted go to supplier known for quality and reliability your brand gives you the ability to expand into various business lines producing additional income streams and fattening the bottom line.

I scanned some of the commentary there and what I realized from reading it is how readily one person's bias gets applied to all stocks regardless of their true potential. By true potential I mean seriously gifted management with a clearly documented matrix of business relationships that are authentically great. So many of the stocks analyzed on iHub have sketchy management teams and the business relationships are often either unverifiable or with equally vague enterprises. DPDW has documented business with the top global companies. They have ISO certification and their acquired operations have experience selling to the military and a new military hot shot coming on board to push it further. They have what may be a very unique diversified set of abilities and services to offer plus the capacity to fill a wide range of large client needs with access to additional product lines as distributors.

You don't buy stocks pre-uplist due to reasonable valuations. That is the whole point of being a successful microcap investor. Anyway, I saw various discussions of the reorganization of preferreds into common implying that could somehow be a ruse to make share selling easier when in fact it is just that while also being a verifiable extinguishment of subordinated debt into less valuable paper. Yes, it is technically a reduction in debt on the books, but so what? It is also yet another bullish indicator that the note holders didn't hold out for maximum conversion value, but accepted their equity conversion for less than face value. How is that anything but good? So to see that couched in some sinister discussion as bad dilution made me laugh.

Thanks Hawk. The older post-WWII generations that invested incrementally over 30 years during their working years did have the benefit of the basic power of compounding. Just $5,000 a year in compounding accounts making 8% would have given them a comfortable retirement account. But most of us, regardless of age, are probably spoiled a bit since we know what is possible in terms of wealth building now that we all have been granted access to the electronically driven markets and can share and research our data. Its a whole new ballgame.

But as far as riding other peoples DD is concerned, there was a 6 episode series on HD Net called Wall St. Warriors. The best episode had a lunch gathering of fund managers. The oldest guy was the best, had a bow tie and all, and invested in microcaps. You could tell he was a great fox and had made a fortune. His words were great:

85% of the market doesn't know what its doing, 5% does and 10% follows that 10%.

It was simple advice, but really profound if followed. If I find out certain people are invested in a stock I feel it has far greater odds of being a great success. And conversely, if some people are invested in it, like toxic financiers, I know to avoid it. Following is not a bad thing. Some people are worth a billion because they are wise about who they follow. But that does make you a sheep. It means you have made your decisions based on well-considered, rational premises.

This points further to the heavy capitalization requirements of deep sea resource exploration and extraction. Basically, Deep Down's clients will be working with very deep pockets to do the work they do which translates into a client list that can well afford a wide range of expensive products and services coming from DPDW. Companies whose specialty is serving large companies operating in a capital intensive sector can sometimes be even better investments than the companies they serve. This is why analysts started getting more observant of oil services companies in recent years and all peripherally related companies such as oil tanker transport companies.

Bravo. Well done. One of my favorite leading indicators!

Holy smokes Greg. You have consistently backed an organization that has abused shareholders and remained invested in a loser meanwhile constantly supporting them hopefully with the most naive, completely uninformed notions of how a business succeeds, much less runs. And that is a kind description since you seem not so much a deceitful pumper up to no good, but a completely clueless bagholder who comes doesn't know what he is talking about. So you're forgiven for that, but when are you going to learn to zip it about things you don't have a clue about?

To criticize a company's business practices because you are too fucking cheap to spend $89 a year is ridiculous! If you can't make $89 bucks in the stock market to support the subscription price of a place you seem to frequent to make your poor investing decisions then how do you have the nuts to advise them on how to run their business?

You seem completely rudderless and lost at sea with your comments about how to run their business. I have had my own reservations about some aspects of iHub, but at least they respond to me if I take the time to send them a thoughtful message. But since you really don't understand much let me spell it out for you:

1. It is their business. Who are you to tell them whether or not they are savvy to charge for their services? Making recommendations is one thing, but bitching about it not being a free lunch is nonsense. That's business pal.

2. Advertising is one of two ways most information driven web businesses make money. Go look up Web 2.0 and join the real world of business. The other way is selling information either via individually selected items or by subscriptions. That you even question this is incredible.

3. How the hell do you expect them to attract traffic, except by creating a differentiator that encourages subscriptions unless the free riders don't get what the premium members get? It boggles the mind that you'd even complain about this.

In sum, you're so naive and so incredibly cheap you don't get it. Frankly, you should thank your lucky stars a penny pincher like you even gets the access you do, because your utter lack of gratitude for what is already a helpful product that can be a part of your money making toolkit is appalling.

You continue to side with morons. Learn from people who actually get down to brass tacks and talk the real deal and stop wasting peoples time with such trivial bullshit.

Regarding buyout ideas:

Current OS is almost 10B shares

Even at lowest price in current trading range, 10B x 0.0001 = $1M

That means the current market cap of INXR is currently fluctuating between roughly $1 and $2M

Therefore, if you are going to talk about being bought out, you need to answer these questions first:

Q. Since most business purchase prices at least run the numbers very annual sales as one metric for valuation, you must ask: What is INXR's worth as defined by annual sales?

A. To even reach a $1 or $2M buyout price by calculating just one times annual sales, you'd need at least $90,000 to $180,000 a month in sales. That is the bare minimum, but since good and profitable companies can be purchased for upwards of 10X annual sales this is the lowest possible monthly sales for an unprofitable company at current market valuations. Most business analysts would not be able to justify even a $1M value on the business until they have fully audited sales number approaching $80,000 a month.

Q. What are the company's profit margins?

A. None to speak of for the foreseeable future. Since the 35% portion of revenues that go to the shell ownership was evidently not rescinded as evidenced by the latest papers posted on PinkSheets then you'd have to assume the business will have to achieve pre-tax margins of over 65% (35% to Drew + 30% taxes) to even approach profitability. Since this is basically impossible to expect, the answer is the profit margins are unknown, but until the company is fully compliant with known audit guidelines it is fair to assume shareholders will not be able to benefit from any topline growth hitting the bottom line.

Q. Who holds the saleable assets of the company that can be considered available for sale in the first place?

A. The recently disclosed financials show a $1.5M consideration given to Drew ostensibly for the software interests of the company. This may potentially resolve the questions of whether intellectual propery and proprietary value is held by him or INXR, but it was very vaguely documented. Due to the consistent practice of purposefully vague declarations and documentations by this company, there is no clear status on this issue. But even at $1.5M going to Drew in the form of equity means he received even more in equity than it is currently valued. This probably was due to executing such terms at a higher share price.

Q. What is the current insider position?

A. This must be answered to consider whether there remains any insider incentive to sell INXR because a buyout is only valuable to them in relation to their own remaining shareholders. As clarified by myself earlier, until the transfer agent is ungagged and every aspect of the share structure is completely transparent you will not be able to assess this factor. No heavy insider position means there will be no buyout. No heavy insider position means the only further way for themselves to benefit from further equity holdings in the company is to issue themselves even more shares by either raising the AS or by reverse splitting and then having plenty of shares to issue to themselves again.

There are many considerations to why a company can, would or should be seriously considered as a buyout candidate. As of now, there is no compelling argument that can be made that INXR is worth more than 0.0001 a share. With any continued burn rate and further indebtedness the question will not be if they are buy out candidates, but how much less than 0.0001 the company is worth. If there is a constant writedown against unclearly held assets and unknown business prospects, there can be a steady negative valuation on any business. Many companies have a negative net worth so that is a pretty basic concept to grasp before imagining values that may or may not exist.

Reverse Merger. Happens often in the markets.

One question you can derive from this story is: Do you want to be ordinary?

An example of the brainwashing I was referring to earlier. Here is Ben Stein, a well known guy, writing in today's NY Times. This is a portion of it. I can't get truly angry at this stuff, but part of me wants to give him a giant kick in the rear end for polluting the world with such nonsense. What I have been doing repeatedly goes completely against the grain of this plain vanilla advice mongering. But know one thing: The more people who buy into this trash, the more wide open it leaves the field for the astute stock picker and microcap investor. If everyone who was already brainwashed had woken up one day and started buying DPDW months ago most of us would never have had the opportunity to own this stock as cheap as we do. Here's the excerpt:

AVOID INDIVIDUAL STOCKS The data on this is as clear as a bell, and has been compiled by high-end thinkers ranging from Nobel laureates to the best friend the ordinary investor has ever had, John C. Bogle of Vanguard. Basically, you and I cannot pick stocks, except for Berkshire Hathaway. I was recently on a panel with the stock guru Ray Lucia, who offered overwhelming data about how impossible it was to pick stocks, trade in and out of them and fare as well as the market. His data was terrifying.

The people on Wall Street do many questionable things. They reward themselves extremely well. But they have, in the last couple of decades, made it possible for almost anyone to get good results in stocks: buying very broad-based mutual funds, index funds, exchange-traded funds and (with an eye on fees) variable annuities and holding them for a long time. The evidence that this form of investment does better over long periods than trying to pick stocks is simply staggering.

Yes, maybe some gurus at a hedge fund can do it for a while. Maybe your cousin claims that he has done it. Don’t try to do it yourself.

That's fine. I participated in that discussion. And I embellished Brikk's points by saying regardless of the terms it should not be built up as a likelihood that the shares offered are reduced. Assume the deal stands as was stated until confirmed otherwise and no one is disappointed. That's all. Discuss away.

Correct, it was too cheap before. And now the real base is forming.

Furthermore, building expectations that deal terms have been altered with reduced shares going to an acquisition is also unreasonable. If it happens, it is gravy, but a deal is a deal and if the terms were set already the main consideration is the enterprise value added to Deep Down, not whether Mako or someone gets more or less shares. If they drive organic sales growth well beyond their former sales then it is all going according to plan and will be a big win for shareholders.

Amen to getting away from that boring "what have you done for me lately, where's my next PR?" rubbish. This is a big picture stock now. Take the bird's eye view. See how the pieces fit together and consider that the whole may already be about to get much bigger than the sum of the acquired parts.

Thanks. Yep, free it is. Don't take no money. Put my bills on the barrel like everyone else. I know and have known people who get compensated by companies for their coverage or IR or financing assistance, but I have never taken a single share or penny from any company I've posted about. I learned alot by dealing with sketchy and fraudulent people and it was the best education possible about seeking out quality. The investments I learned to make as a result have been very rewarding. I am a microcap believer, but I had to also go through some real torture to get completely self-directed and investing only in the top 1% of the OTCBB companies. Penny stocks are the best investment opportunity you have, but it is a total minefield and many don't get through it. I've been battered and bruised, but I've made it through and it was worth it. It is financially rewarding, stimulating and fun too. People can be great and devils in this minefield so you have to be careful. Sincere people mess up too and these boards are a testament to those people getting entangled in the games of others. If I can help a few people skip years of self-torture and go straight for the good stuff then it is worth sharing some of my experience with them. Take care

There does come a point where you have to pull the trigger on a LOI even if the acquiror knows the terms may sweeten by waiting. It is a matter of courtesy for one to not try and extract every ounce of flesh from the acquired party, but you are also bringing them into your operations and need to co-exist and thrive together after the deal is completed. If the amount of shares is already half as much as a result of the stock price, that should be a sufficient bonus for the company and its shareholders to consummate the deal and for everyone to feel they are getting a fair shake. That the Ironman PP should have closed yesterday resulting in $3M in cash being remitted to company means the closing of Mako may be close at hand since cash and shares are being tendered.

You're welcome. Just like to be of service. Good luck

At a certain point in your investing career you may need to take your shot and overweight on a big play like this. I understand. I've gone all in and won earlier in my investing career, but don't need to and won't do it risk-wise now, but I understand the decision to do it if you find the right one. It can really alter your direction . I'd just be sure you don't automatically do it again unless you really have the greatest of convictions about the investment. When you have less capital you may need to take greater concentrations in your positions to make your move and build your stake. After you get to the next level, you can diversify a little more. But with this one I understand the decision. Good luck