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.
It is taking long enough. The freeze has nee over for a while.
Prosource is one of the best online retailers of supplements if not the best but I noticed they don't have the chia or hemp products listed yet and they are not carrying any of the SDN products.
I will say that I am happy to finally see the ingredients in the products and to know they are all quality products. I was staying away from the company til they announced the dividend and I bought some to cash in on the run up which never occurred and then by the time I was able to trade I was back at break even so I stuck with the company.
Thinking about buying more now with the expanded distribution network and knowing the products--at least those being carried by prosource---have quality ingredients.
That company is listed on pumpand dumps today. Be careful.
That is exactly what I don't get about the short numbers I have seen posted. I thought there were only 3 days to cover and the cover had to be real shares, not shorts from another company. THe only thing that makes sense to me---with BMSN and a few other stocks---is that one MM is short selling to another to cover the original short sale.
If that is allowed or is what is happening, how does a penny stock stand a chance?
Private investors cannot short a penny stock so who is doing it? It is not dumping when it is reported as a short sale and the 2 can happen at the same time.
OTCshortreport shows daily volume, short volume and % short daily in a chart for the past month--abput 22 trading days at a time.
It says on their website "OTCShortReport.com provides updated naked short selling numbers, as reported by FINRA."
According to OTCshortreport, which claims all it's info comes from FINRA, BMSN is averaging over 42% naked short sales over the last month of trading. This trend has held steady for more than a week which means we are looking at 5 weeks of this average short volume. It could be longer because I wasn't following that site before.
How is it possible for this to continue uninterrupted so long without any upward squeeze whatsoever?
ceo1--I just checked into SAFC's daily prices and volume over the last year. They had their first P&D documented by pumanddumps start on 11-8-12 and last for 6 days. That was followed by the contract with MFTH and all the news MFTH put out.
Before the P&D it was at .20. During the P&D it peaked at .29 and then fell to .18. The MFTH news drove it back up to .29 and then the drop started but there was no real volume.
The only day with exceptional volume was their second P&D on 12-6-12 when it opened at .12, peaked at .34 and closed at .074 on over 8.2 million shares.
Since then it has been in a steady decline despite 2 more P&D's which added volume but no real bump in value.
Even with some real movement on the MFTH dividend, I now think that short of some big news associated with the conference you have been mentioning, both of the stocks in this mess may be dead in the water.
I think MFTH is trying to weasel out of giving out the shares they received as compensation for the license agreement as the dividend because they didn't realize the value of the shares is what the original license agreement guarantees--not the compensation the company receives.
5 pump & dumps since September of last year will do that to a stock.
I'm hoping the stores they claim they purchased in Canada are real ( and not just the proverbial "Canadian girlfriend") and start adding some much needed revenue into the company in addition to getting some product on some shelves.
ceo1--The 8-k doesn't list them as restricted shares but the original license agreement does. I know restricted shares cannot be sold but but giving them away as a dividend is not the same thing as selling them.
Restricted stocks can legally be gifted but the terms associated with the stock still applies. Giving Restricted shares as a dividend should be no different. Which brings us back to my belief that MFTH didn't think they were giving away the guarantee.
At this point I believe the company would be open to massive fraud lawsuits if they do not follow through with the repeatedly published and promoted dividend as they listed it in the 8-k filed with the SEC. Also, I believe filing a false SEC document would be a major problem for the company and the individuals that signed it.
I spent some time over the weekend looking over the FINRA website to see if I can tell what is possibly holding things up. While I can't access the actual forms they need(ed) to fill out, I can see the instruction PDFs. It doesn't look like anything should be that difficult for MFTH to do.
I also found out that it is definitely legal for MFTH to give out shares of a third party (in this case SAFC) as a dividend. The dividend is treated the same as if it was just a straight stock dividend--no taxes due until the shares are sold.
Therefore I now think the only thing possibly holding up the dividend is that I am right about the language of the original license agreement and it is specifically the value of the 10 mil shares paid in exchange for the right to sell the MFTH product that is guaranteed. I bet MFTH thought they could give away the SAFC stock and keep the guarantee and are now trying to weasel their way out of giving away $7 mil in guaranteed stock value.
I am seriously worried this could ruin both stocks.
ceo1---I am not doubting your research but how can it possibly be legal for anyone to sell shares that don't exist and never have to produce them?
That means that MM's can legally do what another M&M--Moskowits and Metter--did at spongetech to end up in the pokey.
What happens when a stock goes on a run and when I decide to sell, my shares don't actually exist?
You have fun this weekend too. Glad your family members made it over safely before the collapse.
ceo1--First of all, the general public can't short a penny stock. That is part of how a P&D becomes more obvious--when the company's press releases start blaming the extra share volume on "naked shorts" while the insiders dump "new" shares into the market.
The thing that really bothers me is that if otcshortreport is accurate, the only thing that makes sense is that non-existent shares are being bought to cover non-existent shares that have already flooded the market. It is like one company begged another to come to SAFC and sell them naked short shares to cover the original naked sale so there was no squeeze. I didn't thing that was allowed.
Again, I thought shares sold naked short had to be covered by real shares in 3 days or less. There just isn't enough share volume for that to be happening here.
And if otcshortreport is accurate, it is not just SAFC but penny stocks everywhere.
I also thought that paid pumping was illegal but every penny stock report listed on the web is a paid pumper--ad they openly dvertise. Read the disclaimers--I got stuff at one point where the "news letter" was paid $250k for a 2 day pump by "a third party" and then got another "news letter" from another one of those scammers where the 1st one paid the 2nd one $40k for the same 2 day pump.
How is a legit investor supposed to make money?
You are defiantly correct that something is not right with that trade or the following 850k share buy at .0059. In each case the published ask was 105,100 shares @ .064 and the published bid was 20,000 shares @.0055.
Both of these trades scream naked short sale. I thought naked short sales need to be covered in 3 days. There has been short selling--sometimes massive amounts for at least the month of May. How are all these short sales continuing without any buying to cover?
Or it may continue to drop like the proverbial penny from the Empire State Building.
I initially bought MFTH in the hope of a pre-dividend run up.
I found out about SAFC because of my investment in MFTH.
I have not purchased any SAFC as of yet because of the ties between the 2 companies and the repeated misleading PR's from MFTH and that I could not verify the info in the SAFC PR's I read.
Today I was able to verify some of the information and will review the additional information ceo1 gave me earlier.
All this is to say that while there may be many factors holding SAFC down, if there are a lot of investors like me, ceo1 is right that confusing and misleading PR's from both companies have contributed to the current pps.
SpongeTech products were sold in Costco and Walmart.
Steve Moskowits and Michael Metter are both in jail.
They have hundreds of millions of their cheated shareholders money waiting for them when they get out.
Ceo1---I will look at those companies. Thanks for the info.
Ceo1--I didn't read the press release up there cause I made the mistake of thinking it was the same one I had already read. The only real difference is it gives the name of the company that the agreement was with--but that difference is huge because it allowed me to find the FDA approval that not being able to find had me so scared of the company.
The ez-ject brand lancet currently on the market has nothing to do with SAFC. It is made by "Can Am Care" but now I know the ex-ject that SAFC claimed to have does exist and is FDA approved.
I understand what SAFC is working on because all the products they are getting the rights to are intended to work together as a state of the art I.V. drug delivery system (although I still have not found the "quickcool" they just got as an FDA approved product)
I have just been afraid that their PR's are B.S. like so many P&D OTC's.
Ceo1--As usual, thanks for the quick response. It was very helpful My concerns came from a 4-17-13 press release.
"Both EZJect and Quickool - the newly acquired technologies - received FDA approval for commercialization in 2007." Later in the release it states "The company's newly acquired EZJect technology eliminates pain during blood tests and injections."
The company you mentioned has 2 FDA approved devices one of which is called EZ-Ject by the company but not the FDA. THe other is called Goldfinger device and is a surgical tool controller generally used for plastic surgery. I also found
Quickool on a web site for a privately held foreign company that makes a controlled hypothermia machine. Nothing on the FDA abnout it but that might be a different product or from a different licensing agreement.
All I could find before if I did a search through google or yahoo for either EZJect or Quickool and "2007 fda approval was links to different locations of that press release. If I search for EZJect what come up it that it is a brand name lancet for diabetics and nothing more.
On another note, I can't find a website for SAFC anywhere.
ceo1---As we have already discussed, the misleading info from both companies bothers me. While I would obviously have preferred MFTH follow through with a 1 cent cash dividend--cause cash is king---I am ok getting the SAFC stock if the guarantee transfers or there are other considerations.
However, I have not been able to pull the trigger on buying SAFC stock even at these low prices (at least recently) because of the press releases from both companies that, at best, walk a line between fact and fiction.
The first question is the biggest. SAFC has said multiple times that they have licensing rights to or have purchased multiple products that already have FDA approval. Do you know of from your own research that these approvals exist? I have not been able to find any proof and that includes the FDA website.
I am very leery of published share information on penny stocks.
Are you certain that the published outstanding share number is correct? What about the float?
Do you know a verified authorized share count?
Pump and Dumps has SAFC as a 4 time offender--2 times this year. Do you have any information on these events? (MFTH is listed 6 times--3 in 11 and 3 in 12)
I do like the fact that all the products they claim to have access to appear to work together to create something that is more than the sum of the parts. However, that seemed to be the case in one of the biggest P&D's of all time--spng--and I took a bath on that after having the opportunity to have gotten out making a killing right before the two managers and an attorney generated a false legal document showing 2 billion+ non-existing shares and dumped them into the market. Somehow they rebuilt the shares with B.S. press releases and I had a second chance to make some money and then they announced a reverse split--probably to try to hide all the share that didn't exist--and the shares tanked again.
ceo1--I have some questions about SAFC that you may be able to answer.
I'm not sure where this stock is going but American Bulls recommendation is based on the lack o volume. That is the "problem" with hey way it is trading.
The extremely limited volume is a big concern as if can be difficult to divest when you choose to if nobody wants to buy.
Ceo1—there is no need to apologize to me. As far as I am concerned we were having a discussion about these 2 intertwined stocks and trying to figure out what really went on to help each other and those that read these boards.
What I think happened is that MFTH simply declared the cash value of the license agreement on the day it was signed as revenue in their 10-k. The License agreement says the SAFC are restricted so selling them would not have been possible. Technically they received $1.8 mil in value during the 4th quarter of 2012 for the right to sell their product even if none of it was cash and that is why the company never had any cash in the bank. It is part of the same deceptive reporting as telling us they were giving a 1 cent per share dividend (implied cash, not equivalent value) based on 550 mil shares back in October or November and then giving themselves another 100 mil shares before the ex-dividend date in April to keep more of the value themselves.
The rest of this post is a reply to your late night post last night that I was working on earlier but got pulled away from the computer and never got a chance to post. Sorry about the parts that are repeated or have already been addressed but I think there are important new things discussed and I would like other people’s thoughts—particularly ceo1’s. Plus I’m too lazy to edit this whole thing now.
Ceo1--I can't believe you replied that late last night. Sorry this post is so long but I am trying to clarify my understanding of the whole fiasco with a lot of detail.
I dug up the original license agreement on EDGAR a while back so I completely understand how the license agreement was set up. The contract valued the SAFC stock at a pps of .70 to get the $7 million dollar contract while the fair market value had a pps of .18. That is where the 4th qtr revenue of $1.8 mil came from with the future pps guarantees from SAFC accounting for the other $5.2 mil value of the contract. The only thing about your post I disagree with is that as I read the contract, the payment was 10 mil restricted shares of common stock so I don't think they could have dumped them into the open market. Plus MFTH claimed in their recent 8-k about the payment delay that the dividend was the same 10 mil shares of SAFC they received as payment for the license agreement in November.
Where my question comes in is that if I read the original contract correctly, SAFC did not guarantee the value of the contract itself but rather guaranteed the pps of the 10 mil share payment in the contract. The guarantee as I understand it was specifically that the pps of those 10 mil shares would be .70 or higher based on the average of the bid and ask prices at market close on at least one of the last 30 trading days prior to the 1 year anniversary of the contract or on one of the first 10 trading days after the 1 year anniversary of the contract. If MFTH gives the shares with the contractually guaranteed value out as their dividend, shouldn't the guarantee follow the shares?
More simply put avoiding the specifics of the contract, the only thing of value MFTH received in the license agreement was the shares worth .18 per share at the time the contract was executed but that are guaranteed by SAFC to be worth .70 per share in the future. If MFTH does not own the shares when the guarantee kicks in, they no longer own anything with a guaranteed value—the current owner of those shares would be the beneficiary of the guaranteed value. Let’s face it, the 2 principals still make out great as they probably own 60% of the MFTH shares if not more after giving themselves 100 mil shares since the license agreement was signed.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if this question of who owns the guarantee and how to enforce it once the shares are given away is what is holding up the dividend approval because otherwise the 8-k made it sound like the dividend was simply 10 mil shares of SAFC divided evenly among the 650 mil or so shares of MFTH. I guess the ability of MFTH to transfer restricted shares could be holding it up as well.
For anyone besides ceo1 reading this that might not be aware of the original dividend promise from MFTH, the shareholders were told they would receive a dividend of 1 cent per share when the contract with SAFC was completed. On a straight distribution of the 10 mil SAFC shares to MFTH shareholders it takes about .70 per share of SAFC to cover 1 cent per share of MFTH.
10/650=.01538 or approximately 3 shares of SAFC for every 200 shares of MFTH. 3x.7=2.1 2.1/200=.0105
ceo1--Thank you for the reply. What I don't get is the MFTH 8-k from May 1st specifically refers to the dividend as the 10 mil SAFC shares from the license agreement.
If it is those shares, does the value protection afforded those shares in the agreement transfer as part of the dividend? Or is MFTH still the party due the additional $5.2 mil in value if SAFC stock is not worth .70 or more per share after 12 months?
I would be thrilled to get my dividend on the shares I owned on 4-30-13 paid in SAFC stock with a guaranteed .70 pps or equivalent additional stock next November. I wont even mind the dilution to MFTH between the original dividend announcement and the actual ex-dividend date that much.
I get that there is no way to know the answer to these questions at this point but part of what concerns me is that these companies--and yes, to me they are tied together--appear to be purposefully vague and/or misleading in how they represent what they are doing.
Thank you.
Thanks for getting back so quickly while on the road. I scimmed the last 5-6 8-ks on edgar and didn't see it mentioned but I will look them over more carefully later whan I have more time. It didn't make any sense to me that why were increasing the authorized # by 600 mil when they from what I had seen they still had about 425 mil authorized shares available so being maxed out does make sense.
They increased the authorized shares from 800 mil to 1.4 bill but I have not seen anything indicating they added any new outstanding shares yet.
Also, the only place I see outstanding share approaching the 800 mil is here. Bloomberg, Scottrade and others have the outstanding shares at just over 373 million.
Not that those places are 100% up to date but usually they are missing a recent big illegal dump.
Are you saying someone liquidated their 5 mil shares or that 5 mil new shares were dumped into the market increasing the float?
CEO---If MFTH sold the 10 mil shares they received as payment fir the license agreement, how are they distributing those same 10 mil shares as the dividend as per the 8-k of 5-1-2013?
The 8-k posted by MFTH on 4-30-13 clearly states the dividend is the 10 mil shares from the license agreement dated 11-15-12. It also clearly states that what is delayed is the payment date, not the ex-dividend date.
What they don't say in the 8-k or anywhere else is if the value protection of those 10 million shares--.70 pps or better 12 months from the execution of the contract---remains with the shares or if MFTH will still be the beneficiary of the protections leaving the shareholders SOL.
The only thing that is really clear is that MFTH has not been completely forthcoming with us. The announced $7 mil licensing agreement was only worth $1.8 mil when the contract was executed. The 1.8 million was paid in another company's stock rather than cash but their balance sheet showed it as revenue and there was a press release listing it as revenue both insinuating it was cash. A 1 cent per share cash dividend was never really a possibility and they diluted the company by 100,000,000 outstanding shares in payments to insiders between the initial dividend announcement and the actual ex-dividend date.
If it is approved, the dividend is stock in SAFC. !0,000,000 shares spread out among the 650 million shares of MFTH. That comes to just 15,385 shares of SAFC per 1 mil shares of MFTH.
That is not what the 8-k said about the dividend. It specifically said the payment date was delayed. That would mean the ex-dividend date remained the same as 4-30-13.
Of course everything about this company must be taken with a grain of salt at this point.
Yeah. That is why the BOPT website showed 100,000,000 more outstanding shares on 4-17-13 then Scottrade, Bloomberg and the freakin SEC were reporting as of 4-16-13.
They still show the same 100,000,000 outstanding share discrepancy.
Exactly. The 8-k says the payment date has been delayed. But the post I replied to states the whole process will start over so that the shares held on 4-30-13 will not have anything to do with the paymnent. That is why I said "that's not what the 8-k says"
That is not what the 8-k states
They have already told us we are not getting anything on Monday. The 8-k filed on 5-1-13 said the payout date would be delayed. That was also the first time I saw that the dividend was a total of 10 million shares of a company with a PPS below a penny.
Just take from my post that your original statement was ignorant. If you want to understand why, take the time to read the the whole thing.