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.
"There is no difference." There are no chemicals. There are no microplastics. There are no parasites or bacterias or other germs. GUARANTEED. Other farm raised shrimp cannot say that. Fresh caught shrimp cannot say that. Your opinion ignores very material distinctions; very dishonest.
No it's my opinion which differs from your opinion. There are countless producers that give consumers this exact information. I guess you've never had a great bottle of wine with wagyu.
I appreciate your self promotion, but there is nothing common about your sense, you're merely expressing a personal opinion. My contrary personal opinion is people are willing to pay a premium for certain sources of food if the health and quality can be guaranteed.
Last I checked shrimp are crustaceans with shells. Ergo, they are shell fish. How wrong can one be?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrimp
You realize you've yet to explain the discrepancy?
Show where SHMP mgmt said it would be harvested. Link. Cite. Source.
"MFranny
Re: Anvil post# 107239
Saturday, June 10, 2023 10:35:03 AM Post# 107251of 107278
The company is representing how many shares are permitted to be outstanding, i.e. authorized AND issued. Who actually issues the shares is a distinction without a difference. OTC Markets showing outstanding shares in excess of what the company has represented SHOULD be outstanding, that's a discrepancy requiring an explanation, no?"
What's your explanation EQ?
The company is representing how many shares are permitted to be outstanding, i.e. authorized AND issued. Who actually issues the shares is a distinction without a difference. OTC Markets showing outstanding shares in excess of what the company has represented SHOULD be outstanding, that's a discrepancy requiring an explanation, no?
Wrong. The Company is the source. They authorize and issue. TA should not have shares that were not issued. I've cited twice to the May 9, 2023, Prospectus AND quoted twice today. Go back and read.
Thanks for explaining how it works. You didn't explain the discrepancy.
No I don't know that. Legally speaking, the OS can not be greater than what is represented to the public via public filings.
Please educate me. Why does OTC Markets say the OS is "858,804,785" when just a month ago NSI represented that "Common Stock outstanding immediately after this offering Up to 857,748,374" There are no subsequent filings disclosing an increase in OS.
Where's the million share discrepancy coming from? Who's wrong, NSI or OTC Markets?
Obviously one has still not cited to any source re: growing OS
Where's the PPS today compared to last Friday?
It's more a reality than not happening since you have zero facts to support your "IMO" and pure speculation that it will not.
SHMP mgmt has also represents, in the business combination agreement, that they will not convert. How do you rectify these competing statements? You do so with "IMO" which requires pure speculation. It's garbage reasoning.
You're scrambling and replying to the wrong posts.
"JoshTaeger
Re: MFranny post# 107188
Friday, June 09, 2023 9:44:22 AM
Post# 107191 of 107206
'859M…out of 900M authorized, not counting the conversion rights of the Series A shares that SHMP itself says, in its own filings to the SEC, would double the OS if converted.'"
And I said that there are NSI filings that state the Series A will not be converted. You claim that if the YOTA merger does not go through, then they will convert. My argument was with your opinion and speculation. Do you not stand by your opinion and speculation?
I don't understand what you're asking or saying, but I do know you didn't answer my question.
Where? In which one?
In the May 9, 2023, Prospectus, NSI represented expressly as follows:
"Common Stock outstanding immediately after this offering Up to 857,748,374"
Your claimed O/S exceeds that representation by 1.3 million shares. Please explain the discrepancy.
"Guess what…the YOTA merger ain’t happening."
Where does it say that? Or is that just your opinion and pure speculation?
There's also a document that says there's a 1:25 reverse split. My opinion and pure speculation says that will happen instead of Series A conversion. Since Series A conversion would be for more harmful to NSI than an r/s, I'd say that my opinion and pure speculation is far more credible than yours.
Please do tell, on what theory would Series A conversion be defensible under a business judgment rule when an r/s is also a viable option? How would it be helpful to NSI? Your opinion and speculation makes zero sense in the context of reality. It's just FUD.
Pure manipulation: 100K shares purchased taking PPS up to $.0585 and then 100 shares sold at $.055 taking price back down. Who sells at below the last bid/ask on an up green day? Ye of little patience? Someone interested in making sure the PPS doesn't keep going up?
Provide source and just stop already with Series A conversion BS. There are filings that represent conversion will not happen. FUD galore.
What's the OS today?
Looks like $300k for 6-9 months is only the tip of the iceberg.
"NGK and NSI are both agreeable to conducting additional studies and trials to test the efficacy of the Technologies on aquatic species other than shrimp, but each other trial will be made pursuant to a separate agreement and be subject to different conditions and parameters. Such additional systems will be designed specifically for each aquatic species in which NGK has an interest in developing. The terms and conditions of each subsequent trial or study will be negotiated and agreed to between the Parties prior to the commencement of such new or different Trial."
"The Parties agree that one of the purposes of conducting the Trial is to lay the groundwork for additional joint business relationship, transaction, joint venture or other business combination. During the conduct of the Trial, the Parties will continue to discuss the nature of an on-going business relationship utilizing the combined technological and financial resources of the Parties. The Parties further agree that nothing herein obligates either Party to enter into any subsequent agreement, business combination or other relationship. However, if a Party declines to pursue a further business transaction with the other Party, the declining Party agrees to be bound by the NDA described in paragraph 10, below. This paragraph 9 is an expression of the Parties’ desire and intention to continue to explore opportunities in the aquaculture area for the joint benefit of the Parties."
Reading comprehension must not be a strength: "expected to take up to six (6) months from the deployment of the required equipment at the chosen trial location"
Also conveniently neglected to include: "Company will receive a total of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000)"
Well this didn't age well.
Please enlighten me on what I missed.
No one can explain that because in the Business Combination Agreement SHMP is 51%. You obviously don't read.
Didn't answer my question or provide a source for your information. You're starting to sound like UD.
I will say that it appears 1.7 million shares were borrowed per FINRA
So you're saying, out of 2 million total shares traded today, 65% of those shares were previously unissued? And the PPS down only $.0014? Who is buying up all those shares? You do realize the positive implications of what you are saying, right?
"Have no idea what to make with the conflicting data" v. "have a better picture of the massive dilution taking place."
Seems to me like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
I'll take you at your word, but is that with or without the 45,923,929 yet to be issued? If it's without, are you once again implying that a filing from 15 days ago is falsified?
Please read NSI's filings and all your misunderstandings will be addressed. Looks like only 15 days ago 811,824,445 was still the right number.
"The date of this prospectus supplement is May 9, 2023
THE OFFERING
Shares of Common Stock offered by us in this offering We are offering up to 45,923,929 shares of Common Stock.
Shares of Common Stock outstanding immediately before this offering 811,824,445
Common Stock outstanding immediately after this offering Up to 857,748,374"
FYI a registration statement has yet to be filed. Therefore, although authorized, the shares have yet to be issued. Perhaps you should make some calls to your TA and ask them about the discrepancy between their reporting and NSI's own statements.
You theory requires one to believe that NSI is lying in its filings.... that implies a violation.
Simplest explanation, supported by data reported from major brokerages to FINRA, is that shares were being borrowed and dumped.
The O/S was updated in the last 8K. Gotta start singing a new tune. This one is stale.
We are of a like mind.
Mandatory reporting and numbers say otherwise.
But yet 25% of the day's total volume. What's your point? You've yet to explain how what you're referencing is "dilution" and not reported short volume.
Also, what would be the point of entering into the GHS stock purchase agreement if "dilutive shares" can be issued daily and dumped on the market by NSI?
OTCmarkets.com has an authorized O/S that matches SHMP's May 10 8-K and a registration statement has yet to be filed. Which means that the current issued O/S does not include the newest proposed GHS shares. Even still, arguably, the market has already priced in the dilution from the GHS share sale; the PPS shouldn't be materially impacted once issued. Issued shares are fungible at this point and its impossible to attribute or characterize any one trade as "dilutive."
I'll say it again, if there's any merit to what you're identifying, it's more likely than not synthetic (borrowed) off-exchange short volume.