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.
RD I notice that the number of rice token holders has quadrupled in a few days and the stake of the biggest token holder, which I expect is one of the verticals, is down by about 4 percent in the meantime. This looks promising.
Joe I think it is a great and informative video. But there is one very serious weakness in the reasoning. My point is that in the stock market revenues are worthless in themselves. The value is in current or future profits generated by the revenues. It is fine that the revenues the aquistion will generate will lead to about 100% growth in revenues. The crucial point is, however, the net profit margin resulting from the current revenues and the profit margin that the acquisition can be expected to generate. Some companies never generate a profit and shareholders have to pay the losses as the companies sell shares to finance their losses. If the acquisition is loss-making and can be expected to continue to make losses it could have negative value for IQST. Thus the video should have expressed some opinion on the current and the future profit margin of the acqusition to have much value, since that is the all-important question.
l
I regard the shareholder letter as convincing. I am used to the stuppidity of those who trade otc stocks.
Companies that lose money prefer to focus on revenues and not the bottom line.
Irish
My personal attitude is the same as yours. I am interested in fundamentals. A few weeks ago I saw suggestion that SMCI with a market cap of tens of billions of dollars was cheap. It was trading at a p/e ratio of about 20 based on annualizing the numbers of the most recent quarter. The pps was then about 450 dollars. Subsequently the pps has soared to more than 700 dollars. I have sold most of my shares and increased my stake in SPZI from about 4.5 million shares to about 6.1 million shares.
30 million revenue is definitely significant in relation to the current market cap of a bit less than 50 million dollars. Companies in high-tech sectors usually have a market cap several times their revenues. Thus if SPZI generates 30 million dollars in revenues this year or next year this deal may more than justify the current market cap.
Irish I see the long-term potential based on the information you quote. But I find it hard to see how revenues can explode this year. The buyers of otc stocks tend to be very myopic.
irish I doubt that it is justified to be very enthusiastic about this cooperation since it is at this stage a very small company:
"Website https://archeofuturus.com/
Revenue $2 million
Employees 7 (
7 on RocketReach
)
Founded 2017"
Roemp I think you mention red flags and that it is legitimate to do so. But you provide little incontrovertible evidence that what this company has claimed when it comes to contracts etc. is false. I think that is important. It could actually be true.
Roemp The news today does not necessarily include all the contracts referred to in the past.
I was lucky with the timing of increasing my stake to almost 7 million shares today. I like all the concrete information in the news today. In my view it is not credible that this company is a scam. The pps ought to go to several cents before summer I think.
RD It looks as if trading of rice is picking up a bit but few trades have happened this year. By checking a few pages I understand why you compared this to trading stocks. I get the impression that Etherscan which seems to be part of Etherneum, which is the second biggest trader of crypto currencies after Bitcoin, is the chosen vehicle for trading the tokens. I had got the impression that it was a Danish firm.
Good post ETG58
We are down almost 3% after what has been seen as very good news. How come?
Good and informative post jdc. (I try to be fair)
Irish I find what these people said quite encouraging. I noticed that Mr Park has been in contact with the well-qualified people who are to play important roles for quite a few years. I therefore understand why they were picked for their various roles. Moreover, I grasp the idea behind the LNG business much better than before. There is a lot of gas available in the USA at a fairly low price that can be shipped to other parts of the world at a better price. Because I consider this stock less risky because of this new information and the potential for stock appreciation enhanced I have increased myy stake by about 1.6 to about 6.1 million shares. My stake in SMCI appreciated about 57% in the period I just owned 4.5 million shares in SPZI. Thus by chance I was able to increase my stake in SPZI based on recent profits.
ETG58 Good post!
Mr Smith "Arguing over a gross/net margin seems pointless." I mostly disagree. It depends on what you mean by your statement. I agree to the extent that the arguing does not change facts. But it is a fact that in almost all cases it is extremely important if profits are gross profits or net profits. At least one poster has referred to an alleged p/e ratio based on what has been published as a gross profit rate of 18%. That is 100% wrong because a p/e ratio is always based on net profits.
coccyx
I may come across as hostile because I am very fed up with some posters misleading the stock market by posting more or less false information. Some of them have been denying or playing dowh the fact that the 18% profit margin is GROSS profit margin, which in most cases is of very little interest as far as the stock price is concerned. Most OTC stocks are stocks that should be traded because then will never be profitable. I get the impression that the general attitude here - if we ignore the bashers - is not to find out the truth about the company but to pump the stock price on the basis of lies or bullish half-truths.
iris You are right that I am tired of the lying by some pumpers. I have been in the stock market for 50 years. Around 1980 I managed to increase an investment of about 25,000 dollars to some 2.2 million dollars in between 3 and 4 years in a European country. My investment in a computer company appreciated about 2,000% in less than 2 years. It was growing at a rate of 50-60% and trading at a p/e ratio of about 3. Investors in my country were conservative and most interested in the dividend yield. It was of course very easy to see that this stock had a good chance of exploding. Not many days ago I invested about 30,000 dollars in SMCI at a pps of about 450 dollars. The pps ended yesterday at a little below 700 dollars.
SPZI is extremely cheap if it already has secured revenue of almost a billion dollars. I am ridiculed because I at an early stage guessed that the net profit margin could be 1-2%. With revenue of 1 billion dollars and a net profit margin of 2% net earnings would be 20 million dollars. If we assume a modest p/e ratio of 10 the result is a market cap of 200 million dollars, which means a stock price of a bit more than 3 cents, or about 4 times the current pps. To me it is ludicrous that some of the posters regard me as a basher. I am interested in the truth but a person who uses truth in his or her identity did not abstain from lying. In a post a few days ago i pointed out an example of his/her lying. I did not see any refutation of my post.
It seems obvious to me that the stock market does not trust rhe revenue numbers that have been posted. The pps was 1.21 cent some time ago before the latest very big contract had been published. Yesterday the pps ended at $ 0.0075. The logical implication seems to be that the stock market does not trust the information coming from SPZI. I have an open mind and find some reasons to trust Mr. Park and some red flags too. I have acted in accordance with this view. I often go for high risk/high reward.
jdc "Dude you're a buffoon. You originally said they make 1-2% on contracts before they disclosed anything about tonehe 18%. Then questioned shipping fees, storage fees etc.. I remember your posts.. you were then quickly obliterated by the 18% tweet. You actually went silent."
You are a moron. When the company disclosed the 18% the information was FALSE as interpreteded by posters. Since the gross profit margin is of next to no interest for investors it was in fact natural to think it was the net profit margin if one did not have the knowledge to comprehend that it could not possibly be tne net margin. It is a lie to say that I pretended to know what net profit margin the company culd expect. I came up with a guess. At that time I believe it was unknown what sort of deal that was entered into. One type of deal actually has normally a margin of 1-2% accorging to Mr Park as far as I remember. If I was obliterated it was by the false information about a profit margin of 18%, which was a bit later corrected as I have affirmed to a gross profit margin of 18%
love An extremely good idea. He is too stupid to understand what I write.
jdc "And by the way you were saying 1-2% all along and missed the 18% by a boatload.. so now you're smart??"
You are even less smart than I expected you to be. If you don't understand my points other may understand me. 18% and 1-2 percent refer to two entirely different concepts. The former refers to gross profit margin and the latter to net profit margin. A company may have a pross profit margin of 18% and a net profit margin of minus 5 percent. Therefore the gross profit margin is more or less worthless when it comes to establishing a fair market cap for a company. You don't even know how to use quotation markes. You use them when you don't quote me verbatim. You even include your own question in them. But sometimes you write sensible things too. Hence I will not ignore your posts.
jdc I suggested a possible low net profit margin. Another poster has explained why he expects it to be low. The crucial point here is if the gross or the net profit margin can be expected to be about 18%. Some calculated a p/e ratio on the basis of the gross profit margin. You were totally wrong on what is a fact that is extremely important. I may have been too conservative when it comes to the probable net profit margin.
jdc Here is the evidence that I was right and of your ignorance of an extremely important fact:
"
"SPZI: Five New Fully Executed Commodity Contracts; Year to Date Total $303 Million
Press Release | 01/05/2024
CLEARWATER, Fla., Jan. 05, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- JP Energy Global, PTE, LTD, a wholly owned subsidiary of JP 3E Holdings, Inc., formerly Spooz, Inc. (OTC: SPZI), is pleased to announce the execution of nine commodity contracts totaling $303,029,100 for Grade A Chicken Paws. The nine commodity contracts are the cumulative total that includes the previous commodity announced in December 2023.
JP Energy Global commands approximately an 18% gross profit margin while minimizing risk since there is no currency risk – all transactions are in US dollars. JP Energy Global does not act as a broker; its business model is to buy and to sell these select commodities acting as a principle, thus allowing for higher profit margins.
As previously announced, a Documentary Letter of Credit (DLC) and performance bond was granted to JP 3E Holdings, Inc., thus enabling unique contracts through KEB Hana Bank Singapore (KEB HBS). With its dedicated trade team, KEB HBS has the unique capacity to facilitate these transactions worldwide and can facilitate transactions with China. The performance bond, coupled with the documentary letter of credit, facilitates the payment to JP Energy Global, PTE, LTD. In this case, the product, Grade A Chicken Paws, can be acquired by JP Energy Global from Brazil and then sold to China, as set forth above. The primary port used is the YANTIAN PORT ( SHENZHEN ) – CHINA."
jdc I don't save statements and links but based on my memory it was in a twitter statement published between one and two weeks after the statement of a profit margin of about 18 %. shotsky (?) suggests in a recent post that it was a loose statement and that Park did not intentionally try to mislead the stock market and that he corrected himself when pumpers started to refer to a net profit margin of 18%.
shotsky Your reasoning makes very good sense in my opinion.
nicehit I think you make some important points. Some of us are most interested in the prospects of the company and some care little about the company are and just intererested in the stock price and an opportunity to make a quick buck.
learningthetruth I see you have a very simplistic mind. I find little use in the simplistic ideas of such minds and will put you on ignore.
shotsky I generally agree with your post. I once ventured the possibility of a profit margin of about 2% as a mere guess. One reason why I expect it to be low is that normally the profit margin decreases when the volume of a deal increases. But I am open to thepossibility that it may be somewhat higher. If revenues of 2.5 billion dollars are generated this year net profits would be 50 million dollars. A modest p/e ratio of 10 would lead to a market cap of 500 million dollars or about 8 cents per share, or more than 10 times the current pps.
jdc It is sad that you don't admit facts. This question of profit margin has been discussed a number of times before. Mr. Park has stated gross profit margin some days after he referred to a profit margin of about 18%. It is deplorable that posters here are not familiar with this fact.
jdc Actually my knowledge is better than yours and even if I at 81 years old have a poor memory it seems better than yours too. It is true that John K. Park first stated an approximate profit margin of 18%. That is one reason why I don't fully trust him. He later corrected it too gross profit margin, which is actually of little interest. A company may well have a gross profit margin of 18% and a negative net profit margin. My view is that it suggests total cluelessness that buying vast amounts of sugar in Brazil and transporting it to China would result in a net profit margin as high as 18%. Other companies would of course offer a much better deal for sellers and buyers if that had been the case.
Too good to be true? In my view there is no doubt that this was the reaction of the stock market yesterday. A few weeks ago the pps reached a high of $ 0.0121. The pps at the close yesterday was $ 0.0073, which is a lot lower. In my view this suggests a high degree of distrust when it comes to the big sugar contract.
peeved I remember Mr Park stated that he did not do brokered deals and that the net profit margin was generally higher than 1 - 2%.
Golfpad The gross margin is supposed to be about 18%. However, it is impossible to deduce the margin that matters for the stock market - the net profit margin from the gross profit margin. There is no information available about an anticipated net profit margin. Therefore, it is in my view impossible to calculate the most probable net profit the contracts can be expected to generate.
Xman4 What I like a lot is that we have more details than before. The sugar will be shipped over the remainder of the year. That sounds more credible than one very big shipment. We will be able to get the actual revenues confirmed in quarterly reports.
jdc Fantastic! Much better than anticipated.
I think it is very positive that Mr Park is ready to spend some time to talk about his company with shareholders and others.
getmoney If these "executed contracts" result in a decent profit margin this stock is definitely grossly undervalued. The challenge is that the stock market clearly does not trust this information. I guess we may know by the middle of May (quarterly report) what the truth is.
Step You clearly have not ignored the bashers. I find next to no new posts.
nicehit "The more we distance ourselves from SPZI, the better for this new company." I agree. SPZI has a history that does not enhance trust in the company and its lraders.