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.
Great news! Looks like GDSM hasn't "gone quiet" after all.
Agreed. I still haven't figured out yet why Medina "forgave" the $360K debt that SIRG owed to them as part of original mine purchase agreement. Something just doesn't add up there.
Yes indeed. That connection to the lawyer who was disbarred for securities fraud was definitely interesting. Definitely not a surprise that an investor wants to hear about though.
Someone's salary I suppose. SIRG was supposed to provide Grand View with 10% of any monies acquired but has not made a single payment on their notes. If they keep that up they will lose the mine.
LOL OK. The "oh so valuable" mine sold at auction for $360K. That makes sense. Even the large operating and profitable mine that literally boarders this one didn't want to pay that much for it. How many companies went bankrupt over this mine again? History often repeats itself.
I'm happy.
Something is only as valuable as someone is willing to pay. Why did the property originally sell for only $360,000? Even at auction, that was the MOST ANYONE WAS WILLING TO PAY for the property.
But lets assume that $2mil is the value. At that price the current PPS should be between 0.0057 and 0.0021 depending if the O/S or A/S is used. So, the PPS is STILL overvalued and not a "good deal" for a potential investor.
BTW, might want to do some more DD. Some of the infrastructure was sold for scrap metal.
Worst case valuation...
The mine was bought by Medina for $360,000.00 so I suppose that is a safe resale value of the asset as it sits.
$360,000 / 970,000,000 A/S = 0.00037 PPS
Or best case valuation...
The 80% interest of the mine was bought by SIRG for issuance of 12,7500,000 shares of SIRG stock, the return of 5,358,000 shares and a payment of $125,000 (we'll assume that this was actually paid). The current PPS of those shares is $0.0061. So...
((12,750,000-5,358,000) x 0.0061) + $125,000) / 352,520,585 O/S
(7,392,000 x 0.0061 + $125,000) / 352,520,585 O/S
$45,091 + 125,000 / 352,520,585 O/S
$170,091 / 352,520,585 O/S
= 0.00048 PPS
The PPS should be between 0.00037 and 0.00048 and is currently about 20X too high based on the value of the company's sole asset.
Not sold but held by the merging interest.
Until 1982 pennies were 95% copper now they are 2.5% copper. The reason for the change was only due to the value of the copper being higher than 1 cent. At today's price, a "solid" copper penny is worth 2 cents metal value.
All current US coinage has a high amount of copper percentage...
Nickle - 75% copper
Dime - 91.67% copper
Quarter - 91.67% copper
Why? Because it is cheap and abundant.
It could have said Jan 2000 and it wouldn't matter. There is no "back dating" of amendments. I could see how it could be a red flag to people who don't understand how this process works which is why I encourage anyone who cares to do some DD.
My assumption of the date is that is when it was filled out but wasn't actually submitted to the SOS until February of this year.
I don't have the answer to the 2012 date and don't really care. The bottom line is that the newly authorized shares could not have hit the market at that time because the TA couldn't issue them. The TA couldn't have known about and wouldn't have acted on it prior to SOS receipt of the amendment stamped 2/1/2013.
Copper will never be "the new gold". Copper is and always will be a common base metal, will never be sold by the ounce and is practically an inexhaustible resource. There is a reason why copper is used in the lowest US monetary denomination... the penny.
One simple phone call is all it takes to understand how this process works. I recommend everyone who is interested to do it and then the truth will be known. Here is the hard work done...
Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company - Mark, Compliance Officer at 212-845-3217
Here is the question to ask...
"When a company increases its authorized share count, will a transfer agent issue the newly authorized shares before receiving an approved amendment from the Secretary of State in which a company is registered?"
I guarantee the answer will be "no".
I'm not misunderstanding anything. Neither the adoption date nor the effective date matter in this case. This is about the transfer agent since they actually issue the shares. Until they receive an approved amendment from the SOS they will not issue newly authorized shares... period. A simple phone call to any TA will verify this fact but common sense should be enough. Would a TA assume the liability of issuing shares without documentation from the proper authority? Not at all since they are regularly audited.
The SOS didn't receive the amendment until 2/1/2013 so the TA couldn't have received the approved amendment from the SOS prior to that date. It is that simple.
Except for the fact that a TA won't issue newly authorized shares prior to the amendment filing date of the SOS. For GDSM that was 2/1/2013. Call a compliance officer of any TA and they can explain how it works.
Regardless of the understanding or misunderstanding of that information, the bottom line is this...
The claim has been made that GDSM has been issuing newly authorized shares since Feb. 2012, however, that is not possible. The transfer agent is in control of issuing shares and they cannot and will not issue shares above the A/S count on record UNTIL they receive a copy of the approved article of amendment increasing the A/S from the state of registration. Since GDSMs amendment was received by the Florida SOS on Feb, 1 2013 (as stamped on the amendment), the transfer agent COULD NOT have received a copy of it from the state prior to that date. T/As are regularly audited for such things.
Call the compliance department of any transfer agent for verification. The compliance officer for Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company (the agent of GDSM) is Mark at 212-845-3217.
And $23.70 paints it back up. Insignificant volume days are meaningless either way.
Compensated promoters are required by the Securities Act of 1933, Section17(b) to publically report any compensation recieved for promoting a stock.
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf
There were no compensated promotions for GDSM during the substantial PPS increase in Q1 of 2012. Here is a helpful link for a site that tracks promotions designed for the investors benefiet.
stockpromoters.com/
The site is currently experiencing server issues but when back up, go to "serch promotions by symbol" and look at GDSM. There were a couple of non-compansated promotions for GDSM but GDSM has no control over who decides to promote their stock for free.
I'm not claiming that GDSM is "golden goose". There is obviously substantial risk here and I've stated that many times. I do think, however, that GDSM hasn't done anything illegal which some continually claim. There is plenty of evidence that supports the claims of GDSM in the past. The fact that none have worked in their favor is unfortunate but not illegal.
The bottom line is that if an investor doesn't like the risks and ambiguity of OTC stocks they need not invest. For those that like the high volatility, potential for large quick gains and accept the risk then stick around and make some money.
The volume was high because of huge buying presure in Q1 of 2012. The float changed hands many times. FWIW, when a company is diluting the PPS doesn't go up. Q1 was straight up.
Have more shares entered the market?... of course they have. But, not to the extent that some are claiming. The next filing should paint a more clear picture here.
Sorry but Florida State law says otherwise. Laws are written in a particular way as to not "spin". They are there for everyone to read and (hopefully) understand. I will not argue this point since the law is clear.
Except... the A/S only just went into effect on Feb. 1, 2013.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=84642797
LOL that is rediculous! That "effective date" field is there for a reason. This is not that dificult to understand.
A document submitted with the required filing fee and meeting the required statutory filing requirements will be filed as of the date it is received by this office. If an acceptable effective date is listed, the document will be filed on the date of receipt, but will be effective on the specified "effective date", not the filed date. Articles of Incorporation for a new Florida corporation and Articles of Organization for a new Florida limited liability company may specify an effective date no more than five business days prior to or 90 days after the date of filing.
Corporation #1: The Articles of Incorporation for Corporation #1 were filed on October 31, 2007, the date the document was received by our office. Because Corporation #1 did not specify an effective date, Corporation #1´s existence began on October 31, 2007, the date of filing. Therefore, Corporation #1 paid all fees due this office through December 31, 2007, the calendar year the Articles of Incorporation were filed. Consequently, Corporation #1´s first annual report form was due between January 1 and May 1, 2008.
Correct. Dilution is a given and it is smart to realize that fact.
This board is about SIRG so I don't understand the continual "dig" against other companies here. Let's keep it about SIRG and what they are.
Did the amendment by GDSM have an effective date listed?
That is correct. There is no evidence that SIRG is selling directly to retail. However, they are issuing discounted shares to sell through third parties for income (Grand View, Asher, FOGO, etc.) It is semantics really but effectually the result is the same... SIRG recieves money and the O/S increases.
It's pretty clear to anyone who reads the laws of Florida previously posted what that date means. It clearly states that the effectual date is the date of filing which is stamped on each page...
http://www.sunbiz.org/COR/2013/0205/44202215.Tif
Previous Post
Thanks but I was referring to the article that contains the BLM interview.
It has always been clear.
607.1001 grants authority to change the articles. Nothing more.
Section 42 in the FAQ is referring to the formation of a new LLC or INC. as the rest of section 42 explains. So, it is not retroactive filing it is proactive filing.
Even if it were "retroactive" as you claim, it would still mean that since GDSM didn't submit an effective date the amendment would be effective on the filing date.
Here is the rest of section 42 with explanations and examples...
Important Notice: If you are forming a corporation or limited liability company late in the calendar year (October through December) and you do not expect to commence business until the next calendar year, you should specify an "effective date" of "January 1" of the next calendar year. Otherwise, the entity will be required to file an annual report and pay the required annual report fee in a matter of a week or a few short months.
Explanation: When a Florida corporation or limited liability company files its Articles of Incorporation or Articles of Organization and does not specify an effective date, the corporation´s or limited liability company´s existence will commence on the filed date. In this case, the corporation or limited liability company pays all fees due this office through December 31st of the calendar year the document is filed.
When a Florida corporation or limited liability company files its Articles of Incorporation or Articles of Organization and specifies an acceptable effective date, the corporation´s or limited liability company´s existence will commence on the specified effective date. In this case, the corporation or limited liability company pays all fees due this office through December 31st of the calendar year the document became effective.
Example: We received the documents and fees to form two Florida corporations on October 31, 2007. The Articles of Incorporation for Corporation #1 did not specify an effective date. The Articles of Incorporation for Corporation #2 specified an effective date of January 1, 2008.
Corporation #1: The Articles of Incorporation for Corporation #1 were filed on October 31, 2007, the date the document was received by our office. Because Corporation #1 did not specify an effective date, Corporation #1´s existence began on October 31, 2007, the date of filing. Therefore, Corporation #1 paid all fees due this office through December 31, 2007, the calendar year the Articles of Incorporation were filed. Consequently, Corporation #1´s first annual report form was due between January 1 and May 1, 2008.
Corporation #2: The Articles of Incorporation for Corporation #2 were filed on October 31, 2007, but effective January 1, 2008. Because Corporation #2 specified an effective date of January 1, 2008, Corporation #2´s existence began on January 1, 2008, the calendar year of the specified effective date. Therefore, Corporation #2 paid all fees due this office through December 31, 2008, the calendar year the Articles of Incorporation became effective. Subsequently, Corporation #2 would not be required to file an annual report until 2009.
http://www.sunbiz.org/faqcor.html#fortytwo
It is impossible to understand something that doesn't exist. Feel free to post a link to it though.
Not according to SIRG...
We do not intend to pay dividends in the future.
We do not intend to pay dividends in the foreseeable future. Rather, we will retain earnings, if any, to fund our future growth and there is no
assurance we will ever pay dividends in the future.
Very well said. Can you please provide a link to that interview?
They were plastic buckets so they wouldn't rust.
Where is the consensus data of all investors that proves that conclusion?
"yet still keep averaging down"... yes intelligent investors know when to buy.
BUT THIS DOES...
607.0123 Effective time and date of document.—(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (4) and in s. 607.0124(3), a document accepted for filing is effective on the date and at the time of filing, as evidenced by such means as the Department of State may use for the purpose of recording the date and time of filing.
GDSM is registered in the state of Florida which means that they have to file amendments to the Secretary of that state. Even though GDSM does not file with the SEC, they still have to follow the regulations at the state level. It is a requirement of the state for a business to file an article of amendment for any change in share structure. As pointed out and as stated by Florida law, the amendment goes into effect on the date filed. That is straight off the Florida government website. Anyone who doesn't agree with or can't understand it needs to take it up with Florida.
IT IS THIS SIMPLE
Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or in the articles of amendment, the articles of amendment shall be effective when filed with the Department of State.