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.
I'm all for being educated, but I'm not for cognitive dissonance where one forgets that I've been the one to do quite a bit of educating. To that point, again I appreciate your shout out vis-a-vis your changed perception on SHMP PA.
With that said, I don't think it's reasonable to apply SPAC issues generally to the specific YOTA SPAC. For one, insiders and institutions hold the large majority of YOTA shares, which is why they aren't moving in price. No one is selling. I would suspect that if your analysis was in anyway accurate, YOTA shareholders would be selling. They are not. In fact, to the contrary over the last month, the share price of YOTA has increased. Moreover, I would have expected to see Form 4's all over the place if YOTA "investors" did not like the merger agreement. I do not see any Form 4's. Rather, I'd direct your attention to the redeemable common shares of YOTA and the terms relevant thereto. Based on that and other considerations, I can reasonably presume that YOTA management is acting in close concert with the will of its largest shareholders. Speculation and unreasoned opinion will not dissuade me from this presumption, only specific contrary facts.
Very honorable. Appreciate you saying so. Like I said, I used to believe the same, but the PA doesn't make sense without considering the possibility there are MM shenanigans.
You actually think the SPAC entered into the merger agreement without first discussing it with their "big shareholders?"
What are you looking at to form such an honest opinion?
Of course we can, but the reasons you give for your opinion are often the same as your opinion about the company...
I too used to think there was no shorting OTC. But then I thought, if there's money to be made, why wouldn't there be? https://fintel.io/ss/us/shmp
"Perhaps even more ridiculous is the fact that natural Shrimp stock is affected by macro economics. That may be the most absurd thing I've ever read... Natural Shrimp Stock is being affected by reality."
macro level events are not reality.... got it.
You mean let's not critically thing? Followed by yet another assumption: "Why investors continue to unload." Who says they are investors?
First, it is known that there is short interest.
Second, the market sucks as a whole. Tell me... why would SHMP be immune from macroeconmics?
Third, even JT said the stock is worth $.14 when it was trading around $.15-$.16.
Query: What's changed since the SPAC merger was announced? I think the duty of explanation as to what's changed between the SPAC merger and now falls on the one who believes $.08 is a legit PPS for SHMP.
For DTC sales... it does not mean they have NO SHRIMP at all. Or maybe it does. There's not enough information to form or state an opinion about production. This is how an "opinion" becomes framed as a "fact" possibly resulting in libel. Right Uber?
I don't have any complaints. I was just saying that your "opinion," often expressed as and in the form of a fact, may rise to the level of defamation. If SHMP ever chose to address it, iHUB's TOS would not protect you from liability in such a situation. The fact that you think it would.... says all we need to know.
That is a fact, but it's also a fact that you COULD buy shrimp just a couple of days ago... it's called being out of stock. I already posted about how this can be taken pessimistically or optimistically.
"If you believe a message has been intentionally posted in violation of securities laws you should contact the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC's contact information for such matters can be found at https://sec.gov/complaint.shtml."
If iHUB TOS insulates from liability of any kind, why would this be in the TOS? How could SEC do anything about what was posted on iHUB?
Show me where you're ascertaining SHMP's cost. Cite? Link? Source? Your belief isn't it.
Your "opinions" are often expressed as facts. That's a problem under NV law. The iHUB TOS do not provide immunity against infringements of NV law.
LOL. iHUB's TOS is between you and iHUB, not between you and SHMP. To have to explain that iHUB's TOS does not insulate you from lawsuit by a third party is the best thing that's happened so far this year.
"Shrimp's cost is much more than the wholesale price." There's that assumption again. You don't know the cost. End of story. What we can talk about is whether its good or bad that we don't know the cost. Everything else is just sheer speculation.
Actually I didn't assume that at all. Reading comprehension may require a reread... I expressly addressed this topic on a hypothetical basis to question your certainty that things are the way you say they are.
You assume the sale price to wholesalers is the same as DTC. Nothing in your analysis relies on facts. If your analysis did rely on facts, you'd have to just speak on the fact that there are no facts. Don't quote Mr. "Wonderful." His credibility is shot vis-a-vis FTX.
Just ask Alex Jones how an opinion can be slander.
This.
Well, if you intend to have wholesale as your bread and butter, DTC is icing on the cake. Since it's not a primary source of revenue, there's nothing wrong with being "out of stock" for a short period of time. Longs may say "wow there's good demand and they sold a lot of shrimp." Shorts may see it as "they have no shrimp to sell." To each their own.
My take: people pay a premium for exclusive content and products. So if NSI wants to chunk off portions of their harvests and earmark them for DTC, with the undertanding that it's not a reliable source of revenue, then a cyclical few day lag in supply is not terrible. Frankly, they could have executed a custom order model as opposed to off the shelf. Could have been less transparent about it.
SHMP has contractual relationships with wholesalers that they need to be able to supply. "Out of stock" may refer only to a very small portion of shrimp earmarked for direct to retail sales. You know what they say when one ASSumes... Without more information, it's just FUD.
Not many moons at all, in fact, just two (almost).
If you think a merger and a reverse split are the same thing, I don't know what to tell you.
First off, I'm the one that came up with this talking point. Secondly, effectively an R/S is not the same as an actual R/S. Ergo, the statement was misleading.
This is incredibly misleading. The most recent statements from the company are that the R/S will not happen because of the merger with YOTA. If you've got a line on new information, link or cite please.
Correction: There wasn't such a thing as "sushi-grade" shrimp or "premium" shrimp. I hate to burst your bubble, but there is now.
And Wagyu Beef is just cow, but people pay a premium because of how it's raised and its quality as compared to other cow. Mocking the concept doesn't make it any less viable.
Not only do you not provide sources or details regarding the random prices you put forth, it's also nonresponsive to the premise which was a comparable competitor. In addition to providing no hard data, you've named no company to whom your pricing refers, let alone a comparable competitor to SHMP. No citation to any shrimp producer who can sell shrimp free of antibiotics, chemicals and microplastics. In arguendo, even if the cost to produce SHMP shrimp is greater than industry average, the shrimp are healthier to consume than industry average; and, as such, people will pay a premium. If this were not true of consumers, we wouldn't have any luxury brands. The contention that SHMP's costs MUST BE the same or below industry competitors in order for SHMP to be competitive and profitable is just unsophosticated.
What's the cost to produce of a comparable competitor? I think Trans American Aquaculture was put forward as a comparable competitor...?
Take a photograph and post it. I don't disbelieve you (that it's there). I'm challenging your complete speculation as to what "it" is.
SHMP doesn't feed the shrimp for a couple of days before harvest... Either SHMP is lying or your "another guy with experience" is full of chit themselves.
If TAA uses chemicals to treat their water, then SHMP is the ONLY known shrimp grower that can say their shrimp is free of antibiotics, chemicals and microplastics. The purest seafood in the world. To me, that's worth a premium. And that's what you're missing in your criticism... the acknowledgment that SHMP can demand a premium for its shrimp.
Don't ask questions until you answer the one asked of you.
"The challenge is not water treatment but creating an economically viable system. The challenge is not the water treatment." A patented 5 step system that facilitiates the growth of pacific white shrimp in represented densities well above industry average v. ? Without explaining how TAA treats their water, there cannot be an analysis of what their cost per pound of shrimp is either... no comparison can be made. TAA is wholly owned by Gold River whose publiclly traded company sells.... lozenges....
It's always "someone said." Hearsay galore.
How does Trans American treat their water? Bueller? Bueller?
Hey eqinvestory, how does TAA treat their water? They may not use antibiotics to treat their shrimp, but they have to treat their water somehow.... right?
How do they treat their water?
Show me shrimp that don't have chemicals or microplastics and then I'll be on board with your perspective.
What an embarassing website roll out.