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.
Euc have my 2 cents in my rely to DB....it always could be big.... But I don't think will drastically move pps. I think it will strictly be a new code of ethics(huge), new compensation plan(huge....means getting out of debt), and changes in titles/duties/account of said titles/duties.
All great news!
But lets not go to Disneyland just yet....or think mslp can't get it done with current staff and the guidance they have hired!! I am pumped, but names on BOD is only going to be a plus for me....not expecting anything.
My only true concern are the numbers and the groups that manipulate...sometimes maybe even out of necessity.....but it exist.
The books will tell us (if we could read them-understand) how much mslp is willing to pay to free themselves from debt and regain control. Think about it. If mslp had a future telling machine.... They could have still done all the dilution and extra spending they did, be profitable, shareholders happy........all because they could predict the revenue.....the marketing alone for worth 500,000,000.00 in rev within 2 years (including apparel).
Db , completely agree with this post!
The directors should have been a pr worhty (rather I was hoping) statement! This will only be a change in titles/duties, comprnsation,,, but I do know that the compensation will be greatly adventagious to the shareholders"retail long".
My only question after this post is; wh not step up and make this statement of not needing to address every iota of there day to day operations with a pr when this NSF situation resurfaced again....and again? You even seemed to weigh your "logic" on the side of negativity and history.
Huh????? Not sure I caught your joke, but... If your referencing "ir firm"? Pondel
At this point i am surprised in a positive way with my conversation with Pondel.
At this point nothing further to elaborate.....Conversation limited to circumstances.
You're in the pharma industry and don't share that in regards to your posts?
Not to push, but what is your involvement with industry?? Sales, factory maintenance, constructin, distribution, ???
Deep space, great posts today....euc, you too!
Deep sorry about tone other day and thanks for reminding me of priorities ( my wife)....
Absolutely I agree with no PR until docs in hand.... I'm a numbers guy, but new to unstanding public books.... Guys like u kinda scare me with your sales personality (regarding biz) as they sometimes forget what profit is....but you don't sound too 1 dimensional which is obvious in your posts! Great!
Euc, like deep space said ( and maybe u too deep space) would be a major asset to my company....my lack of "personality" with sales has been my most difficult experienc....I'm getting better though!
Euc, work on that portuguese and maybe we can work together for mslp...I'm currently searching for job opportunities that involve both th US and Brasil.
I think every true retail long needs to consider the following before jumping to conclusions with this stock:
" in know way shape or form is a PR meant for us shareholders "especially us retail longs". It is meant to promote their company in the highest regard as possible!
Pr doesn't stand for reassure shareholders, explain mistakes, ask for forgiveness!
And in every PR mslp states they are not obligated to issue statements regarding shareholder concerns...but I will agree with deep space and many others that they should have somebody(or firm) that can provide at the minimum information that would be available to those that sought it out.
I think we can all agree that we (or potentially new investors)don't want to see a PR saying we lost our certificate, but we are trying to make changes and correct the issue.
I would prefer a PR that says " we have decided to move forward with another testing faciility that will bring more value to our firm and our customersin the future"....and I don't want to hear this until it's Done!
That may have been a problem with mslp in the past....got 5 good ideas, mention all, and follow through with 1...that looks stupid in my book!
Remember people PR does not mean shareholder reassurance newsletter!
Mslp is young and have learned quite a few things the hard/long way.
Personally at this juncture I am only slightly worried about the groups that hold massive amounts of mslp shares and can there manipulate PPS, therefore manipulate their profits!
This alone could be responsible for the changes in accounting????
Mslp "retail long"
Anybody watching L2 NOtice something interesting??
Someone else has made this statement before....In regards to DD abouth MSLP that is presented on this board alone, you seem to apply different standards to the accuraccy and relevance of such post???/Dpending on the poster?? Your favored leniancy is starting to show....
Do you have 50 million or more shares?
I have seen many post that you have acredited with less concrete info, yet a the mere possibility of negligence...for some reason you can find fault within the text.
How so do you choose which standard to follow?
Turok, I had used the term "institutional investors" loosely a few days ago to explain a predicament that MSLP is dealing with right now (in regards to PPS).
And yes!! Buyers can Sell too....
I have since used the word "groups" to unify the the shareholders positions.
Everyone can agree that dilituion was a necessary evil.
Has the thought that a few "groups" bought these shares "essentially" debt from MSLP ever crossed your mind? If there are 12 "groups" each holding 100million shares or more....what % stake would they have in MSLP? How much more information would the be privilidged to than the "retail longs".
How easy would it be them to manipulate the PPS...thus manipulating the Profits of MSLP?
What was one of the first and foremost goals of every major corporation that got bailed out by the government in the latest economic meltdown?
First and foremost was to get the government out of their hair!!!
Whats been the avg volume recently?
The reason we even have the limited volume we do is hide what is really happening behind the doors. And they are sucking a trickle of shares from the MSLP "retail longs" as some loose patience....but it wouldn't look right and wouldn't allow MSLP company and individuals to buy shares back if the volume was just 300k shares a day. So...there has to be some volume to move the money.
My measely butt could even move the PPS to .02 if I wanted....but if they are going to let me buy at .015...why NOT?
I'm only making these comments because I hate seeing the little guy always taking the losses!! Trying to keep the "retail longs" focused on #'s and PR's...rather than the distractions of a few and their alter-egos.
I still don't believe you have 1 million shares!
I think you 25 million or more! Atleast!
So how many more times do you think MSLP needs to bounce between .015 and .03 before all the "groups" will let MSLP get the share price where it needs to be (.05) so that they can regain control of their debt and control of their company from the vulchers just playing games?
What stand out to me in this letter and I had pointed out a few days back....but as usual the " negative groups" just diverted the topic as usual... is where it says:
The only way to obtain NSF ceritified product is directly from Musclepharm. Products sold in retail outlets are NOT certified.
This is why I thought 2 very strong points:
1. NSF was way too expensive (business decision at this point and time) as NSF was saying "ya your product is safe, etc, good to go, but you've only paid us enough to market/sell this specific lot of product to get those individual bottles of said product ceritified"
2. How-why the statement "only directly from MSLP"?
Does MSLP already have a small facility?
Did they change facilities as some have suggested?
It really sound like NSF was making MSLP jump through hoops on something that wasn't going to help their bottom line at this stage in the game.
I can see that as potentially being the reason as they had issued 55 million common stock shares....but they also nearly retired 40 million shares. That's where I'm running into problem and think it was recorded differently??
Thoughts??
I'd bet he has atlesst 25milliom mslp shares , if not more. It would take weeks to move that many shares without killing the mslp pps......???? Are there there institutional investors"groups"(definition of group in post to Keith g) that hold more than that to manipulate?
If this were true would mslp even care about day to day pps?
Satisfying the retail longs? Mslp can't move pps until they kill the debt? Flippers are slowing process down(typical penny....diluted for money and some bought their debt.... Some cheaper than orhers(including us ihub retail longs).
Hold tight longs....doing my best to anticipate an accurate pps of .10 or more and time.... "books/shares?" I'm learning too.
Focus on biz and #s
What is "basques"? Sorry for ignorance.
I agree, but my first thought was which airlines (freight primarily) are hubbed in Boise vs Denver, and mOntreal as these could facilitate better international shipping??? That is if the product is not " lets say produced" in brazil for brazil distribution??
It's crazy how some products have a larger cost to ship than import and produce combined?
Do you have familiarity with this? I am currently quirking on this via friend who sells cardboard boxes for distributing in Brasil and says there is a supplement lab/supplement distribution center in menajaraes.(have no idea at this point if mslp does or doesn't utilize facility.
Olden, turik, ham...So anybody with further insight want to guide me to verify your opinions on the following:
What -how money was recorded differently for interest payment of 2.6 million?
Anybody else (Keith g, avocet) about cost of in house cert and produce, distribute???
I'm lost at these levels....1 being my biz operates on 2 to 3 less zeros and this actual Industry. I really wanted to respond to some other postersr questions but can not because of industry lack there of.... For example in my biz I can have an asset (depending on how I record on books "liability") sit unused for only $500 per month. Yet because my product is so labor dependent I must do $4k in rev just to break even operational (meaning excluding depreciation of said asset)..... Yet if I outsource l limit my risk and profit 20% on every bit of revenue if I do not retain this asset.....or After which $4k rev is accrued I will only profit 35%.... In my biz this tells me I do more work for same money untiill I hit $6k; in comparison to outsource and minimize risk. Now 35% is way better but not mathematically until I hit $10k rev on asset as I my margin per hours worked will still be lowered....... Can someone enlighten/help me understand how these books of mslp have been written and what is being moved.....from where to where???
Take it easy on our friend. Maybe they and already implemented this strategy....but at least it's proactive.... I would welcome this think tank for my business an day if I had post that were at least within this realm.
The only thing that I try to keep is that fact that we retail longs are NoT privied to info the same as others yet our cash is just as green.
Listen to mslp pr's And actions and #s.....counters a little hep??
That should be worth a chuckle no matter your opinion here!!!! Now that's board room chatter.... Thanks!
Moving on:
Olden - Turk , I've practically been crying for some counters to speak up.
Teach me something....im a business man, not IRS, or experienced in paper weight( not naive either. I'm in 13k cash at .0207 essentially 15.32kcash on my books.
Is your paper weight accounting based on previous sec filings (2010 to 2012) or the new accounting measures to be implemented.
Why the Cash payment of 2.6 million debt interest?
Why the increase in rev of 400%, but decrease in operations by 25%?(what was moved here?)
Keith, my last pist till 9pm pst for today; out of post. I really like your attitude. Think you bring simething to table....did u read the converse last night I had with euc and advoce
I would put 75mill to 100 mill with " retail longs", and who knows how much "groups" are holding???
Question for you. What percentage of poster are alter egos and or from the same "group"?????thus giving us and ideas of how many "retail longs mslp" are here. Irrelevant of money. Then do money...
May I define "group" for the significance of understanding my verbiage. So in my case, by my definition:
"group" = any IPO group, legit institutional investor, this boards "retail longs (if we acted cohesively, but we can't because we all aren't "retail longs" here), flipper groups, ....mslp.....any 1 or all could be manipulator at this point, insiders, inside longs....
Problem is I used word "institutional investors" when I should have used "groups" by definition above!!!!
It's enable some to spin the idea as implausible, when it is very real.
Retail Long.....watching the books! Pr's always arrive late????unless they are posted here....especially the bad mslp pr's! What u think?
Absolutely....First of all there was nothing even close to saying Iceland banned.
It stated that they volutarily decided to discontinue distribution because some ingredients may be considered to contain pharmacueticals under their countries governing board (simply a formality)
Well why make a fight of it?
It would cost more?
Could create legal trouble until issue resolved?
And considering they had a back orders to fill....would you want MSLP filling back orders with thier product or it just sitting in Iceland stand still for no reason other than to waste more time and money over a formality within Iceland?
Sounds smart....didn't waste more time, didn't waste more money, able to fill other back orders. Sounds like business decision to me!
"Retail Longs" stay focused on the numbers and actual PR's from MSLP....not the sidetracking alter egos of "institutional investors"
PS. I got 1 post left....watch and see who takes over the board later on as the people with positive and true insight like myself run out of posts for the day.....negativity around 5pm to 10pm????watch whos here and where they direct the conversation??? very interesting
Well done Deaf....way to stick to the point....some investors want to distract you...........hopefully you followed the overnight conversation regarding MSLP (we'll just call is Share Structure as it sounds more legit) I had Euc and Avocet.
It seems some MSLP investors have access to some information that we don't from time to time.
Just try and stay on track....I'm down to 3 more post today....trying to use them more effectively to keep the board clear of nonsense and negativity.....
We "Retail Longs" need to focus on #'s and what MSLP is actually saying in their PR's.....not somebody elses interpetation (thats a nice way of saying &*&$$#*#)
Making sure I avoid any further bans as well!
Euc, maybe you can help me with this?
Do you ever remember (if so provide) a PR from Musclepharm saying we are now NSF certified and this is going to allow us to increase....our market share etc...?
Or was that only brought up here within the board and website and through our own DD?
Was there an actual PR from MSLP?
Thanks for that number....shows exactly how much actually is being hidded behind closed doors from the "MSLP RETAIL LONGS" with NO limit on how and when to sell/buy shares.
What would you call a group of 5 individuals that each own 20 million shares? Would you call them retail or institutional or insiders? Just want to clear our language because you seem very adept at shutting down my legitimate theory very bluntly.
How many groups of these 5 would it take to leave only 150 million shares to the "real retail longs"?
Answer: 12
Would they have to disclose when they sell/buy?
Answer: No
Can they Manipulate Price?
Answer: Easily
You seem to be very good at math.....
Well put!
MSLP "retail Longs" need to stay focused on numbers....
Sometimes MSLP provides PR's that "we" get to see..........but sometimes our news comes from other sources including this board.
I too wonder how long this info has been available to a privildged few?
I'm just a little suprised that some people that have caught on tto this topic didn't go back and read all the post regarding the issue.
There are many here claiming there are NO institutional investors??? How many have we heard that bought way back in the day? These institutional investors bought common stock shares to leverage their investment....think of how many the had to buy for money and to get their stake back.....
I think MSLP is 10% MAX "long retail"!
Of that 10% MAX, only 33% are here on this board!
And I only think 25% MAX on this board are retail!
How many do you think on this board are alter egos and/or institutional investors?
On the button. Can u imagine how hard to maintain a solid pps with even 10% retail longs playing with shares at .35 that they bought at .015........if they couldn't force us to sell??
I only post my thoughts because I have learned everything the hard way.....but it has resultedt in ethics, knowledge, and open vision......and a few times along the way I got a shortcut buy listening (more impOrtamtly learning) from someone else experience.
Retail Long! Hold with patience!
That's what every retail long should say, but they must manage their money or get eaten alive.
Yes and no in regards to institutional. If u had put in $1mill cash at .0065......would you think you would or would have to declare? .....and just in case you were paranoid about knowing somebody knew of your investment....u just have 3 or4 brokerage accounts.
Let the $ show you. Pps is lower, talk is even cheaper!
Stick to books as all Retail Longs should.
Somebody will give way soon..... Look like it won't be you!!
And cause of this..... Your lucky! Me too!
If any sucessful business owners denies luck....then he is lying about his success!!!FACT!!!!!
Thats I am seeing. Wouldn't it be best financially for mslp IF only mslp and institutional investors owned every share????for the next stage ......new exchange???
It would be identical to that social media poop that is happening. IPO was a way for every insider to create $ millions with a slip of paper..... That's the show! I know business and learning day trade quicker!!
My confusion lies within who is more greedy?
1. Retail. Who wants 1000%
2. IPo who wants 100% plus original equivalent stake?
3. Sales rep (current management)?
4. Combo of any of the above or all?
That's is pps day trade problem....
I've said before for all retail longs.... Yes they will shake up or down. Right now shake down.... I buy more on shake down and sell on shake up...... Can't help it though..... My principle is growing!
Retail Long!
I'll resend link in an tomorrow. Huge"how about massive?" stake!
Avocet made a hint to the thought in his reply about.
Compare your numbers with mine and see how comparatively %stake and $ changes? It's astronomical on only a few percentage points.....it gives u an idea
Db, i still respect your thought as they stretch my thinking from time to time.....but now saying your wanting some pr back to back sounds like u may be holding the pps back,,,,flipping all the way. Do you anticipate another little pimp to dump......... How many .015 to .03 u think we need before we satisfy the bitter original (IPO) investors?
I keep pushing you on #s because I watched this board for awhile before I spoke and noticed you were very pronounced in the past; however this has changed with your selective demeanor recently.
As anybody can attain from my post I am not new to business, but new to day trades!
I can tell all retail longs this without doubt: at current pps you are all golden! Mathematically leveraged $money says ???????my questions to euc......
But u remember right? That lawsuit? Manipulation of stock?
You should really look at question 4 and 5 from previous post
Do not post link. Othrrwise...... I prefer to see u On this board
U surprised me....new you knew how to dig, but math ok too....definitely up for debate.
I go with same 7-q10%.
20 percent
33percent
Now use these numbers to recalculate previous "weight" of link and post.( how heavy on pps etc??)
Look forward to reply
Euc let's take a look. Lean back from your chair and see the board whole.....u see the negativity now, almost visual from a distance......now remember that link I sent you!
I have a great question about mslp institutional investor vs retail for you.......I'll save my answe for your reply because I don't want to influence:
1. What percent of mslp os shares are owned by retail?
2. What percent of retail speak here on this board?
3. What percent just listen and don't speak?
4. How many shares would an IPO (original institutional investor) have to buy to average down his money and (more importantly %stake) in the company?...(it's #'s; put them where u want.....example is (IPO inside .50 with 100k........ Make your own equation to see the difference..... Especially "stake size" as this could expontentially affect affect an institutional gains.
5. So with those #s think how many "common shares" these institutional s actually hold as well?
I'll share my imO what I think later.... Trying to make u think!
Euc, First of all somebody should tweet whoever is Mr. Tweet responder (I mentioned you Euc because you seem to know who is quick to reply) and ask if they truely even own/operate this facebook website.
2nd. Nowhere does is say Banned....or does it?
3rd. It sounds like voluntary discontinuation to me???
business decision? may I dare say!
NO SPIN here....it just sounds a little like original post was a spin....
I have a strong message to send MSLP institutional investors;
Shake UP not DOWN! We (true retail investors) aren't selling till we see profits....your wastinig all our time! And nobody can get time they lost back....so let's go.
Business mentality here people...stay focused!
Don't reply to these types...they are alter egos....trying to get in the way of what should be going on in this MSLP board.
If you look at his history you will see not a lot of post for how long they have used Ihub....they delete their own post so you can't see their manipulation.....or why wouldn't he just have provided the link if he wanted to help us "retail" investors out....
Keep your thoughts focused on MSLP business strategy rather than a nay-sayers breathe of hot-air. We do NOT want this board filled with this garbage when MSLP has so much to going for it....like I posted last night....whenever you need a reminder of why you are here, just read the intro to this board page rather than skipping it.
Well we know it's NOT that fear of actually having banned substances in their product that some claimed was going to be the issue.(OMG what if?)
So I don't have to waste another Post on this topic...the answer is...........
If it were a problem with substances being banned; he would have come out and said it...it's NSF sole responsibility/job at the end of the day to protect the public from harmful products.
Now that is a point worth making....
In the past "past" MSLP has had a habit of making statements prior to action which has created investor trust issues.
But as far as MSLP missteps....I think actions are right before our eyes...Company BUY BACK SHARES, COMPANY RETIRED SHARES, INDIVIDUAL INSIDERS BUY BACK SHARES, COMPANY CUTS COST by NOT being NSF certified, BOOKS ARE BEING CLEANED UP (ammendment after ammendment...we can basically see the discussion between MSLP and the SEC).
Hey guys/gals....stay positive with a business mentality...I'm running out of post for today....
Sometimes I think I might have the most business experience here of all the "retail" investors as many here a actually "instituional" investors.
I just hate to see the retail get killed,,,,,just like what happened with (the big poop of a social media IPO) in which the retail got screwed. I mean those execs so greedy they issued an additional 25% more shares at the highest level of evaluation....well I would like to let all the little "retail guys" know that MSLP "institutional" investors want more of your shares.....
MSLP sounds like there are doing the exact opposite of that social IPO...go back to my yelling part!
Let's just show them we know we are in at ground level and they need to shake us UP not DOWN!
Actually the post was regarding the entirity of the situation...NOT just NSF.
Why choose to only address one aspect of my post...The PPS has been falling since the pump (volume) to redistribute shares, but I found it equally interesting that on the "so called" worst bit of news the PPS has only fallen an additional 5 - 10%.
I said that I "think" the insitutional investors would be better off with a shake-up NOT shake-down.
At the end of the day....every aspect of MSLP is business
I also think no matter what the MSLP business plan is....the MSLP instituional investors would be better off doing a shake-up to get people (retail to sell) rather than a shake-down. Doesn't seem to be too much selling considering all this "so called terrible NSF news" in which they were booted from NSF and now their whole markteing plan is destroyed "as some have said"
HMMMMMMMM?????
I'm still trying to find the $2.6 million interest payment from the Q.
What are you looking for? I value your thoughts on occasion!
Why is it so crazy? Do you know how much of the pre-diliuted have been used to finance prior operations?
I never said it was the plan,,,,just a thought on how in-house manufacturing could be achieved financially much faster.
Also, why couldn't MSLP compete (literally) with NSF? Essentially they are. They are the official UFC sponsor and have NO banned substances in their products! You think Dana White is going to give them this status which would completely destroy the ground the UFC has been building for it's future as a respectable sport.
Or is it that it just doesn't fit the business plan that you have set forth for them.
I feel like this board is finally going in the correct direction of trying to be proactive rather than beat dead horses.
I am also a little confused by your recetn post as usually (especially in the past) you very money/books conscious and as soon as we begin to improve in this regard....you have since prefered to only discuss NSF.
MSLP making a profit should be th eonly concern at this point. In regards to previous criminal activity....it makes me actually feel much safer (leaving the issue negligable) as I do NOT know anybody that would like jail time????
Being proactive is growing..... Industry experience needed here!!
Great post
You find an answer, but I was mentioning a thought of mslp competeimg with NSF. Not fighting for cert from the NSF, but being the new certifier!. Why do you think mslp is the UFC official supplement sponsor??????they are the certifier!!
(remember monopoly) NSF essentially is the certified for nfl, yet they don't do squat; collect commissions from mslp(maybe this was the commission that made them adjust their revenues), and others along the way..... I be honest NSF has a great business model to date,,,,,but no competition to date!
It's all possible....Im liking in the books and int'l sales