Well since the stock price is under $4, I think everyone knows this.


Where did you see any information that alludes to this in any way. As far as I know, there have only been prospective SEC filings mentioning that the offering is going to happen, but I've seen zero information about any potential buyers' "non anxious" reactions to it. Got any links we can read?


That's because the original S-1 and all 3 amendments filed with the SEC all say "The information in this preliminary prospectus is not complete" and there are required fields that have not been filled in yet, like the exact offering price, and the effective date. The SEC can't really approve an incomplete prospective S-1, right?

This is completely false, and it keeps getting regurgitated on this board.

First, they announced on July 29th 2019 that the reverse split was approved by shareholders. Yes, I know Kim has enough voting power that it didn't matter what any other shareholder at the time said. Please don't reply with that, it's irrelevant to this conversation.

Second, PRs are not required to announce when a reverse split is finalized and an effective date is set. Only a SEC filing is required.

Third, they filed the original S1 prospectus with the SEC on June 2nd - 5 WEEKS before they filed the 1st article of amendment with the Wyoming SoS that you're touting.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001413119/000149315220010402/forms-1.htm

Fourth, the original filing date with the Wyoming SoS was July 8th, and they declared the effective date of the r/s as July 15th. Then on July 16th, they filed an amendment changing the effective date to July 23rd , which is 10 business days after the original filing date. And on July 20th, 3 days before the effective date, they filed again to rescind the article of amendment changes.

And fifth, you're talking about an articles of amendment filings with the state of Wyoming, they're not SEC or FINRA filings. The Wyoming SoS has no authority on stock splits, it's only to update the declarations of incorporation in the state they are incorporated in.




There's no boogeyman here, so I hope we can we be done with this conspiracy theory now?

First, making the stock pop and enacting the r/s immediately isn't an option. The effective date of a r/s cannot be less than 10 days after the effective date is announced. I doubt he would declare a r/s after a pop to .50 knowing that it would not be sustained for at least 10 days - at least if .50 is his target price to r/s at. Second, the underwriters are selling $10M worth of shares at an offering price that is currently set between $4.25 & $6.25. Offering prices are usually equal to or lower than the current stock price (or in this case the expected price at the time of the sale), otherwise no one would buy them. You said it yourself, who would buy shares at 5 bucks knowing that it would drop immediately. So I'm modeling $4.25 as a pretty safe floor, with $5.25 hopefully being more accurate. And third, if the stock is .50 at the r/s, that puts the market cap at $427 million. Adding $10 million worth of shares at that point would only be diluting by 2.3% no matter what the r/s ratio is. I hope that's not what you're referring to 2.3% dilution as a "money grab".



Again, a temporary pop does nothing for a r/s. What matters is what the price will be on the selected effective date of the r/s, which has to be at least 10 days after the selected date is announced. Since the MTM news came out in January, the 10-day m/a has gone from .13 to .18. If there's more news in the next few weeks, that could go up before the r/s. It could also go down. Or it could stay the same. But at .18, only a 30:1 r/s is needed to get above $5.25, and that still means only 7.7% dilution. And even then, the company has an extra $10 million on the books which makes the 7.7% dilution less effective than 7.7%.



Kind of agree, kind of don't - depending on what you're referring to as "the impact everyone is looking for". Yeah, there are people on here who think the company is going to get bought for 100 billion dollars tomorrow, but there are others who keep saying it's going to zero. Both are less realistic than more average estimates. But you could also argue that a company going from no income to $8 million a year (or more if other deals are announced) would be considered a growth company. I'm not saying it's going to trade at 100 times sales like some growth stocks, but some of the more average growth stocks in the S&P are currently trading at 20+ times trailing sales. Even just using $8 million in revenue and a price-to-sales multiple of 20 puts the company at $160 million. That's also using a forward sales value, which would be a higher multiple than a price to trailing sales multiple. The company is currently trading at a $150 million valuation. I'm not saying whether or not that is a fair value, undervalued, or overvalued, but the market can be very irrational when valuing stocks with high growth potential. The r/s is going to happen, the stock offering is going to happen, I don't think those are even a question anymore. The only question that remains to me is what will the market value the company at considering it's potential growth.

As an example, SNAP is currently valued at over $100 billion. It only has $44 million annually in sales. It has an earnings of negative .65 per share, a PE ratio of -101 (negative), but a price to sales ratio of 2289! That's negative earnings, only $44 million in sales on 1.5 BILLION shares, but a price to sales ratio of 2289? And 1 week ago, it was 33% higher than that. I'm only modeling a 20 multiple on KBLB's price to future sales.

And yes, before you say anything, I know that all of this is under the assumption that they can prove production soon. But my assumption is that they will. And based on a signed contract by MTM, it sounds like they are too. I could be wrong. MTM could be wrong. I'm not going to get into that argument with you.

Most of the negative focus on the stock price seems to be the reverse-split, but my main concern has been the post-reverse-split stock offering (dilution). They filed a S1 prospectus last June to sell shares after the reverse split is enacted, and for the longest time I've been assuming that they were selling a predetermined 1.9 million shares after the reverse split. But now that I read it again, it looks like they're not specifying the number of shares they'll sell, only the number of dollars they raise. It looks like the number of shares sold will be determined by the price of the shares sold. They are selling $10 million dollars worth of shares, and they were just using the reverse-split price of $5.25 as an assumed reference number. But if the only thing known is the number of dollars worth of shares they're selling, then the amount of dilution will be based on the current market cap of the stock at the time of the reverse-split, right?

The current market cap is $145 million. If they add $10 million worth of new shares, they're only diluting by 6.9%.

If the share price gets up to 0.25 before the reverse-split, the market cap would be $213 million. Adding $10 million at that point would only be diluting by 4.7%. If the share price gets up to 0.50 before the reverse-split, the market cap would be $427 million. Adding $10 million at that point would only be diluting by 2.3%. However, if the share price drops to 0.118 (The September & January lows) before the reverse-split, the market cap would be $111 million. Adding $10 million at that point would be diluting by 9.0%.

Am I understanding any of that incorrectly?

If so, then the higher the share price goes, the higher the market cap will be at the time of the stock offering, and the lower the dilution will be. Anything is possible, but I don't see the stock going below the recent lows of 0.118 before the reverse-split. So if 9% is on the high side of the amount of dilution we'll see after the reverse-split, I don't think it's as big of a dark cloud as some have made it seem to be. Especially if they continue releasing more (and hopefully more positive) news beforehand, so the higher the stock price gets, and the lower the amount of dilution there will be. At the current market cap, it's only 4.7% dilution, which I consider negligible if they only enact a 31:1 (or less) split to get uplisted to a larger exchange, with new traders & investors, while leaving plenty of shares available to enable liquidity.

No on knows anything for sure except the CEO, and anything can happen, but based on the more recent abundance of PRs, and the number of recent S1 amendments, I'm currently modeling that the reverse-split will take place in the next 30-45 days, and assuming (hoping) that they won't have to go higher than the originally proposed 40:1 max reverse split. If the stock price is higher than it is now, I think it'll be closer to 30:1 or lower.

Don't worry, someone is dumping a few hundred thousand shares again (most likely CSC), and the bid is in the 4's now. You'll have plenty of time to reload as low as you'd like soon. If Kim is saying now that good news could come as early as Jan 2014, which no one here should really expect to happen (if he qualified it with a mid-2014 date, then that is the more likely time-frame), that means we will have at least 3 months (possibly 9 months?) with no new news. I seriously doubt that the SP can handle a lull that long. I'm guessing we'll see the low 4's in another month (hell, maybe even the next week), and possibly break to the 3's again. If it bases there for at least a month, I will be buying more trade shares and just waiting for the January PRs saying that "they're still on schedule to make tons of silk by mid-2014" to sell into.

If you were buying at 6 cents, then I did when I sold some today. I only made 20% (minus commissions) on the lot, and it was a relatively small lot, but I'm pretty sure we'll be back to 5 cents in a few days, so I take trading profits when I see fit. I can just buy back if it seems to stabilizes anywhere for a while and wait until the next PR comes out about how "we're starting to start the starting process of our commercialization, and how we're right on track with our estimates, and even though we said we should be at that point in 2012, and 2013 and now 2014, it might not be until the very end of 2014 now, or possibly 2015." But the people who get emotional about this stock will swoon and start buying into the next CSC dump, and I will be selling right along with them.

If I can continuously make moderate profits here and there trading a stock, rather than locking all of my money into a stock that doesn't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon, I'll do that. And before you tell me that I might miss the boat, don't bother, I've been hearing that since 2010. And I do have a lot of shares that I have been holding since 2010 that I won't sell unless the stock does eventually "shoot to the moon". But even if this stock goes to zero, and those shares are worthless, I will still have lost less money than I have made from trading it with smaller, more frequent lots. I am not rich off of what I have made trading, even in 3 years, but if this goes to zero, I will have still made money. How many of you here can say the same thing?



Oh, wow, an anonymous poster on the internet has alluded that he knows something that we don't all know, implying that this stock is a sure-thing? Man, I gotta back up the truck now! You do realize that statements like that are just as see-through as the ones that the extreme-negatives throw out, right? Manipulation works both ways. Well, it goes both ways, but it almost never works.

Well don't leave off the next part...

"A more conservative estimate, given the realities of launching such a ground breaking and commercially unique project, would be to reach that major milestone in mid 2014."

How many time estimates has Kim given and met them? And how many have been missed? I take that qualification that he gave himself to mean that it will be at LEAST 9 months before anything is going to happen with this company. And even then, the timeline will probably be much longer than what is given.

That is the exact answer that I expected. Well, actually, I expected no answer since you are so clearly wrong. You are the one who keeps asking Mojo and others to provide proof for their claims, yet you can't take your own advice.

Um, I don't think that's right. Unlimited Authorized Shares may be normal for penny stocks, but can you show me thousands (or hundreds or even dozens) or stocks in the DJ, S&P or Nasdaq that have "unlimited authorized shares"?!?

You can state something as fact, but because you don't show proof it is just an opinion?!? Now I see what the problem is. You have absolutely no grasp of logic. Anything you say is pretty much meaningless now.



Neither of those constitute proof of anything, to anyone else in the world. Again, you obviously don't understand concepts like "fact vs opinion" or "proof of fact". Maybe they didn't teach those in school 50 years ago, I don't know, but if they did, you must have skipped class that day.

Oh dear Bob...
You've been saying this for over 18 months now. Don't you get tired of being wrong?

Load the boat people! Back the truck up! Hop on the train before it leaves the station! The ship is about to set sail, make sure that you have your tickets NOW! Buy all you can! You'll never be able to buy at these prices again! These prices are a gift! Bargain basement prices! The stock is on sale, but won't be for long!

You'll never see prices below .15 again!
You'll never see prices below .13 again!
You'll never see prices below .12 again!
You'll never see prices below .10 again!
You'll never see prices below .09 again!
You'll never see prices below .08 again!
You'll never see prices below .07 again!

At what point do you stop announcing ridiculous guesses (hopes) as fact?

Why on earth would you want SSM to buy out KBLB? Their annual revenue is listed as $17.5 Million. That's revenue, not profit! Even if they had 50% margins, that's still less than $8.75 million in profit (you have to take out other expenses to get profit). Even if they make $8 Million per year in profit, and even if they saved up 10 years of profit to buy KBLB, they could still only give us $80 million for 650 million shares. That's 12.3 cents per share, or roughly the current stock price. So do you really want SSM to buy KBLB?

I'm glad that you said "to me", but I hope that you're not getting your hopes up too much that the conference call is going to say, "we're in production now" or "we will be in production in the next few months". In the conference call announcement, the exact wording was, "We will also be announcing a shareholder conference call to be held sometime after the shareholders' meeting, to discuss our progress and ambitious plans for 2013 and 2014." This is almost exactly what he said almost a year ago. I don't know how long you have been watching KBLB, but this is typical spiel from Kim, and it doesn't sound like KBLB will be in commercial production this year at all.

Of course, this is just my opinion (based on what he has said for the last 2.5 years vs what has actually happened), but it doesn't sound like KBLB will be making any money at all this year. I hope I'm wrong though. I have a ton of shares that make me want to believe that they will make money this year, but I don't think that there's a good chance of it.

I agree, not low volume, but I don't think it's very significant. I do think that some people are taking profits before the shareholders meeting and conference call, and it's not an un-wise decision.

Look at what the share price did after the last conference calls? It goes up as the CC nears because everyone is hoping that KBLB will finally be making profits. But then when the day that we might be profitable happens gets pushed back, the share price has a small, but quick drop and then a long but further drop until more expectations are near.

I had bought some shares after the first rise, around 7 and 8 cents, and I have already sold most of them, some in the high 12's, but most in the 11's. I still have lots of shares that I've had since 2010 that I won't be selling until this thing reaches $1+. I still don't know if that will be this year though. One of the lines that worried me is the announcement of the conference call where kim wanted to talk about his plans for "2013 and 2014". I don't think he would be even mentioning 2014 if the news for 2013 was very good and/or very near.

This is of course, just a guess, no one really knows what is going to be happen. But I am pretty sure that after the CC, the share price will go up a lot, or down a lot.

The split cannot be for liquidity because it's all relative. A 2 cent stock may trade 1 million shares a day, while the 20 cent stock would trade 100,000 shares a day. Saying that they took the stock from 10 cents to 1 cent for liquidity is false because yes, the stock would trade 10 times as many shares a day, but they would only be worth 1/10th of the value. So KBLB having to sell X amount of shares means nothing when they're worth 1/10th of the previous value.

So the SEC didn't do their DD on Madoff? For years?

Hypocrite much? You do realize that you are as ridiculously positive as some of the ridiculous negative posters are, right? I get tired of hearing the positive conspiracy theories. The people reading an obvious PAID FOR stock pump and saying that it was a great article about KBLB. That was probably the dumbest thing I think I have seen on here lately, and that includes all of the baseless claims made by the negative people too.

These are the same people baselessly claiming things like, "Wow they're starting a production pilot program, they must have a partner paying for this program!" when they are obviously selling shares. I don't know if they're selling enough shares to pay for the program itself, but there is no evidence at all of them having any partners at all, yet that doesn't stop you and others from saying that they know 100% for a fact that they do. The only fact is that you know nothing for a fact that is non-public unless you were told directly from Kim or Ben.

I do, otherwise I wouldn't have requested it. If you don't want to read what I write, feel free to put me on ignore.

Is anyone else starting to get a lot of Penny-Stock spam at the email address that they use for InvestorsHub? I setup the email address that I use just for InvestorsHub, and I have never used it for anything else, and I have never told anyone else about it, but over the past week, I have started getting daily spam emails at that address. These are not messages from InvestorsHub in any way, these are penny-stock promotion newsletters that I have been added to (ExclusiveStocks, PennyTrader, etc).

Is anyone else seeing the same thing? If so, then either InvestorsHub has been selling or giving away their user's email addresses, or their user database was stolen. I have read their privacy policy, and it specifically states that user's email addresses will not be shared with or sold to any third-party. I just wanted to know if anyone else was seeing the same thing before I contact IH about this.

Holy Hell, I'm in the wrong business! I need to start a penny-stock promotion business - apparently, all you need is a large mailing list!

Also, someone obviously needs this stock price to go up, and quickly. Why would someone continue to pay (hundreds of thousands of dollars) to have the stock pumped unless they had butt-loads shares that they needed to dump?

Ok thanks. Most stock newsletters post their disclaimers as images so that when they are copy/pasted or indexed by search engines, the disclaimers won't be available.

Also, the link at the bottom is to unsubscribe you from their list, but the domain name http://1st-stocks.co.uk/ is now down "for maintenance". :)

Romans, can you please post the full disclaimer at the end of the email? TIA.

Rayovac, I know that you know that this is a stock pump newsletter (pump and dump). You even mentioned PIEX from the post and noted that it was down to .09, which means you looked it up. If you saw the chart, I'm assuming that you saw that it was down 91% from the "pump".

And what exactly do you agree with in this "good write up"? There was nothing specific in it. The guy just threw out some generalities, speculation and related names. If this is an "article" or a "good write up", then I would consider the SWA pumps to be on the same level as the PNAS works.

So let's be realistic. If you couldn't stand to see Mojo calling the new lab "a shoe box", how can you call this "a good write up" without sounding just as ridiculous?

That was my first thought after seeing the "article" posted. Why was the disclaimer left off?

Are you referring to the Ownership Disclosure Regulation? If so, the minimum limit is 5% of the outstanding shares. Five percent of the 600 million shares is 30 million shares, not 1 million shares.

If that's not what you were talking about, then I apologize, but I have no idea what else you could be referring to about disclosure.

I'm sorry if you aren't able to follow


First, someone wrote

Notice how they are talking about SWA, but they are implying that the 10MM shares are owned by SWA?


I replied with

Notice how every time I referred to the person who owns the 10MM shares as "the third party".

I then wrote

Notice how I said "their disclaimer"? SWA is the only one with a disclaimer, that means that I was talking about SWA and that every "they" following that also refers to SWA. Are you following so far?



Then you wrote


Notice how you start with "they are pumping", which means you are talking about SWA. But then you talk about "if they had shares other than the 10MM", which means that you are saying that SWA owns the 10MM shares. This is why I replied to you, because you were wrong, at least according to SWA themself! In your latest reply, you said, "I never said SWA I said "They" as in the owners of the shares." False. Read the paragraph above and see your mistake, even if it was only ambiguity. If you were talking about two separate entities (SWA & a third-party) in the 2 sentences that you wrote above, then you did not make that clear at all.




So I replied with

Do you see how every "they" refers to SWA? If you can't see that, then I can't help you. There is not another party even mentioned anywhere in there, so if you are finding some sort of ambiguity in any of my posts, then again, I can't help you understand logic flow.





Again, if you can't follow a paragraph, I can't help you. The paragraph that you are taking issue with, where I only talk about "they" does not mention anyone else besides SWA, so you're trying to make up ambiguity where there is none. Read it all again.






Prove what? That they have to disclose how many shares they have or when they make a sale if they have more than 5%? I don't have to, it's a SEC Regulation!



I don't have an answer to that. And I didn't say that they HAD TO disclose whether they have shares or not, I qualified my statement and said that it only applied if they had more than 5% of the shares. I don't know how many shares they have or had, which is why I did not say whether or not they had to or did not have to disclose anything.





Then obviously you're not looking in the right place. Did you read every SEC regulation before you read one that you thought applied and told me I was wrong? Nope. Try looking for SEC regulations pertaining to 5-percent shareholders. I'll give you a starting point. SEC Filing SCD 13-D: The filing required by 5 percent (or more) equity owners within 10 days of acquisition event. There are lots of rules that apply to 5% shareholders, but I'm not doing all of your homework for you.

I didn't say that you were spouting off anything. In fact, I never said anything about you at all. But your reply to my post (that was about a specific fact and a specific person) had nothing to do with the original topic, and it still doesn't. You replied to a post about a specific fact and you're trying to relate it to everything else. My original post that you replied to was about something specific, not about everything else.

When SWA says, "We will be selling shares while we are pumping this stock", and a user posts, "SWA will not be selling shares while they are pumping this stock", that is called ignoring the facts, aka being in denial. I didn't make SWA selling a fact, they did!

If people want to ignore the facts, that's up to them, but they shouldn't spout off what they want to believe as if it were a fact, especially when the company they're spouting a fact about specifically said something that contradicts them. That's called lying.

Haha, yeah, I was still a little confused. But it's ok, I'm sure I get that way sometimes too. I try to just keep a logical flow of thoughts, and it's easier for me to stay on track.

I'm sorry, but I still don't know what your point was, in relation to my post at least.

I don't really know if it's a negative, but I sure don't think that it's a positive.




Are you talking about a secondary or tertiary offering?!? That is when those extra shares come out on the open market. And when they are offered at a price below the open market price, the stock market SP does NOT drop to that price! That would be ridiculous! If there are 100MM (MM is million, not market maker) outstanding shares at $21 and the company makes a secondary offering for 10MM shares at $15, why on earth would the market stock price drop to $15?!? The price that the company offers shares at has no correlation to the price of the stock on the open market. It's the price that the company decides to sell the shares for in order to raise money. That's it. Just because you pay $15 for the shares, doesn't mean they are immediately worth $15. If the market share price is $21, then they would immediately be worth $21 (minus the dilution effect). However, depending on the number of shares issued, the stock price will almost always go down some. But the amount that it goes down on is based on the number of shares issued because that determines the amount of dilution that is created. The value of the stock price is usually decreased less than the percentage of dilution because the company is also getting a huge inflow of cash, which increases the value of the company - but not usually as much as the dilution dilutes the shares because the offering is usually lower than the current market price. But the price of a stock does not drop to the price of the offering unless the offering points to a problem with the company, in which case, the stock price could go down, but not because of the price of the offering, because of the problem.





If a public stock promoter issues a promotion (positive or negative) for any stock, they are required by law to disclose their position (short, long, out). If they are promoting a stock, and they will be selling or buying shares within X days of the promotion (I forgot what the X number of days required is, something like 5 I think), then they are required to say whether they will be buying or selling shares. This is part of RegFD.

If you get a pump for KBLB from anyone, not just SWA, that does not mean that KBLB has sold them shares. Anyone is free to buy shares on the open market, pump the stock and then sell those shares, as long as they abide by RegFD and announce in the pump that they will be selling. The same applies for anyone bashing a stock. If they tell the world that the stock is horrible, they are required to announce that they will be buying the stock when it drops if that's what they plan to do.

HOWEVER, when a pump comes out about KBLB and that pump contains non-public information that is about to be released, or was released at the same time, then you can be sure that they received shares from the company, directly or indirectly. Those shares come with the information. Why would a financier agree to buy your shares without that information? They wouldn't be guaranteed the volume needed to get rid of the shares and still make a profit at the same time. And why would a financier buy shares from a company without a guarantee of profit? Financiers are in the business of making loans, not investments.

So in short, someone pumping KBLB does not necessarily mean that KBLB was involved, but when they have information that KBLB is about to release, then yes, KBLB was involved somehow. However, when KBLB sells shares to CSC, they are making a private agreement with a pre-announced contract, so they are not required to publicly announce every time they sell shares to CSC. But yes, in effect, that's what the SWA pumps do.





Your DD says that there is a collaboration, but until you read it in a filing or PR, you're in the dark? First of all, that is a direct contradiction. Second, what DD do you have that says that there is a collaboration with a company?!? There is none, unless you have non-public information.

And selling shares to CSC for "administrative expenses" while a collaborative company is giving you money for the pilot program is also not logical. The administrative expenses are the lease of their costs at this time. Why wouldn't Kim just include those costs in the value that he would have given the company that is giving him money? If a company is giving you large amounts of money to run a pilot program, why on earth would you need to get a tiny amount of money from CSC, especially when that money costs you share dilution? That's my whole point. There's no reason to get money from CSC if you have a partner giving you money. So if they are getting money from CSC, then you must not be getting money from anyone else!

I'm sorry, I read that 3 times and I still do not understand what you're trying to say. I would like to though, so if you wanted to write it in a more logical (step-by-step) way, maybe I would understand then?

That's my whole point! If SWA is pumping, it is because they are selling shares, or they were paid by someone who is. SWA had information that was in the PRs before it was released, therefore, it is foolish to believe that they did not get the information from KBLB, either directly or indirectly.

So if KBLB is giving out information to use to pump the stock, the only logical reason is because someone wants to sell shares. KBLB has an existing contract to sell shares to CSC, and in every past SWA pump, KBLB had just sold shares to CSC. Why would anyone think that this time is any different?

So if it is a very reasonable assumption that KBLB is selling shares to CSC to fund this production program, why on earth would anyone assume that KBLB has a partner that is also giving KBLB money at this time? If KBLB had someone else giving them money, there is no way that Kim would be selling shares to CSC and diluting the stock further.

Following the situation logically will not come to any other conclusion. Yes, it still could be wrong, but the odds that it is are pretty small.

Well I am positive about the fact that he is at least talking about commercialization and giving at least somewhat near-term time frames, but I still don't understand the point of releasing a PR every week when not much is being said (actually, I do understand, the point is to help pump the stock up so that the person that they sold shares to can sell those shares for a profit). Each one of those PRs is costing them between $500 and $5000. They are getting that money by selling shares (diluting MY shares). That is ridiculously stupid, and a poor way to spend money. A PR to announce Big Red and to announce a production pilot program, yes, those were substance, but why weren't they done in one PR? That was a waste of money. Every PR after those was a waste of money as well.

The ever-positives are saying, "You wanted more frequent communication, you got it, and you're still unhappy." We wanted the company to give a status update more than every 6 months, no one said spend money (AND DILUTE MY SHARES EVEN MORE) every single week just for the sake of doing it - that's what a company blog is for. Kim, quit spending MY money on useless PRs and put the information where it belongs, on your website, for free!

Ridiculous statements like the one I said? No. And I really, really hope that no one else here actually believes that either. If so, they should immediately give their money to someone else to manage.

OMG! First, they wont be selling those 10 million shares in May because it clearly states that someone else owns them! SWA can't sell shares that they do not own! Second, it clearly states that they will be selling at the same time that they are pumping. They cannot sell shares if they don't own any! And Third, NO, they do not have to disclose how many shares they have, OR how many they sell unless they own more than 5% of the outstanding shares!

I wish everyone would quit making up facts because they don't want to hear the truth!

Agreed. I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that KBLB needs a large amount of money at this time, so they probably sold a large amount of shares. The people who bought those shares need to pump the stock before they sell or they will crash the share price with the volume that they are selling - thus, they will lose money. And since the first couple of SWA pumps came out before or at the exact same time as the official PRs, it is obvious that they are working with KBLB to get information needed to pump with.

It makes logical sense, and it is not even a stretch to believe. Yet some people here refuse to believe anything like that, so they keep saying, "No, a third party is probably paying for this production program, and it's probably a potential customer like Nike or Dupont! That has to be it! Yeah, potential customers pay for a company to let them know how much it will cost to buy their products all the time!!!"

Oh ok, gotcha. Maybe he should use <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags so that not only is his point still made, but people who started to just skim his posts know that he's not being serious. :)

Same here, but it seems that everyone wants to skew facts to meet their agenda - both positive and negative posters. I find it funny when they add things like "Let's stick to facts" after their post to make there statements seem like facts when they're just as made-up as the people they're contradicting.

First, SWA doesn't have restricted shares, a third party does and SWA will be paid when the third party sells those shares. Those shares can be sold in May 2013. They might not be, but that's the earliest that they can be sold. Those are the facts.

Also, their disclaimer clearly states that they will be selling shares at the same time that they are pumping the stock, so obviously they have shares (that are not restricted) to sell at this time as well.

lol, well I'm an equal opportunist, so I'll accept it.

I don't want to be lumped together with the absolute positive posters or absolute negative posters, because I am neither of those. I think that thinking in absolutes is the first mistake to a bad trade. I accept all realistic possibilities, both positive and negative, as just that - possibilities. I don't think that all possibilities are equally as likely to occur though, and that's where I think that faith and hope have a role.