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.
Two critical questions to IWEB management that will show their intent and competency:
1. Did the conversion of the stock come with restrictive covenants? If this is a conversion of old debt then they are not obligated have to have the stock restricted, but did they enforce any restrictions?
2. Did Sand Hill include (as part of the conversion agreement) any non-dilutive clause?
Sand Hill in anticipation for massive dilution may have protected themselves by including a non-dilution clause which will force IWEB to issue them stock every time they issue stock to anyone thus keeping Sand Hill at the under 10% perpetually and that would explain why Sand Hill agreed to the premium to Market since they will be issued a crap load of stock very soon and on-going. Counting on the perpetual stock promo's that IWEB runs, Sand Hill is sure to find a quicker way to get their debt paid back. IMHO
Question is: Where is the agreement and why wasn't it filed with the 8K.
It is very sticky and questionable with this stock having to always worry about the fine writing with every deal or announcement they make. IMO
"This will go up when you least expect it", it certainly inline with the company management approach of: We don't have to do anything, the product will just sell itself, we are just waiting for the checks to arrive.
Stock performance is attached to company performance, company performance is attached to sales/revenue performance. Absent sales/revenue, stock goes no where.
No one is Delusional about the stock performance today and the reason behind it, it is masked by the paid pumps to pay bills.
As to the question of why Sand Hill agreed to the conversion, it is BS that they "believe" in the company, because Sand Hill management are not idiots and the company executed NO SALES for Sand Hill to "believe in them". The simple reason is that they don't have any other options. They will not get paid (never will) because the company simply can not pay them (the company is broke) and it is better to get equity (and stay under 10% - hence the magic number of 0.0444) and pick up whatever they can when the company is sold for scrap (which is what Sand Hill will probably attempt to do IMO).
A simple test: Let's see if IWEB can survive 30 days without a stock pump/promo.
IMHO.
Can you elaborate on your definition of the company being SOLID without any sales and paying bills with shares and diluting the crap out of shareholders?
I admire the attempt to highlight the opportunities ahead of IWEB, we all (well, most) got into this stock because of the opportunities, however, IWEB proved that it does not posses the management skills to further the shareholder interest. If this was a private company (without a stock currency) it would have shut its doors 16-18 months ago.
So, regardless of the size of the market, this company cannot execute a sale and it run as a side business from a basement. IMO
Last sale 1 week ago. Company needs 4 sales a day to survive. IMO + the financial facts.
Its a shame...
An "A" manager hires "A+" employees, a "B" manager hires "C and D" employees. Clearly the board and management of IWEB are B managers and that's being generous. IMO. This is evidenced by their lack of swift action regarding the non-existence of sales in a market that is "hot" the cloud computing (according to all the old posts that are being revived)
A shareholder will have to wonder why isn't the board making changes to management? Why aren't they bothered or angry by lack of sales and the clear and obvious failure of the company? Don't they at least have a reputation to protect?
Is a $100K sales in an entire quarter not enough evidence that their team is not able to produce?
Why aren't we as shareholders getting a letter from the board explaining how they plan on turning this company around?
Who really cares about a merger/acquisition that brings on more debt and dilution from a company that can't even sell their own products? Is the formula (failure * failure = success?) That only works in math with 2 negatives numbers.
Board, take action and demonstrate your commitment to shareholder value.
GLTA as Luck is the only thing left.
This has nothing to do with whatever land you live on (penny, sub-penny, dollar, etc...) this has to do with past performance.
One can dream all they want that If/When they can sell, it's going to be great. That goes pretty much for any thing and any company private or public.
There is one and only one issue at hand here and I would love to have someone give me tangible and factual response to issue of SALES (well, lack of any).
It's very simple. Management and Board don't know how to sell, they only know how to pump and dump (IMHO). They have a nice formula that allows them to pay for company operational costs with promotional dollars. Promotional dollars seem to go farther in paying their bills than with real sales. IMO
It's not a difficult point to understand. You can chose to change the topic and discuss fraud but that's not the point at hand. The point at hand is much simpler than that.
In Q2, the company announced 4 sales which produced $100K
The company needs 4 sales a day in order for it to survive and begin to show shareholder value. When the company starts to release 4 press releases a day then let's all get excited about IWEB and the press releases it generates.
In the meantime, management needs to be dismissed (IMHO) and new management should explain the plan to move from 4 sales a quarter to 4 sales a day.
This is a competency issue not a fraud issue. You can chose to disagree, but your argument and debate will have to be with the numbers not with me.
Additionally, no sales (as in zero) in June. I believe you answered your own question of whether IWEB can sell or not.
Since you reference "Press Releases", lets recap the press releases in Q2 and the results:
4/1 Significant Sale of ...
4/5 Second Significant Sale of ...
4/17 IceWeb Annouces Sale of ...
5/13 IceWeb Adds NASA
Emphasis on the word SIGNIFICANT and ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT then throw the name NASA in there all resulted in $100K of sales.
You want to read and believe the press releases or the filings?
You answer the question if they are able to sell or not to sell. We all see the numbers.
Did you actually read the entire Q or did you just smell it? ;)
If it wasn't for the calculated, predictable pumps that comes just around pay-day and the associated bait (I meant news) that attracts new buyers, this stock would be at 0.001 IMO.
With that said, it will not get down to those low levels because the company figured that with every $20K of pumping, they are able to meet $100K of salaries and expenses, so, it's a nice formula and they will stick with it until they figure our sales, which they won't because that has to do with what management is good at and they are not good at running this type of company.
Don't be surprised if there is yet another CEO to be announced in the next 2-3 months after the merger fails. IMHO.
GTLA!
Yes, I am still standing by that stock. The numbers look great and SANT is one of the best OTC performing companies.
What are these numbers?
- Double digit growth years after year and quarter after quarter
- Reducing debt while growing the company and self-funding it
- No shareholder dilution, no warrants, no notes, no toxic financing.
Everything is moving quickly in the right direction.
Happy to hear your negative thoughts about the company performance if any (not the stock performance).
That's my objective opinion. Since you don't hold any position in this stock then you are clearly stating subjective opinion based on personal issues perhaps with the company or management which are not relevant here. IMO.
Nevertheless, if you can list (verifiable facts) any OTC company that is equal in fundamental performance, I promise not to post anything again. The fact is, you will not be able to and will reference the stock performance which is a different problem all together and not related to the quality of the company on the long run.
Not dismissing the stock performance as an issue at all, what shareholder doesn't want the SP to go up and continue?
Short-term, yes, the stock performance is very weak to say the least and this is attributed to exposure and visibility not company performance.
I did not reload at these levels (wish I could). I have another OTC stock where the company is on the verge of bankruptcy but it's an awesome stock to swing at least twice a week. That might be more of your cup-of-tea stock rather than SANT if you are interest in tech stock.
GTLA!!
Not enough money will be able to solve the 3 items you listed at the stage that the company is in now. Perhaps 2 years ago it would have worked. This is now a money pit. IMO
According to IWEB there is no market demand for their product. Sales down 66% because of slowed down demand (read the full Q).
So, regardless of what pumpers are trying to convince you that the market is huge, IWEB is telling you that the Market is shrinking and even if the Market is big (which it is), they are not able to sell.
There is no point in listing the negative aspects of the Q, it is an easier summary to conclude that there was nothing positive and things are going from bad to worse.
A company with revenue of around $30K a month (less than a hot dog stand business) in a market with high need is worth pausing and taking a closer look at management's failure which is still blaming the deceased CEO over a year ago for the reason they don't have sales today.
The "merger" is irrelevant and if CTC goes forward with it, it is important to ponder the question of Why they would be? Investors beware of this merger of 2 failures. IMO
What a shame! GLTA
Seriously? You actually believe that Google would be in a bidding war with IWEB to acquire CTC? LMAO!
To what extend and extreme do people put out bait for unsuspecting investors to bite on?
Google, IWEB, CTC should not be used in the same sentence.
CTC is a broke company looking to merge with another broke company with each getting something very specific out of the deal (which will not happen in my opinion) and here is why:
1. CTC thought they'd get cash out of the deal through stock but quickly realized that they will not be able to as the stock price is over inflated today and they won't have enough time to dump it before it reaches sub-penny.
2. IWEB has no revenue, no sales and no real investors other than the day traders and they will constantly chase virtual deals to keep cycling investors/day traders.
Two broke companies don't make a whole. IMO
miggs, we can agree to disagree but numbers never lie and this company clearly has the numbers and thus the fundamentals.
The stock is another issue and also related to numbers albeit, a different set of numbers, and these numbers are the number of shareholders supporting this stock and they are VERY thin, that's why you see big gaps between the bid/ask and also volatility in the stock price with small size transactions. The stock has no support because it has no visibility NOT because the company is not performing.
I don't know how many shareholders carry this stock, but I doubt it's more than 100. this board is a good representation of that as there are ONLY 3-4 active participants on this board. I believe one can get a report of shareholders of record and validate that, but I am not too concerned with that right now, rather focused on the company's continued ability to grow, increase revenue, maintain profits and not diluting any shareholders. So far, so good and one hopes the trend continues.
IMHO, visibility for this type of company may not come while on the OTC and they might have to wait to meet minimum requirements and move up to a better exchange and that's why it's a great long-term investment but no so much a good stock to trade on a daily/weekly basis.
GLTA...
I don't know why you are complaining. This is *THE* ideal company to trade day and night. Milk it for what it's really is and don't expect any long-term returns because there won't be any!
I was once hopeful and don't think will ever recover from my original position from buying that the 0.07 range, but that was a good lesson learned. I did make up the difference since then with small swings and waiting (or actually counting on) the next pump.
It took a while for this one to come and it went by quickly and I missed my chance. But at least you can count on there being another one soon. Just be ready to catch the early morning volume. IMHO
Fundamentals, Fundamentals, Fundamentals and this company has it. Numbers speak louder than speculation. Increased revenue, continued profits and reduced debt. No borrowing/new debt, no shareholder dilution. This is one to invest in not one to day trade. Looking for stock to day trade and make $200/day, glad to point you in the right direction. I have a list. Professional long-term investors will tell you the same. Only thing missing for the stock to move is more visibility other than that, you can't ask for better performance. It's that simple!
Summary: Exceptional Strong Fundamentals/Performance - Poor Company Visibility/Exposure.
Still bullish.... GLTA
Howe is his own #1 fan. He really needs to be coached on writing press releases. It sounded from his statement that he was surprised that they "Found a Sweetspot". Meaning, they tried random approaches and surprised themselves that one actually worked. They he goes on to take personal credit for this success. I wonder how his employees feel about his attitude and what type of positive work environment that is.
A work environment does affect stock price, if you were to follow the thread.
Finally, do numbers give him allergies?
A Company with no quality in communication or execution. It is very sad, I never thought that this would happen to this company, but I have to admit that I was way off thinking that IWEB would make it.
This company will never produce anything of value to shareholders, that is evidenced by the last PR from Mr. Howe where he uses language that is more appropriate for blogging (even questionable) rather than investors who supported him.
Then it's down hill from there, the paying employees with shares, then spending money on worthless campaigns so that they can find a way to cash in their paychecks.
Perhaps now they can see one reality and hope they learn from it. STOP the PUMP/DUMP and PROMO's this is ONLY expediting your share demise. You are better off doing nothing than doing promo's. You can watch the trend on the share decline in a given 2 week period and compare that to the rapid decline after a promo.
I will say it again, the true market share price is between 0.007 and 0.01. That would be considered a good buy provided they can still show any sales. Which they can't.
I can't help myself but post even after I decided not to anymore, it's just too incredibly unbelievable.
Cheers and good luck.
IWEB is many channel partners away and is already 3 times over it's right value (share price should be around 0.017). read my previous post.
Don't want to burst your bubble buckyboy, but the fact that IWEB has a proprietary platform is one of the main reasons why no one will touch it. No company would take the risk on a major implementation or investment in a product that is supported by a proprietary technology from a company this may or may not exist in a few months and they will be stuck with "proprietary".
IF (serious if) IWEB can float for 12-18 months, their best hope is to convince smaller channel partners (almost the mom/pop shops) to carry their products then build momentum from there. So, contrary to your "hope", iWEB is actually MANY partners away from success (not one).
It is clear to me now that Howe is clueless and is just trying everything and anything including convincing an unsuspecting company that he can sell their cloud based products when he can't tell his own.
He doesn't get the fact that it is not just the product, its the company behind the product. Consumers (especially large deals) will always look at the company revenue and will never contribute more than 15-20% a company's revenue in sales. Meaning, if iWeb does $100K in a quarter, large consumers would not want to contribute more then $20K of sales to that company because it is high risk from them to be in a position where they are funding and floating their vendors.
Howe and iWEB have a very poor strategy and execution plan. Howe thinks that press releases and crafty words will save him and the company. That was true 3-5 years ago, not anymore. Investors are now savvy enough to read the reports and no longer buy press releases.
Time to delivery or get someone else who can/will delivery.
I wish them the best, I have cut my losses and will site on the sideline watching for anything tangible.
Cheers...
That's what happens when you don't do your homework and follow the hype (yes, speaking to myself) and not do proper DD even on a penny stock. I don't have the leverage to trade the swing so will have to wait until that opportunity. Had I done my DD, I would have realized that the true share price should be 0.017 - IMO
Will hang in there and enjoy the show :)
Cheers...
That’s the pathetic level that we have reached. A ~$14M market cap company, spends $200 to issue a press release for a $35K sale to manipulate the shares and the shareholders and people cheer.
Don’t blame the company for pumping those useless press releases if you are cheering their “success”. Encouraging and worse yet, supporting bad behavior never produced any positive results. Good luck to all…
He is either being manipulated or manipulating everyone else. I am going to go with that he is naïve, no experience with public companies, treats shareholders like children telling them stories and expect them and the market to react to his words. He certainly is learning on the job and has no idea what he is in for. JMO
What a strange partnership...
1. Why would a company that offers an "alternative" to cloud storage give an exclusive agreement to a company that focuses on "cloud storage"?
2. Why would a company that can't even sell their own product take on an "exclusive" distribution of yet a new set of products?
Conclusion: desperation and bad management from both companies.
Would like to see the terms and duration of that "exclusive" agreement. It is perpetual? 1 year? 1 week? or just for today as the pump starts?
This is getting more confusing and uglier by the day.
Based on what indicators is it worth 0.06? They are locked themselves in a corner, making short-term decisions to stay afloat that killed them long-term. Where is the upside? They will need to generate millions of sales. They are far from that.
Kudos? :) That's a long stretch.
Mr. Howe is either learning on the job or intentionally misleading shareholders.
You don't make a statements and stand solid behind it on Friday then Monday you make an exception to your position or philosophy.
He thinks that he will be able to manipulate the market and shareholders with BIG promises (my guess is that his lawyers would not be in support of today's letter).
All Howe has now are words. He won't be able to raise capital or get acquired and needs to fight lawsuits on top of it yet,
despite this knowledge which he has been sitting on, he spend time and money gesturing that he is "talking to investors in Las Vegas" and "We shipped more in October than the full quarter".
I suggest he actually does stop communicating fluff and save the $200 a press release that he spends and put that towards sales and marketing efforts and come back with he has numbers. REAL NUMBERS, as in "units" sold.
Need some advice. Seriously....
I am puzzled and genuinely looking for some intellectual feedback on the following:
1. Why would a company with sales of ~$100K a quarter and ~$6M in losses and such volatile customer base still have shares trading at 0.06 (or even 0.05)?
2. Why would aren't there mass exodus? Why are people still hanging around? I am upside down on this stock but not enough volume to get out even will reasonable losses.
3. Who would want to buy this? and how long is "long" hold? 1,2,3 years?
4. Why would Howe accept such a low salary and be associated wit IWEB in its current condition? what's the uptick for him? Are we missing something here?
cheers...
Amen to that! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.
@Miggs, do you actually read the replies that Eagle posts? you are glad that he is here to set the "record straight", yet you are on the opposite end of his view. You don't believe that SANT will amount to anything, he believes that it will soar.
@Eagle, Yes, I am aware that 50-90% of acquisitions fail to meet financial expectations, but there is no debate that acquisition is a valid and good strategy for public companies to create shareholder value. Especially if the acquisition is of strategic value.
There are dozens of reasons including; lack of a strategic fit (meaning, outside the parent company core competency), bad financial arrangement and structure of the deal, misaligned cultures (is a common and big one), failed integration, lost focus on the purpose and losing sight of clients and sales, etc...
I am noticing from your posts that you tend to issue BIG, generalizing statements such as: there is only one valuation model and M&A never produce any value to the parent/acquiring company. While you can find cases that fit these examples, that does not negate the existence of many successes.
We both seem to believe in SANT, but think that success is going to come from different sources.
One last question: among your latest statements, you said "none of the insiders are selling". What do you base that on; guessing or common sense or fact (meaning, you pulled transaction reports)?
Reading posts on this board that go back 2 years, all points to or slams ex-management for selling, what makes YOUR view the correct one now? I am not saying that they are or they aren't. Unlike you, I don't make BOLD statements without facts. So, can you please clarify.
Cheers...
Speculative and Uneducated/Unsubstantiated posts make for a fun read. Glad the split happened to get the stock away from penny campaigners and "most" day traders, manipulators and bottom-feeding MM's
With ALL due respect to the "I told you so..", what exactly have you "told us so?".
This stock is very undervalued (now even more) and needs to be in the hands of those who will hold on to it for a few months.
A company that is growing rapidly, generating cash does not need to finance anything and if it did, I would presume it will be for increasing value through an acquisition, which will helps all of us.... Had this happened a couple of years ago, where there were no sales and continued losses, THEN these posts would have merit.
TODAY.. none of these negative posts hold ANY merit let alone truths. IMO...
Best of luck... waiting for my "I told you so" turn... :)
eagle, you can stick to your academia and I will stick with what I see everyday.
In the meantime, check historical valuations on pure "services" organization and see if you think your DCF method will give you the returns you are anticipating. I am not here for Services. I do believe in this company but for longer term values around products and annuity based revenue. I am glad they are making money from Services and profitable, but in my opinion that's an unstable (ie. no barrier to entry) as well as common (it's IT after all) commodity, not enough reason for a public company investment - IMHO.
by the way, you never explained nor justified why Groupon valuation (if it was based on pure DCF, which it wasn't) jumped from $250M to $1.2B in 4 months.
Also, don't you think that your strong support for DCF (as opposed to what I was suggesting being ACTUALLY used)as *THE* method used today for valuation did not hold any water and both stocks you mentioned lost at least 50% of their value within weeks of IPO? Why is that? Did these investors not understand the "D"? :)
cheers...
Interesting the example you gave. Because once again, you are debating yourself and here is why....
1. Quite telling that you view Groupon as a Tech company. This is a company that its biggest asset is their mailing list and a business model around selling discounted coupons. Perhaps because they use email to send "daily deals" that made them a tech company. Nevertheless, let's consider them a "technology" company for debate sake. Here is their valuation history:
- 12/2009 - $250M
- 4/10 (4 months later) - $1.2B
- 4/10 (2 weeks later) - $1.35B
- 12/10 - $4.75B
- 2/11 - $6B
Since you chose them to prove your point, can you explain the DCF method used in this example with every capital raise they did. Or was it not a DCF method? :) (at least complete your research and read the full/all the "analysts reports")
3. Can you also explain (with numbers) how you determined SANT's undervalue using DCF based on their last quarterly filings? You lost me there, unless you are looking a different version of their financials that only you have access to. Especially that you think they should focus on "services"
In the meantime I will go educate myself and read an "Analyst report" as you suggested.
Eagle, you are either very confused or purposefully trying to confuse everyone.
You are arguing and debating your own points that you keep making, which tells me you just like to read your own posts. So stick to one thread of thought. Here is why…
1. On one hand you claim that this stock is undervalued, while based on your valuation method (DCF) this stock is overvalued. So, which one?
2. If you stick to the universal and only valuation method that you are suggesting then you really don’t know how this industry works by suggesting that the only way this company will make it is through services. So, you think services will be the way this company will generate cash to support your ONE and ONLY valuation method. Wrong again
3. Can you name ONE (yes, just ONE) technology company that was valued (through M&A or IPO) using DCF by the “people who value companies for a living” statement that you made so strongly. Just one will make your point. That should be easy, since all other valuation models went away since the tech bubble burst. So, today ANY/ALL tech valuations use DCF, so it should be a piece of cake and takes you 2 seconds to just shoot me the name of ONE company.
Cheers….
I think IWEB is allergic to numbers. None of the press releases or activities give indication to revenue or even estimated revenue. The take away from the last press release is that we have not sold anything ourselves yet, but hope that someone else can sell under their own brand.
So the questions are:
1. Why are they not able to influence their own sales
2. What makes them think that someone else can sell their own products
3. What are they doing wrong/different that others are doing right.
A channel (even OEM) is indeed a good source, but it is only designed to bring in new revenue on top of current. So, what is the current?
In all cases, I will view this as a neutral PR for now... let's hope it does bring some results. But it will take at least another 6-8 months (if not a year - which is not bad) before we see any revenue from this deal.
This must win post of the year! I have not had an out loud laugh at a post for months. I am referring to the metric indicator. True! was it the weight of the boxes that pushed them over.
Very sad but true. Why haven't we seen numbers come out in any of the releases for the past quarter? Why are all PR's qualitative not quantitative?
Cheers... keep them coming SeanBoy
Miggs, you are partially correct and have the right to be skeptical. Like you, I work hard for my money and invest wisely in stock when I see a good deal.
My opinion is that SANT is a great deal for several reasons:
1. While your skepticism comes from past experience with this stock, it really isn't with "this" stock. It was with the previous management and business model which from the little research I was able to gather, had no revenues and were not growing. So, you are comparing apples to oranges here.
2. You really can’t dispute how much this company accomplished in the last 12 months. The numbers really do speak for themselves.
2. You are looking at a penny/sub-penny stock, which is a target for promoters and pumpers and dumpers. I believe that this company has bigger plans. Why do I believe that, because they don't behave like a penny stock and I see the hiring of professional firms to help them as a strong sign.
3. I totally and completely disagree with you about the stock not reaching the 0.02 cent mark. As a matter of fact, this stock should be at the 0.07 cent mark with strong support and let me tell you why (so that you don't think that I am just hyping up the stock for no reason). It is a matter of math and a simple valuation model. SANT today is a "services" organization in technology, which on a bad day is evaluated at 1x revenue (once again, using simple valuation model and past performance). This means that if they close their books at $3.5M, then the stock is trading at exactly where it needs to be, which is 0.007 (again, it's just the math). If the company started to move into products and show revenue from products even little revenue, the valuation model changes to 5 to 15x. So, let's say that by end of 2013, their revenue is $5M (total speculation but based on current growth rate) and let's assume that the market is still unfavorable to them and gives them a 3x (not a 5 or 15x), this puts them at $15M valuation and the stock at 0.03. I believe that they should pull in more revenue and that they should be valued at more than 3x. You can continue on the math from here.
That's why I am sticking with this stock. simply my view and opinion.
Note: So called self proclaimed experts on this board that suggest SANT should stick to "Services" have no clue what they are talking about and you should be very careful what people are trying to sell you here out of either ignorance (which is harder to spot) or manipulation.
I am no stock expert, but I am have a lot of business valuation and acquisition experience and I am sticking to my math and once again time will tell.
Note, this all works if SANT continues to do what they are doing and they don't go out and mess with the formula and do something negative with the capital structure. But then again, that's the risk you get with everyone public company no matter how good the story is.
Good luck to you and me...
Eagle... I don't know Dave personally and the statement that you referred to of "guy in CA with deep pockets..." was not my post...
As for the stock performance, it has NOTHING to do with the company performance and here is one reason:
http://otcshortreport.com/SANT
While this is the name of the game with penny stock, with SANT specifically these are excessively very high %s.
Indeed it does and probably will again. However, the great news which I believe everyone overlooked is the engagement of FTI Consulting. If you know who they are and who they represent (take the top 10 Tech companies and I assure you that they rely on FTI), you will know that they don't take on small clients and when they do, it is for a very specific reason and plan that they believe in. So, I believe the best is yet to come. I see the real wave coming (to stick with the theme ;) )
cheers...
Indeed they are Pepperspray88.... A $1.2B NYSE company to choose to work with SANT is a HUGE deal. These guys represent the TOP NOTCH companies in the world. Something interesting is about to take place...
That is a very aggressive split. While I actually agree with you on the reasoning and the outcome, I think it might be premature.
If you are going to execute such an aggressive split for the purpose of up-listing, you better get all your ducks in a row (making sure the requirements for the new exchange are met) because historically companies that do a reverse split see double digit % drops in their stock within 3 months of the split. So, if post split you are dancing that fine line to meet min. share price while working on the other requirements, you might be forced to do another reverse split and that's not good.
So, I believe they should wait until above the 0.02 cent mark before considering this. They should also do a better job communicating value to the shareholder base, since they have not had any communications, I suspect that this will happen any time soon. IMO
SANT, based on their performance should be trading sustainably near the 0.03 mark with the proper exposure. These campaigns help and are good.
SANT is very (VERY) undervalued by any analyst standard and these campaigns help lift them up. At least they are attracting new faces to a good company.
They are a company that are doing all the right things and are in the right space, they just need to do a lot more IR/PR.
To answer your question about Dave, he has been around for 6 years. I am new to the boards myself, but try to learn about the board moderators. Good luck, will be an interesting week.