Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I also foresaw the RS in the attached post and I'm telling you now, that once the RS does kick in, this will sell down fast, so anyone investing now is kidding themselves that they're getting a good price.
Imagine buying a million shares now at .007. That'll cost you $7K. After the 50:1 RS you end up with 20,000 shares @ 0.35 each. Still $7K. However, if that price drops to 30 cents or 25 cents, you can see how that will decimate the value of your investment pretty quickly and it will happen, mark my words. If they do a 50:1 split at 0.007 (unlikely, they'll wait and lift it before then), I believe it'll probably stabilise post-split at around 0.15 to 0.20ps so you can look forward to a 50% or more hit. This is qualified conjecture by the way, as I've seen it many many times which is why when the proprietors want the price at $0.20 (for example) they'll pitch the level of the split at roughly double that. But don't take my word for it, do some research, there are plenty of sites that show the effects on price of a RS shortly after the event.
So, if you've any faith in what this company is now doing, then I would wait for the corporate actions to take place, and the price to stabilise, and then consider gradually taking a position in stages and accumulating.
Anyone already in and bag holding this, I pity you.
Killmaster. Your post seems to echo my concerns and for that, you appear to be in agreement with me.
There's not a lot to see here really, unless they can pull a rabbit out of the hat somewhere. That they only lease these images confirms a prophecy I made quite some time ago (in the attached post), that TTCM under any other name, is merely a conduit through which leased tech will be monetised by way of selling shares.
Certainly food for thought and if nothing else, considering the implications of this new direction, my script has prompted some sensible conversation. Well, at least among the two of us.
So now here's the thing. Let's assume we treat this as a legitimate enterprise and not merely an unsaleable image archive looking to monetise using the vehicle of a listed company to sell shares in. There are a few major issues to overcome two of which I can think of right off the bat.
1) Shareholder Rights
Is this image archive actually an asset that forms part of the intrinsic value of the company, i.e. has it been added to the balance sheet as wholly owned by TTCM (soon to be rebadged Artelligence), or is TH (as did DLM) merely licensing the tech to the newly named but previously existing shell company (That's all TTCM ever was in reality)? Whatever its true valuation is, there IS a financial value in this tangible core product suite and one would hope that would be integrated into the company coffers. Naturally, were that the case, investment in the business would encompass SH's owning part of that asset. If though, this is licensed tech, this of course means that SH's own diddly squat except a right to the benefits of capital appreciation of the shares should income streams and growth strategies attract a premium over their initial investment.
2) The Current Product Offering
The second point I have is about the offering which is slightly more technical and quite possibly out-with my pay grade. But hear me out, if a company wants an image (or a combination of the same) for a specific purpose (let's say an ad campaign) and they can find it in the Regal Photo Archive. Why would they choose to go to Regal when there are many almost identical images out there that they can use either for free or at a very nominal cost?
Some Examples:
On this webpage - https://regalphotoarchive.com/gallery/ you have the following (amongst others):
1) Golden gate bridge in B&W (so many examples readily available): https://tinyurl.com/2s3meknt
2) Paul Newman in racing gear (Col): https://tinyurl.com/22epd39r
3) Alfred Hitchcock looking back in his director's chair (B&W): https://tinyurl.com/53x83bsy Now this one has the very same image on Regal's site and it's apparently owned by someone else?
And I could go on and on and on. I'm willing to bet, that though there are some great pictures here, there will be more (by a factor of ten) that are either nearly as good (and fit for the client's purpose), as good, or better.
In short, this Regal Archive seems to me more like a collector's potpourri of images that were put together because they liked them. Rather like a photo collection you or I may have. Where they have copyright over a specific image in the gallery, anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together can find a dozen or more of each, that, although slightly different, would serve the same purpose in (I'm willing to bet) more than 99% of cases. Why would anyone ever need an image that is so specific, from this gallery and in fact, in some cases, not at all unique, as identical images are available elsewhere and possibly for free?
So, without adding additional value (features) to these images that are of benefit to the customer/buyer (and watermarking it to say who owns it, is not of value to a potential buyer at all, it only benefits the owner, unless of course, they transfer title over to the buyer and then, would they really pay a premium just to own the copyright of an image, + Regal then lose it), Once again, I don't see a USP with this Archive and as a creative in the industry if I wanted an image that was within the Regal Photo Archive (for which they would charge me probably at the high end of the range), I'd probably settle for something that's already out there and free.
Rather than a nicely curated image offering, this is more of a curate's egg, where costs to the end user, may well persuade them to seek out a free or much cheaper source. Once again, significant value needs to be added to these images to make them saleable and that comes at a cost folks and a high one at that!
Happy week.
You sound surprised hahaha
Have a nice weekend.
If they can get a handle on these issues, then they're off to the races, and no mistake:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-06-09/how-generative-ai-can-amplify-racial-gender-stereotypes-big-take
https://nypost.com/2023/06/09/ai-tool-stable-diffusion-amplifies-race-and-gender-stereotypes/
https://www.namecheap.com/blog/addressing-racial-and-gender-bias-in-generative-ai/
https://www.imd.org/research-knowledge/digital/articles/ais-bias-challenge/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/ai-machine-learning-bias-discrimination/
Articles on this subject abound, but the general consensus is the same and can perhaps be summed up thus:
"Until we can fix AI’s bias problem humans have an important role to play in designing new AI systems to avoid bias and prevent discrimination. We, as human decision-makers still need to be wary of AI and must have the final say on whether certain predictions get acted upon, if we want to prevent discrimination in many important areas of business."
It's clear the current crop of offerings out there, doesn't have the critical capability to eliminate bias (as in society as a whole).
And so to how can they niche themselves. Well, leveraging the African-American angle to address the issue of Bias would be a great start wouldn't it? That would build the moat on which to float the whale investors' boat (though I expect if they're a whale, they can swim!).
Undoubtedly, they need to be aligned with leading researchers in this area,
In that regard, firstly I'd say, that academic institutions are the vital link between the development and commercialisation of their offering. These guys seem to have a bit of a lead on it stateside:
https://hbr.org/2019/10/what-do-we-do-about-the-biases-in-ai
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/manage-ai-bias-instead-of-trying-to-eliminate-it/
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/case-studies/designing-ai-all-primer-bias-artificial-intelligence-systems
I think a few people might have heard of them, no?
Or perhaps my alma mater:
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/academy/activities/seminar/ai-and-race-webinar
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/cim/research/shaping-21st-century-ai/shifting-ai-report/shai_workshop_report_17_april_2023.pdf
https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/an_ethical_eye/
There's a massive body of research into this area now, surely it's not beyond the wit of man (a gender bias idiom if ever there was one) to see where they need to position themselves.
Then there are the leading AI-driven businesses including:
https://www.datamation.com/featured/ai-companies/
What's to stop Artelligence from seeking to form strategic alliances upstream (at the academic research level) and perhaps JV's or agreed MOU's to cooperate with downstream commercial partners?
If I were them, I'd be looking to partner with a leading business who are playing catch-up with the likes of ChatGPT, because they probably need the input, to fast-track their development of a competing offering.
What I'm saying is, they shouldn't try to go it alone, but they may be able to carve out an important and hitherto (it seems), untapped bridging role within the value chain between the two major stakeholder groups.
Just a few thoughts on a Sunday morning.
Accepting your other points as ultimately, your opinion, as were my points, mine, I'd say in answer to this:
"Do you think with the recent changes there are any chances for success?"
We'd have to start by defining what success actually means, and for whom.
Do I think the company can thrive and grow? Well, first of all, let's be very clear, this is a completely new enterprise, so forget about Arknet and all that fluff.
Supposing they at least do the following, corporate structure-wise:
1) Get rid of all the baggage (I think we all know what that means and I don't mean luggage).
2) Fix the share structure because 9bn+ OS is absurd. I guess the RS and name change will take care of that. One must be cognisant though that this new SS with a 50:1 split or whatever it eventually is, will sell down immediately after (reverse splits invariably do, which is why companies that do this usually overegg the split to allow for the sp to fall to a level they're comfortable with) so, once the price has stabilised after the sell-down, then we'll have an idea what the market values the company at.
3) Appoint an independent NED (preferably a Board of, but at this stage, at least one), to represent the SH's interests and fulfill the general role of NED's which is to maximise shareholder value.
4) Provide independently audited accounts that attest to and legitimise the claimed sky-high valuation of the assets. If that's not possible to do, then realign that valuation downwards toot sweet, in order to provide confidence in the marketplace, such that this stock then becomes well, tute sweet (see what I did there) as an investment opp.
On the plus side, my view looking at the Regal asset image suite (which they've admitted needs an improved UI), they certainly do have something tangible as a product offering (assuming they have what they claim they have). But even so, it's fanciful to suggest there's $3bn + value in this, without proof and they also need to stop claiming this asset has some unique value proposition and get ready to position themselves in this highly competitive industry. On that note, Market Segmentation and Product Positioning will be key. AI is in vogue and appears to be the way to go (well at least one of the niches, I can think of several more, one of which would be an immediate and significant revenue stream). They've identified that (AI), so yes they have a chance in my view. But there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip, so having a valuable asset and being able to monetise it, are two different animals altogether and whether they have the right team in place to match their product offering to the various and growing income stream opportunities, is key. Looking at who's now running the show, I believe they will still need to on-board appropriate talent to develop and grow these new business verticals and since Linda Yaccarino's a bit busy now, I'd say they need to get cracking on their head of Business Development (or whatever else they fancy calling her/him).
But get rid of the leeches, they don't help cure diseases they bring the patient down and the one that was on life support for the last three years needs the machine switched off!
All of course, IMO.
Cheers have a good one.
Ah yes. Forgive me it must have slipped my mind.
Well since Awesome trousered 150K of the SH's money and went on the hoof, perhaps the eminently more trustable Cook might be interested in a JV to have exclusivity for the app on Vision Pro. Seems a good fit, unless that is ARtelligence has plans to develop a superior product offering from the massive profits they'll be making with the Regal image archive. ARtelevision with tight chromium plate perhaps. Anyone for Tautchrome?
https://regalphotoarchive.com/gallery/ (alledged valuation $3.1Bn?)
Latest 8K dated 06/02/23
"Product and Service Offering:
Our core offering will be curated collections of trusted photographs, bearing our patented watermark, that meet the specific requirements of AI developers. Our databases will encompass a wide range of categories, including but not limited to objects, scenes, activities, emotions, and environmental factors. Each photograph will undergo a rigorous verification process, ensuring accurate labeling, consistent quality, and freedom from bias. We will offer subscription-based access to our databases, allowing developers to integrate our photographs seamlessly into their AI systems.
Competitive Advantage:
Our competitive advantage lies in the trustworthiness, diversity, accuracy, and number of our photographs. By focusing on verification, we will differentiate ourselves from existing stock photography platforms, which may lack the necessary attention to detail required for AI development. Each original image will be recorded on the blockchain and will bear our corresponding, patented invisible watermark."
Juxtapose with:
https://www.gettyimages.com/ (MC $2.34Bn)
"Getty said its pictures are particularly valuable for AI training because of their image quality, variety of subject matter and detailed metadata."
So, remind me again, where is the competitive advantage that values this business at $3.1bn? Where is the moat that protects them from the likes of Getty Images et al?
Oh incidentally, there are vast networks of open-access images, so just how they aim to take this to such lofty valuations is a tad of a conundrum.
e.g. https://www.si.edu/openaccess
PS Congratulations to the IT consultants for their work on Arknet. Now that project is completely defunct, it must be disappointing to see that revenue stream curtailed, but hey, the sun shone, the flowers bloomed and many haystacks and honeycombs were made.
Nostradamus. So, you maintain management "forgot" to mention the additional intrinsic value of Arknet and the pending patents (last I heard they were all still pending and only Tautachrome has patent approval for IP they've singularly failed to monetize).
That raises three possibilities at least:
1) They are completely inept in their valuation of the combined assets held by the business, (inc Arknet) so why, therefore, should we trust in the recent valuations of the platforms and licensed tech added in?
2) There is no value in anything to do with ARknet or the pending patent approvals and they have therefore been highly competent in attributing a zero valuation on assets held prior to the addition of the new pseudo-multi-billion-dollar portfolio.
3) As you suggest, they simply forgot to add previously "owned" assets and that would be an unforgivably inept accounting error, wouldn’t it?
Far be it for me to question the competence of the elite dream management team of this company. But there is of course at least one other scenario, which is that TTCM doesn't own anything to do with Arknet and merely licenses the tech from the real owners (rather like the aforementioned new assets).
This brings me to the point I made in the tagged message I sent months ago, in which I suggested that this corporate exercise with PXR/El Dorado is exactly what they will do i.e. dumping a business (or in this case more than one it would seem) into the shell to make it public and legitimize the eventual sale of the assets through the financial markets.
The question remains. Why, if these “Assets” are worth so much, would they not simply sell them through the private sector? Why do they want them in a publicly listed entity at all? Also, in the same way that TTCM doesn’t in fact own the assets of ARknet, why would anyone assume that neo-TTCM, Artelligence will ‘own’ any of the assets of PXR or El Dorado.
So, ride boldly ride, to the end of that rainbow, until you find the answer.
As always, good luck.
"Artificial Reasoning" hahaha. I'm sorry, that one tickled me because I think it may well apply to their method of valuation of intangible assets.
Valuation of Intangible Assets: Top Methods:
1. RRM
2. WWM
3. MPEEM
4. Real Option Pricing
5. Replacement Cost Method minus Obsolescence
and now....
6. Artificial Reasoning Method
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as we know from the 8K of 04/03/23 the PXR Platforms + El Dorado License were jointly appraised at an eye-watering cumulative value of $3.1Bn. One hesitates to ask, but if these “Assets” were worth this much in dollar value on the open market, why didn’t the owners simply divest to A-another interested party, for the cash value less an attractive discount to help broker the sale of said assets?
Furthermore, there seems to be no relation between what the failed Arknet platform, actually does (or more accurately, doesn't) and these “assets”, save that you could effectively graft anything onto Arknet and claim there were business synergies.
For anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of business and how Mergers and Acquisitions work, or even complete laymen with good common sense, would it not be safer or simply more logical to deduce that at the appraised valuations, there were no Private Companies or VHNWI interested in procuring said assets at a cash value anywhere near the $3.1Bn price (and I’m willing to bet, not at several zeros off the right-hand side of that price too).
Therefore, it makes sense for the owners to use a publicly listed company (albeit a shell with zero assets) to dump their overvalued offerings into and ultimately realize some value from them through the capital market mechanisms.
Yes, that’s correct before these “Assets” were grafted onto the business, the company was worth nothing and here’s the evidence:
$2,643,500,000 + 514,000,000 = 3.16Bn. According to this statement in the 8K, that’s the total assets the business now boasts of having:
“The fair economic value determined for the above-described Exclusive Capital Lease of the PXR Tactical Platform and the PXR Strategic Platform together with the recently announced royalty-free El Dorado grant of an Exclusive Use-license appraised at more than $514.4 million have increased the Company's shareholders' equity to over $3.1 billion”.
So, “increased the company’s shareholder equity to” (not by, but to) means that the combined value of all assets now is equivalent to the addition of these three assets (and their spurious valuations) alone, a stark admission by default, that Arknet itself, despite all the shareholders capital invested in the developer, paid consultants and many other sundry costs, is actually worth the square root of zero in asset value. Interesting that.
So, Arknet is worth zero (presumably they used the same method to appraise its value as the other three) and all new assets added to the company couldn’t be sold in the open market, hence they now form part of a newly named (if not formed) company ARtelligence Holdings Inc that is about to undergo a significant corporate exercise to massively increase the value of their share price and reduce the OS.
Perhaps they could start selling seafood products next because something sure smells fishy about all this.
PS 40M Common Shares will have been issued post-RS for “services rendered”. That’s a lot of shares that may (or may not of course) be looking for healthy bid support.
[Thanks to Valentiam Group]
Re, RS.
Told ya'll so five months ago!
"RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation be amended to change the name of the Corporation to “ARtelligence Holdings Inc., and that the Corporation seek a new and appropriate ticker symbol.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Board of Directors shall have the authority to (a) increase or decrease the authorized shares of the Corporation, (b) conduct stock splits and reverse stock splits, (c) issue shares of Common Stock to advisers, consultants and or other providers for services rendered to the Corporation, and (d) take whatever actions are deemed by the Board of Directors to be a financial necessity of the Corporation for the benefit of all shareholders."
Changing the name gets him off the hook for comments made in the past (see below screenshot "no reverse split").
I've yet to see an RS on the OTC end well. If someone else has, do let the board know. So, my next prediction is that when this new company Reverse Splits, it will sell down immediately and hugely.
I wonder if those Consultants et al issued with the 2bn shares are subject to a lock-up period! I think not.
Thanks to a friend for giving me the head’s up on the latest “developments” at TTCM (have they changed the name yet?)
So, the company has effectively acquired $2.65bn in assets. It will be interesting to see how this is accounted for on the Balance sheet, where the reciprocal liability + owners equity must be recorded (i.e. how much did they pay for this $2.65bn an important question to answer if they don’t want auditors crawling all over them).
I wonder how they arrived at such an extraordinarily high asset valuation. Might it have been by using a consultant to tell them that under GAAP’s (or IFRS) accepted accounting principles, the dubious platforms need only be seen to benefit the company for a min of 12 months. Prior to that, as an intangible asset, one can say they’re worth whatever one likes, so might as well swing for the fences (before the auditors are sent in that is).
Good luck today with the price drive.
PS as I predicted a RS of 1/50 is on the cards.
Late to the party here and have not caught up with the Board since the 19th, so apologies, if anyone here with a few brain cells to rub together, has already commented on the below.
I have one question re. the name change and it's a very simple one.
Does the commitment NEVER to execute a Reverse Split of the shares of Tautachrome Inc. also apply to ARtelligence Group Inc.?
Assuming (as I do) that this name change is (amongst other things) a calculated ploy (sorry Strategic initiative) aimed at dispensing with any C-Suite commitments made in favour of TTCM, I'd envisage a scenario akin to the following:
One of the first corporate actions post the name change, will be to execute a RS on the new Entity's shares in order to get the price to a level where they may rapidly qualify for uplisting to a higher tier on the OTC ladder such as OTCQB (assuming they can fulfill other qualifications and that's no gimme). That's pure guesswork, but if they wanted to do that now and provide some wriggle room in case of a pullback, Bear raid, or short-seller attack post the RS, they'd need to be looking at a price of around $0.02ps (which would allow a 50% depreciation in price and still remain compliant. with the min bid price of $0.01ps. 30 days prior to uplist). That makes a RS of min 35/1 highly likely (I'd say more).
In any event, I can tell y'all categorically that if DLM et al stick to their prior commitment that there will be no RS, then that would be utterly foolhardy as one would hope he will have learned by now, that in Management, you never make a promise never to do something (really the idiom never say never wholeheartedly applies here) and I fully expect a substantial RS to occur in short order.
If there's one thing a ploy (sorry Strategy) like changing the company name allows for, it's a complete reset of all former promises made, without making the promiser look like they reneged on any commitments.
I'll accept that this is a rhetorical question that is likely to go unanswered until an 8K drops announcing the proposal.
So, nice job on the name change boys!
"Tautachrome engages Chetu for ARknet development"
"ARknet Development". Wasn't this what Honeycomb was supposed to have been doing all these years?
Quote
"Streamlining Usability,
Strengthening Features
Expanding Integrations
This advancement is needed for social interaction, group, augmented reality, adoption, and commerce for business transactions."
UNQUOTE
Let's compare:
Honeycomb: - https://www.linkedin.com/company/honeycomb-digital/about/ (honeycomb website didn't work for me)
Digital Asset Management
eCommerce
Photography
Creative and Marketing Services
eLearning
DAM
LMS
Graphic Design
Learning Management
eCommerce
DAM
Website Development
v's
Chetu: - https://www.chetu.com/case-study.php
Custom Software Services
API Development
Application Development
Application Maintenance
Backup & Disaster Recovery
Captive Outsourced Development Center
DevOps
Implementation & Deployment
Infrastructure Support
Migrations & Upgrades
Product Lifecycle Management (PLM)
Quality Assurance (QA Testing)
SLA Support
Software Security
Startup & MVP Services
Systems Integration
Web Hosting
I wonder how much cash Honevomb trousered before owning up to the fact that they cannot actually build a workable and perhaps more importantly, monetizable solution here. Let's face it, it's easy for TTCM to dump vendors and change to new ones, it's a paying service and any other company will have a go at it as long as you cough up the dough.
Honeycomb failed to make this a commercially viable and attractive product offering and now they're being dumped in favor of a new service provider. Not a good look and an expensive mistake in the first place.
Let's hope they get it right this time. I'm sure the CTO is amply qualified to Project Manage the implementation and successful delivery of the project. That's if he can be bothered to get involved.
Name change and Acquisitions Dept. hmm. Let's do a deeper dive.
Prima Facie a name change is the smartest thing they've done for a long time (I would have wholeheartedly recommended this two years ago). Wipe the slate clean. All promises made under the previous company entity become lapsed. RS possible. Dumping of other dubious privately owned technologies and whacky ideas into the listed entity under the auspices of the new BD&A department is also hinted at, so roll up with any ideas you may have.
However, if you read the "Business Description" here:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/TTCM/profile
… one has to wonder whether this is simply another ruse. The taking an off-the-shelf shell company (TTCM) and dumping a business idea into it (ArKnet) so that it can move from the private sector to being listed and thereby take advantage of the capital markets to raise funds (as has already occurred with DLM’s licensed ArkNet tech), replicated for all manner of dross business (and I use the term reservedly) ideas. Sweat the asset, sweat the business model!
Here's another poser. Unless I'm mistaken, TTCM does not as yet own ArkNet. The technology is merely licensed to the parent. So, will the newly named company actually now own ArKnet lock stock and barrel (pending patents and all)? Or will the parent (under another name), merely be a, well, Ark to store licenses and patent applications (of the aforementioned wacky ideas inc.) such that patrons wishing to hold shares merely gamble on share price appreciation due to profit streams from the resident licensed techs, but never hold shares in the actual tech. Heaven knows everything else Tautachome has tried to build into a business has been an abysmal failure. They are sitting on patents for KlickZie that have been bigged up as having value, yet who would buy old technology that's long ago been improved upon and rendered worthless?
Conc. Let's get a serious debate going here about what this company might now become ladies and gents, because you never know if they get the new name right, the objects of the business in order, and completely revamp the top table to add at least one or two serious people with an IQ north of 100, they might actually get lucky one day and stumble upon some tech they can dump into this no-hoper shell and ultimately get bought out for real bunce.
Nice 8K. Congrats all on the new appointments (not).
Observations:
a) Buck stops at the top. It's interesting given that DLM licensed the Arknet tech to Tautachrome in the first place and upon doing so, assumed the role of COO. Making him head of the parent is therefore somewhat odd given Arknet is only one of a number of verticals the business (TTCM) is supposed to be pursuing. So, is the change in titles akin to the eponymous moving of the deckchairs on the Titanic? Succession planning perhaps. Or my personal view, a shrewd move (on the part of the Dr) in body-swerving the flak that's piling up against the business. I mean, who needs it in their twilight years.
b) Not at all surprising the order of events announced within the 8K drops the AS rise to the bottom (shhh as a side note we're upping the AS by 600MM shares too so we can fund ahem growth tee hee). At CMP that amounts to a half milly USD or therabouts.
As a side note but relevant to the rise in AS. I often thought how inept it was to completely rule out a RS. Whatever one thinks of RS as a rule (and they rarely seem to end well), as a member of the C-Suite and now ostensibly the top dog (in a team of 2), he should have known that it's never good form to completely rule out anything in business. Shows at best inexperience and worse, ineptitude. It'll come back to bite the COO (oops sorry CEO) soon enough.
Doesn't this now leave a vacancy now for a COO? Perhaps a few here might like to apply lol. GLTA.
So, Frank's gone!
Nice job you did there on the Business Development front Frank, erm I think that was what you were employed and compensated for. Perhaps you can add to your LinkedIn profile your list of achievements at the company, for all to see as it were. See the thing is, I looked and didn't spot any mention at all that you'd ever been at Tautachrome, let alone an outline of accomplishments in the role.
Though I can see how after a career in special forces part of which involved looking after the United States nuclear weapons arsenal (trust you had a garage big enough to be fit for purpose), and a period in the lofty heights of State Senator, taking on your greatest challenge to date at TTCM, may mean you bit off a little more than you could chew. But you must have done something there am I right? Do tell all. What did you achieve and why did you leave?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/frank-antenori-47a1a66/
The role of an Auditor in no way includes any duty of care to the TTCM shareholders (or any other TTCM stakeholders for that matter) to provide transparency in the business activities of the TTCM.
Auditors are there to perform one task and one task only and that is to provide a professional and independent assessment as to the accuracy of the financial statements (relating to a specific accounting period) through a (supposedly) rigorous process of checking and then attesting that they are free from material misstatement. It is this role of checks and balances and compliance with the prevailing legal requirements as they relate to the publishing of financial statements, that is their sole responsibility. That's it.
Relative to my question on doing a drill down into TTCM’s Fins and specifically the line items G&A and R&D. It's not within an Auditor's purview to advise, decide or otherwise make any statements as to TTCM’s source and application of funds. They are also not there to perform some sort of Non-Exec Board type role and question TTCM management on matters of corporate governance and business strategy (unless of course there is evidence of malfeasance or illegal activities being undertaken).
So, if the Executive Board of TTCM had decided (for example) that an appropriate way to spend the $2.5M in the period H121 was on cans of Coke (or indeed Pepsi, Pepsi), then the Auditors are not there to judge whether this is a good application of the funds and in keeping with the company's scope of business. That would be the role of the non-executive board members (a check and balance that is sadly absent at TTCM), whose job it is, to ensure that the Executive Board is managing the company in a manner in keeping with legalities, sound corporate governance, and most notably here, in a manner that maximizes TTCM shareholder value. So, the Auditor is merely there to check that whoever prepared TTCM’s accounts, has recorded this purchase (by TTCM mgt.) correctly and that the requisite paperwork is there in support of it.
My point is that on the issue of full transparency by the TTCM Board on what are the major expense items. We really have no way of knowing what they spent the X millions on under the general headings "General & Admin" and "R&D". As I recall, TTCM used to break this down into sub-headings a few years ago. Nowadays not so, and one might question why they no longer disclose the major items of expenditure, choosing latterly instead to lump them under a general heading as previously mentioned.
Thanks for the compliment btw and the feeling’s mutual (although full disclosure, we are familiar with each other's work aren’t we?).
In short (and in view of the diabolical performance in the share price) sh's are fully entitled to ask questions as to the specifics of these cost drivers. The fact that the subheadings are vague, would seem somewhat Machiavellian as if to serve the purpose of masking something underhand.
Let the management explain what they are spending money on. Specifically, the General and Admin. I thought these boys weren't taking a salary and they've no real overhead to speak of other than Honeycomb which must surely fall under R&D unless of course there's some double dipping going on.
A full drill down into what comprises "General and administrative" and "Research and Development" within their "Operating Expenses" would help dispel whether this company has insider "enrichment" taking place. That they don't provide transparency in this area only fuels the thesis that they are utilizing the capital markets to fund expenses, out with the development of the company.
As previously stated about TTCM's latest financial results, "Net comprehensive income" is due almost entirely to two elements. 1) TTCM's favorable currency exchange and 2) TTCM's "change in the value of derivatives". Regarding the 2nd item, a positive change in TTCM's "derivative liability" ((i.e. meaning that instead of having a debt (and debts are liabilities, not assets) of $1.4M on the books, they now have a debt of $804K)). TTCM have reduced their derivative liability, thus affording them the simple accounting trick of including this positive change (lowering a debt liability) in the "comprehensive income" line item of these latest accounts. This can hardly be considered "real" income to the business.
TTCM's latest Financials are in no way demonstrable of increased sales revenues, profits, and business growth and the notion that TTCM is in any way, making money, or indeed, turning the corner is wrong. As a "for-profit" company, TTCM is in dire straits financially.
2021 2022
Cash $119K $123
TA $145K $ 18K
TL $4.8M $4.8M
And the real kicker:
Net Operating Loss (Carried forward) 2021 EOY $8.1M, 2022 to June 30th $8.7M
In the first 6 months of 2022, having carried forward $8M in losses from the previous year, they added another 600K. That's quite a burn rate and means they are hemorrhaging cash to the tune of $3,300/day, which for a business of this nature is totally unsustainable.
The gravy train that allowed the C-Suite to siphon out huge sums of money and badge it under these two obscure nomenclatures, is fast slowing down. They can't monetize their product offerings and have run out of ideas on how to convince people that this company is anything like a going concern anymore.
The SP reflects that and I'd be very surprised if they are still in business a year from today. Never mind, they'll have the convenient excuse of blaming it on a recession.
(Not to self, must go back and look at the cumulative figures for the aforementioned two line items in the accounts over the last three years. I'm guessing they've trousered a huge chunk of change from selling CN's and Diluting the bejeezus out of this stock).
Entirely due to an accounting sleight of hand that values derivatives differently whilst also adding in +'ve FX effect. There is zero revenue to speak of and at the same time, the shares have been diluted by an additional 1.66bn (or 39%) during the TTM ended June 30 2022.
The company isn't making money, they are simply losing less because they have pared back significantly on their Operating Expenses. For eg. the two key cost drivers G&A and R&D are down from 2.5MM to $400K and $430K to $178K respectively (same TTM).
10K shows no sales and double the Loss 21 v 20.
No new patents granted for well over 3 years.
SG&A expense increase accounts for the YOY exponential increase in losses. This expense amounts to close on $3M presumably raised in part from the capital markets by diluting existing shareholders massively. This $3M spend is hard to ascertain without a requisite drill down into the line items of expenditure. Clearly it's not required to do so, which is a great way to cloak any
The Management Team are to be congratulated. It's rare in one's 40 years + experience in businesses various (globally) to see such a company still seemingly afloat. They have comprehensively failed to monetise any single business concept, save from having a small line in Beef Jerky!
Talking of experience, how does someone aged 39 have "more than 37 years of combined experience". Must have started early that one.
Actually, there's so much to pick holes in now with this company it's hardly worth the effort. I just they issued physical share certificates, like in the old days. At least they'd provide something useful to use for origami and uses various that I can conceive of.
Shambles of a company now offering nothing knew and nothing that someone else isn't already doing better.
PS whatever happened to the heavy hitter Business Development guy I commented on in the above post? Not heard a peep from him since he joined 6 months ago.
4/4
As for chasing patent infringement, doesn’t TTCM first have to come up with the Patents? As far as I’m aware, there were a handful for TTCM (not ARknet) patents for Klickzie and the others were pending. Once again, I think they’ll struggle, but happy to be disproved on this one.
No, I think there's something else going on here other than playing whack-a-mole with trolls on social media sites. I’d say this has more to do with the rehabilitation of a former partner into the TTCM fold and back into the public arena and ultimately reinstated as a member of a Listed Company's C-Suite.
In that regard, far from being the new sheriff in town, here to bring back-stabbing trolls to book, I would not be at all surprised if the agenda here is more one of “succession planning”.
Better be nice to the guy, he may be the boss one day.
Just to provide balance to my earlier comments on the vacuous contribution to the company's future growth trajectory of one former (tainted) Board member. It's great to see they finally got themselves a heavyweight mover and shaker on the Business Development front.
Let's congratulate Frank and wish him all the best, as this is hugely positive news in bolstering the Management Team.
Yes indeed!
Shortly after this "deal" was announced, I also commented in one of the TTCM breakout groups that this was never going to happen.
Again, I took serious flak for it, as everyone there seemed to think the sun shined out of AS's well a** (or perhaps shined out of his projector phone).
But even the most rudimentary of business Akyumen (sorry acumen) could have told you that it is a) commercially unviable to manufacture smartphones in the US (even if it's merely component assembly) as they cannot hope to complete with the Far East on a least cost location basis. Furthermore b) the entire notion of a projector phone is complete and utter nonsense. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exit (or at least, no longer exists). One of the applications touted for this, was that people would sit at home and project their movies onto the wall using the phone. Well, everyone I know that watches movies at home, fiddles around on their hand phone at the same time. I'm sorry, but you do not use a phone to project movies. Moreover, in the modern age, the idea that people will use the device in meetings (purportedly as a projector for presentations), is now, well and truly redundant. Yes it would have been useful 20 or even 10 years ago (this I can attest to from personal experience as I saw a prototype out here in Asia many years back and thought it would be kind of useful), but now, not a chance.
Useless phones for which he has taken deposits from people and no doubt, will never return their money. Zoom calls with movie stars and govt reps to promote same and other ludicrous ideas like electric bicycles with batteries that last for weeks or months. If he had such battery tech, the world and his dog would be banging down his door for it, for EVs, phones and the like and he'd be the richest man since Andrew Carnegie.
Though others might hide under their cloaks of anonymity, I'm not afraid to repeat what I hinted at at the time, which is that this guy is an out and out con merchant, who enjoys living the high life, mixing with the celebs and ostensibly paying for it all by appropriating money from unsuspecting public companies and naïve citizens. In this regard, no matter what pushback I get now, I'm vindicated because I warned people and one or two of them, I actually feel sorry for, as they suffered losses as a result of this revolting young man's activities.
On a more pertinent note, this episode is demonstrable of a deal of inexperience shown by the Board of TTCM in having him involved in the company! If nothing else, their highly paid Technical Contractor/Consultant/Friend (substitute an appropriate noun) should have warned them months ago that this guy was suspect and his tech was at best fatally flawed and at worst, a complete con job.
I do hope they learn from this.
I agree. Rarely if ever do I post about this stock. I once took an avid interest, but when I realised that certain people were using it as a vehicle for their self aggrandisement in order to advance their own interests, or, as a front for more duplicitous activities, I gave it a swerve. That was over a year ago and I am overjoyed for the good people that have a significant pecuniary interest in the success of the business, that AS (who added zero value to Tautachrome) has finally been ousted, especially as I was one of the more vociferous voices against this man long ago when no one was listening. Can you believe the audacity of the man, in asking Telegram group members to defend him on FB when allegations of financial malfeasance surfaced last year?
Now, the management need to have the courage to part company with one or two others, who are nought but a drain on rations and bring onboard some heavyweight experienced C suite level execs who can catapult some great ideas into the mainstream, whilst protecting the interests of the company and its proprietary IP.
There is still time, but it is fast running out. I hope today's 8k will provide a reciprocal boost to the share price, as this departure is certainly great news for the business.
Good luck to the loyal sh's (you know who you are).
This message in my view is the correct interpretation of what's going on here.
The court delay is through no fault of AWON protagonists whatsoever. The court have taken this decision, out-with any input from AWON representatives and it is entirely out of the latter's hands. If anything, it is a massive positive because if for any reason (come the next court date) it's the company that need to delay further from their side, the courts will have to look sympathetically upon their request due to their own actions in pushing back the case. So notwithstanding the fact that there has been no tardiness or lack of procedural matters from AWON's side, this is a win win, as it gives Dixon et al, more time to get the fundies of the deal right too.
According to the charts, the 3M shares dumped into the bid was a) profit taking at the start of the day on the part of flippers and b) panic selling in the power hour by the uninitiated.
I've already expressed my reservations about Dixon's modus operandi in doing these deals, but insofar as the prospects for getting the ticker current and a RM of a private entity dumped into the shell, nothing has happened to give rise to the opinion that this plan has wavered in any way whatsoever.
Onward.
Agree. I wasn't suggesting that Dixon isn't successful at buying shell companies, for peanuts, pumping the price with hype and then presumably selling shares into the pump. Let's ensure we endorse that success. But unlike others that buy shell companies in order to RM a private enterprise into a listed entity and then build the business, it's clear from his track record that this is not the reason he does it. Ok show me one Shell Dixon has bought that didn't spike immediately after and then either tank thereafter, or bleed out. Just show one company he has been involved in where the pps grew consistently on an uptrend after the custodianship/rm process. Then I'll believe his motives have business integrity, otherwise, this is just a standard money spinning play for the main protagonists and yes, he's ostensibly very successful at that.
Feel free to list. Seems to me to be his modus operandi. That and running failing businesses (or non failing businesses) into the ground. Pray for liquidity I guess.
On Ian N Dixon, I forgot to mention U*MAX
https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/UMAX/company-people/executive-profile/175850692
https://www.prweb.com/releases/umax_group_corp_would_like_to_announce_the_appointment_of_a_new_ceo/prweb15932380.htm
Another great PnD story here.
Oh and this basket case from way back seems now defunct:
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/ipos/overview?dealId=858684-68482
https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/0368315Z:US
https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/UMAX/company-people/executive-profile/129923554
Busy man is our Ian! So I wonder what he wants with AWON?
I didn't mean anything by "overly assert" because I didn't write that. I wrote "overtly assiciate". Grab a dictionary and see what the difference between those meanings is (clue shhh it's a secret).
Hello AWON investors.
I was just wondering why Tim Hart (supposed CEO of the aforementioned) doesn't overtly associate himself with TBG Holdings in the same way that Swartz does?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/nswartz/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/timothy-hart-8a74645 (I'll not delve into his endorsements which are dodgy to say the least).
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tbgholdings
It's a poser isn't it? Especially since someone said TBG owns 51MM shares of AWON.
On another note. Anyone have any information at all on the eponymous Mr Ian Dixon (apart from his association with at least two PnD jobs done on N*TGL and E*MPM)?
The Due on this ticker does seem to be rather sparse so I thought I'd ask.
8K out - Insurance claim paid in full, so that's good news. Now, what will they do with $917K I wonder hmmm
Now here's a piece of news I'll bet you didn't know:
https://www.nst.com.my/world/region/2020/06/596920/vietnam-alert-new-div1-virus
Enjoy.
and time enough for NS to get their house in order beforehand.
This has got to help....
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-american-seafood-competitiveness-economic-growth/?fbclid=IwAR2WEO6NltoPWMKhltwNA8NcPx5p066B4kdkjVWB6U7G-_px6G1qi13uE90
Sec. 3. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) “Aquaculture” means the propagation, rearing, and harvesting of aquatic species in controlled or selected environments;
(b) “Aquaculture facility” means any land, structure, or other appurtenance that is used for aquaculture;
(c) “Aquaculture project” means a project to develop the physical assets designed to provide or support services to activities in the aquaculture sector, including projects for the development or construction of an aquaculture facility;
Oh, I see the price shot up on the 7th so I guess this is old news now.