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.
Please itemize the costs included in your $54.00 opinion.
Thank you.
What's the industry average mortality / survivability rate for biofloc RAS pacific white shrmip?
What costs differ for NSI as compared to any other biofloc RAS farm?
" Everyone knows NSI is still going to dilute once uplisted."
I thought that was the whole point of uplisting! hahaha
I wouldn't say it's not being said at all, instead I'd go with purposefully ambiguous and confusing.
Sometimes the things not said are the most important. ;)
Moving goal posts again or you just have crappy reading comp.
The original premise was "What's the mortality rate?" "They've never said it." What's the Number?" "Nothing."
I posted the link becaue it proves you're full of chit.
Forget the truth of the substance, it just goes to show you don't read or care about actual facts, old or new.
Doth protest too much. The psychological term would be "projection." PDT actively participating in misinformation while accusing others, without proof, of the same.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1465470/000165495421009251/shmp_ex991.htm
I'm an NS proxy? I know you don't have proof of that. Defame much?
Can't take someone seriously when they have no integrity.
Go look it up yourself. It's in writing.
"6 Million PLS bought, about 60,000 shrimp sold... 99% mortality rate
3 Million PLS bought, about 60,000 shrimp sold... 98% mortality rate
1 Million PLS bought, about 60,000 shrimp sold... 94% mortality rate"
Do you have proof that NSI has taken delivery of that many PLs? If you don't, then your conclusions are utter speculation and you have no idea whether it is based in factual reality.
Here's the difference between you and I: I like to operate in the world of what is know, not what is believed. I'm not hiding behind anything. You're just fictionalizing to maintain your narrative. Very disturbing behavior.
There's a power point that NSI created that makes a representation as to mortality rates. Therefore, like everything with this company, the issue is whether you believe NSI's representation.
"Can you provide us with a number? or any evidence or information indicating otherwise?..."
You obviously have not done a thorough job at due diligence. It's not another person's job to do your research for you.
Also, I'm right here. I've been here. You should try to be more observant.
FINRA is displaying data from mandatory reporting brokerages that directly contradicts you. What's your explanation for that? Mine relies on Occam's Razor: You are mistaken.
I will admit that I used to think the same thing as you until I wisened up.
I saw Niterra and thought YOTA. Thanks for the correction and good catch then. Any theories on why the literary change?
"Niterra not license it to capture the Japanse market." What would be the cost to license? Are they set up to immediately start operations? Why pay a license fee while unable to commercially use the license? Not saying this is what it is, just saying the fact it could be means there's not enough information available to decide one way or another. Nevertheless, skepticism is justified.
"Lastly, you ever hear of convertible preferred?" You can't just convert whenever you want. Otherwise, any preferred holder could dilute common whenever the hell it pleased them and at the detriment of the overall corporation. That wouldn't make much sense now, would it? That is why there are often very stringent and specific conditions under which one can convert. Hence my point re: liquid to illiquid.
You should know that I have argued (it is a thesis of mine) that NSI stock is being shorted, heavily, on margin. Therefore, it is my opinion that NSI management attempts to time PR releases with expiration of short contracts to fuel these pumps, or squeezes, if you will. FINRA data, NSI's stock chart and the dates of PR releases all strongly suggest this to me. And, in fact, if memory serves, I believe there's also video of GE expressly referencing his awareness and desire to confront a known short seller. This thesis also provides a theory on how NSI helps GHS offload the shares it buys direct at a considerable discount.
As others point out, there are competitors to NSI. They have borrowed money and have investors. Those lenders, investors and owners all have motive and some (presumably) have opportunity (connections and monetary ability) to short this OTC stock. Distressing a publically traded compeitor is out of the anti-Tesla playbook.
One final point, GHS is the primary lender for GRPS. No one from GHS has taken a preferred position in GRPS or offered to consult for them.
I'm not saying they are on par budget wise, I'm just saying in companies like that... large % of budget is devoted to R&D. That is really what SHMP is right now. But, if they've gotten it or get it... game over GRPS's of the world.
Well I wouldn't say it's entirely coincidental either.
#1. Why would YOTA be named?
#2. His debt would then be illiquid. Currently it's as liquid as selling on the OTC.
SHMP better believe, or we get into the UD realm of fraud speak. Clearly you do not believe and you've articulated four reasons why. However, I think your four reasons lack context and perspective. Although the company has been around "for decades," a first working iteration of the "Tech" is not in fact actually that old.
R&D takes time and money. Didn't NVIDIA's CEO just say that it took $10b to develop their most recent chip? If you accept this is a tech company, not an agriculture company, it may alter your perspective. I'll even go so far as to say there ar few examples to turn to. Bridging tech and agriculture. NSI may be closer to a Beyond Meat or Neuralink than GRPS. Food for thought.
Like I said... news is often clustered and timed.
Yes, all those things must happen. But, IMO, the ability to raise money is not wholly dependent upon them. From my point of view, what matters most above all else is the efficacy, or lack thereof, of the "Tech." If it works, $5-$10m is no problem, regardless of corporate structure, which would undoubtedly be worked out where tons of money is to be made. UF, forgive me if I put words into your mouth, but I think this is the general principle from which you approach NSI. The rub? What if the "Tech" doesn't work. EQ, I think this is the frame of reference you operate out of to argue that $5-$10m is a hard sell.
All I know is the NSI playbook is clear. Example: "Successful study" without releasing any data on the study. Belief. This company requires one to believe. And, there's just enough factual information out there to reasonably justify a belief in NSI. However, the contrary is also true. Therefore, the dispute on this board boils down to one thing: Do you believe NSI or not? Each side has points that reasonably support belief and non-belief.
I want to hear why people believe or not. I don't care about what people think other people should do or not. That is why I spend my time pointing out clearly reckless takes... there's no need to concoct, spin, hyperbolize, exaggerate, or confuse matters in an attempt to influence someone to believe the way you do about NSI. In fact, if you feel so strongly in your position, that it is supported by known facts, then just argue those facts and the reasonable inferences to be drawn and allow others to form their own beliefs.
As a teacher, I thought the goal was to educate, not excoriate and castigate.
The news always seems to be clustered and timed.
You can make a liar out of anyone when you have trouble comprehending basic english.
From what I comprehended of UF's post, I did not read anything that said or implied there is currently $5m in shareholder equity.
"Trying to rope people in." I wonder how many people you roped in when you narcistically and unnecessarily announced you were taking a position in NSI common stock.
The same way it worked for you when you bought in thinking the price was going to go up and you instead took a huge loss? Remember that like only a couple months ago? Then you played it off by saying you sold quickly and didn't lose anything. I'll put it in a way you can understand: Your word is about as good as NSI's tech.
As absurd as countering my $.033 speculation with $5,000.00? Come on man, get a life.
"No real institutional investor is putting a dime in until Fife is settled." EQ must not be able to chew gum and walk at the same time if the belief is others can't.
Since when does PA exactly mirror a company's financial conditions? Truth social anyone?
Go back to class.
I didn't say institutional investors are coming in. What I said was institutional investors do not invest in OTC stocks and that NSI's goal for uplisting to another exchange has always been to access institutional investors. Your reading comprehension seems to be of elementary caliber.
I speak only for myself: no one is trying to rope anyone in. I know that's what you'd like others to believe in order to undermine the credibility of sum on here who want to partake in good faith discussions and debate around the company. It would be my opinion, evidence from your consistently terrible takes, that you may be actively trying to keep people from investing in NSI.
Yes, theoretically it could. But I said $.033. Talking about $5,000.00 is the dumbest shit ever. Grasp at those straws EQ.
What insincerity. There's no institutional financing in the OTC. It's not the amount that's important, it's the counterparty.
New shares may be entering the market, but if whoever is buying them holds, they will force open interest to have to go direct to NSI or GHS for shares. Even with the printer working overtime, shares are finite. March 8, 11, 12, 18,19, 20, 22 and 28 almost 400,000 common shares were failed to be delivered.
Historically, news has been timed with short contract expiration. I would not be surprised if this news propels a squeeze higher than the last pump. Perhaps back to .033. I don't speculate on PA often, but the chart pattern and historical MM action is too compelling. Perhaps I'm like a broken clock and get lucky... time will tell.
"The Company has also begun the restructuring process of its existing debt and mezzanine securities in order to meet Cboe US' shareholders' equity requirements..." The bold is what I will be paying attention to.
Yes, I have to ask that question. You, nor anyone else here, articulate a coherent explanation for a broad, generalized conclusion that Easterling voting the Series A is not in the best interest of common shareholders. Perhaps if you thought of the Series A in a more theoretical way, you'd understand their greater significance and thus, why it may actually be in the best interest of common shareholders for the Series A to continue to "exist."
Why is it not in the interest of the common shareholders?
"Come to think of it, is SHMP’s continued reliance on the Series A shares to control the voting stock in the best interest of its shareholders?"
Well that's the question isn't it?
1. "EASTERLIED uses the Series A to retain voting control, so the Series A do in fact exist."
We agree what they are used for. I actually have an opinion that goes beyond just voting rights, but I digress. We agree they exist. We have an existential disagreement on what the extent of "exist" means.
2. "What’s gonna happen if SHMP is ever worth anything of value, how many former Series A shareholders are going to come looking for their pound of flesh ?"
IMO, the Shover Settlement governs this. That lawsuit expressly disposed of all parties similarly situated to Shover. It's in black and white.
3. "Why SHMP refuses to clearly identify this in their filings is beyond me."
IMO, you answered your own question. See #1 above.
"2.8 billion shares outstanding is alot of shares"
This is misleading.
The way you and UD talk about it... I can't imagine it's not. But, if it's not priced in, maybe that's circumstantial evidence of the market disagreeing with your theory re: Series A.
No relation. Everyone knows the O/S is authorized to 1.4 Billion. It's already priced in. You need a new explanation for the PA.