If Pittman wanted to flip DNAX, then wouldn't he be pumping it in hopes it would go higher so he could sell at $0.0002?

Instead, he slams DNAX without mercy. We could debate about why he does that, but it doesn't make sense that he does it to flip.

What is it that Adrian said? You didn't tell hardly any of what Adrian said. You mostly just reported what topics were discussed, but except for the topic of reverse splits, you didn't actually tell us anything.

No, it was not an objective post at all. All xero did was state that he learned a bunch of useful information that has lead him to reverse his position on DNAX. That is completely subjective, and only shares his opinions and conclusions regarding what he learned.

An objective post would be one where he shares the facts that he learned so each of us had the opportunity to reach our own opinions and conclusions.

Hopefully, xero will step up and do us all a big favor.

So, if you learned all of these assorted facts, how about sharing with us? The only thing that gives iHub forums any value is when people share information to magnify what any one person can learn and know on their own. I certainly have done more than my share of research and sharing...

A post with such a shortage of useful information did not warrant a response which is any longer. : )

Why?

Just do the math. If the company engages in activities that increase company valuation, the stock price will increase in a manner that represents reasonable company valuation.

I didn't say that Adrian plans to purchase advertising on TV and Radio or in Newspapers. That is because Adrian did not specify.

Adrian did specify that he needed 50 grand for production and advertising expenses. There are lots of ways to advertise. For all I know, he plans to spend all of his advertising dollars inside of retail stores. I have no way to know what he is planning.

Acquisition of space represents the business taking on additional liabilities.

Production of inventory represents the business taking on additional liabilities.

Why would the addition of liabilities increase the stock price. In the world of OTC Pinks, the answer would typically be "the reaction to hype." However, with a stock structure this high, hype is not going to have much impact. Actual performance is going to be required.

When DNA has revenues instead of just more liabilities, we will see the PPS rise.

Nonetheless, the current additional liabilities, and the ones soon to come, are necessary and appropriate.

So, isn't there an obvious pattern here?

We get news... thus time of a new office/warehouse... and trading jumps to nearly 500 million shares... for one day.

On the next day, trading volume is half that.

On the next day, trading volume is half that.

On the next day, trading volume is half that.

On the next day, trading volume is half that.

On the next day, trading volume is half that.

Later... we get more news, and the cycle repeats. Why is this so surprising? DNA Brands, Inc. is still effectively a dormant company.

There is no revenue.

There are no products being produced.

There is no inventory.

I FULLY expect all of these facts to change in time, but is anyone surprised... or even disappointed... that the PPS is still at $0.0001, or that the volume chart continues to diminish?

Buy what you can afford to lose, and be ready for a long wait until profit is available. If Adrian executes successfully, profit will be there, but it is not going to happen tomorrow... or even this month. It may not happen this quarter, or even this year.

Rebuilding this business is going to be a slow process of slogging through the necessary work.

However, as long as Adrian executes well, momentum will build faster and faster.

It is not unreasonable for DNAX to be at $0.0020 or $0.0030 by the end of 2017. Even with the large stock structure, the corporate valuations are not that unreasonable if DNA is selling products and making money.

On what planet is a ROI of 20 or 30 times your original investment a bad thing?

People just have to patient and not react so strongly to daily activity. DNAX was never a daily sort of play. If a shareholder cannot manage that concept, their money is likely better off elsewhere.

Rarely do successful businesses ever stop spending money on advertising. So, there is not some amount of spending that is sufficient to be competitive, and then the business is done.

I believe that $50,000 is what Adrian said he needs to both produce the first inventory run AND have sufficient advertising to have a high probability of moving that inventory.

Presumably, the revenues from sales of the first batch of inventory would be used to pay for the second production run... AND additional advertising.

The funny part is that we do NOT know for a fact that the O/S has reached 8 billion.

We know that it was 7.33 billion from the OTC filings, and Adrian's own mouth.

The O/S is PROBABLY now over 8 billion but nothing official has reported it as such.

Spending only 50 grand for a production run AND the advertising campaign for that inventory is pretty cost effective.

That is why Adrian said he needs $50,000 to reboot the business. Without that much funding, he cannot afford to pay his advertising firm. Without a good advertising campaign, we will have energy drinks in stores, but not enough people will know about it to make it move off the shelves well enough, and it will be 2014 all over again.

Now, you know why I have been screaming so loudly about not repeating 2014.

You just got done pointing out that Adrian has a mentor from the beverage industry, and therefore, Adrian knows what he is doing.

What Adrian said is that he needs 50 grand to produce the first production run AND pay an advertising firm to promote the brand so that the inventory will sell.

I am taking him at face value that Adrian has done his DD and he knows how much funding he needs to get the job done well.

Keep waiting.... maybe I will have time tomorrow

No, instead the energy drink market is dominated by very few players.

If people would read my sticky post, and the three posts linked from that sticky post, they would be amazed by what information is there about this.

It is a very strange Facebook post that references this "special announcement" because it has the hashtag #teamdna. So, if you click on the hashtag, you see pictures that are not related to DNA Brands, Inc. Instead, they are pictures of other events or businesses that use "DNA" in their name in some way.

The bulk of that $50,000 would likely not be spent on production of inventory. Instead, it would be spent on marketing and advertising.

It is unlikely that DNA Brands, Inc. would receive $1.00 for a can of energy drink sold to a distributor. As you can see here, when DNA was last in the market, non coffee energy drinks sold for 2 cans for $3.00 or $1.99 each.Taking the worst cast (2 cans for $3.00 or $1.50 each), DNA Brands, Inc. would likely receive one fourth of the retail price, or 37 cents per can.

If the costs associated with producing, marketing and advertising one production run is $50,000, and DNA receives 37 cents per can, then the minimum size for a production run where DNA is NOT guaranteed to lose money is about 135,000 cans:

$50,000 for costs ÷ $0.37 sale price per can = 135,135 cans to be produced in each production run

That is 5,630 cases (assuming 24 cans per case)

I don't remember how many cases per pallet. There are pictures of pallets of DNA posted on this forum back in 2014. When I get time, I will try to track them down.

Actually, averaging up to increase one's position in a stock with a reliably rising share price is a completely valid strategy.

It is more likely to result in profit than averaging down into a hopelessly declining stock price. Note that I am not designating DNAX as hopelessly declining. However, many chase stocks with more averaging down purchases all the way to what they think is the bottom at 0.0001, only to learn that a reverse split makes effective stock prices of 0.0000001, or less, possible.

Different circumstances warrant different strategies, and there are times when averaging up is appropriate. The current circumstances with DNAX do not appear to be one of them.

It appears that there was some court activity back in late 2014 or early 2015. It seems that Eric Fowler claimed that he did not have any assets to pay for any judgment. He threatened that he would have to file bankruptcy if the court rendered a judgment against him. The judge was not amused, but the message likely got through to Mel Lerner and company clearly enough. They likely determined there was no point spending any more on legal fees to pursue a civil case where they would never collect anything. I am pretty sure that they dropped it at that point because no one from the company ever talked about the lawsuit again.

Considering that Google provides a scale marker with every one of their maps, determine the size of any building is amazingly simple to do.

The holding company was created when the plan was to sell off the energy drink intellectual property and purchase some other business. Adrian decided not to do that.

Yes, DNA does not have beverage production and packaging equipment. They subcontract that out to a bottler.

Too bad... it is not going anywhere. Maybe you should read the whole thing and the whole messages referenced by the three links in the sticky post.

Go listen to the conference call from last April.

Well, that makes sense that no one modify anyone else's work in the ibox without the original author's consent. However, one moderator does not require all SIX moderators to approve changes.

The PR said, "Throughout the month of January, the company will be executing its office build out, and images will be provided occasionally on the company's website."

I don't know what an "office build out" will entail in this case. I presumed there would be construction involved. Maybe he just means that he will furnish and equip the office. It is not clear.

Do remember that every city, county and state have their own rules for construction activities. Perhaps, the new office is in a business friendly location where a blueprint is enough to get a permit to renovate a commercial building, and that process can be completed in one day.

It might even be that for no structural walls, he does not need even a building permit. I could see that being true if there was no electrical work or plumbing changes.

Part of learning to be an effective CEO is to know not to go public with plans until there is no doubt about which course is best to execute.

The only exception to that is if the CEO wishes to have the shareholders vote on a decision. The vote does not have to be formal, but feedback from the shareholders should definitely be collected and used to make the decision in that case.

In the last PR, Adrian said that during January, the build out for the new office/warehouse space would be happening. He said there will be pictures on the corporate web site.

So, we will likely be seeing pictures of steel studs and sheet rock shortly. : )

You don't see me saying there will be a reverse split. With a share structure this large, that is always a risk. However, between Adrian's attitude regarding R/S and the current trading environment, I do not see that Adrian needs a R/S.

I have already said that I am not messing with the iBox... but I will support any of the other 5 mods who want to take a whack at it.

Look man... I don't know if you were around last April or not. Many people on this forum were here. Last April, Adrian held his first conference call. He had that CEO from another ticker... the guy's name is Costley... and Adrian announced that he had a partnership with the other company. Costly made the statement that the energy drink products would be back in the market in third quarter of 2016.

Adrian interrupted him to correct him and emphasize that the products would be back in the market in "EARLY third quarter" (of 2016), not "third quarter". Adrian made it very clear on that conference call that as far as he was concerned, this was a done deal that WAS going to happen.

Well, of course, it did not happen, and Adrian never talked about Costly, his company, or the partnership again.

Other people on this forum are familiar with Costly and said he is a big dilution scam artist.

Best guess is that Adrian, being a new CEO and not familiar with the beverage industry looks for help, and unfortunately, he found Costly. Costly, being a scam artist, saw Adrian as a sucker that he could exploit from a mile away.

So, Adrian made a mistake, and be corrected the mistake by finding a better beverage industry mentor elsewhere. Live and learn.

Those are the facts (except the speculation about why Costly faded from Adrian's picture).

So, Adrian the entrepreneur swung and missed the ball. Strike one.

Adrian moved the milestone to having the energy drinks back in stores fourth quarter (which did not happen either).

I was disappointed that we did not the energy drinks back into stores last July. However, one strike does not end the game.

Nonetheless... The strike is still there, and it happened. There were other strikes too. Pretending otherwise is STUPID.

We have a CEO actively willing to take the chance and swing the bat. Sometimes, he will miss the ball. That is disappointing, but there is no need to run from the facts. Not every swing has resulted in a hit, and there ARE going to be strikes in the future.

Adrian is still swinging though and SOMETIMES, there will be hits.

As long as Adrian keeps swinging the bat, it is only a matter of time before more good things happen. People claiming Adrian hits nothing but home runs is stupid and counterproductive.

Good! I agree with those statements that you presented as fact. Yell those facts again and again (although you might mention that the DNA won the worldwide taste competitions back in 2010 and 2012 WHEN THE PRODUCTS WERE STILL IN THE MARKETPLACE).

I have no issue with pointing out the positives. Yell them from the rooftops! Just don't make up stuff or distort the facts because the DNAX opportunity is already good enough based on the facts. We don't need hype or distortion here.

No... my issue is not with the fact that Adrian did not deliver on all of his promises.

My issues is with people here on iHub who claim that Adrian has always delivered on his promises when everyone who has been here for the last year knows that is not true.

Stupid statements here in this forum intended to hype DNA diminish the creditability and usefulness of this forum. That is not how to get new investors to become shareholders.

Adrian has his strengths and he has his weaknesses. Running from his weaknesses is not going to fool anyone. Adrian has enough strengths to warrant new investors to take a good look because there is money to be made here probably later this year. Filling this forum with hype will just cause them to look for honesty elsewhere.

Yes... those things did happen. DNA has really good energy drink products that were once actually in the market under previous management.

Adrian made promises about putting the products back into the market in 2016 and he did not make good on those promises. That is the truth.

Others here are hyping to try to get people to buy shares, and it is stupid.

Some others claim Adrian is a scam artist and I think they are wrong.

I believe the reason Adrian did not deliver on promises in 2016 is because he was learning about how to be effective.

I believe that Adrian will successfully get the products back to market, and he knows he has to support those products with good marketing and advertising.

This does not need hype.

One can justify buying DNA just from looking at the facts realistically.

Look... I've done enough entrepreneurial activities to know that plans don't always pan out.

I was highly disappointed when things did not pan out after Adrian's very strong assertion last April that the products would be back into the market early third quarter 2016.

However, I do understand that sometimes, plans do not go as planned.

At the same time, that instructed me that I cannot totally trust Adrian to execute his plans all the time.

I can accept that, and if a shareholder cannot accept that, they should sell and walk away.

What I cannot accept is when someone else makes the claim that Adrian always delivers on promises when we all know that is simply not true.

I am not saying Adrian is not trying, and I am not saying that I am not bullish on DNA,

I know that Adrian is trying to reboot the business, and I am bullish on DNA.

Other people should be real about the reality though, and the reality is that Adrian had a big learning curve to climb, and he made some mistakes along the way. Further, reality is that Adrian is still learning, and he will probably make more mistakes in the future.

That doesn't mean DNA ultimately will not do well. That means that unnecessary hype loses us creditability, and that loss of creditability can rightfully lose us some potential investors, and that hurts everyone.

Health/energy drink?!?!?

I have consumed several and of DNA energy drinks, and I can personally attest to the fact that it perks a person up. So, it is certainly an effective energy drink.

However, where did anyone get the idea DNA makes health drinks? There is nothing healthy about sugar and caffeine.

Yeah, I know. So, why don't you stop making inaccurate statements which assert that Adrian has done everything he promised... because he has not.

Adrian is doing just fine with his efforts to reboot the business. He does not need people making up hype to try to make things look better than they are.

Those are not aaccusations. Those are facts, and if you have been following Adrian since April, you know it too. In Adrian's first conference call last April, he was very specific that he would have the energy drinks back into the retail market by early third quarter of 2016.

That obviously did not occur.

If you don't believe me, then go read the iHub posts from last April as several people posted the link to the audio recording of the conference call.