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.
Here is a definition of "par value" to illucidate you from Wikipedia:
Par value stock has no relation to market value and, as a concept, is somewhat archaic. The par value of a stock was the share price upon initial offering; the issuing company promised not to issue further shares below par value, so investors could be confident that no one else was receiving a more favorable issue price. Thus, Par Value is a nominal value of a security which is determined by an issuing company as a minimum price. This was far more important in unregulated equity markets than in the regulated markets that exist today.
Par value also has bookkeeping purposes. It allows the company to put a de minimis value for the stock on the company's financial statement.
Many common stocks issued today do not have par values; those that do (usually only in jurisdictions where par values are required by law) have extremely low par values (often the smallest unit of currency in circulation), for example a penny par value on a stock issued at USD$25/share. Most states do not allow a company to issue stock below par value.
No-par stocks have "no par value" printed on their certificates. Instead of par value, some U.S. states allow no-par stocks to have a stated value, set by the board of directors of the corporation, which serves the same purpose as par value in setting the minimum legal capital that the corporation must have after paying any dividends or buying back its stock.
Preferred stock par value remains relevant, and tends to reflect issue price. Dividends on preferred stocks are calculated as a percentage of par value.
Also, par value still matters for a callable common stock: the call price is usually either par value or a small fixed percentage over par value.
In the United States, it is legal for a corporation to issue "watered" shares below par value. However, the purchasers of "watered" shares incur an accounting liability to the corporation for the difference between the par value and the price they paid. Today, in many jurisdictions, par values are no longer required for common stocks.
So where is the SEC Form 4a Change in Beneficial Ownership???
100,000/50,000 is 200%, not the 150% as I originally stated.
You are STILL wrong.
First, FFGO is not a "C" Corporation so right out of the box you are off. You looked up a different form of corporation, a closely held company. Good try though.
Second, the numbers in your attached article are indeed wrong: when you do a proportion, with 100,000 outstanding shares, 50% is 50,000 or stated another way, 50,000/100,000. Why didn't you see the referenced piece you provided had an ERROR? The proportion in your article is 100,000/50,000 which is 150%.
Your posting is so wrong, where do I start?
Par Value has no relationship to share price. It is arbitrary. The original difference between par value and share value is on the books as "Additional Paid-In Capital". Here is a link for a definition:
http://www.investorwords.com/3611/par_value.html
Second, your numbers are wrong too. If the company authorizes 1 million shares and issues 50,000 each for a total outstanding of 100,000 then each shareholder owns 50,000/100,000; not the other way around, 100,000/50,000.
Continuing on, "Establishing a stated value or par value of stock is considered a corporation’s “legal capital”. This may provide some protection for the shareholders because it is generally illegal for a corporation to pay dividends or repurchase shares if doing so impairs the legal capital. "
Again, wrong. Par value is NOT a corporation's "legal capital" and provides NO protection for shareholders. It is not illegal for a corporation to pay dividends at a deficit. Look at all the utilities that were building in the 1960-1980's that were paying in excess of their earnings as they installed new generating plants. It is considered a return of capital and decreases the cost basis. [e.g. Texas Utilities, Long Island Lighting, Florida Power & Light, etc.]
"And comparing GE to FFGO is not only funny but delusional...."
Read a little more carefully. I was not comparing GE and FFGO, I was illustrating buyers and sellers taking opposite positions:
"Every time someone sells a stock, say General Electric, there is someone else who takes an opposite position."
Now, THIS is funny!
Numerous posters have sold shares so your info is incorrect. "Astute" shareholders would not be comparing GE and FFGO companies as they are in different industries. They might however compare allocating $ to one and/or the other depending upon their risk profile. Remember when GE was in the 30's a few years ago? All those people that owned from that time either directly or in a mutual fund have a loss. So much for "safe" investments. Everything has risks, even not participating in the market. Do as you please, I don't care.
Sooo, you have no scientific basis but simply conjecture. You believe the past rules the future and circumstances don't evolve. That is OK. Every time someone sells a stock, say General Electric, there is someone else who takes an opposite position. This week will tell who is correct.
How did you derive that statistic and what is the confidence level + or - two standard deviations?
It won't change the outcome; the markets are closed and the announcement will be Monday at 8:00. You should have bought a position or covered.
Perhaps to those who have not done their research it does indeed appear to be "too good to be true."
There has been eight years of research done. All pointing to scam.
No, not scam. A deal that was not consumated until now despite appearances.
However, to others who know the reason the company is selling their gold interests is to unlock the intrinsic value within the shares, they will prosper.
They have no proven gold "interest". Please supply some disinterested third party confirmation.
I don't have to. The Buyer already has that info.
Do research; prosper...don't do research; sit on the sidelines wondering why life passes by.
Investing in known scams is financial suicide.
We agree. That is why I invested in this company and not others.
There are too many companies involved, too many attorneys, too many CPA's for this to be illegitimate.
There are a lot of attorneys involved. However they are not looking out for the sheeple. They are looking out for Lumb and his cohorts.
Wrong! They have their licenses to protect. They can loose their right to earn a living and go to prison. No, they are not going to put themselves and their families at risk. You do not make a compelling argument.
On the one hand are all those professionals and on the other hand is the comment, "If it sounds to [too] good to be true, it probably is to [too] good to be true."
Monday 8AM is roughly forty six hours away. Then the delay will be announced or the worthless divi disbursed.
Are you an insider? No, then whatever you say at this point is conjecture and nothing more.
This was discussed ad nauseum.
The CEO is not giving dollars to anyone. Shareholders OWN the company and he is employed by us.
Perhaps to those who have not done their research it does indeed appear to be "too good to be true." However, to others who know the reason the company is selling their gold interests is to unlock the intrinsic value within the shares, they will prosper. Do research; prosper...don't do research; sit on the sidelines wondering why life passes by. There are too many companies involved, too many attorneys, too many CPA's for this to be illegitimate. On the one hand are all those professionals and on the other hand is the comment, "If it sounds to [too] good to be true, it probably is to [too] good to be true."
10 business days.
Where are the 13D's or 4A's if insiders were selling??? There are none so no new shares as also independently confirmed by the Transfer Agent.
It had a bid most of the day.
That's a lot of volume for any stock!
Signing the contract and its announcement will move the stock.
Gold is up over $13 today although the deal was probably signed either yesterday or today for Monday's announcement.
Insiders have to file documents with the Government: 13D, 4A etc. They have 10 days. Nothing was filed so it is not coming from the company. Therefore it is Naked Short Sales.
There might be more than one company purchasing the gold interests. Most people have speculated on only one company as the buyer.
Texan: What are your latest total evaluation prices for the properties. Did you revise them in either direction?
There are always value stocks where the capitalization is less than the value of the assets. We happen to have found one that will pay off handsomly. After such a protracted wait our time is finally at hand.
I on the other hand cannot say either way, and this is what I espousing; only insiders know.
What were the payment terms? Are they payable at signing? Are they paid now? Are they due when FFGO signs the contract with the Purchaser? I haven't read the terms and neither have you.
Only the insiders know. NOBODY can say with certitude. So, claiming that FL "proved" the notes were never paid for is ludicrous. It is like saying "prove aliens live on other planets." Your agrument is not supported by the premise.
You don't know what you are talking about. Most of a public company's documents are private and not within the public domain. Consolidated financial statements as part of SEC documents are public. What a weak and factually incorrect argument.
You don't know what the terms are since you were not privy to them. You can surmise all you want, but you can't say with any certitude.
Starting the race doesn't count as much as finishing the race. Despite the hurdles, the finish line is in sight.
One great thing that came out of this are the cyber friendships created. What will be something to look forward to will be the final resolution of scam vs. no scam. I eagerly anticipate the door closing on the "usual suspects" as they seek new endeavors.
That is right. They shouldn't have sold shares naked.
Neither she nor anyone else other than the insiders knows. It is pure conjecture.
For the people scaming FFGO shareholders with false and misleading information:
"its gonna hurt later ..."
Thanks, well said. I couldn't agree with you more!!
Well, as you already know, equity was exchanged for debt and this equity was sold to Sloane before they bought the residual debt.
"Wow"
"The former noteholders just sold for .0035 per the recent filing."
"No they didn't. Sloane took over their notes. That's all."
sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/802206/000101376210001069/form8k.htm
You are incorrect.
You are wrong! Not according to Section 234.839 subsection B!
You avoided answering the question posed.