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.
For your future reference, this was written in every 10-k they released after the Yieldco's were spun-off. If you're familiar with a VIE structure, you'd immediately understand what it says which is: we don't own the assets that are being consolidated on our books. If you're not familiar with VIE's, then I'd suggest you stick to investing in businesses you have experience in and walk away from the ones you don't.
This is from their 2015 10-K:
I made 54%. That was enough to satisfy me.
Some posters look at the market as a competitive game. I personally get no joy that you lost a good deal of money, but I see it everyday regarding businesses that are so easy to figure out, it boggles my mind how some don't put in the effort to simply read the footnotes of a 10-k. SunEdison made it abundantly clear in every filing that they do not own the assets they were allowed to book.
The judge has been extremely clear. All shares will be cancelled. Read the court dockets and you won't have to guess.
SUNE and SUNEQ are the same.
This is the best thing in the world, according to you, yet it's trading for $0.05 per share. Lol. Some people are born dreamers.
The Moelis plan was sponsored by Paulson, not Berkowitz. Paulson has used Moelis for valuation assessments for many years. The plan doesn't screw Commons, so I have no idea where you're coming up with the notion that it does.
You're already there.
Pretty sure their "financing" activities comes from their constant issue of PIPES. They made one in 2016 too.
My guess is that 100% of revenue is being used to pay salaries.
Yes it does. They "refocus" Everytime they need capital to keep the lights on. An ironic coincidence. You bought it. Lol.
If it was 1,000%, they wouldn't be starved for capital and need to sell their patents.
In regards to the cancelled acquisition of Vivent, and it was March of last year. Has nothing to do with an investigation of shareholder fraud nor will produce any money when the judge has already ruled there is no money left. Does absolutely nothing for the shareholders. It's over. Sell at $0.05 or sell at $0.0005. It's up to you.
No you weren't. There was no misleading of anything. You simply don't know how to read a financial statement. Everything was disclosed and met disclosure law. You simply failed to read. There'll be no "investigation" of anything.
You're right. It's been the same pattern for 10 years. Comes down to a simple terms: sunk cost.
He's been trying to get to 20 employees for years now. He's released PR's about it hoping to convince people that they were close to doing so. He's came nowhere close.
"Nanologix has 10 employees working at its Hubbard facility, and plans to hire about 10 more by the end of the year, Barnhizer said. At full capacity, the site could employ 75-100 workers, he said."
http://nanologix.com/includes/Vindy-Local_Co_Dev_New_PetriDish-6-7-2010.pdf
Classic pump.
Yeah I'm well aware. I spent 7 years reviewing mortgage application. Including stock increased the their chances for a mortgage.
Exactly.
In these 6 years, the company produced $192,443 in revenue and paid out $5,830,436 in compensation; over 30 times the amount produced in revenue. Who else here believes that's the definition of doing good business? Also, notice when the elimination of officer salary was eliminated, stock grants increased by the same amount that was reported as officer salary.
You went from "it can't be done" to "it can't be done by anyone reputable without charging high interest rates". Lmao. You're clueless.
You're simply incorrect. How many examples you need?
So you're saying that a stock has no value until turned into cash and cannot be used as collateral? Just want to make sure this is what your argument is since you're so vague in your responses about which subject you're even taking about.
I'm not fishing for anything. It is a fact that stocks, regardless of what exchange or electronic system they are on, and whether they are public or private entities, can most definitely be used as collateral for a loan. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
I have more knowledge of pink sheets in my pinky than you'll ever acquire. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
Here's the last financial statement produced from nanologix:
It's obvious who is doing well and who isn't.
Would you like me to show you a business that actually earns income and pays management less than this? I'm invested in one right now :)
Read 144 a little more thoroughly. It's quite different than your understanding. In any event, rule 144 and whether he or anyone else has sold restricted shares has little to do with anything. You're asserting that you can't benefit from stock until it's been sold. That's a ridiculius wives tale. Like an insurance policy, stock certificates can be used to increase ones net worth and be used as collateral in purchasing power.
According to GAAP rules, when stock grants are categorized as "compensation", they can only be used for executive compensation. Not to pay off lawyers. Regardless if nanologix is a registered company or not, by law they still must meet GAAP accounting standards when releasing financials. All financials list these stock grants as compensation which means they were used solely for executives.
I've run out of posts for the day. Any further responses will be given tomorrow.
Show them. Also, you realize rule 144 is an exemption rule for disclosure? :)
When you take a bank loan, for example, to purchase a house or a car or taking a loan in general, you can use stock certificates as collateral. Did you really not know this?
Nanologix was a registered company at one time. They no longer have been for several years. You are mistaken and fail to understand the history of the company. They deregistered years ago.
No. This was a little hole in the wall operation that sold chemical products. A local town business.
"I've not found numbers to indicate amount of shares if any he's paid."
Then you haven't looked.
"Aren't stock payments only valuable if they're monetized?"
Solo you're saying stocks have no value unless cashed in? Interesting. You should inform banks and insurance companies, who allow stock certificates to be used as collateral, of your findings :)
"I also cannot find any SEC forms indicating he's sold any shares he might have received."
He's not required to disclose trades in a non-registered company which is why you've never seen a purchase order of his shares or anyone elses.
"That would fit with what I've been told that he has all shares he's been paid for ten years still in restricted certificate form."
Doesn't matter if he still has them or not. That's not the point. The fact that he's recieved them is. He's been taken care of while the ones who put up the money to run this business have not.
Because I believe it's absolutely ridiculous, and so does every pro investor I know, that he pays himself an amazing salary in the form of stock grants without producing any meaningful revenue. The stock grants issued are more than the total revenue the company even makes. That's the definition of being a crook in my opinion. In addition to that, when you issue PR's explaining certain things will be done or that you expect certain things to be done, and 9 out of 10 times this thing's aren't done, you lose a tremendous amount of integrity. Add to that a group of investors with amazing ignorance of how business in general works.
Because financials were released afterwards that showed no sales had occurred. Then, I contacted the company and what they had to say was much different than what nanologix had to say.