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.
Great post from TheRock07 on another board:
"Illustrative Net earnings at $15 US sales
$15 million US in sales will probably be achieved without the recent mega deal with the US's largest private healthcare technology provider.
Several contracts were recently signed which should lead to a rapid expansion of sales outside the US and EU.
Those are the two largest healthcare regions of the world.
So, lets take $15 million US in sales as being certainly achievable over the next 4 quarters..
Thats about $20 million cad or about 3 times the annualized 2016 sales todate.
Gross margins at very modest sales are already 65 %.
As sales expand, economies of scale will move gross margin upwards.
I shall use GM=70 %.
That is, operating earnings from $20 million cad in sales will be about $14 million.
Annualized operating costs are about $5.5 million in 2016 todate.
I will boost this by 30 % which should easily account for expanded G & A @ $20 million in sales.
So, total operating costs will be about $ 7 million which means that Ebitda will be about $ 7 million or about $0.35 per share.
COV have tax loss pools to protect early profits but lets assume that they pay the full income tax of 26 %.
The computations are elementary.
Net earnings will be about $5.5 million cad or about $0.26 per fd share.
If you check out healthcare technology/device ETFs, you will find that they trade over 30 times net earnings.
With a pristine balance sheet without debt, COV should qualify for at least 20 times net earnings, if not higher.
This implies a realistic fair value above $5 per fd share @ very achievable annual sales of $20 million cad.
My own view is that within 2 years, Covalon will have annual sales several multiples hgher than $20 million.
Hence the magnificant upside here for the astute investor who buys and holds for the next 2 years..
Illustrative Net earnings at $15 US sales
$15 million US in sales will probably be achieved without the recent mega deal with the US's largest private healthcare technology provider.
Several contracts were recently signed which should lead to a rapid expansion of sales outside the US and EU.
Those are the two largest healthcare regions of the world.
So, lets take $15 million US in sales as being certainly achievable over the next 4 quarters..
Thats about $20 million cad or about 3 times the annualized 2016 sales todate.
Gross margins at very modest sales are already 65 %.
As sales expand, economies of scale will move gross margin upwards.
I shall use GM=70 %.
That is, operating earnings from $20 million cad in sales will be about $14 million.
Annualized operating costs are about $5.5 million in 2016 todate.
I will boost this by 30 % which should easily account for expanded G & A @ $20 million in sales.
So, total operating costs will be about $ 7 million which means that Ebitda will be about $ 7 million or about $0.35 per share.
COV have tax loss pools to protect early profits but lets assume that they pay the full income tax of 26 %.
The computations are elementary.
Net earnings will be about $5.5 million cad or about $0.26 per fd share.
If you check out healthcare technology/device ETFs, you will find that they trade over 30 times net earnings.
With a pristine balance sheet without debt, COV should qualify for at least 20 times net earnings, if not higher.
This implies a realistic fair value above $5 per fd share @ very achievable annual sales of $20 million cad.
My own view is that within 2 years, Covalon will have annual sales several multiples hgher than $20 million.
Hence the magnificant upside here for the astute investor who buys and holds for the next 2 years..
Read more at http://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/v.cov/covalon-technologies-ltd#Ibr7J2jWEm544puP.99
Warrants (NVEEW) with an exercise price of $7.80 expire in 2018 and look to be a pretty good value at $3.00 if you like NVEE and are looking for a leveraged play.
En Banc Hearing probability somewhere about 1 out of 500. This topic was researched recently on another stock board (VHC board on InvestorVillage, message 69741) and last year CAFC held 0 enbanc hearings. This year, 2 so far. It is a genuine rarity.
Well said Shad. I recently put one regular poster here on ignore as his constant rah-rah posts were just too juvenile for my taste. He attacks anyone who questions his childish enthusiasm. A good stock but a very strange board.
From recent Annual Report:
Financial Results and Trends
Revenue decreased by approximately 11.7% to $2,592,596 in the year ended March 31, 2014 as compared to $2,937,276 in the year ended March 31, 2013. In fiscal 2014, we experienced a decline in revenues as a result of an internal re-organization that took place in Europe and the longer than expected time needed to finalize the SmileMe Mirror. The launch was forecasted for the end of the calendar year 2013 but was postponed to June 2014.
Our net income/( loss) attributable to our stockholders was $0.03 for fiscal 2014 and ($0.05) for fiscal 2013. During the year ended March 31, 2014 we recognized $156,620 in equity income from our Asian investment compared to $349,054 at March 31, 2013. Our net income for fiscal 2014 was positively impacted by a gain of $1,582,597 on the sale of shares of our Glamsmile Asian Division (thereby reducing our participation from 29.4% to 21.5% at the end of January 31, 2014) compared to a net income for fiscal 2013 of a gain of $454,430 on the sale of our OTC division.
Watching the share price is quite misleading. Even with the amazing rise over the past year, the market cap of PFHO is only $45 million. That is absolutely tiny. We could have a 10 bagger from here and this company would still be valued at less than half a billion. Lots of room to run, all because of the remarkably low share count.
Thank you for that very detailed and thoughtful post. Been in REMI for 3 years and have grown impatient at times. But it looks like all recent developments are positive Also very good to see some decent trading activity this month.
Excellent, looking forward to your thoughts..
Care to elaborate? How do you see the REMI story developing over the next 12 months?
This has the potential to be a portfoliomaker. Warrants are still undervalued at .07 and all corporate PR suggests a huge oil find is imminent. Or perhaps already found! Stockhouse thread much more active.
Dismissed with prejudice almost always means the defendant paid some money to the plaintiff.
These settlements just sort of have the air of nuisance suits about them. Corporate defendants don't just give up and roll over if big bucks are involved, no matter what the evidence against them. In the settled cases the docket entries indicate that very little, if any, discovery had taken place. Most of the settlements just came too quick and easy for the money to be substantial. Just my opinion for what's it worth.
Hispeed got me curious with his list so I got busy on Pacer to see what I could ferret out about these cases.
Appears that all the recent Sampo litigation settlements stem from patent #5,331,637 "Multicast Routing Using Core Based Trees" issued in 1994. The 4 cases you reference were all dismissed with prejudice. Similar cases against Amazon, Intuit, Twitter and TIBCO remain open. The settled cases usually lasted anywhere from 50 to 150 days, so pretty short litigation period for all of them.
The Relay IP and Vantage Point cases are based on patent #5,463,750 "Method and Apparatus for Translating Virtual Addresses in a Data Processing System having Multiple Instruction Pipelines and Separate TLB's for Each Pipeline" issued in 1995. There are about 40 cases filed for Vantage Point and 45 for Relay IP of which about half have settled, some last year and some this year.
You look at these Complaints and it quickly becomes apparent that it is an assembly line process. The Complaints, exhibits and filings are nearly identical within patent families. For instance the Sampo suit against eBay is essentially word for word identical to the suit against Facebook.
What is interesting is how the Court has been cooperative in allowing Sampo, Relay and Vantage to file multiple suits on the same day and then "coordinate" discovery across multiple suits in a manner that keeps the plaintiff's costs way down. A very smart tactic.
Given the age on the patents involved and the fairly short duration of most of these suits I would not expect to see large dollar amounts rolling in to Marathon on these settlements. Cumulatively however, they might add up to something significant. Just hard to tell.
Must have been an open & shut case based on the 5 month life of the case and lack of obvious pushback from Level 3. Case was dismissed with prejudice so it is clearly over. Major allegations are as follows:
The Patent-In-Suit
7. CRFD is the owner by assignment of the ’486 Patent, entitled “Web Page Content Translator,” which the United States Patent & Trademark Office duly issued on August 11, 2009. A true and correct copy of the ’486 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
8. The inventions of the ’486 Patent are applicable to, among other things,
reformatting of web content into a format for viewing on a mobile device. Level 3’s Infringing Products and Methods
9. Level 3’s Content Delivery Network purports to support “some of the world’s largest video, software and web properties.”1 Level 3’s “Website Acceleration” services purport to render webpages and applications on desktops, mobiles and other devices “up to 70 percent faster than traditional content delivery networks.”2
10. Upon information and belief, Level 3 makes, uses, sells and offers for sale products that reformat web content into an optimized format readable by mobile devices, including but not limited to its Front End Optimization, Site Transformer and Mobile Website Acceleration products (“Level 3 Infringing Products”). For example, Level 3’s product lines employ Front-End Optimization (“FEO”). Level 3 purports that, prior to delivery of web content to specific devices, FEO “improves web page speed by analyzing and rewriting code delivered over an IP network” and “simplifies code to optimize each page by browser type.”3 For example, Level 3’s Site Transformer service applies FEO “treatments to analyze and transform web page code at the browser level, which enables peak performance across all browsers and mobile platforms.”4 Level 3’s FEO services also purport to track web-site visitor behavior to predict which pages they are most likely to want to see and “pushes those pages’ resources – images, JavaScript, CSS, etc. – to the visitor’s browser on standby for instantaneous page loads.”5 Level 3 claims that with its Mobile Website Acceleration tool, “websites can be dynamically encoded to display content optimally on different devices... help[ing] realize 1.5x to 2.5x improvement[s]
COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’486 PATENT
11. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-10 herein by reference as if set forth here in
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant has been and is currently directly
in performance.”6
infringing, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’486 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, products and services that reformat web content. For example, and without limitation, Defendant directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’486 Patent in Delaware and elsewhere in the United States. Defendant directly infringes and continues to directly infringe at least claims 11 and 12 of the ’486 Patent by making, selling, using and offering for sale at least its Front End Optimization, Site Transformer and Mobile Website Acceleration services/tools.
13. Defendant also directly infringes one or more claims of the ’486 Patent by directing and/or controlling its employees, executives, users, agents, affiliates, suppliers and customers to use the aforementioned web content reformatting products within the United States.
14. To the extent that any claim is construed to require a system, Defendant also directly infringes one or more claims of the ’486 Patent by providing web content reformatting software, platforms and/or hardware to users, thus putting the aforementioned web content reformatting products into use.
15. By using the methods claimed in the ’486 Patent and by making, selling, importing, offering for sale and/or using the aforementioned web content reformatting products,
Defendant has been and is now directly infringing under 35 U.S.C. § 271 one or more claims of the ’486 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
16. Upon information and belief, upon knowledge of the ’486 Patent (at least since the filing date of this Complaint) Defendant is contributing to the infringement of the ’486 Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent, actively encouraging its customers, suppliers, agents, users and affiliates to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale Defendant’s products and services, such as, but not limited to its Front End Optimization, Site Transformer and Mobile Website Acceleration services/tools, which infringe at least claims 11 and 12 of the ’486 Patent. For example, to the extent that any claim is construed to require a system, Defendant provides components, including web content reformatting software, platforms and/or hardware for use in systems with mobile devices. Defendant knows that such products constitute a material part of the inventions of the ’486 Patent, knows those products to be especially made or adapted to infringe the ’486 Patent, and knows that those products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
17. By contributing to its customers’, suppliers’, agents’, users’ and affiliates’ use of the apparatus and methods claimed in the ’486 Patent and their making and/or using the aforementioned web content reformatting products, Defendant has been and is now indirectly infringing under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) one or more claims of the ’486 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
18. Upon information and belief, upon knowledge of the ’486 Patent (at least since the filing date of this Complaint), Defendant is inducing infringement of the ’486 Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent, actively encouraging its customers, suppliers, users, agents and affiliates to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale Defendant’s aforementioned
web content reformatting products in a manner that constitutes infringement of at least claims 11 and 12 of the ’486 Patent, with the knowledge and specific intent to encourage, direct and facilitate those infringing activities, and knowing that such activities infringe the ’486 Patent, including through the creation and dissemination of promotional and marketing materials, instructional materials, product materials and technical materials. For example, Defendant provides Front End Optimization, Site Transformer and Mobile Website Acceleration briefs promoting the features and benefits of FEO, among other things.7
19. To the extent that Defendant’s users can be considered to put the aforementioned web content reformatting products into use (for example, to the extent any claim is construed to require such a system), then Defendant would also be inducing infringement of the ’486 Patent by, among other things, knowingly and with intent (at least since the filing date of this Complaint), actively encouraging its users to make and use Defendant’s aforementioned web content reformatting products in a manner that constitutes infringement of one or more claims of the ’486 Patent, with the knowledge and specific intent to encourage, direct and facilitate those infringing activities, and knowing that such activities infringe the ’486 Patent, including through the creation and dissemination of promotional and marketing materials, instructional materials, product materials and technical materials.
20. By inducing its customers’, suppliers’, users’, agents’ and affiliates’ use of the apparatus and methods claimed in the ’486 Patent and their making and/or using at least Front End Optimization, Site Transformer and Mobile Website Acceleration, Defendant has been and is now indirectly infringing under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) at least claims 11 and 12 of the ’486 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
21. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful infringement of the ’486 Patent, CRFD has suffered and will continue to suffer damage. CRFD is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages adequate to compensate for such infringement, which have yet to be determined.
22. Defendant will continue to infringe the ’486 Patent unless and until it is enjoined by this Court.
23. Defendant, by way of its infringing activities, has caused and continues to cause CRFD to suffer damages in an amount to be determined at trial. CRFD has no adequate remedy at law against Defendant’s acts of infringement and, unless Defendant is enjoined from its infringement of the ’486 Patent, CRFD will suffer irreparable harm.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, CRFD respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor as follows:
A. Holding that Defendant has directly infringed, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more of the claims of the ’486 Patent;
B. Holding that Defendant has indirectly infringed, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more of the claims of the ’486 Patent;
C. Permanently enjoining Defendant and its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, affiliates, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents and all others acting in concert or privity with any of them from infringing, inducing the infringement of, or contributing to the infringement of the ’486 Patent;
D. Permanently enjoining the use of the web content reformatting products created or used according to the patented methods of the ’486 Patent;
7
So Wolf, here is what Griffith said that you seem to think is the equivalent of releasing fully audited financials:
"The Company recently completed the financial statement audit for the acquisition of Quest Marketing, Inc. (dba Quest Solution, Inc.) and has filed these with the Securities and Exchange Commission in a Form 8K-A filing. "
So where are these "filed" financials?
"Again past frolicking of AGOE will not haunt this opportunity"
And you know this how? By the quality of the Board of Directors?!?
Did YOU do any research on L.L. Bradford & Company, LLC ? Legit public companies trying to convince investors of their bona fides will not gain any credibility using this outfit.
Caveat emptor
Presumably this is what has you all excited:
"Kurt Thomet, President of Quest Solution ("Quest"), the company's wholly owned subsidiary commented, "In the first 3 months of 2013, we had sales of approximately $5,800,000, whereas for the same period in 2014, we are looking at a greater than 60% increase to bring us to approximately $9,400,000 in sales to be reported for the first quarter 2014."
That is the only information yet released on Quest's performance and really provides no useful guidance. Unaudited to boot.
Got to say I haven't seem a company with so many glaring red flags in quite awhile. Good luck with this "investment".
As best as I can confrim, Amerigo/Quest has no Board of Directors other than Jason Griffith and no audited financials.
Griffith owns 84.61% of the common stock consisting of 133,828,288 shares and 500,000 preferred shares which vote at 250 to 1. 3,500,000 preferred shares issued and outstanding.
Amerigo/Quest operates out of a building owned by Griffith because they have no cashflow by which to pay his $250,000 salary or rent.
This a interesting: "The Company previously had a consulting agreement with a firm controlled by the Company's Chief Executive Officer for a fee of $3,500 per month. The consulting firm had been engaged to assist in organizing and completing the process of filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other tasks. The Company owed the firm $111,368 as of September 30, 2013 and this was settled for 560,000 shares of common stock on December 30, 2013."
So he does deals between his own companies and "settles" the bad debt for additional shares.
And this, "Due to the Company's limited cash position, the CEO has been lending the Company money to operate when funds were needed. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, a total of $74,442 and $154,732, respectively, was due to the CEO of the Company related to advances and payables.
As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s CEO is owed $45,000 in accrued, but not paid, salary.
The company utilizes office space at an office building the CEO partially owns. During June 2011, the building agreed to waive the rent cost of office space until operations increase. The only costs invoiced to the Company are for reimbursement of direct costs such as shipping, postage, etc."
Looks like more shares coming to Mr. Griffith out of this arrangement also.
Here are the details of company ownership from the 14C filed May 5, 2014:
At the [____], 2014 Record Date, we had 33,170,416 shares of common stock issued and outstanding and 500,000 shares of preferred stock outstanding. The following table sets forth information known to us as of the Record Date, relating to the beneficial ownership of shares of our voting securities by:
·
each person who is known by us to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of our outstanding voting stock;
·
each director;
·
each named executive officer; and
·
all named executive officers and directors as a group.
Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each person listed is in care of AMERIGO ENERGY, INC., 2580 Anthem Village Drive, Henderson, NV 89052. The percentages in the table have been calculated on the basis of treating as outstanding for a particular person, all shares of our common stock outstanding on that date and all shares of our common stock issuable to that holder in the event of exercise of outstanding options, warrants, rights or conversion privileges owned by that person at that date which are exercisable within 60 days of that date. Except as otherwise indicated, the persons listed below have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares of our common stock owned by them, except to the extent that power may be shared with a spouse.
Name
Amount and Nature of Voting Beneficial Ownership
% of Class
Jason Griffith (1)
133,828,288
84.61%
All officers and directors as a group (1 person)
133,828,288
84.61%
(1)
Mr. Griffith is the chief executive officer of our company and a member of our board of directors. His ownership is 8,828,288 of Common Shares and 500,000 of Preferred Stock which vote at 250:1.
Longinvest, thank you as that 10-K from April 2, 2014 would not pull up in its entirety in my several previous efforts. Apparently the "Subsequent Events" section of this document is the only public document available that spells out the terms of the sale from Quest to Amerigo. For others who may have an interest, here are the details:
"NOTE 12 - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
On January 10, 2014, with an effective date of January 1, 2014, the shareholders of Quest Marketing, Inc. (d/b/a Quest Solution, "Quest"), an Oregon corporation in the technology, software, and mobile data collection systems business, sold their interest in Quest to Amerigo Energy, Inc. ("Amerigo"). Quest will be a wholly owned subsidiary of Amerigo. The related party notes receivables outstanding will be settled against the loan proceeds owed to the selling Stockholders. There has been no change of control for Quest in its management.
The purchase price for Quest was $16,000,000.
The consideration given to the shareholders of Quest Solution, Inc. were as follows:
A. A promissory note for $4,969,000, which payments are to be a minimum of 45.0% of the cash earned from EBITDA of Quest Solutions, Inc. during the prior quarter. Once the Holder has received $3,375,000, the principal and interest payments on the promissory note are to be a minimum of 22.5% of the cash earned from EBITDA of Quest Solutions, Inc. during the prior quarter.
The balance of the promissory note is expected to be paid before February 18, 2016, or twenty five (25) months from the date of execution of this agreement. Should the cash flow and payments from EBITDA during the term of this agreement not be sufficient to pay off the loan prior to its maturation, the loan will extend for additional twelve (12) months periods till paid off.
The holder of the note is permitted to convert up $1,594,000 of the Promissory Note into common shares of the Company at a ratio of one share for every $1.00 of promissory note converted. This conversion feature is non-transferrable without written consent from the Company.
B. A promissory note for $11,031,000, which payments are to be payments on the promissory note are to be a minimum of forty five percent (45%) of the cash earned from EBITDA of Quest Solutions, Inc. during the prior quarter. Once the first promissory note ($4.97mm) has received $3,375,000, the principal and interest payments on this promissory note are to be a minimum of 67.5% of the cash earned from EBITDA of Quest Solutions, Inc. during the prior quarter.
The balance of the promissory note is expected to be paid before January 18, 2017, or three (3) years from the date of execution of this agreement. Should the cash flow and payments from EBITDA during the term of this agreement not be sufficient to pay off the loan prior to its maturation, the loan will extend for additional twelve (12) months periods till paid off.
The holders of the notes are permitted to convert up to $4,781,000 of the Promissory Note into common shares of the Company at a ratio of one share for every $1.00 of promissory note converted. This conversion feature is non- transferrable without written consent from the Company.
The prior owners of Quest shall retain a security interest in the subsidiary until the promissory note is satisfied.
On January 10, 2014, the Company came to terms on a settlement with its prior investment in Le Flav Spirits and the related liquor brands. The Company concurrently canceled its consulting contract related to the liquor line and will be receiving back 1,765,000 of the shares that had previously been issued in conjunction with this venture. This cancellation also removed the $2,000,000 promissory note related to the acquisition, as well as the consulting contracts with the respective Consultants.
During the first quarter of 2014, the Company issued warrants to executives of Quest Solution, Inc. with the following milestones:
When the Company reaches $35,000,000 in sales, 5,000,000 warrants at $1.00 per share vest and become exercisable. These warrants expire on January 9, 2016.
F-15
When the Company makes it to the NASDAQ or AMEX or larger exchange, 2,000,000 warrants at $3.00 per share vest and become exercisable. These warrants expire on January 9, 2017.
When the Company reaches $40,000,000 in sales, a 2,000,000 share bonus is given to the executives. This expires January 8, 2017.
Management evaluates events and transactions that occur after the balance sheet date as potential subsequent events. Management has performed this evaluation through the date of the accountant’s report. As of March 30, 2014, all other material subsequent events have been disclosed."
Anyone here understand how Amerigo became the owner of Quest? Where can I find documentation of the terms of this acquisition? 4 months age Amerigo was exiting oil and entering liquor. Then, within a couple months at most, they own Quest who is allegedly doing millions of dollars of sales in a business totally unrelated to oil or liquor. I really want to understand how this came about and cannot find any company PR's or other news releases that lay out the progression of events here. Surely someone on this board can point me to some documents which will bring me up to speed. Thanks in advance.
I've read everything I could find and cannot even locate any documents that describe how Amerigo came to own Quest. Where are the filings and PR's that provide the details of this acquisition? And where are the docs that show Quest is a profitable operation? I am not suggesting you are wrong but I find the lack of public information to be rather puzzling. Can you provide a link to these documents?
Added some today. Had to pay a bit of a premium as apparently not much available. Good time to buy as it is pretty much off everyone's radar at the moment. I think zen is right in that the deal with Molnlycke could really pump up COV's sales. My research indicates that this is a highly competitive field but I like the risk/reward ratio with Covalon.
Gross revenues up substantially but so are costs resulting in a net income decrease. They need to get costs under control pronto.
Markets aren't very efficient in the short run and this news probably hasn't gotten much attention yet. Feeling confident that the price will soon begin to reflect real value here.
Latest IKNX quarterlies out.
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=61951027
Latest quarterlies out.
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=61951027
Thanks 3D, you make some excellent points. Good to see this company being followed by such knowledgeable investors. I would ordinarily not consider such a stock but you and r0und have definitely gotten me interested. Thanks!
r0und3, thank you for the very thorough explanation of the huge share count. I much appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply and will be digging deeper into SGLB over the weekend.
You and monkey may well be correct that SGLB is the exception to the rule. The 600 million share count can be dealt with, as you say, by a reverse split. The problem is not so much with the ginormous share count as what it potentially says about management. How did it get so large? A willingness to dilute shareholder equity on a frequent basis? It would be unusual for a company to start out with that kind of share count so what exactly happened to cause it? As I'm sure you know, management is everything with these small tiny companies and the huge share count just acts as a highly visible red flag.
I will indeed do a bit more research. Thanks.
SGLB has 600 million shares outstanding. I'm sure it has happened somewhere sometime but I have never seen a microcap with that kind of share structure prove to be a rewarding investment. Anything over 100 mill is cause for concern. 600 is off the scale. In all fairness I don't know anything else about the stock but that one stat will keep me (and many others) away.
1.5 to 1 stock dividend coming for ARC!
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=61843750
Nice sleuthing investerone! Indeed, that was me. Kinda frustrating as I wanted 'em cheap but no more sellers at that 44 price. And I am not terribly patient when I see a stock slipping away.
Thanks triad for the very detailed and thoughtful response. I have spent quite a bit of time scouring the interwebs seeking that elusive warning sign of potential hidden problems with PFHO. Has been a complete dry hole so far. Everything continues to check out pretty much as you have described. Guess it's time to jump in with both feet and stop the nibbling. The high quality and tone of your posts is much appreciated.
Very timely article. Pretty much answered the question I put to Triad yesterday.
Triad thanks for your very informative posts. I have about 250 shares of PFHO and am considering tripling that amount, But I have to admit that I am held back by my lack of understanding of their business model. You seem to be absolutely certain that the business will continue on a high growth curve. Perhaps you have covered this in a previous post and, if so, could you direct me to it? I just don't understand what they do and their prospect for continuing to do it successfully well enough to take this investment to the next level. Any thoughts you can offer would be much appreciated.
gfunk, you are to be commended for your gentlemanly restraint. If you check DanClark69's history you will see he is a professional cheerleader. Posts nothing useful, just a lot of all-cap chants. That's why IH has an ignore function.
Going to be hard to generate much interest in SGLB with a float of 404 million shares. Those kind of numbers are usually a pretty good "keep away" indicator.
You night want to take advantage of the Ignore function. I hit it after his last post.
Thanks for that additional info.