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.
Probably not without getting authorization and jumping through the Insynq hoops again. But, you can only try. I say... tag... you're it! Your turn Viva.
There MAY be a way to see the company books...
One other piece of Nevada law (where Insynq is incorporated) - I just don't know how their preferreds fit into the mix so a reading by a Securities Lawyer may be needed.
NRS 78.257 Right of stockholders to inspect, copy and audit financial records; exceptions; civil and criminal liability; penalty.
1. Any person who has been a stockholder of record of any corporation and owns not less than 15 percent of all of the issued and outstanding shares of the stock of such corporation or has been authorized in writing by the holders of at least 15 percent of all its issued and outstanding shares, upon at least 5 days' written demand, is entitled to inspect in person or by agent or attorney, during normal business hours, the books of account and all financial records of the corporation, to make copies of records, and to conduct an audit of such records. Holders of voting trust certificates representing 15 percent of the issued and outstanding shares of the corporation are regarded as stockholders for the purpose of this subsection. The right of stockholders to inspect the corporate records may not be limited in the articles or bylaws of any corporation.
2. All costs for making copies of records or conducting an audit must be borne by the person exercising his rights set forth in subsection 1.
3. The rights authorized by subsection 1 may be denied to any stockholder upon his refusal to furnish the corporation an affidavit that such inspection, copies or audit is not desired for any purpose not related to his interest in the corporation as a stockholder. Any stockholder or other person, exercising rights set forth in subsection 1, who uses or attempts to use information, records or other data obtained from the corporation, for any purpose not related to the stockholder's interest in the corporation as a stockholder, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
4. If any officer or agent of any corporation keeping records in this State willfully neglects or refuses to permit an inspection of the books of account and financial records upon demand by a person entitled to inspect them, or refuses to permit an audit to be conducted, as provided in subsection 1, the corporation shall forfeit to the State the sum of $100 for every day of such neglect or refusal, and the corporation, officer or agent thereof is jointly and severally liable to the person injured for all damages resulting to him.
5. A stockholder who brings an action or proceeding to enforce any right set forth in this section or to recover damages resulting from its denial:
(a) Is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney's fees, if he prevails; or
(b) Is liable for such costs and fees, if he does not prevail, in the action or proceeding.
6. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the provisions of this section do not apply to any corporation that furnishes to its stockholders a detailed, annual financial statement or any corporation that has filed during the preceding 12 months all reports required to be filed pursuant to section 13 or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A person who owns, or is authorized in writing by the owners of, at least 15 percent of the issued and outstanding shares of the stock of a corporation that has elected to be governed by subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code and whose shares are not listed or traded on any recognized stock exchange is entitled to inspect the books of the corporation pursuant to subsection 1 and has the rights, duties and liabilities provided in subsections 2 to 5, inclusive.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 863; A 1977, 659; 1997, 3092; 2001, 1368, 3199; 2003, 3092)
BBD, I think what VivaLasVegas is referring to as an "unannounced share buyback/retirement by the company" is the fact that the O/S has dropped over a third to 558,191,293. As there has been no reverse split to account for the decline, the only logical reason that is presenting to many of us is that the company has been buying up shares (which might account for why they remain mute on company progress/financials.)
As to Viva basing his statements on my due diligence, he is doing as Colonial Stock Transfer, the Transfer Agent for Insynq has requested. As they explained to me, they act as agents for Insynq and, consequently, their duties are to Insynq. They cannot divulge any shareholder information without company approval. They did receive approval to divulge to me the O/S and are trying to protect their own behinds by insisting that others state me as the source of the info. (I have posted those emails following this for you and others - changing the email addresses a little to protect from spambots. However, anyone wishing copies of the entire emails, including the originating headers, is welcome to them. Simply send me your email address and I will forward them on. As I have in the past, I encourage others to contact Colonial Stock Transfer and begin the process to acquire/validate this information.)
While I have held shares of Insynq since 2004, I did not become really active in my DD pursuits until reading other posts here this last January. (Like you, I do not take anything posted here at face value.) Consequently, I set about finding out for myself if there was any validity to what was being said. Given what I have read in the past about the difficulty of getting a response from the company it has been interesting to find out just how easy it actually has been (though time consuming - think squeaky wheel.) Admittedly, that may be me taking a harder tack with them then others - it is pretty hard to argue with the law. However, the more I have dug into this company, the more amazed I have become. All of my previous presumptions/experiences with sub-pennys (endless dilution, business bleeding capital and spiraling downwards towards bankruptcy) are apparently not being met here. What I have either found, or have been led to believe in a telepone conversation with the CEO, is that this is a company that is making money, operating off of its own cash flow, that is growing and anticipating continuing to grow, considering expansion, that has an O/S number SOMEHOW declining of which at least half (of which I have been apprised by others) appears to be in long hands (which means that the available TRADEABLE float is about 350,000,000. I find it simply amazing that given all of that, the pps sits so low. The problem with the pps, as we all recognize, is that there has been no public info which means that there is little to no public demand. The company going dark has been problematic but not symptomatic of poor management (as I thought at first) as my research shows that more and more small companies are doing the same (see: http://www.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2005/11/07/focus1.html?jst=s_cn_hl )
So, do I have a personal agenda in posting my findings here? You're darn right. I refuse to sell at sub-penny prices a stock that appears that it should LEGITIMATELY be trading in the dollars range. That, however, does not make my findings any less credible especially since I have, from the beginning of my involvement in this in the beginning of February, stated over and over that everyone else should do their own due diligence and to allow for that, I have posted my research trail and findings in copious detail to allow for others to duplicate my efforts. Not only does it go to validating my info, or to them doing their own DD, but I truly feel that if enough people contact the company it will be in the company's best interest to post the info publicly (call it the nuisance factor.)
Also, while I have interacted with other posters on this board (as I am interacting with you now) none are personally known to me. Only one other investor in this company is personally known to me and he neither reads nor posts on this board (or any other that I know of. In fact, he is a senior citizen and I'm not sure that he's computer-literate enough to be posting anywhere.)
Also, please note, that I am always very forthright about things like the source of statements (like oral statements from Gorst.) But, even those I seek to corroborate by writing letters, after the fact, to memorialize the conversation. So, I guess what I am saying is, while I encourage you and everyone else here to replicate my findings, I stand behind what I have ferreted out so far:
Insynq was incorporated in Nevada...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=26648221
Sent mine off yesterday...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=26743001
LETTERS TO INSYNQ - Has anyone else written...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=26912747
Conversation with John Gorst...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27032063
Full Conversation with John Gorst...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27093192
OUTSTANDING SHARES...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27182780
UPDATE - Called Colonial Stock Transfer this AM...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27297497
Just for everybody's information, I did not hear back...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27315551
OUTSTANDING SHARE NUMBER!
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27721601
No Letter from Insynq
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27884575
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMAILS TO/FROM COLONIAL STOCK TRANSFER:
Email #1 (3/14/2008 1:34 PM)
Sorry for the delay, I just spoke with Carroll Benton and she authorized me to give you the outstanding shares. There are 558,191,293 common shares of Insynq Inc. outstanding.
You are not authorized to receive a certified shareholder list, that is not public information. I hope this helps!
Sincerely,
Kassidy Mather
Colonial Stock Transfer
66 Exchange Place
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: (801) 355-5740
Fax: (801) 355-6505
kassidy -at- colonialstock (dot) com
PRIVILEGED - PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
This email and files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain information which is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this email or any attachment is prohibited. If you receive this email and you are not the addressee, or you have received this email in error, please disregard the contents of the email, delete the email and notify the author immediately.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Email #2 (3/17/08 10:44 AM)
As long as they acknowledge they got the number from you and not directly from us, there is no problem.
-Kassidy
From: *. ******* [mailto:****@*************.***]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 7:42 PM
To: Kassidy Mather
Subject: Re: INSYNQ info
Hi Kassidy,
Thanks for your email - your efforts in this matter are truly appreciated! A quick question, though. I see no prohibition against sharing this figure with fellow investors. Am I correct in that assumption?
Thanks, again.
"Awesome QuickBooks Add-Ons For 2008"
http://www.cpatechnologyadvisor.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=1787&pageNum=4
(Sorry if this is old news to some - it was new to me.)
Shares Short: 458,100 (as of March 25, 2008 at 10:59 PM, PDT.)
http://shortsqueeze.com/index.php?symbol=insn&submit=Enter
One other thought... according to VivaLasVegas' post that 84 number is dated Sept. 13, 2005 - that is pretty darn close to the Great Reverse Split of 2004 which was, what? 50 to 1 or something like that? I would think that investor confidence was also at all time lows right after such a split and a slow build up to 2700 now could be possible. Still, take it for what it's worth. Like the rest of you, I won't believe it all until I see something from the company in print. (It's too easy to tell one investor what the company thinks that investor wants to hear - thus, my caution at making sure everything is written out with them.)
Again, I encourage everyone else to contact the company. If there is any misinformation being disseminated through me it will be easier to catch if there are multiple streams of info.
I agree. However, two scenarios immediately present to my mind:
1) Old info.
As I understand it, pinksheets.com is a quotation service and it relies on input from the businesses themselves. In order to update the "company" info that it presents requires someone from the company to login and update it ( http://www.pinksheets.com/pink/otcguide/issuers_information_form.jsp ). As we know, Insynq hasn't been very good about updating anyone.
2) However, I think the more likely scenario is that the 84 shareholders listed are the brokers who hold the shares. Generally, stocks that are held in a brokerage account are considered to be held in "street name," which means that those shares are held on behalf of the stockholder by the broker in which case, the brokerage is considered to be the registered shareholder. (It is, then, the responsibility of the brokerage to keep track of the accounts of their clients and to provide those clients with information regarding their shares - hence the need for a reputable brokerage.)
Those are the only possibilities that I can think of. Anybody else?
No Letter from Insynq
Finally back home after 3 weeks on the road and immediately checked my mail. No letter from Insynq in response to my letter of March 3rd so I'm assuming that the info I was given in my telephone call with Gorst was correct especially since my letter clearly stated, "That concluded our conversation of February 21, 2008. If my understanding of that conversation deviates from yours, please so advise in writing otherwise, I will assume that it is correct." I would think that if he was blowing smoke in the phone conversation that he would be quick to correct something stated in writing.
For new posters, and to quickly recap that conversation, Gorst said:
1) No annual meetings or filings for a while - there are approximately 2700 shareholders and it is too costly at this time.
2) No PRs for a while - the company has nothing to PR and will not unless they have something noteworthy;
3) They generated a profit of approximately $10,000 last year and had grown 25% over the previous year;
4) They have 11 employees, 3 data centers, 2,000 customers and are anticipating a steady growth of 20-25% per year;
5) The company is considering enlarging operations in the future;
6) The company has received no outside capital for the last 5 years and is operating on its own cash flow;
All of the above is contained in previous posts of mine:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27093192
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27721601
All great news but no less than learning that the O/S (as of March 14, 2008) is 558,191,293 (see post http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27721601 ).
So, why is this stock sitting so low? That's the $64 question (or should I say $4 question given the yahoo 1 year mark for this stock ;) ) I've been told share counts by some people on this board and off and it's my understanding that about 200,000,000 shares are tied up in the few long hands that I know (with a couple of those people having plans of acquiring more.) And while I can only verify my own positions (no one else has shown me a broker statement or certificate) that certainly makes sense here. Why else would this stock sit like this? In my opinion, it's because there's very little to be traded and people don't, yet, realize it. Those who are holding know the hand that they've got, and the potential here, and aren't going to sell so low; and those who are trying to buy either don't realize what's going on or are trying to accumulate more at absurdly low prices.
I'll repeat what others have said before - we need some publicity from the company. Unfortunately, I don't think that I'm in a position to pursue that. Not only have I run my course with them (I think), I will be on the road a lot over the course of the next 3-6 months and unable to devote the time to this that I have been. Somebody else now needs to pick up the standard and carry it into battle; to take the facts that have been slowly accumulated by separate members of this board and generate more action. I have stated from the beginning that I think "more is better" when it comes to contacting the company - not being nasty about it - just calling/writing and requesting info. If the annoyance factor becomes large enough it will definitely be in their better interest (timewise) to update the website with current investor information or otherwise issue something public (and more importantly also goes to doing your own DD and verifying all of this.) So, come on guys, if you want to see this stock sitting where it seems meant to, you've got to do your part! Take a minute and drop the company a line - let them know that their investors are alive, kicking and wanting information!!
OUTSTANDING SHARE NUMBER!
I heard back from Colonial Transfer last Friday - they also had to jump through hoops with Insynq but, finally, got permission to tell ME the outstanding share number. I stress ME because I emailed Colonial back (due to a whole bunch of confidentiality language at the bottom of their email) to make sure that it was alright for me to share the info with fellow investors. Today, I received back the response which stated: As long as they acknowledge they got the number from you and not directly from us, there is no problem. So, if you're quoting this figure to anyone, make sure that you say you got it from an investor who got it from the Transfer Agent. (And, if you want to confirm the info, I'm betting anyone else can get it, too, if they also do the "squeaky wheel" thing with the TA.)
So, having said that here's the initial email:
Sorry for the delay, I just spoke with Carroll Benton and she authorized me to give you the outstanding shares. There are 558,191,293 common shares of Insynq Inc. outstanding.
You are not authorized to receive a certified shareholder list, that is not public information. I hope this helps!
Sincerely,
Kassidy Mather
Colonial Stock Transfer
Also, one last bit of info. In my telephone conversation with Gorst last month, he stated that the company had made about $10,000 in profit last year. I do not trust telephone conversations, however. It's too easy to later say that you did not say something so I have since sent him another letter memorializing our conversation. I restated all of that February conversation (including that amount of profit) and told him that I would assume that my understandings of our conversation were correct unless he advised me to the contrary in writing. As I am currently out of state, I have not been able to check my mail for a response. I will keep you all posted should I receive a response from him.
I don't know about all of you but I find all of this info exciting! As I said to another iHubber recently, this promises to be a VERY interesting year.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I've been banging my head on that wall these last two weeks and I think the dents on my head are bigger than the ones I've put in the wall! Still, I'm part pit bull and will keep working on it and actually sent off another letter to corporate today asking for outstanding share info (in case Colonial Stock Transfer doesn't come through) as well as to strongly suggest they employ the Investors Relations page on their website for something more than links to Yahoo (they seem to respond better to letters than any other form I've heard.)
It was just this Microsoft thing intrigued me because, as I recall (and I'll admit the ol' gray matter ain't what it used to be and I'm way too tired tonight to look up the post), you had received your initial info from a buddy at Microsoft which implied to me internal rumblings of some sort and such acquisitions are a logical step for Microsoft if they want to compete with Google on its terms (and a heck of a lot cheaper than buying Yahoo!).
As to going private, I don't think they can at this point. It's my understanding that they can only do that if the shareholder count drops below 300. In my conversation with Gorst, he said that they had 2700 shareholders which is a far cry from 300 but, even so, they would have to pay a fair value and par value, as I've been told, is .001 which would probably be a nice profit for everyone here!
Ah, well, that's enough for my head tonight. Too many what if's and could be's for this late hour. GL in your other investments. Hope they pan out. I, too, still see great potential here.
Stervc, I'm wondering if the Microsoft PR that follows is what you were alluding to last month? And, if it is, do you, or anybody else, have any idea where our pps could go given its current valuation as a starting point? (Or, put in other words, was anybody following any of the MicroCap stocks that Google acquired for this sort of thing and what happened to their prices?)
March 3, 2008
Microsoft expands online business software services
by Glenn Chapman 2 hours, 39 minutes ago
SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) - Microsoft announced Monday that it is expanding the range of business software it makes available as a service on the Internet.
The move comes as people increasingly use writing, accounting, email and other programs online instead of buying packaged software and installing it on their own machines.
Microsoft's packaged software has long been the foundation of the US firm's product line but is threatened by a "software as a service" (SaaS) trend being capitalized on by Google, Oracle and SalesForce.com.
The Microsoft Online Services suite announcement made by chairman Bill Gates was touted as a "significant step" toward expanding the company's "software plus services" strategy.
"The combination of software plus services gives customers advanced choice and flexibility in how they access and manage software," Gates said in a statement.
"In the future, customers and partners should expect to see this kind of choice and flexibility for all of Microsoft's software and server products."
Businesses of all sizes will be able to subscribe to use software online or combine SaaS with Microsoft programs installed on their computers, Gates said.
Microsoft invites US firms to register online at www.mosbeta.com to be part of a beta test of the new services, which it expects to make available publicly in the second half of this year.
New online services being tested include Exchange Server and Office SharePoint Server software handling tasks such as email, schedule calendars and online conferencing.
Microsoft realized a decade ago that the market was heading to SaaS but "it has taken them a while to turn the boat," said Silicon Valley analyst Rob Enderle of Enderle Group.
"You are going to see them get a lot more aggressive treating software as a service," Enderle said.
"The trick is to move to SaaS at a rate that doesn't cannibalize their revenue streams prematurely. A company like Google can go hell-bent for leather and if their products aren't ready, it doesn't hurt them."
A benefit of SaaS is that it lets providers connect better with the people actually using software programs instead of network administrators or technical departments at firms.
When providing software as a service, companies hosting programs tend to updating, security and trouble shooting.
A key factor limiting the popularity of SaaS is reliability of Internet connections relied on to get to the software.
On-demand computing is sometimes referred to as "in the cloud" because of the perception that the work is done in the ether of the Internet.
"SaaS reflects where the market is going," Enderle said. "What is holding it back right now is as much infrastructure as it is an unwillingness to change by people."
Internet network reliability is improving and the roll out of WiMAX wireless broadband access technology is expected to boost the appeal of SaaS, according to the analyst.
Enderle referred to SalesForce.com as a "poster child" for SaaS. The US company has been growing apace since it was founded in 1999 by former Oracle executive Marc Benioff. The firm has already formed a partnership with Google.
Last week SalesForce reported its revenues soared to 216.9 million dollars in the fiscal quarter ending January 31, a 50 percent increase from the same period in 2007.
"Our fourth quarter and full-year results show that businesses are selecting the Force.com Platform-as-a-Service and cloud computing over failed client-server alternatives," said SalesForce chief executive Marc Benioff.
"There's only one way to describe both the consolidation of the industry and the growing number of companies choosing innovation, not infrastructure: The End of Software."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080303/tc_afp/lifestyleusitsoftwarecompanymicrosoft_080303235934
Just for everybody's information, I did not hear back from Colonial Stock Transfer today and didn't have a chance to call them back - it was DEFINITELY a Monday for me!!
Also, has anybody else written to the company? Me going it alone is like Don Quixote tilting windmills - if you just leave it to me it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!!
UPDATE - Called Colonial Stock Transfer this AM as I have not received a reply email from Insynq (this per the TA's instructions last week.)
Cassidy, the gal I've been dealing with, will not be in until 12:30 PM Utah time so I left a message on her voicemail informing her of the lack of response from Insynq and also requesting a Certified Shareholder's List. I will wait until 2:30 PM (Utah time) to hear back from her. If I do not hear back from her by then, I will call her back.
The hunt for info goes on...
The restaurant's domain name is still registered to gameznflix:
http://whois.ws/whois-com/ip-address/burgersonthesquare.com/
Jimsz, I think we're saying the same things on some issues...
*** They do not have to spend money to update their website and keep shareholders informed about profits/losses/share structure/current news! Any idiot could "update" a current page by replacing information
Agreed. I'm trying to address that with them as well. (Heck, I'll do the website updates for free if they've got no one inhouse to do it.) But, don't wait on my results before you contact them. Write them!!
John Gorst, CEO
Insynq, Inc.
3220 Rosedale Street, Suite 100
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
*** Do you have any clue on companies they have a contract with? I'm sure they have some larger companies paying some dough, but neither of us know anything about it
Do I have specifics to give you here and now? No. Again, I'm in the same boat as everyone else and can only extrapolate from the information at hand. However, in order to get an accurate overview of what is known, I would strongly suggest that you go through the past PRs. That link again is:
http://findarticles.com/p/search?qt=insynq&qf=all&qta=1&tb=art&x=0&y=0
***They say no one cares, but the fact of the matter is they do nothing to make anyone care by no news/updates and the shareholders are the ones that actually got this company up and running to begin with. After this they just play "ditch the shareholder" because we do not matter?
Agreed (again) which is why I contacted the company directly. Now YOU need to do the same. Write to them:
John Gorst, CEO
Insynq, Inc.
3220 Rosedale Street, Suite 100
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
*** I understand they have a company to run, but when it takes a matter of seconds to shoot out an email reply or something. I'm sure there is someone (IT GUY) just "sitting" in one of those data centers waiting for something to go wrong, maybe they could put him/her in charge of investor relations.
Yes, I guess... if they wanted to run it like some schlock-joint. That's not what I'm expecting from them, however. Is that what you want? Grab Joe Blow out of any cubicle and give him a title? We'll differ on that one but, I'll say it again, if that is what you want... and now the rest of the class knows what's coming here.... WRITE THEM!! That address, ONE MORE TIME is:
John Gorst, CEO
Insynq, Inc.
3220 Rosedale Street, Suite 100
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
In other words, don't complain to me, complain to THEM - and that goes to everyone. If you want to make this move, then move your behinds out of your chairs and set pens to paper. You own this company - now start acting like it!
Not at this time China but, more because I'm not sure that it is a working email address and don't want to muddy the waters with more outdated info. If you truly want it, do what I did and contact the transfer agent, Colonial Stock Transfer of Salt Lake City, Utah (801) 355-5740.
(And sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I want to be accurate so these things take me forever to compose!)
In response to some other things that have been posted on this board, I don't agree that everyone should sit back and do nothing and just assume to do otherwise will jeopardize in the establishment of some sort of rapport with the company.
First off, all of the legitimate companies that I've worked with in the past, have no problem dealing with investors - they do, after all, own the company.
Second, in this case we have a company that is not responding to its investors. The reason for that lack of response is unclear.
However,
1) We have a report from stervc that the company has felt neglected and that its shareholders didn't care about what was going on with it (which implies that they receive little or no contact from shareholders) and we have a few reports (mine included) that when they have been contacted (at least by telephone and letter) they have responded.
2) Those who have contacted the company have come away with the same basic information and optimistic feeling about the company.
(I.E., all of the DD submitted by stervc was accurate, JGygli felt optimistic after contacting them and stated that they were willing to hear from investors
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=26650064 and I felt that Gorst was being upfront and frank with me in our telephone conversation about the growth and direction of the company. )
So, the evidence that we have supports that they want to hear from investors and have been frank in their dealings with those who do call or write. (Emails are still problematic, however.)
Thus, given what we know, put yourself in their places: would contact from a mere three people who say they are speaking for the concerns of 2700 shareholders sway you? In that instance, I would file the claim away as unproven and take it with a grain of salt. After all, we could be affiliated in some way (that's how pump and dumpers manipulate these boards - working in a group or posting as different people. And that may be why the lack of company response to emails, also - too easy to open multiple email addresses to appear like you're different people.) The proof is in the additional, and verifiably different, contacts that they receive. (Different phone numbers can be traced to their addresses, and written letters show if they have different return addresses.) In this way, each new contact solidifies all that they've been told in the past.
However, more important than any of that, contacting them goes to doing your own DD. Accurate, truthful, information is the best defense against scammers (whether the scam artist is an investor or a company) so take the information you receive here as a guide but VERIFY EVERYTHING YOURSELF!!! Take those last three words to heart and it might save you some heartache (or at least a hole in your pocketbook.)
Take it for what it's worth - it is, after all, just my opinion.
'Iffy' Ideas for JimsZ
Q: If this company is making profit, why do they not let us know?
The CEO of the company did let me know by telephone. (as reported in post http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27093192 ) In that conversation, he stated that they were not filing financials or holding annual meetings due to the cost. (And I intend to work on that point AFTER I secure the number of outstanding shares.)
Q: If this company isn't just "producing shares" why will they not release the O/S - Float?
Good Question - and one that we're all concerned about (which is one of the reasons to actively work to find that information). Maybe I'm being optimistic but, I am hoping to learn something next week. ( http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27182780 )
Q: If this company is getting contracts, etc, why do they not share this information to the shareholders?
Actually, in verifying all of the DD earlier done and reported by stervc I found that they did PR all of those past contracts (even the Strategic Air Command one.) Do what I did and take an evening and go over all of the old PRs. Interesting stuff (even one regarding Gorst turning over to the FBI, the matter of stolen shares/certificates.) http://findarticles.com/p/search?qt=insynq&qf=all&qta=1&tb=art&x=0&y=0
Q: If this is a legitimate operating company, why is there website not updated in 2 years (IRL PAGE)
Another good question. I think from what stervc said from his communications with them, that the company feels that there is no investor interest in this stock. Ergo, if no one cares, why bother? I have posed the proposition to the company that, if they cannot afford to update shareholders via written financials and an annual meeting, they should post that information on their website. This is another, we'll see.
Q: If I had emailed them, why do they not give a response?
Another good question and one I can't answer at this time since if people are emailing them that, to me, indicates shareholder interest which they say they haven't had. I can think of three scenarios regarding the lack of response:
Scenario One: The email address is good and they are receiving emails at that address and just ignoring them;
Scenario Two: The email address is no good and they are not receiving the emails;
Scenario Three: The email address is good and they are receiving emails but they are going to an unmonitored email address (they used to have a guy in charge of investor relations and they may simply have forgotten about his email account - I've seen it happen before.)
That gives us a 66.67% chance that, for whatever reason, they're not getting the emails. Given that Gorst did respond to my letter and seemed very frank in answering my questions, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. But, I guess the information received (or not) next week will be the deciding factor.
Don't know if this helps answer your questions but it brings you up to speed with everybody else.
Corrado, glow sticks might open up a future product...
OUTSTANDING SHARES...
...the Hunt Continues
Today, I contacted, Colonial Stock Transfer of Utah in order to try to get the number of outstanding Insynq shares. (They are the Transfer Agent for Insynq stock.)
The gal I spoke with told me that it is their "policy" to not give out that information. "Why?" I asked. "Isn't it supposed to be public knowledge?" I was told that they leave that up to the company. "Check their filings," she said. When I explained that I was calling them because there were no filings, she gave me a telephone number in order to call Carroll Benton. It wasn't the number that's already been posted on this board but, 9 years as a paralegal taught me that when dealing with bureaucracy it is always best to go by the book. So, I called the number. It was disconnected.
I called Colonial Stock Transfer again and relayed what had happened. The only other contact information that she had was an email address. "Send them an email and if you still can't get a hold of them call me back."
"How long should I wait for a response?" I asked.
"A day to a day and a half," she responded. That will take me to Friday afternoon. I will be calling Colonial Stock Transfer again on Monday if I don't hear back from Carroll. In the meantime, I sent out the email to Carroll asking for clarification on the number of outstanding shares of stock, share structure, and the Enterprise Value (as well as suggesting that, if they're not going to report, they should utilize the investor page on their website for this information.) I've also contacted the S.E.C. to get further information on how to force the issue with Colonial Stock Transfer should this continue to be a problem.
I will update everyone on Monday (or before if I hear something sooner.) Hopefully, we will have some answers very soon!
Means people are going to have to pay the ask of .0003 if they want it.
mick, Insynq's connection to Intuit is stated pretty clearly on the bottom of the page at http://www.cpaasp.com/ :
QuickBooks Software is hosted by InsynQ, Inc. under license from Intuit Inc.
InsynQ, Inc. is not affiliated with or endorsed by Intuit Inc. InsynQ, inc. is solely responsible for the provision of all services on this website.
I think what Sterling was referring to is a working partnership. In other words, for anyone to write a program so that it interfaces with QuickBooks they would, basically, need to know snippets, if not all, of the computer code for QuickBooks so that the new software is "speaking the same language" as the old. Since QuickBooks is copyrighted, Intuit would have to supply that code to Insynq to build upon - thus, the working partnership.
QuickBooks/Quicken/Intuit is NOT Insynq
(Too bad, though, because even down, Intuit ended today at $27.36 per share!)
As I understand it, Insynq - or rather its subsidiary Appgen - makes a suite of software products that expands the capabilities of other-brand accounting products (like MyBooks Professional.) Basically, it adds on features that do not already exist for those software bundles thereby increasing the functionality of the other-branded product. (Think adding aftermarket features to your car. The features were purchased from someone other than the manufacturer of your car, yet still fit onto and with your car and expand the enjoyability of it.) This software concept is great for businesses because there is no downtime retraining personnel when your business' needs outgrow your accounting software. Perhaps this old PR can explain it better (though, as I understand it, this is for just one facet of the software and many more features may have since been added.)
http://www.ip97.com/insynq_s_appgen_accounting_software_is_yes_certified_by_babb.aspx
Remember, too, that this APPGEN product is a different product than those being provided by INSYNQ. Same company - just Appgen is a subsidiary. If you're still confused check out their websites. Insynq has a great little video to explain their "On-Demand Computing" called "Always On".
http://www.insynq.com
http://www.appgen.com/
e-Accounting is yet another arm of Insynq and is kind of a merging of the two ideas: other-brand accounting (and other software) accessed across and using Insynq's "On-Demand Computing" platform. THIS is the one that offers QuickBooks use as well as Microsoft Office and other programs.
http://www.cpaasp.com/
Our one little company has its fingers into many pots which is why, in my opinion, the current .0003 pps is ridiculously low! All of the above AND profitable, too! Where are those PRs??
Hope all of this helps rather than confuses more...
VivaLasVegas - I don't use IHub enough to warrant a paid membership. PM me an email address and I'll respond to your comments.
If you've got ideas, share them with the class.
...And have you written a letter to the company, yet? The more we send in, the more likely we'll get our PR(s).
Got some ideas, VLV?
Re: not much trading
Not much trading, but L2 is showing a STRONG line of 3's on the ask. Nothing but 1's on the bid but I'm hoping to not see bottom again. People are RAPIDLY becoming aware of this stock and its potential. I wouldn't be surprised to see it at 4 or 5 real soon (that's .0004 or .0005 not the $4 target that Yahoo had - though that would be nice) as people take positions for the ride up. When this thing goes, it's gonna go big and it'll be a REAL ride to the moon - not a pump 'n dump pretend. All it will take is some news from the company. Speaking of which, have you written your letter to Insynq yet, hmmmmmmmm?
I wasn't surprised, Mick. I had read about the arrangement in something connected with GTAP (maybe a 2007 SEC filing - I'm really not sure where now.)
something could be in da wind for him and 'Insynq Inc'
I totally agree. I think big things are in store and, hopefully, just around the corner. GLTY
Like you, I'm hoping that this frees up Mr. Gorst's time to fully concentrate in INSN. When I spoke with him he seemed sincere about building Insynq up into a very successful business. So far, it looks like he's on the right track!!
That $4 target keeps dancin' around my head, too!
Full Conversation with John Gorst.
Hope everyone had a great weekend. My brain has been buzzing with anticipation over this stock. So, as promised, here's the full story given to you in the same basic way that it occurred:
So, there I am packing, etc. getting ready for my trip and the phone rings. When I answer, it's Insynq's CEO John Gorst calling me in regards to the letter I sent him. (And let me issue my apologies to the IHub board right now. I know there were probably a billion other questions that I should have asked but I was expecting his reply by letter so was ill prepared. Mea Culpa everyone.)
My first thought was "How the heck did he get my phone number?" Nowhere in my letter did I leave my (unlisted) number and I used a PO Box for my address because I'm just paranoid enough to not want disgruntled people showing up on my doorstep! So, my brain files away that this was important enough for him to have done a little research, himself, to find me.
Anyway, he introduced himself and stated that they had received my letter regarding Nevada's statutes. After checking with legal counsel they found that they are, indeed, mandated to hold annual meetings no later than 18 months - which they had not previously known. Mr. Gorst then thanked me for bringing that matter to their attention. However, he continued, they have no way to hold a shareholder's meeting at this time due to the cost involved as there are approximately 2700 shareholders (I assumed he meant the cost to produce and provide documents/notices to each of the shareholders as well as possible SEC fees.)
Gorst stated that it costs between $150,000-$250,000 per year to be reporting and that they would most likely begin reporting again when they reached 2-2.5 million dollars (neglected to ask if that was sales or profit.) Then he stated, "Besides, with the supershares and preferreds that Carol and I have we control the vote anyhow." Clearly, he was alluding to the Nevada statutes that I had quoted in my letter which could allow for the replacement of incumbent Board members. (At this point my feeling was that he was feeling threatened and throwing out a threat to forestall me from pursuing any action in Nevada court. But, I don't want to replace the Board just get out financials or SOMETHING public.)
I remarked to him that the shareholders were concerned because share price was sitting at "rock bottom" as I was sure he was aware and he acknowledged that this was due to toxic financing with a group out of New York some years ago. (My brain now acknowledged Point 3 - the guy is very up and up about the past - no trying to varnish facts.) Then, I asked the big question: why hadn't they put out any PRs? He stated that he felt that they had nothing to PR. He said he was not one of those CEO's who put out a PR every month or so for the heck of it and that he would not put out a PR unless he had something noteworthy - to do so was both unethical and illegal.
He went on to tell me that the business did generate a profit last year and had grown by 25% from the previous year.
Gorst stated that they are now beginning to see an adoption of their technology and that the company currently has 11 employees, 3 data centers, 2,000 customers and is anticipating a steady growth of 20-25% per year.
He also went on to say that they are also considering enlarging operations in the future. (He didn't explain more and it didn't sound like it was a done deal at this point in time but, rather, something in the planning or pre-planning stages.)
.
They have received no outside capital for the last 5 years and the company is now operating on its own cash flow.
Sorry if the tale gets a little sketchy at this point. As I said earlier, he telephoned out of the blue and my only available note paper, an envelope, was filling up fast. Overall, though, I was impressed that he was as frank about everything as he was (a good sign to me.) He reiterated what was earlier reported by stervc - that being, at this time, their focus is on growing the business.
At the end of our conversation, he gave me his telephone number and invited me to call again should I have any more questions. I immediately did a google search on the number and came up blank so it's either his personal, unlisted number or a dud. Time will tell on that one as I'm holding that as my Ace for another day/play and, NO, I won't give it out to anyone else as I was not given permission to do so. However, if you want his number, get it the way I did... write to the man (see my earlier post if you want to copy what I wrote. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=26912747 ) Besides, my personal opinion is the more people he hears from the better. If he handles enough of these letters/calls he may actually feel it'll save him time ove the long run to issue some sort of PR. So, if you're truly interested in this stock, for pete's sake quit griping and do something about it ---- WRITE!!!!
Make of it what you will but, overall, I felt very positive when the conversation was over. He seemed, frank and upfront about past mistakes and about wanting to make this company a success. They have received no outside financing for the last five years and are currently operating profitably and growing at a rate of 20-25% per year. They have a strong client base, full-time employees, data centers, plans for expansion and even plans to be reporting again. Obviously, there are still issues here but, to me, it definitely feels like we're on the cusp of something very BIG.
Conversation with John Gorst...
Received call from John Gorst in reply to my letter and am feeling pretty positive about the company.
High points:
They're operating on their own cash flow (no outside capital in five years);
Business grew 20-25% last year and is expected to follow that trend (at least) in the next few years.
They currently have 3 data centers servicing 2,000 customers.
Low point:
No annual meeting for a while.
Going out of town for a few days - will post fuller report when I get back.
Have a great weekend all.
Tech Advantage Starts Today
Let's hope that it opens up new doors for CNES.
http://www.techadvantage.org/
http://www.techadvantage.org/expo/2008ExhibitorList.htm#c
LETTERS TO INSYNQ - Has anyone else written a letter to Insynq?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=26743001
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=26744991
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=26746841
At this point in time, I only know of 2 other people who have sent one. For our concerns to have any weight, the company needs to get a bunch of them.
Now is the time to step up to the plate. We DO have a chance of making this happen but only if we do something - as a group.
...especially if there are plenty of shares available.
And "therein lies the rub." There are plenty of shares available... just not at .0002.
At this point in time, L2 is showing the lowest ask is .0003 (with 5 MMs) and the highest bid is .0002 so let's hope we see a move on up to 4s or 5s this week!!
GL
playerguy, if the .0002 sales that came after your first partial fill were put in as "All-Or-None" orders you would not have gotten any as your remaining shares to be filled were less than the 3 and 4 mil being offered. All-Or-None sell orders are only executed if they can be executed in a single transaction.
Makes me think that something is already in the works.
Let's hope!
Thanks China. And I agree... everyone else should use the Gig Harbor address as well as the copy to Resident Agent.
My mistake, but a good one I think because it goes to the issue of their transparency and the importance of updated filings.
Thanks again.
I took the Tacoma address off of the Reuters financial info (as being the most current of record) but that's why the copy to the Resident Agent (who is the legal agent for service of process - meaning court or legal documents.)
Sent mine off yesterday (priority mail with delivery confirmation.) Use it as a form if you want. (Just put it on your own letterhead and change the date of your stock acquisition in the first paragraph.) To those making calls, write a letter after the fact memorializing the conversation. I don't think it's going to happen unless we force the issue (which means that they have to see that we have the numbers, ie, the voting power to do so) so, let's play it by the book and develop a paper trail in case we do need to take it to court to force the issue...
--------------------
February 11, 2008
John P. Gorst
CEO
Insynq, Inc.
1127 Broadway Plaza, #202
Tacoma, Washington 98402
Re: Annual Meeting
Dear Mr. Gorst,
I have been a shareholder of Insynq, Inc. stock since March 26, 2004. From my research of SEC filings it would appear that the last Annual Meeting was conducted on July 16, 2004.
While Insynq’s operations may be based in the state of Washington it is, as you know, incorporated in the state of Nevada. As such, it is subject to the corporate laws of that state.
Section 78.345 of the Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) Corporate Code provides that:
1. "If any corporation fails to elect directors within 18 months after the last election of directors required by NRS 78.330, the district court has jurisdiction in equity, upon application of any one or more stockholders holding stock entitling them to exercise at least 15 percent of the voting power, to order the election of directors in the manner required by NRS 78.330.
That section goes on to state:
2. The application must be made by petition filed in the county where the registered office of the corporation is located and must be brought on behalf of all stockholders desiring to be joined therein. Such notice must be given to the corporation and the stockholders as the court may direct.
3. The directors elected pursuant to this section have the same rights, powers and duties and the same tenure of office as directors elected by the stockholders at the annual meeting held at the time prescribed therefore, next before the date of the election pursuant to this section, would have had."
In addition,
Courts have consistently prevented actions by an incumbent board of directors which were primarily designed to impair or impede the shareholder franchise. In a recent case recognizing the importance of the shareholder vote, but arising from a substantially different factual context than is presented here, Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr., reiterated that shareholders of a corporation generally have, "`only two protections against perceived inadequate business performance. They may sell their stock. . ., or they may vote to replace incumbent board members.' Thus, interference with shareholder voting is an especially serious matter, not to be left to the directors' business judgment, precisely because it undercuts a primary justification for allowing directors to rely on their judgment in almost every other context." Shoen v. Americo, 885 F. Supp. 1332, 1340 (D. Nev. 1994), vacated by stip., (D. Nev. 1995)
As you can see, Nevada statute mandates that corporate Annual Meetings must be no further apart than 18 months which puts Insynq, Inc., and its Board of Directors, far out of compliance. At this time, I choose to proceed under the assumption that Insynq has been failing to hold the mandated Annual Meetings due to its lack of knowledge of the pertinent regulations. Therefore, please consider this letter as a formal notification of those laws (and to preserve any legalities associated herewith, I am also sending a copy of this to Insynq’s Resident Agent, Corporation Trust Company of Nevada.)
By assuming that you, the Board of Directors and Insynq, Inc. (the Company) are operating in good faith and have failed to comply with Nevada State regulation merely because of ignorance of the law, my further assumption is that the Company will now do everything in its power to rectify the situation, i.e., that Insynq will set an Annual Meeting, as soon as logistically possible, as well as by preparing and submitting to the appropriate agencies, all of the accompanying financial documents necessary to effect the transparency necessary for shareholders to make informed decisions/votes at that meeting. Accordingly, please advise, in writing and for the record, within thirty days of the date of this letter when I, and the other shareholders, may expect the above.
Very truly yours,
cc: Insynq, Inc.
C/O Corporation Trust Company of Nevada
6100 Neil Rd, Ste 500
Reno, Nv 89511
Insynq was incorporated in Nevada and, therefore, must operate under the laws of Nevada.
NRS 78.345 of the Nevada Corporate Code provides that:
1. "If any corporation fails to elect directors within 18 months after the last election of directors required by NRS 78.330, the district court has jurisdiction in equity, upon application of any one or more stockholders holding stock entitling them to exercise at least 15 percent of the voting power, to order the election of directors in the manner required by NRS 78.330.
2. The application must be made by petition filed in the county where the registered office of the corporation is located and must be brought on behalf of all stockholders desiring to be joined therein. Such notice must be given to the corporation and the stockholders as the court may direct.
3. The directors elected pursuant to this section have the same rights, powers and duties and the same tenure of office as directors elected by the stockholders at the annual meeting held at the time prescribed therefore, next before the date of the election pursuant to this section, would have had."
source: http://www.secinfo.com/d1526c.vmp.d.htm
Repeatedly, Nevada courts have upheld the shareholders' rights to an annual meeting.
Courts have consistently prevented actions by an incumbent board of directors which were primarily designed to impair or impede the shareholder franchise. In a recent case recognizing the importance of the shareholder vote, but arising from a substantially different factual context than is presented here, Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr., reiterated that shareholders of a corporation generally have, "`only two protections against perceived inadequate business performance. They may sell their stock. . ., or they may vote to replace incumbent board members.' Thus, interference with shareholder voting is an especially serious matter, not to be left to the directors' business judgment, precisely because it undercuts a primary justification for allowing directors to rely on their judgment in almost every other context." Shoen v. Americo, 885 F. Supp. 1332, 1340 (D. Nev. 1994), vacated by stip., (D. Nev. 1995) (Citation omitted).
source: http://www.secinfo.com/drDX9.88h.c.htm
I'm not advocating anything as drastic as court action AT THIS POINT IN TIME but, perhaps, the company doesn't realize that they are LEGALLY obligated to their shareholders to perform certain duties, ie, annual meetings no later than 18 months apart, along with all of the supporting financial documents...(?)