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.
Well I wouldn't say it's entirely coincidental either.
#1. Why would YOTA be named?
#2. His debt would then be illiquid. Currently it's as liquid as selling on the OTC.
SHMP better believe, or we get into the UD realm of fraud speak. Clearly you do not believe and you've articulated four reasons why. However, I think your four reasons lack context and perspective. Although the company has been around "for decades," a first working iteration of the "Tech" is not in fact actually that old.
R&D takes time and money. Didn't NVIDIA's CEO just say that it took $10b to develop their most recent chip? If you accept this is a tech company, not an agriculture company, it may alter your perspective. I'll even go so far as to say there ar few examples to turn to. Bridging tech and agriculture. NSI may be closer to a Beyond Meat or Neuralink than GRPS. Food for thought.
Like I said... news is often clustered and timed.
Yes, all those things must happen. But, IMO, the ability to raise money is not wholly dependent upon them. From my point of view, what matters most above all else is the efficacy, or lack thereof, of the "Tech." If it works, $5-$10m is no problem, regardless of corporate structure, which would undoubtedly be worked out where tons of money is to be made. UF, forgive me if I put words into your mouth, but I think this is the general principle from which you approach NSI. The rub? What if the "Tech" doesn't work. EQ, I think this is the frame of reference you operate out of to argue that $5-$10m is a hard sell.
All I know is the NSI playbook is clear. Example: "Successful study" without releasing any data on the study. Belief. This company requires one to believe. And, there's just enough factual information out there to reasonably justify a belief in NSI. However, the contrary is also true. Therefore, the dispute on this board boils down to one thing: Do you believe NSI or not? Each side has points that reasonably support belief and non-belief.
I want to hear why people believe or not. I don't care about what people think other people should do or not. That is why I spend my time pointing out clearly reckless takes... there's no need to concoct, spin, hyperbolize, exaggerate, or confuse matters in an attempt to influence someone to believe the way you do about NSI. In fact, if you feel so strongly in your position, that it is supported by known facts, then just argue those facts and the reasonable inferences to be drawn and allow others to form their own beliefs.
As a teacher, I thought the goal was to educate, not excoriate and castigate.
The news always seems to be clustered and timed.
You can make a liar out of anyone when you have trouble comprehending basic english.
From what I comprehended of UF's post, I did not read anything that said or implied there is currently $5m in shareholder equity.
"Trying to rope people in." I wonder how many people you roped in when you narcistically and unnecessarily announced you were taking a position in NSI common stock.
The same way it worked for you when you bought in thinking the price was going to go up and you instead took a huge loss? Remember that like only a couple months ago? Then you played it off by saying you sold quickly and didn't lose anything. I'll put it in a way you can understand: Your word is about as good as NSI's tech.
As absurd as countering my $.033 speculation with $5,000.00? Come on man, get a life.
"No real institutional investor is putting a dime in until Fife is settled." EQ must not be able to chew gum and walk at the same time if the belief is others can't.
Since when does PA exactly mirror a company's financial conditions? Truth social anyone?
Go back to class.
I didn't say institutional investors are coming in. What I said was institutional investors do not invest in OTC stocks and that NSI's goal for uplisting to another exchange has always been to access institutional investors. Your reading comprehension seems to be of elementary caliber.
I speak only for myself: no one is trying to rope anyone in. I know that's what you'd like others to believe in order to undermine the credibility of sum on here who want to partake in good faith discussions and debate around the company. It would be my opinion, evidence from your consistently terrible takes, that you may be actively trying to keep people from investing in NSI.
Yes, theoretically it could. But I said $.033. Talking about $5,000.00 is the dumbest shit ever. Grasp at those straws EQ.
What insincerity. There's no institutional financing in the OTC. It's not the amount that's important, it's the counterparty.
New shares may be entering the market, but if whoever is buying them holds, they will force open interest to have to go direct to NSI or GHS for shares. Even with the printer working overtime, shares are finite. March 8, 11, 12, 18,19, 20, 22 and 28 almost 400,000 common shares were failed to be delivered.
Historically, news has been timed with short contract expiration. I would not be surprised if this news propels a squeeze higher than the last pump. Perhaps back to .033. I don't speculate on PA often, but the chart pattern and historical MM action is too compelling. Perhaps I'm like a broken clock and get lucky... time will tell.
"The Company has also begun the restructuring process of its existing debt and mezzanine securities in order to meet Cboe US' shareholders' equity requirements..." The bold is what I will be paying attention to.
Yes, I have to ask that question. You, nor anyone else here, articulate a coherent explanation for a broad, generalized conclusion that Easterling voting the Series A is not in the best interest of common shareholders. Perhaps if you thought of the Series A in a more theoretical way, you'd understand their greater significance and thus, why it may actually be in the best interest of common shareholders for the Series A to continue to "exist."
Why is it not in the interest of the common shareholders?
"Come to think of it, is SHMP’s continued reliance on the Series A shares to control the voting stock in the best interest of its shareholders?"
Well that's the question isn't it?
1. "EASTERLIED uses the Series A to retain voting control, so the Series A do in fact exist."
We agree what they are used for. I actually have an opinion that goes beyond just voting rights, but I digress. We agree they exist. We have an existential disagreement on what the extent of "exist" means.
2. "What’s gonna happen if SHMP is ever worth anything of value, how many former Series A shareholders are going to come looking for their pound of flesh ?"
IMO, the Shover Settlement governs this. That lawsuit expressly disposed of all parties similarly situated to Shover. It's in black and white.
3. "Why SHMP refuses to clearly identify this in their filings is beyond me."
IMO, you answered your own question. See #1 above.
"2.8 billion shares outstanding is alot of shares"
This is misleading.
The way you and UD talk about it... I can't imagine it's not. But, if it's not priced in, maybe that's circumstantial evidence of the market disagreeing with your theory re: Series A.
No relation. Everyone knows the O/S is authorized to 1.4 Billion. It's already priced in. You need a new explanation for the PA.
Your entire premises begins with, "I believe." Still writing fiction?
What caused "the PPS to rise dramatically without any news?"
"Not surprised at all based on the recent price action."
What about the price action screams "20 million shares just added to the OS count" to you?
The legend of EQ grows: EQ bought on the up swing, held as late after as 02/22, but sold "pretty quickly," implying he didn't lose any money.
A legendary stinker.
Post the link because two days after the 2/20 pump, you said this:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173901186
You're going to have to define "pretty quickly." And, you know where to shove your #.
EQ is that you?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173888975
Looks to me like you believed the pump. Remember when I said "this aged like mayo in the summer sun"? Oh, good times.
Does one take payment in common shares of an entity one is looking to drive into bankruptcy? Asking for a friend (JT).
Taking payment in Preferred and restricted common shares....
This aged like mayo in the summer sun.
"Trust me, I know better than FINRA"? = EQ's explanation for yesterday's PA and volume.
Increasing one's petulance doesn't incease one's credibility.
Bro, you literally just explained yesterday's volume and PA with nothing but your own opinionated speculation. That's not a reasonable explanation. You would have been more accurate if you said "I don't know."
"real buying as opposed to fake buying" LOL, do you even hear yourself?
Occam's razor, my friend.
If it's not a simple explanation like shorts covering, then explain yesterday's PA and volume on no rumor, no news and after what many here would call an abysmal 10Q.
And while you're at it, please teach us whether "Fife has liens on all assets" includes the patents.
Please, teach me, teacher.
With today's PA, anyone want to argue with me about how there are no shorts in the OTC?
Because if they didn't, they would be admitting the Series A shares have to be cancelled, returned and they wouldn't be there to do what they do... Which, if EQ answered my question re: Does Fife have a lien on the Patents, we'd really start getting into the meat and potatoes. But alas, EQ won't respond to this very simple, basic question.
No facts or law, just sheer speculation. What a joker. Reading this nonsense makes me want to light myself on fire.
If that's the case and people are buying with information not yet disclosed... you know where I'm going with this.
Hey EQ, does Fife have a lien on the NSI patents?
Why won't you acknowledge this question? Why won't you answer? You can dish it, but you can't take it, huh? My fun here is exposing the likes of you.