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.
tchauncy, if you wouldn't mind, please send me an email:
jtomm @ yahoo.com
(remove the spaces, i wrote it that way to hopefully avoid the spambots)
For what it's worth, I would encourage Dr. Donovan to change the verbiage. I've never understood why people are so afraid to admit that things don't always work out. Investors have *more* respect for the unvarnished truth, rather than having things be spun better than they were.
There's "true" and then there's true.
If I say that Emmitt Smith and I have combined for 18,355 rushing yards in the NFL, that's a "true" statement.
It's also very misleading.
I could instead give the real truth and say that I discovered early on that I would never make the NFL and this taught me a valuable lesson that at some point you have to realize something isn't going to work out and move on to something that does.
Would you have more respect for me if I gave you the first description (the Emmitt Smith one), or the second one?
Regarding Dr. Donovan
tchauncy,
That's the company I thought would be the one so I looked it up, but I can see no evidence of an $11 per share buyout. The company sold some assets at various times, and rejiggered things a few times, changed names a few times, but eventually went bankrupt:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=drca+medical&CIK=&filenum=&State=&SIC=&owner=include&action=getcompany
The Spine Pain website describes Dr. Donovan's involvement with public companies as follows:
"Dr. Donovan is a Board Certified Orthopedic Surgeon and has been involved with venture funding and management for over 25 years. He was the Co-Founder of DRCA Medical (later known as Integrated Orthopaedics, Inc. (I.O.I.) and became Chairman of this company that initially became public by trading in the pink sheets, then listed on NASDAQ and then to the American Stock Exchange (AMEX) before being acquired by a subsidiary of the Bass Family. He was the Founder and CEO of "INeedADoc.com" (INAD), later changed to IP2M and acquired by Dialog Group, a public traded company. He was the Chairman of House of Brussels, an international gourmet chocolate company."
That all sounds impressive, but the SEC filings seem to indicate that none of these companies were successful. I was unable to verify any buyout from the Bass family on the first company.
The second company was allegedly acquired by Dialog Group, a public traded company. Again, sounds impressive, but Dialog Group was just a small pink sheet company that never amounted to anything and went defunct:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001051059&type=&dateb=&owner=include&start=120&count=40
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/DLGO/quote
Same thing with House of Brussels chocolates. Dr. Donovan and his son appear to have run it. Never profitable, horrible margins, went defunct:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=house+of+brussels&CIK=&filenum=&State=&SIC=&owner=include&action=getcompany
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/HBSL/quote
None of this means Spine Pain can't be successful. I actually think the company looks interesting. But that description of him on the management page that I quoted above appears to make his involvement with public companies sound better than it really was. Why do this? I would much prefer a description that said, "After learning some difficult lessons with past misadventures with public companies, Dr. Donovan hopes to apply that experience and make Spine Pain successful." I'd have much more respect for a straightforward description like that, rather than finding out that the facts don't seem to match up with the inflated description. As an investor, it only makes me wonder if other things are being inflated.
In the conf call, I found the Doctor to be low key and not promotional. That's why the description on the webpage is bothersome.
That's just what I found in attempting to verify this.
tchauncy, you mentioned of Dr. Donovan, "This is not his first start from scratch Company. His last one was in the early 90's which he took from nothing, to the pink sheets, to NASDAQ, to the AMEX and was bought out by the Bass Brothers for $11 a share. All in just four years."
Can you give us the name of that company? I'd like to verify it.
PEA The Whole Story
If it comes in good, might be worth 2 or 3 times the current price. If it comes in bad, well, may not be worth nearly as much as current price. Seems like it's good odds of positive PEA at this point, but one never knows.
Test
TBYH I agree that hopefully it's a good sign. However, the one thing I wish all companies would do is to give more of an explanation on why people resign (in this case the CEO). If it was to take another job, I wish they'd say so. If he has a two-year old son and wants to spend more time with him, fine. Investors arent stupid, we realize life changes happen. But give a detailed reason and explanation, so that investors aren't wondering if something scammy is going on and the top guys are bailing for some reason.
Wishful thinking I suppose, but I sure wish companies would do it.
On "My Interface" I've changed 'underline menu links' to yes, but it does not seem to be working
Ameritrade Question on Buying Canadians
Question for any Ameritrade users. I was recently told by 3 different people at Ameritrade that you can no longer buy Canadian stock unless it has a 5-letter pink sheet symbol.
Before, they had a Canadian desk and I bought many Canadian stocks that didn't have an American symbol. So this must be a recent change, if it is indeed true. But you never know how much to believe from any rep.
Has anyone else experience this? It used to be they'd just call to Cannacord, and Cannacord would give Amtrd a quote in American dollars, didn't have to have a five-letter American symbol.
Have things changed at Amtrd and I need to move elsewhere?
Blue Underlined Links are preferable in my opinion. I don't see any reason to change this. One of the things I've always liked about ihub is that it has stayed with this format. When the user is looking at tons of text throughout the day, it's so much easier to not have to think about is this just colored text or is it a link. It's only a split second difference, but done hundreds or thousands of times a day, it makes a difference. Remember, users aren't only on your site throughout the day. Some sites have colored text and that's all it is, it's not a link.
For years, we've all been trained that "blue underlined" meant a link. I liked it better when every message, every poster's name etc, were blue and underlined before moving the mouse over it.
John Stewart, Daily Show Vid
Here you go Len and all. Be sure to watch the second one also, entitiled Crisis in the Chartland:
http://tinyurl.com/ywuuc6
Re: New Feature Linked Quote
Looks like a cool idea, with just one flaw. When i clicked on both MSFT and YHOO links they went to a quote for GE. lol
The link info shows that they should go to the proper place, but they didn't for me. Maybe ihub still tweaking
researcher, yeah i'm apex too so hopefully it's gotten easier over the several months since i last tried. i know they've been trying to do everything so you don't have to call in anymore to trade canadians, so hopefully the whole process is improving
researcher, re amtd pink sheet symbol for canadian stocks, is there anyone in particular at amtd you've dealt with to get the pink sheet symbol, or process you went thru? how did you do it?
bbotcs Re: Lee Raymond and Nuclear
"Lee Raymond, of all people, former CEO of Exxon/Mobil, gave nuclear energy two thumbs up"
That's actually not surprising at all. He's long been a supporter of nuclear and was President of Exxon's nuclear division, but then 3 mile island happened.
I was no fan of his golden parachute robbing of shareholders, but that having been said, he's generally a pretty common sense guy.
When at at Exxon, he basically said, look, we're an energy company, we'll supply whatever kind of energy makes sense. If all these alternatives made sense, we'd be doing them. But they just don't make sense, and we've tried all of them. Nuclear makes sense but after three mile island, the regulatory environment made it impossible.
Hour-long vid with Charlie Rose will clarify many of his views:
OT: Yet Another Yahoo Re-design
Again, yahoo has changed design, making me re-learn everything and have to waste time rearranging my entire home page my.yahoo.com. They screwed up yahoo finance awhile back and seem to be on some plan where every two years the designers convince them to move everything around for no reason, and without adding anything useful.
Woke up this morning to find my entire home page has been changed without my permission and now I have to waste time re-doing it. Do they really think this makes people happy?
Just can't believe their logic
Re: Shanghai ETF
Both FXI and EEM have options, including long term ones. Could get pretty good leverage by buying in-the-money puts, which have little time premium.
Here's how they both have done compared to the Hang Seng:
http://tinyurl.com/2ybhek
ETF for Shanghai index
Although not perfect, FXI might be a reasonable facsimile. I'm not in it either way, just responding to your request for info.
CAGC - Frankvalue, that paragraph does not say she's been paid. That's the paragraph that I quoted that says she's being compensated similar to similar level executives at other companies, which is clearly not true.
The paragraph also says the company has two executive officers when elsewhere in the filing it says they have three: CEO, COO, and CFO
CAGC - Serious Red Flag
Not trying to bash anyone's stock here. I posted on this one once before and just wanted to say it with a little more emphasis this time and then I'll be through.
This company's filings have something that you should simply never, never, ever see: the company claims the person who is second in command is working for no salary, no stock options, no bonuses, no compensation of any kind, owns no shares in the company, no possible way to gain from the company whatsoever. Do a Ctrl+F search for lijun here:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1166389/000120445907000424/agritech10k.htm
(You can then scroll down a couple pages to see the section that says she also owns no stock)
That would, of course, be patently absurd.
-When any of us holds a particular company's stock, it's tempting to want to make excuses for them when we see something that doesn't look right, or to think up wild "could be" scenarios. I would urge you to resist doing this. You should never see a SEC filing that says the CFO/Controller is working for free. Ever. No excuses or "explanations" from the company are acceptable.
Technically, I don't think it's even legal to work for no compensation. She's a volunteer, not an employee.
I'm gonna belabor things a little further, because I've written before about how tempting it is to want to make excuses for a company when you hold its stock (I've done it in the past).
Consider the absurdity of this no-way-to-gain claim from all three points of view: the CEO, the CFO herself, and the auditor. Put yourself in each of their shoes.
If you were the CEO, would you ever, under any circumstances, place the welfare of your company in the hands of someone who had nothing to gain from its success? How would you know she's even working in your best interest? How do you know she's not a spy from another firm, trying to put you out of business? How did you as CEO recruit someone to work for free? What was that job interview like? Wouldn't you be worried that she might steal from you to make at least some money? Wouldn't you be worried she'd leave on a moment's notice for a better job, and you'd have to scramble for a replacement? Wouldn't you instead want her to be well compensated? Whose interests does she really represent? Does anyone work for free? Seriously? In the real world?
Now to the CFO herself. Why in the world would she work for free? Nothing better to do? Just out of the goodness of her heart? If you were the CFO, would you work for free? Under any circumstances? The documents say nothing about the CEO and CFO being related individuals. If she were being paid even by the related company, that would have to be disclosed. Nothing. Not being paid by anyone, and not related to anyone. Just working for free. No ownership, no options, no salary, nothing. No way to benefit financially. The filing further says that company determined her compensation based on a ". . . level of compensation paid to similarly situated executives in comparably sized companies." That is an obviously false statement.
And that brings us to the auditors -- the same auditors by the way who brought Bodisen Biotech public (another Chinese fertilizer company which proved to be a scam), an account from which they recently resigned. Again, rather than try to make excuses for the company, put yourself in the shoes of the auditor. If you were a legitimate auditor, would you ever sign off on a document that said the second in command was working for free and had no way to benefit financially from the company? Would you ever sign off on a document that said that level of compensation ($0) is similar to executives in comparably sized companies? If you were a legitimate auditor, wouldn't you demand that the company put in writing how this person is being compensated? Or at the very least a lengthy explanation as to the extremely unusual circumstance as to why this person is working for free? Like maybe the CEO gave her a kidney or something, some sort of an explanation? Nothing.
There are many other red flags with this company, but this one alone should be enough.
HNR - huge political risk. Chavez could steal everything at any time.
Broker Recommendations Please
Am incensed with Ameritrade as they won't let me trade a stock that I really like. Contacted the market maker directly and he said Ameritrade is the only one giving them any problems.
Any recommendations of brokers who specialize in OTCBB and pinkies and don't ever tell you what you can and can't buy would be appreciated
Credit Reports Often Not Accurate
D&B Reports and other credit reports for businesses are frequently wrong and often contain glaring innaccuracies.
The fact that the company will not disclose their own audited financials on their own website speaks volumes.
CAGC: Concerns
Reportedly has Same auditor as BBC, and the guy who reverse-merged CAGC public will no longer talk to Herb Greenberg.
(read the whole thing, including comments, to keep it in context)
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/greenberg/2006/10/bodisen_bruhaha.html
Len, I'd noticed this one awhile back, but must say that the connections, even if distant, to some of these other chinese fiascos kept me from buying. The balance sheet is great if it's true. But CESV seemed to have a great balance sheet too. CAGC having same auditor as BBC concerns me.
Those 100% losses on an investment can be bothersome. lol
Another thing that concerns me is the website. Not saying it absolutely has to be a scam, but just some concerns. Notice that they are not really trying to sell product. Lots of handy stuff for investors though. Ticker symbol on nearly every page:
http://www.chinaagritechinc.com/index.htm
Vague descriptions of their products. No pictures of management. Almost looks like a template website that could be put up in 30 min. Compare the CAGC website to a Canadian company website in similar biz, Hanfeng Evergreen. Pics of management, pics of product, concerted effort sell product, deals with majors, etc:
http://www.hanfengevergreen.com/index.php
And another thing I found concerning is you can hardly find anything on the internet that isn't basically just a reprint of one of CAGC's press releases. Couldn't find much in the way of independent verfication.
Also, (this is from memory, may have changed now) there was no independent directors on the board. And no audit committee. That's the way you'd want it set up if you were trying to pull a fast one. And from what I recall, there was also something screwy about one of the key employees was working for free, yet owned no shares, and wasn't related to anyone. Like I say, that's from memory (may not be exactly correct), but some pretty flaky stuff at one time, IMO.
Who knows, might be a perfectly legit company, but just seems like a few red flags to me.
Etrade International Trading
Anybody here have experience with Etrade's new international platform that they've been touting?
Specifically, I'd like to know if you can place order directly on other exchanges, or if you still have to go thru a market maker, in which case it probably isn't anything new.
OT: Firefox and Maxthon
Funny how different stuff acts differently on everyone's machines. For me, Maxthon is way, way faster than Firefox.
The other thing that bugs me about Firefox is that everytime they upgrade, half your extensions stop working. I've also had the problem of becoming dependent on an extension and then the developer stops updating it and nobody takes over. You can sort of become dependent on a 18 year old kid who takes off for college and stops updating things. I had to add many extensions to get the same features already in maxthon.
The other thing i really like in Maxthon is everthing you can do by right-clicking on a tab. All very intuitive. Assigning aliases is especially easy compared to Firefox.
Having said that, I'm not religious about any technology. If Firefox starts doing things better than maxthon, I'll use it more than maxthon.
One more thing. I'm on Vista and am not impressed. Quite a bit slower than XP. Only reason I got it was because my old machine broke down the week before Vista was coming out, so I waited. Would actually rather have XP. Vista just seems overly bloated and slow and no real upgrades other than eye candy, imo.
They can post audited financials on their website. Forget the SEC, forget listing, all they have to do is post audited financials so that their owners could see what's going on.
The PR says the exact same thing as the conference call did. I don't find it confusing at all.
-The only one receiving royalty revenue in this deal is Iconix. DANS will have to pay a licensing fee to Iconix.
-Royalties and revenues are far from the same thing, as far as Danskin is concerned.
If there's any confusion you can go back and look at Iconix itself. Back in 2003 it was a floundering clothing manufacturer, much like Danskin. Had tons of revenue, but very little profit. They made the decision to become a brand management company. They ceased all their manufacturing operations, because that's a hard, terrible business with exremely low profit margins. And they went into the licensing business, which is a great business with huge margins. Iconix had huge revenues as a manufacturer, but very little profit. As a royalty company, Iconix's revenues plummeted but their profits skyrocketed.
-We have no idea what liabilites, or how much, were taken over by Iconix. Nor do we have any idea as to what liabilities are left with DANS. They may have run up huge debt in the last 5 years. They could easily end any speculation by posting audited financials but they refuse to do so. Iconix bought the most valuable asset -- the brand.
-DANS could be making $60m in rev, or $100m or $500m it still doesn't mean they might not go broke because very little of that makes its way to the bottom line. Iconix was in a very similar situation back in 2003. But Iconix decided to get out of the "high-revenue, low-or-no-profit" business, and get into the "much-lower-revenue, high-profit" royalty business.
There's no proof of anything you stated. You're making tons of assumptions without any proof.
-In a previous message you said, "DANS will make $15 million in royalties alone from ICON as stated by ICON." That is simply incorrect.
-Royalty Revenues are not the same as sales. The statement, "This means that out of the $75 million in Royalty Revenues made by DANS, $15 million goes to ICON and the other $60 million must go to DANS since ICON stated that DANS is a $60 million company." That's simply incorrect. That's not how royalties work.
-All talk about the preferred is nothing more than assumptions. How do we know they didn't go further into debt int the meantime? How do you know they haven't issued another preferred. You're using 5 year old info. If everything is as they say, they could very easily display their audited financials. But they refuse to. A post on a bulletin board is not audited financials. There's no reason this company couldn't post audited financials on their website.
cashkill, you said, "what I know for a fact= dans does a min of 100 mil in biz per yr now, has zero debt,& now has 70 million in cash 5-7 x avg clothing companys cash balance."
How do you know that?
Please post a link to the financials so we can all see.
DANS - Yes, apologies on thinking you were confused about the $15 mil. It's the guys who wrote the ibox on the DANS board who said that:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=18577305
You mentioned, "It is my belief that Danskin is profitable." What makes you think that? I know there's the stuff from 5 years ago, but that's 5 years ago. I don't see any financials since then. Am I missing a link somewhere? Please forward if so.
Seems to me like DANS sold their most valuable asset
Etrade Question -- Has anyone tried their new International platform that they've been touting?
If so, are you placing orders directly to those various exchanges around the globe, or are are you still going thru market makers, in which case it's not nearly as big a deal as they're making it sound?
DANS - I think you're confusing who gets the money. The $15 million mentioned was royalty revenue TO ICONIX, not to Danskin.
Here's the exact wording,
"The purchase price for Danskin was $70m, with a contingent payment for an additional $15m, based on the brand achieving certain performance thresholds."
"We are forecasting that Danskin will generate approx. $15m in royalty revenue to Iconix in its first 12 months."
Here's the link and you can start listening at about 13:35.
http://web.servicebureau.net/conf/meta?i=1112856323&c=2343&m=was&u=/w_ccbn.xsl&date_...
(Now back to me talking again)
Iconix is paying a max of $85m (one-time payment) for the intellectual property that will generate $15m a year for them, with almost no additional expenses for Iconix. That's basically a p/e of under 6 that they paid for an asset. A good deal for them. The royalty business is a good business. (See CHKE)
But the contract manufacturing business is generally not a great business. Seems like Danskin is basically a contract manufacturer now. The website, the wholesale business, etc., sound like very small items left. And revenues do not equal profits.
The royalty biz has great margins. That's the business Iconix is in. The contract manufacturing biz generally has pretty terrible margins. That, for the most part, is the biz DANS is left with as far as I can see.
DANS could go broke and Iconix could simply go to another contract manufacturer, because Iconix now owns the brand.
DANS - I think you're confusing who gets the money. The $15 million mentioned was royalty revenue TO ICONIX, not to Danskin.
Here's the exact wording,
"The purchase price for Danskin was $70m, with a contingent payment for an additional $15m, based on the brand achieving certain performance thresholds."
"We are forecasting that Danskin will generate approx. $15m in royalty revenue to Iconix in its first 12 months."
Here's the link and you can start listening at about 13:35.
http://web.servicebureau.net/conf/meta?i=1112856323&c=2343&m=was&u=/w_ccbn.xsl&date_...
(Now back to me talking again)
Iconix is paying a max of $85m (one-time payment) for the intellectual property that will generate $15m a year for them, with almost no additional expenses for Iconix. That's basically a p/e of under 6 that they paid for an asset. A good deal for them. The royalty business is a good business. (See CHKE)
But the contract manufacturing business is generally not a great business. Seems like Danskin is basically a contract manufacturer now. The website, the wholesale business, etc., sound like very small items left. And revenues do not equal profits.
The royalty biz has great margins. That's the business Iconix is in. The contract manufacturing biz generally has pretty terrible margins. That, for the most part, is the biz DANS is left with as far as I can see.
DANS could go broke and Iconix could simply go to another contract manufacturer, because Iconix now owns the brand
No, I read that, but what does it mean in terms of money? I haven't been able to find the terms of the license agreement. If anyone has a link, please provide. How much will Danskin have to pay ICON to use what is now ICON's brand?
Is what's left just a money-losing business? If the business were making money, there's no excuse for not posting their audited financials on their own website.
The latest sec filings showed the possibility of over 200m shares outstanding if all the preferred and warrants were exercised. If the company claims it's still far less than that, and if they have audited financials to give to those involved in the transaction, there's no reason they couldn't post those audited financials so their own owners could read them. There may be many hidden liabilities that are not known. Or hidden assets, for that matter. Maybe they own a bunch of valuable real estate, who knows.
But when the company won't post the financials even on their own website, the tendency is for there to be hidden bad news.
So what's actually left of the company? I'm confused as to how they will earn money. It sounds like they sold off their intellectual property for $70m cash and up to another $15m in cash or stock. Is it your understanding they will also be paid some sort of yearly fee? If not, what's left and how do they earn money? Kinda confused.
Also, information in the ibox seem way off-base and misleading. A p/e is not based on a one-time sale. These are not recurring earnings that will be there every year.
DANS - So what's actually left of the company? I'm confused as to how they will earn money. It sounds like they sold off their intellectual property for $70m cash and up to another $15m in cash or stock. Is it your understanding they will also be paid some sort of yearly fee? If not, what's left and how do they earn money? Kinda confused.
No Financials Concerns Me
As you mentioned, sweetpepperjam, the financials are usually in the merger filings. What do you make of the fact that they are not there? Doesn't look right to me.
Sounds like you see it the same way i do on the outstanding. No matter how you look at it there seem to be over 100m shares out after march '07.
That's $20m+ market cap. And no financials. Pretty unusual to not see financials in the merger filings.
Deep Down Financials?
Anyone have a link to the financials of Deep Down? I can't seem to find it in the SEC merger filings. The financials of the company being acquired are usually buried in one of the filings, but I can't find it.
Looks like they're be 100M+ shares out after the merger. Is that the way everyone reads it?
MQPH.OB It's interesting, but unless I'm misreading the filings, I think your share count is way off. Seems to me there will be over 100m shares out for the new company.
Although even that amount is confusing.
The 8-K said they were issuing 85m shares to the company being acquired, plus the convertible.
http://tinyurl.com/yc829o
The later 14F says they're only issuing 60m shares, but when you read the breakdown of shares later in the document, it shows three guys owning 75m shares of common, plus that does not appear to include Francis's preferred which are convertible into another 31m shares.
http://tinyurl.com/yed6ac
So it appears to me, this thing has well over 100m shares out, no matter how you look at it.
I've been looking for financials on DeepDown but can find the filing that has them, or I've missed it somewhere. If you have that link please post it.