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.
POLXF Another Whopper Earnings Report
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/polydex-reports-second-quarter-financial-131500206.html
Another Whopper Earnings Report
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/polydex-reports-second-quarter-financial-131500206.html
Hi southacresdave,
Have enjoyed your work on SCKT. I'd appreciate a copy of your report.
jtomm at yahoo.com
thx in advance
Another horrific quarter.
The story is always the same, "if it hadn't been for this expense and that expense, things would have been really good! But just wait until next quarter, that's when things are really gonna start to kick into gear!!"
And then the next quarter comes, and you get the same exact story.
Hey Osbourn, nope I don't know anything more about the lawsuits.
Same Old SPIN
It's always, "wait till next quarter, just wait till next quarter, real soon now."
Management has lied repeatedly.
Questions About Ownership and Fraud
Today's news certainly appears good on the surface. But I'd suggest going back a couple of pages on the Ihub board and reading some of the due diligence that was found. Not trying to talk you out of anything, just want you and any newcomers to be aware of the risks as well. There's a reason it's selling at this level -- everyone involved appears to have a fraudulent past, and there are family lawsuits which question the ownership of the assets. Per the last 10-Q, 2 of the 3 operators have ceased making royalty payments.
No worries, thx for the correction.
I like the company's technology. A large CEO buy in the latest offering like that would have been huge news.
From what I can tell, his position has remained relatively unchanged since early 2011 when his initial ownership statement showed him owning 5.4M shs, and now he owns a little over 5.3M.
Initial Statement in 2011:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/898379/000091419011000078/xslF345X02/edgar.xml
Latest:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/898379/000143774914001232/vill20140129_sc13ga.htm
RBIT It is absurd to use 4m shares outstanding in any calculation. That is simply false. Anyone can go read the documents for themselves. All of the other stuff is *projections* from a company that has never been close to profitable -- and all they're even suggesting is EBITDA, not profitability, and they've never even been close to EBITDA positive. By the time any of those wild projections would come true, there will be around 8m shares outstanding.
Everyone else should be aware that this stock is undergoing an organized promotion by Superman. It will almost certainly spike and then collapse. Those telling you what a great buy it is will be selling.
RBIT -- No, as I read it, the warrants being issued are a separate matter.
Right below the table of contents are the details. Then continue on to the "Summary of the Offering". After the offering, they will have:
2.9m shares outstanding
1.75m warrants outstanding at 6.55 strike for 5 years
but that does not include the other 1.5m shares to be issued by mid 2014 which was a matter involving warrants that existed previously:
"Effective as of November 13, 2013, certain warrant holders agreed to exchange warrants to purchase 496,060 shares of common stock for 1,554,734 shares of our common stock (the Exchange). The warrant holders are committed to exchange their warrants which will be cancelled; however the shares will not be issued until after our next shareholder meeting, which must occur prior to July 1, 2014 and at which time we will request to increase our authorized shares of common stock, provided our shareholders approve such increase."
A few other exlusions bring the total shares out to around 5m, with another 1.75m warrants.
RIBT -- I would guess closer to 5m shares out after all is said and done.
The offering says 2.9m shares after the offering, but also says,
"The total number of shares of our common stock outstanding after this offering is based on 1,152,452 shares outstanding as of December 10, 2013 and excludes (i) 1,554,734 shares of common stock to be issued by July 1, 2014 to certain warrant holders in exchange for the cancellation of warrants to purchase up to 496,060 shares of common stock, and (ii) 134,250 shares to be issued by July 1, 2014 to a note investor.
After all the over-allotments, etc., I'd guess closer to 5m shares out.
Good stuff, Osbourn.
Yeah, when I read Val's bio in the proxy, the first thing that came to mind is that he's trying to wear both his military service and his religion on his sleeve, but gives very little specifics about his business experience. Trying a little too hard to project a "you can trust me" image.
The zoominfo bio that you ran across actually is more what I would have liked to see. But maybe he stopped using it for a reason -- that reason being that things can be checked.
One of the things in that bio was:
"Mr. Holms founded Holms Building Service, Inc. in Missoula, Montana in 1972. Holms Building Service was involved in a number of projects throughout the state of Montana and at one time was the second largest commercial metal building contractor in Montana."
That looks like more lies.
Here's the link from the Montana SOS that shows it was incorporated in 1976, filed its last annual report in '78, and then after what looks like 4 years of inactivity, it was involuntarily dissolved.
https://app.mt.gov/cgi-bin/bes/besCertificate.cgi?action=detail&bessearch=D042690&trans_id=besa13329195831123d00
I highly doubt it was the second largest commercial metal building contractor in the two years that it appeared to actually be doing anything.
Osbourn, I think that's one where you have to use logic and common sense and make your own decision.
After all, how will you be able to have 100% proof? Val admitting to it would be about the only way. But if you ask him directly and he says that was not him, are you going to believe him? Fraudsters lie, that's what they do. A scammer doesn't throw up his hands and say, "Yep, you caught me!"
When you look at that court case and all the lies he told and the fraud he committed, I wouldn't be depending on him to tell you the truth. He lied about his net worth, he produced phony financial statements, he lied about his interest in oil and gas properties, he lied about his position with the company, he conspired to produce a phony escrow account with the sole intention of deceiving another party, he gave "personal guarantees" that he knew he couldn't live up to, and on and on.
Remember the movie, "My Cousin Vinny"? The judge found out Vinny wasn't a lawyer, but then the judge made the mistake of going back to Vinny for an "explanation". Of course, Vinny just kept making up story after story to keep the judge from believing the truth he had discovered.
And it's not hard to make up stories. In this case, Val might say, "No that wasn't me. That's that dirty cousin of mine on my dad's side. He's got the same name. He's disgusting. That con artist has been ruining my reputation for decades!"
Well, if he says that, does that make it the truth? Or is it like My Cousin Vinny where he's just telling another lie in order to not be found out? You could come up with hundreds of plausible sounding stories.
Like Doc said, you kind of just have to ask yourself how likely is it that this is a coincidence? Same name, same company name, same industry, his home state. How likely is it that a different person of the exact same name, in his home state, founded an oil company of the same name? And then Val founded a company with Allan Holms and Edington, two other scammers. Birds of a feather. What are the odds that he's totally honest and just happened to get innocently mixed up with these two dishonest types? What are the odds that all 3 founders of Roil Energy LLC happen to have OTHER people with the exact same names out there scamming people, in their home towns, and it's not them? And what are the odds that Val Holms then ended up merging with a company run by Edington's daughter and he was just a naive, innocent dupe who got mixed up with all these bad guys?
Those are the questions you have to ask yourself.
Again, you insist on taking things out of context and trying to offer people general legal advice.
You purposely left out that "Allan Holms alleges Roil Energy was originally intended to be the predecessor entity to BRI." A tiny little item.
-Advising people, in general, on how they should handle contracts is obviously immaterial. What matters is how these parties involved handled their contracts in this specific case. (As such expert legal counsel, perhaps you should have been there advising Val not to engage in fraudulent oral agreements as he apparently did previously.)
Funny enough, even the link you provided makes very clear: "The law does not distinguish between an oral contract and a written contract; both are equally enforceable provided they meet the legal standard for enforceability."
In fact, Texaco had to file for bankruptcy over an oral agreement (the largest bankruptcy in American history at the time, I believe). It was actually somewhat similar to this situation, where there was an oral agreement for Getty Oil to be partially acquired by Pennzoil, and then Getty turned around sold out to another company, Texaco. Pennzoil sued Texaco and won so much that Texaco had to file bankruptcy.
Allan Holms appears to be alleging that something similar happened in this case. He may win nothing at all, or he may win a judgment bigger than the market cap of BKKN, nobody knows.
We know for certain that Val started a company with Edington and Allan Holms on the alleged date.
And all 3 of them seem to have a history of telling lies and engaging in fraud.
. . . and everyone involved with the company seems to have a history of fraud. You forgot that one small item, in addition to many others.
Your legal opinion was also that the company would be earning 18% interest on the payments that have stopped, and that was obviously wrong.
When you speak of here-say (sic), it's obvious that you have substantial legal training and are fully justified in trying to convince others you know the case is on shaky ground, and further justified in ignoring Val Holms's oil-digging fraud (everyone should read the case, Val has a history of making fraudulent oral agreements) and simply assuming the brother is the bad guy.
-It's never a good sign when a stock has a message board where someone is touting all the positives and encouraging others to ignore the obvious risks. Nobody would ever invest that way with their own money.
So can we assume that you've looked at all the evidence?
I mean, come on, it's ridiculous to come to such a conclusion when you've not scrutinized all the depositions, all the testimony, and all the evidence. You have no way of knowing any more than anyone else does. And especially when it appears to be the same Val Holms who has committed fraud before. You also have no way of knowing that there was nothing in writing; there may be lots of emails back and forth as things were being discussed. There may also be plenty of witnesses to the conversations -- you have no way of knowing.
As for oral contracts, that's about all the Winklevoss twins had in their deal with Zuckerberg on Facebook. How'd that one turn out?
Oral contracts can absolutely be binding.
But frankly, the bigger concern is how shady everyone surrounding this company seems to be. Scams, fraud, lawsuits, and bankruptcies seem to be the rule of the day. One has to wonder if Bakken isn't just another one.
The North Dakota Petroleum Council site makes it pretty clear that the 18% interest on late payments does not apply when there's a title dispute. Click on #6 at this link, #9 also gives some good info:
http://www.ndoil.org/oil_can_2/royalty_owner_information_center/
I'd guess the actual statute is many paragraphs long with section (a) and subsection (1), etc., etc., of instances where the late payment does and doesn't apply. And then there's probably loads of court cases that are relied on from the past as to when the late fees will be applied. Legal stuff is almost never black and white, and that's the way lawyers like it cuz they bill by the hour.
#11 in the above link makes it sound like royalty interests are recorded in county records. Does anyone know a place to look that up? I'd like to get independent verification that these royalties actually exist.
Good stuff, Doc. As you were doing that, I decided to look a little more into Allan Holms. He, too, appears to be a rather shady character. Do a google search and you'll find plenty of lawsuits. Appeared to be involved in a bunch of shell companies at about the same time. He's in Spokane where Edington is.
Edington, Val Holms and Allan Holms were the managing members of Roil LLC:
http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=vtSkkTcmFofNgcAQM7VizA%253d%253d
Here's how, similar to Val, Allan pulled a fast one on a company and left them with huge losses, having to file bankruptcy:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/jul/09/utter-manager-sink-together-bankruptcy-poses/
It doesn't help my confidence level to know that he's a car dealer. Frankly, all 3 of them sound like very shady characters.
Val's fraud even brings into question the validity of the royalties, in my eyes. Do these things really exist? Is this company real, or is this yet another fraud?
Especially worrisome is the fraud that was pulled off by Val in the document posted by Osbourn. He conspired with somebody to set up a fake escrow account that a drilling contractor required. Val and the escrow company confirmed that the money was there. When it came time for the driller to be paid, the escrow company then changed their story and said there was no money there. Val also lied about his wealth and claimed he had oil and gas properties, but in reality he no longer had an interest in those properties. He lied about his position with a company. It was just lies all over the place.
So that begs the question, are these royalties that Bakken claims to have even real, or could it all be a shell game?
Does anyone know if there's a way to verify royalty interests online? Are they recorded anywhere? I know the companies lists the wells they claim to have an interest in on their website, and it looks official, but how do we know it's even true? Especially when it looks like all the people involved have a history of fraud, including phonying up financial accounts?
If royalty agreements go unrecorded, then we're really just relying on the auditors to verify this stuff. In this case, the auditors (per the company proxy) are Malone Bailey LLP. They've been cited for numerous audit deficiencies. They're involved almost exclusively with sketchy little microcap companies. They're also the number one auditor of chinese reverse mergers, almost all of which turn out to be scams. And suddenly I'm not feeling so good about Bakken's royalty claims.
Here's a Forbes article on Malone Bailey:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2011/04/15/reverse-mergers-pushers-may-be-the-problem/
And here's the latest PCAOB inspection report of Malone Bailey. Note that some of the deficiencies are incredibly basic, like verifying receivables:
http://pcaobus.org/Inspections/Reports/Documents/2012_MaloneBailey_LLP.pdf
I wonder if Val isn't just pulling off a similar scam to the one before: set up a fake escrow account that is allegedly collecting the royalties, the auditor relies on that and calls it good. Show them some phony royalty agreements and everything looks kosher.
I started out liking the looks of the company, except for the lawsuit. But the more we discover about the people involved, the more queasy I start to feel about things. As an old CPA told me many years ago, "once a fraudster, always a fraudster."
Wow, that's more good stuff, Osbourn. It sure looks like all the same names.
And when you read thru the case, even more important than the negative net worth is the fact that it sounds like Mr. Holms committed fraud. Yikes.
BKKN
FWIW, Doc over on the Bakken board was apparently able to find the case and it does appear that the Washington case is still ongoing:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=94338509
He also posted the message after that which makes it sound like the suspending of royalty payments is the way this is normally handled.
Good stuff, Doc. Thanks for posting those two items.
-On another board, I'd suggested that the 10-Q only said the company had been granted summary judgment on the tortious interference in the Washington case, not on the Breach of Contract and Fraud items and it could be that those two are still ongoing. That does now appear to be the case. So that case has been going on now for what, 19 months? And the North Dakota case just started. Will it go for 2 to 3 years also? It's easy to just assume it's all frivilous, but the judge must have seen enough evidence to not grant a summary judgment.
-Also, good info on the royalties as it sounds like this is the standard procedure in a case like this.
Sadly, family squabbles can be the worst kind with all sorts of egos and siblings getting involved. Common sense solutions often go out the window.
Nobody likes dilution, but frankly, I think the company would be prudent to offer 3-5% of the company right now to settle everything and we move on. If you look at that list of court documents in the case, and all the hearings, etc., consider that every one of those items took the attorney's time and fees, the CEO's time and preparation and resources, umpteen phone calls back and forth, time wasted going back and forth to court, the mental stress, the company's money, etc. Personally, I'd rather have time, money, and resources spent on acquiring new leases and royalties. You'd more than make up for the dilution by being productive instead of unproductive -- there's an opportunity cost to fighting legal battles.
Plus, us investors would then have a large, unknown, unquantifiable risk removed. Sadly, they might squabble for another 3 years, wasting precious resources, and THEN come to a similar settlement.
I'd vote for doing it now.
But that's the past. The collections have now stopped from two of the three operators because of the lawsuit.
That's not a small item to be discounted.
I wouldn't be surprised if the third operator decided to do the same thing at some point in the future to protect themselves as well.
It seems possible there will be a massive decline in reported revenue and earnings until the lawsuit is resolved. I don't know how the accounting is handled by the auditors, but my guess is the company won't be able to report revenues that they are no longer receiving.
BKKN
Yeah, Kik, I agree it's tough to tell what's going on.
If the lawsuit weren't there, I like the looks of the company. But it does concern me as to what the next earnings reports will look like until the lawsuit is settled, even assuming the lawsuit is frivilous. If the brother wins, then there's likely major dilution coming. But even if the company eventually wins, I wonder what the earnings reports look like in the meantime.
As you posit, it may be that the earnings are better than they appear because of the date of the filing. But who knows, it may be the other way also. If BKKN received notice of the complaint around 7/18/13, I'd be surprised if the large oil companies became aware of it immediately, or stopped payments immediately. It probably took them a couple of days/weeks to become aware of it if they were not served themselves, then it takes a few days or weeks to get to the right person in the legal dept, then he/she takes a few days or weeks to talk to the right person in accounting, then there's a few meetings with the higher-ups, and then a decision is finally made to stop payments -- because it's not something you would do lightly. So I could also see the possibility that nearly the entire quarter had payments from all three operators. The 10-Q doesn't give dates as to when each operator ceased payments, or which operators, or what percentage of the company's revenue (would have been nice to have that disclosed).
And just trying to be realistic here, not overly negative, I wouldn't be surprised if the third operator followed suit. From the oil companies' point of view, they quite rightly don't want to pay royalties to one person, only to find out they were owed to another person, and now they have to pay again. These aren't unbelievably huge amounts of money, but they're not small amounts either. The oil companies will turn the royalty money over to a court trustee or something, but they don't want to pay it out to the wrong person and then have to fight to get it back.
So I'm actually wondering if it's possible that all 3 oil companies stop paying royalties and the auditors require BKKN to report ZERO revenues until the lawsuit is resolved (or greatly reduced revenues even if one continues to pay). How many quarters or years could that be? The court system moves extremely slowly. If indeed the Breach of Contract and Fraud portions of the Washington case are still ongoing, that means it's already been 19 months without a resolution on that one.
Is it possible the company could have to report ZERO revenues and nothing but losses for the next 2 or 3 years?
I really don't know, but that too is something to ponder.
BKKN: Legal Issues
Kik, saw your post on the VMC Motherboard about BKKN legal issues being dismissed in Washington. But it seems like it could be read a little differently. It sounds like there were three major issues alleged in the suit:
1) Breach of contract
2) Tortious interference
3) Fraud
And it sounds like maybe only the tortious interference claims were dismissed in the Washington case, with the Breach of Contract and Fraud issues still to be decided. Here's the portion copied and pasted from the 10-Q, read it again and tell me what you think:
********
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
On April 2, 2012, BRI was served with a summons relating to a complaint filed by Allan Holms, both individually and derivatively through Roil Energy, LLC. Allan Holms is the half-brother of BRI’s CEO, Val Holms. The complaint (filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington located in Spokane County) names, among others, Joseph Edington, Val and Mari Holms, Holms Energy, LLC and BRI as defendants. The Complaint primarily alleges breach of contract, tortious interference with prospective business opportunity and fraud. The complaint focuses on events allegedly occurring around February and March 2010 whereby Allan Holms alleged an oral agreement took place whereby he was to receive up to 40% of the originally issued equity of Roil Energy, LLC. Allan Holms alleges Roil Energy was originally intended to be the predecessor entity to BRI. Both Mr. Val Holms, our CEO, and BRI dispute such allegations in their entirety and intend to vigorously defend such claims.
In March 2013, the Company received notice of a complaint titled Gillis v. Bakken Resources, Inc., Case No. A-13-675280-B, filed in the District Court of the State of Nevada for Clark County. Mr. Gillis, the plaintiff in this matter (the “Gillis Case”), is the trustee of the Bruce and Marilyn Gillis 1987 Trust. Mr. Gillis is the Trustee of such trust. Mr. Gillis is alleging that Client breached certain registration rights obligations pursuant to an equity investment made at or around November 2010. The Company denies the validity of the claims made in the Gillis Case and intends to vigorously defend against such claims. At this time, the range loss is not estimable but is not expected to exceed $50,000.
On June 21, 2013, the court in the Washington case granted BRI and the other defendants in the Washington case summary judgment on the defendants’ request to dismiss all tortious interference claims.
On or around July 18, 2013, BRI received notice of a complaint filed in McKenzie County, ND (Roil Energy v. Toll Reserve Consortium (ND Dist. Ct., Case No. 27-2013-CV-00124)) (the “ND Case”). The plaintiffs in the ND Case are the same as in the Washington case described above. The claims in the ND Case arise from the same facts alleged by the plaintiffs in the Washington case. The plaintiffs in the ND Case seek to, among other things, quiet title in mineral assets the plaintiffs claim were intended to be conveyed to Roil Energy. As with the Washington case, BRI disputes these allegations in their entirety and intends to vigorously defend against such claims.
As a result of the most recent complaint filed in McKenzie County, ND, two of the operators have ceased making monthly royalty payments. The payments are being held in suspense pending the outcome of this litigation. A third operator has not changed its royalty payment schedule to BRI. The company is working to have the suspension lifted and the suspended payments paid.
********
That also sounds like the cessation of royalty payments happened just recently (sometime after July 18th of this year). Unless this is resolved before next quarter, it seems like there could be a huge hit to earnings, no? Do you think the accountants would allow them to report earnings and revenue that haven't been paid to them and are in legal dispute? That's a question, not sarcasm, because I don't know how that would work. I would certainly think they couldn't report an increase in cash on the balance sheet if the company hasn't received that cash. Even if it's a frivilous suit that would be resolved in several months or years, it seems like they might not be able to report good earnings in the meantime. Seems possible that might have been the last quarter of good earnings until the legal stuff is resolved, depending on how the accounting gets handled. And that's assuming they win both cases.
Any thoughts?
SRMC Dividend
Just trying to be helpful here. This is actually a response to a post on the Value Microcaps Motherboard, but I can't post over there so if someone would like to copy and paste this over there, please feel free.
The post said, "SRMC gotta get in by Nov. 1 for the divi."
Actually, the last day to get in for the dividend was today (Tues, Oct. 29), that's because you have to factor in the 3 days it takes for trades to settle in order to be a holder on the record date. For buyers, the stock starts trading WITHOUT the right to the dividend tomorrow (Wed, Oct 30th).
Hdogtx, I was able to find the info that you posted from other boards, just to refresh your memory:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92869592
Horrible New Format
Add me to the list of people who can't stand the new format. Please go back. There was nothing wrong; it didn't need fixing.
False Information Posted -- A Review
False information on this stock was simply copied and pasted from previous posts; there was absolutely no due diligence done. (As I noted yesterday, Nora Coccaro resigned from the company is 2008 and the company's current status is revoked.)
All the wild speculation and crazy runup was started by a single false post yesterday claiming that Nora Coccaro had taken over the shell:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92828215
Note the second paragraph ("The Nora lady is pretty big time ...") with all of its abbreviations and misspelling of Uruguay. That is simply copied and pasted from the middle of this post nearly 2 years ago:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=70293430
The other part of yesterday's initial post that gave all the info about previous companies was simply copied and pasted from this post from January 2012:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=70914538
The same info was then posted again in January 2013:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83505031
Later in the day, another post was made regarding the share structure. Read the first paragraph. Notice the abbreviations and even the misspelling of the word "once" when it was meant to be "one" :
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92843521
That was simply copied and pasted from this post in Dec 2011. Again, notice the exact abbreviations and misspelling:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69558609
More than a million shares of this stock were purchased on 9/27/13. My trading software shows 250,000 shares bought @ .001, and 760,000 shares bought at .0011.
Absolutely nothing has happened with this company, other than the false post on Ihub to start the frenzy.
That's nothing new. Dalmata has been CEO since 2008:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1080001/000121152408000262/newtech8k.htm
There is no publicly available information that shows ANY cause for excitement.
The company was reinstated with Nevada SOS in 2011 -- so what? It's nearly 2014. The current status is revoked and it needs to be reinstated again to pay for 2012, and 2013:
http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/FeeDetails.aspx?ctok=9wXcd79co5LBZ8w4QbwsXw%253d%253d
Okay, I read it. It's a post from 2011.
The company's status is still revoked and the last SEC filing was in 2009. Why all the sudden optimism today?
Sounds like whoever posted the info on that board had some old info because this company's status is revoked by Nevada SOS and last SEC filing was in 2009:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=newtech%20res&CIK=&filenum=&State=&SIC=&owner=include&action=getcompany
Nothing on otcmarkets site either
NTHR Sounds like whoever posted the info on that board had some old info because this company's status is revoked by Nevada SOS and last SEC filing was in 2009:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=newtech%20res&CIK=&filenum=&State=&SIC=&owner=include&action=getcompany
Nothing on otcmarkets site either.
Could you provide a link to show that Nora has taken over?
The last thing I could find is that Nora resigned in 2008:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1080001/000121152408000262/newtech8k.htm
And the Nevada SOS lists the company's status as revoked:
http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=9wXcd79co5LBZ8w4QbwsXw%253d%253d&nt7=0
Wrong board, sorry.
Could you provide a link to show that Nora has taken over?
The last thing I could find is that Nora resigned in 2008:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1080001/000121152408000262/newtech8k.htm
And the Nevada SOS lists the company's status as revoked:
http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=9wXcd79co5LBZ8w4QbwsXw%253d%253d&nt7=0
RIP Lentinman (Martin Manley)
Was very saddened to hear of Len's passing. I've really missed his participation on the boards for many years now. I always enjoyed his thoughts. Very straightforward guy. Like some others, when he showed up to say hi I initially thought it was just to inform us of a new venture. Sadly, it was something else.
I read thru some of his site last nite. It sounds like he has thought about suicide nearly his entire life. He also suffered from some pretty serious sleep deprivation problems and his mind was always racing. He started to notice some age-related mental problems in the last few years: couldn't remember the names of his best friends, having to dig thru the trash to find an envelope with his address on it becuz he couldn't remember his own address, even though he'd lived there almost a decade.
He seems to have feared that if he waited much longer he wouldn't be able to go out on his own terms.
Back in 2011 KiK asked if anybody knew what happened to Lentinman. Sounds like perhaps Bobwins contacted him privately and Len gave this public response:
"Bob emailed me and demanded that I let people know I'm ok. And, as everyone knows, we all do what Bob tells us to do.
I'm fine - absolutely zero physical problems. If I die, I promise I'll let you know. . . . "
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=62428467
I wonder if the "zero physical problems" was a tacit admission that he could sense some mental problems creeping in. He kept his word on letting us know.
One other reason he mentioned on his site:
"Another reason why age 60 is ideal is that my life insurance expires next year and I would not be able to afford to get new insurance without paying a ton. And, it requires two years of waiting - once you get insurance - before you can commit suicide and still have the beneficiaries receive the death benefit."
He'd definitely thought things thru and it ain't for me to judge right or wrong. Everybody gets to make their own decision, despite what any laws may say. Still sad to see him go.
My fondest memory of Len was on Grifco (GFCI). For those who weren't around when this scam hit, it looked like a value investor's dream stock. Claimed to have cash in the bank, big earnings, no debt, etc. Except for just one thing: no auditor. There was always an excuse for why the audited numbers were late for a week, then a month, etc.
I was intrigued by the stock but skeptical. Len was the same. Then one day while looking at the company's website, I noticed that their news ticker seemed to come from the corresponding message board that they had on their site. You could sign up to become a member of the message board. So I did. Then I posted a message "Is This A Message Board?" and wanted to see if it would show up as a "news item." Sure enuf, it did. I didn't say anything until someone here at Ihub asked about it. I informed them that I just signed up at their message board and typed a message and it became "news". Well, within minutes, loads of people were signed up and typing up "news" stories like "Grifco Buys Exxon" or "Grifco Acquired For $6,000,000,000,000". lol
Len got a HUGE kick out of that whole thing and got some screenshots etc. He documented it pretty well.
Good memories.
Seemed like a very nice person. Sincerest condolences to his family and loved ones.
Only The Company Speaks For Itself
Listening to anyone else completely subverts the due diligence process. One should not rely on "a guy said" rather than rely on the SEC filings. That is absurd on its face.
Since you are concerned about newbies and those who forgot, it needs to be mentioned that you forgot to say that you subtracted a few things from that description. In fact, the most important things.
The link below shows that description was originally given by the company's conference call moderator (who has been compensated by the company but refuses to give an ongoing disclosure of that compensation so that newbies would know.) The description was given when the stock was near its peak of $2.00 and when crazy guidance numbers of $.30-.35 EPS for 2012 were being given, with an additional $.08 EPS to be expected for every $1 million the company borrowed. The guidance number was gonna be easy, we were told. It should be obvious to anyone with just a little math knowledge, we were told. These are the lines you omitted, and a link to the original post is below it:
=========
Let me add and remind here why it is so easy to get an accurate one year out “guidance” number.
As mentioned above, I understand that some 700 cases have now gone through the complete cycle. I have been told that of these 700 cases, only two ended up having to be written off by the Company. I believe the total “out of pocket” loss to SPIN for these two cases totaled under $8000. Again, from what I understand, these two cases were certainly legitimate cases, but what happened is the attorney and or client got greedy and decided to take the case to court and lost before a jury.
So you see any shareholder with minimum math knowledge now has the parameters to figure out approximate earnings for the next year just by looking at the recent reported SEC filing “AR”.
Collections = 52%
Collection time: 10-12 months
Failure rate .03%
Hopefully this will help you all to understand why this is such a great predictable business.
========
Here's the link:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72706239
Obviously, the company's conference call moderator was incredibly wrong and had zero understanding of the risks that exist in the business. Same goes for Dr. Donovan who was telling people in company presentations that this was a recession proof business.