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.
Weo98
The facts I referred to are the ones from the the SEC filing. I said probably regarding a reverse will be needed - discussion means opinions which is what I express.
Sorry I didn't drink the Koolaid. ETPI was not MY company - I just happened to invest in it. I traded and made some $ on the spikes and lost some when it fell. Net net lost some $ - not alot - I've moved on a long time ago.
Using the Fox description means I have an ego??? I think not. I find it interesting when I or KP have a contrarian/opposing viewpoint the attackers come out.
I saw where Greg got burned on another OTCBB Co DICUT and I know he took the issue over to that board and not here.
If you think financials do not matter you are kidding yourself.
Have a great day!!!!
Take care
Bylo
Weo
I am the Fox network - fair and balanced. Revenue is always a good thing - the problem is there wasn't much in Q1 and even Kelly thought it was going to increase. His positive letters have been saying as such for years. Ridiculous statements??? I copy straight from the companies SEC filings which are the real facts.
Getting contracts from the Federal Govt is great. Hopefully they become cash flow positive soon to avoid the continued dilution. Getting off the OTCBB is going to be very hard and I just pointed out in order to get to the magic $4 they probably are going to need to reverse say 1 to 10 if the stock is at $.40. This means your 20,000 shares becomes 2,000.
Sorry if I point out some facts and am not one of the 99% of pom pom wavers. And I thought this was a dicsussion.
So no one is dissapointed? The same company you bought into 4 years ago with approx 15M shares outstanding and a float of 6M now has over 50M.
Question - the investor fsct sheet from 12/03 Greg has in the profile shows expected revenue of $6.5M for 2004 and Net Inc of $1.5M - is that still expected? If not then it should be deleted as it is mesleading...
Have a great day...
Weeble
Question - where is the deferred revenue on the balance sheet? If a sale is made but not yet recognized it can be shown on the balance sheet as deferred revenue.
Take care
Bylo
Just Another
They are not selling stock to payoff debt they are selling stock to survive - for working capital and pay short term expenses like salaries, the light bill, rent, etc. They are not paying many other debts and actually are in default of many.
As the dilution increases it will be harder and harder to reach the $4 price to get off this exhange. A reverse is a possibility to increase the price to get it where it needs to be to get out of the OTCBB - the unregulated worst exchange there is.
Also keep in mind Dutchess wants to make $ so they will be a seller to get back their $
Take care
The Seller - Dilution
Major concern is dilution due to the negative cash flow. The company stock is their only real liquid asset to obtain working capital until they become cash positive. Issuing shares to Dutchess and are they selling so they are not left holding many many shares?
Stock Issuance and Outstanding Share #'s:
12/31/01 32,931,842
12/31/02 37,331,448 4.4M increase
12/31/03 48,568,628 11.2M increase
5/12/04 51,366,906 2.8M for 4 mos - 8.4M annualized
Will become increasingly more difficult for the share price to increase as the outstanding and float increases. Reverse split coming???
For the quarter ended March 31, 2004, our net loss was $(523,465). After taking into account the non-cash items included in that loss, our cash requirements foroperations were approximately $310,509. In addition, we made capitalexpenditures of $42,429 and repaid notes in the amount of $34,160. To coverthese cash requirements, we used existing cash and issued [b[1,545,628 shares of our common stock under the Dutchess equity line for net cash proceeds of $373,887.
Greg
The last paragraph:
We face all the risks, expenses, and difficulties frequently encountered in connection with the expansion and development of a business, difficulties in maintaining delivery schedules if and when volume increases, the need to develop support arrangements for systems at widely dispersed physical locations, and the need to control operating and general and administrative expenses. While the Ferris acquisition provided an established stream of revenues and historically favorable gross margins, Ferris had not yet generated a profit, and substantial additional capital, or major highly-profitable custom applications, will be needed if those operations are to become profitable
The real challenge...
Take care
Bylo
Company Announcement
So Much for the Upbeat Kelly Jones...
VirTra Systems Announces First Quarter Results
Monday May 17, 3:02 pm ET
ARLINGTON, Texas, May 17 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- VirTra Systems, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: VTSI - News) today announced unaudited results for the first quarter of its fiscal year ended March 31, 2004.
Total revenue reported for the first quarter was $296,878, down 17.9% compared to $361,746 for the same period one year ago. Net loss for the quarter was ($523,465), or ($0.01) per share, up from net loss of ($320,459), or ($0.01) per share, for the first quarter of fiscal 2003.
L. Kelly Jones, VirTra Systems' chief executive, commented, "Although we are disappointed that this breaks our previous string of five consecutive quarters of improvement in our comparative reports, we believe this is an aberration, and belies the first quarter's remarkable progress.
"In reality, this has been our most productive quarter to-date, as we departed our traditional headset technology by launching groundbreaking projection products, and announced sales of these new products, in both our training/simulation and advertising/promotional markets.
"We received a simulator order from India, and our Mexican multi-system sale was announced just as we unveiled the new patent-pending IVR-300(TM) HD system to the domestic law-enforcement community. This new product resulted in our first domestic simulator sale, to the United States Air Force. Further announcements are imminent.
"We also launched the world's most advanced multisensory virtual reality delivery system -- our patented Immersa-Dome(TM). We recently announced our first sale of the Immersa-Dome -- four units in total.
"We remain confident of corporate success during 2004, paving the way for a listing on a major exchange," Jones concluded.
Charlie
Filing is out - the reason the excitement diminishes is because reality sets in:
Results of Operations
Three Months Ended March 31, 2004 Compared to Three Months Ended March 31, 2003
Two major factors affected our results of operations for the three months endedMarch 31, 2004, compared to the corresponding period of 2004. First, revenuedeclined. Second, general and administrative expenses increased.
Revenues from our virtual reality product lines are somewhat unpredictable. Ourproducts are custom made to a particular client's needs and delivery schedules.Thus, our products tend to consist of a few large projects at any time, and thestage of completion of any particular project can significantly affect revenue.We had total revenue of $296,878 for the three months ended March 31, 2004,compared to $361,746 for the corresponding three months of 2003. Our revenue isnow broken down in our statement of operations into our two markets,training/simulation and advertising/promotion. Revenue for the period consistedprimarily of monies received for our recent IVR-300 HD training simulatordeliveries to Mexico, the Black Hawk helicopter recruitment project for theUnited States Army, from Schwans (Red Baron Pizza) for a promotional experienceat its new flight museum, and from our recent project for Bombardier's Sea-Doodivision. Cost of sales and services slightly increased proportionately.
General and administrative expenses of $383,729 for the three months ended March31, 2004, compared to $252,641 for the three months ended March 31, 2003,increased primarily due to an increase in development costs, travel,advertising/marketing, and trade show expense associated with final developmentand the recent product roll-out of the IVR HD line of advanced trainingsimulators, as well as the Immersa-Dome system for the advertising/promotionalmarket.
Liquidity and Plan of Operations
As of March 31, 2004, our liquidity position was extremely precarious. We hadcurrent liabilities of $9,712,723, including $6,236,817 in obligations under thelease financing for the old Ferris Productions virtual reality systems,$1,056,561 in accounts payable, and short-term notes payable of $1,654,593, someof which were either demand indebtedness or were payable at an earlier date andwere in default. As of March 31, 2004, there was only $410,191 in current assets available to meet those liabilities.
To date we have met our capital requirements by acquiring needed equipment underthe Ferris non-cancelable leasing arrangements, through capital contributions,loans from principal shareholders and officers, certain private placementofferings, and through our convertible debenture and equity line financing withDutchess Private Equities Fund, L.P.
For the quarter ended March 31, 2004, our net loss was $(523,465). After takinginto account the non-cash items included in that loss, our cash requirements foroperations were approximately $310,509. In addition, we made capitalexpenditures of $42,429 and repaid notes in the amount of $34,160. To coverthese cash requirements, we used existing cash and issued 1,545,628 shares ofour common stock under the Dutchess equity line for net cash proceeds of$373,887.
The opinion of our independent auditor for the year ended December 31, 2003 expressed substantial doubt as to our ability to continue as a going concern. Wewill need substantial additional capital or new lucrative custom applicationprojects to become profitable. In July of 2002, we entered into a financialcontract with Dutchess Private Equities Fund, L.P. Under this arrangement,Dutchess is to purchase up to $5 million of our common stock over the next twoyears under an equity line. The number of shares we may sell to Dutchess isbased upon the trading volume of our stock. Dutchess and several other investorsalso participated in a private placement of $450,000 in convertible debentures,which has been repaid in full. Based on recent increases in the stock's tradingvolume following our entry into the training/simulation market, managementbelieves that this equity line will allow us to continue our operations for atleast the next twelve months. However, operations will require the continued forbearance of the holders of various notes and equipment leases that arecurrently in default.
Take care
Bylo
Doug/All
I mentioned the # of shareholders - it is 120 and it is an issue (too low) for VTSI to get to a higher exchange.
From the filing:
"As of March 25, 2004, we had 49,908,327 shares of common stock outstanding, held by 120 shareholders of record."
Take care
Sir
As usual the voice of reason - this message board as with most are almost meaningless influencing the price of a stock.
Weeble
Yeah and I know people who play the lottery every week and pull slot machines. If they hit then they can retire...
Have you always been this defensive? Okay its a freakin great company, negative worth, other issues mean nothing. Not too many companies are going to pay cash in advance prior to shipment especially the govt. They place the order, you ship it - take the revnue and the invoice gets paid hopefully in 30 days. Not sure what world you live in.
People keep saying they have state of the art products - if so venture capital would have come in, private placements etc versus Dutchess Capital expensive approach.
If the DOD, Defense Intelligence Agency,or Homeland Security is going to give $100M order they will give it to:
http://www.caci.com/
http://www.bae-systems.com/
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fnec&ti=111
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=14834&rsbci=0&fti=111&ti=0&...
http://www.saic.com/
I just don't think you should mislead people because it looks like some of the 120 or so shareholders here have more than "play $" invested is this developmental company
Cash Flow Positive
Greg
Sorry you can't make up your own rules. You need to match expenses and revenues plus the company would need to pay ALL obligations as they become due which they have continued to request/forego from their creditors.
WHEN/IF they become cash flow positive it will be the turning point as it will mean operations fund the business and major dilution will stop.
"The company could have had many positive cash flow months based on the time frame they received up front money for projects. Of couse we couldn't tell that because of the way the revenue is expensed."
Take care
KP
Your comments below are the REAL issue shareholders need to be concerned about - $ or funding to run the business coming from Dutchess will cause continued dilution and a probable need for a stock reverse in the future to reolve the financial structure issues. Dutchess is in the business to make $ and they are probably an ongoing to seller as they do not want to get left holding the bag should the company not make it based on their precarious position as an ongoing concern.
You said: "You are right on all counts. Kelly did state that he didn't feel Dutchess was the reason for the selling pressure, that Dutchess could be a "partner" well into the future and if you are saying I don't believe Dutchess in NOT selling they you would be right again... because I DO believe they are selling. If the conversion shares are restricted I would be wrong. If they are not, and they got them at .075/share average, why would you think they would not be selling off a portion of the 2+million shares they got for their funding? They are in business to make money, are they not? So why would you think they would not be selling? I do. If it were me, I would. It is that simple.
When the transcript is available you can check the actual wording but I believe Kelly said he had had "dialog" with them in regards to a secondary financing arrangement. What does that mean to you? To me it means new money in (where does Dutchess get their money from? I assume my selling shares from past deals and reaping the profits then plowing them back in to another financing deal with the same or different company) ... (cont.) new money in and a secondary means to me issuing treasury shares as in a secondary offering ie dilution."
All
My heartfelt apologies to Greg and all. My comments about the relationship between Greg and Kelly were uncalled for. Greg I hope you will accept my apology. I am truly sorry...I do know no matter what happens you WILL always keep that positive outlook about the company.
Take care!!!!
KP
Do you know when the transcript will be available? By the way did you notice when Greg posted the 10 or so items from the con call not one negative. Well if they have the greatest product since sliced bread people would be buying it and there would be real venture capital to fund it. I swear he is Kelly's b*tch! lol
Let me see, lawyer, beer company, no gaming - PC games, no amusement parks, no training for the govt - talk about not knowing what what you want to be when you grow up...
Be well - the Kool aid drinkers don't seem to see the forest through the trees. Then there's Weeble Wooble - "balance sheets do not mean anything." too funny
Just a few random thoughts
Thank you
Bylo
KP
AMEX is much easier - NASDAQ better.
Someone please post the criteria for each exchange
KP
The attention got the company a nickel or so on the share price, some volume and then it seeks its level lower again. Sometimes companies pay for the promoters to generate the volume so they can raise money. Without the volume the additional selling pressure would really lower the price.
We seem to read these tea leaves the same way...
Bylo
Greg
"Rules of this board" - yeah ok Mr Rose colored glasses
It's a public forum. They are not my questions alone. I would think the shareholders want to know the answers to the questions.
Take care
Bylo
Dutchess Funding Important
In July 2002, the Company entered into an agreement for up to a maximum $5,000,000 sale of its common stock to Dutchess Private Equities Fund, LP (“Dutchess”). Under this investment agreement the Company has the right to issue a “put notice” to Dutchess to purchase the Company’s common stock. Put notices cannot be issued more frequently than every seven days. The required purchase price is equal to 92% of the average of the four lowest closing bid prices of the common stock during the five-day period immediately following the issuance of the put notice. Each individual put notice is subject to a maximum amount equal to 175% of the daily average volume of the common stock for the 40 trading days before the issuance of the put notice multiplied by the average of the closing bid prices of the common stock for the three trading days immediately preceding the put notice date. Regardless of the amount stated in a put notice, the maximum amount that Dutchess is required to purchase is the lesser of the amount stated in the put notice or an amount equal to 20% of the aggregate trading volume of the common stock during the five days immediately following the date of the put notice times 92% of the average of the four lowest closing bid prices of the common stock during this five-day period. During the year ended December 31, 2003 the Company received $1,025,715 of net proceeds from the issuance of 7,420,348 shares of its common stock related to this agreement.
In connection with this investment agreement the Company issued $450,000 in convertible debentures. The debentures bear interest at 5% per year payable in cash or registered common stock at the Company’s option. The debentures mature in September 2005 and are convertible, at the option of the holder, to shares of the Company’s common stock at a conversion price per share equal to the lower of (i) 85% of the average of any four or five closing bid prices for the common stock for the five days prior to the conversion date; or (ii) 125% of the volume weighted average price on the closing date. These debentures were paid in full during 2003.
Question to Kelly - please explain what the bolded part means that in 9/05 if the strike price is say $.25 then Dutchess receives 1,800,000 shares of stock? Again a very expensive financing option. Obviously if the conversion has a strike price of $.75 ONLY 600,000 shares. Please answer. Thank you
In addition, the Company issued to the holders of the convertible debentures warrants to purchase 500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock with a strike price of $0.71 per share and a conversion period of three years. Using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following assumptions: (i) volatility of 100%, and (ii) interest rate of 5%, the value of the warrants were estimated to be $89,400, which was recorded as interest expense in the accompanying statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2002. Accordingly, the actual weighted average interest rate on these debentures, including the effect of the cost of the beneficial conversion feature of $67,500, is approximately 15%.
Michael Kitchen's Employment Contract?
From the filing:
Employment Contract
Effective September 1, 2003, the Company entered into a contract with an employee whereby the employee is to receive a base salary and a four percent cash commission on all sales originated by the employee. In addition, the employee is entitled to receive options to purchase 1,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock with an exercise price of $0.10 per share, if certain sales targets are achieved for each of the next three years. If the sales targets are not achieved, the stock options will not be granted. As of December 31, 2003 the sales target has not been achieved and, therefore, no stock options have been granted.
Question????
What would happen if these obligations were converted to stock?
From the filing:
Notes Payable-Stockholders
Notes payable to stockholders consisted of the following at December 31, 2003:
Convertible notes payable to stockholders, principal and interest due on demand, accruing interest at 12% per year. These notes are collateralized by certain equipment and contain a provision to convert the note to common stock. $100,000
Note payable to a stockholder, principal and interest due on demand, interest accrues at 10% per year. This note is not collateralized. $194,031
Notes payable to stockholders, non-interest bearing with principal due on demand. These notes are not collateralized. $616,000
Total notes payable to stockholders $910,031
All notes due to stockholders were in default as of December 31, 2003. Convertible notes payable to stockholders in the amount of $100,000 were issued by the Company in increments of $10,000 having an original maturity date of May 10, 1998. The holder of each $10,000 of convertible note has a non-assignable option to purchase 7,500 shares of common stock at par value. Alternately, each holder has the right to convert their convertible note to equity in the form of 12,500 shares of restricted common stock. None of the notes have been converted.
Of the $616,000 of notes payable without interest described above, a $103,500 note provides for a per diem issuance of common stock as penalty for late payments. As of December 31, 2003, the per diem issuance would be in excess of 18,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. The Company has received an opinion from counsel that the penalty provisions are unenforceable as illegal usury under applicable Texas law. However, there has not been any litigation between the Company and the holder of the note as to this issue, and in the absence of a court decision directly applicable to the parties, there remains at least some risk that the opinion of counsel could be wrong. According to legal counsel there is no likelihood of a sustainable assessment of the per diem late penalty. Therefore, no provision for such charges has been provided.
Headnorth
Positive fluff PR's mean zero. Read the SEC filing - the real information about the company.
http://www.edgar-online.com/bin/cobrand/finSys_main.asp?nad=&formfilename=0001162327-04-000035&a...
Kelly can attempt to spin financial progress but this is an aircraft carrier in a pond not the ocean.
Check out some additional Legal Proceedings in Item 3 - Q4 was very busy. More people wanting their $ through the courts.
The current liabilities of $9.6M including $6M lease obligations is the albatross for this company and negative cash flow.
The only real asset - stock will continue to be used so more dilution - dilution - dilution.
Outstanding shares now 50M - 3/25/04
Outstanding shares 12/31/03 - 42M - increase of 8M in 3 mos
Outstanding shares 12/31/02 - 35M - increase of 7M in 1 yr
A reverse stock split coming? Yes they can spend $25,000 on touts and stock promoters? Is that $ well spent?
Go to #2 in the Notes Section - Going Concern Considerations
First # is as of 12/31/03 and the second # is as of 12/31/02
Net Loss $(1.6M) $(2.7M)
Negative cash flows $(829K) $(639K)
Negative working capital $(9.2M) $(9.1M)
Accumulated deficit $(13.3M) $(11.7M)
(The $lost or made since company inception)
Stockholders' Deficit $(8.9M) $(8.6M)
Negative net worth
This is reality.
Good luck
Seller - Dutchess
IMHO the seller is Dutchess - that type of funding deal is very high risk and usuallly a desparate one for small companies as they ususally have no other option and have to use their only real asset stock which causes major dilution.
Institional buying - laughable. Institutions only purhase shares of NYSE ans Full NASDAQ large cap companies not startups with little or no revenue with very little cash and negative net worth.
The timeframe continues to move out - sales by the end of 2003, sales by the end of 2/2004, etc etc.
Will be interesting to see the #'s as of 12/31 when they are filed on 4/15.
Best to all.
Take care
Weeble
The reason the stock hasn't taken off yet IMHO is the PR's to date have pretty much been fluff - no meat and potatoes. Need awards of large contracts.
Plus the financials need to turnaround. My guess is they will wait until the last day (4/15) to file their annual audited #'s as of 12/31. Let's see how they look.
The bubble is over - revenue, positive cash flow is needed to make a stock move today.
Plus the pumpers cannot move stocks anymore and the $25,000 and 1M shares is wasted. I do not understand why no one asks mgmt about why they do this.
Time will tell
Take care
Bull
IMHO it may be Dutchess to get some of their $ back. My experience is OTCBB companies sign up the paid touts to generate volume so some selling can occur to generate cash. Keep in mind stock are usually these company's only real asset. No volume means there are no buyers to allow the sales.
Hard to believe a cash poor company spends $25,000 and 1,000,000 shares for a quick pump. Surprised these pump firms are still in business - I thought the SEC cracked down on them from the dot com bubble fiasco.
Question: When will the 12/31 FYE audited financials finally be released?
Take care
Bylo
CACI International
This is your competition and what you'd love to become. Check out the finacials, contract awards, etc. Tough space to compete in when you are up against companies like this.
March is here - any contract awards announced?
http://www.caci.com/
http://yahoo.investor.reuters.com/FullDesc.aspx?target=/stocks/quickinfo/companyprofile/fulldescript...
Take care
KP
Homeland Security is HUGE and the revenue the company I work for from the DOD, Defense Intelligence, USCentcom, etc has picked up substantially post 911. The market is there - excuses are for weak...the govt quiet period was laughable. The US Govt is the biggest buyer in the world - there is no quiet period.
VTSI needs some major contract awards - revenue is needed to get my $...
KP
The company needs REVENUE desparately - breakeven revenue will work but profitable revenue works better. Companys like this have only one real asset - stock.
It is a going out of business scenario based on their current negative net worth and current obligations if revenue does not kick in - IMHO
It is good to speak with someone willing to have a discussion vs just Kelly is god which is what is posted from the pom pom wavers. The dog and pony show went over good last Fri...
Kelly is a lawyer and lawyers normally do not make CEO of companies. Sales and Marketing Mgmt and Finance are the ones I normally see.
I work in finance for a large database software company and review balance sheets, income and cash flow statements, budgets pretty regularly FWIW.
Time will tell
With respect....Bylo
Hound
I find it interesting the company is claiming usury when THE COMPANY in fact deterrmined/agreed to the payback for the loan ie the # of shares.
Cash on hand in the bank is the # on the balance sheet at the end of the qtr not "a contract in process" - accounting is black and white and what the #'s are at a certain point in time.
You said: "matching and timing are most likely the reasons the company can have cash in the bank (ie. paid for a contract before claiming income or expenses"
If the payment for the contract is 12/31 or prior it will be on the balance sheet - if they are trying to pay operating expenses on prepaid contracts then they are really in trouble. My experience is govts pay upon completion ie delivery and acceptance not up front.
KP
Great post. You made some outstanding points - many of which I have been trying to make.
One of your best is the SEC filings are the real truth and Kelly ends all of his "personal comment" rah rah letters with the reality of:
"These are simply my personal comments, and should not be relied upon in your investment decisions. I strongly urge you to conduct your own due diligence with regard to any investment in VirTra Systems. I respectfully refer you to VirTra Systems’ filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission"
From the filing:
"While a director of VirTra Systems, from March of 2001 through April of 2002, Mr. Aleckner lent us a total of $274,500 against promissory notes payable upon demand. As consideration for making the loans, we issued him 2,191,694 shares of our then-restricted common stock. Valued at 50% of the previous day's closing price, the shares issued for each loan had a value approximately equal to the amount of the loan"
THE COMPANY AGREED TO THE # OF SHARES - DISCOUNT GIVEN BECAUSE OF THE NO INTEREST PROVISION - THE STOCK EVEN THOUGH AT 50% OF THE CLOSING PRICE THERE WAS NO GUARANTEE IT WOULD BE IN THE BLACK A YEAR LATER OR WHEN THE SHARES WERE SOLD.
From the letter:
Our defensive lawsuit alleges that the value of the shares issued to Mr. Aleckner for making the loans exceeded twice the lawful amount of interest permitted under Texas' usury laws, and, as a result, under Texas law he must forfeit not only the interest (the shares issued to him), but also the principal amount of the loans.
Let me ask a Rhetorical question. Put yourself in Aleckner's shoes you loaned $274,500 to a company over 2 to 3 yrs ago and THE COMPANY agrees to issue 2,191,694 shares of restricted stock (normal restriction period is one year). Now 2 - 3yrs later certainly a very long waiting period and get your money back. The company sues you and attempts to win and IF the company prevails Mr Aleckner loses he forfeits his $274,500? Oh that's fair.
As a reasonable person I do not see the company prevailing in this one.
Hound
Obviously much changes in 3 mos - I was just pointing out where they were 3 mos ago and based on need they showed no cash and had to use their overdraft account to meet obligations. I am sure that was not something they wanted to do.
The next review point will be as of 12/31. My guess is the results will take longer to announce based on the fact these will be audited.
I think the discussions are worthwhile - no issues here.
Greg
OTC Journal is a paid service - from their site:
"MarketByte LLC has been paid a fee of $25,000 in cash and one million newly issued restricted shares by Virtra Systems for coverage of the company."
Question is when was the contract signed with VTSI as the restrictions are normally for 1 year before the stock becomes free trading. At $.25 the 1M shares is worth $250,000 right now. I'd write for people to buy too!
Hound
I am not questioning anything. The results as of 9/30 speak for themself. The Cash balance on the Balance Sheet was $0 and the overdraft liability was $7,266. I know you're are not saying that is good...
I think I understand accounting pretty well but that's up for debate - lol. All the financial statements I look at show companies who look to grow the cash and cash equivalent item on the balance sheet. Check a few out.
SEC filings are not as deceiving as they used to be with the Sarbanes - Oxley Act post Enron. CEO's and CFO's are now personally liable if the company finacial statements are wrong or frauded. Filings are the REAL disclosure.
It was public record Jan 15th
It was public record Jan 15th - court filings are public record - meeting took place 1/23
"On January 15, 2004, we sued John Aleckner, a former director of our company, and his ex-wife Barbara Aleckner, in the 348th Judicial District Court, Tarrant County, Texas."
Greg
I am not happy about others misfortune. Every company has to attempt to put a positive spin on things just like the democratic candidates coming in 3rd, 4th and 5th and having to say "we won" when they know they are in serious trouble.
SEC filings are black and white and tell the real story.
The company's major asset now is their stock and they will need to sell it to fund the company which causes additional dilution...IMHO
Good luck
From Kelly - A Few Thoughts
"We expect continued and perhaps even concentrated selling of our company's shares. I am confident that any resulting negative impact on our share price will pose no significant delay or long-term difficulty to our continued operations. We have money in the bank, and several projects approaching completion and delivery which will yield revenue to the company."
Continued and perhaps even concentrated selling of our company's shares - well here's the chance for those who are "100% confident" after last Friday's meeting to hit those bank accounts, credit cards, and support the company. I assume the mgmt team will be buying during this difficult period as well...
"We have money in the bank"
From the Qtrly filing from 9/30/03 - filed 11/14. Cash balance $- and overdraft $7,266.
Current Assets $31,620 all accounts receivable
Total Assets $295,071
Total Current Liabilities $9,508,289
From the filing:
Liquidity and Plan of Operations
As of September 30, 2003 our liquidity position remained precarious. However, our recent increase in revenue from custom applications for the advertising/promotional market has given us some breathing room. As of September 30, 2003 we had current liabilities of $9,508,289, including $5,842,313 in obligations under lease financing arrangements for the virtual reality systems formerly utilized in our amusement applications, $1,089,496 in accounts payable, and short-term notes payable of $817,313, some of which were either demand indebtedness or were payable at an earlier date and were in default. As of September 30, 2003 there were only $31,620 in current assets available to meet those liabilities. We will be able to continue operations only if holders of our short-term notes and lease obligations continue to forebear enforcement of those obligations.
Suggest you print it for yourself
Hopefully Q4 has been a very good one! Look forward to that filing - plus it is the annual report and must be audited as the 3/31,6/30 and 9/30 filings are not audited.
Question: With the share price going down will Dutchess be a seller as well as they have a major stake here as well.
Good luck
Bylo
Greg
You said: "The float should increase 2,191,694 but since most of these shares are going to be at current levels when Virtra releases news again and John and his wife are done selling shares the stock should really take off"
I know you are trying to attempt to put a positive spin on this but IMHO the shares will not "be at current levels" as the market makers will drop the price fast based on the sell pressure. I think we will see teens fairly quickly.
This is alot of stock to chew through with the stock under pressure...
SEC Filings from the Past
It is all in the filings as posted 8/29/03
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1377316
Item 12. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions
Mr. Jones, our chief executive officer, is also president of Jones & Cannon, a Texas professional corporation, which has provided legal services to us and which may continue to provide legal services to us in the future, and which rents to us our executive offices. We currently owe Jones & Cannon more than $261,716 for legal services rendered. Jones & Cannon had also been providing the limited amount of executive office space we require, and some clerical and other services required for our operations without charge until June 5, 2000, under an oral agreement with Mr. Jones. We became obligated to pay Jones & Cannon $1500 per month for this office space effective June 15, 2000, and we currently owe Jones & Cannon $29,000 in past due rent.
Mr. Ferris, our president, is the owner of Ferris Holdings, L.L.C., which is landlord on the lease for our production facilities in Phoenix, Arizona. We currently owe Ferris Holdings, L.L.C. approximately $40,600 in arrearage on our lease.
In December, 1997, we agreed to redeem at par value an aggregate of 1,505,399 shares of the common stock held by the ten former shareholders of First Brewery of Dallas, Inc., a company we had acquired in April, 1997. The aggregate redemption price was to have been $7,527.02. That redemption was to have occurred no later than March 31, 1998. However, we did not have sufficient funds to honor this commitment and are currently in default under the agreement. Messrs. Jones and Aleckner and Ms. Biggs were among those whose shares were to have been redeemed. In February, 2000, we and Messrs. Jones and Aleckner agreed that the shares that were to have been redeemed from those two individuals would not be redeemed. We expect to redeem the remaining shares during the third quarter of 2003.
During the period from July, 1997 through May, 1998 Mr. Jones, our chairman of the board and chief executive officer, lent us an aggregate of $90,000 for use as operating capital. Of this amount, $65,000 was subsequently eliminated when Mr. Jones accepted in full satisfaction of that debt certain equipment securing bank debt which Mr. Jones had guaranteed, leaving a balance of $25,000.00. This indebtedness is evidenced by an unsecured demand promissory note at an annual interest rate of 12 % per annum. During the period from November, 2000 through December, 2001, Mr. Jones lent us an aggregate of $81,000 for use as operating capital, for a total indebtedness of $106,000. This $81,000 indebtedness is evidenced by unsecured promissory notes without interest.
During the period from March, 2001 through April, 2002, Mr. John F. Aleckner, Jr., one of our directors, lent us an aggregate of $274,500 for use as operating capital. This indebtedness is evidenced by unsecured promissory notes with no annual interest rate.
NOTE - OPERATING CAPITAL TO PAY FOR SHORT TERM OBLIGATIONS NORMALLY IS FUNDED BY THE BUSINESS - $275K NO INTEREST WOW!
During the period from June, 1993 through April, 2001, Dr. Dave and Nancy Ferris, who are shareholders, lent us an aggregate of $172,531 for use as operating capital. During October of 2001, Dr. Dave and Nancy Ferris lent us $21,500 for use as operating capital, for a total indebtedness of $194,031. This $21,500 indebtedness is evidenced by an unsecured promissory note with no annual interest rate.
Greg
It is kind of like Democrat vs Republican arguments. My words come straight from SEC filings which are the facts.
5,000,000 shares is alot of selling pressure no matter how you spin it. The $9M negative worth is a big nut to overcome and I am glad you realize it is an issue - lol
Take care
KP
Good questions:
And weren't they paying vendors with "cheap" shares? And if the family is selling shares, I wouldn't imagine they are going to be tapped for a loan. Did anyone ask Kelly or address where the funding will be coming from if Dutchess isn't drawn against? Did anyone ask Kelly if he has been putting more money in? Hearing they are capable of producing 100's of units a month would seem to imply that they have money to spare but has that ever been the case? I guess I just found it hard to believe that they have turned the corner and righted their financial ship so quickly. If that were the case it would be great news! The skeptic in me, however, finds that hard to believe LOL I mean, I am assuming they didn't say they were cash flow positive for December <g> ...did they project any further out than merely January?
From the company's SEC filing for Q3 ending 9/30/03 they did have to use overdraft to pay bills in Q3.
It is Verrry difficult for a company to move from the BB to a real exchange NASDAQ or AMEX (AMEX is the easier one to get to). The # of examples are very few who are able to make the move. Most companies get there via IPO direct to those exchanges then move up to NYSE once they qualify.
Many people were won over by many people during the irrational exhuberance bubble a few years ago. You need to understand Kelly has a major stake here and will always put a positive spin on things - like he has with his Letters to Shareholders over the last 4 years after every release??? But people don't question anything and drink the Koolaid. True DD is seeing what other companies products are as well. Now the timeframe is another 2 years out. What is the opportunity cost of having $ tied up here for the last 3 years or so. Just a thought.
The company needs profitable revenue and I look forward to the next filing and future press releases. Just a little dose of reason vs blind faith.