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.
Fair enough. Not sure that actually counts as a restructure though - the exact same shares still exist, just in someone else's hands.
Why don't you tell me more about the shareholder protections that were supposedly set in stone, immovable, guaranteed, yet it turns out they can change them any time they want?
Remember how insistent everyone was? Turns out they were all lying the entire time.
They have no cash for a buyback even if they wanted to.
Restructure means reverse split. What else would it be?
Chong's reverse split tweet has not been "corrected".
Still seems to be on the table. Especially now that everyone knows the "shareholder protections" can be reversed anytime they want, they just need to agree in writing.
So the shareholder protections can be cancelled or amended anytime they want just by putting it in writing?
But isn't this what has been denied vehemently this entire time?
So they could cancel any of the shareholder protection items at any time all the way since the beginning, nice.
Funny how everyone claims it is impossible yet it's just standard fare that they could have been cancelled any time, is this what you're saying?
Unless one has actually traveled to the future and back one cannot possibly know for a fact there will not be a RS by July 2024.
That is only conjecture, albeit based on current understanding of things.
Frank has an amendment clause out there, perhaps even with ICNM. That would explain Chong's language that obviously referred to a reverse split. And yes, he was talking about ICNM.
One can be in denial all one wants, but the language is out there. He has used it. And that's a fact, not some BS internet conspiracy stuff - it's in an SEC filing.
I'm just establishing that the language can be in there.
I'm not claiming it has been used.
Well, yet.
It was a follow-up tweet to one that explicitly spelled out ICNM and AAPT.
So now you admit there is a chance that the language is in there. Good.
In other words it's not BS conspiracy fud crap like it is being portrayed.
This isn't about changes being made, I'm not claiming such. This is about the ability to make changes.
Which has been strongly denied, but it turns out all those denials may in fact be the falsehoods being told.
Do you know about the amendment clause then? What is your opinion of it?
He has an agreement clause to just change anything later on down the road. Without seeing the ICNM one we cannot know if that clause is not in this one also.
It would be strange to only include it in only one ticker's agreement. I'll bet it's in all of them. Including ICNM.
Strange that there would be such resistance to the thought of examining the ICNM agreement. Why so worried?
I'll bet it's also there in the ICNM agreement. That's why Chong has no problem tweeting about what is obviously a reverse split now instead of 18 months later on.
Were you aware that another ticker's Frank agreement exists which has the shareholder protection stuff but then also has a clause where the agreement can be changed later?
As in they can change the shareholder protections later. Without shareholder approval or even knowledge, frankly.
They can just do away with the protections. Just needs to be agreed and put in writing.
Did you know that? I'll bet you did not know that before before now.
I believe we may not be being shown the part of the agreement where they can make changes after the fact. They just have to agree and put it in writing.
This exists in Frank's VNTH agreement. Why could it not also exist in the ICNM agreement?
Wouldn't you like to know if they have the ability to change the agreement before the 24 month period in order to accommodate new situations as they come about? Like surprise RS/dilution/toxic notes if suddenly needed?
Don't you think that might be nice to know about?
Why can't we just see the whole agreement instead of just the small cherry-picked portion?
Custodial agreement? I am referring to the purchase agreement where Eastwin8 bought the control block of ICNM. I would like to see the ENTIRE thing, not just one selectively edited portion.
Are you claiming that Frank will happily give out copies of that upon request? I just want to make sure I understand you perfectly so I know exactly what to think when I get an answer of yes - you were correct, or no - you were lying your ass off.
(If everybody and their brother already has a copy why hasn't it been posted somewhere?
The agreement is not publicly available. Otherwise it would be simple to just give a link instead of the old cop-out of "just go find it yourself."
Strange that the agreement is referred to as if it is publicly available and everyone "should just trust that one little snippet and not investigate further."
Well, I'm not that gullible.
Where is the rest of the agreement? Why is the rest of it being hidden from the public? What do they not want us to know?.
Positive ASSUMPTIONS hold no weight
There you go, right back atcha.
Where is the rest of the agreement? Why does just that one little excerpt get shown?
What is in the rest of the agreement that folk don't want publicly known?
Things that make you go hmmmm.....
It was a follow-up tweet to one mentioning ICNM and AAPT. As an aside, yes, he has also been retweeting people mentioning a MJWL reverse split.
At some point in time the share structure of these tickers will require restructuring in order to uplist, to be meaningful to institutional investors and lending banks.
— RealDavidChong🇸🇬 (@RealDavidChong) January 6, 2023
Great days ahead $AAPT @AAPTCo $icnm $ICNM @ICNM9999 https://t.co/XWxCGWZcf5
— RealDavidChong🇸🇬 (@RealDavidChong) January 6, 2023
Nope. I think they will reverse split with Nasdaq as the excuse. That does not mean they will actually uplist, just that it will be the justification for the reverse split. This happens all the time in the OTC. It's how CEO's keep investors happy even while giving them the shaft - "don't worry about his pesky reverse split, we're preparing for Nasdaq!" But then they never make it there even though the split happens.
Too bad about that 18 month minimum timeframe y'all argued so vehemently about.
Nobody with intelligence is going to plunk their cash in something they have to wait a minimum of 18 months for a return on in the OTC. That money could go to active use instead during all that time.
It's the same tweet as before. So here it is. Again. Maybe pay better attention next time.
Keep in mind, it does not actually say "Nasdaq". So according to this board he must mean anything but. Because, you know, he didn't actually say "Nasdaq". It's obvious what he means - but he did not actually say it. So how can one think that's what he means? He didn't say Nasdaq!!!!
Isn't that how the logic goes? If he didn't use that exact phrase he must have meant something else, right?
At some point in time the share structure of these tickers will require restructuring in order to uplist, to be meaningful to institutional investors and lending banks.
— RealDavidChong🇸🇬 (@RealDavidChong) January 6, 2023
Well, it is the OTC after all. If parading the two year protection clause helps sell shares, then of course they might try it.
Conversely, I wouldn't think any businessperson worth their salt would sign an agreement so restrictive while not knowing what the future holds.
The eject button in there makes it "signable". If circumstances suddenly dictate, then they can go ahead and make needed amendments.
I think a lot of people forget that the OTC is not actually here to make investors rich. The OTC exists so crappy companies that can't get on the real exchanges still have a chance to sell shares to investors hoping to get rich.
Most OTC investors bag out, never to return. And yet the OTC companies keep churning, many of them working up to bloated share structures, reverse splitting, and then doing it all over again. And again. And again.;
"Real" companies occasionally exist on the OTC but they sure are few and far between.
Okay, you tell me what he could be referring to besides a reverse split.
What could it be? He is referring to a share structure restructuring of a 10 billion OS for a Nasdaq uplist.
What could it be other than a reverse split?
If not a reverse split then what else exactly could Chong be referring to with regard to 10 billion OS share structure restructuring for Nasdaq uplist?
What in the world could he be talking about? Reverse split is the only thing that makes any sense there.
It just has to be in writing, ain't that just grand.
I'm not trying to instill fear, that is just an interpretation of someone afraid of it.
I'm just making sure that the truth is available to those who seek it.
I don't fear the truth. I don't need to.
"Share structure restructuring for Nasdaq" with reference to a 10 billion OS means reverse split. Putting one's head in the sand and pretending it doesn't doesn't change that.
That was a follow-up to the previous tweet directly naming ICNM.
And anybody with a pulse knows that language means reverse split when it's referring to a 10 billion OS.
A company doesn't have to actually qualify for Nasdaq in order to use that as an excuse for a reverse split.
After all, if a reverse split is required to qualify then that means the company already does not qualify.
If they don't qualify then they can't do the split in order to qualify - that seems to be your argument.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know he is talking reverse split. What else would he be talking about with a 10 billion OS? It wouldn't be an AS raise.
At some point in time the share structure of these tickers will require restructuring in order to uplist, to be meaningful to institutional investors and lending banks.
— RealDavidChong🇸🇬 (@RealDavidChong) January 6, 2023
OTC companies perform reverse splits all the time and use Nasdaq uplisting as the excuse to tell shareholders.
They never qualified either. But they get the split done and then it's "Oops, sorry, we can't get on Nasdaq."
But the split remains.
I didn't make it up, it's right there in the VNTH agreement. As far as I know that is the only one that has been made public, albeit with some redacting.
If anyone is aware of other agreements available for viewing I'm sure people would like to check them out.
R/S isn't FUD - it's straight from Chong's mouth.
The same Chong that was being worshiped as soon as he was introduced in the process.
If he had zero involvement he wouldn't be tweeting about it.
Of course they can reverse split, "for Nasdaq uplist preparation."
Heck they can just change the language in the Agreement if it's appropriate for whatever they want to get done. And shareholders have no say in that.
They can change the SPA as long as it's done "in a writing". Presumably ICNM's is similar, this is from Frank's VNT* SPA:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=16083750&guid=eal-kHoLhgRldth
So you're calling Chong a liar I guess? Is that what I am to take away?
"Another board" doesn't make it true.
Nice work.
The odd thing though is that doesn't actually say anything about ICNM not being able to reverse split. That was just Nasdaq listing requirements.
Probably ain't got much chance at uplisting to Nasdaq anytime soon, I totally agree. I have never said anything to the contrary.
There are plenty of OTC reverse splits that get done with uplisting being used as an excuse in order to make shareholders happy and not bail instantly.
However, the uplists very frequently never happen, even though the reverse splits do. It turns out there was never even an intention to uplist. That was just something said as an excuse.
Do I expect ICNM to actually uplist to Nasdaq? Nope, not at all, not anytime soon. Do I expect ICNM to reverse split? You bet your bottom dollar I do.
How do I reconcile a seeming dichotomy there? Easy. They are not actually codependent despite opinions trying to claim such.
Someone tell Chong to do a BRT*-type thing. That was an actual Nasdaq uplist combined with an actual codependent reverse split. One could not happen without the other, it was put in writing and that's how it was executed. They both happened at the same time, it was legit.
"Reverse split in preparation for uplist" is a whole different story. Nothing locks them into that. "Oops sorry, the uplist part didn't happen, well we tried guys" - Enjoy the reverse split that did happen, though.