Although he looks alone, somebody wants him on the phone.
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.
The securities counsel is a lawyer. His specialty is securities law.
You know, stocks. Share structure. Preperation and filing of things such as the non-existent share re-structuring plan.
Since there is no such plan, why pay him for consultation?
Fine. But that's dodging the question: Why does the board need to consult the securities counsel if the amendment is limited to a name change? These guys don't work for free.
Now that's a good idea. Let's look beyond the name change.
Why does Mr. Bradley need to consult with his securities counsel if the amendment to the articles of incorporation is limited to a name change only?
These guys don't work for free. Since there is to be no share re-structuring, why is he involved?
The only speculation in regards to the increase in the A/S is the excuse that will be used.
See, that's just it. Too many people pay attention to the price tick. Unless you can actually sell some shares there, a price like that is nearly meaningless.
They don't say anything beyond a name change.
I don't think Newby cares. I don't even think he remembers QASP at this point. He took the money and ran.
I don't think QASP has to report anything to the SEC.
The move may create more shares, but only revenue and profits create equity. That's why equity is diluted when new shares are added. That's the problem with all the stink pinks really, too many shares with little or no equity.
You can make money here, but never, ever make the mistake of "investing" in the sub pennies. No portion of share price comes from profits or growth. Every single cent you make in the sub-penny world comes out of the pocket of a fellow retail investor. And you are competing with some mighty savvy people (the principals themselves, the market makers) for your share of that.
There you go. This looks exactly like what is happening. If you can't acquire a real company, make your own.
The essence of pink sheet entrepreneurship.
Yeah, but do they do anything?
"International" is just a little extra flavor in the Kool-Aid.
So the speculation this morning looks like it was right on the money.
Mr. Bradley sets up a couple of little LLCs and sells them to QASP as "aquisitions". He's got some savvy, I'll have to give him that.
Well, how about this one. My numbers and dates aren't dead nuts exact, so no one needs to nit pick them for just my sake.
Wasn't the share price hanging right about where it is now when we have the first conference call in late May where he pretty much says everything is a done deal, calls out some "doubters" for a bet etc. etc. The share price shoots to two cents, nothing he says in that CC actually happens, new stock is poured into the market increasing the O/S by roughly 25%, sending the stock back to where it was just before that first CC.
Does that qualify as a P&D, or was I just imagining one?
I think I'm right too.
You know the rule about identifying such as IRPs is the SEC's rule.
I imagine that some of the most enthusiatic "longs" will just ride over with Mr. Bradley.
What is the possibility he's just incorporating some empty shells so that QASP can "acquire" them?
I think the stress tests are set up to preclude failure.
Really, does Hungary's credit rating matter? I would worry a lot more about California or Illinois.
That's my target buy in, yes. My point is that I need to see that it is even healthy enough to flip.
I don't mind seeing it go up against healthy volume. It's exactly what I want. It won't go up permanently.
I think there has been a general assumption by some that the acquisitions would be healthy companies contributing millions to the revenue and bottom line profits. (I never understood what the incentive would be for a healthy profitable company to want to be bought out by a pink sheet shell anyway.)
I wouldn't view the creation of new corporate shells out of thin air as any kind of positive development in QASP land.
I was even thinking 200,000 shares might be a market mover.
I think you might be able to buy 200,000 at .0055 and not move it, but it won't hold up against a sell of that many shares. This thing might deliver a tick at .0065, but it doesn't hold it against any share volume.
I want to see it rise and hold against some volume.
If you book your tickets to JAX, it might be wise to go ahead and get "trip insurance".
Usually only about 13 or 14 dollars. But you can get your money back later should the need arise.
Ben Bernanke and Barney Frank are going to try to stomp today's rally.
This could turn quick. Might have to dump and go to FAZ!
Hope you are enjoying Farnbourough. CNBC has reported from there a few times. Everyone is a little confused that they seem to keep missing the big story about Quasar Aerospace.
Wish I couold be there, but I will be in Oshkosh next week and Atlanta in October. I can't wait to see the progress being made on the VLJ and floating King Airs. I'm sure they will have an impressive presence at those shows.
"Porgie Tirebiter wants to announce that Dean Bradley held a conference call at 4:00 on Tuesday afternoon. Clearly, Porgie Tirebiter runs Quasar Aerospace."
The above statement makes just as much sense as your conclusion that Dean Bradley has any current connection to Mineseeker. Mr. Kendrick appointed Mr. Cross. Not Mr. Bradley. Mr. Bradley does not run Mineseeker.
The fact that Mr. Kendrick appointed Mr. Cross is better evidence that Mr. Bradley does not have a 51% stake in Mineseeker, than releasing a press statement "through" Quasar is evidence that he does.
You've made an excellent point.
It's a demonstration. A way of demonstrating the technology. It would need to be conducted over a "calibrated" test field, a test standard if you will. Using a real mine field would be useless. A real minefield would be an unknown. and any testing done there would be inconclusive.
The technology would have to be demonstrated to and certified by CROMAC, the same way that the VLJ (which co-incidentally, the FAA seems to know nothing about) will have to be presented to the FAA for certification.
Look, the fact that CROMAC didn't know anything about this test blew the cover off of Mr. Bradley's story. No wonder he is upset. He was outsmarted.
The independent research conducted by those he called "nefarious charachters" should be appreciated by investors and potential investors alike.
The truth discredits no one, unless...?
My point is this: His reaction to dis-information is to limit the flow of information to only those who are "falling" for the story.
It's not just ludicrous, it's a violation of Fair Disclosure.
I don't understand the problem. So CROMAC has nothing to do with QASP. I personally would want to thank someone for establishing that fact.
Why is Mr. Bradley uspset about someone finding out something that is true? I don't get it.
So someone finds out something that is true, and Mr. Bradley admits that it is true and now reacts accordingly by announcing that information will be released only to "pre-screened" shareholders, and exclude "nefarious charachters".
It's ludicrous.
He's looking for some indication that the company is reporting. Don't worry, it would be a good thing.
It's just that it hasn't happened yet. PRs and CCs have lost their punch. Maybe a hint of legitimacy would help share price?
The problem is, when you report to the SEC, then it has to be real.
It's time to move on in regards to finding something else to discuss. Time to pretend there is a VLJ, or hordes of Indian students lined up. Or King Airs on floats.
That kind of stuff. Time to bring it back to aviation. Remember? It's an "aerospace conglomerate". Time to talk about the core business.
The A/S was increased specifically to be used to secure funding. Now it's about maxed, and they still need to "work" to raise the $1.7m. (Per the IR e-mail). So, the Newby thing is over.
Mineseeker was over when Kendrick went ahead and hired his new executives, instead of leaving it to the new controlling interest. In other words, Kenrick gave up on the idea that there would be a new controlling interest.
The Newby thing is just as over with as is the Mineseeker thing.
The O/S is already about maxed, while they are "working" to raise the $1.7m. Funding remains permanently "imminent".
Time to move on.
That's the point. He excused the last A/S increase due to needing funding.
Now that it's maxed out, he leaves the door open for another A/S increase for "funding".
Rinse, Repeat.
It's the stinker pink way.
You bringing your siggys? Hey, he's got to let you in.
Man ain't normal if he don't
Looks like you're going to get your way.
World markets nre up, and Morgan Statnley beats on revenue.
There are those who hint that there is something out there they know, but that no one else can know.
Such are dealing with inside information, or trying to influence share price with disinformation.
Both of course, are violations of securities regulations.
I can only refer you back to this post...http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=52469096
Yes, but you have to put yourself on that list. How many retail share-holders actually do that?
Good post. But keep in mind... Falling under a bus might qualify as a life changing experience as well.