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.
I know you're under the impression that somehow there's a mysterious way how to value this business that is much different than every other business in the world, but that is just a myth on your part. Business valuation has been the same since the 1800's. It has not changed at all.
The Gates Foundation DOES NOT use nanologix products. A company that is a receiver of funding from the Gates Foundation has allegedly, according to Nanologix, entered into an agreement with Nanologix. An agreement which is vague at best. History has shown these past agreements the company has made has resulted in little to no revenue (i.e. EPA, Saudi Arabia, Battelle, Texas Medical Center, even a customer that committed to purchasing 7,000 test kits per month which didn't even purchase 1 per month).
I agree with you on one thing. The end of this year should be plenty of time needed to find a buyer for the international patents of the flatpack. When you realize the company is unable to sell it due to no interest OR that the amount is so small that it won't equal anything close to a half a penny per share, you'll see the value of this company first hand. Upon its own admission, the company has never had an offer to be purchased. I don't expect that to change whether it's an offer for the entire business or just the patents.
"If you can't make money within the first 36 months, it's not a business....It's a hobby"
- tonight's episode of SharkTank
For those trying to ascertain margins for Nanologix, in 2011 they supplied the answer.
The stock price has schooled you both.
Your stock is floating at $0.06 per share, and has been for years. I'm not the one losing money. While your investment has been virtually stagnant the last year, I earned a 256% return. I assure you, there's nothing wrong with my writing or comprehension at all. You're just the average person that can't admit when they're wrong. How do we know you're wrong? Look at your annual return on the investment. That's hard evidence.
One large sale. Learn read.
Apparently you're under the impression that patents are unable to be contested. If you had more than a few months of business experience, you'd know that patents are contested ALL THE TIME. Just so happens to be nobody has challenged this patent. Why might that be? The answer is quite simple, sir. Nanologix doesn't create so much revenue that makes it worth for anyone to contest it.
I assure you, through evidence and basic common sense, that the vacuum sealer was invented many years ago and granted a pantent which allows the product to be sold to anyone and it's technology to be used for any purpose whatsoever. Order random items from eBay. Much of it comes vacuum sealed.
I guarantee you, nanologix is not the only company in the world allowed to use a vacuum sealer to ship their products.
You realize that vacuum sealers have been around for many many years? Nanologix didn't invent anything beyond what's already been created. I can start a petri dish company, vacuum seal all the plates, and sell the product. There isn't anything nanologix can do. I guarantee it. I ordered computer parts in the mail a few months back. They all came vacuum sealed, as all computer parts are. The shelf life argument at least has fooled you.
Of course nobody has approached him to offer a buyout. He put a poison pill in place that guarantees that not to happen. Lol.
That's why it's important to have a manager who works within his circle of competence. He has never known what he's doing.
Patent law is challenged all the time. It's not as black and white as the world you live in. The total market share for the flat pack is now affected because the total market share does not reside in the U.S. alone. Nanologix has been unsuccessful. I hope you bet big.
There's been no offer for the patents and I doubt there will be. They desperately need money which is why they're selling it. You realize that if someone becomes owner of the patent in another country, their U.S. patent is no longer protected from competition? These are basic business principles you seem to not understand.
You realize this isn't good news? The company obviously is desperate for money and is willing to sell the patent to primary product. Not exactly a sign of future growth.
You're free to rely on anything you like. The stock price tells a different story.
You must be new to the company. The entire reason Bret seeked being the CEO was to utilize the patents they had for a permeable membrane petri dish. That occurred in 2007 which was 10 years ago. Have no idea how you think I've said the flatpack and n-assay were old patents. I've said no such thing.
The reason it's important to know where the sales are coming from is obvious. If the majority of your revenue is coming by way of science kits, clearly the market for your product is much smaller than you've advertised for many years.
:) Someone just sold 1.3m shares, too.
Lol. Didn't see that coming...wink
There is no potential. If there was, it wouldn't take 10 years to sell. They've diminished the product to a children's test kit sold on eBay...for a reason. A terrible investor is usually the last person to know how terrible they are.
Looks like you placed the wrong bet. lol
Trump doesn't have to stop the sweep for it to be stopped.
No he hasn't. His 13F's filed on the SEC website show an increase in all his preferred holdings. He's decreased his Fannie Mae common holdings, but have increased in preferred holdings and done so at a rate significantly higher than his Fannie Commons have decreased.
There is one distinguishable difference between a conservatorship and a chapter 11 turnaround; who the conservator is - the government or a judge. Other than that, there's no difference in the process. My "research" is fine and my annual return is a reflection of such research. Carry on.
What do you think a conservatorship is? Bankruptcy 101.
That isn't evidence. That's a data glitch. You can't calculate the growth rate of a negative number and a positive number without the result being a negative number (basic 4th grade math). 20015 EPS was $-0.05 per share. For 2016 it was $0.01 per share.
That's called a computer glitch. Earnings (net income) growth was 12.41%. you can't calculate EPS growth when a negative number exists. The resulting number will always be a negative. Online financial data sites use a pre-determined calculation that always produces incorrect data when a negative is involved, which is why it's important to know the actual simple calculation yourself.
Fannie produced $0.01 per share of earnings in 2016. They produced $-0.05 in 2015.
($0.01 - $-0.05) / $-0.05 = -120%
The result is always a negative number. So how to fix that is to measure their net income before earnings are paid out which are done so based on outstanding shares.
($12.313 - $10.954) / $10.954 = 12.41%
If you're looking for a forward year projection just look at the Treasury reports on what they anticipate the NWS will be. For 2017, they anticipate it decreasing due to earnings decrease. $17b in total for both Fannie & Freddie compared to $19.95b for 2016.
Burden of proof rests with the equity committee that isn't allowed to be involved in the case.
Tell that to Buffett. He disagrees with you.
Nonconvertible securities are excluded from the wash sale rule. Also, selling commons of Fannie Mae then purchasing the preferred issues of the same company is also exempt from the wash sale rule.
Freddie Mac most certainly is. Their unconsolidated tangible value is -$73 billion.
Concerning the wash rule. "Substantially identical" means: a stock trading on a different market representing the same assets. Example, arbitraging an American ADR on the OTC who's source stock trades in Luxembourg. Fannie and Freddie do not represent the same assets. They are two completely opposite companies. The wash rule does not apply by trading one for the other.
It's up and down nearly everyday. There was no court today.
They've said there's no equity value available to the commons SEVERAL times. Have you read the court dockets?
So you're assuming no recap, no preferred (senior or junior), no warrants, and a PE that indicates a WACC of 5.88% even though their interest on assets & debt greatly exceeds that.
The fact is, there's warrants, there's preferreds, interest on assets and debt is currently 6.84%, a recap will happen, and normalized earnings are closer to $10.5b.
"The first sound they'll hear is their heads hitting the floor"...a second time.