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.
So these guys have played this game before, and are more interested in selling stock than phones. The most amazing thing is, when presented evidence of failures, of previous scams by the CEO and business associates, the altering of websites to conceal information, of stock dilution after promises of none, of a gagged TA after a promise of transparency, that this board goes into Hype-er-drive to try and spin all that as some sort of good thing.
Tell me if you know, when is the next quarterly due, and will it show how much additional dilution occurred from "friends of Mike" converting their B shares? There were an additional 2 months from the end of the last quarter reported and when you exposed the nature of those shares, which resulted in an alleged end to that nonsense.
That's fine, and I was just answering it. Advertisements everywhere tout things as being ground-breaking that really aren't, most of the time the ruby red slippers are already on the customer's feet.
There's always an app, even the camera runs on an app. Just checked one of the free ones, and it was updated in 2015, so, again, nothing unique here.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dualcam
Dual camera use - there's an app for that. Actually, there's more than 1. Nothing unique here.
https://solutions.softonic.com/what-are-the-best-apps-for-dual-camera
Pity that declaration couldn't be retro-active to December. Wonder how many of those B shares got converted already, since the company didn't make that move until nodummy brought it to the board's attention, as well as the dilution that had already occurred? Of course, we won't know until the company un-gags the TA like they said they would in February.
And with all those companies and obligations that Mr. Owen has on his plate (and I think you left out "Movie Producer," unless it is through one of those companies), he is still broadcast as the person who is really running this company. How can that be?
IR says: "Many shareholders are questioning the activity and involvement of Mr. Green and Mr. Owen. As stated before, they are advisors to the firm and subsequently are involved with strategic efforts made by the business."
Advisors. That's what they said. I don't understand how we can take the lame statement about why the TA is still gagged (after they said they were switching for transparency) at face value that was in the same Q & A and not believe them when they say "they're advisors."
I'm sorry, but it seems odd to let the company off the hook after they've diluted a significant amount already and have been able to continue up until quite recently, all the while keeping shareholders in the dark. Every day I see posts to not worry about the PPS, the phones are happening, etc., don't you want to know if they've flooded the market with a lot more shares from those conversions already?
I can't help but wonder how many of the B shares have already been converted, don't you? They've been available to convert almost the whole quarter. And all the company has to do is un-gag the TA like they said they were going to do in February when they switched.
That is all well and good, but the opportunity of GDPR is here now. Compliance is in May, and those that have to comply have to shop, select a product, plan deployment, deploy, test, fix bugs, and verify they are compliant. Sales should have already happened since this product has been out there for awhile, but at the very least there will need to be some in the very very near term. No more conferences, no more tweets or PR's that are about anything other than sales and revenue. No sales, no revenue generation, no stock/company value.
That is about the shadiest thing I’ve ever seen, at least in real life.
There was before it was changed today. He gave you a link to the cached page prior to the changes.
He is 100% correct, and that is a very shady thing to do.
A bit, yes. Ungagging the TA as a resolution wasn’t sarcasm.
A screenshot of a text message posted in a Twitter/FB thread always carries more weight than the words plainly written in a company’s financial statement. Always.
Easy to resolve. Tell them to ungag the TA and show the share structure.
Post 143895 explains the relationship
His facts are bolded, ie - when he says person A was given a bazillion shares of stock, that is a fact verifiable on the provided link. Read it that way and you’ll be more clear on the absolutes.
Thanks. Mediatek is a big player manufacturer, the downside for the business plan since they’re already all over India: https://pricebaba.com/mobile/pricelist/mediatek-mobile-phones
Not all, but we know enough to know the phones will be made.
You don’t have to know the secret “intellectual property” of a phone to know that it’s actually being made. We know who makes the chips and screens for Apple, but not their specs for any new model coming to market.
Sure, if they tried to sell it to you as their own, but the gist of the post was a YouTube video is hollow without information on the phones manufacture.
Anybody can have a YouTube channel.
Anybody can walk into a Best Buy today and purchase 3 phones for less than $75 each.
Anybody can stick a U on those phones and make a video to post on YouTube.
If you’re interested in DD, ask the company who the manufacturer of the phones (or the parts) is, about the contracts for said phones (or supply chain), the contractual obligations for progress payments, and more specificity on the schedule. A YouTube video just by itself is fluff without it.
Yes. Check back to around 2007 IIRC, or just google the symbol and Starkweather.
Marketing and Sales
I had a similar thought, but it had a little different timetable and won't be received well. GDPR compliance is required in a couple months. That isn't the "figure out what you're going to buy" date, that's the "I know I meet the law" date. That means the shopping, selection of the solution, planning the deployment, deployment, testing, bug fixing, and verification is all done. You don't do that in a day, don't do it in a month if the enterprise is medium - large. What that means is if this company/product is really going to progress and be a long term business, there should already be real sales announced with real revenues coming to the company. Paying for a booth at conferences is unimpressive and almost smacks as a diversionary tactic so the absence of sales and revenue will be overlooked. The CEO may know about marketing and sales, but that knowledge needs to produce results.
Ok, that's fine. I wasn't really making a good or bad judgment on him being named in a PR of a scam since it is so dated and the info with his name was sparse, but if my wording implied one, I'll accept correction. Still learning the ropes, appreciate that there are a few unbiased people doing real research.
I wanted to comment that naming advisors was likely a common OTC ploy, but having read a half dozen boards, seeing a few names in half (John McAfee being one of them), I had to wonder.
I read that board from the time that PR was released just to see what was going on at the time, pretty much the same cheers I see on the handful I'm watching these days. I didn't read far enough to understand fully what the crimes were (no deeper than fraud), and appreciate you filling me in.
I don't think he's ever been naive, and while I'm not slighting him, I'm not cheerleading his name in all caps by no means. He has been involved in successful endeavors, that company he was involved in that did the VR stuff, where he sued Microsoft for patent infringement and won was good stuff:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-i4i/microsoft-loses-u-s-supreme-court-case-on-patent-idUSTRE7583IS20110610
Microsoft bought them after that. He's been dabbling in movies, sitting on boards, has another non-scam company that is floating in the pennies, too, though:
https://www.posera.com/press-release/posera-announces-chairman-and-ceo-loudon-owen-purchased-4000000-common-shares-of-posera-ltd/
Tidy little profit there.
I expect he's aware of whatever ANDI is, but as an advisor is well insulated from culpability.
Didn't really mean to imply he did anything wrong, looks like he just "undisclosedly" (lol) financed the other venture, that's all. Loudon Owen has had some clear successes in business:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=138851999
Given his wealth and irons in the fire, he isn't running ANDI at all and is exactly as described in every PR (including the IR response), he's an advisor. We used advisors in my old company. They came in a few times a year, we asked them questions or to look at things, they did, advised us, took their fee and left.
My continuing education . . . so, this is a thing?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=139571817
Is this why things like a detailed, but unfavorable, analysis of a company's financial statement gets ridiculed while a chorus of HUGE predictions of impending wealth drums it down deep into the post list?
His firm did provide undisclosed financing:
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/fight-network-announces-new-financing-leadership-propel-global-expansion-strategy-767553.htm
But I can't find anything that suggests he was directly involved in the activities that led to jail time for the others. You were pretty active on that board back in those days, I'm sure you saw that PR.
Yeah, and when I noticed they were touting Android 7 (ie - out of date, 8's been out since August, 9 will probably be out this coming August), I'd figured the best case for this company was to obtain some unsold/distressed inventory from some manufacture and re-brand it, trying to pawn it off as their own and sell it. There might be profit in that, but not zero to $100M in a year and surely nothing to support a market cap north of $2B.
Yes, do a Google of the company names with "iPhone" or "Android" and you should get a listing of the apps they issued. There was one that had "minor code changes" made in 2014 called "Free Fun Memory Game." I'm including a link to that one:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/free-fun-memory-match-game/id473054897?mt=8
And the list from one of the two companies:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/developer/all-pro-apps-corporation/id467665487?mt=8
Amongst that long winded reply I posted a few minutes ago was a comment on the apps. Yes, they are old and those companies are dead. Last update was about 5 years ago. You can verify for yourself by looking at either the App Store on apple or the Play Store on Android. I looked at both.
Apps weren't great to begin with, no wonder they chose not to update them.
There are already companies there doing just that with cheap phones. Reading the board, it is like that market is completely unknown to the big cell companies and phone manufacturers, and that just isn't true.
Here's some things I looked up on the prospect of actual phones, note the stuff about the obsolete Android 7 and answering the flowery words about it being proprietary:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=138439869
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=138440092
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=138527491
Here's info they don't share about Darryl V Green:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=138399768
And Loudon Owen:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=138851999
The board likes to drop those 2 names as though they are running the company, but they are advisors and likely have an arms length contract shielding the from liability. I don't know that, of course, but I sure would if I'd lent my name to a venture.
Plus those 2 app companies they own haven't so much as revised an app in years.
And here's the acquisition of a holding "company" created earlier this month:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=139268360
Thank you. Do the current holders still have a window to convert at current rates?
Riddle me this. If I had a share of that stock, I could either get that $2 or I could convert it today for 2000 shares of common stock and get around $30 for it, right? Wonder which option those shareholders will take?
I appreciate your very thorough review of the financial statements of this company, it is what DD is supposed to be (as opposed to clicking on iHub poster links to company press releases). I hope you continue. People who are considering a purchase at a penny a share should read your information carefully. People sitting at sub-penny levels with zero's in front of their investment price won't care since the hype has already priced in a nice profit.
This company is supposed to be a quarter away from 3 smartphone modes, yet there has been no news to investors on the supply and manufacturing chain, the companies involved, nothing about the financial liabilities of contracts for that manufacture in any financial statement even though this has been in the works, allegedly, pre-merger. I expect any day now that BLU phones will be purchased from Amazon or BestBuy, a U sticker/logo put on it, and a YouTube video posted to hype up the proprietary Android 7 (ie - out of date) user experience, as well as pages and pages of posts asserting that Apple must be shaking in their boots.
IPO’s?? Thought there was ample capital available from advisors, family, and friends.
If (big if) Mr Green and the friends and family were coughing up the funding for the 0 to smartphone run, why’d they need an otherwise dead penny stock shell? Heck, if London Owen wanted to be intimately involved in the management of a startup phone company, why didn’t he just do it?
Yes, thanks, forgot completely about shorty, though someone usually explains about that.
I google/DD to a depth and apply logic that is apparently unwelcome on the boards, questioning the wild speculation is like hollering "no we're not" when the cheers are "We're #1!" at a high school pep rally. Problem is I can't seem to tear my eyes away from this, like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I did put my $ away, though, so I'm OK, but I still have to toss in "no we're not" a couple times a week.
Looks like he's bounced around some before with this program, had classidocs.com for awhile, got acquired, got unacquired 5 months later, then a PR says that Data443 acquired classidocs, but it appears he had both companies, so a paper transaction.
This board should be required reading (or DD) for anyone that creates an account on iHub. Watching LDSR and ANDI, I'd deduced quite a bit (but not all) of your introductory information, but had I read through here and then watched a couple weeks, I'd saved myself a couple grand.
Standard operations seems to be fluffy PR's with a lot of words, but without bottom line value to the company, named advisors with history that really aren't running the company, holding companies holding other holding companies that acquire other dead companies, and all this being touted by a band of cheerleaders as the beginnings of the next Amazon or Apple, all intended to get the unsuspecting to invest in shares at a penny or so (more if the cheerleaders do their job well) that were acquired at prices that have a lot of leading zero's after the decimal, either from the companies, their debtholders, or the cheerleaders themselves. Oh, and all the while these transactions go on, complaining about market makers holding them back and possible dilution from the company while some of those lucky to have nabbed those zero's slowly ease out some or all of their purchase.
Two that I've watched have been mentioned here in the last couple days (LDSR and VTNL), another being ANDI. Are they all like this? I see a few that crept into dollars, but most every one that I've looked at has a huge spike up, then back down to what appears to be the death of a stock.