If we had some eggs, we could have eggs and ham. If we had some ham.
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.
He didn’t do his DD. These two crooks are still partners at the firm.
If you’re trying to uplist and have the big boys invest in your penny stock and you want to shake the “stinky pinky” image... you make sure you aren’t seen walking down the street with people the SEC won’t allow in the door.
Whether they’ve amended their ways or not, people don’t like to invest in companies who associate with companies that have things written about them like, ...
“The company’s accountant is M&K CPAs, PLLC of Houston, Tex, which helped many sham companies go public on the bulletin board. And the company’s law firm is Carrillo, Huettel & Zouvas, LLP of San Diego, Calif., which has also facilitated many dubious bulletin board companies that have turned into horrendous promotions.”
https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/david-baines-two-victoria-startups-wade-into-bulletin-board-swamp
great question.
But wait, there's more:
“The company’s accountant is M&K CPAs, PLLC of Houston, Tex, which helped many sham companies go public on the bulletin board. And the company’s law firm is Carrillo, Huettel & Zouvas, LLP of San Diego, Calif., which has also facilitated many dubious bulletin board companies that have turned into horrendous promotions.”
https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/david-baines-two-victoria-startups-wade-into-bulletin-board-swamp
Thanks for posting this. Everyone needs to know this.
Too much to read on the other link? Here's a nice article about M&K:
https://goingconcern.com/numbers-literally-didnt-add-latest-case-atrocious-auditing/
And here's a link to the CPA firm. Yes, they're still partners.
http://www.mkacpas.com/ourmanagementteam.html
DO NOT vote to approve M&K cpas!!!!!
Why in the world we would have an accounting firm where two (yes TWO) of four audit partners are banned for life from appearing or practicing before the SEC as accountants?
Want to NOT look like a penny stock in order to uplist? Then dump this CPA firm.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/33-9918.pdf
B.Respondent M&K is censured.
D.Respondent Manis is denied the privilege of appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant.
F.Respondent Ridenour is denied the privilege of appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant.
I reported it as a privacy violation. Said it exposes the company to fraudulent shareholder voting. Which it does.
Not secure at all. I did not vote using the link but could have. And I was logged in via a proxy server based in China. So... yeah. Hope it’s removed promptly
“None of the language in the proxy is binding except the RS vote and the BOD. He is not obligated to up-list, he can privatize, “
We know this. The up-list plainly says he doesn’t need our okay. The RS vote gives the authority to maybe do it and probably will. Then we vote on BOD and an accounting firm. Plain as day. No one should be confused.
The privatization part doesn’t follow. Especially since it specifically states “this is not a step to privatize“. As someone pointed out yesterday, to put that in there and then go do it anyway would make him a far bigger idiot than mojo ever dreamed possible.
One thing Kim is famous for is ambiguous language. To say that the one time he speaks plainly is to launch a sinister plot to privatize is quite a stretch. Kim is the master of cover your a** language. He would expose himself to quite a liability.
“Yet it is perfectly clear that this move at this time makes no sense. The listing requirements are not going to allow KT to reverse split then list after x months. It will be years.”
I don’t believe anyone has overlooked that. It clearly states that the RS and uplisting are possibilities. There’s no timeline given.
If he immediately does an RS and it isn’t timed with announcements of product being delivered and contracts being signed... then I’ll worry if there’s no team in place to guide the process. That would certainly be ill timed and make no sense.
I came to about the same conclusions as you. Which amount to a “maybe #4”.
I don’t think we have enough information yet. Maybe we can get some answers at the SH meeting that will make the path crystal clear. (That’s a big maybe).
But surely we won’t wait long. Undoubtedly someone will post, pretending to know for sure and it will become gospel soon. For the toadies.
I’ve never been one to believe much here until I see sources cited.
I’m not worried. The ship is still at sea and we are relying on the same engine room that we always were. Nothing really changed. All that happened is that a couple traders sold a few million in anticipation of all the chicken littles causing panic.
Fine with me. Kblb is on sale right now. If nothing decent is PRd tomorrow or Monday, guessing we will test the support at .20. Probably cautiously creep back up to mid thirties before the big pow wow.
I think a lot will be learned about confidence going forward. I’ve heard many analysts say that the behavior of management at the meeting is more indicative than what they say.
I’ll see if I can post that article.
Whoops. Sorry. You’re right. That wasn’t you. I take it back.
Have a good night.
You missed a lot apparently. The attachment to the 8k says that they were not going private- yet you helped fan those flames today.
Check the article that sickzone posted a month ago in Vietnamese. He even posted photos. Might be a bank mentioned. You missed that too.
“ it appears to me that Kim went way out of his way to try explain why this might be a benefit to shareholders”
He did. I thought the same thing. But as is typical of the “great communicator”, he’s oblivious that his explanation ought not be buried in an attachment to the 8k. Yes, in an ATTACHMENT to the 8k.
He just can’t ever seem to learn how to effectively get his message out- no matter what it is.
It’s one communication debacle to the next. It really is stunning to watch time and time again.
He should never have let Susie go.
NASDAQ Listing Requirements for All Companies
Each company must have a minimum of 1,250,000 publicly traded shares upon listing, excluding those held by officers, directors or any beneficial owners of more than 10% of the company.
Also, the regular bid price at the time of listing must be $4.00, and there must be at least three market makers for the stock.
However, a company may qualify under a closing price alternative of $3.00 or $2.00 if the company meets varying requirements.
Each listing firm is also required to follow Nasdaq corporate governance rules 4350, 4351 and 4360.
Companies must also have at least 450 round lot (100 shares) shareholders, 2,200 total shareholders, or 550 total shareholders with 1.1 million average trading volume over the past 12 months.
In addition to these requirements, companies must meet all of the criteria under at least one of the following standards.
Standard No. 1: Earnings
The company must have aggregate pre-tax earnings in the prior three years of at least $11 million, in the previous two years at least $2.2 million, and no single year in the prior three years can have a net loss.
Standard No. 2: Capitalization with Cash Flow
The company must have a minimum aggregate cash flow of at least $27.5 million for the past three fiscal years, with no negative cash flow in any of those three years. Also, its average market capitalization over the prior 12 months must be at least $550 million, and revenues in the previous fiscal year must be $110 million, minimum.
Standard No. 3: Capitalization with Revenue
Companies can be removed from the cash flow requirement of the second standard if its average market capitalization over the past 12 months is at least $850 million and revenues over the prior fiscal year are at least $90 million.
Standard No. 4: Assets with Equity
Companies can eliminate the cash flow and revenue requirements, and decrease its marketing capitalization requirements to $160 million if their total assets total at least $80 million and their stockholders' equity is at least $55 million.
A company has four ways to get listed on the Nasdaq, depending on the underlying fundamentals of the company. If a company does not meet certain criteria, such as the operating income minimum, it has to make it up with larger minimum amounts in another area, like revenue. This helps to improve the quality of companies listed on the exchange.
After a company gets listed on the market, it must maintain certain standards to continue trading. Failure to meet the specifications set out by the stock exchange will result in its delisting. Falling below the minimum required share price, or market capitalization is one of the major factors triggering a delisting. The exact details of delisting depend on the exchange.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/nasdaq-listing-requirements/
Dang Rayo- now don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story!!
I’d like to buy more in the .20s.
Careful. Could be a dead cat bounce.
Hoping it is. Thanks to everyone who created the buying opportunity today. I was slow with trigger though. Hoping for another frenzy.
Here you go:
http://irdirect.net/filings/viewer/index/1413119/000165495419008126/1
It’s in there somewhere. Not far from the place where he says that this is NOT the first step to going private.
Exactly. The irrational freak out over the reverse split is because it’s most often done by a company in decline who’s trying to keep from getting delisted.
A company on the rise who does it to GET listed is in the tiny minority.
This is why the knee jerk reaction is negative. In the long run, (a quarter?) it would attract institutional buying with the uplisting and a positive balance sheet.
Time it just right so that it happens just before earnings begin to increase and it will be innocuous at worst. Helpful at best because of the better exchange.
KBLB needs to not look like a penny stock if it wants to get listed with the big boys.
Maybe. Next time he’ll probably just notify us via the quarterly newsletter.
Maybe he read this board for a while and couldn’t sleep at night thinking that these people might vote him out someday. Can’t blame him there for forging the one ring to rule them all.
What was the date of that meeting? I’d be curious if it wasn’t on or around July 24th of whatever year. If it was the “annual” meeting that is stated in the bylaws.
He called this one “annual”. Which means it happens (on paper) on that date yearly. He just chose to notify us this year.
I own a private company. We have an “annual” shareholder meeting in the bylaws. I couldn’t tell you the date we allegedly have it either.
Shareholder meetings are a regulatory requirement. However, notifying us of the meeting date is not. The meeting date would be stated in each company's bylaws and the annual meeting takes place on the approximate same date each year.
Kim wants the meeting for some reason. And it wouldn’t be his M.O. to have a meeting to deliver bad news. In that case, he’d just remain silent and let the share price slowly erode.
No. He’s excited about something and wants a meeting. The fact that he gave us short notice IS his M.O.
It’s long ago been agreed upon by the discerning bulls and bears alike that Kim is possibly the worst communicator since Yogi Berra. (Only the neophytes and the sycophants have him pegged as a good one)
There’s good news coming. No doubt in my mind. Whether it’s already factored into the share price or not is another matter. Kim had better not underwhelm us.
Yeah. Saw that. Article 17.2 deals with genetically modified “livestock”
Just says they need to comply with biodiversity laws.
An updated copy of biodiversity laws is what I haven’t seen.
This July 1st date must be somewhere but I haven’t found it. Looking for verification outside this board.
No offense to any gurus in residence here.
Where did the idea that the new laws went into effect on July 1st come from? Was there ever a source cited?
I’m replying to my own post from April 4th. It refers to the laws on animal husbandry which were enacted in November 2019. According to my research, the laws won’t be in force until January 1st 2020.
Whether or not the “Provisions on genetically engineered (GE) products” section was a new addition in 2019 would be a good thing to know. (I suspect not. Because we lacked “framework” and it sure sounds like this is “framework”)
It also says it must comply with the provisions in the law on biodiversity. I haven’t seen a current copy of those provisions in some years.
There’s a link in the old post that I’m replying to. It’s possible that July 1st could be correct. I just like to see this confirmed. 1 JAN is the only date I’ve seen from an official source.
To be honest, I’ve never seen that. Not once. Ever. I asked some other shareholders and they haven’t either. (Shouldn’t matter, but I use TOS on Ameritrade)
Take a screenshot next time you see it and post it.
Phase 1 of my exit strategy was to get my initial investment off the table- which I already did.
Phase 2? Not sure. Not a dollar figure. I usually trade with a hard set of rules for entry and exit. but this stock is a rule breaker for me. I’ll have to think on my feet. Don’t want a trailing stop that won’t allow for good volatility. And I don’t want an other-than-honorable market maker dropping the price just to catch me either.
I had planned on trading on the spikes, which would mean I would have sold today. But the volume didn’t scream at me. The pumpers haven’t come back to the board just yet. Maybe some have. But none I’ve seen that could convince anyone of anything. So the price action today seems more like accumulation than traders jumping in. I could be wrong though.
Depends on the situation- why the price is moving & etc.
Most likely at least half my holdings are here till the buyout. 10-15 bucks? Hope you’re right. That would certainly speed up my timeline to be on House Hunters International.
Congratulations! That’s incredible. Only a 12 bagger for me. (Only).
Today’s volume surge was very nice but it’s still way off the radar. Imagine the numbers when this stock gets noticed.
Putting into perspective- between my associate and me, we own just under 5 million shares. Today’s volume can be accounted for with just a couple deep pockets. I can’t imagine how this could run when the broader market wakes up.
I certainly hope the great communicator can learn to open his mouth and get noticed.
Great question. This should help:
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/bidasknumbers.asp
“but i would love to see it in print”
Exactly. It’s mind numbing to read (let alone comprehend) all the badly translated red-tape involved in getting a bio safety certificate.
For all we know, one of KBLB’s partners is the one applying for the bio safety certificate anyway. Possibly the People’s Committee or the lab has to apply since they’re the ones who petitioned MARD to allow Kim and his worms in the country. Who knows.
One of the “tasks” assigned to the People’s Committee when they were charged to oversee Prodigy was to “guide and supervise...and organize the registration of assay to STRICTLY comply”... obviously the assay went well or there would have been nothing to sign. So we should be “all systems go”. Haha. I’ve been here too long to fall for that.
I’m with you- I want it on paper. Too many times have I thought we were further through the red tape than we really were.
That’s why I said “unless it was completed before the signing”.
We just don’t know. Making sure the worms are edible is a big deal to VN. It’s been mentioned twice now.
Getting a GMO approved for food and feed is no small task. We don’t know if it’s been done. Likely that it has... we just don’t know.
I’d be happier if a member of the “Genetically Modified Food Safety Council” council were in attendance to waive the “five developed countries” rule.
I refer you to chapter VI of MONRE’s decree:
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS ELIGIBLE FOR USE AS FOOD OR ANIMAL FEED
Section I. GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS ELIGIBLE FOR USE AS FOOD
Article 27. Conditions for grant of a written certification of genetically modified organisms* eligibility for use as food
To be granted a written certification of eligibility for use as food, genetically modified organisms must satisfy either of the following conditions:
1. The dossier of application for a written certification of their eligibility for use as food has been appraised by the Genetically Modified Food Safety Council, which concludes that such genetically modified organisms have no uncontrollable risks to human health.
2. They have been permitted by at least five (5) developed countries for use as food and no risk has been seen in these countries.
The People’s Committee of Quang Nam went to MARD and said “pretty please can Prodigy import some mutant worms?”
On October 5th 2018, MARD said, “yes but you gotta supervise them closely so that we aren’t raising anything that could take down Godzilla”.
Those may not have been the exact words MARD used. Possibly was something more like this:
Make sure they do these things right...
1) A permit for testing genetically modified organisms granted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development for genetically modified silkworms meeting Articles 18 and 40 of Decree No. 69 / 20I0 / ND-CP dated June 21, 2010; ensure that genetically modified silkworm origin documents imported into Vietnam for testing have been permitted by the exporting country (US) for use with the same purpose within the territory of the United States to meet point d Clause 2 Article 18 Decree No. 69/2010 / ND-CP dated June 21, 2010;
2) Risk assessment report of genetically modified silkworms for the environment, biodiversity, human health and livestock meet Article 7 of Decree No. 69/2010 / ND-CP dated June 21, 2010 of the Government on biosafety management for genetically modified organisms, genetic specimens and products of genetically modified organisms
3) Decision on recognition of the facility for testing genetically modified silkworms of the registration organization, meeting Article 16 of Decree No. 69 / 20l0 / ND-CP dated June 21, 2010. (At present, the Central Research Center for Mulberry has not been recognized by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development as eligible for testing genetically modified organisms);
Confirm genetically modified silkworms qualified for food to meet Article 27 of Decree No. 69 / 20l0 / ND-CP dated June 21, 2010, (In Vietnam, silkworm rearing in addition to providing materials for the industry Silk weaving, silkworm pupae are also used as human food.
4) Implementing the provisions of Article 4 of Decree No. 123 / 20l8 / ND-CP dated September 17, 2018 of the Government on amending and supplementing a number of decrees and regulations on investment and business conditions in Agriculture sector.
I think we still need the certificate. Unless it was completed before the signing on the 17th.
On October 5th 2018, MARD told the People’s Committee to “closely supervise the process of testing genetically modified silkworm breeding of (Prodigy) Than Ky Textile Company Limited”.
MARD told the People’s Committee to be sure that the risk assessment met the guidelines in Article 7 of Decree No. 69/2010 / ND-CP dated June 21, 2010.
Here is what article 7 says:
Article 7. Reporting on assessment of risks of genetically modified organisms to the environment, biodiversity and health of humans and domestic animals
1. Information on the assessment of risks of genetically modified organisms shall be presented in reports on assessment of risks of genetically modified organisms to the environment, biodiversity and health of humans and domestic animals.
2. Reports on assessment of risks of genetically modified organisms to the environment, biodiversity and health of humans and domestic animals shall be made according to the forms provided in Appendices IV, V and VI to this Decree.
3. Reports on assessment of risks of genetically modified organisms to the environment, biodiversity and health of humans and domestic animals must be appraised by competent state agencies.
4. A report on assessment of risks of genetically modified organisms to the environment, biodiversity and health of humans and domestic animals *******serves as a basis for the grant of a biosafety certificate: a written certification of genetically modified organisms' eligibility for use as food: and a written certification of genetically modified organisms' eligibility for use as animal feed.******
Someone needs to volunteer for the taste test.
You’re singing my song! Need me for something?
With the latest news of the signing, I’d be curious to know how Than Ky (aka Prodigy) is doing with the “tasks” that MARD asked the “people’s Committee” to supervise.
I believe they named 4 specific demands in October 2018. Are we to assume that all 4 MARD demands were met?
You’re right that “lab advances and patent applications” seem to be met with a shoulder shrug.
However, this is a bit different (to me) in that Kim seems to finally be trying to prop the share price. Why now after all this time? Why finally wake up and realize that the share price is important?
This tells me that something is cooking and he really NEEDS to stay on the radar and generate some buzz.
He must have dozens of PRs locked and loaded in his holster. Think back to the ITMA awards... we heard nothing... Kim just didn’t show up.
What was the agrotextile award nomination for clear back in 2014? No clue.
I don’t know if he remained so secretive over the years for fear of industrial espionage. - very real thing and I’m with him on that. But then there’s the rub that because of his secrecy, our shares were diluted far more than would have been necessary. There’s an argument that, relative to other companies, dilution wasn’t really that much. Maybe. Could be true. No matter if dilution were relatively high or not, Kim never seemed interested in telling the whole story unambiguously. And he certainly never gave me any hints that he cared about the share price.
Not saying he’s unambiguous now, just saying that if anything is different, it’s obvious that he’s trying to increase the share price.
I’m glad for that. Long overdue.
There have been many things said over the years that we never heard boo about that Kim may suddenly PR.
Here are a couple things Kim may have up his sleeve to help boost the SP:
“‘Best innovation, protective textile’, and ‘Best innovation, sustainable textile’ categories “ ITMAs 2015
“Most innovative small company” and “Best innovation – Agrotextiles” ITMAs 2014
““Two and two can’t equal 4 to me and 5 to you.”
Sure it can...it’s just that you’d be wrong... “”
4 is wrong? Who knew? I never learned the new math.
Dang. Let me know when you see a duck or a horse in the charts. Maybe this isn’t BS after all.
Again with this? Lol
“But when one gauges what is happening with sp500 and then tries to compare those results with a penny stock...it won’t compute... “
lol ok. Those were your words remember. You admitted that. I wasn’t supposed to have to defend that.
Ok. For the sake of sparing other readers the torture of reading more nonsense , and if you insist... my God! You’re a genius. I had no clue! I’m not worthy. You are 100% correct.
“More of an art than science”. Yup. We still agree that it’s subjective.
See? We agreed all along. Now you’re just arguing to argue.
This is busy work being a troll. I don’t know how you do this day in and day out.
I missed the part in my original post where I compared the underlying assets. The post was about whether a price increase on low volume is a bearish signal.
That’s where you should start.
I’ll help. Say something like, “volume in relation to price movement is/is not an indicator of future price movement because...”. Then, if you’d like, you could go into an explanation of how it means different things depending on the underlying.
You went into a non sequitur about how the underlying assets are different. I know that. So does everyone else here. Usually making someone defend points they didn’t make is someone else’s job around here.
I cited an article about a technical indicator, then i bashed technical analysis. So obviously I think SOME indicators have value. Volume being one that I pay attention to. I’ve also made good option trades using candlesticks to confirm a directional bias. Did it work? Think so.
“Technical analysis is more of an art than a science”. Exactly. Can’t prove it. Like art, it’s subjective. It’s in the eye of the beholder. That’s why I refer to most of it as reading tea leaves.
Technical analysis has turned into a trade of snake oil salesmen out to sell their trading platforms to beginners. Unfortunately the industry has no standards and doesn’t police its own. People fall for that crap and lose their shirts.
Just saying “It doesn’t compute... the rules are different” is not an argument. It’s as weak as saying “you’re wrong cuz I say so”.
It’s about busting a myth in volume in relation to being bullish or bearish.
Maybe there’s nothing to it. But the reading of tea leaves is widely accepted as credible... when there’s never been one shred of evidence that technical analysis is better than bottle spinning. (Except maybe on huge assets where it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy because so many leaf readers follow the asset).
We’ll find out today. Sort of. Maybe. Or not.
I didn’t expect it to climb much past .25 either. Especially since the volume that got it there was relatively low in the grand scheme of things.
I definitely did not expect to see it hit 30 again without news, yet it did.
Volume today was only 5 million shares roughly... which happens to be the amount of shares I own along with 2 associates. In my mind that means the volume was extremely low today if just 3 traders who aren’t rich own as many shares as were traded today. (Which is much better than previous volume average where I personally owned more than the daily average)
I have always been told that a PPS rising on low volume was a bearish signal so I expected a pullback tomorrow.
However, I decided to do some research into the “rising price with low volume is bearish “ axiom in order to see if that’s a myth or not.
Apparently it’s a myth:
https://bullmarkets.co/study-a-stock-market-rally-on-low-volume-is-not-bearish/