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.
Even though it was a one time thing 3 1/2 years ago, MDHI's participation in a rather large P&D does bother me. I cannot truly say I am not waiting for another one while hoping against it ever happening again.
However, I believe it is disingenuous to represent that the MDHI has been a multiple time repeat offender and therefore would like to see verifiable evidence. Not a PR that did not effect trading volume or PPS because that is not what a P&D looks like.
I can show several examples of massive repeat P&D's if asked but do not want to post other symbols here without being asked. Instead I would refer all to pumpanddumps.com to review the site and the information it provides on specific companies and P&D's in general.
MDHI has lost so much value because they are not a fully reporting company. That is what has killed the PPS.
The only thing that matters right now is that MDHI gets caught up with their filings.
While I am more patient with MDHI as I wait for the audited financial it is very possible that the only reason is that I have not been invested in the company as long as you or have not been following the company as long as you have.
I appreciate your frustration and that you bring a healthy skepticism about the information MDHI gives us. Other posters here go beyond your healthy skepticism just as other posters here go beyond the realistic defense of MDHI I try to present.
I don't know if you still have a stake in MDHI or if you ever did and I would never ask specifics because it is none of my business. However, I believe we can both agree that MDHI as an investment will be better off as a fully reporting company.
I accept that you and Robert-1 believe MDHI has been a repeated practitioner of P&D's. If this is true, it should not be hard to find and provide some proof.
There is only one example that follows the anatomy of a P&D and that was in March of 2010 when MDHI was run by Howard Teicher, not Ronnie.
Do you understand that authorized shares, outstanding shares and the float are different things?
At least 600 mill shares are restricted. Probably more as it is likely some of the restricted shares issued from previous capital infusions are still restricted today.
The vote to increase the AS and OS was done without a company meeting or proxy vote because the management team controls almost another 410 million shares (51%+ of the 800 mil OS from before the recent increase) even if they don't personally own them. We also know from the 10-k posted on 8-15-13 that by company bylaw the management team must own a minimum of 27% of the OS. That is currently amounts to 378 million shares.
The current float--the number of share in the open market--is probably less than 400 million shares which means the management team owns almost as many shares as are in the float.
Now, after all that, let's return to my initial question.
In post # 30824 you specifically accused the MDHI management and insiders of executing repeated pump and dumps by saying "With all the pumping and dumpimg that Ronnie and joe have done at mdhi"
This is not an accusation that MDHI's management has added to the AS and OS in order to generate a capital infusion for MDHI through private placement of restricted shares as your initial reply shows but an accusation that Ronnie and Joe have partaken in an illegal activity that flooded the float with shares they personally owned for personal gain.
So I will ask again "Please provide any proof of MDHI perpetrating a Pump and Dump. According the detailed lists at pumpanddumps.com MDHI has not partaken in the practice in at least 3 years.
http://www.pumpsanddumps.com/p/hall-of-fame-m-z.html"
Please provide any proof of MDHI perpetrating a Pump and Dump. According the detailed lists at pumpanddumps.com MDHI has not partaken in the practice in at least 3 years.
http://www.pumpsanddumps.com/p/hall-of-fame-m-z.html
Your fiscal years are off. Fiscal 2011 was from 7-1-2010 to 6-30-2011. Fiscal 2012 was from 7-1-11 to 6-30-12 and fiscal 2013 was from 7-1-12 to 6-30-13. We are currently in the first quarter of fiscal 2014 even though we are in the third quarter of calendar 2013.
MDHI is still 2 years behind is posting audited financials.
So he is clearly and unequivocally says that positive cash flow has been achieved and in the specific quote you posted he is talking about operational profit. The claim that has appeared elsewhere for both quarters so far in calendar 2013 are positive cash flow, not profit.
Positive cash flow leads to operational profitability but they are not the same thing. Operational profits leads to overall profits but they are not the same thing.
In other words, if MDHI achieved positive cash flow in the first quarter of 2013 it is reasonable to guess MDHI would achieve operational profitability at some point in the first 6 months of 2013.
As I said, many people here use the terms interchangeably but doing so is inaccurate
All of this is speculative until MDHI releases the audited financials for fiscal 2013 and the statements made on behalf of MDHI will not be proven true or false until then.
Thank you for posting the the whole PR. I should have gone directly to EDGAR to look for the SEC filing rather than trusting yahoo's MDHI SEC filings page.
I don't see where your quote is coming from. There was so filing with the SEC on April 19. What I have seen comes from the 10-k filed 8-15-13 with the SEC available for your review on EDGAR:
"The Company expects calendar year 2013 to be one of continued growth in both monthly recurring revenues and distribution sales, which will allow the Company to realize sustainable positive operating cash flow. We believe the growth rate and the positive operating cash flow we are currently realizing is sustainable into 2014 and beyond."
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=9462736-932-206374&type=sect&dcn=0001144204-13-046315
Until MDHI produces the audited numbers for fiscal 2013 you cannot claim they are lying.
As to the profitability of the company, many are considering positive cash flow, operating at a profit and actual profit over the life of the company as one thing. They are three separate issues but positive cash flow is usually the first step and also very often indicates a company is operating at a profit. If the company is relatively new, it will take a while to pay off the debts that were incurred during that start up.
Don't forget that many of the losses are nothing but accounting procedure as investments are depreciated.
All of those filings and all of that information is leading up to the IPO but is not the IPO itself. Public trading of MDHI began on 12-29-10. Not before. That is the date of the Initial Public Offering.
Prior to 12-29-10, all stock sales were private placement sales, not publicly offered stock. At that time MDHI was only taking steps towards being a viable, operating company. All they were doing was spending money to become a publicly traded company and putting the channels in place to produce the product they intended to sell like locking up the patent.
Nothing more.
Registration to become a publicly traded company and the actual IPO are not the same thing. There is no expected date of the IPO listed in the document and, in fact, all of the initial shares issued to the insiders in June of 08 are restricted until June of 09 so the IPO had to be much later than 9-2-2008.
The company did not become a publicly traded company until the IPO on 12-29-09.
Also, that document clearly discusses what the company's business will be in the future--the manufacture and sale of what will eventually become known as the MediPendant. At the time of that filing, everything they say about what they intend to do is a safe harbor protected forward looking statement. While according to many posters here, that alone would mean the entire statement should be ignored, it clearly shows they were not an operating entity at the time of that filing.
I am not making excuses. I am dealing with facts about MDHI specifically and facts about what it takes to bring a company from nothing to profitability.
I appreciate honest skepticism about MDHI and hope that skepticism is wrong while my honest optimism about MDHI is correct.
It is distortion of facts and outright lies that I object to.
Ummm. No. MDHI's IPO was 12-29-09. It was not a fully functioning company prior to the IPO--it was an idea that had potential but not enough capital reach the potential. The IPO was to raise capital to becoming a fully functioning company.
There are plenty of example companies that were fully functioning profitable companies that went public with the sole intent of turning the insiders from millionaires into billionaires. MDHI is not one of those companies.
Dilution of the OS in restricted shares in exchange for cash is a common start up practice. It does not always equate into dilution of the float. In fact, the company's bylaws as described in several recent SEC filings require the insiders to maintain a certain percentage of the OS for voting purposes. We also know that MDHI management controls enough shares to do as they please without calling for a proxy vote as shown when they increased the AS and OS earlier this year. That leaves the float, freely trading in the open market without ties to the management team below 400 million shares. That is not significant dilution
As I have offered in the past, if you would like to see what dilution really looks like I will provide the symbol of a company that has its insiders dumping the equivalent of MDHI's entire float into the open market every 6-8 weeks. I can also show a company whose management has unloaded nearly 100 mil shares into the open market in the past 2 months--5-10 mil at a time--while continuously increasing the OS to replace the dumped shares.
This is not happening with MDHI.
Although it has been speculated that the arrangement between MDHI and Costco is for drop shipment, I have seen no proof of this. Both the terminology in the 10-k about Costco and the revenue drop from fiscal 2012 to the first 2 quarters of fiscal 2013 lend credence to the arrangement being one where Costco is a value added re-seller. This also fits with Costco's reputation as having the best customer service in membership oriented retail business as they would lose control of the customer service in a drop shipment agreement.
It is also completely possible that once MDHI established customer service that lived up Costco's reputation the agreement would switch to a drop shipment arrangement.
Again I have seen no proof either way but the information we have been given would indicate it is not--or at least did not begin as a drop shipment arrangement.
MDHI was a brand new company as of 12-29-2009. It is generally accepted that a start up company of this kind takes a minimum of 3-4 years to reach positive cash flow.
Based on the statement made in the 10-k filed with the SEC on 8-15-13 MDHI is right in schedule.
"The Company expects calendar year 2013 to be one of continued growth in both monthly recurring revenues and distribution sales, which will allow the Company to realize sustainable positive operating cash flow. We believe the growth rate and the positive operating cash flow we are currently realizing is sustainable into 2014 and beyond."
What your reasoning does not take into account is that on May 27, 2012 Costco placed their first order from MDHI. That order would account for the big jump in fiscal 2012 revenue without adding a dime to revenue during the first 6 months of fiscal 2013 because Costco's price included 6 months of monitoring.
Not true. The 2011 audited financial that were released in a 10-K on 8-15-13 are the latest financials that can be substantiated.
The unaudited financials from 2012 that the company posted in an 8-k carry no more and no less weight than the forward looking statement the company made in the same 10-K posted on 8-15-13:
"The Company expects calendar year 2013 to be one of continued growth in both monthly recurring revenues and distribution sales, which will allow the Company to realize sustainable positive operating cash flow. We believe the growth rate and the positive operating cash flow we are currently realizing is sustainable into 2014 and beyond."
I hope you are right. I guess the idea that news would be nice applies to what the shares are being issued for and who is getting them in addition to product updates. Without that information and along with the idea that new shares are restricted so the dumping is coming from older shares, I fear the worst--that management is dumping their personal unrestricted shares and replacing them with newly issued shares.
Remember that $180 k is only 60 million shares dumped at .003 per share. If that number is close to the 90 mil shares it is a minimum of $270 k. If their average sale price is a penny they would have pocketed $900 K.
And any way you look at it, if I am right, it is a nice chunk of change to make sure you get ahead of time if you know that serious dilution is the only way to cover a guarantee coming due soon.
Again, I hope you are right. I held my shares at a time when I had a chance to cash out at a decent profit because I believed in the products that are coming and the vertical integration model SAFC uses in those products. I just see the guarantee that is coming due as a looming disaster for SAFC particularly if they are behind on producing those products.
I guess there is always the possibility that an extension of the guarantee could be negotiated.
All of these numbers come from the transfer agent.
8-22-13 There are currently 201,410,161 shares outstanding.
8-15-13 There are currently 194,326,828 shares outstanding.
8-8-13 There are currently 189,026,828 shares
7-11-13 There are currently 143,374,654 shares outstanding.(this is the same number as of 6-30-13 per the 10-Q)
So, after a long time of almost no increase in the OS, SAFC has added about 60 mil shares in the last 2 months and added another 30 million just before June 30th.
If the insiders have dumped the same amount into the float, that means they have put a minimum of $180k into their pockets since 6-30-13. That is based on the last few days' average pps and does not even take into account the time spent over a penny per share.
If you review SAFC daily volume since the beginning of the year you will see that volume broke 4.5 mil 4 times before the end of June. 2 times the price went up and 2 times the price went down. Since 7-1-13, that volume has been reached 15 times. 5 occurred during the mini pump that had SAFC scratching a PPS of .02. Even at that time SAFC only closed at high 2 times. Out of the other 10 including today, MDHI closed lower than the open 8 times.
Unfortunately this patter points to a calculated dump into the float. Why would the insiders be doing this now if they expect the PPS to shoot up dramatically in the next few months?
After doing this additional DD today, I am even more convinced SAFC's insiders are putting as much as they can in their pockets before they have to pay off the guarantee in the license agreement in newly issued shares.
I'm confused. I gathered that you liked it and I agree that it is informative regarding the topic addressed in the article. That does not answer the question of is the article is on topic about MDHI or not?
Of course, if you are no longer an administrator for I-hub, then my follow up questions are moot.
The float is approximately half that and for MDHI to trade, people need to want to sell. Right now there are people trying to steal shares of MDHI and people who bought ant .0016 trying to do a quick flip at at .002 or better. Everyone else wants to hold until MDHI's filings continue and the pps goes up.
It is an informative article that if there is an actual provable connection is good to share with those interested in HDHI. However, the article has nothing to do with MDHI other than conjecture and speculation. If you disagree, please provide proof that it applies to MDHI and explain what it has do to with MDHI.
I don't think it is possible.
Everything sounds bad from lies and misleading statements when you present MDHI's financials from 6 months ago--before the company claimed to have reached an expanding positive cash flow---as the current ones and then base the rest the supposed DD posted here on those outdated figures.
Once again, please explain what this article has do to with MDHI. Do they say they are going after MDHI? Do they even mention MDHI? Do they mention Ronnie? Do they mention Joe? Does Winick have anything to do with MDHI?
Please, if it as at all possible, show us any legitimate tie between this article and MDHI beyond pure conjecture and speculation.
If no proof actually connecting this article to MDHI can be provided, can a moderator or administrator please list any post with the link to this article as "of topic" and remove them? Thank you.
I really hope that all the positive expectations for SAFC play out. Last Wednesday I said "It is starting to look like there is a series of 10 mil shares loosing their restriction, getting dumped into the float and then being replaced by newly issued restricted shares"
Unfortunately that continues to appear to be what is happening and my conclusion that "SAFC has apparently become a dump without the pump." may be correct.
Again, while I hope all the all the positive expectations for SAFC play out, I am concerned that what is going on is the insiders are cashing out 15-20 million shares a month thereby putting $45-60k + in their pockets each month in advance of the maturity of the .70 guarantee on the 10 mil shares from the license agreement. I am concerned the insiders know the guaranteed value of those shares will need to be fulfilled by issuing the remainder of the AS in new shares to the holder of the license agreement.
If that happens--SAFC issues 700 mil new shares to cover the guarantee--SAFC is going to bottom out on the low end of the .000's.
Every Company uses "safe harbor" on every "forward looking statement" they release.
I never bought into the idea that 7-31-13 was a drop dead date for two reasons. First, the language is clear that it is not. Second, unless the audits were already in hand when the initial statement was made, there was no way to guarantee when an independent firm would complete the task it was assigned.
Although I would have preferred MDHI stick to a more general "ASAP" to avoid the hysteria, I have to admit that all the posts on both sides of the fence about MDHI's "guarantee" to have everything filed on 7-31-13 was some of the funniest stuff I have seen here.
From my initial post earlier today about Teicher:
I added the bold to this information copied from the 8-k filed on 6-1-2012:
"Item 5.02. Departure of Directors or Certain Officers.
On June 1, 2011, CEO Howard Teicher tendered his resignation for personal reasons. The announcement of a replacement for Mr. Teicher is pending."
Item 7.01. Regulation FD Disclosure.
On May 25, 2012, the Company contracted for a joint e-mail-based marketing program sponsored by the largest warehouse club store in the U.S. This e-mail campaign, which is scheduled to commence on June 8, 2012, is expected to reach approximately 13,000,000 customers of this warehouse retailer.
On May 27, 2012, The Company began receiving orders for its MediPendant product under a strategic marketing agreement with the number one warehouse club store in the U.S. Deliveries of ordered products via this agreement have commenced.
How was Howard negotiating for MDHI in march of 2012 when he left the company in June of 2011?
The posts you give don't prove Howard had anything to do with it. In fact, they prove just the opposite because the negotiations started in march 2012--9 months after he left the company and they didn't reach the agreement until May 25th 2012--almost 12 full months after he resigned. Howard Teicher did NOT get MDHI into Costco.
The fact that MDHI was spending more money that it was bringing in only shows that the expenses were greater than the revenue. It does not show ANYTHING about ANYONE stealing.
Please provide some real proof--not just conjecture and speculation.
Please show ANYTHING tying that article about someone not associated with MDHI in any way getting arrested for fraud to MDHI--not just conjecture and speculation.
Please provide a link to any other SEC filings where MDHI or any of its current officers promises to have audited financials filed.
Then review the information you copied and pasted from the SEC filing where they indicated filings are coming. It states "the Company intends to have all of its delinquent quarterly and annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by July 31, 2013"
From Webster's dictionary:
Definition of INTEND
transitive verb
1
: to direct the mind on
2
archaic : to proceed on (a course)
3
a : signify, mean
b : to refer to
4
a : to have in mind as a purpose or goal : plan
b : to design for a specified use or future
Synonyms
aim, allow [chiefly Southern & Midland], aspire, calculate, contemplate, design, go [chiefly Southern & Midland], look, mean, meditate, plan, propose, purport, purpose, figure on
Funny, that Mr. Tichler got MDHI into Costco almost one year to the day AFTER he left the company—from the 8-k filed on June 1, 2012 “On June 1, 2011, CEO Howard Teicher tendered his resignation for personal reasons.” and “On May 27, 2012, The Company began receiving orders for its MediPendant product under a strategic marketing agreement with the number one warehouse club store in the U.S.” http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=8653195-942-8845&type=sect&TabIndex=2&companyid=786864&ppu=%252fdefault.aspx%253fcik%253d1443089
The financials also fell behind on his watch. The one verifiable pump and dump occurred when he was in charge of MDHI.
I added the bold to this information copied from the 8-k filed on 6-1-2012:
"Item 5.02. Departure of Directors or Certain Officers.
On June 1, 2011, CEO Howard Teicher tendered his resignation for personal reasons. The announcement of a replacement for Mr. Teicher is pending."
Item 7.01. Regulation FD Disclosure.
On May 25, 2012, the Company contracted for a joint e-mail-based marketing program sponsored by the largest warehouse club store in the U.S. This e-mail campaign, which is scheduled to commence on June 8, 2012, is expected to reach approximately 13,000,000 customers of this warehouse retailer.
On May 27, 2012, The Company began receiving orders for its MediPendant product under a strategic marketing agreement with the number one warehouse club store in the U.S. Deliveries of ordered products via this agreement have commenced.
Yes. "Hidden" in an 8-k filed with the SEC in a segment titled "Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits"
I'm sure that made it very difficult for anyone to find.
Please explain what this article has do to with MDHI. Do they say they are going after MDHI? Do they even mention MDHI? Do they mention Ronnie? Do they mention Joe? Does Winick have anything to do with MDHI?
Please, if it as at all possible, show us any legitimate tie between this article and MDHI beyond pure conjecture and speculation.
That practice is known as drop shipping. It is a good practice for an online retailer because they don't have to pay for the inventory before the end user makes the purchase. The down side is that the retailer looses control over the delivery of the product even though they have the all the legal responsibility to the buyer.
Do you have any proof that this is what the agreement between MDHI and Costco is?
MDHI's drop in revenue over that 6 month period is definitely due to Costco's price including the first 6 months of monitoring so none of these sales included the passive revenue stream.
A problem with this speculation is we don't know the exact terms of the agreement with Costco. It sounds like Cosco is a reseller but if rokkdatstock is correct and it is not available in stores it may be a drop shipment agreement.
If they are a reseller, they stock the product and therefore must buy them upfront. If they drop ship, Costco takes their cut and has MDHI send the unit directly to the buyer.
In one case, the 6 month free monitoring does not begin the day the unit is received by the purchaser because the purchaser is not the end user. In the other case, the 6 month countdown to continuing revenue begins right away.
I am guessing that Costco is a reseller because the 8-k posted on 6-1-12 states "On May 27, 2012, The Company began receiving orders for its MediPendant product under a strategic marketing agreement with the number one warehouse club store in the U.S. Deliveries of ordered products via this agreement have commenced."
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=8653195-942-8845&type=sect&TabIndex=2&companyid=786864&ppu=%252fdefault.aspx%253fcik%253d1443089
If this is the case, the revenue from the initial sale to Costco on 5-27-12 would have been accounted for in fiscal 2012 and very few none would have begun producing the revolving passive revenue during the first 6 months of fiscal 2013.
This is another thing pointing to straight line projections being useless as a significant portion of fiscal 2012's revenue was received in the last few days of that fiscal year.
Not true.
You are citing revenues from the quarters ending 9-30-19 and 12-31-12. I am citing revenue from fiscal year ending June 30
2011 and fiscal year june 30 2012 from the same documumenet. It is the same link in the financials next to the numbers you are using.
THese are the revenue numbers form the 8-k you are using:
http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/130212/MEDICAL-ALARM-CONCEPTS-HOLDINGS-INC_8-K/ex91.htm#ixzz2adRt46bI
Year End Fiscal
June 30, 2011
$452,110
Year End Fiscal
June 30, 2012
$573,472
Difference
+$121,360.00
Quarter Ending
December 31, 2012
$95,426
Quarter Ending
September 30, 2012
$102,280
Difference
+$6845
Sorry--couldn't get it to appear in chart form properly. everything got jumbled together.
Robert-1--You make the assumption that MDHI's revenue, cash flow and profit are on a straight line trajectory. That is nearly impossible in the real world. For example, using the numbers from the same 8-k, fiscal 2012 saw revenue increase $121,36.00 over fiscal 2011. That is an average monthly increase of $10,113.50. Not only would that monthly increase in revenue accelerate the process by a factor of 5, but a significant portion of the losses are due to depreciation of assets--just paper losses.
Moving forward, every time a new unit is sold and the buyer keeps the system for more than 6 months, MDHI's recurring revenue rises. Even if there was no additional revenue, MDHI's cancelled debt means cash flow and profit rise.
MDHI continues to cancel debt. MDHI continues to sell new units through Costco. In the past 2 quarters MDHI added distribution through Coventry which is probably part of the increased revenue we will see as the audited financials continue to be released. That distribution network has been greatly expanded and the unit sales will continue to increase as the whole Aetna company now has access to MDHI's product.
This doesn't even account for the international growth that will be coming in the future.
In other words it is easy to mislead about the revenue trajectory MDHI will produce basing all future revenue from a 6 month snap shot.
According to OTC short reports MDHI has been shorted a minimum of 37% of the volume since 8-13 and above 90% of the volume since 8-6. THat is where a lot of the big block sales are coming from.
http://otcshortreport.com/index.php?index=mdhi&action=view#.UhN0yJI3t7c
It is an accepted statistic that approximately 1 in 25 customers who have a bad experience with a product or service purchased will take the time to complain. Those who have a positive experience are nearly 10 times less likely to offer praise.
I'm happy with 1 out of every 250 satisfied Costco purchasers of MDHI's medi pendant posting a positive review. Considering all the other avenues of distribution that are currently up and running and those that are coming soon I'd be happy with half of that.
OF course. The reviews of MDHI's Medi Pendant are staged. Do you have any proof of this?
If staging positive reviews are the Costco way, why does the other pendant have only have 5 reviews with a 3 star rating vs MDHI's 21 reviews with a 4.5 star rating? Wouldn't there be a ton more "Staged early reviews" for the other product as well?
Again, why should Costco not offer different medical alert products with different tech and different features when they offer multiple brands of almost everything they carry to cover as much of the market as possible.
Costco didn't become the number one club store in the country by not giving their customers options. Just like I don't want the cell phone operated alternative to MDHI's medi pendant, I don't want ATT, T-mobile or verizon for my cell service. Lucky for me Costco offers Sprint for my cell service and MDHI's medi pendant for my parents' protection.
Costco carries multiple brands of dog food, cat food, gum, cough medicine, frozen pizza, and thousands of other products. It is not at all surprising that Costco carries two different medical alert products with distinctively different technology and features.
Why is it that instead of being different, one of these medical alert products must be no good? I also find it funny that if only one of these medical alarm products is worthwhile, the one that has received significantly more and significantly better reviews is the POS.