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.
What does owning a business have to do with being able to read a company's financials? Every filing seems to have yet another note about a stiffed vendor filing suit, while referencing all of the past lawsuits that have been 'settled' but never paid.
Real news will drive volume
volume will drive PPS
(or maybe news will drive PPS, which will drive volume).
Increased YoY revs & profits are awesome, but unless they reflect the numbers that current/potential shareholders have been led to expect via PRs and other announcements of huge future growth (vs. bumps of just a few tens of thousands of dollars), they're not going to fundamentally change the PPS game. Getting current is good, and gave the PPS a good spike...but maintaining pink current is expected now.
We. Need. More.
Pinks trade on promise and hype; real companies trade on revs and profits (with a little promise and hype thrown in for good measure). Unfortunately, real companies have revs and profits that are several orders of magnitude above what we're seeing here. SHMN is a Pink, and needs to act accordingly.
SHMN is in a consistent growth pattern...that's good. But unless the company has news that generates excitement, investors will see PPS increases that mirror the annual increase in revs/profits - still upwards, but at an extremely lethargic rate. Maybe my future grandchild will be able to sell for copper.
I was leaning toward Sabina. I just can't see Drex's ego letting him assume a sockpuppet with a handle as feminine as "Ginger"
coulda swore that was 6MM at .00x, with a big bolus at .0001. Might have misread.
as far as the average pink trader, no one has to buy or hold...
ya gotta have faith !
no one has to buy it, or hold it....
While some of Madcow's past statements may not have panned out (Drex never did BK the company and claim all of its assets...back when it actually had some), all of his more recent statements are reflected in public documents. Just because you can't find it doesn't mean it's not there.
Read the history. Madcow has been short here for ages, and does his best to support his position.
Circling the drain...
It's a pretty straightforward comparison of the 2021 10-K vs. the Q1 2022 10-Q. You can easily find the numbers in those two reports here: https://www.musclepharmcorp.com/MSLP/ir-kit/5049
It may take another quarter for the initial distribution and follow-up orders to smooth out and be truly predictive of future activity (depending on when in Q4 that channel stuffing actually occurred), but the numbers themselves are right there in black and white.
With $15,515 in net income, they are on pace for $66,000 in income.
Dropping in after the Q1 fins. Since we know that the company reads this board, I have a few questions that might help the current/potential investors better understand and evaluate the Company.
First off, congrats to SOHM on continued revenue growth and profitability. That said, it would be interesting to learn more about the following:
1) Any guidance re: the March 2021 and August 2021 customer mandates? Reviewing year-over-year revenues, it doesn't appear that these have come to fruition, or if so, had only a moderate impact on revenue.
2) Any guidance re: Brainwise Omega? Your November 2021 PR stated that "the first purchase order valued at $750,000 has been received", and your March 4 2022 Tweet stated that "SOHM is pleased to announce that the second shipment of Brainwise-Omega 3 formula is set to dispatch to Ghana, Africa by March-end 2022." Given that this indicated two orders were shipped by the end of 2022Q1, why are we not seeing a larger reflection on revenue? Did the $750,000 number reflect SOHM's projected revenue from this sale, or was it the projected retail price?
3) Any updates on the acquisition initially announced in April 2021?
4) Is there a reason for the negative AR on the balance sheet?
5) Section 7 of the disclosure requires the reporting of "any person or entity owning 5% of more of any class of the issuer’s securities". Section 3 states that "Shailesh Shah transferred all of his shares of Series A Preferred stock (51 shares)". Should these transferred preferred shares be reported?
Some of these may be backward looking to some degree, but learning more about their outcomes will help current/future investors better evaluate forward looking statements as they occur.
so now they are current, the shares have been held well over 12 months, what does the co need to do now to allow someone with restricted shares to sell them ?
Get the PPS over .01.
They no longer accept sub penny deposits, and won't trade sub penny stocks in your account.
Most (not all) broker dealers have taken similar positions...too many enforcement actions in this space.
The few that are still playing are absurdly expensive - both in deposit fees, minimum account requirements, and transaction fees. One I looked at had a commission structure that essentially made it impossible to make money selling sub penny stock.
Not a premium member, so I'll respond to you here.
If I could, I would. But due to mismanagement of the company, I can't. So unless and until they get their shit together, I'm stuck here.
I suspect those are total revenue estimates for the product (possibly even retail estimates), not necessarily SHMN's share.
That said, any new products sold mean more revenue (and if they built in enough margin, profits) for the company.
I do wish that the company was sufficiently disclosive that we could stop our endless conjecture (good, bad, or indifferent). But then, you know what they say about wishing in one hand and crapping in the other...
Tell me you don't play in the Pink Sheets without telling me you don't play in the Pink Sheets.
Years ago, I worked with a company which now has 3BB shares issued and outstanding, is pink current, and yet has reported zero revenue for the past two fiscal years.
Frankly, for the dudes still in on that one, I think bodega numbers would be a welcome change.
I can't see this as having a material impact, truth be told. If you dig in far enough to see what all they are currently offering, you also can't help but see that they describe their business model repeatedly and in some detail.
This alone is probably good news.
If past attorney payments were in shares and nothing is showing up for the most recent letter(s), it likely means (as was noted earlier) that the attorney is getting paid cash, and it's part of the overarching G&A expense.
HL - Yup, they're still good from an OTC perspective. But in my own personal experience, the review/drafting of the attorney letter for PC companies begins as soon as if not immediately before the annual has been posted; it's rare that there is an extended gap between the two (as long as the company has funds to pay the attorney, and there is nothing within the filing itself that gives the attorney pause...like perhaps a lack of disclosure about certain events).
It's been a week since the annual. Am I the only one getting concerned that we haven't seen an attorney letter yet?
There's a lot of shareholders who own a lot of shrs, to say no one trusts them is not true imo
Patents and Trademarks are very different things - patents protect novel inventions, trademarks protect trade names/logos (marketing shit)
While the patents I have worked on are all related to computer systems, I feel pretty confident in stating that BrainWise would not qualify for a patent with USPTO - a 'unique formulation' of common ingredients generally doesn't get there.
It looks like the Mark application failed because the company was unable to demonstrate use in the marketplace. Given that they only announced their distribution partnership a few months ago, it's not surprising that they couldn't demonstrate use of the Mark (the tweets/PRs probably aren't sufficient).
It's possible that they could revive the filing for the Mark, although the fact that it's been used in trade for awhile (albeit for what I assume is the same product) may impact the outcome.
I think you may have mathed incorrectly
If there are currently 1,575,576,407 shares issued and outstanding, 51% of that number is 803,543,967.
However, those 803.5MM shares are additive to the existing 1.575BB I&O; if converted, the total share count would be 2,379,120,374, of which the Pref holder's portion would be approx 33.8%
The funny thing is that there are only 2BB authorized, so the holder of the Pref shares can't convert without approval by the shareholders (as increasing auth would adversely impact shareholders).
The preferred stock has voting rights equal in all aspects to the number of Common Stock represented by such Preferred Stock on an as converted basis...Each share of preferred stock shall be convertible into one percent (1%) of the then issued and outstanding shares of common stock of the Company.
It means that there are still questions that the Company should answer.
Questions, not accusations:
If he is still around and working in "operations" (which seems to be corroborated outside of Linkedin - WSJ SHMN Profile), might the announcements about the buyback and/or the acquisition be related to the decrease in Swahti's shares? Or for something less nefarious, might Swahti's diminution in holdings have been (partial) consideration for the acquisition?
Per the SEC order, Shah was "prohibited from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78l] or that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(d)] for a period of five (5) years from entry of this Order; and
barred from participating in any offering of a penny stock, including:
acting as a promoter, finder, consultant, agent or other person who
engages in activities with a broker, dealer or issuer for purposes of the issuance or trading in any penny stock, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock, with the right to apply for reentry after five (5) years to the appropriate self-regulatory organization, or if there is none, to the Commission"
While it looks like he could resume his former position as CEO, he couldn't do so if he wanted to do anything with the Company's stock unless he successfully applied for reentry.
I don't understand it either. The fundamentals are taking shape, but the narrative is sorely lacking. So much could be cleared up with simple communication.
Awhile back, I said I thought they needed some professional IR help. This is part of why - they need someone with experience to guide them in making public statements; what they should or should not say, and when they should or should not do so.
I would argue that their misleading statements around the deal being complete (as opposed to closed) require some additional clarification. Their express refusal to do so serves only to undermine trust.
It's a pity, because it shoves the steady revs/profits progress aside.
Doh. Brain said buyback, fingers typed RS. Will edit.
I feel like we're talking about two different kinds of confidence here:
1) Confidence that the company will to increase revenue/profits year over year, and
2) Confidence that the company will follow through on its statements.
Obviously, the former is proven by the filings (and currently is being proven by the filings); the latter will need a clear and concise statement by the company either in the form of a PR, (since they're not required to file an 8-k), or with a detailed note in the quarterly/annual.
I would even be comfortable with the company coming out and saying that the parties weren't able to close the acquisition, so long as they made a good faith effort, and backed it up with full disclosure. The reason so many folks are still bitter about the buyback was because SHMN failed to say anything whatsoever about it until what, a year or two after it was supposed to have been completed.
So far the buy back and acquisition was BS.
It really isn't...
This disclosure issue is a matter of both shareholder/future investor trust, and of mandatory disclosure. They stated unequivocally that they are making a cash purchase, but don't say how much, don't fully verify that the deal is closed, there are no new issuances, and their books don't reflect any new assets, new debt, or new revenue. Did the deal actually happen (we haven't seen a termination of a material agreement PR either)? Is it still pending? Will this impact the company in some material way (new debt, new assets, new revenue, new stock issuance) down the road?
Honestly, I don't care what the net result is - good, bad, or indifferent.
But as a shareholder, I have a right (and the company has an obligation) to disclose it...the uncertainty that they keep perpetuating is making it difficult for new investors to come into the fold, which keeps is stuck in sub penny land. If Barron & Co. can't handle these basic aspects of running a public company, they need to find management who can. Even in pink land, this is basic stuff.
When I've reached out to them, they have made it very clear that their scope is limited to the business and the industry; they specifically state that they aren't doing anything related to the shareholders.
Didn't they do a more detailed "shareholder update" concurrent with the 2020 annual?
Actually, many (most? all?) do - tho it may be only one person. SHMN is required to have one:
NRS 78.115 Board of directors: Number and qualifications. The business of every corporation must be managed under the direction of a board of directors or trustees, all of whom must be natural persons who are at least 18 years of age. A corporation must have at least one director, and may provide in its articles of incorporation or in its bylaws for a fixed number of directors or a variable number of directors, and for the manner in which the number of directors may be increased or decreased. Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation, directors need not be stockholders.
I've worked mostly with NV Corps, so I can't guarantee that this requirement is waived for corporations registered in different states.
I definitely agree. I think of this as more of a 'celebrity endorsement'. One would assume there was some degree of diligence before they took on the reputational risk by acknowledging their appointments.
the 2 additions to the board
So do we.