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.
First, it would help if you would include full names. Are you talking about Innoprise, Inc. which was a subsidiary of VergeTech, or are you talking about Innoprise Fund, a private fund that was set up in 2004. From the context of the post, it appears you are tlaking about Innoprise FUND.
I thought Innoprise Fund was still operational. I guess this is another question for the upcoming CC.
Is Innoprise FUND still an existing entity? If so, is it viable, is it active? If active, what are the activities it has engaged in in the last 18 months?
And again, just to clarify, has Innoprise, Inc. been dissolved or is it still an existing sub of NMKT? If it exists, is it viable, is it active? If active - what activities have occurred since June of 2002?
More questions:
1) Does the old subsidiary of Vergetech still exist? - I am speaking of Innoprise, Inc.. What was Innoprise Inc. for, what did it do?
2) Is Augustine partly involved in any manner in the Innoprise fund? Have they put money into this fund? If so , how much and what pecentage does this amount to?
3) Could you name all parties that have put funds into the Innoprise Fund? Could you lay out the percentage that each party has in the fund?
4) How much money total has come into the fund? I know - it is a PRIVATE fund and thus, I do not think you have to disclose this, but we are asking.
How much money total has been loaned out?
Has 100% of these loans been to NMKT?
If not, who else, or what other entities has Innoprise Fund loaned money to? Would you please lay out all the terms and conditions of each of these loans, especially those to NMKT? (Would like to know amounts, % interest, length of time loan is to be effective, default clauses, any involvement of conversions and the way the share values are to be determined, and if any numbers of shares are established, etc.)
5) How is it legal to have a private fund loaning money to a public entity and the private fund have the same persons involved in it as the persons who are directors, debt holders and/or shareholders of the public company?
Questions I have thought of:
1) How much total debt does NMKT have at this point?
How much is due within the next 12 months?
How much within the next 3 years?
Any due any longer out?
2) How much cash on hand, if any?
3) What are the conditions of the debt? How much is able to be converted into shares, how many shares at what price or is this up in the air until date of conversion?
4) Phil used to say (a year or two ago) he was buying distressed companies at low prices, bringing them up to better valuations, and setting these deals up so that the better valuations of the companies would increase the share price of the parent company to a higher level than when the deal was originally transacted. In this, there was a bargain valued in because, as he often bragged, the number of shares required to pay off the remainder of the deal in a year or two would be much less (fewer shares) than if he were to pay at the time the original deal was constructed. Of concern is, rather than the value of our shares increasing over the last year, they have markedly decreased. This being the case, will the reverse begin to happen as these deals have to be paid out, and thus are we going to have to pay some exhorbitant number of shares due to our lower share price rather than having the bargains we were banking on? I am starting to get quite concerned about this one and this might be who the naked shorters are working for rather than the infamous Augustine fund.
See, this is one of those points that I brought up the other day that I "THINK" My02 may be off-base a little bit.
I do believe that Augustine and PV have a working relationship that brings benefits to both Augustine AND NMKT.
Actually, aren't those the best kinds of working relationships to have? Those that are synergistic/symbiotic and beneficial for both parties involved? What would be wrong with this set-up?
I certainly DO think Phil was disappointed when they issued themselves 12MM shares of the new company into which he had just put his own company that he had managed well over the last few years, and then they ran off with all their money leaving IPVO high and dry and diluted.
Why he hasn't hired a CFO? - Limiting expenses and waiting for the appropriate time - which I do believe is NOW, not 2 months or 8 months down the road.
We NEED A CFO, WE SHAREHOLDERS WANT A CFO!!!!!
I think the majority of the posters I have read would agree that we want CFO? Correct me if I am off-base here.
Charleo, I believe replacements are on the way. Let's see how long they take. If it takes more than one month to get at least one new board member, than I will agree you are correct that PV still is in no hurry to get help running the company. If it takes more than 3 months to get a CFO, I will agree with you that this is an issue of some concern that PV is ignoring for some of us shareholders. (unless, of course, I hear a bunch of other shareholders saying they do not care to have a CFO and posting valid reasons as to why we don't need one.)
I think Innoprise was a good idea at first review. It will take quite a bit of time to look into it more thoroughly before I would be able to defend it totally, because, as I posted before, it does kind of sound suspicious, but it may be fully legit. I also can see many of the reasons that PV did it, and they do not look scandalous on the surface. So, yes, that is my assesssment at this point in time. I intend to look much more thoroughly into what percentage of Innorprise Fund Augustine holds because I have not seen anything yet that shows that Augustine is involved. THEN, and only then can I get a clearer picture of where PV was going with Augustine and the DFTS deal.
Again, it will take me some time because I do have a life to attend to. One step at a time and I have still not exhausted my investigation into how all the monies/shares were distributed in the original IPVC/VTI deal.
Augie, I rarely use e-mail. I have had to have my hard drive formatted twice in the last year due to viruses and I avoid e-mail unless someone tells me they are sending me a message, then I check it. I also HATE searching through the 200 SPAM messages a day just to see if I have any new messages. I choose to spend that time reading the message boards instead.
I love this PM option here on IHUB and THAT is my preferred private communication method, or the phone (As Jen well knows, LOL).
East,
The first comment was directed to a poster on RB that gave My02 a reprimand for helping me out because it indirectly responded to Tsheri. Who cares if it responds to Tsheri, if it is giving a concerned shareholder some information to help figure some of this out.
Thanks for your compliment but I am so inept at knowing how to find things! I often wish I could spend just one week with one of these co-investors who know how to do DD, look up people's history on the internet, and find and understand SEC documents and other information about companies. Man, would I go crazy once I could learn how they find this stuff and do it on my own!
The second comment was directed at probably 85% of the longs for NMKT (and many other stocks), and yes, did include you at times. I just do NOT want others to stop people from providing me with information even though they may not care to see that information.
I would not mind HELPING Augie, but I am VERY OPPOSED to deleting posts unless they are proven to be ILLEGAL, obscene, or so aggressive towards another poster that it would inhibit them from posting. And then, I feel a post needs to replace the deleted post explaining what was said and why it was illegal, saying it without obscenities, or tactfully rephrasing what they were saying to the other poster. I much rather address the bashers' concerns than ban them. They DO provide information that sometimes needs to be looked into and sometimes ends up being something about which shareholders may want to hold the directors' feet to the fire.
Oh, and I also agree with deleting PROVEN spam, but I have no problem with people sharing SOME info on other stocks that they are seeing might be a profitable trade/investment. You have been great at providing such information and I have greatly appreciated it.
I am starting to comprehend a bit more how much of a struggle it has been for PV to get this company rolling against some horrible odds dished out by a group of unscrupulous people. Thanks to My02cents and Motzu0 (by the way, I agree 100% with the comments posted on RB about them being the two bright lights shining in the dark). Thank you so much, My02 for continuing to leave me bread crumbs, when for some odd reason, other longs in this company cannot stand for you to help another unknowing investor who gets on the verge of feeling like they have been scammed, see the other side of the company and the hard, honest work that has gone into building a company of which I can be proud to have put my money into.
I am beginning to appreciate on a much deeper level what the extrememly hard work, apparent honesty, and deep-seated devotion of PV has contributed to building this company. Damn, it gets detailed, entwined and confusing!, but as I have spent hours reading through some of the filings and e-mails from PV, I am starting to get some idea of what he has done. It APPEARS that PV got duped in the initial deal when IPVC bought the VTI subsidiary, VergeTech, and scoundrel IPVC directors decided to renig on the deal to stay around to help the company get on sqare footing. Then PV had to do what he could to maintain control of the company while maintining value for potential shareholders. Through this arduous task, so far I have seen that PV has accepted some funding from the Augustine Fund, albeit, not a huge proportion, and has had to approach several avenues of obtaining funds to enable the company to grow in the way he plans. When some of these plans were thwarted, by another set of unscrubulous scoundrels, PV was creative enough to go get private funding and put the monies into a fund, SEPARATE FROM NMKT - so that these funds could not be ravaged by stealing equity value by shorting the stock. This INNOPRISE FUND is available to provide funding to NMKT, but the backers who were kind enough to provide such funding have assurances that they will get their investments back because the funding does not buy stock, but gets them convertible notes. If shorters try to take the stock price down, in addition to the unscrupulous debt holders being able to get more shares (thus, a higher level of control), the people who have provided funds through the Innoprise fund will also get more shares for their convertibles, so the power untimately remains in control of "friendly hands" - the people who will work hard to see this company succeed!!!
Ingenious!!!!
Now, I'm sure I am wrong about how some of how this works, but I am starting to get some sort of an image.
I'm also sure I will have MANY, MANY more questions about how all this pans out with this company, and I will certainly always question whether the moves are really beneficial to the shareholders (sorry blind cheerleading longs who hate questions), but at this point, I have had a major infusion of confidence in, and respect for PV.
Charleoi, I think this is why the Innoprise Fund is set up the way it is. Now, as far as the legality, I would have to spend money talking with an attorney to find out how legal it is to set up a private fund to support a public entity. This would merely increase the cost basis of my investment way higher than I would like. I think I will hold to the confidence I have in my investment and just keep searching WHEN I HAVE TIME (I do have another life, you know). On the surface, it DOES sound shady, but after I have investigated the reasons that it was established, as a shareholder, I think it is ingenious.
OK, Charleoi,
Evidently the information I received did have some measure of error to it. You are correct in stating that IPV Communication acquired VergeTech and not the reverse, as I had been told.
I have searched and found confirmation with documentation, one small example being this headline:
"April 9, 2002 IPVoice Communications, Inc. (www.ipvoice.com) announces the appointment of Mr. Philip M. Verges as CEO and
Chairman. The appointment is made in conjunction with the previously announced agreement for IPVoice to acquire Dallas, Texas, based VergeTech, Inc"
I have also seen a small bit of the financial agreement, but have not had a chance to find the SEC documents yet that state exactly how much was given from whom and to whom and in what form (cash, equity, etc.) and with what restriction or conditions applied.
These are the issues that you seem to keep harping on for us to find out so that we understand where monies (and other assets) are changing hands, and thus who's loyalties are to who. Who has control financially and who is pulling the strings.
Evidently, at the time of the merger IPVoice had 60MM shares at a share price of .05. A note was given to VergeTech in exchange for VergeTech assets. The note was to be repaid to VergeTech owners in IPVoice stock (IPVO stock -> NMKT)
http://www.vergetech.com/who_news_article.asp?id=8
"IPVoice is acquiring VergeTech in a debt transaction. IPVoice will issue a note to VergeTech shareholders in exchange for the operational assets of VergeTech. The note will be repaid over time in IPVoice stock."
I do think My-2-cents has done an excellent job outlining some of this, although I have been informed that some of the assumptions are ill placed. Thank you My2 for you extensive work on this issue.
It will take me a while to find and read the SEC documents to understand what the actual agreement between Augustine and VergeTech was. Thanks for your help and patience.
I know. I am reading it now. FANTASTIC INFO THERE. My2cents is a poster I have followed on another board and I thoroughly respect his input and thought processes.
Phil looks like a genius after seeing what My2cents has put together.
And yes, I have talked with Rick several times and he just talks so fast, it is hard to figure out what is what. I slowly putting it together, but I'm starting to feel much mire comfortable.
My2cents, regarding your OS concerns and someone posting that we would need a truckload of tissue paper to absorb all those shares being sold, have you noticed that the ENTIRE OS # has been traded over the last 6 months? Shouldn't this signal that an end is near?
There you go jumping into that ambiguous helicopter before I have taken hold of my first step again. I am not convinced at all about how the initial IPVO/VergeTech (Augustine/Verges) deal was worked out, and until I have that down solid and confirmed to be correct, no use in going deeper into more muddy water until it all becomes just too mirky to know what to be sure of. I'm staying on solid ground and OUT OF YOUR HELICOPTER until I know for sure what happened in the inital deal.
So please either pony up some links or give me the necessary time I need to find the information on my own, realizing that I have a full plate taking care of numerous other life responsibilites at the same time.
Thank you so much for being willing enough and patient enough to lead me through this, but I will require much more patience, because I am not skilled at DD searches and thus, can only go one step at a time.
I was told that VergeTech bought IPVO, this is some of where my confusion stems from. Do you have any links to documents that show that IPVO bought VergeTech?
I was starting to get a bit dismayed at the thought that VergeTech (or its parent co, VTI) would spend $3.3MM to buy a defunct shell just to be able to go public.?? Certainly, a company can get set up to start trading publicly without costing $3.3MM!!!!! Why in the world would PV choose to use such an expensive vehicle to get public trading status????
But again, this is all with the assumption that VergeTech bought IPVO, not the reverse as what you posted was the case.
OK so, IPVO, a defunct shell of a public company of which Augustine Fund is a MAJOR shareholder, got together with PV, Sole Officer and 25% owner of VTI which fully owned a sub called Vergetech. Vergetech wanted to be public and IPO wanted some revenue stream, so IPVO bought Vergetech from VTI for $3.3MM. However, evidently you are saying IPVO did not pay the $3.3MM, but their major shareholder, Augustine Fund, paid the $3.3MM in a form of a note given to VTI. VTI had the option to convert this note to 22MM shares of the new IPVO (which now had Vergetch folding into it). VTI converted the note, and to this day owns this 22MM shares of IPVO.
So Phil and family and mystery did not get paid for their little Vergetech company in cash, they just got 22MM shares of the new merged co. of which the directors all resigned and I guess, left Phil to then step in an be the director of the new co (IPVO with Vergetech folded in).
This sounds pretty straightforward to me and I see nothing of concern in this arragement yet. Why should I be concerned here? Phil, et. al (VTI) got 22MM shares of the company that took over his subsidiary at .15/share and PV was set up as the new director - what is wrong with this?
Now, I know you have a whole lot more of other dealings to inform me on, but this inital deal that got things rolling seems rather up front. I will think on it tonight and see if I have some issues that I am ovelooking.
Let's make these complete sentences.
Tell me if I'm correct:.......Items in [ ], I added to make a more clear picture.
"Augustine [fund] was a prominent shareholder" [of basically defunct IPVO].
So, they [Augustine fund] had IPVO management (who was essentially dormant at that point) issue the note [for$3.3MM.... issued to Augustine Fund]....the day of the signing the current IPVO officers resigned (IPVO was hardly even operating at that point).
[VTI (which owned Vergitech and ?????) bought out defunct, basically worthless shell, IPVO, which was a public company (the only real value to VTI/VergeTech). In the process, VTI/VergeTech inherited the responsibility to cover this note. Since IPVO was worthless, owing a major investor $3.3MM for a worthless shell was probably a bad situation. Obviously that debt included, AT THAT TIME, essentially 100% of the value of the sold-off IPVO, other than the high value to VTI/VergeTech of the issue being a public entity. So let's say, the note pretty much covered 99.9% of the value of IPVO, and this was owed to Augustine Fund. So PV starts working at bringing in some value to IPVO, but he is using assets that he had built up in VTI/VergeTech to get this built up. Knowing that this $3.3MM note is a lead weight around the neck of IPVO, it appears that PV arranged with Augustine Fund to tie some assets to that owed value by agreeing to convert that note to 22MM shares of the newly revised IPVO that is using VTI/Vergetech assets to build up its value. Now this was obviously a "toxic convertible agreement" and PV & Augustine Fund knew that this should NOT allow Augustine Fund to have such a majority interest in a company that PV had built asssets in apart from the IPVO that originally owed Augustine. Such an arrangement was not appropriate since the assets came from VTI/VergeTech on which Augustine Fund should not have any claim to. Certainly not merely because the directors of a defunct company had issued a note to Augustine for an investment in their company (defunct IPVO) that had gone bad., issued just before selling that shell to VTI/VergeTech. So, evidently PV did a smart thing and, BEFORE LETTING HIS ASSETS OF VTI/VERGETECH BE USED TO BUILD SOME VALUE INTO DEFUNCT IPVO, PV had the Augustine Fund agree that if PV would agree to convert the debt to 22MM shares in the new IPVO company, the Augustine Fund would only hold these shares under a "stand-still agreement".
Now you and I both know that, at some point in time, Augustine is going to be allowed to have those shares and sell them if they want. But, by the time they have control of those shares, they will certainly NOT be worth 99.9% of IPVO (now, NMKT) but will be a much, MUCH smaller percentage of the total value of NMKT. What I do not know is what is the difference between restricted shares and shares held under a stand-still agreement?]
A year later, VTI converted the $3million note payable into 22million shares of IPVO/NMKT.
All this is my best understanding of the issue and I am sure there might be an error or three or more in how things are actually worked out. One such is I was told that a stand-still agreement means the fund WILL NOT convert, but I do not know how enforcable that is and what the legal enforcement options of such an agreement are. Also, If they WILL NOT CONVERT, then this says to me that the note is still held by Augustine fund saying that $3.3MM is owed to them and that it has not been converted to 22MM shares yet, but evidently somewhere a decision that 22MM shares will equal the $3.3MM has been set down in words. Don't know how it is worked out.
Nov 8th has the .23 blip.
We traded down to .27 on Jan 4th.
What I think is the deal here is Augustine Fund gave VTI an asset (IPVO) valued at $3.3MM for which VTI was to allow Augustine Fund to obtain 22MM shares of IPVO at some later date. At that time, I'm thinking 22MM shares may have been about 99.9% of IPVO and this would have been considered a toxic convert for the company, so before Phil put work into it and breathed new life into this IPVO that he agreed on, he arranged with Augustine Fund that they would have a stand-still agreement with regards to those 22MM shares. Now, I do not know for sure how long a stand-still agreement is effective, but at this point in time, Augustine Fund cannot take on those 22MM shares, from what I understand. And those 22MM shares are definitely NOT 99.9% of the company any more.
That would explain why, as you stated earlier, VTI still holds the shares.
Now is VTI Vergetech or IPVO(NMKT)?
Or is IPVO(NMKT) a subsidiary of VTI?
Or is IPVO(NMKT) a subsidiary of Vergetech which is a subsidiary of VTI?
WHO issued the note to whom? Was Augustine holding the note and VTI owed them, or was VTI holding the note and Augustine owed VTI? You say it was payable to VTI, so that suggests that VTI loaned Augustine Fund $3.3MM and the fund had to pay this back to VTI. But, in the next phrase you say it "was converted to 22MM shares"- What in the world are you talking about? 22MM shares of VTI when Augustine owes them - makes no sense?
IF the Augustine fund owed VTI (you said "payable to VTI") then Augustine would have to issue VTI 22MM shares of Augustine fund assets to VTI. The principle value of the shares must have been something like .15/share since we have no statement as to the interest, time frame, or other fees being assessed.
OR are you saying Augustine Fund walked in and paid Phil & family & mystery $3.3MM for 22MM shares of VTI of which VTI never distributed to Augustine? Essentially Augustine fund bought VTI shares at .15/share, then. No NOTE here or converting to be done unless you are saying Augustine held a note from VTI stating that VTI owed Augustine 22MM shares (so, payable TO AUGUSTINE, not TO VTI) that were never delivered to Augustine for some reason. Or are you stating that VTI gave Augustine 22MM shares for an agreed amount of $3.3MM of which Augustine never paid to VTI? VTI just gave shares away and never collected their debt?
How many total shares were in VTI at the time? Is this 22MM shares 99.9% of VTI.
VTI owned (note past tense, I am not talking present right now, we'll get to that later) 100% of Vergetech, did VTI own ANYTHING else or was Vergetech its sole asset.
Some people here want INFORMATION, not just
"THIS IS A GREAT STOCK"
"IT SHOULD BE $2, WHO THE HECK IS MANIPULATING IT"
"AMEX WILL MAKE THIS THING A GOLDEN CALF"
"REVENUES ARE EXPONENTIAL - A HIDDEN GEM HERE"
"PV IS A VERY SMART, ETHICAL GUY WHO IS TRYING HIS HARDEST TO GET THIS STOCK AT THE APPROPRIATE PRICE."
Etc, Etc, Etc, ad nauseum.
None of these tell me why the stock is in a continual downtrend (other than some obvious excessive shorting - which we all know about and have learned nothing can be done to stop it until our crooked government (BOTH Democrat and Republican) decides to do something honest and quit supporting the big institiutions and their schemes to the detriment of common citizens.
Many stocks/companies that are manipulated with unethical excessive shorting do come out of it if they have smart, savvy execs and they are legit and on the go enough to get out of the grips.
And many don't - which kind are we holding?
I want info - NOT cheerleading, not bashing; But cold hard questions and actual documented FACTS.
OK:
Pertinent Info:
VTI = Vergetech An IT staffing firm (you say), A B2B play (Phil says). Officers : Phillip Vergis
Ownership: PV 25%, PV family 50%, Mystery 25%
Revenues: ~$1.5 to $2MM
Augustine Fund "bought" it for $3.4MM
Now if it is a "Convertible Note" - this says Augustine only "LOANED" Vergetech $3.3MM, and for that loan, Vergetech agrees that Augustine Fund can convert whatever is owed to them into stock at some later date, usually at an agreed-upon share price. I find it hard to accept that the statement "Augustine bought it" to be valid unles you explain how that can be established. I thought Phil still owned Vergetch and that that is what he used to buy IPVO from Augustine. What you have said is the exact opposite of my statement.
You have failed to tell me the terms of this CD including agreeed upon share price (if established), interest agreed upon (if any), and time frame upon which it has to stand un-exercised or when they are allowed to convert said loan. Also you have failed to tell me if there are any other condition that were put on this loan either at the time it was initiated or any later date as things progressed. Does this CD have a stand-still agreement attached to it?
Now the loan deal with NMKT and VTI - let's leave that discussion until we get the first phase of the dealings ironed out so everybody understands tham in the exact same manner. Same for the info as to why he is raising money for VTI.
Baby steps here, one step at a time. Too confusing to fly over the canyon until we are walking, so please quit putting me in your helicopter until I am ready.
Tell me about VTI, Is this VergeTech?
Who owned it initially, what did it do, how much in revs per year, when first established? When did Augustine Fund get in the picture?
This as a start.
More questions to come after you answer those.
Charleoi:
As to number 4 and 5)
I do believe Haulie (China) is a product that is something to be pleased with.
Also they have this product (Classified Inforfmation, Inc.) which "has an impressive customer base that includes American West Airlines (NYSE:AWA), United Parcel Service (NYSE:UPS ) and GE Capital (NYSE:GEA)."
Another decent customer/partner that seems to be of value is Redmoon which is partnered with Chevron.
As for all the coments you make about Phil issuing shares to bail Augustine Fund out - the best I understand it is Phill merely put up his equity in Vergetech to take over the company Augustine fund had done very poorly with (IPVO). Once Phil got the company on some bit of square footing and some value at all, Phil was smart enough to have arranged that Augustine fund be under a stand still agreement such that Augustine CANNOT convert the shares to take a major chuck of the new IPVO, now known as NMKT. So it appears that Phil was quite intelligent in his approach to "bailing out" the Augustine fund in that Phil got his company publicly listed, but Augustine is basically out of it because all they had possession of to give Phil in the beginnning was a shell with no value. Because of the minimal value of the shell, Phil was smart enough to make sure Augustine fund did not have the ability to come back and lay claim to any of the new value that Phil's work and equity built in the new company. Doesn't look crooked to me at all here.
Augie,
Why hasn't there been any more discussion of the CC this afternoon? What has happened to you and Eastunder? Are we on for this afternoon or not? I need to make arragements now, if we are. The time frame for me to get some assistance with the responsibilities I have this afternoon is getting rather tight. Please let me know what the game plan is ASAP.
Why has EVERYONE on this board dropped the CC discussion? Am I missing something?
Augie, are we on or off for tomorrow?
From Charleoi's post, it appears we will be rescheduling, but you have not posted anything as of yet. I need to know so that I can make arrangements. The time you posted is right in the middle of some errands I have to do on a daily basis, so the sooner you can get back to us on whether or not this CC is on or not, the better.
How long will it take them to release the letters?
Someone posted that they thought it would be one a week. I have no idea where that come from. I sure hope they release them faster than that. Do you have any idea about the time frame they intend to use on releasing this information?
MAN, this hurts!!!
Evidently Tobin Smith is not happy with management. He has recommended to sell, and that is probably why all the downward pressure today. He had a very biting remark for the management in his newsletter:
(from a RB poster, Msg # 70216, who saw some of the letter Tobin wrote:
"the basis of our decision (to recommend a sell) is this: We are sick and tired of paying the "tuition fees" for the management of this company.")
OUCH!!!!!
This cannot bode well for us other investors in NMKT.
What a disappointment!
Augie,
I am definitely going to do everything I can to be in on this CC, especially since we can see how the company responds to the concerns we have, put to them by THE PERSON who knows what he is seeing in the filings and what is deficient in the filings.
Adjustments to the time seem necessary, I will be as flexible as possible.
Since Charleoi is going to be on the CC with us, I do NOT want him to call now and get the answers with all of us left out of hearing the conversation.
Quit giving him an out, Eastunder.
I want to hear the answers, and Tsheri's responses to the answers, and the continued discourse between him and the company rep because I think Charleoi/Tsheri has some very valid points that I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANSWERS TO. I would like for Tsheri to be the one asking the questions because I do not know/understand the fine points as he seems to, so I want to hear his responses when the answers are not as direct as he is requesting.
This is NOT some name-calling game to me. I have a lot invested in NMKT, and do not like how much of a scam it is starting to appear to be. I do not WANT to believe it is a scam, but even though many of you do not seem to think these issues brought up by Charleoi are legit, they look more legit to me than what NMKT has been telling me the last year or two.
Let's not stick our heads in the sand and let's get some cold hard facts that put everything on the line square and fair.
Yes, my number is the same. I have already come up with anothe couple of questions.
Jen, A couple of the questions I wanted to ask are in regards to those issues Chraleio/Tsheri got me riled up about. I will be happy to help you put some of that together, should you want some assistance.
Welcome back Augie.
I would also be interested in participating in the call. I only have one or two questions I feel informed enough to ask, but I will be happy to put them out there to get answers.
So,
Evidently, we still own some or all of DFTS and we WILL actually be getting dividends from it at some point in the future - ACCORDING TO PHIL.
Someone over on the RB bull has a interesting point that these shares will be very cheap for Phil to pick up now that they are on the pinks for a while, and that they are basically worth extremely little to us for quite some time.
Really doesn't matter either way to me because I did not buy NMKT for the reason of getting DFTS dividends. In fact, I stayed away when I heard that because I was suspicious of Phil not giving the dividends, just as has happened, and I had been succered on a dividend deal with GMDP - luckily, I learned my lesson well and did not get succered in with this DFTS dividend.
What was of more issue with me here was watching how these dividends were or were not going to be issued as a measure of Phil's credibility because I was investing in NMKT for various other reasons. And I hate to say it but he has failed the test.
On the other hand, I am pleased to say that at least these dividends did not totally disappear like they did in GMDP and that they may actually become some tiny asset to the shareholders who bought in to get them. It IS comforting to know that Phil is apparently still determined to hold to his word here - at least it APPEARS that way. As it stands right now, I am highly suspicious of anything he tells us will happen. I guess we will see in ANOTHER 6 or 7 months, eh?
I am impatiently waiting for just two or three of his promises to develop to fruition. Then I would like to see that any new promises be delivered ON TIME - not months or years after the date he states they should occur.
Oh, I believe I have.
In a little company called NTWK and in GMDP (I think it was). That is why I understand much of the attitude you have and your passion to get people to see what you see in the numbers. In NTWK, I have posted ad nauseum at times trying to warn people of CDs that were taking the stock down, but they did not see it until this last year as they are all quite frustrated with the fact the the price will not go anywhere but down. So, yes, I do understand your passion, but I also see the connectios people have made between you and EVEN and the "Bashturd" group, so I am quite suspicious of you. You could very well be an analyst that makes his money by manipulating the hell out of down-beaten stocks. And NMKT, and thus me, are your current game.
I certainly trust the likes of Augie, Number Cruncher, Tojaam, Scovillez, Eastunder, My2cents, socal, etc, more than your posts at this time. Some of these, I have talked with on the phone, and I know they have everyone's interest in mind on the board, not so sure about you yet.
IF you are legit, I would be happy to converse with you by phone. You could send me your phone number by PM and I would love to hear what you have to say.
I saw that too, and thought they are making this web so totally entwined that it would take anyone months on end to figure out what was what. Enough time for whoever is behind the game to be long gone before it all gets mappped out and anyone can be held accountable.
Again, I think all of Phil's continual promises and talking incessantly about those promises is all a game to allow enough time to elapse so that the people involved have ample time to get distanced from the situation prior to the game being mapped out.
It is all lies, from the most recent exposures, and it all continues to be lies. I bet Phil is in New York working on this the majority of the time, and probably had one 30-minute minute with AMEX, but he tells us he is working on the AMEX listing . I will NOT believe it until I see it. HE is a masterful lier.
I still think you certainly should have made it happen that you put him on the spot in public as much as you could when you had the chance. Either you are too chicken to address him face to face, or you know some of what you post about has legitimate positive reasons behind them that would set our concerns on those secific issues to rest. Setting those concerns to rest would remove some of your ammo to keep us worried, and you want us to continue to be confused about what is actually going on so that your presentation of the picture can still hold water.
You evidently take great solice in knowing you can say what you want on the board here but do not have to put up with Phil's direct responses, (or indirect, from his MO that we have seen as of late). Either way, direct responses or responses that skirt the issues, you could then respond back and bring him back to the real issue. But, strangely, you gave up that opportunity???
Very odd for someone who says they want to help us other shareholders to stay informed of the game that is unfolding in NMKT. Either you stand up for us or you don't. You don't just stand up for us here on this MB, where we cannot tell for sure who is manipulating who.
Charleo/Tsheri,
I appreciate the information you provide but I also find your continual ranting quite disconcerting. It does appear that you have much to gain with these CONSTANT CONTINUAL posts that go on to no end, just like Telephonic's posts. You need to gauge your input or else you lose credibility.
Incessant posts to try to make us pay attention, are alarms that you are, in fact, working for someone who is shorting this stock to their advantage and you must get some form of payment assessed by the number of posts you make and possible responses. I despise that fraudulent game even more than I despise PVs game of misinformation.
I agree, and a good point as to why someone is buying a penny stock.
The issues that have me starting to think this is a scam is all the missed promises:
1) DFTS dividend - a scam. From the way it looks today, there is now no DFTS of which to give shareholders a dividend. It was all a lie and obviously Phil knew this, and blatantly continued with the lie up to the final line - He said absolutely NOTHING in the last two days to let shareholders know that DFTS was going to disappear.
2) The revenue projections, I have to believe now that these were a con artist pumping up expectations to get street investors to jump in to make his maneuvering more profitable to himself and those he was making deals with.
3) AMEX promises - again must be to keep investors hoping so that the stock will maintain value for his maneuverings
4) The continual increase in OS - the methods by which the funds are transferred from OUR pockets to the people's pockets that Phil and his cohorts are making deals with.
Phil's MO as of late has been so straight out TYPICAL of a master con artist - He talks and talks and promises and talks and promises and explains a good game, but NEVER delivers. He has not once delivered, all the while selling us out by passing off more and more shares to in-the-know IBs or himself and his friends, behind our backs. This MO is what has, for me, turned this into another penny stock SCAM and not one that is diligently working toward those items I listed, and slowly ACHIEVING EVEN ONE OF THEM. That is the big red flag - they NEVER achieve ANY of these, just more smoke and mirrors mirages. Smoke and mirrors like saying "LOOK, our revenues are increasing" - which means nothing when they get eaten up in costs, goodwill or uncollectable debts.
The MO has to change before I will ever consider putting money back into this POS after I finally get out.
Firecracker,
That is the same thinking I have had about the comments regarding the SEC investigating NMKT. Thanks for confirming to me that others see the same thing. That is why I have not just bailed and have been patiently waiting for NMKT to go back up before I take another break from this investment.
The one thing Charleo states that does cause me pause, (Though not enough to sell here) is why Phil tried to cover up the SEC investigation until he was forced to by making the new filings.
I don't know about you guys, but what Charleio points out here sounds quite disconcerting.
I agree with Augie, that he should have confronted Phil in the meeting. That Charle comes on this MB to try to make us other investors feel that he has our best interest in mind, but then he won't even go to bat for us when he gets a chance to get some real answers to these very real concerns - highly suspicious. At least put the people who are running this mess on the spot, IN PUBLIC, so others can hear what they have to say.
However, what he points out is legitimately of major concern to us all, and I, for the life of me cannot understand why you others do not want to hear this. I have a WHOLE LOT to learn about investing, but what Charle points out about AR makes complete sense and I, on my own, HATE THE INCREASE IN SHARES ISSUES AND DESPISE CONVERTABLE DEBT.
Again, I called Lutz, (the abrasive arrogant SOB), and had a conversation about these concerns. For some odd reason he seemed to think that telling me that much of the 170MM Fully Diluted shares was CDs and would not be able to be converted for at least another 6 months would make me feel better. HELL, this only shows me that we will be fighting an uphill battle for a minimum of another 8 to 10 months. From past history on how they have been issuing shares as of late, 8 to 10 months is plenty of time for them to dig us shareholders into an even deeper hole of debt from which we need to hoist ourselves out. The one comforting statement was that revenues would continue to increase and profits should be increasing also.
But now, I see this information regarding the Accounts Receivable, and I have no faith at all. I have to say, I am getting quite worried about having put my money into this company that is starting to smell very much like a fraudulent maneuver by some very slick operators. IF, I get the chance, and that is a big IF, I think I shall be selling out on the next move up and not re-enter until:
1) Shares start getting retired and OS and Fully Diluted shares starts decreasing
2) Convertable debts start declining, and NO MORE shares are given away at any more than a 10% discount to the open market price
3) Profits keep increasing quarter over quarter - to hell with revenues, I want it booked to the bottom line, NOW!!!
4) Net Tangible Assets start increasing quarter over quarter.
5) AR and the Goodwill numbers start decreasing quarter over quarter
6) The company can get their filings done ON TIME and without errors.
When I see this happening, then and only then, I might consider putting my money back into this POS.
Please tell me:
What is AR???? Accumulated revenue or something like that?
40.5MM shares for $20.25MM. $20.25/40.5 sh = .50/share
"today announced that the Company has entered into definitive agreements for $20.25 million in equity financing through the private placement of 40,500,000 shares of common stock to a group of institutional and accredited investors. The net proceeds to the Company after payment of transaction expenses will be approximately $18.9 million. The Company also issued to the investors warrants to purchase up to an additional 15,187,500 shares of common stock exercisable at $.80 per share. SG Cowen & Co., LLC acted as the exclusive placement agent for the transaction. The closing and funding is scheduled to occur early next week."
Isn't this correct?
Yeah, but Hitachi works her butt off. She got a total of 5 days off between Nov 20th and Dec 31st, and many of those days, she works 10 to 12 hour days - so, As I am sure you can see, I just hate to ask her for help on her time off. I much rather give her a little support and relaxing comfort to get away from the BS, LOL.
So, any suggestions you have to offer are invaluable, and I can bounce the logistics off her in pleasant conversation, rather than putting her to work more, HOPEFULLY.