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.
I believe it's a POBox for several reasons. I couldn't find proof for this exact address, but here are my reasons for thinking this.
The zip code Plus 4 matches when it's a P O Box. In this case, #230912 matches the zip code Plus 4 (the last six numbers). 89123-0912. This happens quite often, like for credit card bills or other businesses.
Although "P. O. Box" is the preferred use, "#" is sometimes used. I saw this point made in some websites about P.O. Boxes.
There is a post office at 455 E Pebble Road.
On Google Maps, I see that the address has a building, but I don't see evidence of other offices in there. 230912 is too large for a unit number for a small building, although not impossible, I guess.
My theory: an attempt to force..a reverse split.
If the best bid is held below $0.01 long enough, the OTCQB status will be put in jeopardy. The only cures that I can think of for this are: 1) achieve enough demand for the stock that the price rises, or 2) reverse split the stock. The long-standing MM OTCN best ask is blocking the price rise now. If this can be maintained, a reverse split is all that is left to keep OTCQB alive. A reverse split can be very profitable for shorts, since a reverse split usually drastically damages the share price.
This theory rests on the idea of MM OTCN (or a trader through them) setting the best ask at exactly $0.01. It wouldn't put a lid on the best bid at below $0.01 if it were any higher at all, even just $0.0101.
I hope that BZWR holds off on the reverse split as long as they can. But losing OTCQB status would also be bad for the share price, so a win here might be tough if there is enough money behind trying to short the stock.
Caution: I have not seen this kind of strategy before, so my theory may be totally incorrect. Do your own research. I have no idea if anything breaks any rules by trading in this way, or even if there is any strategy at work here.
I think BZWR has a PO Box in Las Vegas.
At this website (manta.com) their address shows up like this:
Business Warrior
455 E Pebble Rd #230912
Las Vegas, NV 89123
If so, BZWR should hang tough. You have pointed out that they should be releasing year-end and first-quarter results within the next six weeks or so. After that, it would be time to see how the share price stands. I don't see why BZWR should rush to a reverse split. As you have proven, they have 90 days to cure if they are found to be in violation. Just the year-end report alone may be enough to bust well above the $0.01 level and put an end to this issue.
Could OTCN be trying to force a..reverse split?
Their cap of best ask at exactly $0.01 is the level needed to force BZWR out of OTCQB compliance. The cure for BZWR would be a reverse split. However, even though a reverse split doesn't mathematically cause a loss in share value, it is an unfavorable event because traders see it as a warning or indication of future trouble. If BZWR chooses to maintain its OTCQB status with a reverse split, it is easy to imagine the shares losing half of their value or more. This would make a lot of money for anyone shorting the stock.
Thanks for taking the time to find that.
I hope my best bid data source is wrong and somehow the closing best bid had achieved the $0.01 level less than a month ago. But lately, OTCN has a cap on the price, not allowing best bid to reach $0.01.
Sure, Diana. The link to the article that contains a 90-day notice is at https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/07/11/2477495/0/en/AB-INTL-GROUP-Reports-the-OTCQB-Bid-Price-Deficiency-Notice-of-OTC-Market-Group.html .
The link to the document that contains "paragraph 4.1.b Bid Price Deficiency" is at https://www.otcmarkets.com/files/OTCQB_Standards.pdf .
Oh, but I just found something on the 90-day or 180-day question. In another case, here's an example of a notice where a company went out of compliance on 5/2/22 and was given only until 7/31/22 to cure. So I don't know what BZWR may get for a notice now, if they didn't have a $0.01 closing bid during the last 30 days.
That's good. My post #4584 must have had an older source or something.
No breakthrough of..the $0.01 ask..so BestBid only $0.0099 nearing early 1:00 close. This may cause a warning about preserving OTCQB status, if my closing BestBid history is correct. Without a firm $0.01 BestAsk for days now, there should not have been this trouble. There is a long 90-day grace period, though.
Too..bad we haven't had..a closing $0.01 bid..since Oct.27. With the close near $0.01 every day since then, you might expect a closing bid that high. But it hasn't happened according to Stockwatch's BZWR page. Every day, it has been just a little short. I don't want to see the OTCQB status jeopardized, but there is still a 90-day cure period if the closing bid falls short this week. Unfortunately, you need ten consecutive trading days at $0.01 or better in that case, instead of just one now.
That was indeed a T-trade reported on Friday, I saw. Another one may be shaping up again today. A lot of buyers are paying @ $0.01 through the day to the MM to sell these shares. He may be fixin' to buy an equal amount from his seller at maybe around $0.0098 or so. It is getting to be a rather large transaction, if it's the same people involved. I suppose the market price could go way higher when this large seller is done. From the recent high share volumes, it looks like we have a lot of investors thinking that way.
EDIT: Looks like it just happened a few minutes ago while I was typing this, but not as a T-trade.
They're back-- at least on otcmarkets.com and on Charles Schwab. Somehow Level II at TD Ameritrade doesn't see them, though. They have best ask at 0.0109 by JANE.
Good news doesn't move BZWR, as we have seen this morning. I think it takes time for the market to digest the new facts with so few people following the stock. I am willing to add at this level, for sure.
Agreed, $6.8 million Goodwill is big, but maybe..ok. I guessed it would be higher. $2.2 million already existed on May 31, which was after the Helix House deal. So, $4.6 million was added by the Alchemy deal.
Consolidated stockholders' equity (unaudited) was $4.3 million on May 31, but the pro forma for May 31 now shows $3.8 million added to that as an adjustment and $166 thousand deducted due to Alchemy's net deficit.
If you take stockholders' equity and subtract Goodwill, you had $2.1 million on the original May 31 statement. On the pro forma, you get $1.15 million. The cash balance between these two statements fell from $3.1 million to $1.6 million. This is actually better than my fears.
So, good to see the details. I hope the company is successful thus combined.
Maybe 730k shares moved at the bell?
I don't have real-time so not sure if it was a single trade. Same pattern as yesterday, but much smaller. Looks like $0.01 will hit now for whatever takers there are.
Looks like the same deal is continuing today: narrow spread, steady price, rather heavy volume so far.
So how did yesterday's trading work? 3.5MM share volume built up through the day usually @ $0.01/share, and then, near the end, around the same amount traded for a fraction below that. Bid/ask spread was very narrow all day, too.
I'm not saying anything was wrong with this scenario, because I don't know the rules the traders live by. But I would make a guess that the big 3.5MM-share trade was known to be coming. The deal would have been that someone was willing to buy the large lot for just under $0.01 and sell them all for about $0.01, thus making a small profit.
Knowing this opportunity, buyers could pick up a large number of shares @$0.01 without having the price spike. I think that normally, all that buying would have caused the price to spike upward. By the same token, if someone dropped 3.5MM onto the market as a sell, the price could have tanked badly.
So if this was some kind of arrangement, maybe even within just one market maker, the news is that the share price did not move wildly up and then sharply down during the day as the many buys were followed by a large sell.
If other market makers were buying, the fact that they are now in at $0.01 may cause the share price to rise as they would prefer to hold out for a slightly higher selling price. They may get their wish if there is enough demand coming from good company news soon.
Just my opinion, but such large action on a thinly traded stock doesn't look like a coincidence to me.
Boom! 3,557,348 shares (classified as "sell volume") sold for $0.00975 at 3:34:07pm.
Level II won't answer that. It has been showing only 10k BZWR shares available at $0.01, yet millions of shares sold for that already today. In fact, as of 3:00pm EST, only 20k shares were on the sell side.
I have no idea why there is such a cap at $0.01 today.
Yes, I agree. I am happy with BZWR and their plans they announced today. They have a good brand of "secret sauce" in their recipe.
The history of Rhett's "secret sauce" remark.
In context, it makes a lot of sense. (Article at https://ads-roi.outworklabs.com/marketing-for-small-business/) Beware that this source is not Rhett's businesswarrior.com.
It's an old article dated 2016, long before Business Warrior existed. BZWR was preceded by Bluume. Rhett is discussing "free value", which is similar to BZWR's news today about a guaranteed 300% return.
Here's the article:
There is no point in disagreeing with your information about BZWR. I guess you must be correct. Please tell us more.
I wonder how the year-end audit is going.
Alchemy's record in California before the BZWR acquisition showed it (FluidFi, Inc. trading as Alchemy Technologies) to have no Board of Directors and only one officer reported: Timothy Li as CEO, Secretary and CFO.
BZWR did report on October 26 that, "...The result is a unified technology team consisting of Business Warrior and FluidFi employees working on both current and future products.,," So, whatever abilities the company has without their former chief would still seem to carry forward into the control of BZWR.
I kind of expect that the year-end report could be delayed because of potential issues regarding cooperation by Timothy Li. Now, if the BZWR accountants and auditors were on top of things during the summer, maybe all of the information is in. But if stuff remained to do after Timothy Li was terminated for cause, I can only imagine how difficult an audit may have become.
We shall see. But I will finish with two observations: Maybe the report will be delayed. If it is, I think it will resolve without hurting BZWR if it is merely a delay.
Actually, even without the parting of Timothy Li, this could be a complicated audit and require additional time.
Buyers continue to dominate. Today was good example.
Mid-January report will..be more interesting than the year-end, to me at least.
The year-end (August 31) is due the last week of November. It should show the balance sheet for all acquired companies and we could then see how much of the company's equity, if any, was classified as "Goodwill" at that time. From the income statement, we might see something about what improvement Alchemy's sales have brought.
But the first quarter (November 30), which is just about to wind up, is due for release 45 days later in mid-January, should give an indication, I think, if cash has become a problem. Hopefully, the year-end will show adequate cash and the first quarter will show growth from that position right after the last acquisition-- especially if Alchemy sales hit $5MM or so.
Buyers have dominated since about October 24. Good to see that!
"PayPlan Enterprise" is at top-of-page on www.businesswarrior.com.
The little information there leads only to a link where you can schedule a 30-minute virtual meeting with a company representative.
Does anyone have any information on how this technology differs from thousands of business loan providers? There may be something truly innovative and great here, but I don't see how to find out without scheduling an appointment.
By the way, their home page makes some impressive claims:
Virtual meetings? I hope so, because the travel & entertainment costs could get out of hand!
Here's what BZWR President Brooks tweeted earlier today:
"New faces" is correct! This board should make the iHub Buzz Cloud or be a "breakout board" if there were several more posts each day. I agree that the price is very low compared to the quality of the company.
I still managed to buy shares at under $0.01 today, but that is getting harder to do. The market makers didn't have anything to offer below $0.0139 when I checked a few minutes ago.
Thanks. I didn't see what the bid was at the close on Friday even though I knew the closing trade was at $0.0111. But yesterday, as you say, the 30 days reset since the closing bid was $0.01.
Good OTCQB news..$0.01 bid remained at..the close today. BZWR doesn't run afoul of the minimum share price rule, I believe
I agree it doesn't hurt the company. It would be much worse for Rhett to ignore or cover up this disappointing development.
You made the insightful statement that CEOs have to put a good face on it, but maybe someone doesn't catch that the news isn't necessarily horrible. BZWR likely still has considerable value in their acquisition of Alchemy, which I believe was a good thing for Rhett to say. If you buy a restaurant and the master chef leaves, you may want some reassurance that the other cooks know all of the recipes.
Termination news of..Mr. Li has created $750 dollar..volume in trades so far today. Price is UNCH. Extremely small reaction. I presume it is because very few traders watch this stock. I am excited to see how much growth occurs once this company is noticed.
More details: "...business plan remains intact.."
This article adds some further information at the end.
It is good to see that Alchemy (FluidFi, Inc.) had a core group of employees that remain with BZWR. I assume that much of the acquisition's value rests in the talents and abilities of these employees. It will eventually be determined if Mr. Li's claim is correct and what litigation may ensue. We may never know whether the Alchemy subsidiary with Tim Li or without Tim Li would be more successful. But for now, I think the exposure of the alleged wrongdoing and steps to recover from it is good news today.
Here is the body of the article on the webpage just cited:
$0.0140 was a very good close indeed, just now.
Still a wide gap between bid/ask $0.0088/$0.0120. I have an open order in between the two, but it's hidden since it's an all-or-none order. And who knows what is hidden under each MM's best bids or asks? That's the trouble with Level II-- you see very little of what's really there, and especially if there are a huge number of shares hiding behind the best bid or ask level.
Anyway, the MMs are holding firm with their relatively high asks. Maybe there is a reason behind it. But BZWR has fallen so far that I think a small recovery is in the cards. Maybe even a big one!
Best ask starting 60% above best bid @$0.0086. Somebody paid only $3.44 to buy 400 shares to start today at $0.0086, down 14%. So we will have to wait for some big trades to see if the share price can maintain the recent improved levels.
Not enough volume..to move the price Friday &..today. But if the MMs have collected enough or too many cheap shares, it may be time to let them out for higher prices.
A little profit-taking today; bid holding up ok.