is...retired
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.
Insiders can only trade (buy or sell) within 30 days after filing fins, and that only if the company is current. SEC law.
When the shares come off restriction, the money lenders are likely to immediately dump. They are not shareholders, they don't want stock in a stinky pinky, and the sooner they dump them, the better price they will get. That's what they ALL do...All they want is as much money as they can get out of those shares so they can lend to the next one.
I didn't say there would be an increase in value. I just said that people that are principles in the company are unlikely to dump, while money lenders are likely to dump. When those dump, the price will drop with it.
Just because their shares come off restriction, it doesn't mean they will dump them into the market. If they have ANY idea of increasing company value, they would hold them for a better share price.
Lenders will probably dump, though. Insiders, not so much, unless they are leaving the company.
As I said, we will see soon enough. I don't believe it will have any impact on share price UNLESS trading volume picks up...
This is NOT a reverse split, so there is no inherent mechanism to increase price except trading.
We will see soon enough. There is no mechanism to make that happen. When dilution happens, shares don't immediately drop in value, it happens as trading happens. Splits have a mechanism to change share price - straight share reductions do not.
That is not the name of the company. Wrong company...dead end.
No, the value of the company will not change with the share reduction. It is not like a reverse split, where the price is increased by the ratio of the decrease in shares. The only thing that WILL make the price increase is increased 'investor' interest. If shareholders simply hold onto their shares and don't buy or sell, the price will not be changed. In a reverse split, the price is jacked up immediately by the ratio of the share reduction.
You could not be further wrong. All public companies MUST follow the SEC rules for filing material information. That is, it MUST be filed WITH the SEC/Finra, there are no exceptions. Quarterlies and annual reports can be filed with OTC if alternative reporting.
They can file NEWS that is NOT MATERIAL on twitter.
I didn't say the company could not use Twitter. I said it does not replace normal SEC filings, like 8K's that are mandatory filings. Share reduction? 8K. Anything that can change the stock price requires an 8K.
Yes, that is legal for press releases and general information that would have previously been found on a company website, but it does not affect filings, such as any news that could affect stock price, such as a 'material event', as defined by the SEC. So, news, yes, but major news that could affect stock price, no.
Would you guys PLEASE quit posting junk from rumor mills? That has no bearing on where this company is going. It is pure pump at its worst.
Going current is not good news. They are supposed to STAY current. Going delinquent is a problem. That is NOT supposed to happen. You have to ask yourself, why did they go delinquent? Laziness, bad news, or what? It becomes part of the company's history, so why let it go delinquent in the first place?
Answer: It goes delinquent for a reason, and the most obvious reason is to prevent shareholders from seeing what is going on with the company. There would BE no other sensible reason. Except if they were so broke they could not afford to file.
And down 80% since September, 2017...it all depends on your start point. But of course, 2 years ago, there was a different CEO and a different product mix. It was in the throes of death. So, if you want to compare ANYTHING with the past, it should start with the new CEO tenure. The old company went broke.
Of course mm's short - they don't actually buy and sell shares, they borrow and facilitate trades, then take a cut on the deal when they cover. They cover at the end of the day, almost always. It is a highly regulated, and highly computerized system, where the fastest systems make the most money. You don't think mm's actually purchase shares, then sell them to you, do you? That would make them day traders, and their profit would ALL be capital gains.
It is worthwhile finding out exactly how mm's work. The whole trading system, from you placing an order until it is processed and settled is quite interesting, and far more complex than most people imagine. But the ONE thing that does NOT happen is - they don't buy shares and then sell them at a profit. That is strictly illegal. They don't play games with share prices either. They fill orders IF they can find the shares to do so.
Of course I do. But I don't speculate on companies that have absolutely nothing going for them. That's just giving money away. IGPK has exactly NOTHING going for it so far except a possible grow operation, which is itself contingent on the test plot covering the cost...Nothing sure about that, nor worth my money that can be making me profit today and now, rather than sitting on those golden eggs hoping for a successful hatch.
The agreement to buy it is for AFTER a successful test grow, that has not happened yet. IBPK does not own anything yet. Speculation on stock should be based on what has happened, not what might happen...unless you like to lose money.
Stating facts is not bashing. Dreaming is not helpful either. Facts is all that counts.
Not obvious at all...
MM's don't even look at these stocks, they make the trades for buyers and sellers. They don't CARE what any stock does - it is all automated, and most of all, they would not waste time on sub penny stocks. Everyone that blames MM's should instead understand that MM's don't do ANYTHING unless they have a buyer or seller - so look to your fellow shareholders for dicking with the stock to eke out gains.
It is not shorting as you are thinking. MM's short because they borrow stocks as needed to fill orders, then cover at night. That short report simply tells about that activity. NO ONE is shorting ONCI. But that's how mm's fulfill trades.
The reason the price does not go up is because it is an empty shell, with no business, no revenue, and no business plan. It is a company in name only. Why would ANYONE invest in such a 'nothing' company?
It's hard enough to make money on a stinky pinky with a good business plan, actual revenue and a potential 10 bagger. I'll keep my money in companies that show some actual promise, rather than sitting on eggs hoping for a hatch.
Not yet, it isn't. It's still below what it was a year ago and 6 months ago.
Go to ihub, click on the chart for the last 1 year. That is a downtrend.
There is no good reason to buy TGGI. If I had not purchased when there was a viable business plan, over a year ago, I would not touch it with a stick now. As soon as the CEO spun BDCI out of its business plan, there was no plan left.
As it is, if it EVER gets back to .0004, I will dump all my shares. My share price is now .00036 for 25M shares. Although it is not a lot of money, it has been sunk into TGGI for over a year with only losses to show for it. Other stocks have made good gains.
Audited fins are not required for alternative reporting companies like the pink sheets. If a company uplists to either of the higher tiers of OTC, audited fins are required. So, it is not correct to say audited fins are not required for OTC.
No, we don't know that offshore shorting of sub penny stocks is going on. why bother? There are plenty of stocks that should be shorted, like GE, etc. You can't make any MONEY shorting sub penny stocks, even IF you could - which you can't. Don't bother responding, ihubbers often cite shorting and mm's for their stock troubles, when in fact it is the whales that move the price up and down. Yes, your fellow shareholders are the ones that do that which you blame everything EXCEPT them on.
Logic would tell any somewhat cognizant person that shorting sub penny stocks would not make sense. They are volatile stocks that can go up or down on a whim. You can't 'bet' on that which is illogical - and win.
Besides, even if it WERE offshore, which it is NOT, the money would still have to trade hands, and no broker is going to short sub penny stocks without a margin from the buyer. They would soon be out of business, which is why the margin in the first place. SMH...
No one is shorting ONCI. That short report is not about shorting the stock, it's about trading activity.
Ask your broker to 'short' 100 shares for you. They won't do it for sub penny stocks. Anyone reading this that has ever shorted a sub penny stock, feel free to speak up. No one has ever claimed to short such low cost stocks. I know for a fact that etrade won't do it, you can look at their rules for shorting. The hard part is putting up a $2.50 PER SHORTED SHARE margin. So, why would ANYONE put up $2.50 to short a sub penny stock, when the best they could possibly do is make a portion of a cent on that stock? And, that only IF the stock drops in value. Does ANYONE with any modicum of sense think that people are shorting ONCI because they EXPECT it to drop, JUST when the smoke clears for the future of the company? REALLY?
There is no game playing by MM's. They don't invest in these stocks, they are merely brokers - they facilitate the actual trades, and in the process, they almost always short the stock to get shares to sell to you. Then they cover by the end of the day, which is why you see funky trades near day end. MM's don't even eyeball these stocks - it is all automated. They can trade billions of shares a day, not something that can be done as if they were all in a sweatshop poking a keyboard and trying to skim beer money of sub penny stocks...
Actually, it is all truth. I have owned NSAV shares since April, 2017, and have monitored every move since then. So, yes it is true. You don't HAVE to believe it, but you CAN find the truth if you go read the filings that they have made regarding these issues. It is all there. And THAT is the truth!
On the dividends from NSAV:
First, in order to get dividends from NSAV, you had to own shares on the Ex-Dividend date. Not buy, but own.
Then, when the 10% dividend was given, it was returned because the TA forgot to make them restricted. So, Yes, I got my 500K shares, then they were taken back. THEN they were given back as restricted shares, using a numerical ticker number.
The beer dividends were set up the same way, only it didn't go as planned. I believe it is a private company right now, and that it will be made public by reverse merging into CHIF, which JT owns. Then, those eligible should get shares of CHIF based on a formula of ownership of NSAV on the ex-dividend date, which may or may not have passed by this time.
However, announcing a dividend for beer shares and not following through is a very obvious SEC violation - people bought shares in NSAV with the expectation of getting beer shares, and if those shares are not provided soon, people will have a case for a lawsuit for falsely leading people on to get them to buy NSAV shares...Hard telling where this will end up, but it is truly a giant fricking mess...
Actually, it IS the same ONCI, but from 2014, when it had different officers and a different product mix. The LOGO is the same.
The 'D' on the end of a stock symbol means something has changed, like a split. the D usually lasts about 30 days, then it is dropped.
Closer look at ONCID shows it was from 2014 with a different CEO...sometimes it pays to look a little closer before announcing things.
The De debt would not be small. It is franchise tax, which assesses against the AS. With a 4.5 B AS, there would be an initial assessment as a minimum, then $85/10000 shares additional tax. That means $85 X 450,000, or $38M. They cap it at $200000, so the Maximum per year in DE with that AS is $200K each year. That is why the redomicile to a state with no franchise tax. Don't want to wait to do that, the next year's tax will come due if still in DE...
The fact that the debt is settled means there was an agreement between DE and ONCI to eliminate all franchise taxes past due. From what I've heard, they were multiple years behind...
Yes, there is a noisemaker, but the CEO will expose what is both legal and pertinent. Demanding proof of everything is childish - that is not how public companies work. And, when he DID expose the name of a customer, doubters invaded the company with phone calls, emails, even showing up in person. That led to losing a customer. Lesson learned by the CEO - don't feed ihubbers with anything they don't need to know. WE don't need to know any more about the Delaware tax issue other than it being paid off. And THAT will become public WHEN the tax people get around to it.
No, it is NOT in his best interest to expose the details of a debt settlement. And it's none of our business! It will all show up in the fins, which is all we should be caring about. That is where you learn what a company is doing, not in posting receipts to the internet.
Public companies should not be posting private, confidential records on the internet. You are all asking too much. Just sit back and enjoy the ride, or move on. No company I've ever heard of will do what you are demanding. Good grief, let them get their jobs done and enjoy the results instead of questioning everything.
There is no reason to audit alternative reporting companies. Audits are required for uplisting, but share price has to be over $0.01 as well. Lets not get the cart before the horse - redomicile, rename, etc is first.
No company is going to buy a stinky pinky holding company. Good grief!!
It is not as simple as 'letting the CEO run the company'. That DE debt will reappear after the first of the year unless he gets ONCI out of DE. He obviously knows that the DE franchise tax is the biggest problem for the company, with nearly a quarter million in taxes a year JUST for being there...and he has been talking about moving to CO for over a year, but COULDN'T while tax was still owed to DE. So paying of DE means getting out of DE. The alternative is to get another huge tax bill.
Even the share reduction would not affect that tax bill. Even if the AS was reduced to 3B, the tax bill would still be $200K/year.
That isn't the point. The point is that you stated that after DE was paid, the next thing would be share reduction. That is not going to happen first, the move to Co will happen first to STOP the annual DE franchise tax billing.
Share reduction is far less important to business than getting out of DE. It is basically ONLY good for shareholders, not necessarily for the company.
You are forgetting the move to Colorado - without that, the franchise taxes will be due to DE for another year, which could be up to $200K per year based on AS...Roughly, $85 per 10000 shares of AS - which would calculate out to $450K based on current AS...But they limit it to $200K.
DE Franchise Tax Calculation
Remember, this tax is simply to allow them to operate in Delaware. It has nothing to do with revenue. Colorado has no such tax. That is the primary reason to leave Delaware.
If the market cap remains the same before and after the reduction, it would be a 30% reduction in shares resulting in a 30% increase per share. Not sure the market cap would remain the same, however.