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's your source for that? The $1.00 is the minimum PPS required to uplist to Nasdaq which Ryan mentioned he wants to uplist to. Could it be happening sooner than expected? However, I don't believe the RS without a source. What's your source (link)?
Re: "tell where do we say the money came from for him to do it?"
It seems you do not understand how this works. DD2Gain is the one who mentioned it's "verifiable" so I asked him how and what's his source. You don't prove it by asking me back but by providing the source/verification. So for the 3rd time, how is it "verifiable"? You mentioned the reality of it yourself though when you said "I guess".
Without financials coming out then I guess Ii can say he took a 2 million dollar bonus.
Hey he has use company money to buy stocks as we see from the last financials he put out.
And we also see he is not afraid to give himself a bonus despite the struggle the company is in dire straits
Ryan promised no RS in 2016. That does not mean he'll do it afterwards. In his blog post http://www.ryanschadel.com/?p=19, he mentioned why an RS is not required even to uplist to Nasdaq. It seems that an RS to him is a final tool to use if everything else failed. I'm quoting a statement from the blog post below:
I have voting control of the company and I will never approve a reverse split without a logical, strategic reason for doing so.
This didn't answer my question. So, how is it verifiable that "Ryan Schadel used company capital to personally purchase over 2 billion shares"? What is your source. Let's finish this point before moving to another in the same thread.
The only thing in that post which is verifiable is that Ryan Schadel used company capital to personally purchase over 2 billion shares of this nearly worthless stock
How did you verify that? What is your source?
The only thing in that post which is verifiable is that Ryan Schadel used company capital to personally purchase over 2 billion shares of this nearly worthless stock
This is a preview of a chart I've been playing with trying to see the correlation between the different parameters and the PPS through the past 6 months. The green line represents the practical float (OS excluding CEO's shares) but this line is not accurate because I don't have the OS history. It assumes an OS of 7.61B through the whole period.
If anyone thinks it could be useful and has suggesstions or can provide the OS history please let me know.
Do you think releasing the financials will have a good impact or will it be the same as the last PR? Probably the most important benefit is easing suspicions but will it be effective for the PPS?
I agree that a huge share reduction is needed but I think the impact of any development like a good contract before that will be diluted and minimal at best.
Thinking in retrospect and beating yourself over it will not change anything. Timing the market is very hard if not impossible. No matter what the price you buy is, most probably a better one will follow. You better think in terms of price bracket. For example, 0.0006-0.001 is a good bracket to buy in. Yes if you didn’t buy at 0.001 you could’ve bought at 0.0005, but you could've also bought at 0.0015 and regret not buying at 0.001! Your flipping scenario looks good but could you really execute it? And couldn’t it be executed wrongly to make you lose the most of your money?
You bought at your best knowledge at that time. If you agree on the big potential of LTNC (despite the fundamental problems I see and believe SHOULD/WILL be fixed), then try to think about it this way: There's an opportunity, the shares you bought have secured a part of it for you. You better don't think about it relatively (to a lower price or to another shareholder's big position) but relative to your goals. I gather you bought 5 million shares (which is good). Yes you could've flipped to make a $5,000 profit but what if the PPS reached 0.01, wouldn't $50,000 look better? And what if you missed the $50,000 for trying to make $5,000? Actually I don’t see 0.1+ a far-fetched scenario. Remember that LTNC is not the end of the world, there’s always other opportunities coming that you could be better prepared for with more experience and funds from previous trades. Also how many similar high potential opportunities you can find now? You can relax now knowing you are already in one. You will start feeling better once (if/when) the PPS reaches 0.0011 and you see your investment in the green.
There's nothing wrong with flipping but I'm talking to someone who seems to prefer high-return investments via less frequent trades. If so, I believe you are already in a good position in LTNC.
I think it was more of a heated discussion and I believe it's very useful to have one every now and then. I'm not against anyone and I think they already know that. And I understand how shareholders are worried about their shares that are investments for some and dreams for others. At the end we are all have the same interest. Maybe only my approach is more objective and open, I believe in opening the wound and cleaning it rather than hiding it or suffering in silence. But I don't criticize it all the time and give it a chance and see. Also I talk about both the positives and the negatives.
LTNC is a rare gem in my opinion, one that's hard to come by. And feeling that there's a little tick, just a little push needed to fix it to take its rightful place is part of what makes me keep discussing the negatives.
Best wishes to everyone.
The stock went out of no bid more than 5 months ago. If after 5 months and all what's done, bought, and spent, you still consider no bid an achievement then you have a problem. Others expect something proportionate to what's done during that period.
By the way, I'm almost out of posts for today so won't reply unless it's necessary. I think you've got my point by now.
So the fact that the stock is no longer at no bid is not a gain?
You misunderstood my post. I'm not saying the PPS should be at 0.005, as I mentioned before, I'm referring to the PROPORTIONAL/RELATIVE progress that never happens. It's that the impact of the millions of shares bought and... bla bla bla, the impact is ZERO. Yes 0.005 is hard, but not 0.0006 as if nothing happened all those months. This is the problem I'm talking about.
The same "proper DD" ready reply. No you are the one who failed to do you DD properly because it you did it you would know that after buying and getting 2.7+ BILLION shares out of the float and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and a lot of Form 4s, PRs, and tweets that were supposed to boost moral, the result is ZERO.
This is not an overnight gain, this is a long term investment and it also requires a bit of risk.
Again, I am a shareholder, what are you?
Ryan is the one who made this evaluation not me and based on reasons. Go talk to him if you don't like it.
But why wouldn't a select few or even many be millionaires? Isn't it expected to get there and already late? Again, go object to Ryan not me if you think it's unrealistic.
And the relation between being a shareholder or not and the fact that the PPS has been suffering despite the many good developments through the past months is...?
I replied to such things a couple of times before, no need to repeat. But for short, asking someone to leave because he's pointing to a problem is wrong. And it's not for you to decide who stays and who leaves. But if you don't like what I write you don't have to read it, or you can leave yourself.
Could you explain the logic by which you see this as a game?
Look at the past couple of messages and you will find that a couple of posters are actually worried. Usually posters represent more who don't post. However, this is my opinion and you are free to feel whatever you like.
Yes, about 35% of the float went to Ryan to practically go out of the float. Add to that the buyback that was going on before the TRO, we don't know how much. In addition to many other good developments though the past 4-5 months. What’s the result? Did the PPS raise gradually with each good development during that period to be trading at the expected 0.005+ by now or even half that price? No, ZERO impact. The 110 million traded today alone were supposed to take out the whole 07 ask but instead it closed at 06 and back to the 05 bid. Some people are happy because they are able to buy more at these prices while they should be concerned instead. The fact that they still can buy at the trips instead of chasing the price up is a reason to be worried. Ryan should look into the stock and find what wrong with it before it's too late.
At least 2.7B of those shares went to Schadel.
He must investigate what's wrong before doing anything more and before it's too late. He has been like pouring water in a kitchen sink and it's never filling but still he pours more. 4 or 5 months of zero PPS progress and hundreds of millions of shares still sold at the ask and hammering the price down is more than enough to show that something is wrong. When exactly should he start doubting it and do something about it? Someone once asked him about why the PPS is like this and he said he didn't know. Who should know then and when? He should start doing something about it NOW and keep the shareholders informed.
This stock is leaking somewhere and without plugging that hole, it could stay like this or even worse, it could destroy the current shareholders' investments. Ryan's efforts and resources (e.g. funds), no matter how large, have a limit. They will end some day sooner or later. If that fundamental problem is not solved, he could consume all the resources he has without any real change in PPS. The only solution by then would be an RS. Yes he promised no RS and all that but if the situation reached to that point, he would have no where to go but there. By then, current shareholders can say goodbye to their investments and wish the new wave of investors good luck.
So people who keep calling this a "long-term stock" better notice that long-term is the sum of many short-terms. And when the short-term developments impact on the PPS equal zero, their sum could be zero too. So they better start looking at what's wrong and why nothing is happening short-term if they care about the long-term.
As share structure, the situation is now better than weeks/months ago. The problem is despite all that the bid and PPS keep getting lower! One would think that with all the good developments and hundreds of millions of shares bought, canceled, accumulated, transferred to strong/long hands, the PPS would be much higher than when that correction started months ago but it can not even sustain itself. The price and bid keep dropping. The last two incidents that show how the good developments are ineffective are the last 8-K and today's financials PR. The correction is simply not working! And considering that there's no naked/non-naked shorting or dumping (supposedly), what's the problem then? And if 4 or 5 months of buying shares and good developments did not make a dent in the PPS, who says another 5 months will make any difference? If it would happen, the stock wouldn't be at a 0.0005 by now! It is trading at about 10% of its fair valuation as per Ryan and generally not moving up. There's a fundamental problem here and I believe that besides all what Ryan is doing to correct the situation, he should investigate what's going on and where that 90% PPS gap is coming from. We might be fooling ourselves if we keep believing that waiting is the solution to this problem. Maybe Ryan from his position can get access to more detailed trading data or hire a specialist to analyse the trades or anything to find what's going on.
Yes but a silly never ending joke.
New bounces need confirmation, I think nobody knows about that yet. So there's a chance he could be buying using his own money. If true, that would be even better both to save company funds and as a sign of confidence in the company. I hope he shares that confidence with shareholders via filling gaps like the late 10-K form.
This is a reply to PM I received to my post #59825. I don’t have PM and would normally ignore such message but because it seems to convey a common misunderstanding, I decided to post this reply.
Someone sent me a PM asking me to get out of the stock because I criticized what’s going on. My short reply to him is: I have the right to criticize the situation. If you don’t like that and believe someone should get out for it, you can get out.
My detailed reply:
- No one has the right to decide for another whether to hold or sell his own shares.
- A shareholder owns a part of the company and as per Ryan’s definition, he's a “co-owner”. Hence, he has the right to question things and request information. People can do so even without owning shares.
- What I’m asking for is not impossible or out of control. But when things are going as they are now, at least I have the right to ask for clear information and a road map.
- You can base your investment decisions on blind trust or faith if you’d like, but others use clear information, and it’s their right.
- Different people have different ideas about how things are supposed to be by now and whether the situation is good or bad, late or early, transparent or opaque. Things should not be measured by your view or mine, to everyone his own. However, information can be requested as any time. And when people have been in the dark for weeks asking about something like the 10-K from a CEO who’s known to be transparent, communicative, responsive, ...etc, it’s a reason to be concerned. He might have legitimate reasons to conceal information, but investors also have legitimate reasons to be concerned and ask for information.
- Responding to criticism by asking someone to get out is a sign of trouble. You should instead be thankful that someone did it. For most shareholders, discussing the negative things they see is a taboo.
- Some shareholders will realize a loss if they sell now. If the situation comes to choosing between losing money or criticizing and requesting information, the choice is obvious: they will criticize and request information.
So save your “get out” advice and apply it to yourself if you don't like criticism.
I was actually looking for a thoughtful answer but I'm glad I gave you a good laugh.
That "undervalued" and "long-term play" have been overly repeated and overused beyond silliness. I replied here many times before to posters repeating the same thing explaining why this is wrong in my opinion. I don't want to repeat it again and it's back there anyway but for short, things like proportional progress, trend, and correlation are important things to consider and they can tell you if things are going in the right "direction" or not, and they are all bad. Ryan's valuation is not important, it's just the quantitative side of the problem, whether the right value is 0.005, 0.01 or 0.002 is not the real problem here. The qualitative side is what important, it's that the value is way below what's it's supposed to be at this stage of development, and that it has been like this forever, and we've been hearing the same thing for months: patience, long-term, bla bla bla but no sign or real progress on PPS proportional-wise.
Read these points well to get to the real problem:
- The PPS does not progress despite all what Ryan's has been doing. There is no PROPORTIONAL progress.
- The general trend is not up even a bit.
- The blurry image including the delayed 10-K has made LTNC's stock an infested place full of negative things that are easily used against the stock and the shareholders are harmed by that.
- Shareholders keep defending the stock against bashers and those who get tired put them on Ignore so they get out and don't reply. This lets the bashers roam free to continue damaging the company image which leads to even further damage by spreading fear among potential new shareholders or those who want to buy more.
- While all that is happening, Ryan does not provide solid clear information to clear the blurry scene and build trust.
- The stock is practically not far from NO BID.
- It is possible that the 10-K is late and even not talked about because of an ongoing problem that could explode any day.
- And to make you laugh even more, the ask just dropped a while ago from 0.0007 to 06. And to make you giggle, the 06 ask size just increased to 29 million while the 05 bid dropped to 70 million. Funny, right?
Trust is built on actions, I don't believe in blind trust. I'm not talking about intentions but about ability to deliver results. Asking to believe in Ryan's results while things are going like this is a big mistake in my opinion. I believe shareholders should contact Ryan collectively and demand clear detailed information about the current situation and the future plan.
Would you mind sharing the joke with us? We certainly could use a laugh too if there's something funny.
Are you saying this as a good thing or a bad thing? Before you answer just remember that the bid was at 06 a while ago and Ryan's fair PPS valuation is 0.005, 10 times the current bid.
Thank you for your effort but the 0.0006 bid vanished for a while just a little after your post and dropped to 0.0005. Now as I'm writing, it's 1.4mx0.0006 bid vs. 33mx0.0007 ask. Shares keep selling at the bid while the ask size is unchanged. For a couple of days there has been a low volume mostly sold as the bid. Obviously repeating old news has no effect anymore. This is not what traders care about or are waiting for. Meanwhile, April is almost over and there's not even a sign of the already late 10-K which gives a good material to anyone who wants to spread fear and rumors. Currently, bashers are not the problem, Ryan is.
Maybe for you again. Ryan's credibility is ok here. LaborSmart is in fact developing the app but via another company. Whether outsourced, partnered with, anything, not important. This post is good because it shows that you have run out of legitimate criticism and have resolved to inflating any trivial thing. It doesn't work. Try harder.
I don't know how far is Wonolo similar to LaborSmart but if they are similar enough then Wonolo's app success could be a good indicator of how LaborSmart's app can succeed too. The same applies to any other similar company that has an app.
Is this really important? Are you sure this can make or break the company to deserve all this discussion?
Maybe funny for you. What’s important is whether it's funny for the customers. Till then, there's a good chance the app will be good like thousands of other apps used by millions of users everyday to do productive work. Ryan did not say LaborSmart is developing the app. It was mentioned before that it's another company in Ireland. LTNC is not a software development company and outsourcing is a common practice in business.
Do you have any real and objectives comments about the app features, functionality, or design? I mean something to really discuss other than its ability to make you laugh.
This is not important. To avoid repetition on why so, refer to my post #59636.
lol...at least you found it. I am deeply amused that an app, which is reportedly in beta, and being used in 10 cities has gotten nothing but 5 out 5 stars from four "reviewers".
Here's the app on Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tempbuddy.skillcorps
And here on Apple Store App: https://itunes.apple.com/app/skillcorps/id1037782495
Thank you for the good discussion. It's refreshing to discuss things in more detail.
Are you sure there's a growth problem? If yes, there could be other reasons like the lack of advertising. Nobody knows if the branches are overloaded or not as far as I know.
I agree the manual process and communication can consume a lot of time. But with a properly designed IT system it should be easy to search for what one wants exactly in a time-efficient and convenient way. Workers can mark themselves as Available/Unavailable or set their availability schedule. The contractor on the other side can get only what he wants out of the currently available. Add to this the chatting feature that can make it easy to communicate because of it's non-real time communication. There can also be additional benefits like worker/employer ratings (think Uber drivers/passengers), testimonials/warnings, ...etc. A slew of new features that wouldn't be available through manual work and physical branches. The contractor can work at any convenient time, place, or let his assistant handle the major preparation work and provide a final shortlist to choose from.
There good thing here is that regardless of the branches are overloaded or not, apps (and automation in general) move part of the work from the provider's side (LaborSmart) to be handled by the clients/users. This can help leverage the company's capacity and make it highly scalable and easy to cover a larger geographical area.
Please notice that I'm discussing the ideas and possibilities of such app as I haven't used it myself and I don't know all the available features. If a feature is not available, it could be added in the future anyway.
This is technically doable but would be unethical in my opinion. However, promoting SkillCorps/LaborSmart app would not be that important for the following reasons:
- It’s still early: The app is not yet available for public use. It is currently in beta phase available for limited clients/users. It would be better though to release blog posts and reviews to make use of this per-release period.
- It’s not standalone + starting point: The app is a part of a package provided by LaborSmart, an extension to the company and its services. The starting point is LaborSmart not the app. Think of it like TD Ameritrade or Scottrade’s app. The business/company/provider itself is what’s important to the customers. They compare providers first then if there’s an extra tool like an app, they may use it. I think it’s the other way around, LaborSmart should use the app as an additional value to promote itself especially that so far no other competitors has a similar app (as far as I know). Keep in mind that if the app has proved to be good, competitors will follow suit so LaborSmart should capitalize on the uniqueness factor as much as they still can. It should be highlighted well in their promotions.
- Lack of alternatives: This is not a common use app like flashlight or calculator that you can find a lot of alternatives to to choose from and discard the ones you don’t like either before or after downloading/trying. The factors that would affect other common use apps like popularity (number of downloads) and good/bad reviews do not work the same here.
- Push vs. Pull: A user might be “pulled” (attracted) to use an app for many reasons like a visually pleasing design or ease of use especially if it does it better than the competing apps. On the other side, there’s how much he is “pushed” to use the app. For example, imagine a contractor who needs to spend 2 hours go to a branch and back, an another hour between waiting and being served. But instead of those 3 hours taken off his working hours, he can now do the same task in the evening while relaxing on his couch via an app and save a lot of time. So even if the app is not so great and the user doesn’t like it, the convenience and time alone could “push” that user to use it. Another example, if you want to check the price of your favorite stock every 5 minutes and all you can do is to call in (phone) then someone introduced you to your broker’s app. You absolutely don’t like the app but it saves you a lot of calling effort, wouldn’t you use it regardless?
Notice that all this can change in the future so the benefits behind the app provided by the company should be good enough to retain and attract more customers. Think again as stock brokers and their apps.
You figure a smart corporation would at least get some "fake" downloads, and load up the comments/ reviews- to at least give the app a "sense" of popularity. But hey, I'm not the corporation with Millions of dollars in quarterly rev...
Yes, my opinion is that the app has the potential to – and should aim to – complement the existing business as it is now in the beginning. Whether it could replace the infrastructure or not, who knows? The app economy has been proven, think Uber and Airbnb where the app IS the business (from the users’/consumers end). The role of any business component can change over time due to many factors. Think about it this way: 20 years ago, what would a stock trader do to place a trade? Call his broker by phone, right? Comparing to even 20 years earlier, using the phone to accomplish that task was a big convenience. Now with the spread of Internet, computers, mobile devices, what does he do instead? Use your broker’s mobile app website to do the same thing. Add the additional benefits of “oh I changed my mind, I want to change my order” x 5 times plus checking trades of your watch list stocks every 5 minutes. Now the phone is considered a big inconvenience, right? Brokers still keep physical branches and operations and phone services on the front-end side but most of their customer transactions (at least retail) have shifted to websites/apps.
That web/app shift did not happen over night, stock brokers introduced them in a changing digital scene and their usability started picking up over time to become what we see and experience today. Now could this happen to SkillCorps mobile app? Why not? Whether it totally replaces the business or not depends on the results. For example we might be surprised that the app becomes used by 85% of the clients so the physical branches become what the stock broker’s branches are to mobile app stock traders today. Add to that the zero expansion cost of the apps. With a properly designed app, LaborSmart can now cover more states and event countries with almost not physical cost and keep only strategic physical branches where required. This could lead to an app-to-human business ratio even higher than 85%.
Keep in mind that there are many micro jobs services like Fiverr and Zintro that are fully automated, not to mention a huge number of recruitment websites. Of course they are not the same as LaborSmart but in concept they are: Provide labor/workers/employees to their clients. If they have managed to do it, most probably LaborSmart can too, at least partially. What about the type of their client? Probably they can adopt to the new way too when they see the benefits.
Nobody knows what the app will become but the most important thing is introducing it and make it available to the clients so the company can tap on that potential and doesn’t miss out on a possible opportunity. Being the first and only so far in this area (as far as I know) is another plus.
The details of this case are not known, at least yet, so I'll reply in general. An app is not an absolute item, it's a cog in a machine. Its role in the business depends on the business model. For business like Uber it's the one and only customer channel, for others it's just another channel besides the phone and fax. Also an app is not a one-time stand-alone component living on users' devices. It needs a continuous development and maintenance, back-end infrastructure and management/administration, customer support, staff training, ...etc. Also how sure and how quickly a tool like the app can generate a revenue is an important factor, not to mention the risk.
An app is not something simple that any company can or is willing to venture with and it does not fit in all business models. LaborSmart seemingly believes it has a sufficient established physical business layer (whether profitable or not) and can now add and has the resources and ability to venture with a new app/digital/virtual layer on top of it and take the time required for development, pre-release proof of concept and beta testing with its inherent risk. It is obviously also not looking for an immediate revenue and can take the time to try and build things in the required time, probably not the case of TSGL that might be in need for an immediate revenue and can't wait for the app cycle to mature.
So to conclude:
- Whether the app is wonderful or not depends on how it is employed within a specific business model/structure. You can not evaluate such component in isolation. It might be the best in a structure and the worst in another.
- What works for LTNC in terms of a structure, overhead, time to revenue generation, ...etc might not work for TSGL and vice versa.
- Who knows, the app might be in TSGL's long term plan. As far as I remember, LaborSmart is considering licensing the app to other companies (probably as white label).
Good for you but I'm sure you agree that not everyone is as lucky or patient or optimistic as you are. I believe there are legitimate worries that must not be ignored. Let's be at ease when we move form the hoping phase to watching actual PPS results, the actual reason anyone is in the stock.