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 do know something. I know they claimed they were debt free on 2/20.
I know they show $2,674,389 in liabilities as of 3/31.
If you think it is no small matter, that is fine. Maybe others do not find it so easy to brush off.
Among those liabilities, ask yourself if it is OK with you they may have created these liabilities in 6 weeks time?
The real issue seems to be not that they could have gone from zero debt to a mountain of debt in 6 quick weeks. The real issue seems to be they claimed to be debt free when they were not. It is OK if you want to believe they could have been truthful and then incurred all those liabilities between 2/20 and 3/31, but I think very few people will believe that.
And if you were paying the least bit of attention today this discussion was already had. The implication is that if they claimed on 2/20 to have no debt then what was all this debt about? It surely didn't miraculously accrue in a month to 6 weeks did it? That's the point. No outrageous inferences are being made. It is simple logic to ask how they could have no debt on 2/20 and then on 3/31 show loads of debt, debts of all kinds, weighing them down. They stated it publicly shortly beforehand they had no debt which seems quite untrue with this latest disclosure.
Will you READ it first please and stop making flippant replies? Of course it was as of March 31st.
Oh come on Bizzy. It was released today. Did you even read it? The link is in the darn PR. Stop asking me questions until you read it please.
Re-read.
IBM? The last I looked, IBM was a multi-billion dollar corporation with offices around the globe. Equating their CEO to Drew is groundless. Yes, he owes explanations after promising 101 things and delivering few, others that were half promises and many things that were outright lies. If the CEO of IBM was known for this behavior I doubt they would be the CEO of IBM for very long.
INXR released a document today full of highly questionable line items. Perhaps you'd like to contribute your analysis to that. Commenting on it does not automatically qualify anyone as a pumper or basher, so take a shot at it.
Does that mean they diluted another 800M shares recently? I don't get it, unless that phone call stuff was a total put-on why would they only recently say it was under 10B and now it shows 10.8B?
Go back to your corner with your straw and spitballs junior. You have a lot of nerve criticizing me for shining a light on corruption you little coward. Look at today's filing and see if you have the brain cells or bravery to put a positive spin on it. I know you can't. You'd rather bash me than the deceitful pack of liars you pumped while I was telling you it was a mess. You attacked me because I interfered with your pump, not because you were defending something defensible. It doesn't do you any good to speak to me again so consider this our last conversation if you have any sense left in you.
And that was only at the end of March during a time when they were touting many actions totally opposite of what they document just now. It begs the questions, among many, of how much they have paid themselves and how big a new account payables bill they have run up in the 6 months time since then? Do they maintain good relations with their creditors if they owed that much at the end of March? Did they pay off those bills or accrue more?
You have a horrid track record. At least the one disaster I was involved with here I admitted was a mistake. You're just lost and chasing one piece of garbage after another and never are man enough to come right out and say you picked the wrong horse. You don't care about anyone but yourself.
Well, if you already know it then why refute, eh? Keep bashing the messenger you silly person. It doesn't change the facts. Unlike your lame attempts at character assassination, my assertions have proof, yours don't.
I'm quite rational by the way, far from melting down and that is particularly why I anger people like you because you are not capable of responding in a convincing manner and it gets under your skin. Too bad.
I do regret that anybody bought stock in a company like that because I once thought it had promise. That does not mean I have to support the sacrifice of new people to it. You want a free market where you're all free to trade and I should leave you alone? Well with free markets comes free expression. Deal with it.
And next time you find yourself in something with red lights flashing maybe the next time you'll bail when somebody "bashes" your failing POS. I have gotten many personal thank yous from people who did listen to me and sold at prices before it totally collapsed. It is your fault for holding to the bitter end. Take responsibility for it.
You're a low class pumper of bad stocks. What you and your kind fail to understand is you don't care if other people get burned as long as they bail you out by taking your shares off your hands. That is something that flies completely over your head because you are strictly about self-interest which is why you can only see a vendetta and not the truth which is: new buyers will get burned. And you can't deal with that. You can't handle the truth.
Nice sleazy filing the company put out today Steve. You couldn't possibly muster a solid post about the company. All you're capable of is attacking somebody who speaks the truth while you hide behind snide insinuations. I deal in facts, you deal in putdowns. Probably because you've actually got nothing to say about the company whereas I do whether you like it not. Too bad you're not up to the challenge.
I see from today's filing document they claim the $1.5M value for their software as an asset. And they claim total liabilities of $2.67M. There are many unanswered questions from this document. The company should clarify some of these things:
What was this DERIVATIVE INCOME from? Were they trading stocks and speculating with money gained from selling shares? Or is that the income from selling their paper?
Compensation of $2.7M from 2004 to 2007? What happened to them barely drawing a salary? How do they spend a million dollars a year on salary when they were portraying themselves as being a spendthrift bare bones budget conscious start-up?
Consulting expenses of another $1.4M? To whom? What is going on here?
Liabilities:
They had accounts payable of $176,000 at the end of March already and claimed to have had no debt?
They owed $85,000 in interest and a $200,000 loan and they claimed to have had no debt?
What is accrued salary expense - officers? Didn't they state they got $2.7M already?
A convertible debenture of over $1M was due? Oh really? They sure weren't very forthcoming about that impending dilution thunderbolt. When did that get converted into shares to settle that one I wonder?
And on top of that there was another $673,000 apparently connected to that conversion termed as "Derivative Liability on Convertible Debenture"
This filing stinks. Full of suspect compensation and a black hole absorbing all "expenditures".
That makes more sense.
Has an increase in the authorized been filed with the State of Nevada? The last I recall it was 10B. If they do raise it bit by bit to dilute some more I'd be very irate if I was a shareholder. I'd verify all that before stating it with any certainty.
From that PR on 2/20, almost two thirds through the quarter just reported, we can certainly find the no debt assertion. They told me they had cash in the bank to support their burn rate for the upcoming months and that it was OK for me to report this which I did. To go from cash in the bank supporting your burn rate rate for months to being in debt and penniless in the following month to six weeks doesn't add up.
The MMs sell the shares for somebody who bought them from the diluting company. But it is not per se the company diluting directing into the market. If the company were to have sold shares for less than 0.0001, god forbid, then you would not see it on the tape. In fact, if the company sold shares at 0.0005, the buyer could sell them now for a double at 0.0001 and it would not register as a fifth decimal and that is why there is no reason for that as long as they can sell at 0.0001
People viewing the stock for the first time deserve a fair shake too. If your observations are more convincing then state what you like. If mine are more convincing then so be it. I'm dealing in facts so fair is fair. Potential buyers of this stock deserve to see the truth from all angles and all interpretations.
If someone sold a block of shares below 0.0001 it would have had to be prearranged because you cannot enter an order less than 0.0001. OK? So if anybody wants to consider that a piece of trading knowledge, suit yourselves, but that would only be of apparent interest on a stock already trading at 0.0001 so I don't see how it applies to anything but this stock and not to the rest of the markets. A fifth decimal point on a 10 cent or a 10 dollar stock is irrelevant.
That is fine and you know what?, OK, it is forward looking so be content with that, but it does not impact the competitive value of their products now regardless. If you like the feature who am I to say you are wrong? Enjoy it.
It is not relevant to trading. It doesn't even pertain to calculating your gains and losses. Sorry, it is merely something to be distracted by and has no bearing on serious trading.
The balance sheets will have no impact on this stock. Trading activity is the only thing that can move this stock, because they have to general millions in revenues to ever move this bloated OS on a fundamental basis.
Anticipate away. It don't mean a thing now.
And I have numerous witnesses they said this in the physical presence of as well.
Precisely, whether it was first via my contact with them or subsequent contact with others, the recruitment of shareholder support was utilized by the company to build the share price and bid support they could dilute into.
Six decimal points are MEANINGLESS. The markets only trade in 4 decimal points. It is a deciding factor of absolutely nothing.
Yes sir. And this was also the time period in which they told me it was OK to post what they said to me which was the OS was still 1.3B and they each held 250M shares each. They also said they were funded for the next half a year at their present burn rate which means that would have taken them well into the Summer. They authorized me to discuss those aspects of my meeting with them which you already should know from following the story. You decide what is authentic. I'm just pointing out that the picture they painted is wide open to question.
As of the end of March? If so, how did they have a 3.5B OS BEFORE they raised the AS from 3B to 10B?
OK, if that is for the end of March, then go back and read the late February PR when they stated they had no debt and had cash in the bank. What was that supposed to mean then?
Yes, that may very well be the case that INXR has every intention of using the trade show to promote the fact they are a publicly traded company just as aggressively as they promote any product.
They are not going to do that.
I agree. I did my best to be positive originally due to stated good intentions and a willingness to commit those statements to publicly released PRs.
PP Confirmed. Moving forward.
Not sure what their intentions has to do with that. The comment referred to the amount needed to have an effective buyback against what is almost 10B in the OS.
That would buy back only 500M shares, right? Not sure that really puts a dent into it.
With what? The money they got from selling the shares?
Yes, a group of shareholders can all rally around together and try to fix the broken ship, but that is salvage mode, not investing any more. There is absolutely no reason to ever expect this company to uplist to another exchange. I am the one who went with them to meet the market maker they said would sponsor them for an uplist after all. That was half a year ago and nothing is happening and nothing is likely to ever happen for this company.
Besides, if they were to uplist the only way they are going to do it is with a reduced OS first and that requires a large reverse split which will decimate your holdings to virtually nothing. Anyone who claims they won't need to reduce their share count first in order to uplist is in denial. So wishing for an uplist is not a way out of the dilemma.