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.
Good luck to you.
New owners have started updating --------- otcmarkets.com
Waiting on news...................
Yep. Actually looks like it was hit with two such scammies:
The other being the SEC was shutting it down.
Two things we know for certain, neither has happened as of this post.
Company being shut down,... something happening,... stock fortune-telling? lolololololol
And we wait.........................
Looks like the bond was in place about a year before the fwop was generated. Probably dropped due to no need to continue to spend money litigating. Anyway, I'm sure one of the attorney's involved could give you the legalese on it. eom.
If this is anything to do with Mitch Brown, last time I looked at the Miami-Dade court records online a permanent bond had been put in place with regards to this. He'll never get a legit attorney's opinion letter to sell them.
Let me start by saying, I do not think a lock with happen. Nor was I meaning that it should. Should have put more info in the post but was about to walk out the door. Let me just call it a wasted opportunity at a metaphor.
Anyway, there's a running dialog of message board lawyering, as I've heard it called, about the illegal activity of some formally involved with the company being indicted and how the demise of the company is at hand. And while the first looks to have some hard facts to it, the second looks to be rooted more in hope rather than facts. My earlier point was, yes, it does appear that some who were formally associated with the company in some way have been indicted, but, the company was not indicted for wrong doing as far as I can see nor have any of the names of the new management/owners shown up as having anything to do with what happened -- and that doesn't paint a pretty picture for the "demise" of the company. But, I see nothing wrong if some scrutiny happens to show legitimacy. That's better than me blindly labeling everything systemically good or bad. But as I've stated already, I'll hold judgment until I know more about what's going on,... what someone else does is their business.
Yes, anyone knowingly involved in a scam I believe their should be stiff consequences. I also believe their should be equally stiff consequences for anyone making stuff up attempting to hurt someone or something.
I believe if the good for all man kind is to be evoked as a mantra, it should be evoked equally.
If that's needed to make it run legitimately so be it.
I believe those who were involved with any of the past transgressions should be known and exposed.
Two things the indictment shows:
1. The time frame when said events happened.
2. Who/what was indicted.
Don't know what's going on but at least the names of the new management team/owners were not in the indictment. And unless I'm mistaken the company was not indicted for anything. Any talk of suspensions, demise, or success, is premature.
Have a good remainder of the weekend all!
Hey W.A.L., former guys talked a big game,... all the way to the bank apparently. And yep, I believed the sweet talk for quite a while. That thing called trading experience can hit the pocket book. I also think you were one of several IHub subscriptions I've paid for at one time or another due to my believing in the former owners. lol
Have a good one.
If I call everything a scam at some point I will be correct. lol
Good question. Based on the info presented so far, all of which is in the time arena of the past management teams/owners, it doesn't appear they are.
The most relieved are probably the new management team/owners since it was long before their time. Wonder how many of the past management teams/owners can say they are relieved today?
Karma baby.
I'm thinking the former managements/owners and their cronies might not be sleeping well tonight. lol
What's the deal with the IBox? Same info twice in the IBox? lol
IBox should be a non-bias collection of info, not same'o double dipping self-serving gribbish. Geeezzz. lol
I agree with a short leash. But to me a short leash and dogging are completely different. When my kids were young they were on a short leash with some things but I did not dog them continually with negative.
Have a good weekend. I'm outta here.
Yeah, the former owners created a lot of distrust. But looks like they're outta the way so we'll see what happens.
As far as impressive DD: yes, a very good job has been done at digging up dirt. But, really impressive DD requires more than digging up dirt. Really impressive DD requires the willingness to look at both sides of the coin, looking at what they intend to do, looking at similar business models, what similar business models have done, their time frames, and the success they've had. Only then can a non-jaded conclusion be formed. That's very impressive DD,... but none of this has had time to occur.
I understand Cuda's position, the previous owners were less than forthcoming. But I don't understand why I would dog the new owners right out of the gate as I haven't a clue what they have in mind or the potential. I can't speak for anyone else but wisdom is telling me to hold my words until I see the path here better -- cause I sure don't want to have to eatm,... again. lol
Have a good weekend all.
Agreed. Wait and see what's going on with the new owners. Otherwise I'm blindly casting stones.
Probably always been their and just never updated. Not out of the question considering how, ummm, well the previous owner ran things. And also considering the info came from ole reliable blahoo financial I wouldn't put much faith in it. lol
Have a good one.
Some of the info was not captured in the image you posted. As per Yahoo,... the info you posted was as of 2004 not 2014.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr;_ylt=AwrBTzzenQhUQHQAy0ZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyNDFvN2IwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1FJMDQ4XzE-?s=XYNH+Profile
I agree, most pennies do take a lot of debt. But most never get off the ground either -- due to they fail trying or they are scams.
Either way, most pinks slowly and painfully fall by the wayside.
Hope it doesn't happen to FLST, but again, all I have is history as a guide. Trade it just don't marry it.
Unless their revenue is exceeding expenses they are in fact not making any money.
Will that change? I don't know. But all we currently have are the latest filings and a lot of history to rely on.
Nothing strange with mine either. .0011 x .0012 currently.
Just updated the A/S O/S info.
.001 to 0015 was a nice move!
Not an authority on short volume but I was PM'd the link below that explains it pretty well. Hope this helps.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=80871478
I agree, that's how it should shake out.
But any talk of actual revolving credit in place, with just a signed term-sheet is in place, is actually putting the horse before the cart.
They stated they only signed a term-sheet.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/termsheet.asp
Not to say they won't have something binding at some point but if only a term-sheet has been signed there's nothing binding in place with regards to any type of revolving credit agreement actually in place.
Way to many posts have been removed today. This board is about FLST. It is not about another poster or why they post.
Good luck. I don't expect to see anything happening with this, whatever it is now, anytime soon anyway.
I think he shared that with anyone who would listen at the time,... me included. lol And for a while I believed it.
However, Miami-Dade Court docs say he does not. So, based on past lies, and, with the recent events regarding Brown, hindsight tells me to not believe anything he's ever said or emailed to me. And I certainly wouldn't believe him over court docs.
Appears Brown had been talking a big game about owning Xynergy. I talked with Brown a couple or so years ago and he said the same to me. I searched the Miami-Dade records and found three docs that indicate Brown was lying.
Looks to me like Brown was stripped of his opportunity to own the company,... and somehow Ley was able to post a bond that prevented Brown from taking control. With the bond in place the last doc I read would indicate Brown gave up and moved on.
And now it's supposedly going into the soccer selling business. Wow, from car stuff to soccer stuff.
This should help: -- these two have stayed on top of this info pretty good imo.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=103714845
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=103714948
I think a RS is unlikely right now but at current pace it will happen. RS'ing would be one way to get the pps up -- and it might even give them a glimmer of a chance to finally get some non-toxic financing in place. The deep discounted shares for cash program is killing shareholder value.
MO has been the pps falls after news so I wouldn't expect anything different when the next batch of PR's are tossed out. Play the bounces and step back and wait for the next opportunity.
If the pps of a stock is truly forward looking I wouldn't expect much in the form of any real revenue from the company anytime soon.
No, five months ago the pps was not $2.50. It was in the +-.03's.
With the recent ramping up of dilution I would not expect that to ever happen.
I thought it should have bounced to the 002 area last week but couldn't. Technical readings become a cliche when a company is diluting shares.