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 thought the LP's only got 60% off the top, and that only for a limited amount of time (can't remember if it was X number of divisions, X amount of $ or what), then it switched from the 60/40 split to a 40/60 split. Or something like that.
Also, I seem to recall that the LP's only got a share of recovered silver coins. So gold coins, jade statues, etc... are not part of that deal.
Also at one point, and it may have changed, I thought I remembered the number actually sold was very low. Each LP was $10K. At one time only about 4 were sold and 3 were to Wilf.
Also if I recall correctly, the most they were looking to raise was $2MM, but somehow I doubt they got anywhere near that.
The worse part is we just don't really know anything. About the LPs, London, or who knows what else that hasn't been disclosed.
It would be nice to know, but I've ceased to worry about it. I just keep checking in to see if I've won the lottery. I don't expect it to happen, but it's more fun than scratch tickets.
Not being a lawyer, I will start off by saying this is my speculative opinion:
The only thing forcing this thing to get shut down will accomplish is giving Wilf the moral high ground to walk away with anything the DR government gives up in a division.
If the contract is in Wilf's name, any division is not an asset of the company, so it would be extremely difficult to finagle a piece of that pie.
Of course, that holds true whether the company exists and is valid or not. But if they are forced into shutting down, then Wilf can claim, "It wasn't my fault. I was forced into it. There's no company to distribute the assetts to, even on a liquidated basis if I wanted to."
If they are not forced to shutdown, receive a division, and Wilf chooses to keep it for himself, there is a chance to sue for it as Wilf has made statements pertaining to the recovered treasure going to the company. If there is no valid company, one could make the legal argument that it was willful neglect in order to walk off with the loot.
But again, if someone else forces everything to be officially shutdown, Wilf likely has no legal obligation to hand over anything from the contract obtained in his own name.
Hopefully the government sees what a silly deal that would be.
Loans need to be repaid and the lender becomes the master. In the end, it works out to: "In exchange for doing things the way we want you to, we will let you pay for a bunch of stuff you are going to have to pay for anyway."
Regarding the selling of the boat:
I recall from the message board on the old site, Billy stating he thought they should sell it to raise funds because it was too big for the sites they were working on anyway (ie. it drafts too deep for the shallow water).
I also recall Wilf responding that the boat could not be sold because there was a lein against it to secure a loan.
Them's the (supposed) facts.
As for my conjecture:
If DPBE is selling or has sold the boat, I assume this means:
1. the loan has been or will be repaid (or settled).
2. the boat is not needed.
Reasons the boat may not be needed:
a. As stated, the sites may be too shallow for it to be useful.
b. They are operating using another boat (eg. Captain Billy's)
c. They are not operating.
Yeah, nice surprise start to the day. Too bad it won't last. Bid/Ask is back to 0.0008/0.0013.
God only knows how it jumped to 0.0018. Probably a market maker taking advantage of someone.
Excavation of "the cave" would make a good show if it turns out there's anythin worthwhile in there.
Real shareholders want to see pics of treasure and a pps moving higher!!
I always wondered why dpbe failed to name the las vegas based production company. Any ideas of what the name of that company was?
The quote from Randy is talking about a Las Vegas based production company who did some filming in Key West. Outcome, according to your quote from Randy, Deep Blue management wasn't impressed and dropped them.
The press release is talking about a New York based production company who did some filming in the DR. Outcome, networks weren't impressed and didn't pick it up.
Perhaps you were trying to make a point that went over my head, but as I see it, these were two different attempts at two different times to produce a reality show, neither of which panned out.
The kjjz show is attempt #3 and I would say outcome still pending, trending towards "not working out" (based on missing earlier 'estimates') until it actually airs, or at least hits a real and publicly available schedule.
capted,
As someone who has followed this company for years, I'm happy they are bringing up treasure. It's exciting to see what is coming up and I appreicate the historical significance.
However, as someone who has also been a shareholder for many years, I also have to admit I have serious questions as to whether or not the value of any of these recoveries will acrue to me. While there is a lot of childish mudslinging here, plenty of that mud is left sticking to the walls.
Everyone knows the DR get's 50% of the value of any division. But nobody outside of the company has any idea what DPBE keeps of the other 50%, and how much is contractually obligated to other entities (limited partnerships, Three Reales, source(s) of the "partial funding").
Being that not much has been disclosed about, well, pretty much everything, it's entirely possible that the TV show will actually be more lucrative for the company than anything recovered. As an "actual shareholder", I care most about the company making money, and I HOPE these recoveries will directly influence that. I don't need to hold shares to appreciate the recovery of treasure.
Best Regards,
keda
I don't think step 2 needs to be a big jackpot if you're thinking "mother lode" like we all hope for to start moving the price up.
A small jackpot, such as 1000 1oz gold coins at today's prices is still over a million dollars at melt value. Actual value should be much higher.
Sure, they have to split it with the DR government, LPs, etc, blah blah blah.... but I think that kind of news would generate more interest and more faith that maybe they are getting closer to a big jackpot and people would start buying in on that. Anything that incrases the excitement that real (valuable) treasure is coming up in any kind of quantity will start pushing the price up.
Appreciate the "serious" answer. But, still, there has got to be a happy medium betwen tacky and what appears to me as "incompetent" or "willful neglect". Like, keep the old site going until you're ready to launch the new one, for example.
I don't understand why they can't at least have an "under construction" page when you go to the website. Wouldn't have needed to be anything fancy. Just a few minutes of time would have produced something that looked a lot better than months on end of "Internal Server Error".
No, it's mostly a matter of scope of the claim.
It would be just as difficult to prove that they were diving for 24 hours a day, every day, for the last year, as it would be to prove they were NOT diving for 24 hours a day, every day, for the last year.
Similarly, it is just about as easy to prove that "sometimes they are diving" as "sometimes they are not diving".
Granted, it is easier to prove that "sometimes they are diving" than to prove "they are never diving." But it is also easier to prove that "sometimes they are not diving" than it is to prove "they are always diving."
As you can see, the degree of difficulty has nothing to do with positives or negatives.
Another factor is access to the proofs. It would be easier for DBPE to prove they are actively recovering artificats than it would be for a random message board poster to prove that they are not, simply because the company has access to th proofs. Simiilarly, if they were NOT recovering artifacts, the company would be in a better position to "prove" that, than a message board poster would be able to "prove" that they were.
Again, this has nothing to do with positive or negative.
One exception is in tryting to prove that something does or does not exist in a large space. In that case, it MIGHT be eaiser to prove the positive than the negative. If I assert the existence of unicorns in the world (without ready access), and you assert that they do not, it might take me just as long to catalogue everything in the world until I came up with a unicorn as it would for you to catalogue everything in the world to prove that none of them were a unicorn. Or I might get really lucky and bump into one as soon as I walk out the door to look, whereas you would still need to catalogue everything in the world.
Some negatives can be proven. Especially those that can be shown to be contradictory.
For example, I presume if you so desired, you could prove that you are NOT Wilf Blum (or that Tiger Woods is NOT Wilf Bloom).
Unless you want to get philosophical about questioning validity of proof and evidence. But then, if you want to go down that road, you can't really prove a possitive, either.
Yeah, if you bought $5000 worth of DPBE for 0.0001 per share, it would be worth $40000 when the stock price hit 0.0008.
But at 0.0001, it would take 50,000,000 shares to reach $5000.
Something tells me the price wouldn't stay at 0.0001 if someone were trying to pick up that many shares. And just try cashing in those 50,000,000 shares to lock in your gains....
This is one of those silly statements that are mathematically true, but no actual investor could have achieved.
Better just to say if you bought at 0.0001, you'd be sitting on a 700% unrealized gain.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe dj_ponder's argument is that a "Vice President" is automatically an "inside director", thus William Rawson, having been made a VP, was also by default an "inside director".
If that is the crux of the argument, then the assertion is false. A Vice President MAY be on the board of directors, but it is not automatic.
As Vice President of Operations, William Rawson's duties would typically entail overseeing day to day running of the company.
Hi JRF,
I think when DPBE had the Punta Cana contract, they were only getting a 50/50 split with some Punta Cana organization who was getting a 50/50 split with the DR government, thus leaving DPBE with only a 25% share.
Is Global Marine really getting a direct 50/50 split with the government?
FundTrader,
It's good to consider all sides of this (or any) stock's story. Evaluate the facts, evaluate the conjecture, make as informed a decision as you can.
Realize that most of the posters hav a pro or con agenda.
Those who have owned this stock for a long time have reason to be outraged. There are reasons to be hopeful as well. On one hand, the track record is dismal. On the other hand, for whatever reasons whether they are diving or not, etc, they haven't closed up shop which would be easy to do. On the third hand (borrow one from a friend if you need to), there is no evidence that management has shareholder interests at heart.
I've sold about half my shares and am holding the other half in hopes of something good happening. But I would not recommend this as an investment to anyone until there is real evidence that something is happening that will benefit shareholders.
Although repetative and sometimes annoying, I see the posts of certain detractors as a good public service. Anyone who is scared off by them should not be invested in this company. On the other hand, if others like yourself read them and decide you are comfortable with the risk/reward ratio, there's nothing wrong with that. At least you are making an informed decision. But to only allow or post the fluff is a disservice to those who do want to consider all the possibilities before making a decision.
FYI, I think E*Trade is allowing trades on DPBE now.
Can't be sure as I didn't actually place an order, but last time I tried, I got a message as soon as I clicked "sell". Today it actually brings up the screen for me to enter how many shares to sell.
jrf,
Please realize that your statment about me is wrong. No biggie, but I wanted you to at least know that the statement is true regardelss of how many were sold and that I never said or though thtat all were sold. thanks.
I have my own concerns that anything will ever find it's way down to shareholders, but jrf's calculations were based on the assumption that all the LP's were sold. There is no indication that is true. Nebula quotes the financials as stating two were sold. I believe at one point either on their website or radio show it was stated that 5 or 7 were sold. If I recall correctly, the majority of those sold were bought by Wilf.
I would be more inclined to doubt my opinion had the court issued an officer/director bar, which, as you have noted, commonly occurs. In that case, one might argue that by participating in a debt offering, etc.... he would be acting as an officer, even if not so explictly named. It may be from such arguments that the general precedent arises. But no such bar was made in this case and here I am only making wild speculations.
I've already stated it is my opinion. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
I will further state that my opinion is based only on my reading of the Final Judgement signed by Majistrate Judge Samuel Alba in case 2:11-cv-00526-SA as posted by dj_ponder on this message board.
Yes, I believe Wilf can be involved with selling bonds and potentially limited partnerships depending on their terms and structure. I also believe he can participate in the purchase/sale of stock provided it does not qualify as a penny stock per SEC rule 3a51-1 (including DPBE in the unlikely event it achieves such status).
As previously stated, I believe this because the judgement specifically uses the term "penny stock" and then procedes to define the term "penny stock" in a manner that cannot rationally be construed to include bonds, etc.... Had they intended for a broader scope, I beleive it would have been clarified in their definition, or they would have used broader terms such as "security", "financial instrument", etc....
Again, all this is only my opinion.
Hi Nebula,
In my opinion:
It's my guess that Wilf would be barred from participating in stock activities involving Deep Blue as the judgement bars him from involvement with "any penny stock" with the exception of trading his own personal account.
As for the rest of the restrictions/exemptions, they appear to me to be mostly a matter of record keeping to essentially document what the SEC finds Wilf at fault for. It's like stating someone is restricted from intentionally taking the life of another person unless it's in self defense. It's not a new restriction that only applies to the individual. It's, "Here is the law that already exists for everyone, don't break it again in the future."
The fact that Wilf settled, rather than going to trial, is a likely reason for the restrictions not being more in line with what scambuster expects. Likewise, the possibility that Wilf would be barred from participating in any capacity with Deep Blue was likely a contributing factor in his settling.
Again, this is just my opinion, especially that last paragraph.
I make no arguments for the beliefs of anyone at the SEC nor any arguments for their reasoning.
I see no reasonable interpretation as to how the judgement bars Wilf from anything other than the promotion and/or purchase/sale of penny stocks. I don't even see any wiggle room to claim he is barred from promoting stocks that are not penny stocks considering that not only does the judgement specfically state "penny stock", but it goes so far as to actually define what a penny stock is (See section III page 3). Does that make sense to me? Not really, but it is what it is.
Wrong. Read the judgment again. If you have read any penny stock promoter cases, you will see that the standard remedy is to ban the penny stock promoter from acting in any capacity with a penny stock firm.
JRF,
I can't post your question to their website as I'm not a member over there, but if memory serves me correctly, Wilf is not banned from raising money in any manner except by participating in a penny stock offering. So to violate the SEC order, the terms of the deal would have to include a stock offering. On the other hand, a deal more similar to the limited partnerships (for example) would not be a violation of the SEC order as it does not involve a stock offering.
Doing a search for "IOANNES V D G", looks like the gold coin is Portugese.
It's a good idea, but I think the problem may be that nobody in the company has the technical expertise to directly make changes to the website. So this minor change would require paying someone to change it for them.
As for doing things the way "most companies would," since you generally seem like a reasonable and intelligent person, I would suggest a change in perspective here. I don't think it's appropriate to compare DPBE to "most companies." If you compare them to other treasure hunting and junior exploration companies, you will likely discover they are better than average. Yeah, there are better managed companies in that space, but there are many worse.
From Company Forum:
insert-text-here
Contacting Us
on: March 2, 2012, 16:43
It will be another 30 days or so until the new office is functional and our phone system is back up. In the meantime, if you need to contact us please use the following cell numbers:
Wilf Blum: 801-201-4691
Lisa Larson: 801-598-9065
Randy Champion: 801-631-9104
I am in meetings out of the country for the next week with intermittent phone service, so Lisa is probably the best contact for the next few days if you have something you need to discuss.
Thanks
Wilf
Dang! Where's the reality film crew when you need 'em?
I can help. There was only one reverse split.
The advice to research the company before investing is sound. You should do that with any company you think about investing in, including blue chips.
Realize here that you are investing in a sub-penny stock. Sub-penny's tend to be high risk/high reward. Most end up worthless. This one may, too. Don't invest more than you are comfortable with losing. It's a sub-penny stock. You're likely to lose it all. On the other hand, if you don't lose it, you might make huge gains. If you're smart about how much you invest, the potential should outweigh the risks. If you aren't so smart and put too much money in, the risks will outweigh the potential rewards. You'll lose sleep. You'll become bitter. You might even waste your time trying to "warn" other people away from this "scam" as you'll call it. But it will really just be your own fault for investing in something you didn't understand.
I have remained invested here for 6+ years. Despite all the criticism they get (some deserved, some not), I like the commitment management has made to NOT closing the doors. It would be easy for them to fold up the tents, pack it in, and go home. But here they are, still working. And, in my opinion, things keep looking better.
Wilf resigned his position as CEO but is still working for the company. He has stated that nothing is restricting him from coming back as CEO at this point, but will continue to let Randy hold that position.
I've posted numbers on the LP deal before. Basically, in order to get the $6million, the company would have to recover $8million. So the company keeps $2million, the LPs get $6million. But do not forget the LPs already gave the company $2million upfront. So the company nets $4million, the LPs net $4million. That's a 50/50 split with the LPs taking all the risk.
The LPs do not share in previous divisions. I believe they will share in divisions of artifacts recovered since Jan '11.
I would contact Randy or Wilf for answers to the rest of your questions.
jrf, this is old news. I don't know when you talked to Wilf about this, but the limited partnership (LP) and 300% payback had been mentioned many months ago.
Now, Wilf's explanation of how the coins are divided between DPBE and the LPs is slightly different from yours, but let's use your 30%. According to Wilf, they are looking to sell 200 LPs at $10k apiece. If they sell them all, they will have $2 million in the bank. The will then "owe" the LPs a 300% return, or $6 million. If DPBE is giving them 70%, they will need to recover about $17 million worth of coins!
$17 million recovered means about $8.5 million to the DR and $8.5 million to DPBE. The LPs receive $6 million, which leaves DPBE with $2.5 million. Now, the LPs paid $2 million to DPBE upfront, so the net is the LPs are up $4 million and DPBE is up $4.5 million.
So, in reality, investors are getting about 25%, not 15, and certainly not 50.
If/When the LPs are paid off, DPBE retains the 50% of everything else.
The deal as posted by Wilf is actually a little better for shareholders. I think it amounts to a 60/40 split rather than 70/30. It also does not appear that the LPs have any claim to anything other than coins (silver cups, Mayan artifacts, etc....), nor do they have any share in proceeds should they land a TV contract.
So is it a good deal to give up $4 million of their first $8.5 million share? Well, it depends on if they can pay it back and how long it takes for them to do so, but it beats the heck out of them closing up shop which is where it seams they are headed otherwise. So overall I think it is a good deal for the shareholders. And of course you are right that shareholders should know about it, but again, your assertions that Wilf was not going to tell shareholders is false. That cat's been out of the bag for many months now.
Looks like about 20 million shares have come off restriction in about the last month. As it doesn't seem to be reducing the number of shares outstanding, this is likely one of the reasons for the recent selling pressure.
According to the company website store, 2 coins have now been sold. One for $1600, one for $2900.
Naming of the ship is not imminent according to June 6th radio show. There is still no definitive evidence and according to Wilf on said radio show, recently recovered artifacts cast some doubt as to wether the previous assessment of what ship it is was correct. Identity of the ship is still being debated as of June 6th. Not sure on any updates after that.
They tell us how much it cost to run deepblue if you take the shares they sold they should have money to last till 2020 but they don't. So where is all the money?
I believe when you hear the numbers of how much it costs to run the company, this number is basically how much it costs to make payroll, feed the crew, put gas in the boats, etc....
I imagine a good chunk of the "missing" money has gone into things such as outfitting and marketing the museum and extra costs pertaining to outfitting and getting a second boat ready. Of course this will require a second crew, which will also add to the expenses.
What is the name of this wreck Wilf said is worth 2 billion dollars? He said he was 99.9% sure of the name. What's the name?
With all the claims against Wilf making false and misleading statements, who can blame him for waiting on this one?
At least some of the restricted shares are shares held by current and former employees. I think for some of the original employees, this was part of their compensation package. I do not know the number of shares that fall in this category.
There are other shares that are held as collateral against loans. I'm not sure if these are technically considered "restricted" shares or not.