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.
Some have, some have not.
Acknowledging that I have some history here, I've pretty much given up on contacting the Company directly. To date their responses to my communications have been pro-forma at best, and haven't really addressed the substance of the underlying concerns that I have raised. While they have not always been especially responsive to issues raised on this board in the past, IMHO they do seem more inclined to do so than they do to address my individual inquiries.
I also want to reiterate that I'm not slamming or looking to drag down PPS. I am trying to point out what I perceive as obstacles to these guys getting out of the paradigm they've defined for themselves. They're in that weird spot (common with potentially viable companies operating in pink land) where they seem to want to shake off the nascent, entrepreneurial cloak they've worn to date, but are having a difficult time embracing the expectations associated with a 'real' company. I'm trying to reiterate those expectations here (because they've not responded to my individual suggestions offline), in hopes it resonates with the company and its shareholders, and gets them over the hump.
In short and to address your initial question, if I'm going to scream into the void hoping for change, I prefer to do so in an environment where my screams may be echoed by other concerned shareholders. That said, if others have had success with direct inquiry, I would wholeheartedly encourage them to continue.
I have zero firsthand knowledge...the following is all speculation, informed only by what they have (or have not) posted online:
Any pay for Baron is either a component of the G&A (sales is on the preceding line) on page 18, or is part of the accrued payroll liability line item they report on page 19 (note that this latter is $0 for the current quarter). My sense is that he's not drawing much - if any - salary & that Shah's "Operations" role (as he reports in LinkedIn) is a bit more expansive than Barron's CEO role.
No clue about the profitability items...again, I'm not an accountant, and the way the fins are presented makes it difficult for a lay person outsider to follow along.
A few observations, consistent with my desire to see this company become a legit and sustainable going concern, rather than a pump & dump darling:
1) Would it kill these guys to do a full update of their report template? They've got all kinds of immaterial garbage dating back over a decade with only a few notes of current interest (still reporting NOL, but only from 2004-2013...pretty sure they've had losses between 2013-2022 with tax implications).
2) Kind of a continuation of item 1 - Their fins template compares current quarter and current YTD with EOY numbers from 2021!? For a quarterly report, I want to see how current quarter and YTD compares with the previous year numbers - comparing with EOY from last year means nothing (beyond showing how much ground they need to cover in Q4).
3) It would be awfully nice to know who is holding the Pref shares formerly held by Shah. Per OTC Markets (as reflected in the language on this section of the disclosure form), the company is obligated to report "any person or entity owning 5% or more of any class of the issuer’s securities". Unless no person/entity owns more than 5 of the 51 outstanding shares of pref, the Company is required to report this.
4) The Company is reporting: $1,565 in loans payable liabilities on their current balance sheet; $50,264 issued in loans payable on their current statement of cash flows, and $1,170,942 currently outstanding in their listing of notes payable. I'm not an accountant, but I am having a very difficult time squaring these numbers.
SHMN is headed in the right direction, but there is a lot of negative history in their public representations that must be overcome if this thing is going to pop in a meaningful way. Increased transparency is the way to get there...
Cannot agree with this enough.
It's time to put up or shut up, SHMN.
Agree 100% - I was trying to underscore that we shouldn't necessarily expect a MOU update simply because they will be publishing Q3 fins, nor should we be disappointed if it does not materialize...However, we should absolutely be pleased if it is published contemporaneously and has good news
Agreed - and we all need to bear in mind that the fins themselves are retrospective in nature; while there is generally room to comment on subsequent events, the docs themselves will only be looking at 7/1-9/30.
It is entirely possible that we will not see anything about the new space in the Q3 report, and that would be completely normal.
I would guess that they would want to PR the MOU immediately after publishing the fins, but we probably shouldn't expect it to happen.
I'm no tout for these guys. I've posted numerous complaints about the way this company has carried itself in public. But every post that I have made, whether pro or con, has been based in fact (which I have endeavored to include in my commentary).
There is a big difference between fact based criticism and baseless accusations...so is it safe to assume that you can back up any of your claims? If not, then why post it?
While 90% of this board is the same 10 people making the same 10 statements - positive and negative, with no impact on the PPS - there may well be some newbies who would see something like this, assume it is fact, and use it to make an investment decision. Making reckless accusations with no basis in fact is potentially harmful to them, and are likewise harmful to people like me who are stuck long in this stock.
They have to do *something* by mid-November...quarterly report is due.
Hopefully there is something else substantive, otherwise this Company (and this message board) will be stuck in the same 'Groundhog Day' cycle they've been in for the last few years.
Welcome to the gray sheets. "Expert market" time...unsolicited quotes only.
The funniest part is that they were announcing their plan to uplist to Nasdaq just a few months ago. This ain't how you do that, Drex.
MSLP on OTC Markets
I certainly hope so. The rapid falloff in volume seems to reflect the market's appetite (and sadly, expectation) for this company's tendency to publish a grandiose PR with no subsequent follow-up.
This:
Welp, it's all over but the crying.
Not sure when the notice went up, but per OTC MSLP has "entered a 15 day grace period" before it gets moved to the gray sheets (and OTC stops providing quotes).
Hope everyone was able to dump their holdings...
1) Yes
2) Nothing helpful
I have asked them not to share information with me that is otherwise not public, but rather to be more disclosive generally. As I believe they have told others making similar requests, they believe that they have met the OTCMarkets/SEC disclosure requirements.
I think (but I'm by no means certain) that that fee covers only the OTC Markets publication; they may still need to use a third party to get it out on the broader PR Newswire.
an 8k doesn't make sense here. The Company clearly doesn't have an Edgar account or agent, and has no recent history of filing current reports under sections 13 or 15(d) of the Act.
All OTC Markets requires for non-reporting Pinks to comply with their disclosure rule for material items (like the aforementioned deals) is a PR; I'd be happy to see one if it brings clarity to their current status.
It makes sense. Why pay for a PR if the news isn't material.
That said (and it's open to interpretation, as the OTC rules predate Twitter), any material events that would otherwise require an 8k for a fully reporting company likely do need a formal PR to be issued on the wire to satisfy adequate public disclosure requirements.
Agree...mostly
Amen.
Gotcha…thx
So, honest question - not trying to be argumentative or belligerent:
Do you think it’s the Company or the MMs who will trigger the run?
I ask because presumably their goals are misaligned…
The Company has thus far expressed little concern for traders in the float. Their continued representations that they are powerless to do anything about PPS is indicative of either ignorance or outright disdain. I suspect that the Company is instead far more inclined to cater to longs - particularly those 300MM restricted shares which (presumably) primarily represent early stage investors (ie, friends/family of Shah) who have been stuck and unable to clear since 2019 or so. These folks will need a sustained run to be able to clear/deposit/sell those restricted shares in the current broker dealer environment.
MMs, on the other hand, want to drive short term volume/volatility to cash in on the spread. A sustained incremental climb (as needed to support investors per above) is of far less value to them.
I'd even go so far as to say that people (traders in particular, to Myth's point) don't necessarily need to believe in the company...they just don't need to have a number of reasons to suspect that the company is actively bullshitting every time they release seemingly positive news.
Why do you think it will go? Why will people - even traders - who have seen a series of PRs that have gone nowhere suddenly decide to throw some cash in thinking that this will be the one?
These guys need to establish a modicum of credibility, or even their best attempts to pump and generate a run will fizzle.
I don't always (often) agree with DMRX's posts, but I think he hit the nail on the head here:
A class action lawsuit? Really? I have questions...
Who did you hear it from?
Who are the 'people who are starting to think that'?
What is the cause of action?
Is this class action, or did you mean a derivative action?
Assuming you meant the former, who is the putative class? I mean seriously, investors in a pink who failed to conduct thorough DD?
I have been extremely vocal (and quite specific) with my complaints and concerns about the way this company has managed its duty of care to its shareholders, but in no way is there anything even remotely close to grounds for a shareholder action, much less a class action suit. To say otherwise is baseless fearmongering.
I was considering the publish date of the K in noting the 'over 6 month' timeframe (the OTC Markets rules specifically mention publish date for accurate financials), but you raise an interesting point: If the annual report cannot be relied upon, doesn't that mean by definition that some or all of the preceding quarterlies are not reliable as well? Yet they only note the annual and subsequent quarterlies in the 8k.
Drex's games with the books (and the Spinal Tap drummer cast of CFOs who have signed off on them, then balked & bailed when they've realized what they agreed to) are so baked into the equation at this point that, barring any new scam, they have become white noise at this point.
I'm surprised OTC Markets still has them at Pink Limited (Yield), given that the August non-reliance 8-k means it's been well over 6 months since they have posted current and accurate financials.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day!
Amen to this:
This is why there was so much pressure from some of us on the board for the Company to provide clarity as to the deal status (and whether it had closed). A 'Definitive Agreement' as that term is used by the SEC is not final until the terms are satisfied by both parties...until then, it is merely (as my contract law prof used to love to say) an "agreement to agree".
If I were a betting man, I'd wager that the prior deal was partially/largely equity driven; after diligence, the seller decided that they weren't comfortable with where SHMN PPS would end up post-transaction, and decided to pull back. But this is just a guess.
What's interesting to me is that there hasn't been an announcement that the deal is dead (typically, if this were a fully reporting company, there would be an obligation to 8-k the dissolution of the Definitive Agreement...it's arguable that a non-reporting company has an obligation to PR the same). This may mean that the seller is retaining the right to evaluate PPS trends up until the deal window closes, and may opt back in. Again, pure speculation.
At present, there are ~1.5BB shares outstanding (1.2BB in the float), but there are only 2BB authorized. That means that any dilutative activity would be limited to ~500MM shares - only $650k at today's prices (not including any discount). There isn't enough headroom for a meaningful funds raise without an increase in authorized or an R/S (with no corresponding decrease in authorized).
In other words, even if there were an old agreement contemplating a further discount, they couldn't dilute more than 500mm additional shares at any price unless they were able to mobilize pretty much all of the 100 pref shares (along with 1+ common shares) which vote/convert at a 1:1% equivalency to the common O/S - ie, it would take all 100 Pref shares to equal the entirety of the current outstanding, and all pref shares plus one or more outstanding common shares in friendly hands to vote in favor of an increase in authorized or a R/S.
haha...you could say that I have trust issues.
That was my point - if it can't trade on fundamentals, it needs to deliver on its promises (and do so in a way that can be verified - ie, show the revenue/expense items in its fins) for people to begin taking the PRs seriously enough to trade on rumor/hype again.
As I've previously noted, I'm stuck with restricted paper that I can't deposit, much less sell, until they're out of sub-penny land.
Total revenue was $325k for last year, but earnings (profit) was $88,281. EPS is so small that it requires scientific notation; P/E ratio is likewise such a tiny number that it is unreportable. In other words, from a traditional fundamentals standpoint, the revenue doesn't justify current PPS, much less .002.
Right now, this company (like most pinks) is not capable of trading on fundamentals. It has some good baseline stuff (no recent history of dilution, stable share structure, repeated claims by management that no R/S is in the works), but the hype cycle that typically drives pinks to the next level has run dry - they've made too many promises, and have failed to show (via quarterly/annual reports) that any have come to fruition. They need to demonstrate that they can deliver before PPS will make a meaningful move.
This isn't womp-womp, this is facts. We've all seen the diminishing impacts of the Company's PRs over the past 18 months...Until there is something resembling concrete results (reported in the fins), most folks are going to continue to stand by and wait on the sideline.
Why?
Does the Company's revenue justify it?
Does the Company's profitability justify it?
Does the Company's follow-through on past projections/promises justify it?
JMHO, but the hype train for these guys has pretty much played itself out. It really is put up or shut up time. Unless and until the Company is able to make good on their claims - ANY of their claims - and demonstrate that they have done so in their financials, they are (unfortunately) trading right where they should be.
And to beat a dead horse, I want/need these guys to be successful - I'm dead in the water below copper.
This just in: Spinal Tap has lost another drummer
I'm inclined to agree with whomever speculated that the funds are coming from India.
I'd further guess that they'll be issued as consideration for either the 51 pref shares that Shah previously held and then mysteriously surrendered to an unnamed party (and whose current holder should be listed in section 7 of the company's annual reports as a "person or entity owning 5% of more of any class of the issuer’s securities", but isn't), or for the remaining 49 pref shares sitting in treasury (or some combination of both). There aren't enough authorized but unissued common shares for a private placement to make sense at the current PPS.