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 agree with that. If he cares about the shareholders he'll let us know.
I believe that the financials speak for themselves in showing the potential INMG has for rapid growth. The fantasy sports assets got bought out just like we said and you can see the effect of those on the Page F-5 where it has the Cash and Cash Equivalents – Endings at $392,837 for 2015, as opposed to a negative $31,747 for 2014.
Tom made a point toward the end of his August interview that he directed "particularly toward shareholders and future shareholders" that he was able to aquire the $4 million in film assets that provide the $200k per year free cash flow "without serious dilution to the current shareholder base." So, even though he hasn't been freely communicating with us for reasons I've brought out in previous posts, he's got shareholders in mind in carrying out his development of Innovativ Media Group.
If the RS is "planned" which is what the 10-K says, then that plan can change. It's not set in stone. If it does happen, I think Bill's goal is to get the pps as high as he can with news developments, more revenue from the new productions, and a buyback of issued shares this time instead of the last retirement of authorized shares. Then, in order to reduce the impact of those remaining 20 million Series C Preferred that can be demanded at $0.20 each, he could RS at 5 or 10 to 1, if needed, convert them to restricted common shares with a 6 to 12 month later conversion date, and then he's got 6 to 12 months to bring up the pps the rest of the way to so that the effect of their sale is minimized. And there's nothing that says those restricted common shares would be sold immediately either. If they are currently in strong hands then they could easily stay that way. Tom's already on record as having reduced some of the share structure to benefit the shareholders. I think he wants INMG to succeed and he's aware of us as shareholders because he specifically addressed the benefit to the shareholders in his interview in August.
Everyone was talking about the company's DD. It was building momentum even without anything from Bill. The company is still the same, production is moving along, the RS is not a for sure thing although if timed right it could be a good thing for the share structure, the VOD Search Engine is still a goal of the company along with the New Broadway Cinema and the new web channels in development. And BTW, in the interview, Tom mentioned the release of the H. P. Lovecraft channel in the second quarter of this year. I think he'll wait for all of these things to come together before entertaining the idea of doing any rs, if necessary.
Just IMO.
Truce?
There is definitely a reason why he worded that note in the 10-K that way. It may have to do with the elimination of those Series C Preferred shares.
After looking at who owns those 20,000,000 "C" shares it appears it's questionable if Tom owns them or not:
"The Company currently has 20,000,000 shares of Series C Preferred Stock authorized and 20,000,000 shares issued and outstanding held by a corporation controlled by its President and Director. The Company issued the Series C Stock during the year in connection with the Acquisition. The Series C Preferred Stock is convertible into Common Stock at the election of the holder at $.20 per share and also has preferential liquidation rights."
That's $4 million dollars worth of stock. Turning them into common shares with a restriction that would delay the ability to sell them until a future date when the company is worth a lot more is a good move on Tom's part. Somehow, that's tied in with the plan to reverse split.
I'm hoping Tom will address that. Like everyone else does.
That's sabotage not "sabatogs."
No wonder you're upset.
Whatever. Sorry it didn't work out for you either.
Then it would probably be better for you to accept your loss and go invest in a company that has no information and never files its reports.
Yeah, and it's all my fault! Too bad for you!
By the way not all reverse splits turn out bad, although most do. It depends on the financials of the company and the reason(s) behind the reverse split. I've been burned by a reverse split before too. But here are a few examples of where the rs actually worked for the companies (and yes, I realize none of these were on the OTC.):
In mid-2003, Priceline.com (NASDAQ:PCLN) did a 1-for-6 reverse stock split, lifting its stock price from around $3.50 per share to $22, as many investors believed that the William Shatner-led Internet travel service would fade away with so many other dot-com companies. Now, 12 years later, the stock trades above $1,200 per share, giving long-term investors a 50-bagger with room to spare.
In 2000, Laboratory Corp. of America (NYSE:LH) did a 1-for-10 reverse split after having seen its stock stuck in single digits for more than five years. Within two years of the reverse split, LabCorp had not only recovered, but it had also done two separate 2-for-1 regular splits, and the stock now trades for six times its split-adjusted price immediately after the reverse split.
Corrections Corp. of America (NYSE:CXW) traded as low as $0.60 per share in 2001 before reverse-splitting 1-for-10. Since then, the private prison-services provider has seen its stock jump more than tenfold, with two regular splits helping to drive the company's total return higher.
So it can turn out well for some companies to reverse split.
It depends on the financials and the business plan of the company.
Personally, I think it was a mistake to put it in the 10-K without some sort of explanation as obviously, none of us wanted to see that.
I'll wait for a response from the emails and tweets to see if Tom is interested in the shareholders enough to explain.
Sure!
Except it would have gone to .0005 then tanked because someone else would have seen the "reverse split" statement and you would have lost your funds anyways.
That's great; shooting the messenger. If you recall, Tom is the one that plainly stated it in the Annual report, not me. So you'd rather not know the facts? I take it you aren't interested in doing any DD on your stock picks. Incredible.
That is the first thing that has made sense all day Psy. I believe you may be right about Tom meaning no rs for 2015, not 2016. I still can't figure that Series C conversion to restricted common though. What's the point of turning them into common shares if they're still restricted. And then if he does that and then rs' s, his converted restricted common shares are a part of the rs too. So he loses technically too.
There has to be an angle we haven't figured out yet.
That is the first thing that has made sense all day Psy. I believe you may be right about Tom meaning no rs for 2015, not 2016. I still can't figure that Series C conversion to restricted common though. What's the point of turning them into common shares if they're still restricted. And then if he does that and then rs' s, his converted restricted common shares are a part of the rs too. So he loses technically too.
There has to be an angle we haven't figured out yet.
Those preferred are turned into restricted common shares so I'm not sure how that works either. We just need the rational behind it and I hope that Tom fills in the blanks.
Fatmike is not my buddy and he didn't do us any favors by hyping INMG. I think he's serious about this being a good stock and I still do. But all I'm doing is pointing out things from the report. I'm not exagerating or hyping or bashing. I try to explain discrepancies as best I can with the minimal information we have by looking at how Tom's been operating since this thing started back in July.
I probably should have just kept my big mouth shut. Sorry guys.
Well, maybe people will avoid it like the plague. I don't know. I'm sitting here holding a bagfull that's for sure but I'm not selling because of one statement on the 10-K. I still think the company is strong. That hasn't changed. And if he brings up the pps with a rs, the company is still the same and we've still got our investment.
Let's hear if he's going to respond.
I haven't sold any. What am I going to do? Sell at .0001? Get real. All I did was point out the issue in the 10-K? I'll wait til he addresses it.
He didn't say it would happen now. He said it would happen sometime this year. That gives the stock time to get up to a penny or more. From the trips that's huge. This same share structure with Series C stock was in the last 10-Q but nobody was saying anything about it then. All I'm saying is that Tom needs to clarify that statement in the 10-K and the effect it will have on the share structure. Doesn't mean it will effect INMG stock in a negative way.
Stop and think for a minute people. If you were going to rs in order to grab cash for yourself, which a lot of penny stocks have done, would you announce it in an annual report that at some point during the year you were going to rs? Have you ever heard of a company announcing in advance an rs before doing it?
No. Because it carries a bad stigma with it. Especially in the penny stocks. So you have to ask yourself, if Tom's building up INMG as a great 5 cent stock with lots of potential, why in the world would he plainly put in on paper in an annual report???
It's because the rs will not be to cover a huge debt, but rather increase investor confidence. Google the reasons why companies do reverse splits and compare your research with the DD on INMG.
I said that based on company performance and what Tom has previously stated about not rs' ing, that I'M not worried about an rs and I stated why. But to ignore the statement in the 10-K about the intention to rs this year is to not do our DD on this company and a disservice to the stockholders, many of whom would not otherwise look that deeply into the annual report.
I did not state it to worry anybody, neither am I worried. I do have concerns or at least questions about it and I believe we all need to go into this with our eyes open.
I said that based on company performance and what Tom has previously stated about not rs' ing, that I'M not worried about an rs and I stated why. But to ignore the statement in the 10-K about the intention to rs this year is to not do our DD on this company and a disservice to the stockholders, many of whom would not otherwise look that deeply into the annual report.
I did not state it to worry anybody, neither am I worried. I do have concerns or at least questions about it and I believe we all need to go into this with our eyes open.
I'm not worried about the reverse split and here's why. INMG has no toxic debt. The rs then does not serve as a way to pay that off. The financials are good so a rs is not needed from that standpoint. IMO in this case, the rs is a way to lift the stock to a level where there would be less of an influence on the pps by flippers.
Also on the conversion of the Series C Preferred to restricted common shares. This may be a sort of "poison pill" against any hostile takeover by an agressive buyer or company. It sets an inflated price on those shares which would nullify any benefit of a takeover as they would have first right to liquidation at a much higher rate than the current pps or possibly even the entire value of the company. So they're "restricted" from the standpoint that Tom would dump them if anyone tried a takeover by accumulating too much of the stock. It was a tactic that ultimately protected shareholders from corporate raiders in the 1980's.
I think he was reassuring investors that it wouldn't happen at the trip level solely for the purpose bringing up the stock price and then dumping his shares in a massive selloff. If you reread that note on the rs, it mentioned:
1.) It would happen in 2016. That could mean after a significant rise in the pps later on in the year.
2.) The conversion to restricted common shares would occur before the rs, not after. So they would be devalued by an rs too and that would not make sense from the standpoint of Tom making money on the conversion.
Because they become restricted common shares it may have little to no impact on us common shareholders. It may be a technical way to retire or eliminate the Series C Preferred shares in a way that doesn't impact on the common shares in a negative way.
Like I said, we have some questions.
I agree wholeheartedly Rock. I think he's got the incentive now to fill us in on what's happening with the company. He's looking for share price increase and he knows that he'll need the common investors' support for that to happen. Hopefully an interview like you mentioned would answer some of those questions. I'm really hoping that he may be willing to answer specific questions through Twitter of Facebook.
We'll see.
Hold your horses everyone. I just went through the 10-K. The cash and cash equivalents portion of the business looks exceptionally good meaning that as a business producing revenue, things look good. However, under Note 6 on page F-10 there is, what could be, an ominous signal on the horizon that will occur this year.
If you look at the share structure, there are 20,000,000 shares of Series C Preferred Stock. These were issued to a corporation controlled by our CEO, Tom Coleman. So they're his shares. These shares are convertible into Common Stock at the election of Tom at a rate of $.20 (20 cents) per share. That's 4 million dollars. Here is the statement in Note 6: Stockholders Equity on page F-10 that may or may not be a problem for us common share holders:
"As part of a capital restructuring the Company intends to convert its Series C Preferred Stock into restricted common shares and to reverse split its common shares in 2016.
We need some clarification from Tom on this. An RS is only valuable to shareholders if the company is growing and wants to increase its share price to make it more respectable to investors. Sometimes companies will do this to qualify for inclusion into the NYSE or the Nasdaq. The bad rs is when the pps continually goes down to a trip level and then an rs occurs at those levels. That's the death spiral of the company and the investors lose most all of their investment.
I do not put INMG into this death spiral scenario due to it showing obvious success as a business generating revenue and producing new product.
So a couple questions for Tom would be:
1.) What is the conversion rate from Series C to Common shares? Is it one for one, 100 Common shares for one Series C Preferred, or what?
2.) They become 20 million restricted shares. What is the restriction? Is it a time restriction relative to how long before he could sell them? Does it depend upon the pps being at a certain level?
3.) What is the purpose of the RS? When will it occur?
4.) What dillutive effect, if any, will these 20 million shares have on the common share structure.
It's obvious from the report that funds are going into production and marketing costs. that's good for us and it's good for INMG.
If the share structure is not impacted too severely by these Series C Preferred shares being converted, the RS will be good for us.
We just need a little clarification.
Volume at 59M today. Nice numbers. I think eyes are starting to fall on INMG. We knew the financials would continue the uptrend.
Annual Report:
http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=INMG&id=151388
Annual 10-K out!
It will be interesting to see the "substantial gain" from the sale of it's sports fantasy assets. I believe from the previous 10-Q that there may have been $120k in those assets before the sale. Tom's liquidating those assets so they may end up on this 10-K if completed before it's filed. Also, that's good for production as those liquid assets will be available immediately for any current production costs.
No RS here, no way.
Annual 10-K out!
It will be interesting to see the "substantial gain" from the sale of it's sports fantasy assets. I believe from the previous 10-Q that there may have been $120k in those assets before the sale. Tom's liquidating those assets so they may end up on this 10-K if completed before it's filed. Also, that's good for production as those liquid assets will be available immediately for any current production costs.
No RS here, no way.
Hopefully they are. They'll be looking to flip this thing 9 ways to Sunday though so it's a mixed blessing.
Those are a definite possibility but I think it may be a little early for the MM's. I think they might be waiting for a little more evidence of potential. There's a lot to be made if you've got a good startup. Waiting for sustained levels on the pps above .0005 is probably a lot more shrewd on their part.
Your observations are spot on Cy. The volume is gradually picking up. There's still a large amount of .0002's left but I have a feeling that probably by the end of next week or when the financials are released we'll get out of the .0002's. Those familiar with the history of the last bump might try to get in at 2 before the bump to 6 like last time. Those who are not familiar with the DD will bail on the pop but those familiar with everything going on here will probably hold most of their shares as the pps drops back down to 3 or 4. This should be the new base as the financials will now show not just one but two quarters of sustained revenue. If the 10-K is really good we should start heading towards .001.
The one thing to beware of are new names popping up with pie in the sky short term predictions (penney or "copper" by end of month statements.) I believe we'll definitely see .01 or .02, but not until the Q2 is published in August. Let's just get to .001 first. We'll need all your help in analyzing the 10-K to pull every bit of information (even speculation) we can out of it, since Tom is reluctant to keep us informed.
There is, however, one possibility that may occur regarding Tom's communication with us and that is that with the release of the 10-K showing sustained revenue and the beginning of a new year where a lot of his ideas start becoming realities, he may start communicating with us shareholders. He may have felt previously that until substantial proof could be shown on paper that his business plan was working, it was more important in developing the assets than communicating. So my guess, and I may be wrong, is that he may start using the Twitter or Facebook account to keep us more informed. And thats because now, when he wants growth and expects the pps to reflect his efforts, he's going to want the help and loyalty of the shareholders. So he's going to have to keep us in the loop.
Just a thought...
$$$ the bottom line.
You got yourself a Deal!
You completely miss the point and do not understand that given the choice between two parts that meet the same standard, manufacturers will usually opt for the less expensive part that has a shorter life span than the more expensive one that lasts longer for two reasons (neither having to do with safety or liability.)
1.) It costs less to make the vehicle or product.
2.) They make more money in repair costs down the line as the parts have to be replaced more often, which also includes the labor costs.
Airbus, Boeing, and every other vehicle or product manufacturer are in business for one reason. To make money. That's why you can buy a car for $20,000 but the parts for that car, if bought individually, would add up to $80,000. There is a manufacturer of an orange colored rubber radiator hose that can last the car's lifetime. It's more expensive than the black hose, but not by much. Why don't the manufacturers use it? The two reasons above.
That's why you only have to pay $1,300 for a 65" Sony or LG LED flatscreen TV. What the manufacturers don't advertise, however, is that TV is made with such cheap parts due to competition, that you'll have to replace the main computer board or the power supply board within 5 years at a cost of $400 or more. Every five years. The old CRT TV's lasted 20 years. Gone are those days.
Wrong. It is neither a safety nor a liability issue. The non-Type A bearings meet the SAE-AS81820 requirement. Their replacement will come during the normal service of the airliner at the time specified. Every part has a scheduled life span and is replaced during overhaul including bearings.
Those non-A Type bearings are absolutely not useless. In today's cost cutting market, if you're a manufacturer like Boeing or Airbus building new airplanes and you can spend $50,000 for bearings that meet the spec but only last 25,000 cycles, or $100,000 for the same spec bearings that last four times longer, and the dollar is the bottom line, which would you choose?
You'd go with the cheaper ones for a less expensive airplane and count on the purchaser to upgrade to the longer life bearings when the life cycle is reached. That's the real world.
Here comes the bounce...
Level II is still showing around 210 million on the Ask at .0002.
20 new investors could easily eat that up.
Well, I've tried a few times and have yet to receive any reply tweets or emails. So, I'll just have to wait for the 10-K for any answers to the company development. I can wait and I'm not so cencerned about the lack of communication. I'd be much more concerned if there were a lack of filings. INMG's on the up and up. I think that will be come ever clearer as we move through the first half of this year.