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.
Why do you think the ticker symbol is worth that sum?
Sorry, I don't know what that means.
What is fugu?
Looks like there was a press release yesterday. https://www.newswire.com/news/soul-and-vibe-announces-its-2018-strategy-20146354
A volume of $21,000 is not going to generate a no bid. There have been several solid volume days over the last couple of weeks.
What does that mean? I don't understand what you are saying.
As do I. I like their on-site store, too.
Thanks. I did not know that.
What do you mean by pin action? I am not familiar with that term. Thanks.
There is no indication of a new CEO; the current CEO has been great. It is an undercapitalized company with note holders / investors who have been more concerned with lining their own pockets than helping to build a company. The company needs new, solid investors, not new leadership.
Looks like there has been an uptick in the volume this week. Anyone have any guesses as to why? Thanks.
There's been no CEO change.
When did you call and speak with the CEO?
They don't have billions of shares outstanding. They are authorized for 2B, but the issued and outstanding is far less than that as per the most recent 8K.
They have never sold product through their website. Their stuff is downloadable through Google Play, Amazon, and the App Store. Their music is downloadable through iTunes, Spotify, Google Play, Apple Music, etc.
The increase in the authorized was back in January. I think late January.
I conducted a fair amount of competitive analysis of the games industry after seeing the company present at past conferences. From what I can see, the most successful companies are those who are able to generate a fair amount of content (for example, games) and not focus on just one specific product. If you go back and look at companies from Rovio to King to Activision to Electronic Arts you can see that they build brands and build customers (year on year) by having a high amount of content. I went back and I listened to some of the past interviews with the company on their YouTube channel and the phrase "recurring release calendar" has been used a lot. It seems to be consistently said as a company growth goal. I believe "recurring release calendar" is basically the same as saying "high amount of content." It would seem to me that having that "recurring release calendar" would help set up the potential for revenue generation, allow the company to cross-promote its products across its expanding portfolio, and help to potentially generate a more frequent news cycle. From looking at the company's historical balance sheets, you can see the company has been undercapitalized and that such has hindered its ability to develop and market a progressively larger amount of content. Something to think about, in my opinion.
None. I just watch the company from time to time.
I know the question was not originally addressed to me, but I thought I'd chime in and note that the things you requested are present in the company filings. I'd recommend reading through the company's most recent 8K and then cycle back through the rest. The stated goals and objectives of the company are consistently consistent over the years, as it the apparent undercapitalized state of the company from balance sheet to balance sheet to balance sheet. Hope this is of value to you. Again, sorry for the intrusion, I know the question was not directed toward me originally.
Happy to help.
You are welcome. Hope the day treats you well.
The company publishes games, ebooks, and music. They've released a small handful of games, a small library of interactive books bearing the John Deere brand, and quite a few music releases. Their products are available on the App Store, Google Play, and Amazon and their music is available on iTunes, Google Play Music, Spotify, etc. From what I can tell, they have always been quite undercapitalized and have been balancing the costs and obligations of having a public company with product development and release. They tend to stay relatively quiet, don't do any promotions, and do not put out a lot of news; the news they do release isn't "puff" and focuses more on the tangible. Their volume seems to be natural and not promotion created. From looking at the historical balance sheets, they have some debt and have been financing the company via convertible notes (which can be both a blessing and a curse.) The blessing is that they have released product and generated some revenue, the curse is that some note holders might be more of a "flipper" than an investor, which can impact share price and ability to raise capital. The company seems to be building a robust following on social media based on their products and they have a fairly active YouTube channel. I saw their CEO present a couple of times at conferences in years past; he speaks well, presents well, and seems to be a pretty straight-forward guy... he's got a pretty impressive resume and a solid set of recommendations and endorsements on LinkedIn from people who have worked with and for him over the years. He's very clearly a "builder" and not a "stock pusher" ... which is a very welcome change from other microcap CEOs.
That's not a scam. That's called market conditions caused by dilution via conversions of convertible notes by note holders who care only about their own return. Something that happens all to frequently on the OTC.
The liquidity has been quite good over the last several weeks. I believe this shows a good deal of support, especially given the Company has not had much news as of late. I believe a big picture look is appropriate through an actual financial review of the historical balance sheets, operating history, debt tables, and beneficial ownership. Based on my review of these materials, it appears that we are looking at an undercapitalized company that has primarily financed its operations through convertible notes. Comparing this against the beneficial ownership tables in the filings shows that the note instruments are the source of dilution. All seems pretty standard for an OTC company. Revenue (albeit small) has been generated each quarter for the last few years. Seems to me this is a company with several years of operating history that could benefit from some good sources of capital via non convertible transactions. Hard to come by, even in the best of times given market conditions these days. I recommend that individuals do their own financial analysis and decide for themselves what best meets their personal goals and objectives.
You are welcome. Hope you've enjoyed the weekend.
I have no idea. My understanding from researching other companies was that OTC markets (meaning the website) was supposed to have up-to-date info on things like that, filings, new releases, etc. Where they get the info for their website posting I don't know. (I also don't know how frequently they do or do not update it.) Sorry I don't have a direct answer for you.
The balance sheet and historical operating history shows that it has produced product and has managed to produce some revenue, each quarter, while simultaneously being undercapitalized and not being in a position to appropriately market its product. Most other OTC companies can't pull this off. Reviewing the balance sheet and comparing it against the operational history, beneficial ownership, etc. says a lot, without focusing exclusively on share price. Focusing on share price for an OTC company means a company is analyzed by one ineffective data point. That is a short sided approach. When looking at any company, one should take the big picture into account and make an informed decision based on numerous data points. That is the difference between a flipper and an investor. One is based on opportunity and the other is based on skill. For any company, its leadership may make decisions based on what is best for the company to be able to move forward and to meet its objectives and not play to the whims of each and every little complaint that might get uttered here and there. Armchair quarterbacking on a Monday morning adds no value. Appropriate and effectively communicated analysis adds value... value that can help any given individual decide whether a company is (or is not) worth a potential investment / deeper look.
In a 4 year operational history as a public company they have been delinquent one time. While one time delinquent is one time too many, that is more than can be said for the vast majority of OTC companies today. Let's focus on commentary associated with analysis of balance sheets, operational history, etc. instead of armchair quarterbacking on a Monday morning.
Operational history and balance sheet commentary is far more valuable than Monday morning quarterbacking. It proves that a company's status is understood and that an informed decision on whether a company is or is not worthy of an investment can effectively be made by any given individual. Stock performance, especially on the turbulent and dilution-laden OTC, is frequently not an accurate representation of a company and is but a single datapoint... not THE datapoint. That's the difference between a flipper and an investor. The mindset and expectations of the two are very different... and very differently communicated. To focus solely on share price is, in my opinion, not allowing an effective analysis of the big picture and the market at large. We seem to be looking at an undercapitalized company that needs capital from good sources (as per the balance sheet, the company's operational history, and the debt schedule.)
Have said it before and I'll say it again. After reviewing the historical balance sheets and comparing them against operational history, we seem to be looking at an undercapitalized company. I think the incessant obsession with "what's the stock doing now? ... how about now? ... now? ... how about now? ... now?" is not that worthwhile of an exercise. We seem to be looking at a company that, despite its apparent capital constraints (as detailed in the balance sheet) has produced a range of product and, despite the fact they have not (and don’t appear to be able to) spend much on marketing, have managed to generate a little bit of revenue every quarter since its first product hit the market. The company has openly stated that they’ve been financing operations through notes and that they are trying to increase the amount of product they create. Sounds like they just need capital from good sources (again, look at the balance sheet and the debt schedule.) Do your own big picture research and make up your own assessment as to what is / is not worthy of an investment. You know you (and your personal goals and objectives) best.
Initial sales reports for VR are down; thus far VR as a category is not meeting sales expectations. Reports are that even Sony has cut its projections. Story is that it is a combination of devices being too cost prohibitive between device and PC hardware required to not solid enough content. Consensus is that it is potentially too much of a gimmick, very solitary and not social, and just plain too early. I think entering the market with a small scope VR product within the next year would be a good idea, but it needs to be part of a portfolio that focuses on the bigger market to satisfy a wide array of customers and things to "play on." I think a lot of people jumped onto the VR bandwagon because it was what was talked about "on the street" as the new, cool thing when, in reality, it is all about the content. "Content is king," as they say. All this said, story after story tells that making this stuff is expensive with budgets for the noteworthy products (on any platform) being several hundreds of thousands of dollars to multi-million dollar for the big heavy-hitting stuff. I am sure that if you'd like to help pay for the development of the content they'd gladly take your call.
A recurring complaint within the OTC is dilution. Notes cause dilution. Continuing my "I suspect this is an undercapitalized company" remarks from earlier, raising money for a company is difficult... especially when you are in the OTC. Time and time again at conferences and on phone calls I have heard CEOs complain that they don't want to "do notes" but that they are their best source of capital as direct-equity fixed-rate financings are quite hard to find and, contrary to popular belief, are not falling from the trees. Other comments I hear are that many, many times the note holders end up not caring about the company at the end of the day ... they just want their return. That's "flipping" vs "investing." A CEO has pretty much no control over how a note holder behaves when they convert. They could do everything from pre-sell their conversion to slam the price to hold and gradually sell. Notes are not fully bad capital vehicles, of course, but I think the real problem is the continued existence of variable-rate financings within notes. Those need to end. Those hurt investors and those hurt companies. There's always going to be a positive and a negative for every action taken by a company; pass up a note and, perhaps, that company goes under. Take the note and that company lives to fight another day but, the note holder might end up being 100% focused on himself and then there's added dilution. None of this is new and there's never going to be a perfect scenario. That's why you need to pay attention to balance sheets, operational history, etc. Those big picture tools can offer the best insight so that you can make your own informed decision. You, and you alone, know what best meets your needs and objectives.
After reviewing historical balance sheets and comparing them against operational history, we seem to be looking at an undercapitalized company that, over a four-year period has, consistently been current in its filings. They appear to have been delinquent one time … one … sure, that’s one time too many, but compare that against the “chronic late filers” that plague the OTC. We also seem to be looking at a company that, despite its apparent capital constraints (as detailed in the balance sheet) has produced a range of product and, despite the fact they have not (and don’t appear to be able to) spend much on marketing, have managed to generate a little bit of revenue every quarter since its first product hit the market. I think that is anything but “useless.” Sounds more like a case of constrained productivity. The company has openly stated that they’ve been financing operations through notes and that they are trying to increase the amount of product they create. Sounds like there’s a plan, they just need capital from good sources (again, look at the balance sheet and the debt schedule.) As you can see from the operational history and beneficial ownership, they’ve kept things going “lean and mean.” They’re not blanketing the world with puff PR pieces. When you compare against most of the other OTC companies out there, I doubt most of them would have lasted a year (and most don’t.) Do your own big picture research and make up your own assessment as to what is / is not worthy of an investment. You know you (and your personal goals and objectives) best.
I'm simply a person who reads balance sheets and listens to what is communicated by various companies. I've followed this particular company for quite a while now and I've read through periodic posts insinuating one thing or another. Many of the posts from royal sources in particular seem quite unsophisticated and lacking in substance. I'm certainly not paying any credence to those obtuse comments; those benefit nobody... especially the other people on this board. When I review a company I find it is important to review (and to understand) the balance sheet history relative to that particular company's operational length. I find that exercise is a far more worthwhile use of time than to "flame" a position.
Anyone capable of reading a balance sheet can see that this is an undercapitalized little pub.co. ... and that it has been undercapitalized for quite a while. This little pub. co. has taken advantage of some of the licenses it has attracted, it has published a diverse line of product, it doesn't put out "puff" PRs, and up until this most recent Q has pretty consistently hit its filings ... for years. It certainly isn't perfect, but it doesn't act and communicate like a "fly-by-night" crap microcap with an 8-month life-cycle, which should be viewed as a positive by anyone with a degree of sophistication when it comes to investing. I will refrain from calling out any users on this board, but, I'd steer clear of unintelligent "feedback" and "advice" that's focused on name calling and "flipping." Do your own big picture research and make up your own assessment as to what is / is not worthy of an investment.