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.
Agree, they are clowns
Hopefully they find a clue soon
Broke support, could be headed for $1
Oh well, guess we can add there and hope for the best.
How's everyone liking that reverse split? :)
Sitting at a pre-split penny
If this ain't the bottom, there is always Zero.
This is a probably a good speculative buy now
Reverse split was obviously stupid, and the crooks could very well continue shorting it into the ground, but it's now 1 penny based on pre-split.
Will continue adding, but would not be surprised to see it below $1 before possible launch
Well, that's not good.
So, you have a 1 for 150 reverse split, with 850M authorized for possible future dilution up the wazooo.
And, does anyone know if they even qualify for uplisting to Nasdaq?
This could very well work out, but reverse split was stupid. If they just patiently grew the business, that would have been the better way.
Float is now only 1,600,000 !!!
Yippeee! Anyone know if authorized shares is still 850,000,000?
Or does this go down to 5,7000,000 to factor in the 1 for 150 split?
'a new study suggests that...'
'...the notion that marijuana is a “gateway drug” is little more than political fiction.'
Really? Well anyone paying attention to actual facts already knew that.
https://ussanews.com/News1/2021/07/19/politicians-biggest-anti-marijuana-legalization-talking-point-just-got-thoroughly-debunked-new-study/
"great things to come!"
Hope so, but we have mumbling a-hole president who seems hellbent on opposing legalization, and a company on the verge of a reverse split.
Now even if the democrats in Congress can streamroll the drooling moron (should not be tough), it might not mean much with a reverse split.
So, biggest factor = reverse split. If that does not happen, this is a screaming buy. If it does, you might recover your investment in a couple years.
UNLESS, sales ramp up well above expectations. That wins over everything, and this stock can make you rich.
Unfortunately, Most likely correct
'A RS will raise the price slightly for no more than a few days, if that, and then tank.'
Best plan is to short if they do the RS, then buy again when the dust settles.
kx500rider, well said
'Also, we need to find out about the academy. John McCain graduated last in his class and was a POS. Mike Pompeo graduated first. Night and day...'
Yeah, makes sense
Despite the specter of a reverse split, too much good news for SRNA. Really seems like it should have been back at $.20 by now.
You are good at flipping
I suck at it, please post your flippage when it happens. :)
Loaded up a bit at .075
But probably headed to .05 again, because that would make the least sense. :)
Exactly
'if those restrictions are lifted and suddenly anybody with a marijuana license can access banking and be as well capitalized as the big boys then there would likely be a surge in demand for surna‘s products and that could work out the capital issues from the other side.'
Good point
But, it does seem, and of course this is no fault of SRNA, that the Federal laws for MJ are the biggest obstacle? Causing additional restrictions on how banks can associate with companies like SRNA?
What's the rush for Nasdaq? Voting No on reverse split
If they want to get on the Nasdaq, keep on track with good results, and stop handing out options like they are candy.
A lot of us have already waited a few years, getting to the Nasdaq without legitimate results will be a disaster.
Well said....
Yes, we are all hoping for the exception here. Where a potential reverse split might be made irrelevant with legitimate positive results.
but, in any event, it still makes no sense to do it, and our vote should be NO.
Admire the optimism
Bought more, hope we don't all go down in flames
Oh well, back to $0.05, we saw that coming
Should have bought Dodge Coin. You can't reverse split an imaginary currency.
'The CEO is a moron.' LOL
You bring up some great points. I do think his focus on re-positioning the business has been constructive, but can't disagree that he is overly cautious.
Totally right on the R/S and dilution, that is going to put a damper on the price until they decide it's stupid, or actually do it, and then the price will slowly deteriorate.
Of course the wildcard is a genuine increase in sales. Like Oakrock is saying that should be the primary focus, and solves everything.
Cool, you might be right
Let us know your gameplan, I'm in.
btw, have you noticed on StockTwits that SRNA is showing display ads:
I've seen this one a couple times:
SURNA 'Engineers Specialized in Cannabis Climates & Automation'
avinco, do you think
We collectively own enough shares to make a difference?
Shares outstanding = 236.5M
I know some of us own in the millions. Only .1% is institutional. Who owns the majority of shares?
Can't argue with that
Good luck, sir
JMTco, nice job on SeekingAlpha
I've seen your stuff. Use that site alot, but recently exhaust my free views pretty quickly. Is that site worth paying for?
avinco, what you and JMTco said here is key:
'I believe they will only issues shares for acquisitions, or to raise capital with shares to acquire companies. They will be responsible with the dilution and only dilute if it means the ROI far exceeds the cost.'
Totally agree, dilution for an express purpose, like expansion/acquisition would be fine. But let's see a sales forecast tied to the plans so it can be justified.
'Tony owns 6.5 million shares. Brandy Keen owns 13 million shares.'
Of course, they didn't buy these shares, so when they sell, it's more dilution.
Part of SRNA's problem before Tony, was the granting of options to the executives, who then dumped huge amounts of shares. Remember Stephen Keen dumping all those shares at $.40 a couple years ago? Instant dilution. Did former 'CEO' Chris Bechtel do anything for SRNA besides dump shares?
JMTco, you are correct in a pure mathematical sense
Your example of a reverse split, where number of shares decrease, the price increases to a new artificial level and market cap remains the same.... is of course exactly right.
I am referring to the risk of a reverse split in two ways:
1) Investor sentiment - reverse splits have a long history of not working, almost always resulting in a temporarily inflated stock price, and then destruction of value over time. We know that this is because, MOST companies that even consider the idea have a declining business, with no real plans, and are in peril to get de-listed from an exchange.
SRNA would be perceived as guilty by association, and cannot get de-listed from the OTC exchange, so why do it?
2) An inflated price, on a major exchange makes a stock more vulnerable to institutional shorting. We have all seen viable companies attacked by shorting until a stock is driven down to ridiculous levels. You think some new ticker on Nasdaq like SRNA will be safe from this? Probably not, there is alot of money to be made shorting a $5 stock back down to $.07.
Now, all of this is irrelevant, if SRNA focuses on one thing: Start selling more of your products, and leave the stock alone.
Hold Yes, Accumulate= not smart
Have fun with that. :)
Citi, AIG and Priceline
Believe they might be the only stocks in market history to rebound after a reverse split.
Citi and AIG perhaps only survived because of aggressive support from the government.
Great post, JMTco
Agree, that if management can be trusted to have a focused plan, and capital is raised via secondary or dilution occurs with a smart acquisition , could be a big win. But of course, Nothing positive happens without organic revenue growth.
And once again, 'Reverse Split only' accomplishes nothing, except screwing everybody who currently holds the stock.
we can talk about 'big investors' needing a higher price? Yeah, they will use that higher price to short the stock back to 7 cents.
Not sure, I'm just spitballing
I do remember the current/former CFO describing the r/s idea at some point in the past.
Exactly right
'current legacy holders get screwed in the process of getting to the Nasdaq'
And probably as you say: 'uplist in order to get attention from larger institutions and investors'. But we can care less about that if we get screwed?
I'm also a large holder, and like Tony, he's really been a great CEO in his short tenure. The more shares, and R/S financial engineering B.S. are probably not his idea.
Obviously, best possible scenario is that Tony's plans continue to gain traction and results, with the share price gaining organically.
The vote on this nonsense from all of us should be 'NO', imo
Admire the optimism, but....
More shares, and reverse splits are almost always bad ideas. Who cares about a Nasdaq listing if current shareholders get decimated. It's almost like rooting for a company to go BK, so you can lose your current investment, and then buy the new ticker a few years later...makes no sense.
Let's hope that this is the only thing that happens:
(i) Execute the preferred share conversion to eliminate the outstanding preferred shares, mostly owned by Morgan Paxhia, and convert them to common stock
Whoisit: GME
Yeah, great point. Hard to figure what happened there. Never thought it was worth only $3, but $300 is absurd.
Seems the shorts overplayed their hand there, so they got what they deserved, as they kept piling on until over 100% of the float was short?
Sad thing is, the shorts are probably right that it's similar to Blockbuster, and will eventually disappear. They do have a viable collectibles business, so maybe survive, with a stock price correctly valued around $5-$10.
BlueJay, exactly right
If stocks were consistently priced at 'fair value', the Nasdaq would be instantly cut in half, and TSLA would be at $30.
lol, totally agree
I have the same effect. If I sold, it would go to $1 the next day.
Best advice, is probably just ride it out
We obviously believe in the company, but technically this has short-term downside to $.04. Hopefully we are rewarded for our loyalty :)
don't know what's going on, so bought more :)
If you are going to go down, go down in flames!
Still think we get to $1 somehow.
Thanks Pauly3
Was not aware of the history. Makes sense that perhaps the brief euphoria over virtual farming created a bubble. And like you are implying, I'm sure when you say 'changed share structure' it means dilution for the benefit of the Keen's (who proceeded to dump a huge amount of shares)
Price targets for SRNA?
Hoping for a min of $1 myself. Anyone have any historical perspective on why it went to $8 back in 2014? Imagine that wouldn't be possible again, but who knows?
P/S sometimes means nothing
.21 stock price would put their P/S at 5.50 which is WAYYYYYY too high for a company with an unproven track record and no profit.
Can't argue with your general premise, but of course stocks trade on expectations, especially during the biggest bubble in history.
Consider that TSLA trades at a P/S of 29. Does that make any sense?