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.
Hopefully we'll see some signs of life around here soon.
I am bullish on this co. I found them yesterday because of their RSI which indicates they were oversold. More importantly, I think with the coming economic and political instability, their products and industry will see a lot of new interest.
Do tell.
And more importantly, everyone will be getting the same information at the same time. There was too much hearsay, rumor, and plausible deniability about the stream of information coming from IR via text message and phone call.
Do you have a link for my future reference? I did not think a lease was public information.
It's probably a non issue anyway. A stable tenant in a commercial property that size is probably one that the owners would like to keep. Worcester is not NYC, how many potential other tenants could there be for a property like that.
Interesting angle. Or if the lease has a significant amount of time left on it at favorable terms then it could be an asset similar to many of Sears co's leases.
One thing I do not understand about the case is if loan is governed by Delaware or NY state laws? EMA is a Delaware Corp but filed the case in NY. Does anyone have insight to that? Different usury laws I think.
The proposed acquisition of Rotmans will be between 58% to 100% of the company. What number on that spectrum do you expect them to consolidate in? If the Rotmans revenues are 35 Million and they incorporate 58% of the company then it would be about 20 million of revenues added to VYST's books. Does anyone have any insight as to why they would only incorporate 58% of the company instead of a larger number? One answer that was suggested was that because a small portion of the furniture store is a museum or collection of memorabilia that won't be included. All well and good but I doubt that it constitutes 42% of the furniture company's value.
Thanks I don't know how I missed that earlier reply. I'll try to digest it and respond this evening when I have more time. My off the cuff reply though is that there is enough good and bad here to keep us around but it no longer appears to be the same slam dunk it appeared to be a month ago. I think a lot of it comes down to a belief that Greg and Steve et al are going to do what they stated and not scam us, which is extremely rare in OTC. It is a bit of a confidence game here and some of the recent events like declaring a buyback while simultaneously gagging the TA and doubling the OS as well as some of the odd texts that were purported to be from Greg around the time of the 10k give me serious pause.
The timeline was given to the investors by IR so when the timeline is not met, it is worth noting that it wasn't the investors that proposed the timeline in the first place and they should have serious concerns. Also, I too believe they are first and foremost doing these ventures to sell more products but that doesn't mean they won't over dilute this in the process to line their pockets even more at the expense of the shareholders. The two prospects are not mutually exclusive.
Hey if they issue enough shares to eachother they can probably get that number up to 80% or even 90%. That would really be impressive lol.
I forgot to address your last point. The 600 million shares they issued in January did not hit the market so stating that 500 million shares did not trade this past week does not seem relevant to me to this conversation. They are diluting this by issuing shares to insiders not by dumping them on the market so that argument is a non-starter.
There is absolutely debt on the books. There was no third party toxic convertible debt at the date of publishing of the 10k. April 22nd was a week ago. If you look more closely at the balance sheet and cost of revenues I don't think you can honestly come to the conclusion that there will not be more dilution to finance operations. They raised the A/S to 1,500,000,000 shares.
I don't think I'm a basher or a pumper. I argued with oiler a lot back in the days when I thought the share structure was 500-600 million and there was going to be a buyback. I'm still here though holding 20% of what I did a few weeks ago. I like to post some of my new pessimistic views on here because I learn a lot by debating things, in this case the merits and risks of VYST.
Did I say they did or did I say that I would not be surprised if they did? If you need to change my words to create your argument then maybe you should look more critically at your position. The last major dilution occurred shortly after the 10Q was released so why not do it again. They increased the AS right? Do you not believe that they will issue more shares accordingly? Finally, read the post I was responding to, in which case the TA would not provide share structure to an inquiry if you are lacking in context.
That would be an interesting approach. I guess in theory, if they wanted to maximize their gains (which is usually the point right) they could continue to overcompensate themselves with shares and make loans to the company for more hundreds of millions more shares at very favorable terms, then convert their shares to preferred shares, then RS this thing to the moon. I forget the upper limit to the authorized RS but I know the minimum was 5 and the max was a high number. They would really make a killing. The investors might do ok in that scenario if their basis is low enough but its a lot of risk I think.
That's an unfortunate exchange. I would not be surprised in the least if the o/s is already at 1,500,000,000. They increased the A/S to that number so we know its coming if it hasn't happened already. If the TA continues to not share an updated share structure number with the markets that will be our confirmation.
You're right I think my typing got ahead of my thinking on that one. It would be 3cents eps at those numbers. I disagree though that 2 billion is unlikely number in two years, I think even under one year would not be surprising. There were just over 100 million shares o/s at the time of last year's 10k and they are now at 1 billion so with the acquisitions that may happen as well as the cost of their revenues and the cost (in shares) of the family consultants and insider financing a lot more shares are going to be issued.
In two years the O/S would probably be at least two billion shares though right based on the recent trend? That would put this at 3 cents a share valuation based on your other projections I think pre-reverse split.
You are suggesting they could issue more shares to suppress the share price, to buy back at a lower price??? Has a company ever done that? Anything is possible I guess. Usually penny stock companies issue shares to dump them on the market. In this case they seem to be issuing shares to eachother at pennies on the dollar as well as hiding dilutive issuances for months while claiming that there will be a buyback.
Well they did also increases the A/S so it would not surprise me in the least if the new outstanding share count as of 4/23 was 1,500,000.
I don't know the source of that 19% profit margin number either but it seems dubious. Another way investor relations could repair the loss in credibility they have created recently would be to stop sharing information by text message and start using PR's or at least twitter like a real publicly traded company should.
If we have learned anything these past two weeks here it is to not believe everything put out there by investor relations. It is often misleading information.
Rotmans has not been merged with VYST, if it happens we do not know what percentage of Rotmans will be incorporated. I believe it will be closer to 58% of Rotmans not 100%. We do not know what their net profit is. I do not think it will be impressive and I highly doubt it will be 19% of revenues. There are benefits to be gained from a merger, like infrastructure, management, marketing, economies of scale etc. but I think expecting huge positive net cash flows from VYST could be another disappointment if the merger happens. So no its not nonsense and not that funny imo.
I'm a fan of the possibilities with FEC. They announced a while back they were acquiring it for $100k, I'm surprised and a little disappointed they haven't completed that acquisition yet. After the recent loss in credibility on many fronts here I would like to see events like that acquisition to actually happen to restore faith.
Agreed it seems very deceptive to announce a share buyback plan while doing the opposite, when in fact there was no way they could have executed a buyback. It makes it much harder to have faith in all of the plans going forward here. Very damaging to credibility imo. Some may reply that after a merger or two they can still pull it off. Maybe but it seems far more likely that more insider convertible debt will be used to finance operations while diluting commons and increasing the pie for management.
Maybe, with what money though? There is still convertible debt on the books and they will very likely issue more to fund operations.
Under the terms of the proposed merger/consolidation, they plan to merge 58-100% of Rotmans into VYST. Why do you suppose there is a range and do you have any opinion where it will fall if/when the merger happens?
And I hate to reference pepeoil for obvious reasons, but he did bring up an interesting point this morning about Greg's history with the previous company he ran. It apparently ran huge deficits and had some shady related party transactions between Rotmans that hurt the shareholders before he stepped down.
Agreed and there is value here, what I have a problem with is that they are diluting that value with each new share issued. Related party transactions and shares as compensation seem to be the main mo to dilute the shareholders and increase the piece of the pie for management. Its better than if they just doubled the o/s in January by selling shares into the market but end of the day it is still dilutive and there is a lot more to come I fear.
The thing I don't see anyone talking about regarding this proposed share buyback is that they doubled the o/s this year and last year's share count was 134,307,218. Besides all of the other reasons why a buyback is probably not going to happen, why would they issue hundreds of millions of shares at very low prices, many of them less than a penny, then buy them back at market prices over 5 cents?
They are going to continue to increase the o/s, then do a RS at some point. If it's going to be for the purpose of uplisting then great but the more shares they issue, the bigger the R/S is going to be.
Because they get their shares at a fraction of the price we pay for ours.
I've posted similar statements on here a few times since the 10k came out. I haven't yet gotten a response as to where the money would come from for that. If funds were available, they probably would not have more than doubled the os in 2018 and then doubled it again so far this year.
Is it possible they are going to get one of these sweetheart deals down the road that the other lenders to the company have gotten, wherein tens of thousands of dollars lets them convert many millions of shares at a fraction of the current shareprice?
Hi Sterling,
I've read many of your well thought out posts on here. Do you think the buyback was ever even an option here. Seems to me like the story about an issue with brokers was just that, a story. What money would have been used for this hypothetical buyback.
What are your thoughts on the dilution to a billion shares and the increased authorized to 1.5 billion? I'm of the opinion that they will use every one of those authorized shares and then some to fund operations.
Also, you wrote "if they use a few hundred million common shares to convert to preferred shares to do some major acquisitions, it would serve the same purpose as reducing the Outstanding Shares (OS) as if a buyback had occurred."
That is an interesting idea to me. Who would be the owner of these hypothetical few hundred million shares? The ones owned personally by Greg and Steve? Treasury shares?
Maybe "the DD has not changed" but the wool was removed here when they doubled the OS in January and raised the authorized shares another 500,000,000. There is some major dilution here, the thing that is a bit unusual to me is that the diluted shares are mostly making their way into the owners and directors of the company so at least they're not all going into the float but that doesn't mean its not screwing the commons. That they issued 300,000,000 shares to cover 90k in debt is bonkers. I don't think the share prices has fallen accordingly with the new information about the share structure or the cost of their revenues. Granted the revenues for VYST should rise significantly in Q1 and costs not pertaining to financing should go down due to the acquisition of the logistic company but will it be enough to keep the lights on? Is it possible they don't want to risk the stable Rotmans business by merging with the money pit that VYSY is at the moment. Maybe they will only consolidate 58% of Rotmans, which would make more sense than 100% Then you're looking at 20 million revs added to VYST not 35. I hope I'm wrong because I still have a sizeable position here albeit it a lot less than it was last week before the daily text messages that proved to contain false or misleading information.
I think the major thing that was lost here was a lot of credibility.
Why do you suppose it hasn't been acquired yet by VYST? It is still privately owned as far as I can tell.
300,000 million shares for $90k. Why didn't they just sell more shares? I think first fire was a related party but wow that's a lot of dilution for 90k. This doesn't seem like the right way to do things.
What is the status/affiliation of Fluid Energy Conversion? I thought it was part of the Vystar Company but it does not appear in the 10k.
That would alleviate one of the concerns that reading the 10k gave me.
Correct, by a wide margin. The post I was replying to didn't make much sense in that regard.