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.
Be sure to post again later this week as we're counting our money and remind us what a crappy stock and company this is.
Have you ever heard of businesses subcontracting work, even in house, to others who are not considered full-time employees? Or bringing more employees on board as work expands? BTW, the company I checked out has been awarded government contracts in the past, either directly or through subcontract work, and will be awarded more in the near future. And of course business opportunities in this field are limitless, reaching far beyond government contracts. "Dying on the vine" company? Looks like the new expanded version of the company is just starting to take off in my view. But to each his own, and thanks for your unbiased opinions.
I strongly suspect there will be many unhappy people in the coming weeks who will regret having panicked and sold their positions at extreme lows.
Did you sell? If not, then you're not poorer by a plug nickel.
IMHO you will be paying a lot more per share at that point.
In answer to all of your questions, it's because Brian chooses not to at this time.
https://finance.zacks.com/reverse-merger-mean-stocks-1096.html
I've read similar descriptions of the effect of reverse mergers elsewhere as well.
Hopefully you're correct but immediately preceding the quote I entered in my first post was this: "The most common reason for a reverse merger is the desire of a private company use the surviving shell of the defunct company to quickly become a public company. The alternative is a long process involving SEC registration." So the part about us potentially losing shares in the reverse merger pertained to a private company using the shell of a failing public company to quickly and more cheaply go public.
How do we know in this reverse merger that we will retain the same number of shares that we currently hold in ozsc? When googling reverse mergers for failing companies, it states "You (original shareholders) will receive a certain number of shares in the new company in exchange for your original shares, but that number will be considerably smaller than the number of shares in your original holding." My question has nothing to do with a reverse split, I'm just talking effect on original shares at the time of actual merger.
You're right, if I were you I'd walk away and never look back.
Agree, there's definitely potential here and since you can pick up 100K shares for about a grand it's a no brainer in my book to buy in.
I'm glad you do, I was only responding to former pumpers and others on this site stating that John can't do a R/S without stockholder approval. Now people should realize that they don't fall under that definition and will have no vote.
They'll be buying alright, myself included, at bargain prices.
"...the stockholders holding at least 51% of the voting power of the stock of the Company entitled to vote consented in writing..." Did any of you get a vote to raise the A/S to 4 billion? So much for they can't do a R/S without stockholder approval...they'll always have their 51% of "entitled" voters in the bag.
That's because there are always new people looking at or buying into a stock and the big name pumpers you were use to seeing here all bailed at once when the stock price tanked from the .20's back to single digits and the credibility of their statements/actions was questioned.
Yeah, I accumulated all of my shares with an average of .028 so I'm still up, but barely. Wish I had sold a portion of my shares when it was way up to protect my original investment and/or reinvest but that's all water under the bridge. My choices now are to take a modest profit (which may not be an option after today) or to bunker down for the long haul. I guess I'm choosing the latter but am not too happy with some of the company's actions lately.
So TLSS drops the 10K last Friday night and it's understandably not well received. Not content with filing it and shutting up the CEO decides to put out a news release just before the start of the next trading day to remind everyone of the crappy 10K filing that he dropped on Friday (just in case anyone forgot or didn't notice). And then, on Tuesday, the CEO drops an 8K to remind everyone that he issued a news release on Monday to remind everyone of the crappy 10K that dropped on the previous Friday. You can't make this stuff up! Concurrently, we have panic selling, massive dilution, and this weird MGN connection where that company announces that they're somehow buying their way into TLSS by purchasing shares on the open market. All too strange.
There was a big increase in revenue cited in the 10K for 2019 over 2018. How did that work out for us? I don't know why anyone believes that the June 29th 10Q will send us skyrocketing up again. Didn't we just learn a hard lesson that financials encompass much more than revenue, e.g., levels of debt? When a filing or PR is posted that shows both revenue growth and "significant" debt reduction I'll get excited. BTW, this post was recycled by CJ and others on this site a gazillion times.
We already have a good idea of the revenue for Q1 from a previous PR. The question is will the debt be significantly improved? If not, it won't give us any boost.
What happened to all the big name posters who were pumping this stock incessantly for weeks and berating anyone who questioned them? Where's the guy who posted recycled PRs from early 2020 every 5 minutes day after day after day until recently, and the ones who swore that 2019 would show "upwards of $60M in revenue" even though it was clearly going to be low $30M range? Will they reappear down the road on an upswing and start it all over again?
Totally agree that releasing that financial summary yesterday was either dumb as dirt or it had a specific negative intent. I emailed the CEO asking what possible purpose releasing that summary had yesterday when he had already dropped the 10K on Friday night? Also referenced MGN's strange press release about buying up shares. I don't expect a reply but will share if I get one.
I'm glad that the CEO has vowed to take care of we long shareholders(???), otherwise I'd be concerned that we'll be back in the .02's or .03's before we know it. I guess we're looking at really long now.
Our CEO may be great at much of what he does, but he's lousy when it comes to promoting the company. Why did he see a need after releasing a 10K Friday night that he knew would cause many to panic sell to issue a news release today that reminded everyone again of the crappy 10K? He couldn't have come up with some positive news at market open to offset the 10K, or, released nothing at all?