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.
0.0003 0.00 (0.00%) Volume: 5,705,047
$MSTO
Masterbeat Corporation (CE)
Day Range: 0.0003 - 0.0003
Last Trade Time: 3:46:49 PM EDT
0.0003 -0.0001 (-25.00%) Volume: 729,194
$MSTO
Masterbeat Corporation (CE)
Day Range: 0.0003 - 0.0003
Last Trade Time: 2:45:15 PM EDT
On the $MSTO Baird project - this is the latest submission / response from the county. As one can see it is a can of worms and it will take a long time to see the project finished. Oh and there are no changes on both properties as of this morning...
Once again CEO Josh didn't sit this out and see the ramifications of building on the Florida wetlands but hey he is an out-of-state owner from New Hampshire living in Georgia and it is not like this is his first exposure to them. Heck NH has them too: see Preserving and protecting New Hampshire’s tidal and freshwater wetlands from unregulated alteration ...
Date: October 12, 2022
Through: Jason Catalano, CFM / Building Plans Review Manager
From: Yubeiri Bacon, E.I.
C.C: Andrea Ward, P.E. / Civil Engineer
Re: BPR21-002777
Project Information:
CDLPZ (150%) ? ICPAL (100-yr) ? TIWB (no attenuation) ? MCD ? Wetlands ? WSPZ ?
The project is located at Lot 35 and Lot 36, Block A, Beach Highland S/D, Plat Book 3-50. The property
consists of ±0.49 acres of native vegetation. Existing topography varies from 19-feet to 6.5-feet naturally
draining to an existing pond on the south-east of lot 35.
Plans and/or calculation show impervious as follows: residential structure with detached garage
(2,066ft2
), pool and associated pavers (723 ft2
), and driveway, parking area and walkways ( 4,244 ft2
).
The total impervious area was calculated to be 7,033 ft2, 1
.
The proposed stormwater management system is comprised of two 6-inch-deep swales located along
the rear and in front of the property, both hydraulically connected by a 6-inch PVC pipe. The capacity of
the stormwater system is approximately 2,006 ft3, 6
.
All runoff originating from proposed improvements
is to be conveyed to the proposed retention area via proper grading, gutters, and downspouts.1, 6 The
following needs to be addressed so that we can continue with the review:
1. Provide the survey and topography of lot 36.
2. Provide the environmental assessment for lot 36.
3. The wetland delineation shown Site Plan dated 09/18/2022 does not represent the wetland
delineation shown on the survey dated 08/24/2021. Please add to the site plan and grading plan
the wetland line and the wetland buffer.
4. The existing topography shown in the Grading & Drainage Plan does not match the topography
on the survey. Please add the existing topography to the plans matching the survey. Also, add a
legend on the plans showing which line represent existing and proposed grading.
5. A hydraulic conductivity value of 40 ft/day should not be used for fine grained sands7
. In
addition, a FS=2 must be added.
6. Erosion control measurements to be added to the plans.
7. When submitting irregular swales, please provide the CAD drawings so that we can cross-check
the provided capacity.
8. Due to the location of this property please provide the following4
:
a. A model of the closed basin to include the staging of the receiving wetlands to confirm
there will be no rise of water onto adjacent properties. We are providing a ICPR model
of the area. Please note that if you are using another software you need to calibrate it to
the model provided.
b. A pile supported structure with net earthen fill of zero over the property is required.
c. Compensatory storage is mandatory for this ICPAL and falls in line with Policy I-4.5.2 of
the Comprehensive Plan (see below). Historical drainage patterns must be protected.
d. The FFE of the structures needs to be a foot above the flood elevation identified in the
Bird Road Project report provided by email.
9. Note that the parcel is at the bottom of a basin which had has flooding issues in the past. We are
providing the report and ICPR2 model by ATKINS (2015)1
for you information. It is the
responsibility of the engineer of record for the stormwater system to perform their due
diligence to design on the best interest of the public health and safety. Special attention to be
taken to existing and under construction properties adjacent to this one that are at a lower
grade.
The following polices of Walton County Comprehensive Plan are relevant to this project:
Policy I-4.1.2: Walton County shall require all new stormwater management systems be designed and
installed to provide adequate flood protection for all primary structures and to protect the structural
integrity of all roadways.
Policy I-4.1.3: Walton County shall require that all new stormwater management systems safely handle
all stormwater run-off that flows into, across, and/or is discharged from the site without creating any
additional flooding to adjacent property owners.
Policy I-4.1.4: Walton County shall have the authority to require the design of stormwater management
systems to be compatible with natural terrain or landscape barriers that protect the site against
flooding.
Policy I-4.1.5: Walton County shall require that retention/detention areas be designed and located so
that they do not adversely reduce the existing flood storage of the floodplain.
Policy I-4.2.5: Walton County shall continue to require erosion and sediment control plans be submitted
and approved prior to a pre-construction conference as regulated through the Land Development Code.
These plans shall be developed in accordance with water management district’s Best Management
Practices.
Policy I-4.5.2: Walton County shall continue to ensure the stormwater management regulations in the
Land Development Code protect natural drainage features by requiring compensatory storage,
nonstructural techniques when feasible, erosion and sediment control, maintenance of natural hydro
periods, and maximization of on-site detention/retention where feasible.
Policy I-4.5.3: As part of the development review process, the county may require an impact evaluation
that addresses the effects of new development on surrounding existing stormwater management
systems
Any additional supporting documents will need to be resubmitted through our on-line portal under the
referenced BPR number at https://www2.citizenserve.com/waltonplanning. Feel free to contact me
with any questions at 850-267-1955 or BacYubeiri@co.walton.fl.us.
? Final grades will be minimized in order to follow the surface profiles of the existing grades and protect
historical drainage patterns.
? All erosion control measures (BMPs) must be in place prior to site disturbance. Silt fencing shall encompass
the entire property boundary during site disturbance. Section 4.03.03 (B)(6)(c): Specific erosion control
measures shall be utilized during construction activity, such as staked and staggered hay bales, siltation
barriers, floating silt and filter berms. Further, erosion and sedimentation controls shall be left in place until
the disturbed areas are stabilized with permanent vegetation that will prevent the transport of sediment off
site.
? Pine straw is not considered permanent stabilization since it does not establish roots. If pine straw is used it will
need to be in addition to vegetation.
? Fill and clearing must be kept to a minimum outside of the building foot-print and driveway.
? All stormwater runoff generated from improvements shall be retained on site and directed towards the
stormwater management area.
? Fill or construction debris may not encroach into the roadway or obstruct existing drainage patterns.
? Driveway connections must not inhibit stormwater conveyance. They must be consistent with existing
driveways and conform to the approved master plan as applicable. Consult with public works if there are
any questions.
? Once the proposed stormwater management system has been constructed you must submit the following:
i. Certificate of Completion to the County;
ii. Final topographic survey showing the extents and depth of the SWMF;
iii. A minimum of four pictures from each side of the house (north, south, east, and west).
Walton County Comprehensive Plan:
? Policy I-4.1.3: Walton County shall require that all new stormwater management systems safely handle all
stormwater run-off that flows into, across, and/or is discharged from the site without creating any additional
flooding to adjacent property owners.
? Policy I-4.1.4: Walton County shall have the authority to require the design of stormwater management
systems to be compatible with natural terrain or landscape barriers that protect the site against flooding.
? Policy C-1.4.3 (4). Utilizing site specific erosion control measures, during and after construction, in accordance
with the Best Management Practices as established by FDEP. In addition to erosion control during
construction, stabilization of the shoreline shall be provided by prohibiting clearing of existing native
vegetation within a minimum 50 foot setback except as provided for in the Land Development Code for
access and ecological or safety related management of this buffer area.
Attributes of a Good Stormwater System
New development or improvements to a parcel must be designed to comply with the stormwater quality and quantity
requirements outlined in the Walton County LDC, The Walton County Comprehensive Plan, all applicable state and
federal regulations, as well as, the Florida Building Code. An applicant for an individual permit must provide reasonable
assurance that a SWMF, dam, impoundment, reservoir, works, or appurtenant work will meet the established criteria
including a determination that the activity:
A. Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands;
B. Will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, and/or structures;
C. Will not cause adverse impacts to existing (natural or man-made) surface water storage and conveyance
capabilities;
D. Will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources, and will not otherwise adversely impact the
maintenance of surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows (natural or man-made);
E. Will be easily constructed and function as proposed, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific
principles;
F. Will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife, and listed species by wetlands and other
surface waters.
Low Impact Development Concept
**LIMITING SITE DISTURBANCE AND FILL IS THE KEY CONCEPT OF LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
A. Minimize site disturbance and compaction of soils through low impact clearing, grading, and construction
measures.
B. Preserve or conserve existing site features and assets that facilitate natural hydrologic function.
C. Reduce stormwater storage requirements for your property by decreasing impervious (paved) surfaces.
D. Promote the distribution of retention, detention, treatment, and infiltration of runoff.
E. Harvest stormwater and rainwater on site.
We don't think he will let the $MSTO RE projects hit the skids. A problem is he bit off more than he had a budget for... with the expectation of reaping a heavy bonus on a nearly defunct Reg A offering which left him in a corner.
We reminded him countless times when he gave Eric .0001 shares it set a precedent for the future Reg A solicitation. As we stated to him no savvy "qualified" investor is going to pay .001 when he gave Eric .0001 -- he should have known that from the very beginning.
Eric is a slick cookie but CEO Josh has worked with him before so he knew the can of worms he was getting into. The thing is we get the impression he wanted $MSTO to be a better project than the last. But when you have Eric shoving cash in your face and you didn't stick to your business plan (oh where is that??) it is no surprise we ended up here.
Then the Q filings become problematic as previously discussed. We would like to know who pushed the Baird Road property on him especially since it was "wetlands" and there is a whole bunch of hoops to jump to get that project thru the county and that takes cash... if one reads the county COC reports he has a long way to go to clear that property.
Navarre is another issue. He is over priced pushing into a soft market and needs that COC loan based on an escrow buyer. We don't see that property selling at that price or even close to it - just look at the recent comps.
So where does that leave us? We think CEO Josh needs to hit the brakes for a minute and see how deep he is into Eric for, then figure a way to clean the books up to clear the audit.
As noted, getting pass an audit requires a solid paper trail. One past company we had sat thru a forensic audit to settle a key person death and it was not pretty. We have some ideas for him but they will not fly because he has his hand too deep in the cookie jar thinking he "deserves" some rich scheme payout. You cannot continue to encumber the company books with back compensation payments and SBQ 30% entitlements and then expect the company to grow - especially as an OUT-OF -STATE owner. That is outrageous. He has been in the construction industry long enough to know those situations require a bunch of finesse, ingenuity, and some good fortune to pull off.
His top priority is laying down the money paper trail. We have a hunch as stated many times before and to him it's dirty and he will have to come clean on some of it.
Just for some $MSTO clarity sake let me run some things thru the pass and off the cuff and cut to the chase. Me/us/our/companies have gone thru a ton of audits over the last 3-4 "decades" and without a doubt the number one reason for any and all delays was "money" - not the lack of it but how it was processed - that is the books are not balancing because the money that passed thru the companies went hayward for various reasons.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the numbers hitting the previous Qs were out of shape, commingled, diluted financial assets, inaccurate statements, existing errors not corrected, and the list goes on. Example as with the Reg A share offering and receipt for payment contrary to the (legal) filed offering statements. When CEO Josh runs a hammer and nail company for the most part there is open game in moving funds around from one pocket to another. But when he runs a public company it gets a little more sticky.
CEO Josh has a whole host of issues he has created with his pie-in-the-sky forward thinking PRs. We think part of it was building high end properties as an "out of state owner". We have done it many times and it sucks without an in-house manager with eyes on the property. Many way outside the box in reality set in place to push the pps for .0001 toxic dilution shares (Eric). There are way too many items to discuss in this one post (e.g., why he bought a wetland property, no financial statements on JTEC, self written compensation plan, 30% ownership of SBQ out of nowhere, unrestricted share offerings, increased A/S without a business plan, outdated website, and the list goes on).
Many of you are correct - the goal post has not moved on the filing dates. There is one primary reason the audit and the Qs are not filed: you need to follow the money trail.
...one quick note: when it comes to an audit if you show a buck in revenue then you need to show where it is or went. If the transactions in the bank don't add up with the transactions on the register there is a problem Houston. One of the issues we see is the .0001 cheap stock for money on the front end and how that money got parsed on the backend after it was sold into the retail market/float.
See if you can figure it out... it's a hunch but with years of CEO experience - I think it is a good one.
...especially when I know how easy this is to fix $MSTO. he has gotten too greedy of a pocket book for an out of state job (two of them) he has little oversight control and not even the common courtesy to give a simple update on the RE properties as a result of the hurricane. I have access to the county records too and spoke with both of them - while I remain silent per the wishes of the family there is just too much I know about this whole mess. ok let's carry on. man I was flipping Vegas RE when he was still in his diapers. Come on - CEO Josh at least do the minimum - fix the last Q it's wrong.
0.0003 -0.0001 (-25.00%) Volume: 3,825,438
Day Range: 0.0003 - 0.0003
Masterbeat Corporation (CE)
$MSTO
Last Trade Time: 1:10:19 PM EDT
Just checked the status of the two $MSTO build properties and no changes in the application and permit process. Navarre still listed "for sale" as well. We will keep everyone posted if there are county website or MLS changes.
We wish... if you are referring to the Rolling Dunes sales - but the short answer is no ~ $MSTO does not have that amount of cash. The company and its holdings got 50% since we were in partners with another family LLC.
"Then" with the 50% balance SBQ hijacked 30% going into CEO Josh treasurer chest. Then $MSTO had some other interesting handouts and swamp property (wetlands) shenanigans we should have never gotten involved with - and the list goes on.
We sure wish the $MSTO stockholders would wake the heck up and ask CEO Josh for some hometown transparency. That's not gonna happen because the slight of hand movement would get exposed.
Let's see if he can drag us out of EM to pink. It's just paperwork + fuzzy math.
Ref:
Press Release: 01/04/2022
Masterbeat Corporation (OTC PINK: MSTO), a company specializing in hard, tangible asset acquisitions with an intense focus on real estate, collectible classic automobiles, and other tangible assets, is pleased to announce it has sold its 183 Rolling Dunes, Santa Rosa Beach, Florida beach property for $4.25 Million ($4,250,000). The land acquisition and construction costs for this property are $1.85 Million ($1,850,000) which realizes a $2.4 Million ($2,400,000) gross profit for the Company.
In February of 2021, SBQ announced the acquisition and purchase of a parcel of land (183 Rolling Dunes) in a high-end area located in the sunny beach town of Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. The Rolling Dunes lot was purchased for $400,000, with an estimated construction cost of $1,450,000, for an “all in” cost of $1,850,000. At the time, comparable properties in the immediate area were selling for between $2.5 Million and $3.2 Million and generating an annual rental revenue of approximately $300,000 per year.
In July, 2021, SBQ announced that SBQ had broken ground and was going to be starting construction on the 183 Rolling Dunes asset. In August, 2021, they announced the lot was cleared and construction had started. In October of 2021, the 183 Rolling Dunes property was listed on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) with an asking price of $4.25 Million.
In December, 2021, SBQ received an all-cash offer and agreed to sell the property for the asking price of $4.25 Million. The funds are in escrow until the completion of the build which is still expected to be completed in April, 2022. The 183 Rolling Dunes property will realize a gross profit of $2.4 Million ($2,400,000) and, after the Realtor Commission of 4 % ($170k), a net profit of $2.23 Million ($2,230,000) for the Company.
Yes agreed. The disappointing thing is $MSTO CEO Josh has eyes bigger than his stomach but the two projects could still get done if he would stop shuffling .0001 diluted stock around with no accountability and get his paper work in order.
He needs:
1. Be more transparent with the stockholders
2. Keep the stockholders updated via the social media
3. Engage the stockholders on a Q&A which fleshes out issues
4. Get a securities attorney to review the filings and state of affairs
5. Recognizes he is not the person for handling the financial filings
6. Back track a little and clarify the past projects status and future endeavors
... there is a whole laundry list of items he could do in the meantime, e.g., clean up the rotten out of date web site, amend the misstated previous Q Reg stock filing, reduce the A/S, adjust his self written compensation plan, dump the SBQ 30% strangle hold, share we go on?
Sure don't like to see no recorded stock movement on $MSTO - pretty tough when CEO Josh is shuffling .0001 stock around like a rotten slice of pizza while his stockholders pick up the tab. Just a reminder the due dates for the filings haven't changed.
BTW: We CEO Josh a short list of security attorneys for his review - NOPE didn't even bother to say hay thanks for the effort although we didn't hold our breath.
Just can't wait for the future Q&A - hmm wonder what we're gonna ask first ??
The $MSTO Baird Rd COC still has not cleared the storm management mediation with the county planning department. CEO Josh is going to need some heavy patience to wade thru the Floridian waters and then re-think his forward thinking ideas on the next go around. You can read the read for yourself if you so desire...
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REVIEW 1
Lot 35 and Lot 36, Block A, Beach Highland S/D, Plat Book 3-50
Parcel No: 04-3S-20-34020-00A-0350
Be sure to note item (9): Note that the parcel is at the bottom of a basin which had has flooding issues in the past. We are providing the report and ICPR2 model by ATKINS (2015)1 for you information. It is the responsibility of the engineer of record for the stormwater system to perform their due diligence to design on the best interest of the public health and safety. Special attention to be taken to existing and under construction properties adjacent to this one that are at a lower grade.
Here's the item highlights:
The following needs to be addressed so that we can continue with the review:
1. Provide the survey and topography of lot 36.
2. Provide the environmental assessment for lot 36.
3. The wetland delineation shown Site Plan dated 09/18/2022 does not represent the wetland delineation shown on the survey dated 08/24/2021. Please add to the site plan and grading plan the wetland line and the wetland buffer.
4. The existing topography shown in the Grading & Drainage Plan does not match the topography on the survey. Please add the existing topography to the plans matching the survey. Also, add a legend on the plans showing which line represent existing and proposed grading.
5. A hydraulic conductivity value of 40 ft/day should not be used for fine grained sands
7. In addition, a FS=2 must be added.
6. Erosion control measurements to be added to the plans.
7. When submitting irregular swales, please provide the CAD drawings so that we can cross-check the provided capacity.
8. Due to the location of this property please provide the following4
:
a. A model of the closed basin to include the staging of the receiving wetlands to confirm
there will be no rise of water onto adjacent properties. We are providing a ICPR model
of the area. Please note that if you are using another software you need to calibrate it to
the model provided.
b. A pile supported structure with net earthen fill of zero over the property is required.
c. Compensatory storage is mandatory for this ICPAL and falls in line with Policy I-4.5.2 of
the Comprehensive Plan (see below). Historical drainage patterns must be protected.
d. The FFE of the structures needs to be a foot above the flood elevation identified in the
Bird Road Project report provided by email.
9. Note that the parcel is at the bottom of a basin which had has flooding issues in the past. We are providing the report and ICPR2 model by ATKINS (2015)1 for you information. It is the responsibility of the engineer of record for the stormwater system to perform their due diligence to design on the best interest of the public health and safety. Special attention to be taken to existing and under construction properties adjacent to this one that are at a lower grade.
It is difficult for many of us stockholders to understand why $MSTO CEO Josh cannot meet the posted time frames for the Q filings except for his poor business management skills and/or what we think is the obvious issue in balancing the .0001 stock give-a-way, errors on the recent Q, and abuse of his forward thinking statements. Running the company into EM status is flat out irresponsible.
Please note he is an out-of-state property manager on these COC projects. Yes, the contractor on the Baird project is reputable however CEO Josh made some rough mistakes on this property and he is having to shuffle around the county requirements.
We will be interested to see the content of his upcoming tweet and/or PR.
$MSTO from CEO Josh We are working on returning to Pink Current Staus (sic). Please stay tuned as we work towards 2021 Audit and watch for announcents (sic) of progress being made at both Navarre and Baird Rd Properties. (Twitter).
$MSTO We are working on returning to Pink Current Staus. Please stay tuned as we work towards 2021 Audit and watch for announcents of progress being made at both Navarre and Baird Rd Properties.
— @MasterBeatCorp (@masterbeatcorp) October 9, 2022
0.0004 0.0001 (33.33%) Volume: 527,217
$MSTO
Masterbeat Corporation (CE)
Day Range: 0.0003 - 0.0004
Last Trade Time: 3:55:46 PM EDT
Total Trades: 4
$MSTO Lot 35/36 Baird Road Santa Rosa Beach FL COC updated 10/06/2022 - project is still moving forward as contractor is addressing planning department comments.
File #: 21-006436
Permit #: BPR21-002777
Address: Santa Rosa Beach FL 32459
Work Description: lot 35 baird rd
Task: Building Permit Review
Status: Waiting on Applicant
Planning Department: Jason Catalano
Accessory Apartment
The proposed accessory apartment shall not exceed 800 square feet in living space. No more than one accessory apartment shall be permitted on any residential lot. The accessory apartment shall be located and designed not to interfere with the appearance of the principal structure as a one-family dwelling unit. The accessory apartment shall not be available for commercial short-term or long-term rental to any person who is not a family member of the owner of the property. This is in accordance with the Walton County Land Development Code, Section 6.02.01.
Building Height (40' +)
If any fill material is proposed that changes the natural elevation of the property beneath the building footprint, the applicant will be required to provide the amount of fill added to property. This is in accordance with the Walton County Land Development Code, Section 5.00.06.
Building Setbacks
The setbacks shown on the construction plans and/or site plan are in accordance with the County's, Planned Unit Development, or Development of Regional Impact setback requirements. Prior to framing inspection, the applicant will be required to provide the Walton County Planning Department with a signed/sealed foundation survey showing setbacks.
Elevated Walkways/Steps
The maximum height of steps allowed to encroach into the building setback is 30 inches. If any part of the structures listed above is above 30 inches, that part will be subject to building setback requirements.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
This parcel is located adjacent to a water body, wetland area, or within a flood hazard area. A properly placed silt fence is required prior to commencement of any construction activities.
On-Site Stormwater Retention / Grading
The applicant has supplied the Walton County Planning Department with a stormwater grading / drainage plans to satisfy the Stormwater Ordinance 2019-6. Prior to the C/O inspection from the Building Department, the applicant will be required to provide the Walton County Planning Department with a copy of the Certificate of Completion form certifying that the stormwater retention and/or grading was completed in accordance with the approved application. The completed Certificate of Completion and the LID specific Maintenance Form must be recorded with the deed at the Walton County Clerk of Court. The applicant must schedule an inspection with the Walton County Planning Department to verify that the stormwater plan was implemented accordingly. The recorded documents must be provided at the time of inspection
Roof Overhangs & Cantilevered Decking
All roof overhangs and cantilevered decking are subject to setback requirements, except the deck or overhang may extend a maximum of 18 inches into the building setback if they are at least 8 feet above ground level. This is in accordance with the Walton County Land Development Code, Section 5.00.07.
Wetland Buffer Disclaimer
Owner and contractor take full responsibility for any and all damage done to the wetland buffer and will be fully responsible for repairing any part affected by the construction. Owner holds Walton County harmless for any and all damage done due to construction near a wetland buffer.
0.0003 -0.0001 (-25.00%) Volume: 250,000
$MSTO
Masterbeat Corporation (CE)
Day Range: 0.0003 - 0.0003
Last Trade Time: 3:32:52 PM EDT
Total Trades: 1
$MSTO CEO Josh hasn't responded back to us since Aug 25, 2023
we even passed along this info today :
Just thought after the hurricane went rummaging thru Florida you would have posted a tweet on the status of the two properties for the benefit of your $MSTO stockholders?? But that didn't happen either...
Regarding the $MSTO CEO Josh information you are looking for - yes:
Josh Tannariello
@JTannariello
He hasn't posted under his personal account in ages. So it might be best to send him a message using that platform.
or
text / call his cell number
Josh Tannariello CEO
1-603-459-9378
info@masterbeatcorp.com
Not sure we follow the thought on the volume - keep in mind $MSTO is sitting in the "Expert Market" (EM) and for the most part unavailable to the retail trader. Yesterdays volume was 1.8M, and a 100K the day before. But the outlook is appreciated.
0.0004 0.00 (0.00%) Volume: 1,800,000
$MSTO
Masterbeat Corporation (CE)
Day Range: 0.0004 - 0.0004
Last Trade Time: 2:28:25 PM EDT
Total Trades: 1
0.0004 0.0001 (33.33%) Volume: 100,000
$MSTO
Masterbeat Corporation (CE)
Day Range: 0.0004 - 0.0004
Last Trade Time: 3:06:38 PM EDT
Total Trades: 1
0.0003 0.00 (0.00%) Volume: 2,016,700
$MSTO
Masterbeat Corporation (CE)
Day Range: 0.0003 - 0.0004
Last Trade Time: 11:20:22 AM EDT
Total Trades: 4
0.0003 -0.0004 (-57.14%) Volume: 25,066,088
$MSTO
Masterbeat Corporation (PK)
Day Range: 0.0003 - 0.0006
Last Trade Time: 12:52:31 PM EDT
Total Trades: 20
$MSTO Warning! This security is traded on the Expert Market
The Expert MarketSM serves broker-dealer pricing and investor best execution needs. Quotations in Expert Market securities are restricted from public viewing. OTC Markets Group may designate securities for quoting on the Expert Market when it is not able to confirm that the company is making current information publicly available under SEC Rule 15c2-11, or when the security is otherwise restricted from public quoting.
$MSTO Outstanding Shares Updated
Old: 1.150.434.915 (2022-08-14)
New: 1.265.434.915 (2022-09-29)
Difference: +9.9962% (+115.000.000)
Outstanding Shares 1,265,434,915 09/29/2022 +115 Million
Outstanding Shares 1,150,434,915 08/14/2022 +72 Million
Outstanding Shares 1,078,361,015 04/18/2022 +60 Million
Outstanding Shares 1,018,361,015 04/13/2022 +75 Million
Outstanding Shares 943,361,015 03/16/2022 + 85 million
Outstanding Shares 858,361,015 03/07/2022 + 50 million
Outstanding Shares 808,361,015 03/03/2022 + 80 million
Outstanding Shares 728,361,015 02/09/2022
$MSTO Reg A Bad Actor Disqualification yet to be addressed:
The “bad actor” disqualification provisions contained in Rule 262 of Regulation A disqualify securities offerings from reliance on Regulation A if the issuer or other relevant persons (such as underwriters, placement agents, and the directors, officers and significant shareholders of the issuer) (collectively, “covered persons”) have experienced a disqualifying event, such as being convicted of, or subject to court or administrative sanctions for, securities fraud or other violations of specified laws.
a. Covered Persons
Understanding the categories of persons that are covered by Rule 262 is important because issuers are required to conduct a factual inquiry to determine whether any covered person has had a disqualifying event, and the existence of such an event will generally disqualify the offering from reliance on Regulation A.
"Covered persons" include: the issuer, including its predecessors and affiliated issuers directors, general partners, and managing members of the issuer executive officers of the issuer, and other officers of the issuers that participate in the offering 20 percent beneficial owners of the issuer, calculated on the basis of voting power promoters connected with the issuer in any capacity persons compensated for soliciting investors, including their directors, executive officers or other officers participating in the offerings, general partners and managing members.
b. Disqualifying Events
Under the final rule, disqualifying events include:
Certain criminal convictions
Certain court injunctions and restraining orders
Certain final orders of certain state and federal regulators
Certain SEC disciplinary orders
Certain SEC cease-and-desist orders
Suspension or expulsion from membership in a self-regulatory organization (SRO), such as FINRA, or from association with an SRO member
SEC stop orders and orders suspending the Regulation A exemption
U.S. Postal Service false representation orders
Many disqualifying events include a look-back period (for example, a court injunction that was issued within the last five years or a regulatory order that was issued within the last ten years). The look-back period is measured from the date of the disqualifying event—for example, the issuance of the injunction or regulatory order and not the date of the underlying conduct that led to the disqualifying event—to the date of the filing of an offering statement.
c. Reasonable Care Exception
The final rule provides an exception from disqualification when the issuer is able to demonstrate that it did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have known that a covered person with a disqualifying event participated in the offering.
The steps an issuer should take to exercise reasonable care will vary according to particular facts and circumstances. A note to the rule states that an issuer will not be able to establish that it has exercised reasonable care unless it has made, in light of the circumstances, factual inquiry into whether any disqualification exists.
A reminder $MSTO CEO Josh went after the Tier 2 Reg A offering (despite its' dismal failure) and then placed this company in a position which regularly required Tier 2 companies are required to file: Annual reports on Form 1-K; Semi-annual reports on Form 1-SA; Current reports on Form 1-U; Special financial reports on Form 1-K and Form 1-SA; and Exit reports on Form 1-Z.".
1-SA 08/17/2022 06/30/2022
1-K 06/24/2022 12/31/2021
1U ??
What is a 1U: SEC Form 1-U is a uniform statement of purpose form that companies must file in order to report fundamental changes to a company. The form is used, for example, to report the application or declaration of an issue or sale of securities, an acquisition, bankruptcy, or sale of assets.
You remember on the last Q he stated a Reg A stock sale at the wrong pps....
Ref: Masterbeat Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company,” “Masterbeat,” “we,” “us,” and “our”), is offering up to 1,000,000,000 shares (“Shares”) of its common stock, par value of $0.0001 per share (“Common Stock”) on a “best efforts” basis without any minimum offering amount pursuant to Regulation A promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), for Tier 2 offerings (the “Offering”). The offering price per share of Common Stock will be priced at $0.001 per share upon qualification of the Offering Statement of which this Offering Circular is a part by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). See “SECURITIES BEING OFFERED” of this Offering Circular for more information.
This is a public offering of up to $10,000,000 in shares of Common Stock of Masterbeat Corp. at a price of $0.001.
Yes the securities attorney is needed. However, we think CEO Josh primary goal at this point is to catch up with the paperwork. Please note we have made several suggestions and provided contact information for an easy followup to him without a response. Therefore, a question to ask is why is there no attorney of record. We contacted the prior one and he seemed disinterested and did not want to carry on the dialog. However, we think a primary reason is the numbers just don't match and there are misstatement on the Qs. How is it that he has not even submitted an amendment to the last Q for the "oversight" of the Reg A pps? That is a rookie mistake and easily corrected yet it remains as is. Further, the attorney provides an opinionated response in essence that the items reviewed are true and correct. We have made countless attempts to him beyond our original dialog to bring these issues to the forefront and yet the response is none. Personally I could run this company blind folded - and the first on the list to get the boot is you know who. That dude has flooded this company with wasted diluted stock. CEO Josh knew better than that in their MINE hustle. There is an entire dialog one could write but the bottom line CEO Josh will have to do some house cleaning to get the long term retail traders involved to sustain the company and an attorney on board. CEO Josh didn't even bother to post a tweet about the Hurricane and the proximity of the properties.
0.0007 0.00 (0.00%) Volume: 2,440,030
$MSTO
Masterbeat Corporation (PK)
Day Range: 0.0006 - 0.0007
Bid: 0.0006
Ask: 0.0007
Last Trade Time: 3:50:21 PM EDT
Total Trades: 7
0.0007 0.00 (0.00%) Volume: 28,006
$MSTO
Masterbeat Corporation (PK)
Day Range: 0.0006 - 0.0007
Bid: 0.0006
Ask: 0.0008
Last Trade Time: 12:36:00 PM EDT
Total Trades: 2
...and will you look at that: $0006 just 5 tics away from the old toxic lenders price. We have watched this stock drop from $.06 to $.0006 with the same head of household.
$MSTO
Masterbeat Corporation (PK)
0.0007 0.00 (0.00%) Volume: 19,651,096
Day Range: 0.0006 - 0.0007
Bid: 0.0006
Ask: 0.0007
Last Trade Time: 3:59:13 PM EDT
Total Trades: 19