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.
You need to prove that first. The actual statistics are unknown. What we have are gross statistics without classification. But judging by what has happened, I'd say statistics are weighted in favor of LAHO getting relisted. Check my explanation here https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151419270
This rational is not correct. This is not a matter of statistical proof yet. A statistical proof is used to predict things of similar properties and circumstances.
- How many of the hundreds or thousands you mentioned fall in the same category as LAHO?
- Are they hundreds or thousand to start with?
- How many of them were already dead stocks waiting for the suspension or revocation as the bullet of mercy?
- How many were working diligently on compliance when suspended/revoked?
- How many of had a strong motive to get everything in order and is backed by another strong company that has an interest of getting everything in order ASAP?
What if with the right classification, LAHO would fall in a special category with another 10 exceptional companies of similar properties out of which 3 were reinstated so the reinstatement percentage becomes 30% which represents a good enough chance for LAHO?
You need to provide statistics first before using a statistical proof approach. Otherwise this whole rational is baseless.
Yes already did, please check post #61678.
Thank you for the correction, it makes more sense now. I've attached FINRA's Equity Short Interest below. It shows a short interest of 4,829,619 shares. This could be all or the last chunk of a much larger uncovered short position.
For someone/group who shorted LAHO heavily in August before the last rally at PPS around $0.0015 hoping for it to fall from there like it did twice before on May and July but instead received the nasty surprise that the price went up up up, maybe wasn't able to cover all at once (no funds?) so covered chunks along the way up and was hoping for it to fall to cover or even willing to cover high at around $0.0045 for nearly $22,000, receiving the halting news sure was a relief.
On the other side, if re-registration would mean that chunk still must be covered, the idea that LAHO could re-register in a couple of weeks/months, and a reverse merger could actually take place, and that during those weeks/months GSCG could do even better things that make LAHO/GSCG's anticipated share price a lot higher and as a result, if/when trading resumes the stock could go like a raging bull and the price jumps to around $0.1-$0.2 so covering the same position would cost $480,000-$960,000 instead of only $22,000 must be a disturbing thought.
This is a plausible scenario imo. I'm just trying to complete the missing pieces of the picture with what I have.
From https://otce.finra.org/otce/equityShortInterest
As far as I know, it's not fixed.
Days to Cover = Current Short Interest / Average Daily Share Volume
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/daystocover.asp
Add to that the actual shorted shares could be even much more. The report seems to cover one month back only. Now it does not show data earlier than August 30. Earlier days from my previous calculation were not dropped because covered, there's no trading. So they are still there, just not shown in the report.
A couple of days more and it will seem like there's no short interest at all. So I've added a screenshot and will recalculate everything again trying to estimate the hidden part.
From the shown screenshot:
- Total shorted shares in 4 days = 413,197,556
- Average shorted shares/day = 413,197,556 / 4 = 103,299,389
Say 100 million for simplicity.
The actual data could go one, two, three months back, we don't know. Let's say we have only 12 trading days worth of shorted shares (accuracy is not important, this is only indicative).
12 trading days X 100,000,000 shares/day = 1,200,000,000 shares (1.2 billion)
- At last PPS of $0.0046, the value = 0.0046 X 1.2B = $5,520,000.
- At $0.01, value = $12,000,000.
- At $0.1, value = $120,000,000 (120 million US dollars)
So if shorters will need to cover, they will need to pay between $5 million and $120 million US dollars. And if it happens during a short squeeze that takes the price up temporarily to $0.3, the value becomes $360,000,000 ($360 million US dollars).
The numbers are absolutely crazy but please prove my calculations wrong.
What if in reality there's 20, 30, 40, 50 days of shorted shares, go figure...
From OtcShortReport.com's Short Volume Report (https://www.otcshortreport.com/company/LAHO) now.
LAHO's case is unusual as in the probability of re-registration. I don't know the situation of its shorted shares if that happened especially while the old shares still exist in owners accounts, both longs and shorts. If/when it returns, will shorters need to covers or everything starts anew?
But if they will need to cover, according to OtcShortReport.com's Short Volume Report (https://www.otcshortreport.com/company/LAHO) the total short volume from August 28 to September 5 is 586,729,987 shares.
- At last PPS of $0.0046, the value is $2,698,958.
- At $0.01, value = $5,867,300
- At $0.1, value = $58,672,999 (58 million dollars)
The numbers are already crazy so imagine what would happen if a short squeeze took place and they needed to cover at much higher prices. This might be the answer to your question.
This is related to the re-registration process expected later.
Probably they can make use of this:
"In some cases, there may be an exemption available that permits a broker-dealer to begin quoting a stock without filing a Form 211."
"After 30 days, the newly quoted stock becomes 'piggyback qualified,' meaning any broker-dealer from that point on can begin quoting it without filing the Form 211 on its own."
https://www.otcmarkets.com/learn/getting-traded
Knowing "when" can make you rich in trading. This is more of an investment, buying and holding winners is what makes you rich. It's a package that includes uncertainties and unknowns and "when" is one of them. What's more important is whether they are going in the right direction or not. If you believe in it and holding your shares then just relax and wait.
I believe they will file for reregistration as soon as the process allows, whatever that is. In my opinion, both parties see huge business benefits from the RM and seem eager for it, maybe more than the shareholders themselves.
Yes maybe most of the board will forget about it but again maybe they will be watching in anticipation for the day it resumes trading. A couple of PRs in the middle can help keep the memory alive and build demand. With enough shareholders, once things get back in order, the party will be back again imo.
Completely wrong.
- You don't "intend" to be a millionaire. You "hope" or "wish" to be a millionaire. "intend" is for things that you have the capacity of doing.
- LAHO did not use "wish" or "hope" in their message but instead used "intend", I conclude from that that they have the capacity of reregistering their shares and resume trading normally like before.
- "completed" is for things that took place in the past and since LAHO's message is about their future plan that they cared to share with their shareholders, they can not use past tense here.
- Whether the process is lengthy or short, it seems the majority here are moving from trading to investing so no problem of waiting for it if the potential return is great. Also I think that both parties are keen on finishing the process ASAP.
Thank you for such posts, they help reiterate old valuable information and give ideas to new DD as I did with another poster here https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151115761
Please keep on.
"The Company intends to now file a form 10 to reregister its common shares with the SEC and to locate a market maker to sponsor the Company in a 211 filing to reinstate trading of the Company’s shares."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lans-holdings-secures-extension-complete-130000269.html
It seems you've missed an important part of the news. Let me share it with you: "The Company intends to now file a form 10 to reregister its common shares with the SEC and to locate a market maker to sponsor the Company in a 211 filing to reinstate trading of the Company’s shares."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lans-holdings-secures-extension-complete-130000269.html
This is a stretch of imagination imo. But look at the positive side. The last few developments have attracted even more attention to LAHO/GSCG. A bigger following is building up while the stock is still untreatable. If/when the deregistration, reregistration, and RM are complete and it's back to normal trading, we could see share price exploding up to unexpected levels.
I agree. In my opinion, the fact that they have multiple business units that can each generate revenue independently makes the company more stable against business risks and market fluctuations. And the fact that they integrate under the same umbrella makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts.
I think Paysperity is already available in the market. I agree they will need a big investment from GSCG if they want it to become one of the big player in that huge market. That revenue stream alone can exceed the current total revenue of GSCG many times over.
Generating revenue from their internal use (Shopify model) depends on the size of their cloud software business. One of its components is specialized CRM system as shown in my post. The global Software-as-a-Service/cloud software market alone huge and the fact that they have a specialized CRM is a very big advantage. Many existing and potential revenue streams, each has a huge potential alone and even more integrated. Let's see how things unfold.
Seems such details about Paysperity are unavailable which suggests it's small but I take that a good thing for investors. GSCG seems to know what they are doing as shown in my post #57567 and if they are interested in LAHO's Paysperity as a foundation for a new business component and independent revenue stream (just speculation) then it's one more reason to close the RM. From another side, that situation wouldn't be possible if GSCG is a huge business.
Nobody knows the rest of LAHO/GSCG's story yet. It's still unfolding and the potential seems good.
Let me make sure I understand you correctly. So you mentioned that up until August 2017, LAHO's payment processing business (Paysperity) resulted in "$3,000.00 in cash, 8 million in liabilities and a 3 month net loss of 2 million dollars". I checked the filing here https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1422059/000166357717000352/mainbody.htm and found nothing of what you mentioned. I'm not expert in that area so I ask you to highlight the part that confirms your claim.
However, assuming you are right, so all what you'd have is the numbers up till August 31, 2017. What about 2018, and 2019? Do you have their numbers? No you don't because the company hasn't submitted them yet. I'm not saying that Paysperity is doing great but also you don't have enough information to reach that negative conclusion.
And even assuming that you have the numbers of Paysperity alone till 2019 and they are bad, those would reflect the financial performance of the payment processing business only. Do you know the reason? Do they have a good product but bad marketing? good marketing but bad selling? good product and marketing but bad operations? You simply know nothing but insist on judging and reaching negative conclusions, and again very shallow ones.
Financials numbers, even if recent, are not that important in this context. Assuming that GSCG wants Paysperity, there could be many reasons for that. Maybe a good technical product, maybe the client base, maybe the business foundation, maybe licenses or patents.
My point is that none of us has enough information to reach solid reliable conclusions. But there are enough positive signs for those who choose to see them.
The nonsense is what you just mentioned. First, that view of Paysperity as the technical system only is very shallow. There's the business side which is very important too and can shorten the path for them if they are looking for being a player in that market. Software and IT systems are redesigned and rewritten all the time for better performance or modernizing. They can even outsource the whole process.
Second, I tried to verify your claim "You can check other companies in SPDL and NTTCF that he is or has been involved with to see how unsuccessful they have been utilizing those payment systems" but found nothing. Why don't you provide a proof of that. Notice that I'm not looking for the success or failure of the SPDL and NTTCF, I'm looking exactly for what you mentioned: "how unsuccessful they have been utilizing those payment systems". The two companies might be unsuccessful but that is not necessarily attributed to the online payment solution they use. So I'm waiting for your proof.
Third: Even if that's true, it's not enough. You can easily cherry-pick examples to show what you want. Your very example could even be the exception that proves the rule of Paysperity's success. I want a sufficient sample with enough cases to show what is the dominant rule, success or failure. Got any?
Yes there are a lot of online payment processing services but one of the benefits I can think of from GSCG having its own payment processing service by reverse merging with LAHO is saving commission fees and increasing profit. GSCG seems to have a big vision. The areas listed on its homepage shows that it covers the following:
- Training (https://www.stemcelltraining.net)
- Equipment (https://www.adimarket.net)
- Laboratory (http://stemcellslab.net)
- Practioner Networking (http://stemcellcenter.net)
- Cloud software (http://www.stemdata.org)
- and therapies (http://cellgenic.com)
It seems that GSCG's strategy is diversifying its revenue streams from activities that can work independently under the same umbrella, yet better integrated (Point A). I would imagine that adding another component in the form of an online payment service is a logical extension that makes for even better integration. And probably it's not the only extension they have in mind.
Now let's take it step by step...
Alternative services
This is a sample from online payment services and their fees at the time of this writing:
- Stripe: 2.9% + 30¢ per successful card charge (https://stripe.com/pricing).
- PayPal: 2.9% up to of 5.4% + fixed fee depending on payment type and country (https://www.paypal.com/eg/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full#exhibit_A).
- Payoneer: 3% for receiving credit card payments (https://www.payoneer.com/about/fees/).
- 2Checkout: 3.5% + $0.35 for selling, 4.5% + $0.45 for subscription business, 6.0% + $0.60 for selling sell digital goods (https://www.2checkout.com/pricing/)
Notice: I kept the last two types of 2Checkout to account for that GSCG provides online training (https://www.stemcelltraining.net/online-training/).
- Shopify: Online credit card rates 2.4% + 30¢ up to 2.9% + 30¢ (https://www.shopify.com/pricing).
Notice: Additional fees using all payment providers other than Shopify Payments 0.5% up to 2.0%. Seems like a way to keep their shop owners from using 3rd party services. Remember this point for later.
From the above, let's assume that online payment costs 3% from now on.
Cost converted to revenue
GSCG's Stem Data (http://www.stemdata.org) "is a complete cloud-based solution to simplify your Regenerative Medicine practice". One of it's function as shown on the capture from their website is "Easily Take Patient Payments Or Submit Insurance Claims".
As I understand, GSCG does not only need to perform online payment procesing for its customers directly but also needs to support that process for "the customers of its customers", the same way that Shopify provides an online payment processing tool/service for its customers (shops) to use to receive payment from their buyers when they sell something. So, by owning it's own payment service, GSCG would not only save those 3% it would pay to the 3rd party payment service, but could also charge another 3% for performing it to its own customers, converting that 6% (3% cost saved + 3% charged from customers) added to the revenue coming form that component.
Calculations
The following numbers are purely arbitrary because the purpose of here is qualitative/indicative rather than quantitative/accurate. Feel free to change and fine-tune them with further DD if you like:
1- For a company whose current annual revenue is $100 million (according to other posters' DD, believe it or not, it's up to you).
2- If 75% from that revenue comes from online payment (e.g. reserving seats in courses, conferences, Stem Data services, ...etc), that gives $75 million (Point B).
3- At a 3% average processing fees, 3% of (B) makes $2.25 million (C)
4- Assuming the company makes 30% profit of the total $100m revenue, the company would make $30m profit (D).
5- Hence, the 3% credit card payment fees (C) would account for 7.5% of (D), or 7.5% increase in profit (not revenue).
I say this is good enough. Even 4% is good enough. And if the annual revenue increase in the coming years, that would mean more saving and more profit.
What's more?
(this is not based on any information I have but rather on using simple logic)
Point (A) above suggests that GSCG is interested in having diversified independent revenue streams that could be integrated for a higher value. So could GSCG still be interested in the reverse merger with LAHO and willing to continue with it (as per the last PR) because they are thinking of tapping into the online payment industry? An industry that's estimated at $39.3 billion in 2019 and forecasted to grow to $64.5 Billion by 2024 (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/payment-processing-solutions-market-worth-64-5-billion-by-2024--exclusive-report-by-marketsandmarkets-300850622.html). I would think that if LAHO's Paysperity is already supporting any type of payment, why would GSCG restrict and limit it to accepting GSCG's own payments only? Why not keep it running and even expand it to acquire a share of that huge market? That would increase it's revenue stream and hence their profit and lower their risk by having a new independent revenue source, making it more resistant to market fluctuations in either. Assuming that GSCG put resources behind Paysperity and could leverage it to a global competitor and acquired 1% global market share, that would mean $432.3 million in 2020 (calculated as 10.4% increase of 2019's estimation as per the above reference) and $645 million estimated in 2024. Again, that's assuming 1% of the global market share, what if they succeeded in acquiring 2%, 5%, 7%? You do the math. I won't assume a higher market share because the numbers would be really crazy and because again, this is not meant to be an accurate analysis but rather a qualitative/indicative one just to show if the potential is good enough to worth the risk or not. You decide.
So, by reverse-merging with LAHO, they could kill two birds with one stone; a shorter road to the online payment processing industry and its revenue, and a shorter road to getting in the stock market. With such business and revenue sizes and potential, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that GSCG has its eye set on uplisting to NYSE.
Does someone know something? Could the above be the reason for the fear-mongering posts that have insistently and persistently kept hammering this stock since the release of the halting news and still do with the aim of getting cheap shares? Who knows?!
Lastly, thank you for bringing up this issue, the more digging around LAHO/GSCG the more potential it shows. Of course nothing is guaranteed and yes it's a risk but that's a necessary part of the process (this is the stock market, remember?). But on the other side, if the positive scenario is materialized, investors could be very handsomely rewarded.
Good luck to everyone.
Is MAXM trying to curb a run for some reason? I couldn't help but notice that recently it's more of pushing the price down than dumping. They sell enough shares to push the price down to a certain level, probably to prevent it from going higher or stop a possible breakout, and once that is done, they disappear!
Would you elaborate on that $33 share price estimate.
Makes sense. Looks more as if they are trying to bring the price down than just selling available shares. It would be interesting to see what happens once they dry up.
I don't know, just tried to know why you said so.
Are you sure of that? Couldn't it be dilution?
What are the PPS expectations after the buyout, preferably with rational.
The last update was April 26. More than 4 months have passed during which Ryan has gone dark and gagged the TA. Nobody knows what happened during that time. Recently when he decided to put his money in a stock, he bought a different one (AFPW). So even the company CEO is not buying his own stock, what does that tell you? Actually it's more likely that he is now selling his shares. So the best you can say is he "was" serious about correcting it.
No, I don't think there's a solution out of this. First there's no "they" here. LaborSmart's top management is a one-man show. As I see it, the company has one root problem called "Ryan Schadel", a failure with an inflated ego and a delusion that he can manage the company successfully despite causing it to hit the wall so many times. It seems to me he wants to prove his competence to someone so he doesn't want to company to succeed only but to succeed through him, so most likely he's sticking with it despite his floundering which will keep causing damage until it dies. I also see him as a person with no integrity who has no problem taking shady actions. That's why he didn't appoint a board of directs, so they won't fire him either when they find out that he is incompetent or when they see how he manages the company and spends its funds. A straightforward person who puts first the interest of the shareholders who entrusted him with their money would step down when he realized that he can't fulfill his responsibility. But instead, he went dark when he felt the increasing pressure to disclose what he's doing so no one can account him for anything. All signs indicate a dying company. A no bid stock with dumps and 4-zero trades below 0.0001 every now and then, branches dropping like flies, huge debt, a CEO who uses the company funds for his personal interest (his residence rent) and has nothing but fluff to tweet and who goes to the dark side and hides every time he's asked an important question. Talking about paying notes or buyback now would be a joke. Back when the company first announced the buyback there was none actually happening evidenced by the daily volume. Unless there's a recent proof of buybacks or notes payments going on, it's safer to assume there's none happening.
Even if Ryan stepped down now, I don't see how another manager - no matter how competent - can save the company in its current state. That is, if he accepted to risk his name with it at the first place. I don't think Ryan would step down too because that would confirm his failure which is something his inflated ego wouldn't accept. He seems even more desperate that he went through that recent escapade with AFPW but it fired back at him and he tasted his own medicine. That action speaks volumes. Why would he be that desperate and play that game if everything is going fine as he claims? Wouldn't it be better to put that money in LTNC shares to both enhance its situation and benefit if he really think it will be better? He knows it won't happen so he went to another stock.
So based on the publicly available information, no, I don't think "he" can find a solution out of this.
I thought about it and can't see how you've reached your conclusion that there's no conference call from the points you mentioned. They could be bad signs yes but still what spells "no conference call" in that? They've announced it in a PR already which is what's important and as such companies normally do, why would they mention it again on their website?
If you call a 250k sell a mini dump then what would you call the 12.69m buy transaction, a mega buy? "mini dump" seems like an oxymoron. If it's "mini", it's not a dump. This is just a normal trade, no need to exaggerate. Regarding the 250k, isn't it more logical to assume it's a partial fill? Unless you want to call it a paint job of course.
What dump? Trading today was 15.69m bought against 310k sold.
Correction, he failed to raise the PPS 5x from 0.001 to 0.005, not 10x.
The value posters keep referencing Ryan for is 0.005 not 0.004. It seems he has deleted that tweet which would make him lose more credibility, he hasn't only gone dark to stop informing his "co-owners" and continue playing his games in the dark, he'd also be trying to hide his history, what an integrity. We don't know what else he might have deleted. However, there's enough mentions around for that valuation.
The company is now in a much worse position than when he mentioned that 0.005 valuation, what makes you think that this valuation or even 0.004 still holds? And assuming that valuation is correct, Ryan failed to raise the PPS 10x from 0.001 to 0.005 when the company was in a much better situation, what makes you think he can now raise it 50x or more from sub 0.0001 to 0.005 (or even 40x to 0.004) when the company is going down the drain? We can discuss your 0.01+ target if/when you answer to my question.
You have a point here if it's been going on all that time. Hopefully that supply reaches its end soon.
In fact this could be a good thing. It's easier to take out whatever shares VNDM has to sell (or part of it) at 0.0003 than at higher prices, which could decrease the friction if/when it starts to run. If it has to sell anyway, the sooner the better hoping it does it and eventually leave the stage. Having those shares fully/partially taken out before the expected news would be even better because it could make the PPS run smoother and probably to higher levels. So let it even sell at 0.0002, all the better.
Anyone has been here long enough? What caused this huge PPS drop over the past year?
Actually I don't have enough info yet, still getting acquainted with ONCI. Where can I find the recent conversions? And do you know how many notes are still remaining?
I checked the document dated APRIL 30,2016, it listed a series of conversions starting November 1, 2013 and ending July 31, 2015 of about 366m common shares + 30m Series A preferred shares. The following paragraph was also mentioned: