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.
Sure, a 1:10 or higher ratio would've provided more of a buffer, but then no more reverse/splits could be utilized to counter the crooks that illegally short-and-distort this stock. Even a 1:100 ratio couldn't scaffold the PPS for long while under so much selling pressure. Don't get me wrong, I love shorties; they assume all of the risk through illegal practices while banging prices down for longs to capitalize on. Also, they do well in promoting skepticism and exposing fraudulent activity, albeit while being frauds themselves. To that end regarding $MULN, DM needs to put up or shut up. No more gimmicks (black boxes) or lip service. What's necessary moving forward is undeniable proof of legitimate production, transparency through consistent PRs, and the prudent handling of any revenue generated. Even then, it might not be enough to avoid a delisting since the SEC could require more than 20 consecutive days of closing at $1+.
C'mon, don't be coy (deceptive). You know why a 1:9 ratio was chosen... to avoid breaking the Excessive Reverse Stock Splits rule. A ratio of 1:10 or above would've broken Rule 5810(c)(3)(A). You know that.
Maybe when it hits $0.0001. Thanks for the financial advice!
Not a single thing you've said makes sense.
Well, you're supposedly hard of hearing (and understanding).
Again, Big Brother... I wasn't talking to you. Can you please just allow yadotn to respond?
Was I talking to you? I think not. Please, let yadotn respond.
I... am... (G)$ROOT.
Time will tell. Sluggish legislation doesn't help.
Who knows?
Wen moon? Where lambo?
What's going on, $BOTY? Still sweaty and rank?
Yeah
99% is of course a bit too high of an estimate, but probably a majority (51%+) are not safe to invest in.
This stock has been mercilessly hammered for years.
Nice idea, although this usually accomplishes nothing.
PPS be chilling below that $1 minimum.
Is Chang still banging out those Form 144s?
The mick knows best! $MARK has been showing support at $0.90 for a while, but for how much longer?
They've been doing pretty good with the PRs, although it hasn't affected the PPS very much.
Might be a reflection of the market and overall economy. Lots of uncertainty leading into next year's events.
Cannabis is not a panacea. Plenty of uncertainty surrounding its long-term effects.
Most indicators are untrustworthy in an unstable economy.
Most of the market moves in tandem. Countless stocks are suffering from recent fed hikes and a struggling economy with an uncertain future. You know, bigger picture stuff.
No news lately from the company?
Pretty much, barring few exceptions. Any news lately from Ashley? I'm no longer on social media.
This place is a ghost town.
You've been fearmongering about a reverse/split for ages.
I was curious of the same. Anyone know?
LOL, best-kept secret. Bears lead you to honey.
I'm not sure why he hasn't moved on from $GTEH yet. Time will tell.
Chart shows nice cresting, but the PPS has to break through $0.05 (at the very least) before getting anywhere noteworthy.
Most would take even less than that. Like willpellel indicated, these dormant stocks can pop when you least expect them to. No guarantees though, obviously.
Not necessarily. Never know, though.
The bid/ask are finally dropping a bit.
Still pink current, although no news lately.
Old resistance became new support (@$5). What's next?
"Dilution" how? When was the last offering?
hawkshaw812: "Lol had me going there for a minute this turd is done . Move on"
Also hawkshaw812: "She’s on a roll let’s keep it going get above that dollar"
Also hawkshaw812: "Watch out we might clear a buck"
Also hawkshaw812: "Right on looks like we may see a buck"
Apologies in advance for the length of this post, presented as two solid blocks of text. Sorry, not sorry. Feel free to fact-check, critique, whatevs. I would be disappointed otherwise.
"Deliberate misinformation" is actually called disinformation. The poster you linked to seems uneducated and embittered at best. That being said, Cal experienced what everyone else experienced during the meeting, which was the audio cutting out at a key moment when the voting results for the reverse/split (R/S) were being announced. Was that deliberate? Well, it seems pretty sus to say the least. Regardless, in response to comments made during Cal's live stream, Cal reached out to DM and received confirmation that the R/S was in fact approved (which is still assumed to be true in lieu of a PR). In spite of that timely clarification, vile extremists from both ends of the sentiment spectrum, here and elsewhere, peddled lies and generally responded with pump-and-dump bulls saying "no R/S" while short-and-distort bears said "1:100 R/S imminent." Both sides were full of fecal matter and lied for financial gain while playing the game of deception for the sake of their respective agenda. What a circus. Evidence that bulls and bears, extremists anyhow, are equally wicked, greedy, and ultimately resemble each other. Neither cares about the truth and will lie for ill-gotten gain. Anyhow, since receiving that confirmation from DM, Cal has shifted sentiment toward being less bullish in favor of the truth. Cal has started calling attention to inconsistencies coming from DM, such as whether or not he voted and what degree of voting power he actually has. As of now, no one knows the potential R/S ratio although it's speculated that if it's 1:9 or less, the company will avoid breaking the Excessive Reverse Stock Split rule (not exceeding a cumulative total of 1:250 over a two-year period) and retain the right to R/S in the future if needed for NASDAQ compliance. The con to a 1:9 or less R/S ratio obviously is that shorts will do they thang and bang that MFer right back down to pennies. However, the net result could be the same (albeit after a longer period of time) if a more aggressive R/S ratio is chosen such as the maximum of 1:100 in this case. Either way, and I hope that even the most extreme bulls and bears can at least agree on this one thing, DM needs to stop talking and start delivering. The seemingly staged stock photos of finished vehicles and production sites are not cutting it, and shareholders (longs and shorts) are not even slightly convinced that fat, greasy bastard is honest or out for the best interests of retail investors.
TL;DR: Cal was confused alongside everyone else because extreme bulls and bears wanted to capitalize on the disarray they helped cause for ill-gotten gain. Cal steadfastly confirmed from DM that the R/S was in fact approved. As of this post, the ratio is unknown (no official PR, although one may surface around market close today). A 1:9 or less ratio could be good, could be bad, but is necessary to stay above $1 (perhaps briefly) and will allow a future R/S if necessary for NASDAQ compliance. A ratio >= 1:10 will not allow a future R/S if needed for NASDAQ compliance, and a more aggressive ratio (such as 1:100) will only scaffold the PPS temporarily if DM doesn't start convincing shareholders that $MULN is a legitimate business. In other words, DM needs to STFU and start generating profits (not just revenue and/or lip service). Finally, DM is a fat, greasy bastard, but hey... we all have our struggles.