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.
Holding its own while broader markets get toppy.
We've seen some sideways movement recently. I think market makers are trying to have a field day. With the new news, my impression is company is getting their ducks in a row as they make strides forward.
We'll see how things transition and how the company is able to execute with panicked institutional traders and rate hikes. Exciting times, though. Looking forward to what lies ahead.
It was up almost 100% at one point last week over the week prior. It's a volatile stock. It's the OTC. Numbers don't lie, but people can misinterpret them.
You try but sadly still fail.
In 2002 Amazon had an accumulated deficit of $3 BILLION DOLLARS... wow, what a crap company, whoever bought stock in that company probably hates themself right now -- said nobody.
The retained earnings (accumulated deficit) was in part absorbed once the company was taken over. It's like a relay race. If you're the best racer on your team and the past racers cause you to be behind, you can still do well once you have the baton to move the company forward, but you are still subject to where the predecessors have put you.
Retained earnings is not applicable to what the company is doing now, it's a metric that describes what the overall "retained earnings" are over the life of the company.
I'd venture to guess that every company, given the nature of the OTC market, has going concern statements in their filings because of the blood-sucking nature of lawyers. That's why the companies that are able to move onto better exchanges do so.
Stock is up 50% over last week. What exactly do you mean when you say "the price will not move"? And in the literal sense, any price change is the stock "moving" but I've continually shown you have no precision with your words and are either lying or really just have no idea what you're talking about.
You are cherry-picking when you pick arbitrary time periods to pick one-off statistics. Give me any stock that is a "strong buy" on NYSE and I'll cherry-pick some numbers that look bad and then scream "SELL!". It'll be fun, like I'll get to be you for Halloween.
You also continue to think the only thing that drives the price of stocks is the price of their main underlying resource. It's a factor, but not the only one. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp, it's a pretty basic idea.
Absurd. The veracity of my comments has nothing to do with the price of the stock.
I can cherry-pick bad numbers just as well as you, the point is that it's cherry-picking and you aren't really presenting any credible information beyond that.
Stocks don't magically return 6x. That's not how things work.
You are correct, it's only a 100% gain. That's the high end of purchasing last year and selling yesterday.
It's sooo funny how you don't get it.
These arguments I make aren't made in a vacuum, they're made in response to your criticisms.
I'm not comparing these two companies, I made an argument about a company that is in the oil business and their stock price. Then you take my argument out of that context and try to put some other context on my argument which, as I would agree, doesn't apply.
Let me lay out the argument you stated: VBHI, which is in the oil business where the price of oil is $100/bbl has not had a corresponding equity price change.
My counterpoint was: Valero, which is also in the oil business where the price of oil is $100/bbl has also not had an appreciable stock price change as the price of oil. The point that Valero is "the largest global independent refiner" was the exact discrepancy I was highlighting -- how do you consolidate how such a successful company in the oil business hasn't had as an appreciable rise in stock price as the price of oil? The answer to that conundrum is the answer to your original question.
In a similar example of cognitive dissonance, I presented the case of Coca-Cola. They are in the business of selling soda (an analogy for oil). Their stock over the past year has grown appreciably but not nearly as much as the underlying price of their commodity, soda, so how could you explain that discrepancy? The answer to this conundrum is also the answer to your original question.
Regarding your claim that "you really never explain why the stock price is doing so poorly when oil prices are at record highs," that was literally the point of those two arguments.
Both those examples contradict your rather naive assumption that the only thing that drives the stock price is the price of oil, or as in the Coca-Cola example, the price of the underlying commodity.
So, do you see how I'm not really comparing Valero to VBHI? Just because those two companies are in the same sentence doesn't mean they're being compared. You have to look at the other words in the sentence, as well as the words that you used which that sentence was being formulated against.
With regard to your price assessment, I'll assume your numbers on Valero are correct and say this:
The price today over the price last year for Valero is 7.8% increase.
The price today over the price for last year for VBHI is 200.0% increase.
When you say overly broad and assumptive statements like that, things like "price for last year" can be taken in many different ways. But as I've shown above, subtlety and specificity of argument is not a tool that's in your toolbox.
See, you know nothing about this company. It's a mineral rights and leasing company that makes money when other people extract resources.
Valero, an oil refiner, is in the oil business but their stock is relatively flat over the past year, do you think they're a dry well too?
I'm sure you must also be completely stumped why the price of Coca-Cola stock is rising when the price of soda isn't $100/barrel.
Easy to argue your "facts." See below.
FALSE: "The price of oil is up 100 percent from last year at this time"
What price(s) are you using, and which crude product? I could find nothing to support this. There's also much geopolitical instability from very recent events that are spiking the price of oil, and your numbers still don't work.
PARTIALLY TRUE: "on Febuary (sic) 25 2021 VBHI stock price was at .02"
The price on 2/25/21 ranged from $0.017-0.021 and closed at $0.019.
MISLEADING: "Stock price is down 50% as of today."
You cherry-pick numbers harder than George Washington. The stock traded yesterday in the range of 0.0095-0.0105. On an annual basis the stock is down anywhere between 38-54% depending on your buy/sell price. 50% is in the range, but it's on the high side. Regardless, YoY returns say nothing about where the price is going, only about where it has been.
You also seem to imply that there should be some sort of correlation between the price of oil and this stock price. How correlated (R factors are what is typically used to describe correlation)? It's an underlying factor, but not the only thing that drives the price of equity.
TRUE: "the high on March 17 2021 was .107"
Wow, a bonafide true fact from you. Congrats on this achievement. But how is this relevant at all to anything?
WHATABOUTISM: "Is Scott Cox salary down 50%?"
Yes it is, to some extent. You didn't really state a position, "just asking the question." CEOs often get lambasted for their compensation. One reason for that is that many CEOs are compensated heavily with equity -- IN ORDER TO ALIGN THEIR COMPENSATION WITH THE STOCK PRICE. This can be good or bad, as it can create perverse incentives for executives to operate the company quarter-to-quarter as opposed to focusing on long-term outcomes at the expense of short-term earnings, but investors like it because it aligns their outcomes with executive compensation.
"Feel free to explain why this company is performing so poorly while the entire energy market is booming."
I'd love to. You correlate company performance 100% with equity price. You also seem to correlate "energy market" with the price of oil. Those are incorrect. Equity returns are only one piece of company performance. This company is performing well for one of its maturity -- producing revenues, executing on projects, growing assets, improving market positioning. I imagine they are looking ahead to greener pastures.
FALSE: "If you need to personaly (sic) attack me, so be it."
How did I personally attack you?
FALSE: "But like I have said before, the numbers don't lie."
Numbers don't lie, but you do (although perhaps not on purpose. You might be doing your best but falling short. Hard to say). In any event, you wouldn't know a fact if it slapped you in the face. You regularly avoid my cogent arguments and try to stand on your podium and scream about "facts" that are tainted and barely true, if at all. You seem unable to understand basic concepts involved with investing, equity returns, and a myriad of other items just in an attempt to denigrate this company. I find it rather entertaining and hope to understand more someday.
Closed +21% yesterday. "Slope" is not a thing investors use to evaluate investments, but it might be 30 degrees if you were to tilt your head 30 degrees to the left. Perhaps you should straighten your neck and get a level.
You can add your slope to this list: https://nypost.com/2008/12/28/lies-damn-lies-statistics/
Wow, you're right. That was simple. I looked at the yearly chart.
Help me understand, because I'm rather positive about the prospects of this company and don't pay much attention to OTC companies.
If I'm missing something I'd like to know about it, but "They don't care. Monthly paycheck. And the process starts over." literally doesn't mean anything discernable. You're like a less comprehensible Yoda.
Haha, this is the most laughably ridiculous thing I've seen this week. Thanks for the chuckle.
Company managers don't get paid by doing reverse splits. Perhaps you have a complete misunderstanding of what that actually means. If that argument were true then you'd also agree that executives lose money when they authorize non-reverse splits.
The price of a company is a mix of fundamentals and supply/demand. There's also a contrast between value investing and momentum investing.
It seems obvious but should be clear that this stock is trading on the OTC. That implies somewhat more risk given listing standards here as opposed to national exchanges. That being said, if you look at what this company is trying to accomplish, their current attributes exceed the vast amount of OTC companies and seems clear they have higher aspirations.
Accomplishing that isn't instantaneous. In order for you to obtain your holy "shareholder value" is, in turn, also not instantaneous. The company is young but has attracted capital and operational success. One drawback of operating a public company is the perceived, or in your case mandated, drive to deliver results quarter-to-quarter. In many cases, especially for a company this early, that kind of mindset would be very detrimental to long-term success.
It really sounds like from your daily harpings of shareholder results, you should really be targeting mature companies that are known for dividend growth (AT&T, PM, MMM) or perhaps some hi-growth tech company (RUN, TDY, ENPH).
Really, what are you looking for? And why do you keep pounding the table and screaming "shareholder value" for this company specifically?
This is a pretty young company with lots of potential but a fair amount of risk and the shareholder value that the company is trying to bring should be seen as the long-term type and not overnight rags-to-riches.
It seems pretty clear you have some sort of personal grudge against Scott, yeah? I haven't seen any disclosures like you describe.
Are you in possession of particular knowledge, or are you just speculating wildly because you have some personal issue?
Can I buy some cherries, because you cherry-pick harder than a fruit farmer. Comparing the growth of Devon and this company over the past year doesn't make much sense. What are you talking about?
You clearly have difficulty understanding logic and correlating what you read and inferring the main ideas of written sentences. I made a generic statement about reputable companies and what their likely goals would be when it came to being listed on the OTC exchange.
Here's a few oil/gas companies that are down: Devon Energy, Shell, Schlumberger. I guess you think they're all garbage too and on their message boards screaming how you think their executives are useless? No, just this one? So it's not about the correlation between the stock and crude? Got it.
I see your words, but you're not saying anything about them. It's like someone asked you why you like to eat sandwiches and you say "news, bread, meat." What does 10k and 10q mean? That you don't like what's in them?
Correlation of a company with an underlying commodity could be good or bad depending on your individual portfolio, but it's not a requirement nor an indicator of a "good" stock.
If you want stocks with more volume (I'm not sure what interest means in your context) then perhaps you should invest in more mature companies that aren't on the OTC. I'm sure any reputable company that is on the OTC is working towards uplisting to more recognizable exchanges.
What's your favorite company on the OTC?
So according to you 7/19/21 the price was $.007 and today is $.0085 so lots of value to shareholders? Got it.
I've attached it for you. No mention of compensation. Lol, so what are you talking about? Are you even an investor or just making a bunch of noise because of some grudge?
February 03, 2022 - Verde Bio Holdings, Inc. (OTCQB: VBHI) (www.verdebh.com) said today that due diligence and work on transaction acquisition details continues in its agreement to acquire two operational biodiesel plants.
The agreement was first announced in a news release in December 2021. “This is a complex transaction, and it is important that everything is handled correctly,” said Scott Cox, VBHI founder and CEO.
Mr. Cox also said the Company has begun work on its 10Q due March 15th. “We are aware of the importance of a timely filing,” the Company’s CEO said. He also announced the Company continues to evaluate potential acquisitions in the oil and gas sector. “We are confident on the promise of this energy sector,” Mr. Cox said.
So you're suggesting that they shouldn't be doing the DD? I'm not sure that's a good idea...
I read that PR, but it didn't say what you're saying. Are you lying or did you just not understand what you read?
Based on what exactly?
So what you're saying is, "every company that's somehow affiliated with crude should be up today based solely on the fact that crude is trading above $80." Thought about it -- beep boop beep -- RESULTS NOT SOUND.
It's their fiduciary responsibility. They are literally legally responsible for it.
Too much miralax?
Hang on to this one for a quarter or two. Lots of underlying market trends and tailwinds that should help it do well in the long term.
I'm good, I was just curious what you had in mind. If potentially selling your position before the new year was a consideration, to me that means sometimes you are in and out of trades within a week.
Everyone is different. For me, I am not going to invest into something unless I see some potential and fundamentals that can show traction over at least a quarter or two.
The hype machine brings with it outmatched demand. There's usually some sort of "retracement" with a surge forward.
Patience and emotional control is are key behavioral traits for investing successfully. Perhaps next time you see a stock mentioned, make it a goal to wait a week before buying, or at least a few days for things to settle.
During that time you can read the company's most recent quarterly report (EDGAR) and see if it's something you like and/or understand, and if so you can buy it once the hype settles.
What's your holding period/exit strategy for this one?
This is not get-rich-quick.
You are investing in a company. Its value is surmised primarily based on revenues and earnings, but secondarily on intrinsic opportunity. If you are hoping that some guy is going to roll in and trade up the valuation based on hype by creating supply and demand imbalance, wtf are you doing?
This company will only do well if its board and executives can execute a business plan and not outspend their income. Period.
If the company executes no one knows about it and it keeps trading at a penny, who tf cares? Let it trade, and the company will get cash-rich and maybe you'll get a massive dividend or the company will get bought up.
If you're looking to buy tulips and hope some bigger sucker comes around to sell it to at a higher price, you might as well light your wallet on fire. This shouldn't have anything to do with some broski and his legion of minions beating the hype drum.
Lol, LadeBackk is not a magic wand. The stock is priced by the market and is as accurate as the collective knowledge of the investors. You can't dump shares without buying them first.
My guess is that LB and his investors are the ones that bought midday Monday for $200k at an avg cost of about 1.35¢, so he's basically breaking even with trading at this point. If he's calling a breakout above 2¢ and think the stock is pretty swingable, then they're probably looking for at least 2-3x, but maybe 5-10x before getting out.
I'm in the process of looking at his previous trade recommendations and evaluating how P&D-y they are, but it's also possible he really recognizes the value and is looking to build some cred as a stock picker. I never heard of the dude until Tuesday, but if they are trying to P&D, even a broken watch is right twice a day.
It's not spin, it's called perspective and seeing both sides of the coin. All it seems you are doing is trying to color everything you can in a negative light but in reality, it isn't so binary.
I don't believe that "management fees" are the same as corporate salary, though as a layperson who is trying to dabble in accounting and securities law or someone that is trying to sell a narrative, I can see how it could easily be interpreted that way.
You said two things and at least one of them was wrong: the stock is ~40% above the 52-week low. So are you making up the salary too, or can you cite where we can find that info publically?
There are good reasons and bad reasons to initiate a reverse split, it really depends on a number of factors. But I'm not aware of any recent reverse splits done previously by this management. When was the last one done?
I'm also not aware of any news or filings showing excessive executive pay, but if you know of that please let us know as it would be something I'm sure we'd all like to know about.
Welcome! Always enjoy a new face on the boards. Strap in! We wait for sellers/shorts to defecate themselves once revenue and earnings make a turn. As with any OTC company there's always a higher risk that the company can't execute. Hopefully that's not the case here. We'll see how the next couple of quarters go.
I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. You offer dubious, one-sided cherry-picked anecdotes on the stock price and allude to some divergence between the price of this stock and the underlying price of crude, but it's unclear if you own a position or just want to drive the price down because you secretly are a bull or perhaps have some grudge with the company. What's going on?
Now that I think is completely wrong, but it's hard to discern what you're saying when you only offer some conclusion without any substance behind it.
On 11/24/20 the range was 1.5-2.0¢, so if the last trade is 1.24¢ then it's only down 17-38% for the last 12 months.
Now, I have the 52-week low and high as 0.7¢ and 10.7¢, respectively, so over the last 12 months it's gone down a maximum of 65% (bought at 2.0¢ and sold at 0.7¢) and up a maximum of 613% (bought at 1.5¢ and sold at 10.7¢).
You can cherry-pick stats all day long, but do all of us a favor and at least make sure they are correct, and preferably show both sides of the story.
That's accurate but is a half-truth.
The high on 9/28 was the highest high since 4/8. So from the high since 4/28 we are down 50%, but the low over that period was 0.7¢ and as of today we are up 84%. Counting daily greens vs. reds over the trailing 5 days isn't a reliable indicator, as far as I'm aware.
Seems like the stock has been able to absorb quite a bit of volume recently without much downward movement. Without doing a whole bunch of technical analysis, it looks to be holding its own for the time being.
Just remember -- 73.6% of all statistics are made up.