This discussion board is a really interesting place to hang out, as we all get to read opinions about VHUB that range from Kool-Aid at the one extreme to Scam at the other extreme. My opinion FWIW is that both extremes, while having some elements of truthfulness, are way off the mark, and that the truth is in the middle, though leaning towards taking a bullish stance on the stock at current levels. (I'm not finding the various character assassinations on this board to be quite as interesting, as the presidential race has provided me with enough soap opera for the next four years.)
Here's what I think are among the plusses:
1. The company is valued in the market at less than $1.5 million, and that seems low for a company which looks like it might do $14 million in sales for the current fiscal year and which ran at an operating profit in the last quarter of the prior fiscal year.
2. The company is hedging the FDA risk by becoming very active internationally.
3. The bunch of executives/insiders own over 40% of the stock and have held onto their shares.
4. Debt, if you include "derivative liabilities" (again please don't ask me what that's all about, as my brain explodes each time I read about it in the 10K), is in the $1-$2 million range which again is not a lot for a company doing a million in sales each month.
5. There are just about no accounts receivable, so you don't have to worry about whether the receivables are good.
And here are some of the negatives:
1. The investor relations section of the company website has indeed been neglected, so the folks on the mailing list, who are already likely to be "believers," know what's going on while potential interested investors are forced to scrounge for info after they've done their due diligence on the SEC Edgar website.
2. The lack of outside, independent shareholders in the midst of a family-run company is problematic. The risk section of the 10K itself brings out this point, and while having a company code of ethics/conduct is a fine thing to have, that's just a beginning.
3. The FDA's stance is a legitimate concern, and that I believe is holding down the share price more than anything else.
4. It really WAS true, though no longer the case, that Perlingos' social media page used the word "former" as regards his company presidency. The Investor Relations function in this crazy modern era probably does need to expand into looking at company officers' social media entries.
5. Way back in spring 2014, there was a pump and dump going on, as I first became fascinated, though in a negative way, with this company when I got boiler-room calls and pumping e-mails. (I discounted this factor over the course of time when I saw that the executive group shareholdings had not declined.) It's easy to junk a reputation and very hard to restore it.
So overall I'm a bull right now on this stock. I would be more of a bull right now if Trump's campaign hadn't hit some severe bumps, given his stance regarding excessiveness of federal regulatory powers. What's most likely to make the stock run upward will be profitable first fiscal quarter numbers, to be seen in about a month, and some reported progress on redoing the debt structure away from totally short-term and into a mix of long term debt and equity, even at the cost of some dilution.
While this post, I realize, is probably much too long, I do know that I haven't listed all the positives and all the negatives. I'm looking forward to seeing the audit opinion letter revised ASAP (see an earlier post of mine in that regard), and perhaps that will provide Paul Knopick an opportunity to comment on variety of current events in the company, such as August and September sales. Thanks for everyone's patience with me.
AI
