Yes...
Yes I do think that the company has done a good job of putting out hints of legitimacy.
Why?
Because if they didn't, everyone would know for a fact that this stock, the company, and their affiliates are all one big huge scam.
In order for a scam to work, their must be efforts to appear legitimate.
The company files Q's, K's, 8's, 4's and other forms with the SEC. Unfortunately, they file NT's and amendments more frequently than other forms which means:
A.) They always need extra time to file
and
B.) After needing extra time, getting a "grace period", they still have to come back and correct errors...NEARLY EVERY TIME.
The company has been around a long time. They were Palomine before becoming UBRG in 2007 so they've got over a decade of experience and should be able to get at least part of the "filing with the SEC" process right once in a while... Don't you think?
The company produces nearly mind-numbing PR's which are toothless and do not indicate who they're doing business with specifically and cite confidentiality clauses as the reason BUT it's one thing to leave out "names" but to leave out specific forward looking guidance on whether the deal is accretive to shareholders or destructive to shareholder value is something that should not be left out. All they usually say is "we believe in this deal and believe it will add value to shareholders.
Well, they've been saying that same last line in one way or another for YEARS and the shares have done virtually nothing but drop with the exception of an occasional short term, and reversed spike.
So... WHEN? When exactly, after over 5 years of promising shareholder value will they actually GIVE A RETURN TO SHAREHOLDER VALUE.
The company is very clearly playing loosely within the rules of the SEC and FINRA otherwise a chill never would have been lifted AND and the stock would have been delisted long ago BUT playing loosely within rules and confines does NOT MAKE THIS STOCK NOT A SCAM....Sometimes frauds go to court, after being indicted on fraud charges and are simply found not guilty due to a number of factors BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN it's still a good business practice... It simply means that a judge or jury simply could not exactly identify WHERE OR WHAT the precise fraud was so even though it stunk to high heaven, they could not convict.
There is NO DOUBT IN MY MIND that UBRG is playing within the rules, as far as the SEC knows (I've named my contact in the Los Angeles Branch SEC and even he has said as much...no current investigation that he is aware of) but that still doesn't mean this is a quality stock suitable for an investment grade... It just means, that Ali and Guest know how to skirt/flirt/tip-toe within the rules...AND WHY SHOULDNT THEY? Look at the host of penny stocks they are associated with: Rainco, REVU, Palomine, mortgage servicing, etc...
These guys aren't rookies...they've been around... They've been around because of loose rules that allow them to stay around.
Look... At the end of the day there have been a few PR's that were enticing but there's been NO sec filing that paired up with their promises. The PR's are frothy and exuberant... But at the end of the day they can't be quantified with shareholder returns. I've read one of two and said "maybe it's legit" but that's what they're designed to do... If they issued a PR saying "we are a scam" then people would run, stock would cease to exist and why can't they let that happen???
Because they get paid in convertible notes that turn into shares which they then sell...to collect their paychecks... They need you to believe... Otherwise, no payday.
Plain and simple... A good scam must appear to be legitimate otherwise it's not even a scam...it's just a parlor trick that wows nobody and nobody drops their change into a hat at the end of the show.
