That’s a good case mr holding. It’s an interesting company on a skim. Good links.
But the problem is your metrics. I don’t believe that os. 2008 is a Long time ago. Based on volume I feel the float alone is higher than The last reported os. The transfer agent could update that info but Hasn’t. The market cap is a misleading valuation. It could be 10 times more which is still good on surface. Or easily 100 times more Which would be not enough information even for a skimming of metrics.
The authorized shares are also too far outdated and never means anything to me regardless. That can change with a simple Filing and no resistance. It’s just a formality.
I would need more information. I need an update from a Transfer agent. A credible source before making any bets Or conclusions.
That's some very good work, Mr. Holding. I like the way you circle and highlight and link. So it's not a ticker change. It was just Transbotics to Transbotics Group. It seems to me, according to my understanding, that you could be right about that 11M OS. That's the true OS I'd go with at this time. I'd prefer a transfer agent verify that so I would have no doubt, as I don't have a full understanding on the NC SOS. That seems like a valid interpretation from a reputable source. Which is still good.
It is intriguing. It's a lot of moving parts, and it's hard for me to grasp what's going on, so help me fill in the blanks here. My understanding is that Scott is a publicly traded foreign company on the NZ stock exchange; is that right? Just skimming still (busy month).
They state revenues on the high end in line with your projections. But if so, why have they not been reporting since 2008? I don't understand. And what is the end game here? If Scott is the parent company, then they are already a public company. This isn't a reverse merger that I can tell. And how can they buy you without buying (and thus canceling) your shares? And the deal has already been consummated since June of this year. So why a name change with Finra? How can you be bought and then have no shareholder rights? Something just doesn't add up. It seems to me that older shareholders got screwed. But maybe I don't understand. And what is that dividend about? Is that part of the missing piece? A payoff to former shareholders that I'm not getting? And where does that leave new shareholders? Is this toilet paper or not? I'm just not getting this.
There is a piece missing here that I'm not getting...
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
