NTEK / NTGL
Quote: BozEven Monster was a smaller player then and Pepsi/Coke were way behind the times.
Monster was a penny stock and is now a $32 billion dollar company.
Quote: DRichMonster was a penny stock and is now a $32 billion dollar company.
Correct. If you know the next company to repeat that, let us know even if there is only 25% to gain left, lol. Think of us little guys out here.
MEGA DRAGON.
Stock/equity options not available to the general public yet.
Do not PM me for details.
Quote: DRichMonster was a penny stock and is now a $32 billion dollar company.
In 1995. A lot has changed with the OTC in 21 years. The internet, for one. It's always been a cesspool but now it's a giant sewer.
Best guess, pissed off wives purposely flush their wedding rings ;-)
Quote: DRichMonster was a penny stock and is now a $32 billion dollar company.
Monster was never a penny stock as it opened above 10 cents and never looked back. And was not on the pinks sheets but otcbb which is not associated with pink sheets. And market cap means diddly squat in the real world, that's only a quick indicator the market movers use to push stocks. Monster is doing well, at 165 million gross a quarter. But is not a 32 billion dollar company in true value.
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
Principal Market
The Company’s common stock began trading in the over-the-counter market on November 8, 1990 and was subsequently quoted on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “HANS”. On July 5, 2007, the Company’s common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the same symbol, “HANS”. On January 5, 2012, stockholders of the Company approved the Company’s name change from Hansen Natural Corporation to Monster Beverage Corporation. In addition, on January 9, 2012, the Company’s common stock began trading under the symbol “MNST”. As of February 4, 2016, there were 202,919,837 shares of the Company’s common stock outstanding held by approximately 236 holders of record. The holders of record do not include those stockholders whose shares are held of record by banks, brokers and other financial institutions.
And this has nothing to do with ntgl/ahigh or ntek. Monster was a real company marketing their product from the get go country wide.
Please stay on the topic of ntek and ntgl and their principals, thanks.
Quote: sammydvMonster was never a penny stock as it opened above 10 cents and never looked back. And was not on the pinks sheets but otcbb which is not associated with pink sheets.
Thanks for the correction. I assumed that any stock trading under a dollar was considered a penny stock.
Quote: DRichThanks for the correction. I assumed that any stock trading under a dollar was considered a penny stock.
I thought so too, but I was also wrong.
Quote:In the United States, the SEC defines a penny stock as a security that trades below $5 per share, is not listed on a national exchange, and fails to meet other specific criteria.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_stock
http://www.sec.gov/answers/penny.htm
Quote: Dalex64I thought so too, but I was also wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_stock
http://www.sec.gov/answers/penny.htm
Monster started on a listed exchange. Monster was always SEC filer. Thus not a pink sheet penny stock. Ntek/ntgl have never been on an exchange, never filed legitimate audited fins with SEC only the fake OTCM and both are delisted from SEC, well, ntek went dark on it's own and ntgl never saw the light of day.
There is no comparison of scam nanotech to monster, nor is that coffee company worth comparing to monster
Sorry.
That's the last commercial for monster or kava lava coffee on this ntek board.
Quote: Dalex64You pick some strange points to argue over.
Whom are you referring to and who's arguing?
Let's see how they handle it.
Quote: sammydvntek has 2 business days to do something very important.
Let's see how they handle it.
Tonight midnight marks the deadline.
Quote: WizardofnothingSammy you are pretty on top of this thread, did you lose a lot of money with ntek?
Nope.
Quote: WizardofnothingSo what's the deal- just curious why you put so much effort into a dead company? Just curious - you don't have to disclose if it's private
Nothing to disclose. I've always hated penny scams. And ntek & ntgl are scams.
I flip penny stock.
That's it, that's all.
Quote: WizardofnothingSammy you are pretty on top of this thread, did you lose a lot of money with ntek?
I lost $1,000. :( I thought they would do much better when they cut ntgl of their books, so took a shot. Didn't happen.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13I lost $1,000. :( I thought they would do much better when they cut ntgl of their books, so took a shot. Didn't happen.ZCore13
I'm sorry to hear that. But as a gambler, you knew it WAS a gamble. Not an investment. I'm up a few hundred, but I did flip actively.
BTW- just checked and at this moment, now ntek, like ntgl is without a business license for the state of Nevada.
http://nvsos.gov/SOSEntitySearch/FeeDetails.aspx?ctok=NkUMPTHrDA9pc8U7pRWyJw%253d%253d
Quote: MathExtremistIf they're not doing business in Nevada, why would they need a license?
I believe the whole corporation is incorporated in Nevada, and ntgl and ntek both have, had offices in Nevada as well. Ntgl is a subsidiary of Ntek, thus nanotech is/was doing business in Nevada.
Although some government agencies keep showing nanotech entertainment as a foreign company doing business in New Mexico too. That's a big part of ntek/ntgl shadiness, can't seem to pin them down to a location.
This is a entry in the CA sos. Notice the jurisdiction is Nevada.
Business Entity Detail
Data is updated to the California Business Search on Wednesday and Saturday mornings. Results reflect work processed through Friday, July 29, 2016. Please refer to Processing Times for the received dates of filings currently being processed. The data provided is not a complete or certified record of an entity.
Entity Name: NANOTECH ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
Entity Number: C3580363
Date Filed: 06/14/2013
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: NEVADA
Entity Address: 2450 KRUSE DRIVE
Entity City, State, Zip: SAN JOSE CA 95131
Agent for Service of Process: LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
Agent Address: 101 N BRAND BLVD 11TH FL
Agent City, State, Zip: GLENDALE CA 91203
http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=NkUMPTHrDA9pc8U7pRWyJw%253d%253d&nt7=0
Most corporations are incorporated in Delaware, but that's only because the corporate laws in Delaware make it favorable. The vast majority of corporations domiciled in Delaware are not actually headquartered there. Like Ford, Oracle, or Berkshire Hathaway.Quote: sammydvI believe the whole corporation is incorporated in Nevada, and ntgl and ntek both have, had offices in Nevada as well.
Although some government agencies keep showing nanotech entertainment as a foreign company doing business in New Mexico too. That's a big part of ntek/ntgl shadiness, can't seem to pin them down to a location.
Edit: for what it's worth, the employees of those three companies alone would represent over 70% of the population of Delaware if they all worked there.
Quote: MathExtremistMost corporations are incorporated in Delaware, but that's only because the corporate laws in Delaware make it favorable. The vast majority of corporations domiciled in Delaware are not actually headquartered there. Like Ford, Oracle, or Berkshire Hathaway.
Edit: for what it's worth, the employees of those three companies alone would represent over 70% of the population of Delaware if they all worked there.
Maybe if governments started requiring companies to be only headquartered where they're Inc'd, or have a minimum presence, maybe that would negate some of the shadiness of stock manipulation. Shouldn't stop a company from operating anywhere.
They do require having minimum presence. A registered agent. Are you advocating for something more substantive? Like an actual physical office with a physical person who only works for that company?Quote: sammydvMaybe if governments started requiring companies to be only headquartered where they're Inc'd, or have a minimum presence, maybe that would negate some of the shadiness of stock manipulation. Shouldn't stop a company from operating anywhere.
Are you aware that there are more corporations that are domiciled in Delaware than there are people who live in Delaware?
http://technical.ly/delaware/2014/09/23/why-delaware-incorporation/
It's like Colma, California, just south of San Francisco. There are over 2,000,000 people in Colma, but only 1500 are alive.
Something like that. Whatever it takes to make corporations more accountable. What's happening in the last 10 years is the massive creation of internet only companies, the vast majority turn out to be questionable. It's more complex than that, but way too many con artists are gaming the Inc. system.
I'm advocating taking the income tax dodging away. Creating an entity on paper only, to stand as a representative for the company in a low tax state just to launder income through that state so a company doesn't pay it's full share of taxes.
That's what's happening, no matter what anyone wants to label it as some sort of proper thing for a company to do.
If we did that as citizens, we'd get arrested. Companies are legally laundering money and should be stopped.
But I'm not naive enough to think that would ever happen.
What sort of presence does nanotech entertainment have in Nevada? We know ntgl actually had an office there. We know ntek had an office in Cal. Why would ntek have a Nevada business license if ntgl also had one. Why are there 2 in Nevada.
Quote: sammydvHow nice, now ntek is in default in Nevada as well as ntgl. Where does nanotech entertainment operate?
Strange that a company can be in default and still have a market cap of 2.73 million (as of 8/9/16).
Quote: WizardStrange that a company can be in default and still have a market cap of 2.73 million (as of 8/9/16).
Not strange at all if you knew that a penny stock which issues 5 BILLION shares out of thin air and gives most of them to their own money laundering company called royal capital. And that the fact that 'market cap' is just an indicator created by financial guru's to quickly try to place a unrealistic value on a pink sheet stock to sell shares to the market.
You see, if you create 5 BILLION shares via your own treasury and then multiply them by the current share price of .0035 you can say your company is worth 17.5 million when in fact, you have no products except 1 lousy media app no one knows about, every one of your last functioning companies are defunct and have no business license in the state you're incorporated, no known employees or offices open. But yea, you can claim millions in market cap just because you created phony shares at a price you invented.
We're not talking real exchange companies, where other indicators are factored in like, inventory, property, employees, taxes can be blended in with the meaningless market cap to give some better basis for market value.
Quote: WizardThank your for the reply. According to Yahoo, the current price is four cents a share. Was there a reverse split? How do you suppose the people paying the four cents a share would respond to your post? Also, why doesn't Market Capital sell some of their shares to at least keep the lights on.
Yes there was a split just a few weeks ago. The pre price would be .0017 or something now with all the dilution the company felon and insiders are doing. Pre split the pps was .0025 approx, and if you had 10000 shares @ a account value of 25 dollars. After the split you have to have the same account balance but less proportional amount of shares at the new higher pps. It was a split of 1 for 25.1 shares. The opening stock price post split was around .08 approx. Then the pps drops 50% in a week and your account is now down 50%. But the pre price would actually be now .00125.
This is where market cap fails and deceives in the pinks. One week you have 1 billion outstanding shares @ .0025 and claim a market cap of 2.5 million and the next week your company does a reverse split and does not reduce the company outstanding but instead ups it to 5 billion and now claims a market share of 405 MILLION based on the false pps right after market opens that first day of trading. What changed? Did the company suddenly find gold and platinum under their rented office? Did they just hire Gates and Trump together?
And royal capital is the entity owned by the principal felon doing prison time that is selling the shares themselves that the principal gifted to his own facade company as supposed debt conversions. This is known as toxic funding and is almost 100% a death blow to penny stocks eventually.
I may not have described this concise enough but I think you get the gist.
take care.
They are still gonna dilute the gullible shareholders to dust.
Quote: WizardStrange that a company can be in default and still have a market cap of 2.73 million (as of 8/9/16).
Happens all the time on the OTC. They're called zombie tickers.
Throw out everything you know about market valuations when looking at OTC stocks. They are always illiquid and easily manipulated by insiders who control the vast majority of the stock.
Quote: steeldcoMarket cap is calculated as the number of outstanding shares X last price paid. So, unfortunately, there are people who don't think that the assets are worthless and hence were willing to pay something. Just as unfortunately, most people do know how to reasonably determine what a company's market cap should be or, a lot of the time, what it even means.
What do you think an indicator like market cap was created? How would the last stock price paid equate to a company that has no verifiable assets or protected intellectual property owned? And when a penny stock with 10 billion shares outstanding goes from .0005 in the morning to .05 at 1:00pm the same day, does market cap actually show a true company picture when nothing changed with the company itself in 4 hours? This being non exchange pink companies?
thank you.
Quote: sammydvWhat do you think an indicator like market cap was created? How would the last stock price paid equate to a company that has no verifiable assets or protected intellectual property owned? And when a penny stock with 10 billion shares outstanding goes from .0005 in the morning to .05 at 1:00pm the same day, does market cap actually show a true company picture when nothing changed with the company itself in 4 hours? This being non exchange pink companies?
thank you.
Wow, with all due respect, your point above is so far out in left field that I couldn't even begin. Suffice to say that market cap most of the time doesn't accurately reflect what a company's value is, even though it should. This occurs mostly with micros, small, and medium cap companies. The reason? Most people can't correctly assess future value. That's why money is made in public markets. A company's assets and liabilities are just a couple of components of a company's value. To top it all off, nobody in their right mind would view market cap as you present it, except for those who like to buy and sell based on pictures. To them, it doesn't matter what the value is. It's whether a chart looks a certain way.
A couple questions, if you don't mind:
1. How is the current four cents share price based? Is that is the sale price of the last trade or the average of the last x trades?
2. Let's say I have a million shares and desperately need cash. How would I sell them and what price would I get?
If you have a million shares to sell and had to do it immediately you would place a market order and if there aren't cumulative bids in place for a million shares then the price would crater to no-bid. Zero. Immediately.
I know I've said this 10 times already in this thread but trading strategies and market theory that govern major exchanges like the NYSE and NASDAQ have literally no bearing whatsoever in the OTC cesspool. This cannot be overemphasized and is the reason so many people get ripped off by these scams - they go in thinking it's just like big-board stocks while the whole time they are being led to the slaughterhouse by corrupt stock promoters and con-artists printing free stock as fast as they can dump it.
Quote: WizardRegarding valuation, the rule of thumb is that something is worth what you can get somebody else to pay for it. So if anybody can suggest a simpler formula than share price * number of shares, I'm all ears.
I wholeheartedly disagree. If my father found a Van Gogh in the attic and then sold it in a garage sale for $10 then that would not mean that it is worth $10. If you were to change your statement to "what two, or more, reasonable and informed, parties would agree to as a price", then I would go along with that.
Quote: SkepticThe current price is determined by the last trade. A better indicator is looking at the Bid and Ask prices - the Bid is the price someone is willing to pay right now while the Ask is the price someone is willing to sell for right now.
What are the bid and ask prices for NTEK now?
Quote: steeldcoI wholeheartedly disagree. If my father found a Van Gogh in the attic and then sold it in a garage sale for $10 then that would not mean that it is worth $10. If you were to change your statement to "what two, or more, reasonable and informed, parties would agree to as a price", then I would go along with that.
$10 isn't what he could get for it. He could get way more at the next serious art auction. I don't think I should need to qualify everything I say with obvious caveats.
Quote: Wizard
2. Let's say I have a million shares and desperately need cash. How would I sell them and what price would I get?
Today around 500,000 shares were traded, with the last trade at 4 cents. So the total value of the shares traded is only around $20,000.
If you "had" to sell 1,000,000 shares, it would be hard to find buyers anywhere near the 4 cent mark. Just a guess, but flooding the market with twice what is usually traded in a single day would drop the price substantially, and my novice guess would put it between 3 and 3.5 cents per share.
Quote: steeldcoWow, with all due respect, your point above is so far out in left field that I couldn't even begin. Suffice to say that market cap most of the time doesn't accurately reflect what a company's value is, even though it should. This occurs mostly with micros, small, and medium cap companies. The reason? Most people can't correctly assess future value. That's why money is made in public markets. A company's assets and liabilities are just a couple of components of a company's value. To top it all off, nobody in their right mind would view market cap as you present it, except for those who like to buy and sell based on pictures. To them, it doesn't matter what the value is. It's whether a chart looks a certain way.
With all due respect, you are entirely missing the point about MC and penny shells. We are NOT talking about real companies, real property or even whether some analyst figures value on turkey chins. I am discussing using MC as some sort of reliable value indicator of a probable fake company. MC is used by penny stock promoters to lie to potential buyers/traders of their clients stock. And no, market cap 'shouldn't' be any kind of accurate indicator of a companies market or corp worth. MC is an invented indicator to move stock. Period. Like a ton of other indicators that are useless because they attempt to predict value from other vague data.
Again, trying to relate pink sheet shells to exchange companies and viewing MC as a reliable decision making tool is useless. When dealing with pink sheet companies who print 10's of millions, even billions of shares to themselves almost any time they want to ... yea yea, I know, there are rules, but scams don't think the rules are for them. When dealing with these faux companies, one does not discuss earned percents, insurance factors or fundamentals as almost all shells don't have income statements that are audited and with the SEC. Most are dark filers and de-listed from the SEC. Mostly 100% by their own doing to hide from the public and the SEC of their dealings.
I find that one of the biggest mistakes people like yourself make is trying to do comparative thinking of a real company to a pink sheet shell company. One can not compare a soap box car to a Mercedes. Or expect it to operate like one.
Quote: SOOPOOToday around 500,000 shares were traded, with the last trade at 4 cents. So the total value of the shares traded is only around $20,000.
If you "had" to sell 1,000,000 shares, it would be hard to find buyers anywhere near the 4 cent mark. Just a guess, but flooding the market with twice what is usually traded in a single day would drop the price substantially, and my novice guess would put it between 3 and 3.5 cents per share.
That's too broad a statement when discussing otc listed stock, note, I didn't say exchange stocks. I'm not going to do it, but one could easily list 20 otc/pink stocks that moved 100 million shares each today and the pps didn't move off of .0002.
What you describe would be a stock with a low outstanding amount and thinly traded. ntek is not thinly traded for the most part, and it has at least 5 BILLION in the market.
NTEK never had 5 billion shares outstanding.
Before the 1 for 25.1 reverse split done a couple of weeks ago they had around 2 billion outstanding.
After the reverse split there are approximately 80 million shares outstanding plus the 8 million or so that have been dumped on the market since the RS. The authorized is now 499 million so FelonFoley and company have a lot of room to dilute the remaining shareholders and future gullible buyers of this scam.
Quote: wellwellwellsammydv
NTEK never had 5 billion shares outstanding.
Before the 1 for 25.1 reverse split done a couple of weeks ago they had around 2 billion outstanding.
After the reverse split there are approximately 80 million shares outstanding plus the 8 million or so that have been dumped on the market since the RS. The authorized is now 499 million so FelonFoley and company have a lot of room to dilute the remaining shareholders and future gullible buyers of this scam.
There is no way to know for sure what they have. ntek does not report to any official agency. And the TA is gagged.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/NTEK/profile
They raised the auth to 500 million AFTER the r/s, or actually at the same time, which is the equivalent of 12 billion shares pre split. Sorry I wasn't clear on that statement.
Quote: Wizard$10 isn't what he could get for it. He could get way more at the next serious art auction. I don't think I should need to qualify everything I say with obvious caveats.
So you are saying that what he "could" get would set the value? Really? So if my father sold that Van Gogh that he found at $100M then that would be its value? Wow. Really? Even though an informed art expert may say that it is only worth $20M? You're saying that value is only set if the price is high and not low?
