From the last quarterly report.....
"In January of 2014, the Company sold 50,000 shares of its common stock for $.20 per share, or $10,000, to one investor who was a shareholder in the Company. "
"In January 2014, the following converted their notes into common stock at $.20 per share: John and Priscilla Zaontz converted a $15,000 note and interest into 82,500 shares; Hoi Ping Lee converted a $25,000 note and interest into 137,500 shares; Darryl Zaontz converted a $25,000 note and interest into 137,500 shares of stock. Each of these individuals was also issued shares as additional consideration as called for in the notes, which totaled 14,000 shares."
"In April 2014, the Company sold 115,000 shares of its common stock for $.40 per share, or $46,000, to three private investors. "
"In April 2014, the Company issued an aggregate of 35,000 shares of our common stock to two individuals for professional services. These shares issued were valued at $.40 a share or an aggregate price of $14,000. "
"In May 2014, the Company issued 15,000 shares of its common stock for professional services for $0.40 per share, or $6,000."
"In June 2014, the Company issued 40,000 shares of its common stock for professional services at $0.40 per share, or $16,000."
This company is nearly bankrupt. It has negative working capital, negative book value, and no chance of revenue for many years. It's going to dilute shareholders one way or the other.
Roth is a scam shop, mostly known for its "Buy" recommendations on Chinese stocks right before they were all exposed. see Duyuan, for example.
Cash flow is good. I don't see a debt problem. At $2 a share, it looks like bargain. I haven't pored over the SEC reports and don't know the industry, so that's just a quick impression. What, if anything, in the last report should change the investment thesis regarding this stock?
Do you mean this comment, by seeking alpha author geopressure?
"IFNY's entire company is based upon their concession that they know very little about. Mobil drilled some shallow wells in the area back in the 70's but didn't find anything remotely closing to being economically viable. Exxon has since bought Mobil & is now in possession of Mobil's old seismic data. One would think that if IFNY's concession had reserves anywhere similar to those of NBL's concession, that NBL or Exxon would have a deal in place with IFNY - but of course they do not.
"If you take a close look @ at page 21 of IFNY's investor presentation you will note that IFNY arrives at their estimated reserves (1-10 BBOE) by assuming that a reservoir exist that is a constant 90 ft thick, has 20% porosity, & 65% oil saturations (65% is the highest saturation of oil ever recorded on earth & only limestone is capable of such high oil saturations). The wide range in calculated reserves is from the IFNY varying the size (area) that their possible traps cover. There is no seismic behind these calculations, no drilling data to support these numbers, it is just a wild guess based of their assumption that a 90' thick pay sand exist which has 65% saturation of oil over up to 547 square miles.
"For all IFNY knows, there reserves could be 0 bbls of oil because this 90' thick perfect reservoir might not exists - clearly Exxon & NBL (two companies with the seismic data) do not seem to think it exists.
"Furthermore, I think a previous poster hinted that because NBL has a pre-drill estimated 270MM BBLs of reserves & IFNY's concession is 'next door' that IFNY must have significant reserves too. The poster who made this suggestion 'tritonpacific' is clearly not a geologists. NBL is drilling a very specific carbonate shoal-type play that only exists under NBL's concession. Again, if NBL thought that the play extended under IFNY's concession, then there would be a deal in place........"
Let's see. You said "Stan and Hutchins gave up the revenue-sharing." When asked to support that, you produced text that had nothing to do with revenue-sharing. When this was pointed out, you replied "correct." You were again asked to support your comment, and replied "I did."
You have all the intelligence of a scam penny-stock investor.
You were asked to explain your comment: "...Stan and Hutchins gave up the revenue-sharing (and their guaranteed $100 million to $1 billion) for warrants at a strike price of $3."
The officers still have a right to 1% of Infinity's revenue.
The text you quote has nothing to do with revenue sharing. And, it is 10 months old. The revenue sharing is mentioned in the last report.
"Mr. Clown missed the part of the 10-K where Stan and Hutchins gave up the revenue-sharing (and their guaranteed $100 million to $1 billion) for warrants at a strike price of $3."
Where are you reading that?
They gave Aspire over 200,000 shares to do the deal. When Aspire buys the stock, it gets the lower of the lowest price that day, or some average low price over the last 12 trading days.
These are new shares being issued by CTIX, thus diluting the common shareholder.
FROM THE LAST REPORT: "The Company’s operating plans require additional funds which may take the form of debt or equity financings. The Company’s ability to continue as a going concern is in substantial doubt and is dependent upon achieving profitable operations and obtaining additional financing. There is no assurance additional funds will be available on acceptable terms or at all."
It has a large working capital deficit. It looks like it needs to raise a lot of cash in the next 3 months, or close up the shop.
The shares are being offered to the public. It was overpriced over $1.50, which is why the company wants to sell its own shares at $1.70.