Alphabet shares drop after it reports lower profit on huge EU fine
Alphabet second-quarter profit drops on EU fine.
Q: "who do you think is buying up all these shares" A: NOT Greg Halpern or John Blaisure.
The fact that none of MAXD management will spend a single penny of their $500,000/yr in compensation on buying shares proves they think this stock is not undervalued. $0.0018/share? Still too expensive for them!
No news is bad news?
@Rurouni (greg halpern) many of us have presented legitimate concerns about MAXD but in spite of the fact that we have invested real money you have shrugged off every single concern. You respond just like a politician, denying everything when we know that it's true.
Don't you realize that your flippant attitude towards those of us who have already invested is right here on the Internet for everyone to see? It scares away perspective shareholders and shareholders don't to hear you say "money is money" and "salary is not our concern" and "can't see agreements" because when they invest all these things are all shareholder business.
Rurouni said "...Folks just needs 2 b patient it’s going n everything is all set. a lot of things can happen at any moment till the Jury Trial …" so conveniently we have to wait until end of 2018. What happened to the revenue making deals this year. It's a "shell game".
@BTX what it boils down to is that you are afraid. Dispite all the substancial concerns about MAXD you are afraid that if the facts get out about MAXD no one will want to invest and you will loose your investment. That is apparently what you meant by "protect your investment". Apparently you don't realize but nobody is really buying. The only solution is for this company to fix it's mistakes and turn it around. No matter what we say here the PPS is up to MAXD.
Richie.... I am not rude... I am tired of your whining... You invested and evidently at a price you believed would earn a profit... you invested predicated on facts you believed to be true... So be it.... All investments are risks... period... The issue here is people whom don't or maybe do (subversively) have a stake in the outcome have affected to date derailing the potential positive outcome... BTW (not just you Richie) but may others who supported MaxD understand they past actions of some that undermined you investment... Come to La Jolla with penetrating questions but don't come throwing daggers and be polite...
Rurouni: "how about u come down 2 La Jolla n ask face 2 face ..?"
I will go to La Jolla and politely ask questions face-to-face if the offer is open. Name the schedule. You know I'll be critical but I also promise to be honest.
Hey Rurouni... I contacted the the company as you suggested waiting for a response...
Bill legally can shareholders like we are inspect corporate records? Do they have to show us? What kind of other information can we look at?
Rurouni what about my comment regarding the FCCOA and regarding my take on the judges giving too much weight on a processor and the difference between Spriggs/Golin combo and the 339... CN wrote a while back that the "partition and slice" was invented by her, etc...
Folks I've read all the posts... Be back later... I'm in...I will contact company and go from there...
Jul 20 2017 07:20am
Newbies grant n nays knows nothing, $2 Million Funding Commitment is legit -
From 8-K Filings - Bellridge Capital, Inc. Lender
10.1 10.2 10.3
99.1 Press Release with titled, MAXD Secures $2 Million Funding Commitment. Dated June 28, 2017
The Sec has info knowing MaxD publicly stated they have a funding commitment of $2 million, plus financial info. That n itself is proof enough; otherwise, the SEC will investigate 4 fraud. So grant foo is just a foo bad mouthing MaxD …
$2 million is a lot for a Commitment 2 a company with no revenue, no matter how u spin it grant …whether is n small or large increments… The Lender c something that many don’t. ..
oh just n case shaaaadup Richie . whining coming after many postings most likely… chuckle chuckle ^_^
Wow, grant usually don’t write this much, usually a 1 liner …interesting .. Don’t forget 2 teleport 2 the Ihub Board gant, it’s been dead, they need u there ..cricket cricket … ^_^
The point is the $2 million is allocated accordingly 2 the needs …smiling ^_^
Cheers to the faithful investors!
PS. U Don’t Say … Ignorance Is Bliss ..Yes U .. ^_^
Grant 20 hours ago LH- Where is this $2,000,000? Only in a press release. No contract, no financials, no filings to support that $2,000,000 figure. Ordinarily I'd trust a press release to be accurate. However: penny stocks in general, and MAXD in particular, has a history of issuing press releases with promises that (for whatever reason) do not come to pass. Just look at the contempt lawsuit against Nash, or the IMHC deal, or anything promising revenue.
Furthermore, the $2,000,000 would not come from an "investor". It would come from a LENDER. Only $400,000 has been confirmed to come from this lender, they get their 9% interest rate up front, and they get 35% discount on converted debt on the back end. There is no indication that the lender desires to hold onto any converted stock, and it would be very surprising. Penny-stock shares converted from toxic debt is almost always immediately sold off for a sure profit.
This lender doesn't need "positive things" to happen to MAXD to fulfill their exit strategy- they can simply convert and sell their shares regardless of what's happening with the company. That is why the Authorized Shares were increased by 1,000,000,000- the lender wanted security that they could fully convert despite the potential for even lower prices. Even if the price drops another 50%, they are getting a full payday.
If this entity truly wanted to be an "investor" then they would do a bought-deal which immediately capitalizes the company, and doesn't keep the risk of dilution & dumping hanging over the stock. Furthermore, even if they WERE intending to be long term investors, that doesn't automatically make them smarter or privvy to inside information than the rest of the world. Halpern has proven in the past (and this is documented in a lawsuit) that he can convince people to invest mid-6 figures into his companies when that company's prospects were materially negative.
If you have faith in this company simply because they announced an as-of-yet unfulfilled press release about $2,000,000 in loans, then I sincerely hope you can find a way to look again at the facts from an outside perspective and realize that the only positive thing this proves is that lenders believe that the stock price will remain above $0.0010 for some time into the future.
With regard to the upcoming EA/Google mandatory settlement hearing, it is important to understand that the mandate is a standard requirement of California courts. It in no way implies that the parties are looking to settle; the California curts require it as an attempt to encourage companies to resolve their disputes and avoid adding more court time to an already overburdened system. Whether or not the hearing has any hope of a settlement is completely up to the parties involved. In my own opinion, legal teams are not particularly motivated as a settlement can mean an end to their revenue stream before they feel they've maximized the full billing potential of the case. For the plaiintiff and defendent, it is often too early to agree on the value of a settlement, and an agreement is very unlickely. Having said that, for this case the trial dates are right on the heel of the mandatory settlement hearing, and Google could potentially be at risk if they are publicly exposed globally conducting themselves in an "improper" way. Also, this case has the three top individuals of Google personally named, and rightly so as those individuals were personally involved in the activities between EA and Google. I would think they would not want any possible negative impact to their own reputations. That would seem favorable to EA, yet Google's actions might be the opposite; they may choose to attempt to crush and destroy EA as punishment and a warning to others who would challenge them. I'm confident the best business decision is a quick and quiet settlement, and Google and EA are both able to reach an amicable agreement. If egos over rule the business decision, things could get ugly. Google tends to rely on their ability to influence judges in what is a tainted USA legal system, but they've crossed the line a few to many times there, and it could backfire. Time will tell...
@Rurouni what specifically do the two salaried employees do every day?
Rurouni where are you today..?
Hey Rurouni a lot of interesting links... No response to your suggestion...
GM for the board this is an interesting article in Bloomberg News... the link is on the Drudge Report...
As a former tour manager for Bob Dylan and The Band, Jonathan Taplin isn’t your typical academic. Lately, though, he’s been busy writing somber tomes about market shares, monopolies, and online platforms. His conclusion: Amazon.com, Facebook, and Google have become too big and too powerful and, if not stopped, may need to be broken up.
Crazy? Maybe not. Taplin, 70, author of Move Fast and Break Things: How Facebook, Google, and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy, knows digital media, having run the Annenberg Innovation Lab at the University of Southern California. Ten years before YouTube, he founded one of the first video-on-demand streaming services. He also knows media M&A as a former Merrill Lynch investment banker in the 1980s. He says Google is as close to a monopoly as the Bell telephone system was in 1956.
He has a point, judging by market-research figures. Alphabet Inc.’s Google gets about 77 percent of U.S. search advertising revenue. Google and Facebook Inc. together control about 56 percent of the mobile ad market.