A thought regarding these loans from family member
Post# of 7802
Posted On: 08/01/2015 5:08:30 PM
A thought regarding these loans from family members: SCM seems to think it is bad that there are convertible loans from "related parties" in default.
Seems to me that this is a good thing. According to a recent 10Q, loans to the company or "convertible notes" are:
"convertible at the note holder’s option"
This means "related parties" to Kyle (family of some sort) are holding on to these notes instead of converting them into shares that can then be deposited into an account and then finally sold on the open market. These loans/notes date back to 2009 and are as recent as last October.
How many shares could have family members converted but are choosing not to convert? I took the liberty of looking up how many shares have been earned by family investors since 2009 from convertible notes. According to the 10Q from March and based on current loans in default over 37,000,000 shares are owed to Kyle's family members and they have chosen not to convert these shares at this time. This total does not include any previously converted convertible notes from related parties. I guess I could go back and look at each Report to figure that out but I really don't care and I'm kinda lazy.
What I am more impressed by is the fact that family members could have in the last 5 years or could currently cash in over 37,000,000 shares of SFRX and chose (and choose) not to. While I'm assuming there were some notes that were converted that's still a lot of shares to be currently holding in note form – no matter how many have already been converted.
Why are they holding on to their shares? Since they are holding these shares in note form, family seems to still be confident in the company doing well. I've talked to Kyle's daughter Kara and she has told me in the past (about a year ago) that she has never sold a single share of SFRX. Kara is president of Cleartrust which has a contract with the company and has received over 15 million shares in compensation for past work, probably more like 20 million now. Why isn't she selling?
I did not figure up how many loans there are to non-related parties that are holding on to their convertible notes as well. Actions of related parties mean more to me.
Until there is a PR of gold being found I guess the price will continue to hover around where it is now as long as there are no more institutional lenders cashing out like recently (or so it seems). Could tick back up a little.
I'm not sure what this event is in NY but that may stimulate a little interest as well, couldn't hurt.
Anyway just wanted to clarify my thoughts on these loans in default. The more in default the better in my book. That is a risk they are taking and if they are cool with it, I'm cool with it.
Now if someone would be so kind as to sell me some really cheap shares next week, that would be great.
Seems to me that this is a good thing. According to a recent 10Q, loans to the company or "convertible notes" are:
"convertible at the note holder’s option"
This means "related parties" to Kyle (family of some sort) are holding on to these notes instead of converting them into shares that can then be deposited into an account and then finally sold on the open market. These loans/notes date back to 2009 and are as recent as last October.
How many shares could have family members converted but are choosing not to convert? I took the liberty of looking up how many shares have been earned by family investors since 2009 from convertible notes. According to the 10Q from March and based on current loans in default over 37,000,000 shares are owed to Kyle's family members and they have chosen not to convert these shares at this time. This total does not include any previously converted convertible notes from related parties. I guess I could go back and look at each Report to figure that out but I really don't care and I'm kinda lazy.
What I am more impressed by is the fact that family members could have in the last 5 years or could currently cash in over 37,000,000 shares of SFRX and chose (and choose) not to. While I'm assuming there were some notes that were converted that's still a lot of shares to be currently holding in note form – no matter how many have already been converted.
Why are they holding on to their shares? Since they are holding these shares in note form, family seems to still be confident in the company doing well. I've talked to Kyle's daughter Kara and she has told me in the past (about a year ago) that she has never sold a single share of SFRX. Kara is president of Cleartrust which has a contract with the company and has received over 15 million shares in compensation for past work, probably more like 20 million now. Why isn't she selling?
I did not figure up how many loans there are to non-related parties that are holding on to their convertible notes as well. Actions of related parties mean more to me.
Until there is a PR of gold being found I guess the price will continue to hover around where it is now as long as there are no more institutional lenders cashing out like recently (or so it seems). Could tick back up a little.
I'm not sure what this event is in NY but that may stimulate a little interest as well, couldn't hurt.
Anyway just wanted to clarify my thoughts on these loans in default. The more in default the better in my book. That is a risk they are taking and if they are cool with it, I'm cool with it.
Now if someone would be so kind as to sell me some really cheap shares next week, that would be great.
(0)
(0)