Verb Technology Company Inc (VERB) Quote

Somebody turned on the Verb trading bot, but it’s not helping the share price much…

Two weeks to the third quarter 10-Q…

Just have to be careful here. This isn’t a regular company with products and revenue, etc. It’s more of a joke company that will generally fall in price but have periods of huge meme stock price jumps from all time lows. Hard to predict.

Hopefully they re-evaluated their investment strategy.

Go back to postings on this board from 2 or 3 years ago and you will see messages that suggest some people put far too much money into the VERB pit of doom.

Poor Susa sounded like she lost her entire retirement nest egg by "investing" in VERB. Every time the stock fell she bought more to "average down.". She seemed to buy into Rory's never ending promises of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. He was...and continues to be...absolutely shameless.

If Susa didn't close out her position she likely now has a single share of stock worth about ten bucks.

Rory burned her money in pursuit of his vision (putting plenty into his own pocket along the way) and there is ZERO to show for it. And yet Rory continues to flap his gums complaining how others have tanked the stock. It's never his fault, of course.

Not if you had a pile of money and other stocks.

I mean, what idiot would put ALL their money into a single stock play??

As a practical matter the most someone would really lose on a short is the margin they put up…as it would be called before they got any deeper.

The funniest part of all your responses is the fact you no longer respond to me. Because you know I'm the truth. The righteous. The one who is never ever going to back to you or any of the other scammers that continue to try and pump this filth. We will prevail. 

10.00 bid for 100, then single digits if the bid gets hit…

What do you think will happen when the Q3 10-Q shows a decrease in the cash balance?

Anyway, I prefer going into a trade knowing my potential loss (all of it)

I know he is just having trouble expressing himself and creating a non-sequitor. And I am not sure that “400% of what you put up” is correct either. Theoretically nothing gets put up in a short.

He is confused by the fact that while a long transaction has a limited downside and unlimited upside, a short is theoretically the opposite. Limited upside with unlimited downside.

He is just misapplying the concept of a loss percentage to a maximum upside….and seems clueless to that.

I understood what he meant to say.

You can loose 4 times what you put up.

You can't loose 4 00% of an investment.

Anyway, the potential loss on a short is infinity, same as with futures trading (much scarier).

On Halloween, TK?

*snicker

Excellent hard roast.

*snicker

Say there...a couple of months ago I bought a $2 PowerBall ticket. It didn't win anything so my loss was around $ 500 million.

I'm going to speak to my accountant about showing that $ 500 million loss on my 2024 tax return. Sadly, I can only use a small portion of that loss each year.

Using your warped logic on this one, if I buy a $1000 worth of stock as an investment and then sell it for $1000, according to you I could say I lost $1 million…cause that was a “potential” gain. LOL

Apparently…

I made a mistake. I said percentages were Grade 3 math. I was wrong. They are grade 4-6 math.

My apologies.I bet you actually spent time looking this up. Lol!


This discussion has gone beyond ridiculous.This is something we can both agree on.

I made a mistake. I said percentages were Grade 3 math. I was wrong. They are grade 4-6 math.

My apologies.

I see you didn’t Google “can you lose more than 100% of something?”.

You can’t.

Btw ….

“ False, they had a 100% loss of their potential gain.”

Using your warped logic on this one, if I buy a $1000 worth of stock as an investment and then sell it for $1000, according to you I could say I lost $1 million…cause that was a “potential” gain. LOL

This discussion has gone beyond ridiculous.

Seriously, stop embarrassing yourself.

But we know you bought at $2 pre-pre-pre-split though.

You’ve made almost the worst investment possible in that era.

This is really getting to you, lol…

Happy Halloween… 🎃

When someone shorts $100 worth of stock they have $100. They don’t have a debt of $100 they have a debt of the number of shares they shorted. If the stock goes to zero they owe nothing and make $100.Correct, assuming no borrowing fees this would be a 100% gain.


If the stock stays at $100 and they cover then they made or lost nothing.False, they had a 100% loss of their potential gain.


If the stock goes to $500, they now have to purchase $500 worth of stock to cover but they have the $100 from the original short.Not quite. I can see where you are getting confused with your "math". The only way this would be true is if the stock price was originally $100 per share and went to $500 per share.


Therefore they lost $400.Correct. They lost $400, or another way to say it is that they are down 400% from what they originally had when they shorted the stock. $400/$100 = 400%


$400 is 80% of $500.And $400 is 400% of $100. Since the total gain was $100 and the total loss was $500 leaving a net loss of $400. Gains are positive and losses are negative, therefor there was a net loss of $400. This would make it a 400% loss over the potential max gain given in your example.


You don’t even seem to comprehend the basics of your own example.Likewise


Its cute how you think the short interest positions were all opened at the low.
About as cute as shorty thinking investors all bought at the high.

Its cute how you think the short interest positions were all opened at the low...SMH.

And I see you still can't do math.

Lol more scamming eh? 

Absolutely the $22 comment was total bad faith as it was known at that time that the cash balance was lower.

I have no doubt at all that the best business decision would be liquidation.

The cash on hand of $ 22 per share is thrown around a lot, but the fact is no one (other than Rory and a few other VERB employees) knows what the actual cash on hand is from one day to the next. Rory in his scammy way, mentioned the cash per share as of the last Q, ending June 30. He could have provided a more up-to-date number but he didn't. The reason he didn't share that number should be clear.

It's because every day the company burns around $ 30,000.

We are 120 days since the Q, so the cash balance is likely to be around $ 3.5 million less than it was on June 30. If I'm not mistaken the O/S is around 750k post R/S so that means $ 4.80 per share burned since the last Q...so now $ 17.20 and dropping every day.

The take away is that Rory should liquidate the company and distribute the $ 17 to each shareholder.

Truly a case of a company being worth more dead than alive.

a company having a lower market cap than its cash on hand means the operation is essentially worthless.

So, uh, to state the obvious- a company having a lower market cap than its cash on hand means the operation is essentially worthless. That’s not good. This is not a good company in any way and it ABSOLUTELY WILL BE FINDING NEW LOWS AT SOME POINT.

Shorty should be very worried.
How much will shorty be in the hole when deciding to cover?
Seems as though Verb's SP is slowly moving up towards the $22 mark.
At $22/share, shorty would be down $16.95/share (336%)
There is a definite upwards trend happening with the SP.
Maybe the following points have something to do with it?

A) Verb regained compliance with Nasdaq's minimum bid price requirement for continued listing on October 23rd
B) Verb initiated an investigation into suspected stock manipulation following its 1-for-200 reverse stock split on Oct. 9th
C) Verb was upgraded from sell to hold on October 28th
D) Short interest as of 10-15-2024 was 51.87%

Right now that is a $3 million liability…enough for a lawyer to launch a class action to get a piece of that pie.

You absolutely did point that out as it was happening.

You only need to follow this one single company to learn all the OTC-type scams.

Rory now belly aching that people gamed the system to receive round-up shares. I pointed out that each day prior to the RS there were single share trades in the tens of thousands. Buying a share worth a few pennies pre-RS would result in award of a single post-RS share worth $ 8.

Easy money if you have the ability to create multiple brokerage accounts each holding a single share of VERB stock.

Now the brokerages are asking for the post rounded up RS-shares and Rory is...essentially refusing?

On October 4, 2024, the Company announced that its stockholders had voted to authorize its Board to implement a 1-for-200 reverse stock split in order to retain the Company’s Nasdaq listing and that the shares would begin trading on a split-adjusted basis on October 9, 2024.

Prior to the foregoing announcement, the Company estimates that there were approximately 40,000 beneficial owners of the Company’s stock. Assuming every single shareholder was entitled to a round-up share, which is highly unlikely, that would mean the Company would issue 40,000 shares to address any stockholders left with a fractional share following the reverse split. However, post-split, certain recently identified brokerage firms and clearing houses have requested roundup shares totaling more than 260,000 shares of the Company's common stock - notwithstanding the fact that the Company’s total public float immediately post-split was less than 800,000.

Not coincidentally, the Company became aware of a significant increase in short positions in its stock at or around the same time – and around the same number of round-up shares as those requested by these brokerages and clearing houses.

And VERB is not the only company who has been subject to this same apparent manipulation. The Company knows of at least two other companies who are experiencing the same thing. The Company’s management is in communication with leadership at other affected companies and is seeking to coordinate efforts while actively pursuing the engagement of securities fraud counsel to investigate the facts, determine if there has been illicit activity affecting the Company, and if so, moving aggressively to hold those responsible accountable through swift private legal action as well as through the intervention of securities regulators.

“Do not underestimate our resolve to protect our company and our stockholders,” stated Rory J. Cutaia, VERB Chairman & CEO. “For those of you waiting to receive your 260,000 round-up shares, here’s some advice, don’t hold your breath.”

More than that actually. This was before the 1:200 RS but also the 1:40 and 1:15 splits.

This guy has been so wrong it’s caricature. You can add another 600X to what you’ve posted is already a huge long shot to ever recoup. Insane.

I'm at $1.34 in one account, and $2.03 in another so I feel your pain. I'm not worried, just means I have to wait longer to make a profit.

So your break even point is $268.00 in one account and $406.00 in the other account, good luck getting any of your money back…

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=139844525

Wow…what a good comeback 😂

I’ll take missing a PR over not understanding 3rd grade math any day.

But hey…to each their own. 😉

You are one very confused person…
This coming from someone who didn't even know that VERB provided the market 2 days notice of the RS.

"Is the reverse split effective today? They did not provide the market with 2 days notice as required by NASDAQ."



Lol

“170%”…lol.

I give up…lol.

You are one very confused person…

…did you even attempt to understand what I said?

When someone shorts $100 worth of stock they have $100. They don’t have a debt of $100 they have a debt of the number of shares they shorted. If the stock goes to zero they owe nothing and make $100.

If the stock stays at $100 and they cover then they made or lost nothing.

If the stock goes to $500, they now have to purchase $500 worth of stock to cover but they have the $100 from the original short.

Therefore they lost $400.

$400 is 80% of $500.


So by your definition, they would be down $400. In my example, they would be down $400 as well, and unlike your example, shorty owed $100 to start with, so that would make what shorty owes as a total of $500, or 400% more than shorty's original debt (400% down).


Very simple math.

He is confusing the fact that a short has the potential for theoretically unlimited loses, with the bizarre notion that a loss can be greater than 100%.

This may be caused by the fact that a short can force a larger loss than the maximum upside and perhaps that messed up his description.

But it is still grade 3 math.

JR30 please do not respond. It is so painful to see this massacre.

As you know this or any company will have bounce at times as it hovers near lows, but this company does not have the goods at all and will predictably be much lower again.

When someone shorts $100 worth of stock they have $100. They don’t have a debt of $100 they have a debt of the number of shares they shorted. If the stock goes to zero they owe nothing and make $100.

If the stock stays at $100 and they cover then they made or lost nothing.

If the stock goes to $500, they now have to purchase $500 worth of stock to cover but they have the $100 from the original short.

Therefore they lost $400.

$400 is 80% of $500.

You don’t even seem to comprehend the basics of your own example.

And do yourself a favor and Google “Can I lose more than 100% of something”?

I know this may be a little difficult for some to follow using 3rd grade math, so read it again slowly.

I had said “If shorty starts off owing someone $100, then 1 week later shorty owes $500 to that same person, how much down is shorty from what he originally owed? $400, or another way to say it is shorty is down 400% from what he originally owed.“

Shorty OWES $100, not has $100. 1 week later he OWES, not owns $500. He now OWES $400 more than 1 week ago, not has $400 more. Are you able to follow this simple math so far? How much does shorty owe again? No, he does not have $400, but instead OWES $400 more than he did 1 week ago.

Shorty went from OWING (not owning) $100 to $500. This makes shorty down %400 more from when he was down when he only OWED $100.

Some people actually listened in math class instead of pretending to know things.



Dear God….

No, they are down 80%. The have $500 “invested” and are down $400. 400/500=0.8 or 80%.

You cannot lose more than 100% of something ie. A complete loss.

This is grade 3 math. SMH.



BTW, shorty is now down 163%.

No not all investors bought in at all time highs, but you bought in the 2s pre-pre-pre-split.

“If shorty starts off owing someone $100, then 1 week later shorty owes $500 to that same person, how much down is shorty from what he originally owed? $400, or another way to say it is shorty is down 400% from what he originally owed.“

Dear God….

No, they are down 80%. The have $500 “invested” and are down $400. 400/500=0.8 or 80%.

You cannot lose more than 100% of something ie. A complete loss.

This is grade 3 math. SMH.

Do you not know how math works?

Better than you, obviously.


If shorty starts off owing someone $100, then 1 week later shorty owes $500 to that same person, how much down is shorty from what he originally owed? $400, or another way to say it is shorty is down 400% from what he originally owed.

($100-$500)*100/$100 = -400% (down 400%)


BTW, shorty now down 157%

Up we go fast 

“BTW, shorty now down 149%.“

How can something be “down 149%” ??

Do you not know how math works?

Probably the only reason they are on the threshold securities list is the way the % was calculated straddling the split.

Um, anything rising in value can be up more than 100%, but nothing can be down more than 100%
Duh, that's why an investor can only lose up to 100% of what they invest, but shorty can lose an infinite amount to what they short, therefor they CAN be down more than 100%.



Yes because all the shorts piled on at all time lows and didn’t participate in the 99.999% drop.
...and all the investors piled on at all time highs? Looks like the mental blockage is from shorty.


shameless!


BTW, shorty now down 149%.

It’s shameless.

No excuse for it from the Bagholders as well.