SMG Industries (SMGI) Risk Analysis

The markets in which we operate are highly competitive. We provide services primarily in the southwest United States. Our competitors include many large and small transportation, logistics, and other service companies. In addition, the transportation services business in which we compete is highly fragmented. We believe that the principal competitive factors in the markets we serve are reputation for high quality service and technical expertise, good equipment, trained personnel, work force competency, safety record and price. Competing firms may have their own service personnel, in which case we may not get awarded an available service job. While we seek to be competitive in our pricing, we believe many of our customers elect to work with us based on safety and performance and quality of our crews, equipment, and services. We seek to differentiate ourselves from our competitors by delivering the highest quality service, experienced personnel, and equipment possible, coupled with execution and operating efficiency in a safe working environment. We expect competition to intensify in the future. There can be no assurance that we will be able to compete successfully with other companies. Thus, revenues could be reduced due to aggressive pricing pursued by competitors. Many of our competitors are entities that are more established, larger and have greater financial and personnel resources than we do. If we do not compete successfully, our business and results of operations will be materially adversely affected.

OTC Marketplace securities are frequent targets of fraud or market manipulation. Not only because of their generally low price, but also because the OTC Market reporting requirements for these securities are less stringent than for listed or NASDAQ traded securities, and no exchange requirements are imposed. Dealers may dominate the market and set prices that are not based on competitive forces. Individuals or groups may create fraudulent markets and control the sudden, sharp increase of price and trading volume and the equally sudden collapse of the market price for shares of our common stock.

The Company's operations are regulated and licensed by various federal, provincial, state, local and foreign government agencies in the United States and Canada. In the United States, the Company and its drivers must comply with the safety and fitness regulations of the DOT and the agencies within the states that regulate transportation, including those regulations relating to drug- and alcohol-testing and hours-of-service. Weight and equipment dimensions also are subject to government regulations. The Company also may become subject to new or more restrictive regulations relating to fuel emissions, environmental protection, drivers' hours-of-service, driver eligibility requirements, on-board reporting of operations, collective bargaining, ergonomics, and other matters affecting safety, insurance, and operating methods. Other agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) also regulate the Company's equipment, operations, drivers, and the environment. The Company conducts operations outside of the United States, and is subject to analogous governmental safety, fitness, weight and equipment regulations and environmental protection and operating standards, as well as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which generally prohibits United States companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining favorable treatment. Any investigation of any actual or alleged violations of such laws could also harm the Company's reputation or have a material adverse impact on its business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. The methodology used to determine a carrier's safety rating could be changed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and, as a result, the Company's acceptable safety rating could be impaired. In particular, the FMCSA continues to utilize the three safety fitness rating scale: "satisfactory," "conditional," and "unsatisfactory"-to assess the safety fitness of motor carriers and the Company currently has a "satisfactory" FMCSA rating on 100% of its fleet. While the Company believes the FMCSA will update its records and grant a "satisfactory" rating, there can be no guarantee that this rating will occur. Accordingly, the Company's market opportunities could remain constrained, as many customers require a rating of "satisfactory". However, pursuant to a 2015 federal statutory mandate, the FMCSA commissioned the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study and report upon the CSA program and its underlying Safety Measurement System (SMS), which is the FMCSA's process for identifying patterns of non-compliance and issuing safety-fitness determinations for motor carriers. In June 2017, the NAS published a report on the subject providing specific recommendations and concluding, among other things, that the FMCSA should explore a more formal statistical model to replace the current SMS process. In June 2018, the FMCSA posted its response to the NAS study in a report to Congress, concluding, among other things, that it would develop and test a new model, the Item Response Theory (IRT), which would replace the SMS process currently used. The FMCSA was expected to commence small scale testing of the IRT model as early as September 2018, with full scale testing expected to occur in April 2019 and possible program roll-out expected to occur in late 2019 but the testing schedule has been delayed. The FMCSA's June 2018 response is under audit by the DOT Inspector General to assess consistency with the NAS recommendations, and the audit findings will guide the agency's actions and timing with respect to testing of the IRT model as a potential replacement for the SMS, in the event and to the extent that the FMCSA adopts the IRT model in replacement of the SMS or otherwise pursues rulemakings in the future that revise the methodology used to determine a carrier's safety rating in a manner that incorporates more stringent standards, then it is possible that the Company and other motor carriers could be adversely affected, as compared to consideration of the current standards. If the Company were to receive an unsatisfactory CSA score, whether under the current SMS process, the IRT model, should it be finalized, and adopted, or as a result of some other safety-fitness determination, it could adversely affect the Company's business as many of its existing customer contracts have a prohibition against doing business with carriers that have an "unsatisfactory" DOT safety rating, and an unsatisfactory rating could negatively impact or restrict the Company's operations. The FMCSA published a final rule in December 2015 mandating the use of Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) for commercial motor vehicle drivers to measure their compliance with hours-of-service requirements by December 18, 2017. The 2015 ELD final rule generally applies to most motor carriers and drivers who are required to keep records of duty status, unless they qualify for an exception to the rule, and the rule also applies to drivers domiciled in Canada and Mexico. Under the 2015 final rule, motor carriers and drivers subject to the rule were required to use either an ELD or an automatic onboard recording device (AOBRD) compliant with existing regulations by December 18, 2017. However, the AOBRDs were only permitted to be used until December 16, 2019, provided those devices were put into use before December 18, 2017. Starting December 16, 2019, all carriers and drivers subject to the 2015 final rule must use ELDs. Commencing with the December 18, 2017 effective date, the Company and other motor carriers subject to the 2015 rule are required to use ELDs or AOBRDs in their operations. The Company is subject to various environmental laws and regulations governing, among other matters, the operation of fuel storage tanks, release of emissions from its vehicles (including engine idling) and facilities, and adverse impacts to the environment, including to the soil, groundwater, and surface water. The Company has implemented programs designed to monitor and address identified environmental risks. Historically, the Company's environmental compliance costs have not had a material adverse effect on its results of operations; however, there can be no assurance that such costs will not be material in the future or that such future compliance will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and operating results. The Company also has vehicle maintenance operations at certain of its facilities. The Company's operations involve the risks of fuel spillage or seepage into the environment, discharge of contaminants, environmental and natural resource damage, and unauthorized hazardous material spills, releases, or disposal actions, among others. Some of the Company's operations are at facilities where soil and groundwater contamination have occurred. If the Company is found to be responsible for such contamination or spills,the Company could be subject to costs and liabilities, including costs for remediation, environmental natural resource damages and penalties. We cannot predict the nature of any future laws, regulations, interpretations, or applications, nor can we determine what effect such additional regulation, when and if it occurs, would have on our business in the future. Such additional regulation could require, however, any or all of the actions listed below, which could have a material adverse effect on our operations: - the reformulation of certain products to meet new standards - the recall or discontinuance of certain products and/or services - additional record keeping - expanded documentation of the properties of certain products - revised, expanded or different labeling - additional scientific substantiation

The Delaware General Corporation Law, our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and bylaws, and indemnification agreements between the Company and certain individuals provide for the indemnification of our directors, officers, employees, and agents, under certain circumstances, against attorney's fees and other expenses incurred by them in any litigation to which they become a party arising from their association with us or activities on our behalf. We also will bear the expenses of such litigation for any of our directors, officers, employees, or agents, upon such person's promise to repay them if it is ultimately determined that any such person shall not have been entitled to indemnification. This indemnification policy could result in substantial expenditures by us that we may be unable to recoup and could direct funds away from our business and products (if any).

Approximately 49% of the Company's revenue was carried by owner-operators in 2022. The Company's reliance on independent owner-operators creates numerous risks for the Company's business. For example, the Company from time to time provides financing to certain of its independent owner-operators purchasing tractors from the Company. If owner-operators operating the tractors the Company financed default under or otherwise terminate the financing arrangement and the Company is unable to find a replacement owner-operator, the Company may incur losses on amounts owed to it with respect to the tractor in addition to any losses it may incur as a result of idling the tractor. Further, if the Company is unable to provide such financing in the future, due to liquidity constraints or other restrictions, the Company may experience a shortage of owner-operators. If the Company's independent owner-operators fail to meet the Company's contractual obligations or otherwise fail to perform in a manner consistent with the Company's requirements, the Company may be required to utilize alternative service providers at potentially higher prices or with some degree of disruption of the services that the Company provides to customers. If the Company fails to deliver on time, if its contractual obligations are not otherwise met, or if the costs of its services increase, then the Company's profitability and customer relationships could be harmed. Furthermore, independent owner-operators typically use tractors, trailers and other equipment bearing the Company's trade names and trademarks. If one of the Company's independent owner-operators is subject to negative publicity, it could reflect on the Company and have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and brand. Under certain laws, the Company could also be subject to allegations of liability for the activities of its independent contractor owner-operators. Owner-operators are third-party service providers, as compared to company drivers who are employed by the Company. As independent business owners, the Company's owner-operators may make business or personal decisions that conflict with the Company's best interests. For example, if a load is unprofitable, route distance is too far from home or personal scheduling conflicts arise, an owner-operator may deny loads of freight from time to time. In these circumstances, the Company must be able to timely deliver the freight in order to maintain relationships with customers. In addition, adverse changes in the financial condition of the Company's independent contractor owner-operators or increases in their equipment or operating costs could cause them to seek higher revenues. The prices the Company charges its customers could be impacted by such issues, which may in turn limit pricing flexibility with customers.

Our operations are subject to hazards inherent in the transportation services and the oil and natural gas industry, such as, but not limited to, accidents, blowouts, explosions, fires, and oil spills. These conditions can cause: - Personal injury or loss of life,- Damage to or destruction of property, equipment, and the environment, or - Suspension of operations by our customers The Company maintains insurance coverage that we believe to be customary in the industry against these hazards. However, we do not have insurance against all foreseeable risks, either because insurance is not available or because of the high premium costs. The occurrence of an event not fully insured against, or the failure of an insurer to meet its insurance obligations, could result in substantial losses. In addition, we may not be able to maintain adequate insurance in the future at reasonable rates. Insurance may not be available to cover any or all of the risks to which we are subject, or, even if available, it may be inadequate, or insurance premiums or other costs could rise significantly in the future so as to make such insurance prohibitively expensive. It is likely that, in our insurance renewals, our premiums and deductibles will be higher, and certain insurance coverage either will be unavailable or considerably more expensive than it has been in the recent past. In addition, our insurance is subject to coverage limits. The occurrence of a significant event or adverse claim in excess of the insurance coverage that we maintain or that is not covered by insurance could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our operations are increasingly dependent on digital technologies and services. We use these technologies for internal purposes, including data storage, processing and transmissions, as well as in our interactions with customers and suppliers. Digital technologies are subject to the risk of cyber-attacks. If our systems for protecting against cybersecurity risks prove not to be sufficient, we could be adversely affected by, among other things: loss of or damage to intellectual property, proprietary or confidential information, or customer, supplier, or employee data; interruption of our business operations; and increased costs required to prevent, respond to, or mitigate cybersecurity attacks. These risks could harm our reputation and our relationships with customers, suppliers, employees and other third parties, and may result in claims against us. These risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated results of operations and consolidated financial condition.