Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
CAMU was a small forward split 3 or 5 for one I think. I was the first person on the planet to buy it, ever. 15 cents
Then it became CANU trading around 3-4 bucks and did another split 16-1 if I remember correctly, and became CAOU
Then it became L something around $7/share
I of course sold as CANU just prior to it doing the second FS
It's not really new for me, I've been in for 6 months: CGGP
A possible R/M play, currently .0002, we just found out AS is being reduced per Nevada SOS site, a sign that something may be starting to happen. Definitely a lotto play though, very little info forthcoming from the company, but a very low market cap at the current price.
"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein.
What is your new 100 bagger?
geez...what was it--if you remember, lol
Very sad story. Once I bought $900 worth of stock. A couple weeks later, when I was supposed to be on vacation with a girlfriend, I sold it for $18,000, nice 20 bagger. Now, that vacation was supposed to have been for a couple weeks, but we broke up. So no vacation. 2 weeks later, right around the time I was supposed to come back from vacation, the stock was worth $1 million. That's a 1,111 bagger.......... All I had to do was go away
I'm in one now that I think could be a 100 bagger, but it doesn't really count until it becomes one lol.
Back on topic, I STILL have 166 shares of MAMG showing in my account. Is there any way possible that these shares will ever be worth any more than .02 cents? If not, I need to find a way to boot them from my account because I'm tired of looking at them for 3 years!!
I may even try to sell them, are there any buyers? LOL
"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein.
lol, no!
Your GLCKE posts? I was Googling those BECAUSE of GVRP, lol
Was my "precedent" showing that such returns were indeed ... possible.
:)
I think I had 2 100 baggers after that with GLKCE and AWYB - My only two and I left $100k on table on latter
100 bags from buys to some of the sells but not 100 bags for all of position
BOTH buys are well documented in real time here on IHUB so its real
Investing is for those who don't know how to trade
Yes, it was. I can't believe it's been 3 whole years since this. "HateMM's" doesn't post anymore, I think he took his loot and retired lol.
Would be nice to find another 100 bagger around here, still looking.....
IT was the long weekend in may so I think we just passed the three year mark
enforcement of the rules by the very organization that is legally responsible to do so? never happen when they are knee deep in it with market makers and brokers!
fair market in the USA?
not until the SEC is abolished
corruption in the USA markets -
remain until the SEC is abolished
I had Ameritrade, but those who knew much more than me about these kind of situations pointed out the great risk of selling... so I did'nt sell any.
yep... if only I'd had Ameritrade instead of Eturd..lol sigh.
Indeed. I remember a few made out like bandits like "hate MM's" and I think "PDC" did as well. Fun to remember the excitment, but pretty sad to think of what could have been. lol
600K+ here,,,,, as I said... Ugh.
At one point, I had a $260K position here after a couple thousand investment. lol
Are we coming up on the 3 year anniversary here? Seems like yesterday.
The enforcement division of the Securities and Exchange Commission should establish written procedures and criteria for reviewing and approving new investigations
Yes, that's the ticket, add more beaucracy to a process that doesn't work. Set up a panel, a comittee. drag it along for years before you try to investigate.
5:08p ET September 17, 2007 (MarketWatch)
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The enforcement division of the Securities and Exchange Commission should establish written procedures and criteria for reviewing and approving new investigations as well as take other steps to improve itself, an independent governmental review released Monday said.
The report by the Government Accountability Office also said the division hasn't taken needed steps to help ensure data about investigations are entered into a new system on a "timely and consistent" basis, and that the division's plans to more promptly close investigations won't fully resolve the backlog of open probes.
It also said the division's approach to distributing funds to harmed investors "may have created inefficiencies," resulting in delayed payments.
The report was requested by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, in September 2006.
"We heard an allegation last year that many of the cases that the SEC tells Congress it's pursuing are really just at a standstill, waiting to be closed, and this report confirms it," Grassley said in a statement.
In addition to establishing written procedures for new investigations, the GAO recommended that the division consider new procedures for closing investigations that aren't actively being pursued and improve the fund-distribution program by defining the mission of a new office being set up to manage the program.
In a statement, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said his agency concurred with the report's conclusions and its recommendations.
"We agree with the GAO that improved procedures and systems will allow the division to more capably manage its operations, to better allocate resources to priority investigations, and to more effectively oversee the prompt distribution of [funds] to injured investors," Cox wrote.
Linda Thomsen, the SEC's enforcement director, also pledged to implement the GAO's recommendations.
yes. I looked at it two years ago and decided that I would not repeat the mistake I made here.
have you looked at bcit and the situation shareholders are in there? the shareholders, who the ceo believed were not legitimate, were sued by him claiming we bought fraudulent shares.. he basically accused all of us of securities fraud even though we bought our shares on line and through legitimate brokerages. the suit was eventually dismissed... the stock hasnt traded for over 2 years...
Hi guys. First time posting in over a year. I got out of the market after cashing in $5,000 on this.
Wow, what a fiasco. SEC never called me, and apparently never did anything about this.
I can barely even remember what happened, sold shares they didn't have, and someone was short billions and billions of shares that they let us sell early, as I recall.
Anyway, hope you all are doing well.
Bill just has a way with words ;)
Boy, you do like worms, that can open again? lol....
Bill, I thought this was worthy of a repost.
Posted by: Mr. Bill
In reply to: CuttinRog who wrote msg# 1828 Date: 8/18/2007 9:02:33 PM
Post #
Yes. I could have sold an IOU for future delivery of what could not legally, possibly be delivered for $300,000 and did not. The approximate value of the shares (without considering a short position) was about 30 MILLION dollars (90 * $350K for a pinksheet shell). How can you sell an IOU - not the actual shares - for future delivery of something that can not be delivered to you? Anyone who carefully talked with Ameritrade was told that they did not yet have delivery of the shares, they have credits/IOUs for the future due bill that was being delivered on Wednesday in two days. If a proper legal market place was enforced then those shares one sold would never had been legally delivered. Then, how does one cover s short position of 3 BILLION shares with a stock that has an OS of 33M shares?
I had a friend who made $150K off of $1100.
The problem you have is you cannot sell even 1% of your holdings to be free. If you did so and the shares were not delivered you were still bankrupt. You could not sell 50% of your shares and be safe either because you had no guaranty that the shares would be delivered.
Further, the SEC had allowed companies in the past to change their minds and not do a FS after they had already been on the daily list.
Given this, how can one trade in a market place where there is total chaos.
GVRP changed symbol to MAMG - No reverse split can be found on any official government web site- not the otcbb or the nasdaq and yet the company did a 3M to 1 reverse split.
How is that legal?
The biggest case of FRAUD in the history of ALL markets - and done by the SEC and NASDAQ who allowed the company to do a reverse split "off the books". Oh, and a "forward split for 1/11th of the insiders" off the book.
How is any of that Bull Shit legal?
Why are regulators not doing 20 years in jail for fraud?
Why are the individuals involved with the company who violated the rules not doing hard jail time?
Why is the resolution "bury the stock and sweep it under the carpet. Give the main insider a tiny fine and let his buddies keep the cash" a valid legal fair resolution?
Why was the fair resolution of "those who are short need to buy the shares back off the market" not enforced?
Because it would have caused brokers who were next in line after the insider/friends of the insiders to go bankrupt. Ditto for those folks. Ditto for 3 or 4 market makers who had shorted the stock.
Who spent $1 MILLION dollars buying shares on 5/23/05 and why? Clearly a market maker who was short or a broker in a bind.
Why are the rules discarded when major players have huge risks of going belly up?
Rules are rules. Either apply them fairly and evenly or abolish the SEC and NASDAQ officials and allow/require all rules to be enforced by computers and the legal system.
Corruption in the market place is allowed by those responsible for enforcing the rules.
Believe me, at the time the general viewpoint by most traders was the safe thing to do was to wait. If one could sell on Monday then one would be able to sell later in the week once the Due Bills issue was acknowledged.
At that point regulators suspended the stock, invoked the Net Capital rule to allow big players with short positions to hide their exposure off the books, and turned and told the company do anything you want to fix the issue just get the OS under the 100M authorized. Break the law. Do an illegal RS. We wont say anything. Just bury this and make our exposure/risk go away. Oh and by the way, your symbol is never going to trade again.
Respond | View Replies (2)
Posted by: Mr. Bill
In reply to: CuttinRog who wrote msg# 1828 Date: 8/18/2007 9:06:32 PM
Post #
Oh and by the way. I did the proper legal correct thing. I followed the rules and played by the rules in place.
How is it even responsible of NASDAQ officials to bring up the GVRP problem as an argument calling for them to have more authority when they still have yet to deal with the issue?
Regulators will never deal with the issue.
In a fair market place those who should be bankrupt were rewarded with huge profits. Those who should be rich had their money stolen. Plain and simple.
Now people had maybe $5K max invested in this stock. That would have been $600K+ at one point. I know of no investors who threw more than about $5K or $6K at the stock.
HateMMs had close to the most. He cashed out for $500K and still had another $300K he was trying to sell.
Respond | View Replies (1)
Any wonder justice did not occur by the SEC?
Posted by: bob41
In reply to: None
Date:8/4/2007 6:54:13 AM
Post #of 1307
Report Says S.E.C. Erred on Pequot
Michael Temchine for The New York Times
Gary J. Aguirre, a former staff lawyer for the Securities and Exchange Commission who was fired in September 2005, testified last year.
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON and WALT BOGDANICH
Published: August 4, 2007
The Securities and Exchange Commission bungled a promising investigation two years ago into suspicious trading at Pequot Capital Management, a giant hedge fund, according to the final report released yesterday by Congressional investigators looking into the matter.
Among the commission’s failings, the report said, were delays in the Pequot investigation, disclosure of sensitive case information by high-level S.E.C. officials to lawyers for those under scrutiny, a detrimental narrowing of its scope after a meeting with a Pequot lawyer, and the appearance of “undue deference” to a prominent Wall Street executive that resulted in the postponement of his interview until after the case’s statute of limitations had expired.
The 108-page report by the Senate Finance and Judiciary committees under the leadership of Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, caps a yearlong investigation into the S.E.C.’s firing of Gary J. Aguirre, a former staff lawyer, in September 2005.
Mr. Aguirre, who led the commission’s investigation into suspect trading by Pequot and its founder, Arthur J. Samberg, was fired after he complained that superiors had thwarted his efforts by barring his interview of John J. Mack, currently the chief executive of Morgan Stanley and a close friend of Mr. Samberg.
Mr. Mack was asked to testify before the S.E.C. last summer after Mr. Aguirre’s allegations had become public and Congress had begun investigating the commission’s handling of the matter. The S.E.C. closed the Pequot inquiry last fall without taking action against the fund or its management. A Pequot spokesman declined to comment on the report.
The Senate report said there was no evidence that Mr. Mack had provided information to Mr. Samberg or that Mr. Mack had done anything to prevent or delay his testimony.
“The investigation of Pequot Capital Management could have been an ideal opportunity for the S.E.C. to develop expertise and visibility into the operations of a major hedge fund while deterring institutional insider trading and market manipulation through vigorous enforcement,” the report said. Instead, the S.E.C.’s inquiry was undermined by a series of missteps, according to Senate staff workers who took the testimony of 30 people and reviewed 10,000 pages of documents.
Mr. Aguirre responded to the report yesterday, saying that Christopher Cox, the S.E.C. chairman, “can bless” the conduct of those senior S.E.C. officials criticized in the report “or he can protect the capital markets by cleaning house.”
Mr. Cox issued a statement last night saying he looks forward to reading the full report, adding, “The agency’s commitment to prosecuting insider trading has never been stronger, and initiatives such as our hedge fund insider trading task force in the enforcement division will ensure that remains true in the future.”
Pequot Capital came under regulatory scrutiny in 2004 after stock exchange officials had identified 17 to 25 sets of suspicious trades by the hedge fund. Such transactions are routinely turned over to the commission, whose officials then decide whether to investigate them.
One series of trades, which made Pequot $18 million, came just ahead of the announcement in 2001 by the General Electric Capital Corporation that it would buy Heller Financial. Advisers on the deal were Credit Suisse, a firm that was wooing Mr. Mack to be its chief executive at the time, and Morgan Stanley.
But after Mr. Aguirre’s investigation was under way, the report said, lawyers for both Mr. Samberg and Morgan Stanley’s board, which was then considering hiring Mr. Mack as chief executive, received access to high-level S.E.C. enforcement officials — outside the presence of Mr. Aguirre, who was leading the Pequot inquiry. After these contacts, the scope of the Pequot investigation narrowed and Mr. Aguirre was barred from interviewing Mr. Mack.
When Mr. Aguirre complained, the S.E.C. retaliated by firing him, Senate investigators concluded.
The report paints a picture of an agency that does not always treat prospective witnesses equally.
“By allowing the perception that ‘going over the head’ of S.E.C. staff attorneys yields results,” the report said, “the S.E.C. undermines public confidence in the integrity of its investigations and exacerbates the problems associated with ‘regulatory capture.’ ”
For example, on June 26, 2005, Linda Thomsen, the director of enforcement, spoke by telephone about the Pequot case to Mary Jo White, a lawyer at Debevoise & Plimpton, who was representing the Morgan Stanley board and was concerned about Mr. Mack’s possible involvement, the report said.
Ms. Thomsen said she had told Ms. White nothing about the case during the call. But according to Ms. White’s account of that conversation, Ms. Thomsen disclosed that subpoenaed e-mail messages showed that there was “smoke there” though “surely not fire.”
Earlier in the case, in February 2005, Audrey Strauss, a lawyer at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson representing Pequot, met with Stephen M. Cutler, then director of enforcement at the commission. Two weeks after the meeting, the report said, the investigation into Pequot was narrowed. “The staff was ordered to investigate only a few of the suspicious transactions” flagged by the New York Stock Exchange, the report said.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Cutler said he could not be reached for comment last night.
This narrowing of the case made an already difficult job of demonstrating a pattern of illicit trading more difficult, the report said.
The report also concluded that Paul R. Berger, then an associate director of enforcement and one of Mr. Aguirre’s supervisors, did not recuse himself from the Pequot case “in a timely manner” once he had expressed interest in working for Debevoise, the law firm hired by Morgan Stanley’s board to vet Mr. Mack before naming him chief executive.
Mr. Berger, who eventually took a job at Debevoise, initially told Senate investigators that he had stopped working on any matters involving Debevoise in early 2006, around the time he first considered seeking employment at the firm. But Senate investigators said they had found that the previous September, just days after Mr. Aguirre’s firing, Mr. Berger authorized an S.E.C. colleague to tell Debevoise that he might be interested in working there.
“Mary Jo just called,” the colleague wrote to Mr. Berger, referring to Ms. White in an e-mail message dated Sept. 8, 2005. “I mentioned your interest.”
Asked why he had failed to tell Senate investigators about this earlier exchange, Mr. Berger said that “I was very concerned about having any discussions without first talking with the S.E.C. and getting authorization.”
The Senate report accused Mr. Berger of giving investigators “incomplete” answers, but says it found no evidence of an explicit link between Mr. Berger’s role in the Mack dispute and his subsequent job at Debevoise.
Mr. Berger said yesterday that any suggestion that he had not properly recused himself is “unfair and inaccurate.” He added: “I did what I was supposed to do. I contacted the chief ethics officer in the general counsel’s office of the S.E.C. and they told me I did not have to recuse myself.”
The Senate report suggested that the S.E.C. had failed to pursue the Pequot investigation vigorously after Mr. Aguirre’s firing. For instance, when the commission took Mr. Mack’s testimony on Aug. 1, 2006, the report said, it did not “seriously test” a theory put forward by Mr. Aguirre that Mr. Samberg had rewarded Mr. Mack for information on the Heller deal by letting him invest alongside Pequot in a private company that was sold for three times his investment in little over a year.
Mr. Mack was the only individual investor allowed to participate in the deal, the report noted. The next trading day after Pequot officials allowed Mr. Mack in the deal, Mr. Samberg began his aggressive buying of Heller Financial stock.
A spokeswoman for Morgan Stanley, where Mr. Mack is chief executive, declined to comment on the report.
The report also stated that Liban A. Jama, a staff lawyer, had complained that he was given less than two days to prepare for “critical” testimony from two witnesses. Without more time, Mr. Jama wrote in an e-mail message to Mark Kreitman, his supervisor and assistant director in the enforcement division, “I would not feel comfortable taking the testimony.” Mr. Jama said he was surprised by Mr. Kreitman’s response. “He said, ‘You don’t need to prepare that much for it,’ which I found strange.”
The report also noted that Mr. Aguirre was not the only S.E.C. official to suffer after complaining about practices at the agency. A second unidentified staff investigator had protested what he believed might have been an inappropriate contact between an outside lawyer and Ms. Thomsen, the enforcement director. This investigator also received a negative re-evaluation of his job performance shortly after he complained in July 2005, the report said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/04/business/04pequot.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Mine were with Ameritrade and I think I had about 1.5B shares of GVRP after the split... traders much smarter than me warned me not to sell in fear of becoming short. I could have made at least $150K had I sold or possibly even $300K at .0002. Oh well. lol
myself...mine were at Scottie.
oh, what I'd have given to have had my 2500 GVRP shares in an ameritrade account rather than etrade back on that fateful 19B share monday.
big screen TV STORE, lol
probably. you helped "hatemms" get a big screen teevee.
search his alias if you are not sure what I mean by that
I'm too lazy to go find it today
shares of gvrp....I'm not sure if it was before or after the date.......I think after.
900,000? Did you buy GLVP? Or shares of GVRP at .0001 after the ex-date?
Ex Date: 05/23/2005
Whatever happenned to this? I bought 900,000 shares and then it halted. Anything I should know about? TIA.
Who said it was for MAMG shareholders? The share dividend could go to GLVP shareholders! Or the 11 GVRP shares... There is the preferred share issue, too, they might be planning to issue PEDG shares to the preferred shareholders...
And who knows if there ever actually will be a share divvy, since these assholes seem to do whatever they want with the assets, share structure and share issuances.
I will say this 250 TRILLION TIMES if I have to:
"Do not trade this stock"
Hmmm. Holding 115s.
"PrimEdge announced today that its Board of Directors has authorized the issuance of the Company's restricted common stock to Media Magic, Inc. shareholders on a pro rata basis, pursuant to the terms of the acquisition agreement in which PrimEdge (PINKSHEETS: PEDG) acquired Orangebox Entertainment, Inc. from Media Magic, Inc. in March 2007."
OK, so that amounts to what per share of MAMG?
PrimEdge Common Stock to Be Distributed to Shareholders of Media Magic, Inc., Concluding PrimEdge Acquisitions of Media Magic's Subsidiaries
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7b9ADD1F1C-F669-435C-8783-C1DD54426B99%7d&....
PrimEdge Common Stock to Be Distributed to Shareholders of Media Magic, Inc., Concluding PrimEdge Acquisitions of Media Magic's Subsidiaries
Last Update: 9:01 AM ET May 8, 2007
BOCA RATON, FL, May 08, 2007 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- PrimEdge announced today that its Board of Directors has authorized the issuance of the Company's restricted common stock to Media Magic, Inc. shareholders on a pro rata basis, pursuant to the terms of the acquisition agreement in which PrimEdge (PINKSHEETS: PEDG) acquired Orangebox Entertainment, Inc. from Media Magic, Inc. in March 2007.
This is the second acquisition by PrimEdge of a subsidiary of Media Magic, Inc. In July 2006, PrimEdge acquired the former DigiKidz, Inc., recently renamed Prime Media, Inc. to better reflect the core business, also for restricted common stock.
After Media Magic, Inc. receives the PrimEdge common shares pursuant to the two acquisition agreements with PrimEdge, Media Magic, Inc. will distribute these shares to its shareholders. Media Magic anticipates this distribution to be completed by mid-July 2007.
About Media Magic, Inc.
Media Magic, Inc., formerly known as GLUV Corporation, was formed in mid-2005 as the result of a reverse merger of the privately held holding company, DigiKidz Holdings, Inc. and GLUV Corporation, which became the surviving entity. DigiKidz Holding, Inc. owned 100% of DigiKidz, Inc. and Orangebox Entertainment, Inc., both of which in mid-2005 were early stage companies. Subsequently, as the result of majority shareholders actions, all corporate management and the Board of Directors of Media Magic resigned in January 2006, even though the results of Media Magic's subsidiary companies demonstrated growth and progress throughout 2005. A completely new Media Magic Board of Directors was elected by the majority shareholders in January 2006 and charged with delivering value to the Media Magic shareholders, which they determined would be achieved by the sale of both of Media Magic's two subsidiaries. The first such sale was completed (DigiKidz) in mid-2006 and the second sale (Orangebox Entertainment, Inc.) in March 2007.
About PrimEdge, Inc.
PrimEdge, Inc. is a diversified holding company, owning and overseeing the operations of two majority owned subsidiaries, Orangebox Entertainment, Inc., a production and post production services provider to the entertainment industry, and Prime Media, Inc. (formerly DigiKidz, Inc.), a producer and distributor of family entertainment DVDs. PrimEdge, Inc. seeks rapid growth through additional acquisitions and the sales and marketing by its subsidiaries of proprietary products and services.
Safe Harbor Statement
love the bailey pic! :)
That's good to hear. Thanks sub
i have ameritrade....my last sell on bhub was 4/9 and settlement was 4/12....i withdrew the $$ today with no problem fyi.
been there done that
lost my t-shirt lol
add mytrack to the list.
I have the fortunate position of never having traded the stock except for buying it immediately before the halt.
Damn I'm good...
Edit, since we are way off topic, mayne carry it over to my thread.
I've heard of problems with Ameritrade but I haven't heard of any others.
This could get really messy.
I only have second and third hand information. But it appears that sellers/flippers of BHUB have a problem.
This is all I know. I personally know someone that has their account shut down until the problem is resolved. I am not sure what the problem is, he bought a stock in the market, he sold a stock in the market for a profit. Apparently the big boys are not happy when you do such silly things. Apparently only scammers, russian mafia, terrorists and CIA thugs are supposed to make money on OTCBB and pinks
If I sound pissed, yess I am, not because of BHUB or GLUV, just the general situation
What is the status on that with BHUB?
I haven't heard anything from E-Trade so I'm assuming that my sells won't be reversed?
Followers
|
35
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
4278
|
Created
|
08/11/04
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |