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.
A study by a troika of Ivy League economists — Dartmouth’s Rafael La Porta, Yale’s Florencio Lopez De Silanes, and Harvard’s Andrei Shleifer — stockholders shouldn’t hunger for perp walks and criminal prosecutions. In fact, markets develop better when civil — not criminal — law is strong.
Understandable, however, how likely do you think it is that enough people will send it to the 7 agencies and individuals I was planning on forwarding them to? I will likely follow your recommendation, but I think I will have to choose one or two of the agencies/individuals to receive the letters...question is, who?
No. And sorry if you took it that way. But your signature is your bond. It is one of the few things that you have control over and should not cavalierly distribute.
I'm sure Ian's intentions are honest. However I would prefer sending my letter signed by me directly to a regulatory agency.
I also think that packs more weight if they receive 5000 letters personally, rather than one Fed Ex package.
As for the naked shorting thing, we are just in a disagreement on it. I do believe it is over hyped as what caused a stock to go down. IMO the hedge funds that legitimately short while the flip side of their company is pumping a stock is the greater evil. But I have learned to recognize that for what it worth. A legal pump and dump. lol.
Again sorry.
Pete
Pete,
So combative and antagonistic in your recent posts.
You pissed at me for some reason?
Have fun,
Phil
Phil, You deal with it your way, I'll handle it my way.
Thanks
Pete,
I suggest you post the proposal letter on your website and let people print it out and mail them themselves. I have a problem giving my signature to people.
Great idea.
Another idea would be to print it, sign it, and mail it to Ian for compilation.
If if you are worried about someone copying your signature, let someone else sign your name for you.
Have fun,
Phil
Ian, I suggest you post the proposal letter on your website and let people print it out and mail them themselves. I have a problem giving my signature to people.
Agree. Especially with the stuff we mentioned with the pinksheet companies. That is a must to get done.
Ian, What you want to do is prevent them from doing it after hours. Like the poster says, usually with these scam companies, they control the majority. Make them 8-k the vote prior to, not after the fact.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/replies.asp?msg=1566191
LOL. Thank you, Phil. eom
Ian,
I just spent a little time on your website and reviewed some of your proposals.
One thing needs to be changed.
The OTC Bulletin Board (OTCBB) is a regulated quotation service owned by the National Association of Security Dealers (NASD), the same organization that operates the NASDAQ stock market.
The NASDAQ has no relationship with the OTCBB, other than both being owned by the NASD.
So, NASDAQ doesn't need to change or enforce any rules concerning the OTCBB, the NASD does.
Have fun,
Phil
Doug:
Certainly. My plan was to have people sign to the proposal, and then when I had gathered a sufficient amount, I was going to send a 1-2 page document explaining the OTCBB as it is now, why the enhancements are supported, etc. along with the signatures. A cover page, if you will. An explanation followed by signatures that voice support for the proposed change.
If you'd like, write up some examples including what you would want to emphasize. We can start on this now...
Ian, Could you add an addendum, that would later
be detached from the proposal and signature list,
to identify the following during the signature solicitation?
This addendum will only reference items in the proposal
and have objective to explain to the reader why it is in
their self interest to support this initiative, being that
if it is put into place, their ability to trade successfully
on the NASDAQ's OTC Bulletin Board will increase.
A possible format could be:
- What is now there, and how it works.
- How it can work better (or) Why it works poorly
- The change proposed...
- - - to make it work better
- - - to correct manipulation and/or fraud possibilities
D:oug had no idea the OTC:BB was on NASDAQ
But then, it may not be, but only in my Cut & Paste :o)
Ian,
If people would add a valid e-mail address to an e-mail signature, it might be considered valid and honest.
Why don't you ask one of the legislators that you have access to what they think the most effective avenue would be.
Obviously physical signatures with phone numbers and addresses would be the most effective, but also the hardest to achieve.
Phil
Phil,
I'm not sure yet. I was originally planning to have a letter put on my site, have people print it out, sign it, and send it to me. From there, I would make copies and send them out to the various people.
What would you recommend? I know email would be faster, but I feel actual paper and signatures might be more respected and believed.
From my experiences so far this past year, I think it would be best to keep the proposals down to one for now. Besides, there are a number of proposals in the one we have so far. But, I will take some time to reconsider. We'll see...
Ian,
I would suggest they be signed by anyone that you can get to sign them.
Are you planning to get physical signatures, or e-mail ones?
Phil
Phil:
Would these proposals be signed by investors/traders, or simply put before the "powerful people?"
Ian,
Why don't you prepare several proposals and let the powerful people review them and sign the ones they agree with.
Just a thought.
Have fun,
Phil
Phil and Churak: I understand your positions; however, do please take the following into consideration. The more proposals we have, the greater liklihood we have that there may be one/two/or more of the proposals that someone does not like...and consequently we lose a signature. One, basic proposed idea that most everyone will likely agree on is a good starting point.
Secondly, if we gather enough signatures (I'm hoping at least 5K), it will be difficult for the SEC/NASD/NASDAQ to ignore it and say no. Remember, the signatures are going to a member of congress, an SEC Commissioner, and others. Also, by using the media, it should not be declined...
your thoughts?
I know churak, we are dealing with big, errrrrrr confused forces here, Don't want to overload them haaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I understand that...just giving my opinion to your post, bud.
That is up to Ian on this one churak, he da boss here!!!
C.,
I agree.
Ask for a lot.
If you get a little it's better than nothing.
Have fun,
Phil
don't you think it's better to throw up a lot of shit against the wall & see what sticks? In other words give them several recommendations & then in the discussions (negotiations) give up several (for the time being) to get the one you want the most approved??? I think you need to provide a whole mess of suggestions for protecting Joe Investor from unscrupulous companies & then agree to a step by step implementation ie one step at a time. Otherwise, you present one reco, it gets shot done & you have blown your wad. Only MHO.
Sounds great Ian , and you have my PM thoughts!!!! One step at a time, Blasting them with numerous changes, well they would blow a fuse, haaaaaaaaaaaa
To All:
I have decided to pursue ONLY ONE proposal for the OTC market. I do not want to bite off more than I can chew, so let's just start with one proposal, and focus on getting enough signatures for it. Below is the proposal I want to tackle first. Are there any additions to this that anyone would like to add? I'd like to start gathering signatures for this intiative within the next two weeks...
1) NASDAQ establish – within one year – an up-to-date, fully automated and electronic trading system for the OTC Bulletin Board that will specifically: allow for order negotiation, have automatic execution of trades, display the bid/ask sizes for all participating market makers, require market makers to to maintain continuous, two-sided markets, with quotes that are reasonably related to the market and generally do not lock or cross the market for all OTC BB securities in which they make a market.
2)
Ian!!! Here is one of the big prob I have had a hard time with, The bullchit claims and PRS,,
'No basis' for claims by mining company
Investors rushed in, now told estimates unfounded
Rami Grunbaum
Editor
Cascade Mountain Mining Co. Inc. caught some investors' attention in mid-July by announcing it owned Washington state mining claims with a "potential dollar value of $1.5 billion."
Its "Mazama Project," said the previously unknown Seattle company, "could produce 2 billion pounds of copper, 150,000 ounces of gold, 750,000 ounces of silver, and 6 million pounds of molybdenum."
Last week, however, the company admitted "it has no basis" for that projection, or for many other statements made during a monthlong publicity spree.
But there was no taking back the heavy stock trading excited by its earlier pronouncements. In a few short weeks, some 89 million shares had changed hands on the OTC Bulletin Board at a total value of approximately $6 million. That amount stands in sharp contrast to the $20,000 that president and CEO Wayne Barrington Daley had paid in June to gain control of the public shell company into which he merged Cascade Mountain Mining.
The trading surge of Cascade Mountain shows that despite tighter regulations and disclosure requirements for penny-stock companies, there is still an active, lucrative business in promoting insubstantial companies whose shares trade for just a few cents. When 12 million or 13 million shares are being sold daily, as Cascade Mountain's were in early August, sellers can make a tidy sum even at 6 cents or 8 cents per share.
Had investors taken a closer look at Cascade Mountain, which only became publicly traded in June, they might have found some other aspects of the company that seem as ephemeral as its billion-dollar projection.
Cascade Mountain had no cash and didn't even have its own bank account as of June 30, according to its first quarterly report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, made in late August. Instead, "All cash flowed through the president of the company's bank account."
Its headquarters is listed as the 42nd floor of Two Union Square, a prominent building in Seattle that houses mutual fund managers, venture capitalists, and the district office of the National Association of Securities Dealers.
But the 42nd floor is occupied by a temporary-office firm called HQ Global Workplaces, whose receptionist said Cascade Mountain has "no physical presence" there. He would not disclose where the company's communications are forwarded.
Cascade Mountain's Web site also appears impressive -- it opens with an animation of a mining car that emerges from a tunnel loaded with gleaming gold. But the site's "corporate profile" page appears borrowed in its entirety from a copyrighted article on the National Mining Association Web site. A spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based group says there's no record of Cascade Mountain as a member. Likewise, Cascade Mountain's "values" statement, which describes "a unique, two-tiered management structure," seems to follow word for word the credo of an unrelated investment company in Pittsburgh.
» Continued
Page: 1 / 2 / 3
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2003/09/08/story3.html
A bird in hand is better than two in the bush...
or,
While an action taken and completed by a Pink is a rare event,
that action taken is better than a zillion actions being taken,
or to be taken, or expected to be taken...
or, if not taken, then expect shareholder to be taken
to the cleaners. Unless, each "to be" is a required reference
in next news release as a status update.
The fluff prs need to stop as well. Ian , thers another point, Stop the fluff, just real, actual events, when they happen, not all these LOI chit "supposed" actions being taken. That is so bullchit way of pumping things up!!
"His mind is split, he's changed a bit, knowned as
by: skeballLarry when his company does a reverse split."
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT®
a REVERSE SPLIT
like a pee'n into the wind
is a REVERSE SPIT ending up on one's tits,
like a dead fish in a Churakian bowl of "this was your life"
trying to get itself right side up
from a wrong side down
its now,
but only a clown
not for long
to be a staying around
A group of Pink Sheet companies with psychotic disorders
usually characterized by withdrawal from shareholder reality,
having illogical patterns of management decisions, press releases
containing delusional and hallucinational thoughts of activity,
and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional,
behavioral, or intellectual disturbances.
Schizophrenia Inc. - Associated with dopamine imbalances
in the brain of the president, and defects of the frontal lobes
of board directors, caused by a psychosocial factor of the
coexistence of greed and lack of enforcement of laws.
Capt,
New name for your boat "Pink Schizophrenia Inc."
(or)
Does this describe some of the news releases
put out by scam companies to commit fraud legally
knowing that Disclaimer(aka ScamClaimer) protects
everything they state as facts, may be untrue (aka lies)
"... distortions of reality,
and disturbances of thought and language,
and withdrawal from shareholder contact..."
(so)
Sure would be nice if a companies press release states:
"To start production next month for a revenue stream..."
Then 6 months of silence until arrival of next press release
having no mention of any production or revenue,
AND NO PUCKING mention of last release's content:
"To start production next month..."
(so sew sow)
Lets require each press release for companies on the Pinks
to be required to include a status report of items mentioned
in the prior release WHEN such facts obtain a status to help
and influence the buy/hold/sell decision. This would help
shareholders and potential investors to determine the truth
and honestly of the view the company gives out of itself,
especially today when reporting is non existent for Pinks,
so lets get the Pinks to be required to do the minimum
until a more controlled procedure as discussed here is done.
But then, while monthly press releases could be required,
their content would not be regulated in the manner discussed
on this board for unaudited reporting by for example the Pinks,
BUT if the company wants to play the scam game and include
lots of great sounding near term activity, then they have
to include an update on that item in the next months release.
This could prevent a "good news out" type manipulation
by scam'n companies if they cannot totally ignore like today
anything they reported via a news release.
Doug
Nice quotes Ian, A lot of life long feelings go into them, and say sooooooooooooo much from a few lines!!!!
Maybe start a shell was a bad choice of words Phil, Keeping a clean shell was what I meant, sorry for the goof!!!!!
Rick,
Please explain the reason why people start shell companies.
No business, nothing to sell, just a shell.
And why do people trade the shares?
Am I missing something?
Have fun,
Phil
Someone merging into a clean shell, shouldn't have to deal with any bad past Phil!!! there are some folks who start shells, or if a company couldn't make it, will keep the shell clean , just waiting for a non=public company to buy or merge with them, I think , if all things with both parties are clean and legit, it is a good thing!!! Thats just my thinking though!!
Phil, Specialists are the creme de la creme of the thieves. They have no reason to naked short. They lose the issue if they do.
They make their money illegally at times by front running orders for their own account or filling orders for a large buyer. Like the article pointed out they can see what's out there and if they need to fill a 500K order they will sell into the market thus lowering the price; gobbling up stops then buying back to fill not only the requested order but their own account. It is definitely a license to steal from people with stops in place.
Where you can beat them at their own game is to watch the heavily program traded stocks and buy before they can recover. A couple of good examples are ELN and AHO. The former good for 20% pops on the bad news selloffs .
Pete,
Even though I am not sure specialists can not short naked, I will defer to your assertion that they can not.
But,
Keep this in mind.
If they are holding stock in a private account, which they are allowed to do, they can borrow stock and sell it, thereby shorting it, and stay boxed until they wish to cover.
If the stock they borrowed gets called, they can simply cover the call with the stock in their account, and replace it as necessary when they want to.
I, for the life of me, can not understand why the regulators can not see the fact that being a specialist or a MM is a like having a license to steal.
Have fun,
Phil
Ian,
Yes, the name and symbol were changed.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=4304422
Have fun,
Phil
Of course, it's always possible that the company had no knowledge of the previous happenings of the old entity. Regardless, I would think in time the perception that the company is a POS would disappear with proper actions by the new company and its management.
Phil,
Did the company change the name and symbol or engage a IR/PR firm to get the word out?
It's unfortunate, but I suppose for some companies it's worth the incorrect perception by investors.
Ian,
OK,
But when a company chooses that route, there is the history of the previous company to overcome.
I happen to still hold a few shares of a company that did it, and even though it is a company that makes money, the shares have gone nowhere because it is still percieved as a POS company.
Have fun,
Phil
It's generally quicker and cheaper to go that route. Incorporating and issuing your own shares subjects you to filing with the state and/or SEC (which can take months and a lot of waiting), and forces you to comply with the countless securities laws and regulations that pertain to the sale of securities. Then you would have to apply for quotation (another long process usually) before you can begin trading, etc, etc etc. There are other reasons, of course. But that's a good start...
A question for the board.
Why is it more beneficial for a somewhat legit company to merge with a shell to sell stock, or to merge with a POS and then do a 1/1000 r/s, than to just incorporate and start issuing shares?
If any of you need an example, I can give you one.
Have fun,
Phil
Larry, I think we could put in a request that reverse splits be banned unless the company can prove a valid reason, such as moving to a high exchange that requires a certain price. (We're talking OTC companies that are trading at a dollar or two per share at least.)
Ban them all -- certain requests will require a filing with the SEC, subject to review and approval before action or vote.
Would that be a decent proposal?
So far we have:
1. NASDAQ establish – within one year – an up-to-date, fully automated and electronic trading system for the OTC Bulletin Board that will specifically: allow for order negotiation, have automatic execution of trades, and display the bid/ask sizes for all participating market makers.
2. Market makers who quote securities traded on the OTC Bulletin Board be required to maintain continuous, two-sided markets, with quotes that are reasonably related to the market and generally do not lock or cross the market for all OTC BB securities in which they make a market.
3. Market makers be required to report their short positions/interest in OTC BB securities on a weekly basis.
4. OTC BB companies be required to file unaudited quarterly financial statements (prepared by external accountants on a review management basis) and audited annual reports on a timely basis; signed by the CEO and CFO attesting to their accuracy and integrity.
5. Entities quoted exclusively on the Pink Sheets be required to file unaudited quarterly and annual financial statements via a universal, easy-to-use form (to be established by the SEC) that must be signed by the CEO and CFO attesting to their accuracy and integrity. Shell companies with no operations or activity will be exempt from this filing requirement.
6. Companies quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board and Pink Sheets be required to hold annual meetings of shareholders and solicit proxies for such meetings, refrain from the disenfranchisement of the voting rights of existing shareholders, comply with Regulation FD, and obtain shareholder approval for the following transactions:
(a) Grants of stock options to officers and directors,
(b) Large, below-market issuances of shares,
(c) Acquisitions and mergers,
(d) Both forward and reverse stock splits,
(e) Changes of control,
(f) Increases in the number of authorized shares.
Ian ....
Yes, BAN ALL REVERSE SPLITS .....
Just because Forwards are legit doesn't legitimize the practice of reverse/splits ....
And that's the problem .....
I don't want a warning that a r/s is coming ... I don't want to be forced to get out for-ANY-REASON ..
Let the price go to .0001, that's ok by me ...
I've been doing this for quite awhile, and given time, WHEN THE PENNIES TAKE OFF, MOST ALL TAKE OFF EVENTUALLY .... NO REVERSE SPLITS, PERIOD ...
I've held stock symbols for years, and when it's speculation(good-times) MOST trading symbols(and that's all some are) will probably take off ....
As stated b 4, dumb as I am, I could do that ...
Ian, I think I'll p/m you some more info ....
Are you proposing banning the use of reverse splits all together in the OTC markets?
Isn't a warning good enough to tell you to get the hell out of that stock? IMHO, any OTC company that does a reverse split isn't legit, and a as a result, I'll keep away for good.
great discussion here today, You guys put your ideas together in a very straight forward and direct way, Maybe after some of my graymatter heels, haaaaaa from 15 years of abuse, I can have total recall of what's upstairs,LOL, Its coming back to me now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We are proposing that shareholder approval and notification be required for reverse splits in attempt to warn investors to get out or to prevent them all together by having a majority shoot down the company's request for a r/s.
Ian ... This means NOTHING ....
Insiders own majority of shares, they ALWAYS R/S, and the vote is 'just for show' ...
Again, I restate, This means NOTHING ....
TOTALLY 'BAN' ALL REVERSE SPLITS .... !
THIS IS NO WAY FOR A CO. TO MAKE MONEY ...
Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii This is jack, jack the ripper, Rick is gone for now, he isss very busy errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr cant say haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |