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.
Reference of the month (to date):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73108930
Enjoying this actual exchange of thought - and the understanding that we each realize there is probably both right and wrong, as well as exceptions, to each.
The thing you think I am saying is not what I had intended: No the NSS (as we agree most people apply the term thing is not where you say:
"as you state, any short sells not covered in allotted time frame become "naked" and, by definition illegal"
Your misunderstanding...I do not say that an uncovered short becomes an NSS.
I believe a short is by its absolute definition and whole concept UNCOVERED until it is closed, (done by by covering) - and incurs carrying charges the whole time. For that actual short position to even exist...at the settlement date - 3 days after the trade date - the shares MUST be delivered (again that OPENS the short position). If they are not delivered it doesn't become uncovered, it become a failed deal - an "FTD" (failed to deliver). No money, no stock, no promises, no positions open/change, no commissions, etc happen. A bunch of paperwork by all involved does. And in the very real world of business, as you may expect, dealer to dealer - be the FTD side of too many FTD deals and other brokerages will not want to do biz with you. It simply costs too much to make nothing but a bad relationship with the customer you can't deliver to.
A short position...which means the position owner has to acquire replacements of the very real shares it borrowed from someone and sold to open...(selling at essentially at the same price it bought/borrowed them at)- differing by the 3 days market change - (and continuing to change with market value changes plus the substantial carrying charges) is open until the very real replacement shares are provided. That's why short positions are normally open a very short time, in fact frequently closing by covering even before they are essentially opened at the settlement date - (with that replacement share settlement date actually then occurring a day or two after the short position opening settlement). Common example: I sell shares to open a short position Monday morning at $10. Settlement will be Thurs. The stock moves in my favor so I sell on Tuesday morning (at $9). That settles Friday. I have costs for both deals (which used to be a much more significant consideration) and margin fees, etc for the time it was open, but in reality, I never had any money out - I walk away from the replacement deal up that leveraged $, minus costs. As a wise investor, if the stock went up say to $11, causing me a very leveraged (margin) loss, my stop loss close order kicks in and at the settlement of the replacement shares - I would have to come up with the $$ to cover the drop in value, as well as all the other costs. (Or if I kept it open as the stock goes up, very possibly have a margin call from my broker taking $ from my account, or having me put new $$s in, or they close it autmatically). No imaginary shares, no smoke and mirrors.
If the owner of the borrowed shares does sell his shares before the one who borrowed them has replaced them - (understanding that in reality his brokerage is delivering "street name shares" really and just an accounting entry) and the brokerage doesn't have them in their or customer account able to borrowing inventory, then it needs to either market buy them, have a protection under the trading rules to invoke for a short time, etc. This is not happening in a frozen market if you will. It normally follows that if the market moved against the short position, there are again MARGIN calls to the short holder the brokerage essentially uses to get the needed replacements, or if it was in the money..it becomes a no risk position they charge to hold for the customer. All short positions, by their very nature, are on margin. (Which is one reason why if the remaining possible change isn't rather substantial, anyone would close it. That whole idea there are still shorts on SPNG (or other stable at any or no value - or needing to be canceled) thing is absurd. No one would do that. Even for a month or 2, the amount one could gain on some position - say opened at 5c to drop that last 2c or so, costs more in margin fees than can be made on that drop (one pays margin costs on the ORIGINAL amount borrowed...you pay it even if your position is in the money...so it would always be closed to either get your profit or save the money).
Probably over explained?!
I would be happy to hear from you where what I'm saying is substantially amiss.
I was hoping to "find" agreement on SPNG mgmt assessment and disagreement on NSS possibility, but did not believe it would be as prevalent as it turned out to be. It fit the profile I expected it would.
no, you're not looking for that .. all you're doing is trying to claim there is NSS in SPNG without one single piece of proof, with all of your research based on rumor, hype and speculation to arrive at a finding you prefer
nothing more
That you continue the argument that there is no NSS here only substantiates my findings.
what findings?
you have no findings, just rumors and wild speculation ..
You said:
"So personal findings are substantiated by the very nature of somebody disagreeing with your theory? I was under the impression that "findings" are in fact factual evidence hence the word FIND.
find·ing (fndng)
n.
1. Something that has been found.
2.
a. A conclusion reached after examination or investigation: the finding of a grand jury; a coroner's findings.
b. A statement or document containing an authoritative decision or conclusion: a presidential finding that authorized the covert operation."
ANSWER: All of the above, especially 2a. Where does the word "fact" show up in your definition of "finding?"
I was hoping to "find" agreement on SPNG mgmt assessment and disagreement on NSS possibility, but did not believe it would be as prevalent as it turned out to be. It fit the profile I expected it would.
Time to move on now. Thanks for your reply, but nothing more needed here.
Jack SCHWARTZBERG invented NICKELODEON's SALES guys words?? (that $20 million is what SpongeTech could do with the SpongeBob product ALONE)
??
And so that $20 million EXCLUDES:
- Dora sponge,
- Spider-Man sponge (this one is already BUILT!),
- Hulk sponge (cool GREEN AND MEAN!),
- Pink Panther sponge,
- Captain America sponge,
- Iron-Man sponge,
- Batman sponge,
- Superman sponge,
- Mickey mouse sponge,
- Lightning McQueen sponge,
- Potato Head sponge,
- Lion King sponge,
- Popeyes sponge,
- Domo sponge,
- Elmo sponge,
- Go Diego Go sponge,
- Winnie-the-Pooh sponge,
- Nemo sponge (cool ORANGE),
- Shrek sponge,
- Gumby sponge (For ME only!),
- Piglet sponge,
- Trump Gold Bar sponge (VOLUME!),
- Seafoam Buddies sponges,
- Car sponge,
- Pet sponge,
- Marine sponge,
- Medical sponges (VOLUME!),
- Kitchen cleaning sponges,
- Janitorial sponges (VOLUME!),
- Footbal sponge (and THROWING toy too!),
- Angry Bird sponge,
- Pig King sponge,
- Little Mermaid sponge,
- Kermit sponge,
- R2D2 sponge,
- Hello Kitty sponge,
- Hockey puck sponge (cool BLACK),
etc...
You CAN'T remove me of my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to believe what Mr. SCHWARTZBERG said here, at 24min. 20 seconds: http://hosted.mediasite.com/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=3bf950b23c3d4cd79150b998f17295be
Right?
It would be interesting to know how many shares were actually locked up and how many were actively being traded.
What's flawed with the assumption that the 3B shares are held by stuck shareholders?
Is the 50 billion shares traded a real number?
I know you can have 1 billion shares get traded 50 times over to have a total of 50 billion shares traded in total, but 50 billion is a big number considering the number of shares held and not traded by the scammed.
It's those that held their shares that facilitated the scammers making their money.
Then shouldn't there have been overwhelming evidence that there was a major dump of unrestricted shares during the spring of 2009 to have shut this thing down right then and there?
Alien,
I think it's more that NSS is promoted by scam promoters who use NSS to get the scam victims to hold their shares in hope of the big payday. Without getting the victims to hold their shares during the dump the magnitude of the payday for the scam promoters would be greatly diminished.
Big Lug
fantastic, gl
since you're so interested in NSS in penny stock scams like SPNG, i am sure your input will be appreciated here...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=18322
Sir, or madam, my questions did not concern what the FBI, DOJ, SEC, or anyone else has found to be true.
I am simply doing research independent of anyone or anything else, and what was being sought here is completed.
That you continue the argument that there is no NSS here only substantiates my findings.
I was looking for answers to specific questions regarding NSS, and those answers have been provided.
yet there still is not one shred of evidence that NSS exists in SPNG. the FBI, SEC and DOJ have done a thorough job investigating the fraud that occured here for years and they found no NSS.
gl fighting the FBI, SEC and DOJ
Good night and have a good evening. There is nothing more for me to be gained here. I was looking for answers to specific questions regarding NSS, and those answers have been provided.
No one knows who these shareholders are, except the individuals holding the shares.
no one? really?
anyways, there is a list of SPNG shareholders who always professed NSS and that SPNG and its management were the next coming. they even added up the numbers you are looking for, if you trust that kind of collection of course ;)
logic would tell us nobody takes time and expense to show up in court (for themselves or groups) unless many shares owned.
that is a fallacy and your "logic" is wrong. i have taken the time and expense to travel to a shareholders meeting in a pump and dump scam that i did not have "many shares owned" compared to how many were in the market. that of course was before i realized and accepted it was a pump and dump scam. SPNG shareholders in denial and going to court is no different.
here is a start for you...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/MemberPostsToBoard.aspx?userid=166258&boardid=7664
Was that a straw man argument, because it certainly had nothing to do with my assumption?
nope, your NSS is the strawman.
Don't dispute your facts, but also do not understand what this has to do with assumption these shareholders being tight-fisted with shares in event of forced covering.
they are naive victims of a scam who blame a non-existant entity for their mistakes. anyone who is tight fisted with their SPNGQ shares falls into that category.
for you to suggest that the entire O/S of 3 Billion shares is tightly held is absurd. if that were reality it would be easy to prove in front of the judge. hmmm, wonder why that hasn't happened.
as i have said before, when you find that NSS boogeyman, let us know.
Well, anyone who believes that needs more help than can be offered outside of a mental institution.
Or they can find refuge here:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=18322
Will respond to this and previous posts by terry mathews in this reply.
I am in complete agreement with both of you on the SPNG exec issue. They were both corrupt and a bit braindead in garnering national attention, then having such weak excuses for deliberately fraudulent non-existent customers and customer websites. A Keystone Cop sham and, as stated in earlier posts, would have been much easier to bilk money through P&Ds like most other fraudulent penny stocks.
Wackos for shareholders? Of course, some. They were duped out of their money, and continued to be misled by Moskowitz and, to a lesser extent, Metter.
This helps make the case even more that if these "wackos" had the A/S locked up, they certainly were not going to sell these precious shares, so the other 9B (not including ex-clearing) trades could only come from flipping or NSS. There is no other explanation. And trading patterns do not indicate intra-day flipping, and with PPS rising during scam, only logical conclusion is that it was NSS as flipping would have been a losing proposition.
In only a short time, it was plain to see objectives here and on other message boards. My only mission here was to see if any of my posts would actually be replied to, and I was shocked to see people were still arguing over a stock with a global lockdown, all of which ascribed to my theory that SPNG mgmt was crooked and, with the exception of one poster, also vehemently denied and dismissed my mere mention of the possibility of NSS.
All of these posts came from people who are stock-market savvy, which was also my intention. If I saw the ease with which NSS could and does exist in this basically unregulated market, surely they would too. That they vehemently denied it, and plucked only a word or two from my posts to dispute, told me all I needed to know about the intentions of message boards.
No more for me to conclude here, so thank you all for your time and responses.
old fashioned wackos???:
How SpongeTech fans attempted to slime me
By KAJA WHITEHOUSE
Last Updated: 4:37 AM, May 9, 2010
Posted: 12:48 AM, May 9, 2010
On Wednesday, the top two executives of SpongeTech Delivery Systems, a company that makes and sells soap-infused sponges, were arrested on criminal charges of conspiracy to commit fraud and obstruction of justice.
Suddenly, the anonymous phone calls to my office, the e-mails calling me a "whore" and a "hack" and the biting Web postings slamming my reputation ceased.
For seven months I have been reporting on SpongeTech's curious revenue numbers, mystery customers and troublesome money woes. And for seven months, an anonymous band of company supporters have worked tirelessly to harass, intimate and discredit me.
BLOOMBERG
Surrogates of SpongeTech execs, CEO Michael Metter (pictured) and CFO Seven Moskowitz, who were indicted last week by the SEC, launched a smear campaign agains a Post reporter.
In February, for example, I opened my e-mail to a message board posting urging SpongeTech supporters to go to Amazon.com and slam a book I published in 2006 as revenge for a series of critical stories I was writing about the company.
"BASH KAJA'S BOOK LIKE SHE BASHERS (sic) OUR STOCK!!!!!!!!!," a post by a person who goes by the handle, "Mingy," wrote.
Someone responded, "that's really funny..hope that b**** get's 100's or 1000's of 1 stars!!"
The campaign against me got more personal. Last month, my friends and colleagues were slammed by alarming e-mails warning them that I'm involved in a "criminal enterprise" to destroy SpongeTech.
"Shall it prove, as I suspect it will, that there is a criminal enterprise/organization working to destroy a company called Spongetech, I believe a RICO case could be made against Ms. Whitehouse," the e-mail said.
My father and his consulting firm were also implicated in the made-up stock manipulation scheme, and the slanderous e-mails were distributed to his co-workers.
At the bottom of the e-mails was a link to Web site Stockbasher.com, which carries the very menacing statement warning that "stock bashers" will pay in the form of personal attacks against them and their families.
"We may also target your family if their story is more dramatic and has more fat than your miserable life," it cautions.
Photos of my family, including young children, their work histories and addresses were collected and posted online by "Mingy."
Back in September, The Post wrote an investigative story questioning the existence of five of SpongeTech's six biggest customers, which as it happens is the crux of the civil charges the Securities and Exchange Commission filed against the company last week -- in addition to criminal charges lodged by the US Attorney on Brooklyn.
In an effort to discredit the article, SpongeTech issued a press release titled "SpongeTech® Delivery Systems, Inc. Sets The Record Straight" calling the story "inaccurate" and based on "forgeries."
"Kaja, you are a dirtbag," read a posting by an anonymous online commentator on The Post's Web site that day.
SpongeTech pursued all its critics. In another instance, Spongetech sued the CEO of a competing sponge company and as part of the settlement demanded the CEO write a retraction to comments he made in a story that questioned SpongeTech's sales numbers.
Two weeks before SpongeTech's CEO Michael Metter and CFO Steven Moskowitz were arrested and charged, the New York-based company took its most aggressive shot -- it sued me, The New York Post and several other people -- including David Patch, who runs investigatethesec.com -- on defamation and allegations of running a "short and distort" scheme.
And when it was clear the threat of the lawsuit wasn't going to stop me from writing stories, a lawyer representing SpongeTech -- Alan A. Heller, of Heller, Horowitz & Feit -- e-mailed me a letter to urge me to stop writing about SpongeTech, and promised to go after my stock trading records and those of my "friends and contacts."
"We trust that you will stop your relentless pursuit of this company and its management," the letter concluded.
I didn't stop reporting the news.
kaja.whitehouse@nypost.com
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/how_spongetech_fans_attempted_to_6uFNer85j0IBfxEOSZH4fI#ixzz1oful5MEP
trustee was working off the allegations of the resident loons - no factual evidence.
Nobody has flooded the market with non-existent shares. That is plain to see. The only way one can believe there is a massive conspiracy involving thousands of unrelated folks to take down penny stocks. Well, anyone who believes that needs more help than can be offered outside of a mental institution.
Ownership vs trades clearly understood. So you would agree that if trading records proved shares only turned over twice, since many "legal" shares were locked into hands that were not trading, that the only possible outcome would be that, bare minimum (as this figure of 12B trades does not include ex-clearing), there are 6B uncovered shares.
In only two weeks of reading this and other boards, it is easy to determine that what you say, on one side of the coin, is completely true. You expose company corruption, but when looking at this and other penny stocks, and assessing trading patterns, this exposure only occurs after short sellers (with no intention to cover) have flooded the market with non-existent shares, thereby already diluting the value of a company, adding insult to injury of shareholders who own shares of a company whose officers have committed massive corruption and as a result have accumulated NSS due to knowledge that exposure will a) drive down PPS and b) possibly shut down company.
The handful of posts I have read from the period of fraudulent behavior on both sides of the coin only occurred AFTER the PPS has risen to the point of being beneficial to close down a company, making covering short sells a moot point.
What is ashamed is that these faceless and nameless people on the other side of the coin are not watched and analyzed as closely as company execs, who I disdain just as much, if not more, than those who take advantage of the fraud through the use of NSS.
OBO + NOBO lists would show sales owned, of course not shares sold short. You would agree that if OBO + NOBO = 3B, and still FTD's remaining out of other 9B shares traded during same time frame, only form of reconciliation would be for owners of FTD's to buy at what market will bear to cover the FTD's, unless ordered to cover at a basis point. Correct?
You do understand that the OBO + NOBO = 3B list is ownership as of a specific point in time and the 12 billion shares traded is over a period of time, don't you?
on average, the 3 billion shares were turned over 4 x during this period of time to equal the 12 billion shares traded over the same time period.
A very simple concept which the accusers of the evil naked shorts from Mars fail to see
apparently, in penny stock land, facts are irrelevant
"Little project" is completed. You, and others, have provided exact info needed in this portion of quest.
Only remaining issues will be determined in court hearing(s). Not sure of any schedulings, so will follow rest of case reviewing court transcripts and thank you all for your assistance.
Was that a straw man argument, because it certainly had nothing to do with my assumption?
Don't dispute your facts, but also do not understand what this has to do with assumption these shareholders being tight-fisted with shares in event of forced covering.
No need to thank me.
"Significant Failures to Deliver No"
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/SPNGQ/company-info
Obviously you don't believe that. I do. So I guess that we're done.
Good luck with your little project.
logic would tell us nobody takes time and expense to show up in court (for themselves or groups) unless many shares owned.
the shareholders that showed up in court are those who still haven't accepted that they were conned by Moskofraud and Metter.
i know this because they have interacted with those of us who called out SPNG for the scam it was. they have a Google group i would recommend you check out. of course i was banned from that group long ago for simply stating the fact that M&M were illegally dumping shares on the open market.
No one knows who these shareholders are, except the individuals holding the shares.
My assumption was based on reading court transcripts and, although not known how many of 3B A/S held by shareholders speaking in court for themselves, or for groups of shareholders, logic would tell us nobody takes time and expense to show up in court (for themselves or groups) unless many shares owned.
Only number I have seen is 35,000 shareholders (not sure of validity). If each shareholder owned 85K shares, that would equate to 3B shares. Assumption may not be far off in stating that 3B shares are tightly-held.
Rest of argument can only be based on logical assumptions. Proof lies in OBO and NOBO lists, as well as uncovered short sales, both of which are attainable.
Everything else is conjecture.
Thank you for another excellent post.
Yes, IPOs are being loosened a bit for casual investors, but still relegated highly to Investment Banks and other large institutional investors. The other form of primary market issuance is from treasury stock, which are shares that are authorized but not yet issued.
As you know, treasury stock, along with issued and outstanding (float), and restricted shares, comprise total of Authorized Shares. And is why I continue to state that if all 3B are "locked up," any current uncovered shares would need to be "techinically" bought from those shareholders of 3B shares.
Finally, you are correct that short sales are allowed in all markets to keep liquidity and fluidity of buys-to-sells. Not sure, in this day of online trading that this is even needed, but it is the current setup, allowing for MM manipulation, as they control the Bid and Ask versus the true buyers and sellers. But this is an argument for another day.
As the current situation exists, as you state, any short sells not covered in allotted time frame become "naked" and, by definition illegal. This is the crux of my posting, not only to obviously agree that SPNG mgmt, like many other OTC and PK execs, tried to run a scam and were caught. Given. Question remains, how many naked shorts exist and what will be done to reconcile?
And, if we assume most of those 3B A/S owned by stuck shareholders, who have seen their profile on SPNG drop from 20c+ per share to .0001, might be a bit tight-fisted on letting go of those shares. Correct?
no, when you start with an incorrect assumption, your conclusion is guaranteed to be wrong.
Thank you for the following reply:
"I guess we'll find out.
Didn't Susan L get access to those lists months ago? Wonder what the hold up might be? How long should the process of adding the 2 lists together take?
If she is unable to confirm your belief, what will you conclude? A failure on her part or a misplaced belief on your own?"
No time to re-read all court transcripts, based on your question, assumption is Susan L is SPNG Rep?
My conclusion would be that my belief was misplaced, but there are two elements in place. Again, one sentence carved out of entire post, not the message of fraud on both parts, but one sentence. Fair enough.
OBO + NOBO lists would show sales owned, of course not shares sold short. You would agree that if OBO + NOBO = 3B, and still FTD's remaining out of other 9B shares traded during same time frame, only form of reconciliation would be for owners of FTD's to buy at what market will bear to cover the FTD's, unless ordered to cover at a basis point. Correct?
And, if we assume most of those 3B A/S owned by stuck shareholders, who have seen their profile on SPNG drop from 20c+ per share to .0001, might be a bit tight-fisted on letting go of those shares. Correct?
And if covering is so ordered, and for sake of argument we will not get caught up in number of uncovered shares, only theory. Whether 5B, 8B, or 45B shares uncovered, the price tag for those shares is unlimited, since stuck shareholders would want to do to NSS what has been done to them. Correct?
Using 10c as a basis point of covering (same as short sales), that would amount to $500,000,000 to $4.5 billion dollars. Correct?
This post responds to succeeding post as well, except to add (and reiterate) that I do not own shares nor FTD's and is why easier to comment objectively on entire picture.
And another well conceived reply!
I suspect we may disagree on the existance of the NSS thing...agreeably the GS thing happened, but I suggest that it is more a use of the same term, but not at all really the same thing occurring, as these bozos think and apply it to.
Ye, I was the one who noted that if you believe much in the NSS thing...that the entire market is rigged...then you really shouldn't play and expect to win...ESPECIALLY in one that just would look and smell like it could be. Hows it go...a duck is a duck. I know one when I see one. A fool and his money... All those hold true.
Some time ago, to go along with at least some of the perfect storm theory, I had suggested that these guys may well have just planned a nice simple P&D, with a modern twist or two (like the actually advertising a name visibly in the media...which because of the economy they could get access to for nothing -- where a Co like this never normally could - ballparks previously requiring a much more stable company to even allow in the gates, not to mention hang signs on credit!)...and again, because of the economy - so many people hurting so much, with pennies to through at wishes of grandeur...it just became too big a thing. If they could have kept it to a nice little fraud...got 10 mill or so from a few hundred dummies...no one would have paid any particular attention (at last not that pro's like this didn't accept as a risk and thought they could cover - disguising/shielding things with level of companies, etc.).
The funny thing is: They actually became victims of their own success!
Thanks...and yes what I was saying is while the IPO is normally all subscribed to the biggies, (although some change in that recently), after that everything is between individuals on any market - (OK some buy back by some Cos in a program - not an issue).
It works that way on either Long or Dhort. The stock is issued. Go short or long and (except for very specialized market maker type situations), you DELIVER stock that was already issued (whether you pay a rent to borrow it or take not), in 3 days or the trade fails. thats it, you can't deliver something that doesn't exist. You don't walk away from the clsoing table with the money and leaving a promise behind to make good on the "real" stock at some future dats.
And short selling is absolutely, positively, allowed on the big board and markets. (Back in Sept of 2008 - think Lehman - the SEC restricted short selling in financial co stock - as a temporary emergency restriction).
Many stocks - by value or position or as a market control - may have restrictions - but that is true of long positions too. These are all the exceptions. Like somebody actually picking a winner because they got a hot tip on a penny stock from an internet message board...or a friend that follows them....
My belief is that OBO and NOBO lists will show that all 3B shares and several billion others are currently held by these "longs/dreamers." If this proves to be true, there are several billion shares short in this stock, if not dozens of billions.
huh?
what in the world are you talking about?
It has been clearly documented that the SEC, after spending about 1 1/2 years investigating this massive fraud, with all of its legal abilities to obtain documents from third parties, specifically came up with only 3 billion shares that are outstanding and accounted for - not the additional billions upon billions that you claim.
live with it
you lost your money and you got defrauded by Moskowitz and Metter, so stop blaiming the evil naked short sellers from Mars for SPNG's massive fraud.
"My belief is that OBO and NOBO lists will show that all 3B shares and several billion others are currently held by these "longs/dreamers."
I guess we'll find out.
Didn't Susan L get access to those lists months ago? Wonder what the hold up might be? How long should the process of adding the 2 lists together take?
If she is unable to confirm your belief, what will you conclude? A failure on her part or a misplaced belief on your own?
Another cogent post, and nothing to dispute.
Let's be clear, shall we? In reviewing the entire case, well as much as could be garnered in two weeks or so, many things are apparent.
I am familiar with pump & dumps, and is why this case caught my eye. How could these brash, brazen two men and a few accomplices have thought this would work? They have both been involved in markets for most of their lives. What made them take such a chance at this stage of their careers/lives? Why does most of the rest of the fraudsters in this market merely run P&Ds and make some nice change here and there, while this one took it to a national level via advertising, compounding their problems by so unabashedly filing statements with the SEC that, with little investigation, revealed their customers and subsequent earnings as completely bogus, with websites set up in such ragtag fashion?
Was it as simple as one poster suggests, that we had a perfect storm with one player an egomaniac and the other pathological liar? Or were they so in debt and desperate that they felt like their only way out was to swing for the fences? Were they so foolish as to think they could bring national attention without also thinking about covering their tracks by at least putting more thought into setting up customers in a more covert manner?
The baffling thing remains that they were aware enough of market manipulation to know they could hire a promoter for $25K for a month's worth of pump without taking it to the level they did, and still make enough money to pay off personal debts, or whatever other reasons they felt compelled to run this scam. This begs the question, was it really as simple as one man being an egomaniac, eager to be in the spotlight, and the other able to lie without batting an eye; a match made in heaven?
Who knows the answers to these questions, as none of us were flies on the wall or inside their heads at the time of these decisions?
Chronologically, we arrive at the $100s of millions in ill-gotten gains, as you state. My belief is that it approaches or even exceeds a billion dollars.
Speaking without bias or reasons to hide (or avoid) any truths, the facts and trading patterns appear clear. During the run up from March through July, advertising and other promotions lured in penny stock players, also hoping for that one big swing. These were not traders. They were anti-'buy the rumor, sell the news' investors, not sophisticated enough to play in these shark-infested waters.
My belief is that OBO and NOBO lists will show that all 3B shares and several billion others are currently held by these "longs/dreamers." If this proves to be true, there are several billion shares short in this stock, if not dozens of billions.
Was it was SPNG execs who made illegal gains through the selling of what should have remained restricted shares were it not for fake opinion letters, who also shorted the market? Perhaps, at least in part. If they sold what should have been 1 to 2 billion restricted shares into the market, what about the other several or dozens of billions of shares short?
Again chronologically, this leads to the final conclusion, finally drawn out of one poster here who, after some prodding, stated that if these evil empires of short hedge funds exist (and we know they do as evidenced by the $400M fine to G-S in the role they played in shorting financial stocks in 2008), unsophisticated traders/investors should jump on the wagon, not fight them, to which I wholeheartedly agree. It's those dreams again, and a whole of greed.
Throwing in a touch of sentimentality here, maybe they thought this was the stock that was going to pay off Suzie's education expenses, or buy that beach house they've always dreamed of, or retire early. Should they have sold at 20c +- and been happy to be thousandaires instead of holding for that one penny stock that would finally make them millionaires? That was rhetorical.
If these people have the entire A/S locked up, and were not parting with a single share, where did the rest of the trading come from? Only two answers, and one is ludicrous to believe. Either flippers/daytraders, which has already been dismissed due to trading patterns and the sheer volume, and short sales.
FTD lists do not lie, only underestimate the volume of short sales. This stock was on FTD lists for months, and anyone who has traded, and understand what they are doing and the innerworkings of the market, also understand FTD lists do not come close to stating all of the short sales, via ex-clearing trades and other manipulation. So we won't play naive here.
Whether it's 8B or 45B shares makes no difference to the theory, only the actual $$ manipulated. Every poster who has discredited or dismissed the existence of NSS in penny stocks is sophisticated enough in their replies to know that NSS does exist, and is more prevalent in OTC and PK than anywhere else, due to massive amounts of company fraudsters who think no one is looking. Well, NSS is looking - HARD.
Whether the posts on these boards by those insisting NSS does not exist are real or fictional, or as has been done so often with many of my posts, carve out a sentence or two from a lenghty post and try to discredit a word here and a word there versus refuting the message in the post, leads me to understand the intentions.
There should be no posting on this board whatsoever, including mine, and is another of the reasons I chose this stock. This stock cannot be traded, so why is anyone here? Reviewing other stocks that have been revoked, the pattern of postings is identical. Until the fat lady sings and the stock is revoked, that sliver of doubt remains in the minds of those short, with no intention of covering.
In response to a previous post, apparently from a stuck shareholder, my posts have been responded to not to disprove that NSS exists, but to substantiate it.
BMK
More than currently meets the eye?
Time will tell?
nope, it is over
SPNG was the single biggest fraud in the history of microcap stocks - hundreds of millions of dollars. One of the two fraudster officers that orchestrated this massive scam has plead guilty and the other will get criminally convicted in the near future.
live with it
A cogent post. You are speaking in terms of primary and secondary markets, and correct. All "trading" of stocks is done in the secondary market, as is short selling, which you seem to be alluding to. Finally, someone has spoken up about NSS making money in fraudulent companies.
If 'too good to be true' it probably is, especially is in such unregulated markets, making it even easier to both commit fraud by companies and short sell in this trading environment than on big boards, where US Govt banned short selling of financial stocks.
Thank you for your candid and relevant post.
Giving benefit of the doubt, checking trading records for highest volume days in July '09, vast majority of trading occurred at open and close, dispelling the "flipping" theory.
8B shares, as a lowball figure because does not include ex-clearing trades, would amount to $800,000,000 at 10c cost basis.
45B, which may include all ex-clearing trades and might be what Trustee was referring to in court, would be $4,500,000,000, that's $4.5 Billion dollars.
It becomes more clear with each post and time devoted to this washed up company, along with mathematical logic, that a good portion of that (minimum) $800M was shorted on the way up and at peak levels, and remains uncovered.
Two questions for those who share this "NSS is a myth" theory, which we know is not true, or our own US Govt would not have temporarily banned short sales on financial stocks after the meltdown of Lehman, WAMU, etc.
I am here doing research on my time, outside of my normal job, not to dispel the notion that SPNG execs were crooks, quite the contrary, but to engage honest conversation regarding the real possibility, if not probability of NSS. Why else be here on a stock that has a global lockdown? I can't get my head around that. Well, without again giving the benefit of the doubt. If I, along with many others, readily admit the fraud of SPNG execs, and with math on the side of a very real possibility, why does NSS try to be dismissed so vehemently? Just a couple of questions for my little project. Thanks in advance for any replies.
See another of those not well thought out investors who can't seem to understand a company sells any share of stock ONCE. If the one that invests in it then sells it at a gain or loss, to you or someone else, who does the same...is what investing is all about.
invest in a fraud and you lose.
Very literally... MOST OF THE SHARES OF STOCK SOLD ON THE MARKET TODAY (like any other day), ARE IN COs THAT HAVEN'T ISSUED NEW SHARES IN YEARS...THEY GET NOT ONE CENT FROM THESE TRADES. (See they sold the stock before...took the money and maybe made profits and maybe not). So how could they possibly be responsible for if the one owning or buying it loses or makes out?
Had these weirdo's made the money owning the SPNG stock they deluded themselves to thinking they would, would they have given it all back to the company - for having invested in something 'too good to be true"?
Duh.
Yes, certainly many are nothing but someone taken for a ride as a mark and fool.
The wacko...and if you will much more demeaning names...would apply (as a generality) to many of those who would be involved suporting SPNG (then and now)in this type of forumn. They would have every reason to be informed as to what was really going on, or alternatively, and this is unfortunately clearly the case of many, so incapable of being informed that they did (and may continue) to act as pawns of those perpetrating the fraud on them and essentially were a part in the defrauding of others.
Again, the well documented Ponzi Syndrome. Like the Stockholm Syndrome attributed to hostages: many of the victims, presumably innocent of anything but a mistaken trust and belief, refused to even take any portion of the small amount that was eventually recovered for them, claiming that was just a trick to have them give up their rights to the fortune that Ponzi was maiing for them. Not a bad definition or exampe of wacko I should think!
Can't flip a stock and certainly can't short a stock rising daily
lol, that is nonsense. highly volatile stocks like SPNG back in the day were flippable multiple times per day. just because a stock ends the day up doesn't mean it didn't fluctuate during the trading session.
a single trader could have bought 1 Million shares and flipped those same shares half a dozen times in a day.
care to post what you are referring to cause i have no idea what you are talking about.
It appears in court transcripts this magic "formula" is a sticking point, along with the value of the result of this magical "formula."
Considering the number he was referring to was a complete joke...it's not worth the time.
Cheers and good luck
Agree, but largest trading appears to be a basis of roughly 10c, meaning cost to buy initial 2M shares would amount to $200K, and that's for only flipping 2M shares.
Explain to the noobs how long this would take to reach the 8B - 45B shares above and beyond 3B A/S. Not an average trader/investor has that kind of money sitting around to flip on such a volatile penny stock, especially given the fact most of those high volume days the PPS rose.
Can't flip a stock and certainly can't short a stock rising daily, unless shorting outside allotted time frame, making it illegal naked short and landing on FTD list.
It seems the more people try to dismiss NSS mathematically, the more they corroborate. In this poster's example, we saw $200K to flip 2M shares, meaning 4M total. And flipping would have been a losing proposition since PPS continue rise during this time.
In a search for a contractor to replace my roof I had 5 estimates provided from 5 different companies. STEVEN MOSKOWITZ of Renovex LLC gave me the best price by over a couple thousand dollars. This was too good to pass on, so I hired Renovex to do the job.
Steve immediately demanded 60% of the cost to be paid upfront. I was hesitant so I told him once the material arrives on site I would give him the 60%. He rudely told me "I am not a bank, and I won't lay out that kind of money." We eventually came to an agreement. The following day, 80% of the material arrived and so I paid him in good faith. That was my second mistake. My first mistake was hiring him in the first place. I was initially promised that the entire job would be completed in 3-5 work days. Over the course of 3 weeks I've heard one excuse after the other. It went from bad weather (which never came) to family emergencies, to sick days (6 in a row, with no communication) This company left my roof unprotected which lead to a semi-major leak in multiple areas of my home. I am currently in the process of filing a claim against his insurance, which I'm beginning to think is fraudulent. I have gotten no where. After over three weeks from the start date they were only competent enough to complete 45% of the job. I had finally had enough of the excuses and contacted Steve. I told him I have no other recourse at this point. I need to hire someone else to complete the job. His response was, "Why didn't you tell me that my workers haven't been there in over 5 days? You are just trying to steal my materials and I will see you in court!" As if I'm responsible for managing his labor force. Save yourself the headache, don't use Renovex LLC for ANYTHING! It was a waste of my time and money in the long run. It was the least professional management I've ever dealt with in my entire life. PLEASE DON'T BE TEMPTED BY THE LOW COST, IT IS A FACADE THAT IS WELL WORTH AVOIDING!
Ross G. and 1 other voted for this review
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |