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.
In the States, the best thing you can do if your a winning player is turn pro. Entries and expenses beccome writeoffs.
I expected EK to break it's 52 week high.
Now, I'm hoping it does.
for this, I would swim the falls, you-probably-did
see the recent EK news.....I'm in a bit more
if I play, win, am I able to let you claim the dough, then enter into partnership controlled by my heirs
maybe your legal beagle has some answers
Here's a quick bit on Canada's view of poker winnings. It's not cut and dry.
I had a tax lawyer tell me that as long as my "real" income exceeded my poker winnings, I had no need for concern and not to consider turning pro. In 2007, my gaming account was up close to 200K and of all the luck, I got hit with an audit the next year.
They asked is I considered myself a pro and I answered not yet.
I haven't paid a cent on poker winnings yet in Canada. I have had money taken right off the top in the USA. When that happens and I get back to Canada, I file through RMS and they take care of it. It takes a few months to get it back, but the IRS likes to grab 30% and that can be in the thousands.
I play/played a lot of poker. The last 2 years, I had slowed down, but now I'm back at it. I don't have much to do up here now that I've sold my retirement project.
Tax law on poker winnings: Read it and weep
Benjamin Alarie
The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Mar. 23 2010, 7:13 PM EDT
More and more Canadians are earning tidy sums playing poker on off-shore poker websites. They often practise incessantly, refine their skills using coaches and software programs, and participate in online forums dedicated to strategy. Many of these players spend 30 hours a week online playing against opponents from around the world.
At this time of year, winning poker players are reminded of a confounding tax position. Most Canadians believe, incorrectly, that lottery and gambling winnings are not subject to income tax. The conventional view is correct in that every budding poker player starts out playing casually and with "after tax" dollars. If a casual player wins, he wins without tax consequences; if he loses, he loses without tax consequences. At some point, however, under Canadian law, the tax consequences change for winning players.
Poker winnings are subject to tax if they are "income from a business." So when does playing winning poker amount to a business? The Income Tax Act doesn't provide an answer. And there's no reported case explaining precisely when the net winnings of individual poker players are subject to income tax. In the entire body of reported Canadian case law on the related question of the taxation of gambling winnings more generally, there are only a few cases where individual gamblers have been found to be in the business of gambling. The upshot for poker players is that it's probably in only unusually active, skillful and financially successful circumstances that they will face Canadian income tax liability on their winnings.
The central legal difficulty arises in determining at which point a taxpayer crosses the line from playing poker casually to playing professionally or as a business. Consider the incentives facing the player, and then the policy-maker.
A winning player would prefer to delay the transition from casual to professional. There's the "tax free" aspect, of course, and there's also not wanting to feel like a patsy by paying income tax when it's not legally required. There's a conflicting concern, though, facing a winning poker player. If that player takes too long in making the transition to professional, he may end up being subjected to back taxes, interest and penalties associated with not declaring poker winnings as income. That could prove extraordinarily costly and, in some cases, even lead to bankruptcy.
On the other hand, tax authorities shouldn't be in a hurry to single out winning players. Consider what happens if the casual enthusiast crosses the line to professional player before it's abundantly clear that he has, in fact, the requisite skill to be a winner. If the tax authorities are too aggressive in exacting income tax from winning players, they run the risk of too many losing players claiming they satisfy the conditions for being considered professional as well.
Under the Income Tax Act, an individual's losses from a business may be set off against income from other sources, such as salaries or wages. The limited case law shows that tax authorities have indeed been hostile to claims by taxpayers that they are professional gamblers in circumstances where taxpayers are trying to deduct losses from gambling.
The Americans solved the problem by taking a "heads we win, tails you lose" approach. According to the Internal Revenue Code, taxpayers must report net lottery and gambling winnings as income. They can only deduct gambling losses against gambling income. This solution has the advantage of being certain and predictable. What it lacks is fairness; historically, this was embraced because gambling was considered a vice to be discouraged.
The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly insisted that, as a self-assessing system, Canadian income tax law should be certain, predictable and fair. It seems the current unarticulated approach to the taxation of poker winnings is uncertain, unpredictable and unfair.
Benjamin Alarie is an associate law professor at the University of Toronto.
no tax on winnings??is it just 1 big Lakota reservation
aren't the GOALPOSTS in the CFL larger wider and further from a REAL scoring opportunity??
I see it as (new source of investors, less eyes on the "product" and more yardage to milk the "story"
no wonder the playing field moved to....... Ohh Canada
being a peacekeeper is a good GOAL, APOLOGY's help show character, integrity
Yes. I agree it is a funny comparison but in many ways it is true. I know because people had a lot more respect for Jeff when he was a mod. Why?????? He was chearing for the home team but he still had a job to do. Does it make him a better mod???? No. Does it make him a better peace keeper??? Absolutely.
I have never called paul a scum bag.
I may think it, but I wouldn't say it.
BTW......that is one of the funniest analogies I've read in ages.
Thanks for the laugh.
Sure, the mods have a job to do. Just like a cop. But when a cop starts calling peoples favorite players scum bags at the ball game then the crowd loses all respect for the guys that are there to keep the peace by enforcing the rules. So, what happens next? You get a mob of people at the ball game that are fighting mad with the cops and it is is not because the cops are "doing their job". No, they are pissed because they have a person in authority calling their favorites scum bags. Then you have the other teams fans that are just getting fueled to say bad things about the home team because the cops called thier favorites scum. Before you know it the home team fans lose repect for authority it just goes down hill. And a stock message board is like a ball game in many ways. You got teams, winnners, losers, cops, and an emotional crowd.
Burn the coyotes and get out of FB before you take another pill! LOL
LOL....and I'm pretty sure everybody knows what I think....
except me. It sucks getting old.
I still haven't covered all my FB shorts. Filled some at 19.00 but have more to go. I really thought it would continue down.
The big release of restricted shares from the IPO comes up in the fall. I'm not sure I want to sit with 60+ grand tied up in shorts when I'm not watching the action that much.
Decesions were so much easier when I was heavily medicated.
At least I had something to blame for some of the dumb shit I did.
Have a good one.
I'm going to see if I can take out a few coyotes.
Yes, it was by phone come to think of it. Investing is like that. You go with what you know or think you know. That is the story of xmdc. Up to them to let us know who wins, but everyone knows what I think, lol.
I think we talked that day on the phone. I said she wasn't clear and that the lawyer would not give out any info regarding the case. I did say that based on the info I had, that my opinion was BK. I was wrong, but it was only my opinion.
I've tried to be nice, but this isn't worth the time. Someone needs to grow a pair and quit whinnnnnning.
You don't seem to understand.....I don't care what you do.
I'm entitled to my opinion as are you. If I wish to express my thoughts...I will do so.
I will however, continue to moderate as I have and follow the rules of this site.
If you were to look back at the removed posts in the last 2 weeks, many were removed by myself. Bashing, pumping and a lot of posts that were personal attacks. I believe I'm more than fair, even though I'm not "pro" XMDC.
Now, carry on and we will see what happens.
you guys... It is true that the court secretary gave k9 the wrong outlook. We talked that same day on ihub and he warned me what she said. I had to go find the docs on pacer and email Paul to be sure it was not going BK. it was a very nerve-wracking day indeed. Especially since I bough shares after the pacer docs were filed. Turned out to be a good move.
The problem is that we had 2 years of court trouble that everyone was interpreting in a different manner. Oh well, you places your bets, etc.
I do think we have too many negative mods on the board, present company EXcluded. I wsh someone would resign so I could get a seat. I was fair, just got booted for letting dragon get my goat. ...that sounds like some weird sci-fi movie setup.
That was not the posts that I was talking about. I tell you what. Let's watch the name and symbol change. No r/s happens and you stop that kinda bashing on the xmdc board. r/s happens and I resign as a mod and never post the symbol xmdc againe on ihub. Deal?????
And also, if negative things happen in future then you can start back bashing on xmdc board. That would be only fair.
"How can you blame those posts on the court secretary. That was actually a seperate argument that you also lost. "........
Ummmmmm.........it's easy.
"I called the Deleware court and asked for the status of the XMDCQ case and was told the BK was completed and the company was done.
With all the chatter around the XMDC board, I can't help but wonder if I heard the girl incorrectly or somehow am mixed up what she said. I was pretty heavily medicated, but I still think it's done.
I guess we shall know in a few days. "
That was post...........
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73285345
k9narc Thursday, March 15, 2012 1:44:14 PM
Re: StubbyPG post# 193 Post # of 232
stubby...I think that, but there is still an ounce of doubt.
I have seen nothing to clearly confirm it done.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73315867
It was my opinion.....not fact. If you actually looked , instead of flying of the handle, you would see that.
The bioburp......I said XMDC would never bring it to market.
When do they (xmdc) start selling it?
As far as the BK...... it had done what was needed for paul.
And yes......I do believe he is just another pinkie crook. That is why I don't own shares. It's my opinion, I'm allowed one.
Now, If you want to continue this on the XMDC board, I can start bringing all my reasons for thinking that. They will be on topic, contain no spam or personal attacks and probably generate a lot of discussion about past things that really have nothing to do with what the company is doing today. I haven't done so because a friend asked me not too.
Is that the route you would like me to take?
Yes. I mean false prophet.
Actually, funny you mention the Bio Harp. You were wrong about the Bio Harp and that will be proven the first of next year. Not that XMDC or Paul will be involved with Sam. But I can assure you that Sam will be taking it to the next level so to speak. There was always more to that story than was ever told. Even in court, some interesting facts about the Bio Harp never came out. But they will.
As far as the BK, you made multiple claims that PL wanted to BK to the company to cover up some kind of guilt or wrong doing. I will be happy to go back and outline a dozen or more remarks you made that PL wanted the company to go away. How can you blame those posts on the court secretary. That was actually a seperate argument that you also lost.
The R/S. I would have to say that you have bet that one will happen. Because you have been warniing investors about it on the XMDC board and this one since the day they announced the name change. Your experience tells you?????? Well, your experience should tell you that the float is low enough that they do not need to do one. You read the filings and know that the bulk of the o/s is in the hands of management. You also see the volume and pps action. Your experience should tell you the float is still unchanged. In fact, your predictions of a r/s are really out of line all together. Management even said there would be no ss change several times.
Admit it K9, you want a reverse split to come so that you will be correct.
It aint happening. And what actually does happen is going to really upset you.
I don't own XMDC stock at this time, so I really don't care where it goes. I would like to see it run as my friend MLR owns it, but thats it.
I believed that the Bioburp was a scam from day 1....and I was right.
I believed that the company was BK, based on what the court secretary told me, and that was wrong. I did express that she wasn't 100% clear about it, but I'LL EAT THAT ERROR.
I think that a RS will come with the name and symbol change.
I don't guarantee one, but my experience tells me one is coming.
How does one become a "false profit"?
Do you mean "prophet"
It is already done. Just a matter of time now. XMDC will prove almost everything you have said this year to be wrong. And I think this conversation is on topic for your board. You use this board to talk about red flags. You have already made a lot of claims this year that were incorrect. But the best part is yet to come. So, the only threat to you is actually XMDC. If it goes down the toilet then k9 was correct with his prophecy. If it turns out really well for investors then it its an entirely different story because then you will be proven a false profit. So, is it me that is actually threatening you or is it the words you have already spoken.
I'll consider that to be a threat. Do your best.
Ok sure. That conversation is over. Here is a new one for you. Go on over to the XMDC board and tell some more predictions and jokes about a reverse split coming.
Because when all things come to light, the conversation with you and me has not even started. I know the rules and know them well. Let's just say I got some special plans for the very near future. All within the rules.
The conversation is over. Period.
Now hold on one second. Let me got tell DKLN "if you listen to all that jazz it will lead you right down the drain" and lets see how long you let that one stay up. I am not trying to cause problems on your board. But k9, I have noticed the pattern and I know the game.
If it's a personal attack, delete it as such. I'm tired of his posts and have been taking another approach to get them stopped.
Now, quit wasting my time.
Last post by noodle on xmdc board. Personal attack and off topic. You have read it. But yet you did not delete it. hmmmmmm? Now you want me to join your team and delete the longs post as off topic. I will think about it. Thanks for the invitation to the club.
This conversation is over...If you believe the post is valid then use the process they have to protest the deletion.
You know what you said and why.
BTW....what you seem to think is bashing, is well within the terms of service. If the post is off topic, a duplicate or contains a personal attack, I will remove it, as should you as a mod on the board.
Now, quit messing up my stock chat board with your personal whinning.
I was talking about the stock chart and you have no way to prove otherwise. I am not personally attacking you. I made a clean post and you deleted it. Now, I can go onto the XMDC board and bash it and you know you will let those posts ride.
I wasn't born last nite......
I know exactly what " Now as far as what you were talking about - not sure about the resistance in that department." was in reference too.
If you wan't to behave like a 5 year old....do it elsewhere.
And please don't use my "bashing board" as your personal attack board.
The other was a discussion on the stock chart. That old ten cents run was something you never liked. And you are gonna hate this next run with a passion. Because it is going higher. Now, you just keep your fingers crossed for that Reverse Split happening because you have banked your reputation on it with allt the jokes and forecasts of it coming with the name change. But I would hate to be in your shoes when not only does the R/S not happen but the absolute opposite of what you expect happens. So, just keep on bashing and kicking XMDC with your pals. Soon, all things change. When you are proven competely wrong, at least be a man and admit it this time. I then would have at least some respect for you as compared to now having none.
Your facebook post is on topic....the other was a dig at a personal attack.
If you don't think so....report it.
If you delete my facebook picture post on the xmdc board, I will report it to admin. You should not delete posts that support XMDC just because you dont agree with them.
What version of explorer?
Knarc, I'm running Win 7. Gotta get back to work...
has TRUSTY Joe posted legitmate funds/means 4purchases?
how this little?GIANT fact escapes the Kool Aid group is hilarious
SOP..........in answer to your earlier question that disappeared,
#3.
I said many times that the best way to hide what happened was through a BK filing. Furter to that, a name and symbol change will do the job of burying the past.
we both know the merits of patient posting.......
this post here is a bit of criticism of the beast we post within
the monies were positioned as an "investment in company" by all the CEO devotees..
..when we both know it to be positioned as a loan that can be collected by both CEO or COO anytime they want to milk cash back out of shareholders, it is not an investment given for their % existing shares, it is part of the scam ALL deviant PENNY bosses play with the corporate tax treatment of expenses. loans, debt, later to be converted into a share repayment scheme if the stock surges or survives
we havent seen a REAL balance sheet on BIZ EVER, they're not required to disclose the details
the monies, $350Kish, was mostly payment of legal bills incurred to keep CEO out of Penny HELL if the case went to a Judge....to keep Knobbe from spilling the beans on behind the scenes ethical disputes and tactics, OR just to pay the RENT BILS to DADDY PHARMACIST......
...not a penny of it went to help BIZ operate as an IDEA marketeer
MY post about Joyfull Genius having a higher net worth than BIZ(it got deleted as OFF TOPIC---very weird, because its right on topic/current news, check it out, prior to your Bill, Bob BILLY BOB reply).....and that fact would cause one to think that maybe JG was interested in BIZ, to have their own SHELL(sell the shell to JG, as you suggested in subsequent post).........AND THAT WAS WHY CEO was cleaning up the barriers to sell the shell
whats amazing is with ALL this recent history of slanted results and innaccurate promises, the believers still RAIL that CEO current words are as good as gold, and PUMP "GREAT NEWS AHEAD" at least 10 times a day
ID WELCOME, REAL PPS moving news, it would be rewarding
reminds me of childhood bargaining with the street block BULLY who negotiates the price on your recently "disapppeared" bike that he might have "seen" in some "unremembered" garage, only to have it show up after the ransom has been paid
I am suprised at the contempt some posters hold for both the ANONYMOUS idiots and innocent, posters alike, especially the degree in which certain posters think this is a "supporter" and "detractor" battle to wage, on the contrary, it is to lend unbiased deletions and provide fruitful debate, the very topic the "supporters" claim shold not be discussed, brought up, on the board
the financial posts which ensued yesterday, CLEARLY showed the funds NOT being used as first represented..........funny how that happens
Yep..........this is my wabbit hole. A place to discuss "Red flags and stocks".
I don't use it that much, unless I want to vent or point out the odd trading trick.
Wow......Just noticed the major record companies tried to file a 72 trillion $$$ suit against Lime Wire. It was tossed by the judge.
Anyway.......can you expand on this?
"funny how the Q I asked exposed the loan/expense/tax writeoff scam that CEO is running, i cant believe someone took the bait and whoops, NOW its clear to them a scam is ON"
We can have a free discussion on it here.
chckd yur posts and LOOKee whats-this-WABBIT???
never seen this secret den.....lol
tell me the mods havent gone crazy, self esteem issues
funny how the Q I asked exposed the loan/expense/tax writeoff scam that CEO is running, i cant believe someone took the bait and whoops, NOW its clear to them a scam is ON
I try to keep the board clean of 3,4 word "chatty" posts and they get reversed, someone is biased and watching closely
never was that petty/stopped up in my 30's, 40's
er.....this post vanishing??????????
Well, XMDC has got rid of all warning signs and is now current.
That should help the company get new owners.
The filings show Paul owning 519,755,350 common shares.
Ben owns 422,100,000 common shares.
Both recieved these shares in the ownership change in 2007.
In 2008, the reported share structure was........
As of 08/06/08: 36,737,031 shares outstanding: 30,057,796 shares free trading: 6,679,235 shares restricted; 150,000,000 shares Authorized.
Funny what Preffered shares can do to share structure.
More on shorting............
The post....
badali Monday, May 07, 2012 10:52:10 PM
Re: k9narc post# 38274 Post # of 38357
20120507|ICPA|8339865|0|30023286|O
http://regsho.finra.org/FORFshvol20120507.txt
My response.............
k9narc Share Monday, May 07, 2012 11:19:37 PM
Re: badali post# 38275 Post # of 38357
Yep............big numbers, and here are a few more.
20120409|ICPA|1536000|0|8126073|O
20120410|ICPA|3676688|0|7490742|O
20120411|ICPA|1218719|0|2703727|O
20120412|ICPA|2057499|0|4459370|O
20120413|ICPA|7862815|0|12486745|O
Those numbers show that 16m(aprox) out of the 36m(aprox) shares of ICPA that traded 5 days before the Semi-monthly short interest report were shorted shares.
The report showed.......
Short Interest for April 13 2012
Short Interest 0
Percent Change(100.00)
Average Daily Share Volume 5,356,294
Days to Cover 0.00
How can the Semi-monthly short interest report say zero when the FINRA numbers show about 16m?
----------------------------------------------------
Now, I haven't got a response back, and it was late, but it's easy to see from the figures posted that the FINRA numbers mean nothing on a day to day basis.
Some of the reasons for that are in previous posts on this board.
Here is another post that may explain more.....................
"STUDY$ :This FINRA Short Data List is a fashion on iHub and is as misinterpreted than used to manipulate the opinion on board
Forget this short Data list because it doesn't mean nothing on a daily basis !
The short isn’t really a short it is the execution of a long sale by a market maker.
High short numbers might very well indicate a high number of legitimate retail sales.
So, this is why the short sale volume is high but also why the FTD’s and bi-Monthly short interest reports are not showing any indications of this volume
KoolAid: Daily FINRA Short Numbers
This is one of my favorites. How many times have you seen someone post the daily finra short numbers and make some claim about how the market makers are holding back a stock because the the short total is so high or some other unfounded claim. Let me state that those numbers mean almost nothing. Here’s why.
It is theoretically possible to have 100% legitimate retail sells show up as 100% shorts in the daily finra numbers...
Consider someone selling shares through their broker. There are two legs to the transaction, the MM selling the shares into the market and the MM taking ownership of the shares from the seller’s broker. There is also a possible third case in which the MM just buys the shares from the broker to complete the sale and holds them (as MM's can end up with both short or long positions in a stock in an effort to make a market). In this sell case, if the leg of the sell transaction from MM to the market is counted, the sell will (somewhat surprisingly) appear as a short in the numbers if the MM sells the shares to the market first before taking ownership of the shares from the broker (as the MM may sell short to the market first knowing that he’ll immediately get shares to cover from the seller’s broker). If the buy from the broker to MM leg (or the buy to “hold” by the MM) is counted, the sale will not appear as short. Only one leg of the transaction will appear in the daily numbers to not confuse the volume numbers.
Buy transactions are equally confusing as they also have two legs. The leg from the market to MM and the leg from MM to broker. If the leg from market to MM is counted, the buy not will show up as short (as the MM bought shares). If the leg from MM to broker is counted, it will show up as short (as the MM sold shares to the broker). There is also a third case in which the MM sells his own inventory to complete the buy (which will likely not show up as short) and a fourth case in which the MM sells shares it doesn't have (naked shorts) to complete the sale. This naked shorting is legally allowed so that the MM’s can make a market.
In general, the finra numbers are supposed to tally only the "consolidated tape" transactions, that is the transaction legs between the MM and the market (not the legs between MM and brokers--called media transactions). This has the effect of often having a large number of legit sells (possibly even all of them) show up as shorts in the counts.
If this was confusing, that’s the point. Exactly what a short in the daily count means depends on a variety of factors including exactly when and in what order a MM completes the two legs of a buy or sell transaction. High short numbers might very well indicate a high number of legitimate retail sales.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57118053
Another source :
Get Educated folks BEWARE of these numbers :
Short Sale Volume Reporting’s are deceiving. (From patchman)
I spoke to FINRA today and found out some very interesting things that until now I did not fully understand. I knew there was something wrong with this transparency of information but was not 100% sure what it was. I think I have my answer and it was enlightening.
I was first directed to the Notice to Members memo dated 9/29/2009
http://www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/Notices/2009/P120045
The individual I spoke with wanted to make clear that to maintain proper trade volume reporting accuracy, a trade with multiple legs in the trade would only be reported once in the volume reports. The example given would be.
Investor A is long 100 shares and wants to sell. They enter the order through their broker that is routed to a market maker. That market maker will go out and sell the stock into the market before they have bought the stock from you/your broker to close out their account. They do not take possession first as there is no guarantee they can sell the order into the market. By this Notice, the actual sale INTO the market is a short sale because the market maker sold the stock into the market BEFORE they had purchased the stock from you. It is a technicality since they know there position will be closed out minutes later when they go in and buy your shares. To avoid doubling up on trade volume and distorting the picture, only the sale into the market (consolidated tape) is recorded and not the second leg which was the sale transaction between seller and market maker.
So, this is why the short sale volume is high but also why the FTD’s and bi-Monthly short interest reports are not showing any indications of this volume. The short isn’t really a short it is the execution of a long sale by a market maker. The key language in the FINRA notice is this:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Short Sale Volume File will provide daily access to the aggregate volume of short sales in NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities reported to a consolidated tape and traded over-the-counter during regular trading hours on each trading day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated tape is the open market where the transaction between seller and market maker is not done at the consolidated tape. That call this the media transaction.
Now for those wondering about Bona-Fide Market Making, I found out it can still be done but not electronically. The 15c-211 applies to electronic trade. Market Makers can continue to execute Bona-Fide Market making through phonic transactions but those sales made would be reported in the short interest reports bi-monthly and if not closed out will be reported as FTD’s in the system like any other trade failure.
Hope this helps at least clear up the high short interest volume reports seen. The reason the number is not 100% is because not all orders are routed thru independent market makers.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59179798
We all hear about short sales and how high they are on the stock we are playing. Case in point....ICPA. Here a post....
"ALERT!!
49 Million shares shorted over the past 4 days!!! With an average volume of 15 mil a day that is approximately 81% of a 4 day trading volume. Steve Samblis IS NOT DILUTING!! He is too honorable to do such a thing!! This is pure shorting on IC Places out of spite to try and keep us at these levels. Yesterday the shorting volume dropped significantly. They pretty much tried to tank it in 3 days and FAILED!!. In the coming days you will see a huge short squeeze incoming and they will have to cover and talk about Green!!!!. "
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75242516
-----------------------------------
I guess the question is, are those short figures correct?
NO and there are a few reasons why.
I think the post below explains it, but all discussion is welcome.
shorts data explained...
SHORTS data explained by FINRA...phone call 3 minutes ago i spoke to FINRA regarding their daily SHO list which seems to show 30-70 % off all the volume in thousands of stocks as 'short sales'. they explained the 2 factors which tend to inflate the short sale data beyond what is normally considered a short sale, i.e. a person or firm borrowing shares which are then sold.
1. all marketmaker sells to buyers for which the MM doesnt at that moment possess the stock would go onto the list. the shorts data is sent to SEC at time of execution, so during the course of a day, a MM may trade 20M shares of company xyz, of which 10M of those shares were initiated as short sales and the other 10M were buys to cover those shorts. despite the fact that their net position at the end of the day is flat, the data would show 10M shares as having been short sales.
this applies even to grey sheet stocks. despite the fact there is no MM making bids and asks, MM's can and do call around to other MM's to find willing sellers to match buy orders and vice-versa.
2. the other factor that could affect the daily short figure is very interesting. if a sale is being initiated by the holder of restricted 144 stock, even though the owner of those shares is technically a long, the sale is listed as a short sale because the actual certificates are not yet "clean" via the transfer agent.
they confirmed that in order to ascertain the true "open short" position one should look at the bi-monthly short report. it was also stated that any of the daily shorts which were not delivered within the prescribed time would definitely end up on the FTD list.
"http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=63945167
XMDC...........still high on my scam list. We now enter the rinse lather and repeat mode. My guess is new name,a RS, lot's of promises and either a new owner or a forward split to reward shareholders.
There might be a chance of riding a pump, but it's not one for me.
On Feb 13 there is an entry for a report, but no document is attached.
Filed & Entered: 03/14/2012
Close Bankruptcy Case
48 Filed & Entered: 03/14/2012
Order Approving Trustee's Report of No Distribution and Closing Case
47 Filed: 02/16/2012
Entered: 02/17/2012
Terminated: 03/14/2012
BNC Certificate of Mailing
45 Filed & Entered: 02/13/2012
Terminated: 03/14/2012
Asset to No Asset
46 Filed & Entered: 02/13/2012
Terminated: 03/14/2012
Chapter 7 Trustee's Report of No Distribution
On Feb 13 there is an entry for that report, but no document is attached.
Filed & Entered: 03/14/2012
Close Bankruptcy Case
48 Filed & Entered: 03/14/2012
Order Approving Trustee's Report of No Distribution and Closing Case
47 Filed: 02/16/2012
Entered: 02/17/2012
Terminated: 03/14/2012
BNC Certificate of Mailing
45 Filed & Entered: 02/13/2012
Terminated: 03/14/2012
Asset to No Asset
46 Filed & Entered: 02/13/2012
Terminated: 03/14/2012
Chapter 7 Trustee's Report of No Distribution
Yea. We will know soon. I just checked that filing out the best I could. We have had legal eyes on it as well. We are good.
This would be a lot easier if my Wife was around....."Most Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases are “no asset” cases. That means that the trustee examines the debtor and closes the case without administering any assets.
In these situations, the trustee has concluded that whatever assets the debtor has, whether they may include a house, car, money in the bank, or personal possessions, are either exempt, or have such a small non-exempt value that they are not worth administering.
When a bankruptcy case is a no-asset case, the trustee will file a certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5009 indicating various information as part of the process of closing the case. This is called a “no asset report” and it means good news for the debtor, because the trustee has decided to close the case without taking any further action.
Most Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases on Long Island are closed with no asset reports.
The no asset report includes statements from the trustee that he has neither received any property nor paid any money on account of the estate; that he made a diligent inquiry into the financial affairs of the debtor(s) and the location of the property belonging to the estate; and that there is no property available for distribution from the estate over and above that exempted by law.
In the report, the trustee further certifies that the estate of the debtor(s) has been fully administered, and that the trustee requests to be discharged from any further duties as trustee.
Most Long Island Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees file their no asset reports within a few days or weeks after examining the debtor at the meeting of creditors."
http://longislandbankruptcyblog.com/chapter-7-trustees-report-distribution/
I hope you're right 4u. We should know soon.
Followers
|
14
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
327
|
Created
|
07/29/07
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Red flags are usually a signal that something is not right with a stock. It could be a Gagged T/A or float bloat. Sometimes it's a poster who hints of insider information. We all have our own thoughts of what signals a red flag , but many of them are the same.
This forum is here to discuss red flags and the companies that raise them.
If you have been in a stock or are in one now and think a red flag is flying, post it here. We will list and discuss all signals that are considered by some to be a red flag.
Good jokes are allowed too.
Please refrain from personal attacks and foul language and remember.........
It is always better to wish you had invested in a company than to wish you hadn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top ten RED FLAGS. (A work in progress)
1. A gagged transfer Agent
2. A forward split to reward shareholders.
3. Large volume increase after news and no up tick.
4. Any Astrom company or shell.
5. Pumpers. A poster who floods the board with positive posts about the company when there is nothing positive to be found or verified. Usually posts on that one board.
6. Insider information? Continued hints of upcoming news and unannounced contracts.
7. A pinkie CEO who talks to specific shareholders but doesn't PR the information to the public
8. Lack of follow through. Pr's or LOI's that never happen. The promise of an audit or financials that never materialize
9. Unusually large float or AS
10. The promise of moving to a larger exchange.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stocks I've red flagged and my position if any.
VCSY, almost 1B float, heavy pumping, (I own a pile.)
XDMC, XTend Medical Corp. Was PRRM, then SMMW and now this. First move of new management was a 8334 to 1 reverse split. Stock should have been in the low .80's after the RS and opened near .50
It has drooped since and has touched the mid .03's
Board was moderated by pump minded people (IMHO) and has little value.
This stock just has a 10% divi to reward shareholders. looking for float bloat.
SMMW, 80b A/S almost maxed, Astrom shell, heavy pumping, lack of follow through, audit promised twice and never delivered.
(Lost trading fee's on 10m)
PODM,now PDVP Astrom shell, split to reward shareholders, Ceo talked to shareholders.....they all got screwed. Companies on their 4 CEO in 2 years.
(Flipped once for nothing).
NRMG, Astrom shell under many symbols, more than 1 RS,
(Owned about 1m of this as NRES, with all the RS's, I think I own about 100 shares now.)
TSXT, Astrom and Hayder shell under many symbols, more than 1 RS,
(Made a 3 bagger when it was ICAN)
IAHL, was .......ICAN, IBCX, TSXT. What the new owners are offering looks too good to be true. It's a pinkie so I'm betting it is. Company take over was paid with prefered restricted shares from what I can see. Will play this one for the momo.
3 flips and counting.
Capital Oil & Gas Inc. Was PODM/PDVP....Repeat after me...........pump, dilute, reverse split.......pump, dilute , reverse split.
Symbol CPOG.PK
I guess I should have said Pump, dilute, reverse split and name change. 10,000 - 1 reverse split and CPOG will now be Southcorp Capitol Inc. Symbol STHC.PK
Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. SPNG Talk of massive naked shorting, a forward split, NOBO lists and lots of hints of insider info. My guess is massive dilution with front end loading.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |