Thanks, man. No, I haven't been very active here or there. Lost my stay-at-home writing gig so had to revive my old construction business. I still check in from time to time. Appreciate the nice sentiment. Be well.

Hey there Tex! Doing well here. Trying to get more wins than losses lol. Still working and getting some swing plays in when I can. Everything here is good, hope you are doing well also, haven't seen you around in a while! I still get to the other site when I can.
Best to you and your family!

nice post: How you doing, Boo?

Securities and Exchange Commission Forms List
SEC filings, forms and descriptions.

http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/secforms.htm

nope. but it sounds good.

Ever heard of this happening?
Lecere Corporation (Pink Sheets:LCRED) was very recently informed by the Depository Trust Company ("DTC") that companies involved in corporate actions such as Lecere's recent 1 for 10,000 reverse stock split will now require an opinion from the company's legal counsel before shares with the company's new CUSIP number can be eligible for deposit within DTC. DTC is the clearing agency for many brokerage firms. As a result of this newly-issued ruling by DTC, investors may experience difficulties in trading Lecere's stock. The Company is working to provide DTC with the requested legal opinion.

FINRA rule change re: corporate actions (dividends, splits, etc):

http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/finra/2009/34-61189.pdf

SWRF Swordfish Financial
Anyone have experience in:
FORM 25
June 14, 2010
NOTIFICATION OF REMOVAL FROM LISTING AND/OR REGISTRATION
UNDER SECTION 12(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/78311/000135445710000166/xslF25X02/primary_doc.xml

Reg D & State laws:

http://www.haganlaw.com/hagan_forms/REVIEW%20OF%20SECURITIES%20LAWS.pdf

Trading and Quotation Halt in OTC Equity Securities

http://finra.complinet.com/en/display/display_plain.html?rbid=2403&element_id=4414&record_id=5496&print=1

don't follow the rules n regs angle... ??? He busted some doozies?

This is your chance into the mind of a CEO of a startup, or in this case a reverse merger BB, so be smart about it

here is one of them posting on I-hub, a rare glimpse into the mind of a penny CEO indeed....veiled threats, excuses, insiders paid for it all and they suffered, I didn't sell, don't ask about my cronies though.....all the good stuff....

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profilea.aspx?user=168211

Pinks: banned lawyers--

"Pink OTC Markets Inc. will not accept Attorney Letters or Legal Opinions from the following attorneys and/or firms:"

http://www.otcmarkets.com/pink/otcguide/no_attorneys.jsp

DTCC begins aggregating trade-for-trade obligations...

http://eon.businesswire.com/portal/site/eon/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100603006033&newsLang=en

Scams involving Treasury securities--renting, leasing; misuse of public debt, certification, blocking:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/statreg/fraud/fraud_scamsinvolving.htm

SEC receiverships:

http://webster.utahbar.org/barjournal/2007/11/sec_receivers_what_are_they_an.html

You can delete this after you read it, if you want to.
http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Mario&Middle=&LastName=Pino&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=63&y=17

OTC short interest:

http://www.otcbb.com/asp/OTCE_Short_Interest.asp

Rule 3210: non-reporting companies, short sale delivery requirements, Reg SHO, SEC Rule 144:

http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p037023.pdf

Man oh man...interesting trivia re NITE trading:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=50492563

Trade execution:

an interesting excerpt (but there's plenty more good stuff)--

Unfortunately, this is not a big discussion board. A few people use it to "store" reg stuff, and as a reference thread.

I asked about it here:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=46456385

and got a coupla replies.

I seriously doubt it will have all the far-ranging effects you're hearing.

You might ask "Sportsjunkie" about it--but it's usually tough to understand his replies...

I have been to the SEC site, but is seems that they make that site hard to use for a reason.

So most of what I have seen comes from the web searches I have done.

Seems most of the online brokers and MM's especially don't like it and I have read allot of their letters to the SEC against implementing this that are easily found online.

On the support side which seems to come mostly from investor advocacy related groups or those few writers not taking pay offs from the industry have pointed out that this new Regulation centralizes trading and this will be way better than the DTCC and replaces them as well. It also forces all the brokers and MM’s to make all trades through the QCF and eliminates intra dealer market making. They say this will eliminate FTD issues and manipulation with the use of FTD's and also better control midpoint pricing abuse that comes from how buys and sell are recorded. Also it will make it so the investor can actually see the FTD's on a stock in real time and not just every 15 days on the SHO short list. Also the SEC will be able to investigate FTD's with great ease as all trades will go through this central location. Also tickers will include a symbol showing if the company is compliant with SEC rules and filings in real time, this way you don’t have to play detective everyday on your stock picks.

Also I am hearing that this might just eliminate or move the pinksheet and grey market stocks off of online trading all together and may be limited at some point down the road to call in orders only with that market eventually disappearing altogether at some point. But not totally sure about that part.

I am also hearing rumors that the online brokers have been quietly eliminating the pinksheet stock choices they are offering in anticipation of this, not sure how true this is, but it seems to be more common practice lately.

Other comments I have read say they think that the administration has said to the major players at Finra "if you want to stay self regulated you need to fix this on your own or we will step in" so Finra is making this move to keep the FEDS out of their business. So Finra needs to convince the MM’s to take the poison pill that cures their illness so to speak, it seems the MM’s think they have no reason to fear the FED.

Others say that the issue of FTD's abuse in the OTCBB and pinks has created huge amounts of what are called Dark Pools. They say if the SEC actually investigated this and made the players clean this up it would crash the market. So they say this is the SEC’s way and the industries way of cleaning up this problem by sweeping everything under the rug at the expense of the shareholders and will be Americas Dirty little secret. Even the critics say this a good thing because if justice was carried out, it would destroy the market and that would be the worst of the two choices on how to handle this. So it is better this way.

The concern I have is how this will effect my positions or I should say bagholding positions that I am stuck in. Will these companies delist and my money will be gone, or will the pinksheet board be subject to call in trades only and reducing the volatility and volume needed to make these trades work. Should I sell now and take the loss or stay and see how it plays out, how much warning will we have. As you see there are tons of questions you can think up.

The bright side is that if this is truthful what I am reading it will bring transparency to the OTCBB or soon to be QCF and will likely direct new capital investment dollars to those companies that deserve it because they play by the rules and this should offset from losses suffered in pink plays and change the system back from a Casino to what it is suppose to be an investment. But this will likely mean no more 1800% runs from these volatile pinks or OTCBB stocks and P&D scams. But this is the benefit that I am uncertain of and want to learn more about. It seems the loudest voice out there are the MM’s who feel no change is needed and I have to wonder why that is, especially when every piece written out there seems to be slanted to the MM’s view of this and every writer writing for them leaves out all the good info that investors need to hear. So basically it looks like they are pushing MM propaganda. As far as the voice of the investor on this subject and how it will affect us, well this seems to be strangely very quiet as evidence by every time I bring this up to someone they have never heard about it and lack of industry publication actually discussing it, I guess if investors actually were paying the bills for these publications then we would hear more, but we are not. I find it strange that E-trade who I use will when I sign into my account page have alerts highlighted showing me new regs or upcoming one’s that effect my business with them, yet somehow don’t alert me to this upcoming reg that can affect me even more than any other reg out there to date.

So anyhow that’s why I am here, as this board seems to be the best place to discuss this and so I hope to get feedback from posters on here including thoughts, opinions, or links to resources, etc.

Better prices and executions are needed. But I can't tell from these whether that's truly the intent--it could well be as Coulson suggests. I'll ask around in the next coupla weeks.

Meanwhile, have you checked for comments at the SEC site? (as mentioned on page 10 of FINRA's pdf?)

Hey TEX,

So here is some additional information that represents both sides PRO vs. Con of this reg.

This one I think is from the SEC and discusses investor protection offered by the consolidation.
http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@rulfil/documents/rulefilings/p120427.pdf


This is one of the several articles put out by Pinksheets. Notice they really only seem to be conerned about their money and not cleaning up the market for investors. They really don't debate why it won't proctect investors they just say it won't
http://www.tradersmagazine.com/news/finra-pink-sheets-otc-markets-104992-1.html?zkPrintable=true


So I hoping to get peoples opinion on if they think this Finra proposal will actually help clean up the market, clean up FTD issues and MM manipulation as it exist in the market today, and lessen the amount of these P&D scam CEO only pinkstocks or is this proposal all just mumbo jumbo.

Thanks,

T9F

Here's the actual rule proposal for those interested http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/finra/2009/34-60999.pdf

Thanks for posting. I'm not familiar with the proposal, but I should get a chance to check your link in a day or two. Maybe someone else will have a comment in the meantime.

Hi Tex, great board and I have been looking for a place to discuss a certian new proposed reg coming up affecting the OTCBB.

I looked at some of the post here so not sure if this fits the board, but here it is http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/finra/2009/34-60999.pdf

The word I am getting is that unless those interests it affects can stop it, it should go into effect as early as this April from what I am hearing

What I hoping to find out from people on this bpard is this?

.1) Do you think it will accpomplish it's goals and clean up this side of the market?

.2) From what I understand it will decrease or eliminate scam pinkies and OTCbb stock because it will make them chose between uplisting to the QCF or delisting. In other words become legit or go grey? They say most scam companies will just dissapear. What do you guys and gals make of it?

.3) Bring transparency to the OTCBB, because it centralizes trades better than the current model of the DTCC and eliminates MM's from trading out side of the DTCC with each other?

.4) Bring transparency to FTD issues and accurate real time reporting of them to the public?

.5 Do you see a risk to investors/traders that might be playing risky bottom plays of getting stuck in a play because this QCF will not allow the stock to trade any more becuase the company Chooses to not uplist?

6.) Does this reg as you read or understand it eliminate pinksheet stocks or OTCBB, OTCQX if it gets approved. In other word could you see allot of TICKERS just simply no longer existing because the will chose not to uplist?

6.) Lastly, Some industry people I have read have said that this will essentially eliminate most if not all of what they call the Dark Pools issue in the pinks and OTC boards. It is essentially the industry's way of sweeping a huge problem under the rug so to speak vs. actually fixing the problem. Do you think there is any merit to this?

Thanks and look forward to any comments

Oh, thanks. Saw that, tried to keep it for later re-post, but am running on free account for a few days.

Thanks, again.

example of a wells notice

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
NORTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE
233 BROADWAY
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10279

PLEASE REPLY TO
AUDRY WEINTROB
(646) 428-1937
April 21, 2004



BY E-MAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

Robert Plotz, Esq.
Orans, Elsen, & Lupert, LLP
One Rockefeller Plaza - 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10020

Re: Track Data Corp. (NY-7227)

Dear Mr. Plotz:

This letter confirms our telephone conversation today, in which we
advised you that the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission
("Commission") intends to recommend that the Commission bring a civil
injunctive action against your client, Barry Hertz, alleging that he
violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In
accordance with Rule 5(c) of the Commission's Rules on Informal and
Other Procedures, 17 C.F.R. ss. 202.5(c), we are offering your client
the opportunity to make a Wells Submission.
In connection with the contemplated action, the staff may seek
disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest on that amount, a civil
penalty, and an officer and director bar. The staff may also seek to
institute an administrative proceeding against Mr. Hertz to determine
what remedial action should be taken against him in the public
interest.
We enclose for your information a copy of Securities Act Release
No. 5310 entitled "Procedures Relating to the Commencement of
Enforcement Proceedings and Termination of Staff Investigations." If
your client wishes to make a written or videotaped submission setting
forth any reasons of law, policy or fact why he believes the civil
injunctive action and administrative proceeding should not be brought,
or bringing any facts to the Commission's attention in connection with
its consideration of this matter, you should forward the submission to
me by no later than May 5, 2004. Any written submission should be
limited to 40 pages, and any video submission should not exceed 12
minutes. Please inform me by no later than April 28, 2004 whether your
client will be making a Wells Submission. Any submission should be
sent to:

Caren N. Pennington
Assistant Regional Director
Securities and Exchange Commission
233 Broadway
New York, NY 10279

In the event the staff makes an enforcement recommendation to the
Commission on this matter, we will forward any submission that you
make to the Commission. Please be advised that the Commission may use
the information contained in such a submission as an admission, or in
any other manner permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence, in
connection with Commission enforcement proceedings, or otherwise. For
your information, a copy of the Commission's Form 1662, "Supplemental
Information for Persons Requested to Supply Information Voluntarily or
Directed to Supply Information Pursuant to a Commission Subpoena," is
enclosed. Please also be advised that any submission you make may be
discoverable by third parties in accordance with applicable law.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (646) 428-1937.

Sincerely,


Audry Weintrob
Senior Attorney

Enclosures: Form 1662
Securities Act Release No. 5310

mil gracias...

Nice board, Tex. ;)

cool board! thanks for the link!

Ya, saw that earlier--thanks for posting it here.

Here's this too:

http://www.compliancebuilding.com/2010/01/13/sec-rearranges-its-enforcement-program/