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.
Funny as heck. The nerve of some people, LOL.
Enjoy
FYI
Posted by: billiondollarman
In reply to: None Date:11/27/2007 3:43:41 PM
Post #of 5418
Good information for any STOCK!!! After DEC 4TH Some of the MM games may stop and Looks who is worried This is the email from Knight asking the SEC for more time to cover because they were scared it would cause too many short squeezes.. AFter Dec 4th things should get interesting.. imo
Knight Capital Worried about Reg Sho Changes
September 20, 2006
Nancy M. Morris
Secretary
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F. Street, NE
Washington, DC 20549-9303
Re: Release No. 34-54154; File Number S7-12-06
Proposed Amendments to Regulation SHO
Dear Ms. Morris:
Knight Capital Group, Inc. (“Knight”)[1] welcomes the opportunity to offer our comments to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) on the proposed amendments to Regulation SHO.[2] The proposed amendments seek to: (i) eliminate the grandfather provision for fails; (ii) modify the options market maker exemption for closing out fails; and (iii) address the unwinding index arbitrage positions. The Commission also requests comment on a number of additional questions. Since our business will be impacted directly by the proposal relating to the elimination of the grandfather provision, we will focus most of our comments on that issue.
Proposed elimination of the grandfather provision
The Commission proposes to eliminate the grandfather clause of Rule 203(b)(3)(i). This rule generally exempts fails to deliver that existed prior to the security becoming a threshold security. The new amendment would require that all grandfathered fails be closed-out within 35 settlement days from the effective date of the amendment and if a security becomes a threshold security after the effective date, all fails would need to be closed out within 13 consecutive settlement days. We respectfully oppose such a change.
We believe that the empirical data now available shows that this proposal is not necessary – see, Memorandum from the Commission’s Office of Economic Analysis (August 21, 2006). For example, “99.2% of the fails that existed on January 3, 2005 are no longer outstanding as of March 31, 2006” (Memorandum at page 2).
Additionally, the elimination of the grandfather provision will lead to increased volatility in these securities, created by short squeezes as individuals attempt to cover positions. Importantly, the elimination of the grandfather provision will negatively impact bona fide market making and the ability of market makers to provide liquidity. As the Division of Market Regulation correctly noted,
There may be legitimate reasons for a failure to deliver….For example, market makers who sell short thinly traded, illiquid stock in response to customer demand may encounter difficulty in obtaining securities when the time for delivery arrives.
Naked short selling is not necessarily a violation of the federal securities laws or the Commission's rules. Indeed, in certain circumstances, naked short selling contributes to market liquidity. For example, broker-dealers that make a market in a security generally stand ready to buy and sell the security on a regular and continuous basis at a publicly quoted price, even when there are no other buyers or sellers. Thus, market makers must sell a security to a buyer even when there are temporary shortages of that security available in the market. This may occur, for example, if there is a sudden surge in buying interest in that security, or if few investors are selling the security at that time. Because it may take a market maker considerable time to purchase or arrange to borrow the security, a market maker engaged in bona fide market making, particularly in a fast-moving market, may need to sell the security short without having arranged to borrow shares. This is especially true for market makers in thinly traded, illiquid stocks such as securities quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board, as there may be few shares available to purchase or borrow at a given time. (emphasis supplied and citations omitted)
See, Division of Market Regulation: Key Points About Regulation SHO (April 11, 2005).
Thus, to restrict – indeed eliminate, the ability of market makers to satisfy these investor needs will undoubtedly lead to less liquidity, greater volatility, and widening of spreads. Further, in certain instances, restricting bona fide market making in such a fashion could lead to upward price manipulation (i.e., the return of “pump & dump” schemes) causing investors to purchase shares at inflated prices.
If the Commission does determine, however, to move forward with the elimination of the grandfather clause, we urge the Commission to adopt a permanent phase-in period of 35 days for all fails to deliver incurred in securities prior to those securities becoming a threshold security. In addition to the reasons stated above, Knight is very concerned that the elimination of the grandfather provision will necessarily inject a new risk dynamic into the market making process that is nearly impossible to predict and even more difficult to measure. More specifically, when making a decision whether to sell short to an investor seeking to buy a “non-threshold” stock, a market maker today can adequately assess the risk associated with providing liquidity and capital to that order. Although there is always a risk of price movement, a market maker can manage that risk by deciding when to buy back that position. Under the current proposal, the market maker loses that risk management capability. Thus, if the stock is not a threshold security the day the market maker sells short to an investor, but becomes a threshold security shortly thereafter, the risk incurred by the market maker on the day it went short will exponentially increase – since, the market maker can no longer manage its exit point on the position and will now be forced to close that position within 13 consecutive settlement days. In effect, a new and substantial risk will be applied retroactively to a market making decision made in the past. So, through no fault of its own, the market maker is now forced into a potentially precarious – and costly, position.
Consequently, in light of the additional and substantial new risks the market maker is being asked to bear, and since this risk will be incurred in connection with activities designed to serve the investing public (i.e., bona fide market making), we suggest an extended, permanent buy-in period of 35 settlement days in these situations. No harm will come to any investor or the marketplace with this modest extension of time, however it will help market makers somewhat manage this newly created risk.
Additional questions posed by the Commission
The Commission raised additional questions in the proposed amendments which we would also like to address:
1. Should there be, “a mandatory pre-borrow requirement in lieu of a locate requirement for threshold securities with extended fails?”
If the Commission was to adopt a mandatory pre-borrow requirement in lieu of a locate requirement for threshold securities with extended fails to deliver, we submit that the Commission should clarify that such requirement would not be imposed on transactions that are exempted from Rule 203(b)(1) by Rule 203(b)(2). If such transactions are not exempted from the pre-borrow requirement, it could impact a market maker even if it did not have an extended fail. Such a requirement could also provide an un-level playing field to certain market participants. Specifically, broker/dealers that have extensive stock loan businesses will have the advantage of transacting in securities at costs much lower than other firms. Overall costs to other broker/dealers would increase as they would have to use capital and pay higher borrow costs to make a market in the stock even though they are not contributing to the fail. In addition, a market maker would be required to incur these borrow costs if it wanted to post quotations if such quotations may result in the market maker selling stock short. This will impact negatively a market maker’s ability to make markets in threshold securities – thereby reducing liquidity for threshold securities.
2. Should the, “current close-out requirement of 13 consecutive settlement days for Rule 144 restricted threshold securities or other types of threshold securities should be extended?”
Knight supports extending the close-out requirement from 13 consecutive settlement days to at least 35 settlement days for sales in threshold securities related to sales effected pursuant to SEC Rule 144, or other similar situations where delays may occur in settlement. Requiring a close-out of “owned” shares in the 13-day period has resulted in serious consequences to sellers that “own” a security who, through no fault of the seller, were not able to settle the transaction by the 13th day. For example, the mechanics of having the transfer agent remove a restrictive legend often results in delays of settling transaction beyond 13 settlement days. [3] These delays are not a result of the abusive short selling practices that Regulation SHO was intended to address. Instead, they are typically a result of ensuring that proper documentation is received to remove the legend (e.g., an opinion of counsel).
In addition, transactions in restricted securities are typically larger in size and occur over several days or weeks which increases the risk that such transactions will be subject to a buy-in because: (i) the fails associated with the sales of restricted shares may be sufficient enough to cause the security to become a threshold security or delay a security from being removed from the threshold list; [4] and (ii) sellers are typically not permitted to start the process of removing the restrictive legend until after the shares are sold. Moreover, using the last-in-first-out (“LIFO”) method of closing out fails-to-deliver, the seller of restricted securities is subject to a greater risk of buy-in because shares that are delivered to settle one trade may be applied to a subsequent trade that is also causing a fail-to-deliver.[5]
3. Should the Commission except “ETFs or other types of structured products from the definition of threshold securities?”
We support such a proposal and submit that such an exception should extend to other structured products and American Depository Receipts (ADRs). These types of securities are not subject to the potential short selling abuses as there value is derived from an underlying basket of securities or underlying foreign security. In addition, ETFs and ADRs are in continuous distributions making it difficult to determine the correct outstanding shares for such securities. Thus, the securities may become threshold securities when the fails-to-deliver do not amount to 0.5% of the true outstanding shares.
4. Should the Commission, “consider tightening the locate requirements?”
The Commission asks whether it should require that brokers/dealers obtain locates only from sources that will decrement shares. We respectfully oppose this proposal, as it will negatively impact the ability of a broker/dealer to borrow stock. Since the vast majority of locates do not result in an actual borrow by settlement, requiring a decrement base simply on a locate request would have the effect of reducing substantially the available stock for lending – thus, increasing the cost to borrow the shares and overall clearing costs (which, ultimately, may be passed on to the investor). Further, we also believe that a great deal of time and money will need to be spent by the clearing industry in developing systems and procedures designed to accurately count and decrement shares each time a locate is requested, cancelled, etc. In our view, the stock lending market is not based on the ability to deliver all shares for which there is a locate requested – rather, it is based on the ability to deliver stock in those instances where a broker/dealer is required to borrow the stock to settle a short sale. Since most locates do not result in a need to borrow shares to settle trades, there is no compelling reason to tie-up all stock available for lending.
5. Should the Commission require the, “dissemination of aggregate fails data or fails data by individual security?”
We respectfully disagree with this proposal. Such disclosure would cause more confusion as the information is not indicative of abusive short selling, especially in light of fails caused by “owned” securities (restricted sales). Thus, for example, investors may mistakenly believe that a large percentage of fails to deliver is indicative of abusive short selling or problems with the issuer, when it could be a result of an operational delay with a transfer agent or a delay in removing the legend for a restricted securities transaction. This mistaken belief could result in increased volatility in the stock and increased short selling.
If the Commission were to require aggregate fail data to be published, Knight believes that such information should be limited to aggregate street-wide fails by cusip number, and that SROs should publish the data they receive from the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”). In addition, the data should only be published for securities that are on the threshold list for 35 consecutive settlement days to avoid situations where the security became a threshold security as a result of restricted securities transactions or operational delays.
6. Should the Commission require, “additional specific documentation of long sales?”
We would oppose such a new requirement. We are not aware of any data which suggests there is a problem in this area. Most broker/dealers have fairly extensive compliance and supervisory requirements designed to confirm sales are properly marked “long” or “short” and to monitor settlement of transactions by its clients. This new proposal will add substantial costs to an already robust infrastructure, with minimal benefit. However, if the Commission does seek to amend Regulation SHO to require increased documentation for long sales, Knight submits that an executing broker should be exempt from such requirements when there is: (i) a prime brokerage relationship; (ii) the trade is a DVP trade; (iii) settlement instructions are on file with the executing broker; or, (iv) the order is sent electronically.
Conclusion
We commend the continued efforts of the Commission to make improvements to Regulation SHO and the marketplace. Knight would welcome the opportunity to discuss our comments with the Commission.
yep! First Tuesday in December! Very important...LOL
Sorry wrong posters.
Saw some comments about DEC 4 deadline. Have not been following. Didn't know of a new deadline for anything.
But while I'm here, do you know of anything important about DEC 4 ?
which post is that? I don't recall saying anything about DEC 4!
good stevo
thx for asking
*sigh*
FYI this is not the *banned at SWVC* board. If you want to converse about conspiricy theories relating to KK and SWVC please do so over PM. Thank you.
sweet. Will take a look!
Also, another one I like right now is TRGD
More value there than $.50/share IMO
GLTA
NNTN starting to look grossly undervalued at a market cap of $1.1M, with sales of $19M
MACD on the way back up
good for a flip soon IMO (don't get stuck in it though like I did last time)
All IMO...do your own DD!
dude, the reason there are as you call them bagholders is because they didnt sell.
Pennys are not for holding. they are for trading. Like we used to do with baseball cards. Of course I would love to have back the Bob Gibsons and Henry Aarons...
Anyway, its only a bagholder if they stop trading. other than that its only a matter of time.
I personally take my losses small and move on.
Very very few Pinks or OTC are profitable. They are start=ups. high risk high reward.
Can't believe the stories!! its a start-up man A dollar and a dream!
You have been missing the point to all my posts. I could care less if it was 15 mill or zero!! Retail has known about the debit & dilution for sometime! You don't need a CEO to tell you, what you know. Retail still bought up and are selling down. RIGHT!
It doesn't matter what the company does on the OTC > What matters is what the insiders, VCs & M&Ms do, that motivate retail to buy or sell! They move the stock PPs.
VC Debit, dilution, reverse splits, letters of intent, OTC shareholder dividens, Revs, negative margins, exchange moves, market cap, execution news, fluff PRs, pumpers effect, bashers effect, and on and on!! All just words, half understood.
On the OTC, average retail buys in runs and they sell in dives. Long & strongs add on during climbs & average down during walkdowns.
And after all the above, within 3 to 4 months later, big guys will be richer and little guys will make them so.
The OTC is a trading vehical, and TOM or Harry or George, all the CEO's, message boards seem to know on a first name bases, will not do what they want!
Save there ass!
OT, Crooked is Cubs Park the same as Wrigleyville? I know the area a little bit, havent been there in years though.
Agree one hundred percent. BTW: people have called me a paid basher, just because I disagree with them. I'm neither sitting in a "boiler room", nor am I a disgruntled sh, nor do I get paid for anything I post on these boards. I have yet to see proof of a paid basher.
And if longs had listened to me from the beginning, they would have sold their shares at 5-6 cents and not at 1 cent or less.
yup....responding to the request, and it happened that the post on SWVC was timely on topic to that request......as far as soapy....dunno....but he has been right about some details that are often overlooked....I Like His/Her analysis.......GLTY.....
SWVC doesn't need paid bashers, cornell wants to get as much for there shares as possible. If anything SWVC is riddled with paid pumpers. Cornell got there shares for .001. They would be delighted to get .05 for there shares. You can bet they will pump as much as possible untill cornell is out, and there job done.
Where did soapy bubbles come from all of a sudden, pumping !!!
Here is a post from a well respected Ihubber...eom
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=24640091
hmmm...I have often worndered about this
if the next turn of events on that *other* board is what I think it may be then I will be very suspicious!
Cornells SWVC puppets you means
There was 70 million more converted just a few days ago, conversion appears to be speeding up not slowing down.
Lowtrade, Tom has acceted a shell that will cost close to 15 million dollers in the end. That is the reason we are going down no other, There is only so many shareholders out there to buy Cornells shares.
The big question is why tom accepted this. He knew it was there, nobody is stupid enough to believe that he didn't. Looks like Tom's family(candant) and friends(KK) were the big winners along with cornell and highgate. Likely cornell had their pumper plants on the SWVC board to try and get most $ for their shares.
15 million dollers would easily finance another 20 stores. Tom could of came clean about this debt and conversion rate along TIME AGO. Now SWVC has countless bagholders above 4 cents that will likely never see there money back.
I believe used SWVC to pay off his and friends previous debt and using hacketts to legitimise it. In other words he is a scumbag with a suit. But there is enough pumpers out there to make people think he is the best thing ever, Mr "transparent".
Just my 2 cents, got banned on the pump board for calling it like it is. What a surprise.
Venture Capitalist
An investor who either provides capital to startup ventures or supports small companies that wish to expand but do not have access to public funding.
Venture capitalists usually expect higher returns for the additional risks taken.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/venturecapitalist.asp
LOL
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/vulturecapitalist.asp
Ever see a small airline take over a bigger one. I think it was recent, not norhtwest but someone else. Great manager merged the two and made it work for all. Not easy, but the relationship is all ready there.
Enjoy
Close and don't forget the SWVC shareholders. This is the type of following that GS used to have.
Enjoy
Very well said.
Enjoy
I know it was stated that the new acquisition would be announced by end of year, but that sure is some fast and furious action for the last quarter. How does a holding company the size of SWVC absorb something like GSGF? Just new territory for me. How do we as such a small entity make 2 acquisitions in such a short period? (This is all hypothetical of course. But, the wind sure seems to be blowing this direction).
cornell, etc are all VC's according to LOW...I think he refers to anyone loaning $ for shares, banks, VC's, Hedgies, etc...just for simplicity...but correct me if I am wrong LOW
And who might lowtrade consider VCs?
well one thought I had was that they conveniently left a bunch of debt in GSHF, didn't they?
it makes sense to SWVC for obvious reasons...they real question is, what's in it for Greenshift? Consolidating into SWVC, a compay with REAL tangible assets, would help them restructure their debt...that could be one benefit...otherwise I am not quite sure
venture capitalist
Point #3 could be the biggest X factor. I am just now starting to perform DD on the whole Greenshift issue. It is a bleepin' Rubiks cube. Who is at the top of the GS pyramid now and would the whole array possibly fall under SWVC? What is the motivation for Greenshift and SWVC to make a move like this? I think that is the first question.
Forgive me lowtrade, I read all this talk of VCs and I have not a clue what VC stands for. Thanks in advance for making me smarter.
I agree...from my email discussions with Tom, as best I can tell, he seems to have his priorities directly aligned with what's best for shareholders...I think SWVC is clearly oversold...it may not be worth $.08 right now...but it's certainly worth more than $.015...maybe an appropriate middle is $.03 for now...
Three events will propell us to $.05 and then $.15 in the next 6 months IMO
1. Cornell/Highgate/Candent done...no brainer. We have traded roughly 336M shares in November thus far. Remove 1/2 for flippers and you are left with 168M shares...of which 166M has been due to dilution...that's 2M remaining...what that tells me is that most LONGS are staying true to their titles...when the dilution stops...fliping will get harder...thus leading to more longs IMO immediately and an instant pps adjustment up...all IMO of course
2. Line of credit (non-dilutive), Hackett's expansion news. This will signal two things for investors, one, REAL banks (not Cornell) see SWVC as a company worthy of investment...and if they feel this way, with all the access to risk analysis they have, that should signal to others that SWVC is the real deal...I know from current experience with other CEO's I've worked with that raising money from banks in this environment is next to impossible so that news will be a lot bigger than most realize at this point in my opinion...and then to boot there will be excitment when folks learn about how this money will be spent, i.e growth of Hacketts...each store right now is roughly 35,000 sq. ft....at $100/per sq foot in sales, that's $3.5M annually per store...if they announce expansion to 20 stores more, that's substantial...$70M more in revs projected...these two things combined with add much value
3. Obviously #3 is the next acquision...I have no clue what this may be...it seems that there is a lot of shuffling going on at the other camp, i.e. Greenshift...having worked in 2 LARGE banks thus far in my career, I know that usually this *shuffling* is followed by change...so my guess is that GS Agri will happen
all IMO Gl, thanks for stopping by
I welcome this board as an escape from the lunacy that is another board. In the midst of all the turmoil I have to keep telling myself that nothing has changed to alter the fundemental assessment I originally made when I invested. I knew dilution was going to happen. I came to grips with that a long time ago. Yes it is a drag to watch this slow bleed downward. But, the truth is, the most important thing for this company is for it to position itself for intrinsic growth. Short term PPS (as we have seen) spurts will be fleeting. Once a base to start from is demonstrated, I think goodwill associated with Tom S. business savvy will add to our P/E multiple as we move forward (yes I am an optimist). I just hope there are no big surprises when the Hacketts audit is complete. That could change everything for me.
There is one, a former moderator I think, that disapeared for quite some time only to pop up again recently. Yesterday they popped in to make one or two posts. I caught this person in a blatant lie about Mr Ettore and they were strangely silent the rest of the day. As you say, the ones that appear to be the most nonchalant are the ones that make my spider sense tingle the most, even more than the ones that bluster the loudest.
I figure we could all use a break from all the BS on *some* boards
Good post texasjerry
nice board crooked - have fun with it!
I think if there is a problem with SWVC, it is that it was reverse engineered. Like Frankenstein if you build something fingers first and add life later it is going to be clumsy for awhile. Tom had a blueprint before he ever acquired Wise B. I would think if anything he is amazed at the success of and interest in his "new" company.
Conceder it a back rub, to relieve the stress. If there is a real problem, your pain will return. LOL Maybe you'll need acupuncture if there are 2 more down 10% days. I know I will, that will cause me to take my second and last loss, LOL
BTW LOW
although I don't post on your board I read it daily. Very informative and although I don't ALWAYS agree with your theories, I'd definitely be lying if I said I haven't learned a thing or two from it...I ALMOST bought IOPM at $.09...just missed that sucker...in any case, I'd love if you could keep me in the loop on your plays...if anything just for educational purposes...GN
makes sense...thanks again Low, I owe you one weekend pick-me-up...started out poor but seems to be turning
ok..building on the IBOX...topic of the night is paid pumpers
who among us (aside from me) thinks that some of the MODS on certain boards may be paid?
Has anyone researched when they started posting?
Has anyone researched the shifts they work?
Has anyone looked at where they get their DD?
Has anyone noticed that they dissappear for long periods of time when trouble lurks?
Has anyone noticed a recent merging of members on DIFFERENT but related boards, apparently now working together? Conspiricy theory?
BUT...most importantly...has anyone noticed that THEY don't get upset when the pps collapses???
let's discuss that last one for a minute.
To elaborate: it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know who is truly hurting and who is not when the pps of a given stock falls 10% daily...and especially when it happens day after day...everyone has a breaking point, well almost everyone. MODS don't always seemed to be fazed...why is this?
Losing money on something you are passionate about is not an emotion that is not easily hidden or easily fabricated. So how do they do it?
Just throwing it out there for discussion...
The price will go up, when the volume goes down, or the VCs feel it's time to run the stock.
I agree with retail being tapped out. I,ve posted about that weeks ago.
A subject I try to teach at my board. All in, Bad! Can't support you investment when needed. I don't like adveraging down. The numbers don't support that action. ROI & capital presevation wise, it's better to take a loss, go to the sidelines and re enter lower after a turn up, or stay out, with a smaller loss.
But watch what happens when the PPs starts up again. Some new blood always comes from somewhere. There is always people wanting part of a good thing, in pennyland. And on the OTC, a good thing, is a running stock, not good startup company.
I'm a cold fish, and rarely DD more then once. Then I read each PR cycle released, and wait for the retail reaction seen in the TA & charts to trade the play. This one has my attention more then normal, because it's action is different. Trying to learn as it plays out, so I am looking closer to what's going on. The reactions are normal, but the reasons & timing aren't. Can't figure it out, so I decided a while ago to just except it and go along.
I have to admit SWVC has been a new twist. Runs before news, dives on execution news. Huge dilution, actually seen while it happened. The biggest boldest manipulation I've ever seen.
But retails reaction are right on Q. Buying the runs & selling the takedowns. And cries of this company is the best thing since the sandwich, and all the big guys are crooks & liers. Message board pumpers & bashers, emotions flying up & down daily.
What is happening is normal. The VCs leading retail by the greed nose ring. What's unusual is the timing and why the timing is off.
Your comments about lying, cheating, ETC is the market we trade in, Got to learn to live with it. I did, right after the REG SHO became effective, with a grandfathers clause !!! and no inforcement.
So I guess I have a small advantage in that respect. I expect it!!!! I know it's part of my business and I expect VCs to get huge profits and I Never believe the PR story, only what is in the SEC filings.
IMO this company is in good shape and deserves the normal retail reaction to news. Problem is for some reason the VCs are working the system backwards.
That's why I started posting about the VC run for profit cycle, instead of the PR cycle, on this one. It confuses the hell out of me why, the big guys are working the play differently. I can't tinfoil hat the reasons, but hey, I have taken 5 gains and 1 loss with them so far. So I'll continue to play the run for profits play, instead of the PR hype play, with SWVC.
All the game players are here, like a PR hype play. So my 3 month temp job employment is safe so far. LOL Just waiting for the next VC business execution run, instead of the next PR cycle execution news.
IMO They only sold 1/3 of their powder (shares) in month one, and still have 2/3rds to sell in the next 2 months. They have enogh now, so they really don't need to convert any more. Expect we'll see a little here & there, But I think the worst is over. Doesn't really matter though. If it continues to be so easy to run the stock with the dilution. They may just to continue. If it gets hard, they probably will stop.
IMO if they take it down below the second run climb .013 gap fill for long, they will be shooting theirselves in the foot. Doubt that will happen. They should be smarter then that.
But as long as retail supports the takedown with volume, I could bounce off a low below that.
At any rate, thought I'd try to pick you up a little with all my babble. I'm looking at the next hill after this valley. And expect to have a sandwich at the top. LOL Night
We will see. Could be wrong, That has happened. And that's when I sell at my next loss target and move on.
honestly no I don't
There's a reason why Cornell/Highgate did not convert at all from August 29 - September 11
My original hypothesis of the first run to $.086 was one of two things: either Tom buying back shares or C/Highgate ceasing to convert and sell them...it turned out to be the second one as we now know
Given the numbers they still have remaining my guess is that they will freeze conversions for another short period of time and let the pps snap back to a pps that is not grossly oversold, one that better reflects the true value of the company (and that will be set by retail)...IMO they DO watch the boards, investor sentiment, etc...KNOW YOUR CUSTOMERS! It's no different then sales...know what your customers are thinking...are prices too high? Too low? etc...
and when they do the bounce will be severe and sudden
everyone seems to agree it will happen so the question is when...so, back to my original point, I am adding rather than trying to flip and re-enter...just knowing that I plan to add makes this less painful...you know, It's cool if it goes up cause I own a ton but it's cool if it goes down cause I can get more...
you dont feel this might slip into the double zeros?
mind you im not starting to bash...im just curious your thoughts
low
thanks again for your notes...made me fee better about SWVC
enjoy your weekend
naw, still in
decided rather then flip SWVC I would accumulate (although I must admit that I have flipped this once in the last 5 months)
after being down 17 of 19 days flipping is too dangerous
nothing like watching your investment fall 85% from the high and then have to chase it back up lol
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |