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.
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.
Dear Matt: congratulations on your tireless support of scam moderators.
You are da bomb.
The SEC suspension isn't hearsay, 100. It clearly says the company has engaged in fraud and other illegal activities.
No, 100 to one, clueless. You have no concept of the economics of shorting or of how markets work.
You are cluless, 100, and I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Hard to figure how that could happen, 100,since CMKX has no registered MM's. You do understand what a one legged pink is, don't you?
And you do understand broker margin requirements for short sales, don't you.
So, 100 to 1, who do you think shorted CMKX, and how?
What did you expect BillyBob? The so-called "bashers" pointed everything about this scam out to the culties who insisted on ignoring the ocean of red flags waving over this scam.
Paybacks are hell.
Reso-I guess that's why HQNT is on the SHO list,eh? Hint: there is no short.
Jig-here's what happens when you don't tax qualify a stock dividend:
It is important to note that the $0.30 per share regular common stock dividend that had a record date of December 31, 2003 and a payment date of January 13, 2004, was reportable on shareholders' 2003 tax returns. The other three common stock dividends and the special common stock dividend paid in 2004 are reportable on shareholders' 2004 tax returns. In addition, the $0.30 per share regular fourth quarter common stock dividend that had a record date of December 31, 2004 and a payment date of January 13, 2005 is also reportable on shareholders' 2004 tax returns.
http://uk.us.biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050225/cgf010_1.html
Nonsense, profit. There is no way the RAO suit, which I believe wasn't even filed when the financials were due, held up anything.
As to the unaudited earnings and "shareholder" equity, it is obvious that both were simply made up numbers that an auditor has refused to certify, particularly the bogus asset value of the "trade credits" and the illiquid stock holdings in other pink sheet trash.
This Rao loss is a big problem, Akron. I doubt that HQNT has either the cash to pay the upcoming judgement that they will record or the ability to file the bond necessary for an appeal of the case.
Should they lose the Ohio Hospital Association fraud appeal, they are then looking at close to $2 million in money judgements to be paid.
Since the stock is now toxic waste and barely trades they have no hope of raising that money through even a massively discounted CD, so it looks like the end is near.
It will be interesting to know if Rao et. al. also got the software back, and to see if Cohn tries an asset shift.
Yes, Akron. One would imagine that a prudent investor would want to thoroughly discuss those issues and seek answers to them from the company.
For example, try as I may I cannot find a single reference to HQNT software other than in the company's press release, nor can I find any discussion of it in groups. I find that curious, given the company's multiple claims of customers.
As for the dividend, it was certainly not announced as tax qualified and I question whether the shares are legally tradeable since there is no registration statement for them. The SEC recently required MLON to announce that they could not distribute an identical "spin off" dividend, and I wonder if the same thing might happen here.
Shareholders might find themselves in the position of experiencing a taxable event while holding illiquid shares.
I wonder what the supporter's view of these issues is. Perhaps since Chinditone is desirous of civil discussion of HQNT he could chime in with his opinion, or tell Resor what Resor's opinion is.
You miss the point, profit, but anybody who believes in a short would.
A dividend in stock is taxable at the time of the dividend unless the company obtains an IRS ruling that it is tax qualified.
That's not necessarily true, Profitscout. The company has to go through the steps of making sure that the stock dividend is tax qualified, which Cohn hasn't done.
Well, Navydude, we know the judgement is in excess of a million, and clearly HQNT doesn't have it, so RAO, should he wish, could force Dougie into involuntary bankruptcy one would think.
Held itself together, navy? It has failed to file, been sent to the pinks, is under SEC investigation, and Jack Anderson has revealed the CEO to be an untrusty liar. It could also have its registration revoked at the whim of the SEC.
Plus it lost the OHA suit, it will almost certainly lose the appeal, and just lost the RAO suit.
The price and volume have collapsed, and there is strong indication that the CEO lied in multiple prior SEC filings.
No evidence exists of a single real customer.
Other than that, it's in great shape.
Navy-It is absolutely untrue to state that OS is being sued by the SEC. Assuming that the moderator is interested in truthrul discussion, he should remove your post.
And those aren't opinions; they are conclusions drawn by the reporter from the available facts.
Did HQNT claim the full value of the trade credits as an asset, or did they not?
Did HQNT include the entire OHA liability on the books, or did they not?
Did HQNT claim that LabQuotient would bring five million dollars to the bottom line, or did they not?
Was HQNT's overall accounting in accordance with GAAP, or was it not?
Stockgoesup-the pr issue was the valuation of those stocks, not whether or not MLON owned them.
Meffi-Investigative journalism is not "biased;" it is goal directed, the goal being the public exposure of some wrongdoing of interest to the public, or in the public interest.
If there is only one side to a story, and that side is negative, there is no requirement to attempt balance. The only bias that would be objectionable would be omitting facts that were exculpatory, i.e., selective reporting, or refusing to admit to errors once they were pointed out.
Was the Watergate reporting "biased?"
Akron-I have never known any material fact published by OS to have been demonstrated to be false, and in many cases the OS complaints appear to presage formal SEC action.
That is undeniable. People can rant and rave all they care to about Miles background, which certainly raises a few flags, but I have corresponded with him on a number of occasions and find him to be sincere in his current crusade to expose scams and to attempt to make a living in the process.
As to the latest HQNT legal defeat, I have no doubt that Our Street's report of the loss and jury award were accurate. Cohn now is faced with paying the judgement--which I don't believe he can do--or putting up a bond in the full amount of the judgement in order to appeal--which I doubt he can do either.
I believe that the "new" company involved in the dividend is an attempt by DC to transfer assets to another company and avoid paying the judgement, just as OS documented he did with the various tax liabilities he transferred to various shells.
Now that is funny, investor. DeBeers needs a non reporting pinkie scam so they can be quoted.
As a non public company.
What morons.
Pouch rats, you say? They have invaded the Keys:
http://mrsun.us/2005/01/it-begins.html
So, tsx, where is all that inside drilling information, shill?
As I said, break, posit a coherent and logical economic model.
If DeBeers wanted the property they could have just offered Urban money for his claims, no?
Except he had no claims, baggie.
100-1, please spell out a coherent scenario of how "naked shorts" are created. Be specific, including the liabilities of the brokerage executing the order and their internal controls.
GTC-TZOO was neither sub-penny, nor was there any evidence that was "naked shorted." Try again.
how absolutely absurd, 100-1. Hedge funds have the same margin requirements as anyone else, and they are not going to tie up $500 thousand in non-interest bearing margin to short a 1 million shares of a stock selling at .001 that could yield them at most $1,000 in profits.
Are you that naive, or do you just not have a clue?
Whatever, GTC. You are clearly clueless. Name one verified "naked short" in a sub-penny stock.
Ever.
Casavant is lying, stock-crazy. There is no law or regulation preventing him from saying anything. Other than, of course, the fear of additional charges being levied against him.
GTC-do you have any concept of the economics of shorting a sub-penny piece of trash?
It appears you don't.
Lying again, 100-1. MM's are not trading for their own account and thus cannot profit from the trade.
100-1. No registered MM's to shake the tree, remember?
new pino victim thread on the due diligence board. Mario's been scamming for years:
http://snipurl.com/cx9v
What are you talking about, 100 to 1? There is no "they." It has been pointed out to you on more than one occasion that there are no market makers in this stock. If that fact hasn't penetrated your defenses yet, perhaps you need to call pink sheets and have them explain it to you.
Here is the hard data, gump. Read it and weep, unless you want to assert that the SEC, DTCC, and NSCC are in on the conspiracy:
http://leftysbarandgrill.org/getshorty/bonireport.html
Paranoid tripe, gump. Every single "get shorty" claims on penny and sub-penny tripe has turned out to be bogus.
And if you think for a minute MM's who are not making a market in the stock ended up with tens of billions of shares of fails at the NSCC you are simply nuts. The NSCC data analyzed by Dr. Boni of the University of New Mexico clearly shows that the absolute number of long term penny stock fails is trivial.
But enjoy your fantasy.
Gump-and as you should know, there are no registered market makers for CMKX. It trades on an unsolicited basis, meaning that MM's are not trading for their acccounts, long or short, and are simply posting unsolicited offers to sell or buy that have been routed to them.
That is a simple fact, and one which destroys the ludicrous claims of naked shorting in this sub sub penny stock.
BTW, in situations where MM's are actually shorting in the course of making a market, they are on the ask, not hitting the bid.
100 to 1-If you think hedge funds have a short position in CMKX you know little to nothing about hedge funds, or about the logistics and economics of short selling.
If you think hedge funds have a "naked short" position, you know less than nothing.
Some might call "Iron Bob" a legend; others might characterize him as a geriatric, mobbed-up con-man.
Get real, nufced. It's just another of your scams. Coincidence? One thinks not!