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.
They use the 'favour' system.
It's a business.
Euthydemus, this is the part I like reading:
"...Under Regulation SHO, Market makers, including specialists and options market makers, are not exempt from the close-out provisions. Nor are they exempt from the prior-borrowing requirement for additional short sales by those with extended fails in threshold securities. Short sales by hedgers and arbitrageurs are not exempt..."
STOCKGATE TODAY UPDATE (January 2, 2005)
An online newspaper reporting the issues of Securities Fraud
Wall Street’s Conflict of Interest Continues – January 2, 2005
By David Patch
Illegal short selling. The shorting of a security whereby, at settlement date, the executing broker-dealer fails to borrow a share for delivery at settlement. The result, a persistent and abusive fail in the system. While this is a violation of several Securities Laws, to date nobody has actively enforced such laws. It has become a financial conflict of interest.
Regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) identifies the illegal shorting as complicated. Of course it is complicated, illegal shorting creates trade volumes and trade volumes create revenues. Illegal shorting also creates sell side pressure and sell side imbalance, pressure that steals from long shareholder investments.
The complication comes by way of ethical conflict vs. greed.
The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC) is a monopolistic Wall Street agency that has responsibility for the clearance and settlement of all trades. The Agency, operating as a self Regulatory organization (SRO), has a boardroom full of Wall Street executives. This agency is responsible for maintaining records of trade settlements, becomes a centralized stock loan department, and is required to penalize those who abuse the settlement system. The latter is rarely executed.
When a trade takes place, the SEC receives a fee from both the buyer and seller that is used to pay a portion of the SEC’s costs. Likewise, the DTCC will receive a fee for every trade that passes through their agency regardless of whether the trade settles or not. To both, trade volumes mean money. For the DTCC, if they get too much money, they will rebate Wall Street but Wall Street will not rebate the clients.
As the latest David vs. Goliath was developing, Wall Street vs. Small issuers and investors over the “naked shorting”, the DTC stated publicly:
"DTC rules do not allow its participants to be short in deliveries to other participant firms. While a brokerage firm can lend shares to an investor, the brokerage firm cannot be short in delivering shares to another brokerage firm through DTC. If necessary, a firm can and must borrow shares from one or more brokerage firms that currently have enough shares in inventory to lend. Brokers who fail to deliver shares owed at DTC are subject to penalties."
But this statement is directly refuted by Professor Leslie Boni, a visiting economic scholar to the SEC and the SEC themselves. In the Professor’s report, “Strategic Delivery Failures in the US Equity Markets” the professor used data provided by the NSCC, a division of the DTCC, to expose the magnitude of fails in the US equity trading system. The professor claims that not only are fails persistent in the markets but that the decision to borrow shares has nothing to do with settling trades but instead is based on the cost to borrow a share for delivery. The professor’s report highlights that over 50% of all eligible trading securities have persistent fails in the system.
So where are those penalties the DTC imposes on broker-dealers who fail to deliver shares? If a firm cannot be short in delivering shares to another firm at the DTC, how is it the DTCC system has significant fails on their books, fails that have a mean time to delivery of 13 days on the NYSE, NASDAQ, and AMEX and 56 Days on the OTCBB and pink sheets according to the DTCC’s own documents?
The ultimate answer falls into a simple phrase. Grandfathered Fraud! The SEC, in their newly created short selling reform Regulation SHO had identified that the magnitude of fails was so prevalent in our markets that they would be required to grandfather in all past fails as being exempt from a mandatory close-out. That is right, the SEC grandfathered in fails that violated the law because of the shear magnitude of the fails in the system. It meant nothing to the SEC that the fails were securities violations in the first place. It meant nothing that a Wall Street controlled DTCC was hiding the evidence of fails from the investing public; the fraud was so prevalent we had to grandfather it. Section 17A of the securities Act of 1934 required prompt settlement of trades. Rule 15c6-1 require broker-dealers to only enter into a contract for trades that would not exceed 3-days and yet the DTCC’s own records indicate massive violations that have never been enforced.
Today, there are over 1000 publicly traded companies with persistent fails in the system. Those companies include household NYSE companies such as Martha Stewart Living, Delta Air lines, and Winn Dixie. We know this because the NYSE posted their problem securities on their web site. All 60 of them. The NASDAQ will be posting their first threshold list on January 7th. Expect to see more household names listed.
The conflicts of interest on Wall Street are too prevalent to expect Wall Street to police themselves. When confronted with an ethical situation Wall Street has repeatedly proven that their greed for power and money would lead their decision making process. This is only further exacerbated by a Federal Agency, the SEC, willing to look the other way due to the contributions this power and money can bring into Washington.
While I do not have all the answers to this one, this is for certain you do not grandfather in fraud simply to protect the financial stability of those who committed the crime. We did that with the research conflicts and our economy suffered because of it. We are now doing it with the foundation of our markets - trade settlements. What are our markets if the buyer is not provided the goods purchased?
To research more into this story go to:
http://www.unm.edu/~boni/Fails_paper_Nov2004.doc
- “Strategic Delivery Failures in US Equity Markets”
www.nyse.com/threshold
- NYSE List of Settlement Problem Securities
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-50103.pdf
- SEC Regulation SHO
Wall Street has yet again proven ethics plays second fiddle to greed in their homes. Ask your Congressman how this can continue in a Nation who’s foundation is equal rights.
For more on this issue please visit the Host site at
www.investigatethesec.com
Copyright 2004
STOCKGATE TODAY UPDATE (January 2, 2005)
An online newspaper reporting the issues of Securities Fraud
Wall Street’s Conflict of Interest Continues – January 2, 2005
By David Patch
Illegal short selling. The shorting of a security whereby, at settlement date, the executing broker-dealer fails to borrow a share for delivery at settlement. The result, a persistent and abusive fail in the system. While this is a violation of several Securities Laws, to date nobody has actively enforced such laws. It has become a financial conflict of interest.
Regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) identifies the illegal shorting as complicated. Of course it is complicated, illegal shorting creates trade volumes and trade volumes create revenues. Illegal shorting also creates sell side pressure and sell side imbalance, pressure that steals from long shareholder investments.
The complication comes by way of ethical conflict vs. greed.
The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC) is a monopolistic Wall Street agency that has responsibility for the clearance and settlement of all trades. The Agency, operating as a self Regulatory organization (SRO), has a boardroom full of Wall Street executives. This agency is responsible for maintaining records of trade settlements, becomes a centralized stock loan department, and is required to penalize those who abuse the settlement system. The latter is rarely executed.
When a trade takes place, the SEC receives a fee from both the buyer and seller that is used to pay a portion of the SEC’s costs. Likewise, the DTCC will receive a fee for every trade that passes through their agency regardless of whether the trade settles or not. To both, trade volumes mean money. For the DTCC, if they get too much money, they will rebate Wall Street but Wall Street will not rebate the clients.
As the latest David vs. Goliath was developing, Wall Street vs. Small issuers and investors over the “naked shorting”, the DTC stated publicly:
"DTC rules do not allow its participants to be short in deliveries to other participant firms. While a brokerage firm can lend shares to an investor, the brokerage firm cannot be short in delivering shares to another brokerage firm through DTC. If necessary, a firm can and must borrow shares from one or more brokerage firms that currently have enough shares in inventory to lend. Brokers who fail to deliver shares owed at DTC are subject to penalties."
But this statement is directly refuted by Professor Leslie Boni, a visiting economic scholar to the SEC and the SEC themselves. In the Professor’s report, “Strategic Delivery Failures in the US Equity Markets” the professor used data provided by the NSCC, a division of the DTCC, to expose the magnitude of fails in the US equity trading system. The professor claims that not only are fails persistent in the markets but that the decision to borrow shares has nothing to do with settling trades but instead is based on the cost to borrow a share for delivery. The professor’s report highlights that over 50% of all eligible trading securities have persistent fails in the system.
So where are those penalties the DTC imposes on broker-dealers who fail to deliver shares? If a firm cannot be short in delivering shares to another firm at the DTC, how is it the DTCC system has significant fails on their books, fails that have a mean time to delivery of 13 days on the NYSE, NASDAQ, and AMEX and 56 Days on the OTCBB and pink sheets according to the DTCC’s own documents?
The ultimate answer falls into a simple phrase. Grandfathered Fraud! The SEC, in their newly created short selling reform Regulation SHO had identified that the magnitude of fails was so prevalent in our markets that they would be required to grandfather in all past fails as being exempt from a mandatory close-out. That is right, the SEC grandfathered in fails that violated the law because of the shear magnitude of the fails in the system. It meant nothing to the SEC that the fails were securities violations in the first place. It meant nothing that a Wall Street controlled DTCC was hiding the evidence of fails from the investing public; the fraud was so prevalent we had to grandfather it. Section 17A of the securities Act of 1934 required prompt settlement of trades. Rule 15c6-1 require broker-dealers to only enter into a contract for trades that would not exceed 3-days and yet the DTCC’s own records indicate massive violations that have never been enforced.
Today, there are over 1000 publicly traded companies with persistent fails in the system. Those companies include household NYSE companies such as Martha Stewart Living, Delta Air lines, and Winn Dixie. We know this because the NYSE posted their problem securities on their web site. All 60 of them. The NASDAQ will be posting their first threshold list on January 7th. Expect to see more household names listed.
The conflicts of interest on Wall Street are too prevalent to expect Wall Street to police themselves. When confronted with an ethical situation Wall Street has repeatedly proven that their greed for power and money would lead their decision making process. This is only further exacerbated by a Federal Agency, the SEC, willing to look the other way due to the contributions this power and money can bring into Washington.
While I do not have all the answers to this one, this is for certain you do not grandfather in fraud simply to protect the financial stability of those who committed the crime. We did that with the research conflicts and our economy suffered because of it. We are now doing it with the foundation of our markets - trade settlements. What are our markets if the buyer is not provided the goods purchased?
To research more into this story go to:
http://www.unm.edu/~boni/Fails_paper_Nov2004.doc
- “Strategic Delivery Failures in US Equity Markets”
www.nyse.com/threshold
- NYSE List of Settlement Problem Securities
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-50103.pdf
- SEC Regulation SHO
Wall Street has yet again proven ethics plays second fiddle to greed in their homes. Ask your Congressman how this can continue in a Nation who’s foundation is equal rights.
For more on this issue please visit the Host site at www.investigatethesec.com
Copyright 2004
All the best to you and yours for 2005 Zen.
I sure hope you're correct ....
0.0009 +0.0007 1,893,009,860
Is this for real?
Regional mayors to push for better road access to diamond mines
Though the roads are not quite made of diamonds yet, the Mayors of Melfort, Nipawin and Tisdale are hoping for a bit of improved road access to the Fort a La Corne diamond mining sites.
By Melanie Dolton of The Journal
Tuesday December 28, 2004
Melfort Journal — Though the roads are not quite made of diamonds yet, the Mayors of Melfort, Nipawin and Tisdale are hoping for a bit of improved road access to the Fort a La Corne diamond mining sites.
The idea centres on providing better access for contractors from the different communities to the site and was discussed at the November 17 Regional Mayors' meeting.
According to Melfort Mayor Darrell Collins, the mayoral trio will attempt to meet with Eric Cline, Minister of Industry and Resources on the issue at the upcoming Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association (SUMA) Convention in January.
"There are a number of communities on the east side of the exploration site that feel they need better access for business purposes to get in and out and to provide services and supplies to the contractors at the exploration site," said Collins, who has also been in discussion with the Mayor of Choiceland on the matter.
"We are looking for an upgrade to what is called Division Road and there are parts of Division Road that are not an all-weather road. It is not as accessible as it should be. There are some issues at Poplar Creek and English Creek, but Poplar Creek is the most concern because it is not passable."
Calling the current access road a 'forest trail' Collins said that by contacting Minister Cline on the issue it would allow businesses from south of the mine to benefit - including those in Melfort.
"In order for contractors and business people to get in there on a regular basis we need better accessibility," he said of welding, automotive and mining supply services provided by businesses of the three communities.
"Because the mining is only at the exploration stage a gravel road would be the expectation out of this."
Improving the road is in the best interest of all the centres involved in this issue, according to Collins.
"It would maybe allow for expanded services here and I think this needs to be a multi-community approach," said Collins.
"All the communities on the east side of the mine have similar interests in providing services. I think we have to show the cooperation between the communities even though there will be competition in providing the services. In order to make ourselves known at the provincial level we need to approach this cooperatively."
STOCKGATE TODAY
An online newspaper reporting the issues of Securities Fraud
Call in the reinforcements. SEC is once again asleep at the switch. December 28, 2004.
By Dave Patch
So where is Eliot Spitzer?
In the New York Times this past week a front-page article claimed that NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer was stepping down in his role of leader in the sanitization of the unattended fraud taking place on Wall Street. Mr. Spitzer’s Office has denied these allegations instead threatening that the AG’s office had more surprises still to come. And in this Industry riddled with conflicts and greed, the President of the Securities Industries Association (SIA), Marc Lackritz, was campaigning for a softer gentler Eliot Spitzer. Almost pleading Mr. Spitzer and the “Spitzer wannabe’s” to go away and let our negligent regulators play their games.
"The notion that he claimed that the S.E.C. was asleep at the switch, and therefore, that all enforcement activity should fall to the states, that took it too far," said Marc Lackritz, president of the Securities Industry Association. "All of a sudden you had lots of imitators, Spitzer wannabes."
All we need to do now is step back those 3- 4 years and take a closer look at what was taking place during these tumultuous times.
As Wall Street was embroiled in the Research Analysts conflicts, it was Attorney General Spitzer who took the evidence available and acted upon that evidence with swift and purposeful actions. He hurt the Industry who had been hurting investors. The regulators, on the other hand, ignored the e-mails of conflict and Congress shirked responsibility by ignoring the negligent actions of the Regulators. Eventually Senate Banking Chairman Richard Shelby, embarrassed, sat in front of a Wall Street Regulator panel of who’s who and vowed those errors of omission would never take place again.
How short a memory those in D.C. all have.
During this period in time whereby the regulators were meeting with congressional leaders and taking their dose of verbal punishment, the SIA was researching the affects of moving our trade settlement system from the present Trade plus 3 days (T + 3) to T + 1 or even T + 0. The desire was to make the markets more efficient. Unfortunately, the fictitious world the SIA, and Mr. Lackritz, lives in did not include evaluating and addressing the real world situations happening on Wall Street.
Trades are not being settled today at the required T+3 schedule in violation of several congressional laws within the Securities Act of 1934. Specifically Section 17A and Rule 15c6-1. Congressional oversight and the securities regulators know all about these violations. They have been informed time and time again over a span of some twenty years. They were being informed as they were being berated by congress for sleeping at the switch.
In June of 2004 the SEC put out a new reform package, Regulation SHO. This reform package was specifically directed at the short selling abuses, industry failures in compliance, and the ineffective trade settlement process. Regulation SHO defined a “threshold” of abuse, and identified that nearly 4% of all publicly traded companies were above that threshold. A quality level that would make even the most passive management team choke.
How have the members viewed the upcoming Regulation SHO? Listen to what the General Council for Bear Stearns had to say in a December 2004 conference call to prime brokers and clients.
"To give you that brief introduction in Reg SHO, the history how we got to where we are today. For the past few years we have been hearing from many different regulators regarding their concerns about the increase in the levels of fails that they are seeing. They believe, and they have stated on numerous occasions, that one of the primary causes of the high level of fails was that various participants in the short sale process, prime brokers, executing brokers, clients, were not following already established rules."
For several years the regulators have been secretly telling Wall Street that they are concerned about various participants not following established rules? Yet, no appreciable enforcement has been taken during this period in time. NONE! These water cooler conversations between Wall Street and the regulators equate to the e-mails the regulators neglected to address regarding analyst conflicts. The timing, "past several years", would also infer regulators did not learn from their mistakes even as they were living them. As they were being chastised for one indiscretion they were committing yet another.
Chairman Donaldson was making promises to the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee that the SEC would do a better job while his “team” was secretly telling firms they were not complying with pre-existing laws. Secretly because there was neither SEC enforcement action taken nor changes in the industry practices as firms were being told of their compliance failures. The SEC even created a separate task force in early 2003 on this issue and has failed to publish the results of such a task force to the public. Who are they protecting?
How bad has it gotten?
In February 2003 the SEC took their single enforcement action regarding abuses in shorting. The enforcement came against Rhino Advisors for manipulating Sedona Corporation (OTCBB: SDNA) stock as the fraud was driving this small issuer from the NASDAQ Market to the OTCBB market. In the enforcement investigation the SEC came across evidence of wash trades by members to conceal the illegal trades, taped recordings of Rhino Advisors executives bribing several US Firms to collapse the stock, and yet these participating members have never seen any enforcement action against them. In a conspiracy by so many the SEC reduced it down to a single regulatory action.
Also in 2003 a small OTCBB issuer; Universal Express (OTCBB:USXP), began a very public battle with the SEC over their rights to fair market practices. The CEO, Richard Altomare, made public statements about the attacks levied against his company by "Naked Short Sellers". As USXP began to get more vocal the SEC began to initiate what was perceived to be retaliatory attacks on the company itself. The SEC did not take action to address the trade failures; they instead took action to try to quiet the company. Ultimately USXP filed a harassment lawsuit against the SEC in the State of Florida. The SEC in turn filed their own complaint against USXP and Richard Altomare for PR violations.
Soon, we will all know who was right as Regulation SHO requires the list of abused companies to be published daily. The data comes via a "Threshold List" calculated by the SRO’s based on NSCC trade settlement data. Will USXP be on that list? For the integrity of the SEC they better hope it is not.
But these are just the recent events of a timeline that dates back over two decades. The timeline includes Congressional Hearings and allegations of Criminal Elements manipulating our markets. The timeline is best captured in the link below.
http://www.investigatethesec.com/STOCKGATEtoday.doc
With that, what is this “threshold list” anyway?
The threshold list is a listing of all publicly traded reporting companies trading through the DTCC Continuous Net Settlement (CNS) System. To be on the list the SEC identified that an issuer must have fails that exceeds .5% of their outstanding shares and must have greater than 10,000 fails. The SEC has stated publicly that this represents 4% of all publicly traded companies. The list is not to be made available to the public until January 2005 when Regulation SHO comes into affect. It is a "confidential" list according to one SEC source that is not, at this time available to the public.
But is it really confidential? Again I will go back to the Conference call.
"Obviously the threshold security list will be the initial focus of the regulators. They are going to be concentrating on these securities, as these are the securities that are creating the fails in the industry. They have been giving us a list for the last month or so of; if this rule was in place what would the threshold securities look like. As it looks now there is approx 1000 securities that would satisfy, that would meet the threshold list if the rule was in place already."
This list, as it exists, is an accumulation of the book on every member firm trading through the CNS system. It is the accumulation of proprietary information until the laws make it something different. It is not a highlight of any specific firms’ liabilities but an aggregate of all firms' issues. Premature distribution of this list by the regulators to select or all members could be construed as providing inside information not available to the public. It provides each firm with the opportunity to evaluate their book, and their client’s positions, against the Industry as a whole and take action if necessary that best suits their financial interests. The investing public not entitled to that same information, is not granted similar opportunity for corrective action.
Under recent times, we have the regulators admitting that there have been on-going securities violations that are not being enforced. We have regulators providing the Industry with proprietary information to act ahead of the investing public. There is also evidence of false and misleading documents being submitted to Congress. Not just Congress but the Committee responsible for SEC oversight.
The easiest misstatement to prove are the public statements by the SEC claiming that this issue is a small issue that would impact some 4% of all companies. The SEC had a visiting scholar that evaluated Regulation SHO and was provided trade data by the NSCC on some 9000 companies that would be considered for Regulation SHO. By calculation, 4% of the 9000 companies affected by SHO would represent approx 360 firms. Yet, the regulators have been providing a list to members for the past month or more that add up to 1000 or more firms. That represents some 11% and a far cry from the 4% publicly being disclosed.
According to the aforementioned Conference call, of the 1000+ on the list, 800 firms are from the OTCBB/Pink Sheet Markets representing better than 25% of those eligible for this regulation in those trading markets. More than 1 in 4 are abused and yet no enforcement has taken place.
http://www.unm.edu/~boni/Fails_paper_Nov2004.doc
Additional challenges to confront the SEC will be their responses to members of Congress on behalf of Constituents. In June a Constituent of Senator Sarbanes sought answers to documented e-mails from Brokerage firms addressing their inability to settle trades on a security the constituent perceived as being abused by these failures. The Senator, from the Senate Banking and SEC oversight committee, requested of Chairman Donaldson to provide specific answers to potential naked shorting abuses on this security.
In response to the request, the SEC again provided inaccurate and misleading information to the Senator. The author, a Senior Manager at the SEC, identified that the April 2003 e-mails addressing fails and the inability to settle trades to be directly attributed to a June 2004 corporate action taken by the issuer. The timeline is way off. The direct answer to the request by Senator Sarbanes was hidden in a smoke and mirror sideshow. In the end the Senator never received an official answer that satisfied the direct question asked. Was the stock naked short abused as identified by the 2003 e-mails?
So why would the SEC mislead a member of the SEC oversight committee and then, why would the Senator accept such misinformation? Could it be that they are waiting for Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to come back and slap them around yet again?
As a non-political person living far outside the territories of Washington D.C., I am not typically acquainted with the workings of our Nations Government. What I keep hearing however is that our Nations Leaders will never actively address this issue until they are confronted with an embarrassing moment. That is how Washington operates! One of these days, that embarrassing moment will not only come but will put into question the ethics and integrity of their actions.
The threshold list is presently at 1000 companies with the demographics being heavily swayed in the direction of the small business issuers. According the Conference call earlier this month there are 50 - 60 NYSE Companies, 100 AMEX, 100 NASDAQ, and 800 OTCBB/Pink Sheet Companies. It is now the intent of the SEC to get this number reduced as much as possible prior to the January release into to the public. To do this Regulators have been providing this list to the Industry ahead of the public. The SEC has also begun an accelerated effort to de-list as many pink sheet companies as possible prior to January 10th in order to further reduce problem issuers. To date, they have taken better that 50 off the board in the past 6 months. A de-listed company, with excessive fails on the books, is a bailout of the financial liabilities to these Wall Street firms. They never have to settle bad trades. A de-listing will only leave investors suffering as they succumb to 100% losses in their investments.
Your Federal Tax dollars at work! Protect Wall Street elite at all cost.
Where is Eliot Spitzer? Hopefully he is sharpening his pencil for yet another attack on a misguided Federal Agency.
At the time of this report the SEC would not go on record to verify the distribution of the threshold list to Bear Stearns nor would they go on record defending allegations of accepted regulatory failures over these past years.
For more on this issue please visit the Host site at
www.investigatethesec.com .
Copyright 2004
It's on Toronto
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SGF.TO&d=t
From one of the LONGSHOREMEN, a Gent:
Twas the night before valuations
And all through the board
The excited longshoremen considered the horde
Of Fort a la Corne diamonds buried deep in the earth
Whose net present value would soon deliver much mirth
Nopoo at his keyboard; Shorething at his calculator
Had decided for now not to bicker 'till later
When down at the TSE there arose such a clatter
They all rushed to Stockhouse to see what was the matter
They punched in their passwords and "SGF" they were typing
Their brokers couldn't steer them to other plays they were hyping
Their monitors hummed and cast off a glow
Of rising bids making gains leaving the shorters below
And what to their wondering eyes should appear
But President Bush, with beady eyes bulging in fear
His forehead perspired, and he shook at the knees
Poor Bushie was caught in a classic short squeeze
He closed out his play with tears in his eyes
And called out in anger to those he despised:
Rats! Bro and Jesk, and Grouchos and Crocky
GoldenClaude and Halcrow, Dsel and Oldduffer,
Sonny, Piskota, Otherwiser and Gilver,
And so many others to numerous to name
Who were all a little too smart to play Bushie's game
Then just as he headed back to his wee slimy hole
He turned back his head (which looked a bit like a mole)
And said before he slinked away and out of sight
"I guess I was wrong, and you were all right".
Good luck to all you stalwart longs ...
Gent
Looks like Shore Gold is moving ..
SGF B 3.02 A 3.05 L 3.05 +0.11 162,200
I've watched the chart daily for 8 months ... now it's gone.
WHY????
Where did CMKX go?
It's gone from the Pink Sheets
http://www.pinksheets.com/quote/chart.jsp?symbol=CMKX&duration=2-6-A-0-0-009301600
I do.
But it's no concern of yours voodoo.
STOCKGATE TODAY
An online newspaper reporting the issues of Securities Fraud
Wall Street Clearing Firm identifies Regulatory Concerns– December 20,, 2004
By Dave Patch
Has the SEC sacrificed our rights as investors to provide the industry member’s rights to illegal profiteering?
Recently a major Wall Street clearing firm held a conference call with their prime brokerage members to explain the recent reform package out of the SEC regarding short selling; Regulation SHO. At face value the call put the prime brokerages on notice that changes are coming and that the methods of deceit used in the past would no longer be accepted in the future. At face value!
To begin with, let me congratulate the SEC on finally coming to the correct conclusion; settlement failures are the root to the issue. For myself and STOCKGATE TODAY, this conclusion is merely 3 years behind the times. Our investor following and our publications have stated this conclusion for nearly 3 years to an indifferent and sometimes hostile federal agency.
Now, here is what this Major Wall Street firm had to say in their conference call:
1. For the past few years we have been hearing from many of the regulators their growing concerns about the increasing number of fails.
2. SEC change came about due to various market participants not following established rules.
3. “The Primary Brokerage area has always been an area in connection with delivery fails and short sales and that the SEC and SRO's have looked at and have had a concern about and will add higher scrutiny in primary brokerage areas"
4. With the newly created threshold security definition the SEC has begun sending a “would-be” threshold list out for the past month. That list, if published today would be about 1000 companies and would consist of approx 50-60 NYSE, 100 AMEX, and approx 100 NASDAQ Companies. The remaining 800 companies would be from the OTCBB and Pink Sheet stocks.
5. Fails will only be calculated using the CNS settlement data. Should the SEC see a growing number of trades being done at ex-clearing to circumvent this rule than the SEC will rethink their regulation. “They are trying to be flexible with the Industry to keep it operational but if they feel that games are being played they will rethink their proposal”.
Hey, Can anybody in Washington calculate?
The SEC has stated on many occasions now that the threshold security list under Regulation SHO would consist of approx 4% of all publicly traded companies. We now hear that the list is approx 1000 fully reporting companies clearing through the Continuous Net Settlement (CNS) system. A recent report from a visiting scholar at the SEC provided highlights that approx 8000 company’s fall into this category of fully reporting thus making this a 12% problem and not a 4% problem. The number only gets worse when non-reporting and non-CNS trading enter into the calculations.
Of higher concern beyond the SEC’s math failures has been their willingness to allow members to violate established rules without taking appropriate actions. SEC enforcement actions that should have included fines and/or suspensions to violators. How much fraud against retail investors transpired under SEC authorized transgressions? When regulators are aware of participants not following established guidelines and fail to take action, they become part and parcel part of the fraudulent act.
Now, in the midst of all of these failures, the SEC is attempting to protect these same firms by being flexible to their needs. The SEC is utilizing the limited failures of the CNS settlements to calculate threshold securities.
When a major clearing firm, representing hundreds of prime brokerages, have fails inside their “Client Network” those fails are not CNS reporting. In other words, stay within the family and the secret is kept. It then becomes an internal compliance issue and the honor system to meet the settlement criteria here. A Loophole is created that will only be closed by a slow and sometimes arrogant SEC agency.
Finally, let’s take a closer look at the present threshold security list and the demographics of those identified. With a breakdown of 50 – 60 NYSE, 100 AMEX, and 100 Nasdaq, the list appears evenly distributed. But to then have 800 OTCBB and Pink Sheet Companies listed it is blatantly clear that the SEC and SRO’s inaction is directly related to a bias over small business issuers and upstart companies. In 2000 the SEC and NASD went before Congress and addressed abuse and manipulation in the micro-cap stocks vowing Zero-Tolerance to those violators. Recent data highlights their failures and their neglect.
The greed of Wall Street is allowing the sale of unregistered securities to manipulate the micro-cap issuers and in doing so have assisted criminal elements launder their money. It is the cover-up of these illegal acts that prompted the SEC to grandfather in all the fraud pre-SHO regardless of the fact that the SEC acknowledges that industry participants were not following established laws when they failed to settle these trades.
The SEC allowed our investments to be manipulated by Wall Street and now they back Wall Street in keeping the ill-gotten gains.
Wall Street and the Securities and Exchange Commission have set themselves up for major bias lawsuits.
More to follow on this developing story as more publicity and more smoking guns surface.
For more on this issue please visit the Host site at www.investigatethesec.com .
Copyright 2004
Can you say SHORT SQUEEZE and really mean it?
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CLB01219&read=133028
**CMKX - Volume Madness**
What I am about to post might be able to be destroyed very easily by someone who knows more than myself. I'm gonna take a stab at it, though. The volume in CMKX has experienced huge surges at random times in the past. Just last week we had a day with volume in the 35 billion range. We only have access to the last two months of trading for CMKX so that is all I can base this on. Here are some numbers...
(Cluster 1)
2004-12-16 8,855,262,613
2004-12-15 6,412,790,643
2004-12-16 8,855,262,613
2004-12-15 6,412,790,643
2004-12-10 13,118,500,699
2004-12-09 39,651,063,181
(Cluster 2)
2004-10-19 12,097,133,652
2004-10-18 13,098,033,776
2004-10-15 16,119,767,711
2004-10-14 14,770,182,549
2004-10-13 17,605,571,590
2004-10-12 12,198,049,570
2004-10-06 14,838,183,007
2004-10-05 16,615,152,695
There are a many days in between, also, which had higher volume days. Now, we know that there is a lot of manipulation in the penny market and there are rules which are supposed to be followed, but the manipulation is so widespread and the enforcement of rules has been very minimal in the past. We know that CMKX has a great lawyer, Roger Glenn, and it's highly likely that CMKX is being watched more than the typical penny stock. CMKX is most likely on the radar screens of the regulatory agencies. So, why is this significant. Here's what I am speculating on. This is from the NASD website...
"On May 20, 2004, NASD, through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (NASDAQ), filed for immediate effectiveness with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed interpretive material to Rule 6130 clarifying that, as currently required by the text of Rule 6130 (Trade Report Input), a "short sale" or "short sale exempt" indicator, as applicable, is required in all short-sale transactions reported to the Automated Confirmation Transaction Service (ACT), including transactions in: (1) NASDAQ National Market (NNM) securities; (2) NASDAQ SmallCap Market (SmallCap) securities; (3) over-the-counter (OTC) transactions in exchange-listed securities; (4) OTC Bulletin Board; and (5) OTC equity securities.1 New IM-6130 is set forth in Attachment A. Because of confusion that may have existed in the marketplace regarding the application of these requirements, NASD and NASDAQ are providing members additional time to re-program their systems, if necessary, to comply with the clarification. Accordingly, the operative date of these requirements is July 26, 2004."
2004"http://nasd.complinet.com/nasd/display/display.html?rbid=1189&record_id=1159001370&highlight....
My guess is that CMKX would be included in (3) or (5) in the passage above. If you check out other rules on the NASD site it specifically mentions that these rules apply to the "Nasdaq National Market" only, but here it lists other markets. This would mean that, theoretically, the short position on CMKX would need to be reported. It wouldn't surprise me that with a majority of penny stocks this is insignificant, but since CMKX is being watched this could carry some weight. It is in many of our opinions that Roger Glenn created a situation by which it would become known what the o/s really is through dividends. Roger Glenn made it very clear to the regulatory agencies, etc. (SEC, NASD, DTC) what was really taking place with regard to the CMKX share structure.
Now look at this...
"3210. Securities "Failed to Receive" and "Failed to Deliver"
(a) No member, or person associated with a member, shall sell a security for his own account, or buy a security as a broker for a customer (except exempt securities), if,
(1) in respect to domestic securities, he has a fail to deliver in that security 60 days old or older; or
(2) in respect to foreign securities, he has a fail to deliver in that security 90 days old or older (except American Depositary Receipt and Canadian securities, which shall be subject to the provisions of subparagraph (1))."
http://nasd.complinet.com/nasd/display/display.html?rbid=1189&record_id=1159000611&highlight....
The key phrases above are the following: (a) and (1)
This, basically, says that no member can trade a particular security if it has a fail to deliver in that security for 60 days or longer. Now let's go back to the volume above. There were two clusters of surging volume. If you notice the time period that elapsed between the two periods was roughly 45-60 days. So, here's my theory. Could it be that since the market makers are being watched much more closely than the typical penny stock, that they are being very strict in following the rules listed above?
The rules above say that a short position must be covered in 60 days, and since we have experienced a huge surge of volume roughly 60 days apart it could apply here. The rule doesn't say that the short position needs to be covered by real, legitimate shares. It just says that the shares need to be covered. Now, how would the market makers cover their shares without real shares? Here's how: market maker 1 buys naked shorts from market maker 2 to cover his old shorts, and then market maker 1 sells new naked shorts back to market maker 2. In the end market maker 1 and 2 net the same amount of shorted shares, but market maker 1 has updated naked shorts. Thus, the 60 day time frame starts over. Now if they keep doing this they could, theoretically, naked short forever.
Regulation SHO is going to change this, however, because now for any new naked shorts they create on a threshold stock they will have to cover it with a real, legitimate share, instead of covering it with a naked shorted share from another market maker.
My question for someone who knows a lot more than I do: could this situation be taking place with CMKX? Perhaps, I have referenced the wrong rules from the wrong agency or maybe not, but this seems to be what is taking place in roughly 60 day intervals. If this proves to be true then we may now have an idea of what the real naked short position consists of. Just take a rough count of how many shares were traded in each huge volume spike.
From up above:
Naked Short Position (Roughly)
Cluster 1: 83 billion
Clsuter 2: 117 billion
Don't forget there are a lot of days in between with significant volume which could, also, be added into the mix. We can look at these numbers in several ways. From Cluster 2 to Cluster 1 the MMs may have covered some shares, however, if you look on other days there are, also, boatloads of shares being traded. This is a continuous process that the market makers do so no trading day can really be left out. The best way to figure the numbers out would be to take a snapshot of several periods of 60 days and work with them. The only numbers available are on Stockwatch so I will work with that. If anyone has the volume beyond the past 64 or so days let me know so I can work with them. Here's is what I came up with and it's gonna get a little crazy, so you may want to just look at the final outcome...
(Math People Only)
____________________________________________________
Since, I only have 64 days available to work with I broke it up into trading periods of 20 days each. This is 1/3 of 60 days (which is the covering period). This will throw the number off significantly, but it should be reasonable within 25-50 billion, IMO. I added up every period of 20 days and multiplied each by 3 to adapt it to the 60 day interval [SUM(Day 1..Day 20), SUM(Day 2..Day 21), SUM(Day 3..Day 22),...].
Real Total Volume from 9/20/2004 - 12/17/2004: 353,604,013,090
Average Volume from 9/20/2004 - 12/17/2004: 5,525,062,705
Average of 45 trading intervals: 334,537,649,039
This means the average of all the trades taken in 45 intervals of 20 days each
Next, I took each one 20 day interval and subtracted another 20 day interval that came 20 days earlier (I honestly can't explain this well in a post). I then took the average of all the new numbers that I got...
Final average: 300,264,028,799
What this means is that very roughly 300 billion shares are being circulated in every interval of 60 days. Now, mess around with this number a little. Let's say 30 billion are real buys and sells from shareholders or former shareholders...
300,264,028,799 - 30 billion = 270,264,028,799
Now, figure that if MMs are churning shares that for every churn it takes 2 trades, so divide the number by 2...
270,264,028,799 / 2 = 135,132,014,399
Let, put in a margin of error of +- 30 billion. This means the market makers are churning in the range of the following number of shares...
105,132,014,399 - 165,132,014,399
_________________________________________________
(For everybody)
Naked Short Position based on Calculations: 105,132,014,399 - 165,132,014,399 shares of CMKX
Possible Real Naked Short from Clusters 1,2: 87 - 103 billion shares of CMKX
I now believe that when Urban stated there were a trillion naked shorted shares (if he did) he was basically implying that there was a huge amount of shares. IMO, the naked short position above is a huge amount of shares. Also, don't forget that the "big money" hasn't come into CMKX, yet, since it is an unreporting pink sheet stock, but soon enough it will be reporting and the money will be coming in.
Conclusion: The market makers have a huge amount of shares to cover. In order for them to cover the number above at .0002 they would have to dish out $21 - 33 million. At .01 they would have to pay $1 - $1.5 billion. Could you see now why the market makers are keeping the share price of CMKX in the cellar (.0001 - .0002)? Can you see that the more time the market makers have the better chance of them getting back their shares (if nothing happens with CMKX)? Could you see now why the market makers spiked the price and then dropped it, again? They needed funds to later cover CMKX shares as cheap as they could get them. Can you, also, see how much money the market makers would have made if CMKX went into the ground? Consider that they were shorting it way back when it was in the penny range. Can you see how the market makers are working together to try and save each other? Can you see how the O/S of CMKX is going to be quite reasonable and surprising?
Can you say SHORT SQUEEZE and really mean it? By the way, where have all the bashers gone to?
Bash this if you want, but somewhere I think there is some validity to all this!!! Your opinions?
:O)
-Pat-
**CMKX - Volume Madness**
What I am about to post might be able to be destroyed very easily by someone who knows more than myself. I'm gonna take a stab at it, though. The volume in CMKX has experienced huge surges at random times in the past. Just last week we had a day with volume in the 35 billion range. We only have access to the last two months of trading for CMKX so that is all I can base this on. Here are some numbers...
(Cluster 1)
2004-12-16 8,855,262,613
2004-12-15 6,412,790,643
2004-12-16 8,855,262,613
2004-12-15 6,412,790,643
2004-12-10 13,118,500,699
2004-12-09 39,651,063,181
(Cluster 2)
2004-10-19 12,097,133,652
2004-10-18 13,098,033,776
2004-10-15 16,119,767,711
2004-10-14 14,770,182,549
2004-10-13 17,605,571,590
2004-10-12 12,198,049,570
2004-10-06 14,838,183,007
2004-10-05 16,615,152,695
There are a many days in between, also, which had higher volume days. Now, we know that there is a lot of manipulation in the penny market and there are rules which are supposed to be followed, but the manipulation is so widespread and the enforcement of rules has been very minimal in the past. We know that CMKX has a great lawyer, Roger Glenn, and it's highly likely that CMKX is being watched more than the typical penny stock. CMKX is most likely on the radar screens of the regulatory agencies. So, why is this significant. Here's what I am speculating on. This is from the NASD website...
"On May 20, 2004, NASD, through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (NASDAQ), filed for immediate effectiveness with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed interpretive material to Rule 6130 clarifying that, as currently required by the text of Rule 6130 (Trade Report Input), a "short sale" or "short sale exempt" indicator, as applicable, is required in all short-sale transactions reported to the Automated Confirmation Transaction Service (ACT), including transactions in: (1) NASDAQ National Market (NNM) securities; (2) NASDAQ SmallCap Market (SmallCap) securities; (3) over-the-counter (OTC) transactions in exchange-listed securities; (4) OTC Bulletin Board; and (5) OTC equity securities.1 New IM-6130 is set forth in Attachment A. Because of confusion that may have existed in the marketplace regarding the application of these requirements, NASD and NASDAQ are providing members additional time to re-program their systems, if necessary, to comply with the clarification. Accordingly, the operative date of these requirements is July 26, 2004."
2004"http://nasd.complinet.com/nasd/display/display.html?rbid=1189&record_id=1159001370&highlight...
My guess is that CMKX would be included in (3) or (5) in the passage above. If you check out other rules on the NASD site it specifically mentions that these rules apply to the "Nasdaq National Market" only, but here it lists other markets. This would mean that, theoretically, the short position on CMKX would need to be reported. It wouldn't surprise me that with a majority of penny stocks this is insignificant, but since CMKX is being watched this could carry some weight. It is in many of our opinions that Roger Glenn created a situation by which it would become known what the o/s really is through dividends. Roger Glenn made it very clear to the regulatory agencies, etc. (SEC, NASD, DTC) what was really taking place with regard to the CMKX share structure.
Now look at this...
"3210. Securities "Failed to Receive" and "Failed to Deliver"
(a) No member, or person associated with a member, shall sell a security for his own account, or buy a security as a broker for a customer (except exempt securities), if,
(1) in respect to domestic securities, he has a fail to deliver in that security 60 days old or older; or
(2) in respect to foreign securities, he has a fail to deliver in that security 90 days old or older (except American Depositary Receipt and Canadian securities, which shall be subject to the provisions of subparagraph (1))."
http://nasd.complinet.com/nasd/display/display.html?rbid=1189&record_id=1159000611&highlight...
The key phrases above are the following: (a) and (1)
This, basically, says that no member can trade a particular security if it has a fail to deliver in that security for 60 days or longer. Now let's go back to the volume above. There were two clusters of surging volume. If you notice the time period that elapsed between the two periods was roughly 45-60 days. So, here's my theory. Could it be that since the market makers are being watched much more closely than the typical penny stock, that they are being very strict in following the rules listed above?
The rules above say that a short position must be covered in 60 days, and since we have experienced a huge surge of volume roughly 60 days apart it could apply here. The rule doesn't say that the short position needs to be covered by real, legitimate shares. It just says that the shares need to be covered. Now, how would the market makers cover their shares without real shares? Here's how: market maker 1 buys naked shorts from market maker 2 to cover his old shorts, and then market maker 1 sells new naked shorts back to market maker 2. In the end market maker 1 and 2 net the same amount of shorted shares, but market maker 1 has updated naked shorts. Thus, the 60 day time frame starts over. Now if they keep doing this they could, theoretically, naked short forever.
Regulation SHO is going to change this, however, because now for any new naked shorts they create on a threshold stock they will have to cover it with a real, legitimate share, instead of covering it with a naked shorted share from another market maker.
My question for someone who knows a lot more than I do: could this situation be taking place with CMKX? Perhaps, I have referenced the wrong rules from the wrong agency or maybe not, but this seems to be what is taking place in roughly 60 day intervals. If this proves to be true then we may now have an idea of what the real naked short position consists of. Just take a rough count of how many shares were traded in each huge volume spike.
From up above:
Naked Short Position (Roughly)
Cluster 1: 83 billion
Clsuter 2: 117 billion
Don't forget there are a lot of days in between with significant volume which could, also, be added into the mix. We can look at these numbers in several ways. From Cluster 2 to Cluster 1 the MMs may have covered some shares, however, if you look on other days there are, also, boatloads of shares being traded. This is a continuous process that the market makers do so no trading day can really be left out. The best way to figure the numbers out would be to take a snapshot of several periods of 60 days and work with them. The only numbers available are on Stockwatch so I will work with that. If anyone has the volume beyond the past 64 or so days let me know so I can work with them. Here's is what I came up with and it's gonna get a little crazy, so you may want to just look at the final outcome...
(Math People Only)
____________________________________________________
Since, I only have 64 days available to work with I broke it up into trading periods of 20 days each. This is 1/3 of 60 days (which is the covering period). This will throw the number off significantly, but it should be reasonable within 25-50 billion, IMO. I added up every period of 20 days and multiplied each by 3 to adapt it to the 60 day interval [SUM(Day 1..Day 20), SUM(Day 2..Day 21), SUM(Day 3..Day 22),...].
Real Total Volume from 9/20/2004 - 12/17/2004: 353,604,013,090
Average Volume from 9/20/2004 - 12/17/2004: 5,525,062,705
Average of 45 trading intervals: 334,537,649,039
This means the average of all the trades taken in 45 intervals of 20 days each
Next, I took each one 20 day interval and subtracted another 20 day interval that came 20 days earlier (I honestly can't explain this well in a post). I then took the average of all the new numbers that I got...
Final average: 300,264,028,799
What this means is that very roughly 300 billion shares are being circulated in every interval of 60 days. Now, mess around with this number a little. Let's say 30 billion are real buys and sells from shareholders or former shareholders...
300,264,028,799 - 30 billion = 270,264,028,799
Now, figure that if MMs are churning shares that for every churn it takes 2 trades, so divide the number by 2...
270,264,028,799 / 2 = 135,132,014,399
Let, put in a margin of error of +- 30 billion. This means the market makers are churning in the range of the following number of shares...
105,132,014,399 - 165,132,014,399
_________________________________________________
(For everybody)
Naked Short Position based on Calculations: 105,132,014,399 - 165,132,014,399 shares of CMKX
Possible Real Naked Short from Clusters 1,2: 87 - 103 billion shares of CMKX
I now believe that when Urban stated there were a trillion naked shorted shares (if he did) he was basically implying that there was a huge amount of shares. IMO, the naked short position above is a huge amount of shares. Also, don't forget that the "big money" hasn't come into CMKX, yet, since it is an unreporting pink sheet stock, but soon enough it will be reporting and the money will be coming in.
Conclusion: The market makers have a huge amount of shares to cover. In order for them to cover the number above at .0002 they would have to dish out $21 - 33 million. At .01 they would have to pay $1 - $1.5 billion. Could you see now why the market makers are keeping the share price of CMKX in the cellar (.0001 - .0002)? Can you see that the more time the market makers have the better chance of them getting back their shares (if nothing happens with CMKX)? Could you see now why the market makers spiked the price and then dropped it, again? They needed funds to later cover CMKX shares as cheap as they could get them. Can you, also, see how much money the market makers would have made if CMKX went into the ground? Consider that they were shorting it way back when it was in the penny range. Can you see how the market makers are working together to try and save each other? Can you see how the O/S of CMKX is going to be quite reasonable and surprising?
Can you say SHORT SQUEEZE and really mean it? By the way, where have all the bashers gone to?
Bash this if you want, but somewhere I think there is some validity to all this!!! Your opinions?
:O)
-Pat-
It sheds light on who Urban associates with. I'm waiting for the CMKX website to be completed so I can learn more ...
The good doctor' company is being hit by the naked shorters too. And the crooks in the securities business are spreading false rumors about his company too ...
http://www.nanosignalcorp.com/investors.html
NanoSignal Corp. Disavows any Truth to Rumors Regarding a Reverse Split and Clarifies Call for Certificates
Release Date: Thursday December 16, 1:47 pm ET
LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 16, 2004--NanoSignal Corp. (Pink Sheets: NNOS - News) is compelled to once again instruct shareholders that only publicly disclosed information issued by the company is to be regarded as true and accurate.
"There is absolutely no truth to the rumors that the company is planning a reverse split of our shares," said Ernie Bartels, president of NanoSignal. "In fact, there have not even been any discussions of any nature by the officers or directors as to a reverse split," he continued.
"Notwithstanding that the company is in the final stages of negotiations for tangible assets and income-producing business ventures that will allow for positive cash flow to support the completion of SLICES(TM) compatibility, none of those acquisitions would require a reverse splitting of shares; and no discussions by any director, officer, nor person directly affiliated with the company has ever even heard that a reverse split would take place," said Sir Dr. Rupert Perrin, chairman of the board.
"The board of directors and its officers have unanimously concurred to immediately seek the advice of legal counsel as to the steps necessary to subpoena the confidential records of Raging Bull, Yahoo!, AOL, CBS Market Watch, and other message boards in order to obtain the URL addresses and identities of those parties who are posting unprotected defamatory statements about the company as fact," said Dr. Lawrence Madoff.
"The continued spreading of falsehoods and innuendo on the message boards has now escalated to the point where these 'bashers' are striking to heart of shareholder value, liquidity, and confidence by attempting to stimulate the belief that a dilution to shares would be forthcoming. That is simply not the truth," said Scott Ervin (director).
"Ernie Bartels has the company well in hand," added Perrin. "I am confident that through Ernie's and Mike Devenney's efforts and long-standing associations, our goal of growing the company and enhancing shareholder value will be attained in very short order."
Judging from the number of calls to the company, the main issue of interest to shareholders is the "Mandatory Call of Certificates" that was requested in the release of Dec. 10, 2004. Madoff clarified, "In advance of the company's annual shareholder meeting, the company would like to conduct a legal audit of its outstanding shares and quantify the differential between its shareholders of record and its shareholders not of record. By calling for a legal audit of shares, the company will better be able to identify the actual number of shareholders and share counts. This is essential to both the effort to combat 'Naked Shorting' and effort to issue the all-important voting rights by shareholders."
The company therefore requests the shareholders to instruct their stockbrokers to cause their shares to be taken off DTC, DTCC and/or the NSCC and out of "street name." Madoff further clarified, "The goal is to have as many shares as possible be duly registered with Holladay Stock Transfer Co. in the name of the shareholders with the physical certificate to be delivered to the shareholders. Moreover, we are examining the efficacy of initiating the re-issuance of physical certificates with inherent anti-forgery protections presently employed by others."
Upon receipt of their certificate(s), shareholders should make a copy (front and back) of their certificates and mail or forward them to the company for verification. See contact information at the end of this press release for address and fax.
NOTE: This press release contains statements that may constitute forward-looking statements pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and assumptions, and involve a number of uncertainties and risks that could cause actual results to differ materially from those currently expressed in any such forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements herein speak only as of the date of this press release. NanoSignal does not undertake to update any forward-looking statement that may be made from time to time by it or on behalf of NanoSignal. This report has been compiled from information provided by NanoSignal Corp. ("NanoSignal" or the "company"). This report is published solely for information purposes, and is not to be construed as an offer to sell nor the solicitation of an offer to buy any security in any state or other jurisdiction. Investment in the securities of the company should only be considered by persons who are aware of, suited to and able to bear the risks involved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
NanoSignal Corp.
5440 W. Sahara Ave, Suite 206
Las Vegas, NV 89146
702-876-3655
Fax: 702-876-4794
or
Princeton Research Inc.
Mike King, 702-650-3000
Fax: 702-697-8944
Who else is on the BOD of CMKX?
Casavant Mining Kimberlite International Appoints Dr. Rupert A. L. Perrin to Board of Directors
Business Wire, Dec 6, 2002
LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 6, 2002
Casavant Mining Kimberlite International Inc. (OTCBB:CMKI) announced today that Dr. Rupert A. I. Perrin M.D. had been appointed to the Board of Directors.
Dr. Perrin was twice nominated for a Nobel Prize in science based on his development of specific methods of diagnosing various diseases in humans and animals. Dr. Perrin currently resides in Las Vegas, NV.
Born in 1929 in Havana, Cuba, his family moved to Jamaica in 1934. He was the youngest person to graduate from high school at the age of 15. In 1945, Dr. Perrin passed the Cambridge University Senior School Examination and he was awarded The Jamaica Scholarship to study at Oxford University in England. Graduating with high honors in organic and physical chemistry, he won a second scholarship to study at McGill Medical School in Montreal, Canada. Dr. Perrin earned his medical degree in 1953.
After medical school, Dr. Perrin returned to Jamaica for two years where he supervised a series of research projects sponsored by the British Commonwealth Special Funds. From 1959 to 1969, Dr. Perrin was both a teacher and researcher at the University of Southern California Medical School. During this time, Dr. Perrin founded his own private Endocrine Laboratory to develop and extract growth hormones from human pituitary glands to assist children with growth deficiencies. Today these hormone extracts are being promoted as an anti-aging treatment.
Dr. Perrin developed the first early pregnancy test, and was the main source of antigens and antibodies used by other labs around the world. The PSA test is used to detect the presence of prostate cancer. Dr. Perrin's major accomplishment in medicine was the identification of Neopterin which plays a primary role in the organization and function of the immune system. Neopterin is a unique screening tool used to test the presence of AIDS and the HIV-1 virus in blood donors and organ transplant screening.
In 1983, Dr. Perrin received the Wisdom Award which is given to those persons who display excellence in various fields of study. The first recipients of the Wisdom Award included Albert Einstein, Linus Pauling, Samuel Golding, Dr. Jonas Salk, Dr. Armand Hammer, Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower. In 1989, Dr. Perrin was inducted into the New York Academy of Sciences. In 1999, Dr. Perrin was given an award by the Chinese government for advances in the science of Endocrinology.
Urban Casavant, Chairman stated, "We are humbled that Dr. Perrin has agreed to become a member of our Board of Directors. Dr. Perrin has a wealth of inter-disciplinary skills and worldwide contacts. We will endeavor to follow the high mark of excellence and achievements already experienced by Dr. Perrin."
FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS
This Press Release contains "forward looking" statements as that term is defined by Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities Act") and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the "Exchange Act"). All statements that are included in this Press Release other than statements of historical fact are "forward looking" statements. Although Management believes that the expectations reflecting in these forward looking statements are reasonable. It can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to have been correct. Important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from the expectations as disclosed herein, including without limitation, in conjunction with these forward looking statements contained in this Press Release.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Business Wire
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group
http://www.nanosignalcorp.com/investors.html
A comparison …
SUBJECT: Fun with numbers...Ekati/Shore Posted By: Werner_k
Post Time: 12/13/04 16:52
I suspect the interplay between grade, stone size distribution, average carat value, and their respective impact on project economics is not fully understood by many who read this and the KRT thread. With that in mind, I hope the following simple comparison of potential outcomes at Star vs Ekati helps in some way:
Lets model 1,000 tonnes of processed kimberlite from each project. What will we find?....
Ekati:
With a grade of approx 1ct/tonne we will find 1000 carats about 25% of which will be gem quality, so 250 carats of gems (the non-gems add very little value). Of these, since Ekati produces a +1ct stone about every 25 carats, 10 of them will be of that size or bigger. It is important that I point out here that at Ekati 80% of the value of their production is contained in the 'gem'-stones larger than 1ct.
Star:
With a grade of .15ct/tonne we will find 150 carats about 75% of which will be gem quality, so about 112 carats of gems. Since the Star produces a +1ct stone about every 6 carats of production, we will find 19 'gem'-stones larger than this size, fully 90% more than in the same quantity of rock up where the reindeer roam.
Since the +1 carat gemstones comprise nearly all the revenue from Ekati I am often suprised to find that people still question the potential economic viability of a project where you can recover twice the quantity of the most valuable stones at about one tenth the cost due to the favourable geographic location.
It's not as complicated as most people think.
Cheers
http://stockhouse.ca/bullboards/viewmessage.asp?no=8818667&t=0&all=0&TableID=0
I have more than one residence. One is in Saskatchewan.
I get that too Jim, but all I have to do to get around it is phone the discount broker that I trade on-line with and tell him the message shouldn't apply to me. He says "OK, I'll do it manually for you", and in 20 seconds the order is up on my monitor screen.
Thanks to everyone who has joined us in fighting against those who would destroy our stock market. I am working on a couple of new pieces, but in the meantime, Robert Haigh sent me this link to a radio show that airs tonight (and can be replayed later as well). Keep pressure on your Congressmen, we are getting more attention on Capitol Hill than you might think.
Naked Short Selling tonight ... Business TalkRadio Network Show ... with attorney Wes Christian and other guest experts will air Sunday night,December 12 from 9-11 p.m. ET. A recent Analysis of Persistent Failures to Deliver securities completed by Dr. Leslie Boni, former visiting financial economist at the Securities and Exchange Commission, will also be discussed. Listeners may call in questions live and toll free to Wes and Tim Connolly at 1-866-606-TALK (8255).
The Business TalkRadio Network Show may be heard on KSEV AM 700 in Houston,on over 375 affiliate stations nationwide listed at CRN1 www.cableradionetwork.com, or on the Internet at www.businesstalkradio.net <http://www.businesstalkradio.net> .
Direct link to show (Download not necessary.)
http://www.warpradio.com/player/player.asp?page=Tuner&id=14085&wmpVer=10&br=
IE&os=win&country=&state=&city=&metroCode=473&latitude=&longitude=
Mark Faulk
info@FaulkingTruth.com
www.FaulkingTruth.com
A good Summary by Kash ...
Some Info from the mp3 with Dave Patch regarding SHO:
Dave Patch has been very skeptical that the SEC/DTC would ever pass, and more importantly that they would enforce any significant regulation that would clean up the current "naked shorting" mess while preventing the continuation of additional "naked shorting.
He has been very skeptical over the past few months that Regulation SHO would actually have any "bite" as evidenced by his comments in several PRs relating to the SEC/DTC and what he knew about Regulation SHO at the time.
Well if you listen to this mp3 audio from December 7th it was very refreshing and very encouraging to hear Dave Patch give Regulation SHO a grade B+ and back up why he feels this way based on the SEC's most recent meeting regarding this subject.
His belief is, even though this regulation will be tweaked as the year goes on, that there is enough "bite" and penalties initially involved that there will be significant pressure on the MMs/Hedge Funds to begin to cover their naked short positions on all "Reporting" OTC/Pink Sheet companies that are indeed "legitimate".
3 days after SHO takes effect on January 3rd a daily list will be published for all reporting companies as to whether or not they are a "Threshold" company based on the percentage of "fail to deliver shares" there are against the OS for each company.
If a company is labeled a "Threshold" company, then the MMs will no longer be able to short sell that company's stock while they are listed as a "Threshold" company.
More importantly, the MMs will no longer be able to "wash" trades of naked short shares back and forth between each other to wipe their short positions clean every so many days and then "re-wash" these same naked short shares to other MMs again and again every time they become due for accountability.
When SHO takes effect, the only way to cover a fail to deliver share is to replace it with a real actual registered share of stock for that company.
So when buyers come into the marketplace to buy shares of stock for any "reporting" OTC company that is listed as a Threshold security, the MMs will have to buy actual registered shares. They can no longer create them out of thin air.
On the reverse side, as shareholders sell shares in their accounts of listed "Threshold" companies, the MMs will also have to go into the market to buy shares for these sales as the shares being sold were never real shares to begin with and they must now be replaced by real shares before they can be sold.
**This is how the grandfathered "naked short" positions will eventually be taken to zero.
So there will be pressure to cover on both the buy side and the sell side of these "Threshold" security listed companies.
Both of these actions will force the price of that company's stock upward.
As the stock begins to climb upward, new investors begin to buy this stock, which pushes the price up even more.
If the escalation in price is rapid, (ex: very good news released by the company) then the MMs may accelerate the covering on their grandfathered naked short position, even though they are not required.
They are not required to immediately cover their grandfathered in naked short positions, but because they will have to eventually cover this grandfathered "naked short" positions they may begin to cover these positions also. They don't want to cover these grandfathered naked short shares at a price any higher than they have to. If they feel the price may take off, in the example of CMKX, then there could possibly be a rapid covering by the MMs.
All in all if the SEC enforces Regulation SHO as stated above, then I think that January could be a very good month for many OTC/Pink Sheet issues that have been held down/manipulated for many years by naked shorting tied many times into convertible debenture financing.
Obviously, there are some dog companies out there that should not be there in the first place. They will not and should not ever make it in any marketplace and they won't survive.
But we all know that there are many good start up companies in the OTC marketplace with outstanding management, products, new technology, mineral rights etc. that have had a less than 1% chance for survival. They have been driven into the ground due to very little fault of their own, but due mainly to the manipulative naked short selling system that has been allowed to exist in this marketplace for way too long.
I believe the times are a changing for many reporting OTC/Pink Sheet companies and their investors come January.
JMO
kash
What does this tell you about one of the hottest diamond regions in the world? It tells me the 'shorts' have seen the writing on the wall and have run for cover.
http://www.cdnx.com/LCDB/ShortSummary.asp?SECURITY_ID=31601&MARKET_ID=CDNX&SEC_SYM_SID=1&...
got several million filled at 0.0001 @ 11 AM EST
How do you read this 100 share order?
Recent Trades - Last 10
Time Ex Price Change Volume
16:34:31 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 100
16:34:25 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 9,999,999
16:34:16 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 9,999,999
16:34:09 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 9,999,999
16:33:58 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 9,999,999
16:33:51 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 9,999,999
16:33:15 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 9,999,999
16:33:08 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 9,999,999
16:33:01 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 9,999,999
16:32:53 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 9,999,999
marlynn1 - same with me. I've have standing buy orders for this stock at $0.0001 since the beginning of October and never get even a partial fill. I have to keep renewing the orders before the time lapses to keep my place in the bidding lineup.
When I see what happened today after hours it reinforces my belief that there's an abundance of crooked market makers washing and selling credits for nonexistent stock. I don't think they're going to be able to bankrupt this company, so eventually they'll have to buy it all back.
Today's final 10 after-hour trades ..
Time Ex Price Change Volume
16:12:21 Q 0.0002 - 2,500,000
16:06:44 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 5,000,008
16:06:18 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 9,999,999
16:06:10 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 9,999,999
16:06:02 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 9,999,999
16:05:55 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 9,999,999
16:05:45 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 9,999,999
16:05:36 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 9,999,999
16:05:26 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 9,999,999
16:04:36 Q 0.0001 -0.0001 2,500,000
DITR - If you're going to buy, there won't be a better price than $0.0002 ... unless you are a MM
And a MM won't let you buy at $0.0001 when he'll make 100% profit doing it himself.
Prarie Resource Investor.
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=7264
Diamond fever in the Canadian Prarie.
Read about ut in the Resource Investor.
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=7264
Diamonds star of geology show
Murray Lyons
The StarPhoenix
Every year when the Saskatchewan Geological Survey open house takes place at the end of November, I make a mental note that I should enroll in a University of Saskatchewan entry-level geology class. Even so, just attending the geology open house over a number of years allows one to start to pick up the lingo.
For example, a basement formation is not a room in the house where the furnace is located. Finding fault is something that tort lawyers get excited about. So do geologists. You don't want to hear about anomalies when you're getting results from your doctor, but finding anomalies 200 metres below the surface is indeed what mining companies want to see from their expensive airborne electromagnetic surveys.
Wednesday's final open house session on Saskatchewan's kimberlites was popular with the geology professionals who fully understood what was being explained.
Looking at the computer modeling of the kimberlites that have been done during the past few months, an impressive picture is emerging of the shape and composition of these giant structures.
Geologists, geo-engineers and geo-chemists from government and industry are sharing what they know. Information gleaned from the multiple drill holes that Shore Gold Inc. and the Fort a la Corne joint venture are matched up with work done by the government geological survey, which has mapped the Fort a la Corne forest from planes with electromagnetic transmitters flying less than 100 metres above the spindly trees that qualify the region as a forest.
Fifteen years ago, the kimberlites in the forest were just a long-standing rumour.
U of S grad Brent Jellicoe, now head of exploration for Kensington Resources, which is the junior partner to De Beers in the joint venture, was part of the original Uranerz exploration team that did the drilling late in the 1980s that proved there were diamond-bearing kimberlites only 45 minutes east of Prince Albert.
Now, a whole group of young Saskatchewan-trained geologists have become enthralled with this industry, including Jellicoe's protege Kristin Marcia, who is on the Shore payroll.
George Read, the vice-president of exploration for Shore, brought the geologists in the room Wednesday back to the business side of diamond exploration when he pointed out investors are interested in diamonds and not kimberlites. How many stones? How big? How much are they worth? Investors are considerably less interested in how they roared out of the Earth's mantle in a volcanic eruption millions of years ago.
So it was smart public relations for Shore Gold to invite local investors to join the geologists Wednesday afternoon to get a good look at some samples of the diamonds brought up to surface from the multi-million-dollar bulk mining program which is now winding down.
Shore has demonstrated the wisdom of keeping its project 100 per cent Canadian-owned and funded.
However, a critical time is coming early in 2005 when Shore will report the carat value from an independent valuation of its stones.
And while mining stocks are still a highly speculative venture where hope sometimes leads to hyperbole, geologists still value their credibility.
Thus, it took a bit of courage Wednesday to make a comparison of the low-grade Star kimberlite to the high-grade, highly profitable Diavik deposit in the Northwest Territories. But Read says there is a similarity. In the Star kimberlite, despite the low grade, a healthy percentage of the 20,000-plus stones recovered so far are large.
"In the Diavik mine, 70 per cent of the value of the mine comes from the top 15 per cent of the size distribution curve. The presence of large diamonds is very much in our favour," Read said.
"The other important factor is that there is a high proportion of white goods and we can equate that with gem-quality diamonds. These two factors will play a pivotal role in raising the average value per carat of the diamonds from Star."
Should Read's bold predictions of an average carat value of $125 US and ore as valuable as $18 US a tonne be verified, the next stage of the Fort a la Corne story might be triggered.
It could be that De Beers or another big mining company that wants to become the global rival to De Beers might decide the Star kimberlite is an asset that must be bought. A takeover bid could thus be the end game and ultimate reward for loyal Shore investors.
Or it could be that Shore, with its war chest of money, continues to forge its own fate, finding its own marketing partners, and continuing to raise money on the stock market to provide the capital it needs to make a working mine.
It is quite possible in years to come that 2004 may be viewed as the pivotal year in the development of what could be Saskatchewan's third-largest mining sector with all its attendant spinoff jobs.
And it has all happened because a small company in Saskatoon proved through its high-stakes bulk mining program that there really was something in the ground.
Seen it ...
Read more about it here:
http://cmkxdiamond.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1102095359
News from diamondsville ...
Shore Gold Inc. caused a stir in the final hour of the annual geological show at the Delta Bessborough on Wednesday by showing off a parcel of its rough diamonds extracted during the past year through its bulk mining program in the Fort a la Corne forest.
The sparkle in the diamonds on display impressed local investors and brokers who have followed Shore, the Saskatoon company that now trades on the TSX big board.
The quality of the gems also caught the eye an experienced diamond geologist from rival Montreal company Forest Gate Resources, which has an exploration program in a much earlier stage of development underway in the forest about 70 kilometres east of Prince Albert.
Pieter duPlessis, a South African geologist and former De Beers employee, was impressed by what he saw displayed from Shore's bulk sample. He says he thinks the "speculative" carat value estimate of $125 US provided by Shore's head geologist is close to the mark.
George Read, the vice-president of exploration for Shore, who is also a South Africa-trained diamond geologist, told fellow geologists that based on $125 US a carat and a grade of just 15 carats per hundred tonnes, Shore's Star kimberlite formation could produce revenue of about $18 US a tonne. He says that revenue per tonne would be the same as or better than some of the large kimberlite formations in Africa and Australia.
He says it appears 75 per cent of the diamonds recovered are "white goods," which are gem-quality diamonds.
Canada's two operating diamond mines in the Slave Lake area of the Northwest Territories are much higher grade than Saskatchewan kimberlites, but Read points out that the costs to mine there are enormous.
Read says the next mine in the North -- the Jericho mine -- will see electricity costs alone of $7 a tonne because of the need to have diesel generators. He says the total operating cost per tonne of an open pit mine in Fort a la Corne, including the capital costs, would probably range from $6 to $8 a tonne.
Read told geologists that the percentage of white stones and large carat stones is quite high within the 20,734 diamonds recovered so far in the Shore bulk mining program.
DuPlessis, the Forest Gate geologist, agreed.
"The proportion of whites to stones with a lot of inclusions is excellent," he said.
"They are mostly whites and good quality stones. Compared to a lot of the diamonds that I've seen, the quality looks very good."
Inclusions are foreign material in the diamond that can make it look cloudy.
The Shore show-and-tell, held after Saskatchewan geologists finished their annual meeting Wednesday, proved interesting to Jim Murphy, a broker with RBC Dominion in Saskatoon.
Murphy was a mining employee with the former Uranerz uranium mining company that did kimberlite exploration in Fort a la Corne in the late 1980s and proved there were huge kimberlites in the forest. Cameco Corp., which took over Uranerz, still has a share in the Fort a la Corne joint venture operated by De Beers Canada, which is the neighbouring project to Shore's.
Murphy says many Saskatchewan clients of RBC are followers of the diamond play and have faith the forest will yield a working diamond mine in the future. Most of these investors stick with the company and aren't jumping in and out of the stock, he added.
Read says the company should be able to report its carat values in January, when an independent valuation of the approximate 2,500 carats worth of stones recovered is complete.
Geologists who gave a detailed presentation of how the Fort a la Corne kimberlites came to be point out that the sand cover over top of the formation is extremely fortunate in that it has prevented the kimberlites from being worn away.
Read says science now accepts that kimberlite itself was just a vehicle to transport the stones from the Earth's mantle and didn't create the stones. He says the Fort a la Corne diamonds are probably about 3.2 billion years old and they came to the surface with the kimberlite volcanic eruption about 100 million years ago.
The 250-hectare surface area of Shore's Star kimberlite is among the largest in the world and Read says the good news is that it appears about 80 per cent of the kimberlite is classified as coming from the early Joli Fou kimberlite formation.
"Most of the body is the material we would want to mine and even the lower grade material is probably economic through some form of ore blending," he said.
Geologists also heard from Andrew Williams of De Beers Canada who is project manager for the Fort a la Corne joint venture with Vancouver's Kensington Resources Ltd. That project's kimberlite 140/141 adjoins the Star kimberlite. Williams says nearly $8 million was spent on drilling out large diameter bulk and smaller core samples to find out where the richest spots are in the joint venture kimberlites.
He says the view of De Beers at the moment is that the grade within each of the kimberlites alone is not enough to develop a mineable resource, but that the high grade portions of two or three nearby kimberlites, taken together, could form a resource that would justify a mine.
© The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2004
This morning's Saskatoon Star Phoenix ... December 2, 2004
Shore Gold Inc. caused a stir in the final hour of the annual geological show at the Delta Bessborough on Wednesday by showing off a parcel of its rough diamonds extracted during the past year through its bulk mining program in the Fort a la Corne forest.
The sparkle in the diamonds on display impressed local investors and brokers who have followed Shore, the Saskatoon company that now trades on the TSX big board.
The quality of the gems also caught the eye an experienced diamond geologist from rival Montreal company Forest Gate Resources, which has an exploration program in a much earlier stage of development underway in the forest about 70 kilometres east of Prince Albert.
Pieter duPlessis, a South African geologist and former De Beers employee, was impressed by what he saw displayed from Shore's bulk sample. He says he thinks the "speculative" carat value estimate of $125 US provided by Shore's head geologist is close to the mark.
George Read, the vice-president of exploration for Shore, who is also a South Africa-trained diamond geologist, told fellow geologists that based on $125 US a carat and a grade of just 15 carats per hundred tonnes, Shore's Star kimberlite formation could produce revenue of about $18 US a tonne. He says that revenue per tonne would be the same as or better than some of the large kimberlite formations in Africa and Australia.
He says it appears 75 per cent of the diamonds recovered are "white goods," which are gem-quality diamonds.
Canada's two operating diamond mines in the Slave Lake area of the Northwest Territories are much higher grade than Saskatchewan kimberlites, but Read points out that the costs to mine there are enormous.
Read says the next mine in the North -- the Jericho mine -- will see electricity costs alone of $7 a tonne because of the need to have diesel generators. He says the total operating cost per tonne of an open pit mine in Fort a la Corne, including the capital costs, would probably range from $6 to $8 a tonne.
Read told geologists that the percentage of white stones and large carat stones is quite high within the 20,734 diamonds recovered so far in the Shore bulk mining program.
DuPlessis, the Forest Gate geologist, agreed.
"The proportion of whites to stones with a lot of inclusions is excellent," he said.
"They are mostly whites and good quality stones. Compared to a lot of the diamonds that I've seen, the quality looks very good."
Inclusions are foreign material in the diamond that can make it look cloudy.
The Shore show-and-tell, held after Saskatchewan geologists finished their annual meeting Wednesday, proved interesting to Jim Murphy, a broker with RBC Dominion in Saskatoon.
Murphy was a mining employee with the former Uranerz uranium mining company that did kimberlite exploration in Fort a la Corne in the late 1980s and proved there were huge kimberlites in the forest. Cameco Corp., which took over Uranerz, still has a share in the Fort a la Corne joint venture operated by De Beers Canada, which is the neighbouring project to Shore's.
Murphy says many Saskatchewan clients of RBC are followers of the diamond play and have faith the forest will yield a working diamond mine in the future. Most of these investors stick with the company and aren't jumping in and out of the stock, he added.
Read says the company should be able to report its carat values in January, when an independent valuation of the approximate 2,500 carats worth of stones recovered is complete.
Geologists who gave a detailed presentation of how the Fort a la Corne kimberlites came to be point out that the sand cover over top of the formation is extremely fortunate in that it has prevented the kimberlites from being worn away.
Read says science now accepts that kimberlite itself was just a vehicle to transport the stones from the Earth's mantle and didn't create the stones. He says the Fort a la Corne diamonds are probably about 3.2 billion years old and they came to the surface with the kimberlite volcanic eruption about 100 million years ago.
The 250-hectare surface area of Shore's Star kimberlite is among the largest in the world and Read says the good news is that it appears about 80 per cent of the kimberlite is classified as coming from the early Joli Fou kimberlite formation.
"Most of the body is the material we would want to mine and even the lower grade material is probably economic through some form of ore blending," he said.
Geologists also heard from Andrew Williams of De Beers Canada who is project manager for the Fort a la Corne joint venture with Vancouver's Kensington Resources Ltd. That project's kimberlite 140/141 adjoins the Star kimberlite. Williams says nearly $8 million was spent on drilling out large diameter bulk and smaller core samples to find out where the richest spots are in the joint venture kimberlites.
He says the view of De Beers at the moment is that the grade within each of the kimberlites alone is not enough to develop a mineable resource, but that the high grade portions of two or three nearby kimberlites, taken together, could form a resource that would justify a mine.
© The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2004
This is part of a georgeburns thread on the CMKX Community site.
Draw your own conclusions ....
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/quote.aspx?ticker=GEMM
" … Hate to quote myself... but... I got PM with a good question that I left out of this post. The reason I started adding up the volume on that date was because that was the start of the spike, the run if you will, of UCAD and GEMM...
I have the historical volume saved for both in excel but can't find good historical online for UCAD since the symbol change.
Here is a good place to find GEMM.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/quote.aspx?ticker=GEMM
Click Historical then change the start date to September or october. You can see the sudden 82% gain on GEMM and the volume that went up to 4,008,000 when on the day before it was only 127,300. In the 30 days prior it rarerly broke 300,000. HMMMM whats going on? No news except the fact that it is going to be a CMKM dividend. lol.
THERE IS A NAKED SHORT AND IT IS HUGE.
It was also shortly after the official announcement on the otcbb website was made."
Cut ///
10/06/2004 3,764,400 0.010 -16.67%
10/05/2004 4,008,000 0.027 81.818%
10/04/2004 127,300 0.002 -5.71%
10/01/2004 56,200 0.004 12.903%
Cut ///
http://cmkxdiamond.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&num=1101854675&action=display&...