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.
There are some pretty successful companies whose stock trades in the pinks or gray market such as Nestle. You don't think they could jump right to AMEX or Nasdaq quickly once they got current on SEC filings? I do. They don't want to spend the money or manpower doing these filings and having to deal with federal regulators and stock analysts.
IMO it's probably easier for a private company to go straight to an exchange rather than graduating up from the OTCBB. Some OTCBB companies do move up to exchanges, many of which have been financial institutions. The number doing this though is very, very small compared to the overall total out there.
I seriously doubt Glenn has his sights set for Nasdaq or AMEX. CMKX has way, way too much to do before they will ever be considered. Yes, it is possible but the probability of it ever happening in your lifetime is 0% or very close to that.
Be careful in using TA here. Heavily diluted stocks often give false signals making it tough to accurately calculate a wave's peak and valley.
I do post when overly "irritated" by some
After skimming thru your posts, I see most are to longs. I guess most of the people here irritate you huh?
I just MAY profit again.
Okay, so you're admitting to trading this stock and not really being a "true long". No problem.
Most of Us business types
Okay, let's see if you really are one. Please explain the business logic of why a company which is generating no revenues would dispurse all these dividends to its shareholders instead of selling the stock to help fund its mining operations. Where exacting does the funny car racing fit into the company's overall business plan.
From what I've read the last few weeks, I would say probably 80-90% of the posters here are either novices or never learned how to really trade pennystocks.
You really should cut out all these BS posts of yours zen. You may be fooling the novices here, but it's very obvious you're absolutely clueless about a lot of things. Anyone who has traded pennies for awhile knows of Janice Shell. She likes to dig up dirt on pennystock companies. So what. You like to post long, wrong, and bogus theories in yours. Who is causing new investors more harm? YOU of course.
If Janice was really being paid to bash, the feds would have gone after her years ago for non-disclosure. Instead, she acts as an info source for them. If anyone does some DD (which you seem unable to do) on the companies she has followed, he would see quite a number of them have had the SEC come down on the company.
RFL: I think it's still called a stock dividend. I agreed with you that this is not dilutive. The price will not be readjusted to account for these shares.
Shorters (if there even are any) don't have to borrow stock from the other company. If a shorter is given the dividend, he just turns it over to the real owner of the shares he's borrowing. As for the naked shorter story here, IMO it's a myth. I've only seen one case of this, and the company had a very tiny o/s. The rest have all turned out to be due to heavy dilution.
RFL: I agree. On otcbb it says: "Will not be quoted Ex." In other words, the price of the stock will not be readjusted for this dividend.
I don't know why so many think shorts have to cover for this. The only time a short must do so is if his broker can no longer borrow shares he shorting against or he is unable to maintain margin requirements.
Purely a guess. For UCAD, I think the MMs raised the price trying to help attract buyers so IB 2000 (and maybe insider(s)) could sell their shares. According to the Form 4 filed in March 2004, IB 2000 converted all its preferred shares into common ones then sold off 40K. They reported still holding 960K common. Preferred stockholders usually do not convert unless they have the intention of selling. UCAD is so thinly traded though they need to generate some buying interest otherwise it would tank big time when trying to sell off large amounts. IB 2000 also paid otcpro 50K free-trading shares to promote UCAD as their stock pick. This is a really good indicator they're trying to sell.
If you check the charts here: http://pinksheets.com/quote/chart.jsp?symbol=UCAD&duration=2-6-8-0-0-56 , UCAD also went up over $6 in March. After the insiders sold, the price then went back down.
For GEMM, I haven't read up on that one. So, I have no guesses.
None of those figures are correct. You can easily tell this by watching the price movement compared to the trading volume. Shorts do not have to cover at all for a stock dividend.
Why don't you jump on your buddy Zen. He's the one who claimed the info was wrong not me. I merely answered this guy's question. Try and keep up.
I guess you must be severely in the red like Zen huh?
If you can't decide when to buy, sell, or hold Joe, I'll be honest you really shouldn't be trading any stocks. This lesson should be learned before you ever put one nickle into the market otherwise it can turn out to be very expensive.
IF the dividend info is incorrect (I have no idea if it is), then yes the submitter needs to fix it. The same would apply to any other public company which makes a similar mistake. Corrections are not done by PR.
This info is different than submitting periodic reports to the SEC. It's disseminated to the entire investment community, including everyone's brokers, the MMs, etc, telling them what is going to happen. If it's not corrected before going into effect, it could turn into somewhat of a mess trying to change it afterwards.
Huh? Posting facts is considered bashing? Come on.
Zen, if no one else has told you yet, then I will. Please get some professional help. You've been acting very irrational and unstable here.
I bet you are either severely in the red here or a very novice investor. Whichever one it is, dude you really need to get a grip on yourself.
The info appearing on otcbb was not pulled out of thin air. Either CMKX or UCAD submitted it. If it's wrong, then contact the company and request they fix it.
As for the other info, yup it's out of date. This happens when a company decides to stop being a reporting one. Blame lies with the company there too dude.
The company has not released any distribution date or dividend ratio figures publicly and that link to otcbb.com IMO can NOT have those variables until the information is publicly available. Neither was even contained in the UCAD SEC filing on the agreement.
Come on dude, info posted on otcbb.com is most definitely publicly released. After all, the Nasdaq runs that site. You can check for yourself here: http://www.register.com/whois_verify.cgi. I think pinkies and OTCBB companies have to file w/ Nasdaq when they want to distribute dividends to shareholders.
An SEC filing is NOT needed before a dividend is given. A reporting company has the option of mentioning it in their next regular filing if they want.
According to the UCAD agreement, Urban's 40 billion shares will NOT be receiving a dividend, thus meaning the max shares under any circumstance that it could be based on would be 460 billion
Well, if this is the case, the math doesn't work out at 460 billion.
460 billion CMKX x .0000155 = 7.13 million UCAD.
CMKX was given 7.5 million. Who pocketed the remaining 370,000 UCAD shares? All shares of a class are supposed to be treated equally regardless of who holds them.
It might be a wise for someone to contact the Nevada SoS to see whether or not the authorized amount was raised again.
Anyone who has traded pennies for awhile knows of Janice Shell. If you did some DD on the companies she has followed, you would know the SEC has gone after quite a large number of them. The feds definitely do not roll their eyes but instead use her info to help build a case. They typically move very slowly though unless the company is peddling a health related product.
IMO she's an excellent trading indicator of what stocks are not good long-term holds. There may be short spurts of good trading in what she follows, but that's about it. The people who actually do more harm to other investors are hypesters because they often encourage novices to buy and/or hold when they shouldn't be. From what I've read, IMO Sterling is one of the most dangerous ones. His massive shorting theory, which many believe, is pure garbage.
I assumed you either agreed with him or reposted this for discussion. I don't think he is a CPA because the reference he posted was for close corporations which CMKX is not.
There are situations requiring a vote by the majority shareholders like raising or lowering the a/s. This would have been a better example. Even in this case, US smallcaps usually don't go to the little retail guys for their vote because insiders often hold the majority or can achieve it with their close associates.
Until the company releases the numbers, there's no way for the public to accurately know how many of each type are outstanding and how many common are free-trading out there.
My guess is they didn't file their initial officer/director list in the required time period.
Per NRS 78.150: A corporation organized under the laws of this state shall, on or before the first day of the second month after the filing of its articles of incorporation with the secretary of state, file with the secretary of state a list, on a form furnished by him, containing:
(a) The name of the corporation;
(b) The file number of the corporation, if known;
(c) The names and titles of all of its required officers and the names of all of its directors;
(d) The mailing or street address, either residence or business, of each officer and director listed, following the name of the officer or director; and
(e) The signature of an officer of the corporation certifying that the list is true, complete and accurate.
Ref full statute here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/sts04.htm
easymonee: Well, what I told you is true. If you don't understand this concept, I think you would benefit far more by taking an investing course.
It's similar to your bank account. When you cancel a check, the money amount written on that check doesn't just disappear from your account unless of course you write a new one which is allowed to be cashed.
Cancelling shares doesn't mean anything in the bb/pinkie world. Most small companies do not bring in anywhere near the revenues needed to sustain their operations. They need to sell shares to stay alive, and insiders like to retain control. One popular way to do the latter is thru preferred shares. They can issue shares up to the authorized total for common (and preferred if they have any). Once they do, they either have to r/s or increase the authorized amount(s) to continue issuing more. Until they hit the a/s limitation, they can issue, cancel, reissue, etc. Like I said, no one knows the amount of preferred shares unless the company reveals it.
Filings which are 1.5 years old do not give an accurate snapshot for today. Things change over time like issued and authorized shares. From what I've read in their PRs, I don't see where they've laid out a viable business plan here yet.
Sure, but that was 1.5 years ago. When a company cancels shares, it does not mean those shares can never be reissued again. To the contrary, a company can cancel them on 30 Jan 2003 and turn around and reissue them on 1 Feb 2003. There is no way for anyone to tell how many preferred are outstanding unless the company reveals it.
Actually, the block size has nothing to do with the categorization. It's based on the brokerage firm used. If the firm typically trades major mutual funds and portfolios, then any trades coming from that firm automatically go into the "institutional" category even if all the buyers are retail. A number of these firms are also MM's. In such cases, it's impossible to tell whether a trade from them is for a client or for their own trading account. So, a lot of MM activity also gets lumped into "institutional".
Anyway, I agree it's not a good indicator that big institutions are trading. Most of them steer far, far away from sub-pennies.
Insiders can easily retain majority ownership by issuing themselves preferred shares with super voting rights, which happens quite often in the BB/Pinkie world.
FYI, NRS 78A-080, cited in your post here, does NOT require majority approval from shareholders for a company to make asset buy and sell decisions. The actual words of the entire statute (as contained in the link and not the abbreviated/modifed version posted) should be read for what they really say and not for what people want them to say.