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.
You guys will be lucky if you get an old cardboard refrigerator box.
And you'll have to share it with jimmym4.
The SEC isn't in a position to protect people who are intent upon committing financial suicide.
Of course I'm alright. I never take the long side of stocks that get revoked, never to trade again.
The BCIT morons are, today, where the CMKX morons were around 2008. They're getting strung along, making plenty of noise, ignoring the facts. That's part of what makes them so entertaining. But as time wears on, they'll gradually drop like flies.
You don't think the BCIT morons are the first group of shareholders to get hammered in a pump and dump scam, do you?
Wow. I thought no group of gulliblers could ever top the people who got ensnared in the CMKM Diamond scam, but today I've discovered the mother lode. Those BCIT guys are some hard core idiots.
It is on the EDGAR site.
And regardless of what name they want to call it, the security that traded with the symbol BCIT is revoked.
It won't trade again.
Are you telling me you've done NO research on this company?
This is the 8-K that was filed after the special shareholders' meeting:
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1076779/000114420408035030/v116859_8-k.htm
From that 8-K:
"Approved the amendment to the Company’s Restated Articles of Incorporation changing the Company’s name from Bancorp International Group, Inc. to Energy Source, Inc., which was filed effective on June 5, 2008, and is attached hereto as Exhibit 3(i).1 and is incorporated herein by reference."
Here is the exhibit:
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1076779/000114420408035030/v116859_ex3i1.htm
One of the goofballs who got caught up in the CMKM Diamonds scam mentioned BCIT today. And I had to see what all the noise was about.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1076779/000114420408006527/v101325_pre14a.htm
Item #4 from the special meeting:
4. To approve the First Amendment to our Restated Certificate of Incorporation to change our name from “Bancorp International Group, Inc.” to “Energy Source, Inc;”
And you think I'm the one who needs to keep up?
From the revocation proceedings, the .pdf I posted earlier:
"Energy Source’s common stock is quoted under the ticker symbol BCIT on the Pink Sheets operated by Pink OTC Markets Inc."
www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2009/34-60920.pdf
I admit I am fascinated by the kind of people who get caught up in schemes like CMKX and BCIT.
Pinksheet listings get revoked all the time for failure to comply with their filing requirements.
Most of the administrative proceedings on this page are of companies, the majority of them on the pinks, who've been revoked for failure to comply with section 12(j):
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin.shtml
Unless you fall under one of a handful exemptions (foreign entity compliant with filing requirements in another country or a small financial company that reports to another federal regulatory body as two examples), you are subject to Section 12(j) of the Act of '34.
And BCIT's failure to comply with the requirements of 12(j) is what got them revoked.
There was nothing screwed up about their decision to revoke BCIT. You fail to stay current with your filing requirements, you risk revocation. At least there will not be any new BCIT victims.
Why are the authorities so hell bent on shafting the victims on this case not the villains.
To avoid creating even more victims.
Making a market in, and subsequently profiting from, the deregistered shares of CMKX was crooked, regardless of what he delivered. It would appear that Deli is in fact a crook.
As for BCIT, the real crook there was Mario Pino, not any of the broker/dealers you mentioned in your post.
I hear George Zimmerman is looking for a new place to live. Sanford, Florida's loss could be Moose Jaw's gain...
There's nothing dishonest about naked shorting a "stinky pinky"... or any other security.
I kinda doubt that.
Skippy's lawyers jurisdiction shopped before they filed their frivolous lawsuit. California was their best bet, and it got shot down. They can file in New Jersey, but the outcome won't be any different.
The problem with all of these frivolous naked short selling suits is that none of them are ever capable of presenting actionable causes. Ultimately, it comes down to who's doing the damage. Overstock.com was not damaged by naked short selling. Overstock.com was damaged by an inept management team that squandered over a quarter of a billion dollars worth of her shareholders' equity.
Our judicial system is not built to reward incompetent managements for running their companies into the ground.
That suit was already dismissed. Overstock.com walked away empty-handed.
It's been an entertaining year so far, especially with what's been going on with Overstock.com. There aren't too many stocks you want to short when the market is rallying, but somehow you can always count on Skippy Byrne to shoot himself in the foot and make you a pile of money.
But nothing astonishes and amuses me the way the CMKX'ers have with their continuing to cling to the most absurd stories about their pay-day coming. Who could've ever imagined that someone like Al Hodges would crawl out of the woodwork to keep this dope show going?
Hope you're having a great spring. I feel margarita weather coming on soon. Enjoy!
As long as dumb people have money there will never be a shortage of grifters out there striving to relieve them of it.
Two completely separate issues, jimmy.
Then you clearly don't know much about my posting history. The bulk of my public posts are about cruddy companies... outfits like CMKM Diamonds, Sedona, Overstock.com to name just a few... that are downright cesspools for investors.
As for ARM's? There is a time and a place for an ARM. The issue is not whether it's a good product or a bad product. The issue is whether it's an appropriate product for a given situation. In most cases, an ARM is the wrong product for a typical consumer. Then again, for most consumers, a deuce and a half dump truck isn't the right vehicle for them either. But that doesn't mean there is something inherently wrong or evil about ARM's or dump trucks.
They just need to be used appropriately.
The Federal Reserve is a "quasi"-governmental system that was established by Congress right before World War I. The system itself is composed of both public and private entities.
Is it a regulated agency? Absolutely. Its governors are appointed by the POTUS and approved by the US Senate. In addition, the Federal Reserve is required to report its monetary policy operations to Congress semiannually. Furthermore, all operating income generated by the Federal Reserve's activities goes directly to the U.S. Treasury.
And at any given point, Congress could revoke the whole thing. But let's hope they're never stupid enough to make that mistake.
No, I am definitely NOT a stock promoter. If anything, most if not all of my public statements about stocks are in reference to short positions I frequently take. I seldom discuss the long side of my portfolio.
As for your remarks about "citizens", do you think that banking executives, investors, and hedge fund managers aren't "citizens"?
Whether we use the term "consumers" or "customers", people who borrow money in the form of a mortgage are utilizing a service offered by the banks. The service comes with stipulations. You are expected to pay your mortgage on a timely basis. If you don't pay your mortgage, your home gets foreclosed.
I also expect an average "citizen" to be at least minimally cognizant of the relationship between the price of the house they're buying and their ability to pay for it. If a house is too much money for you, then don't buy it. Does that seem unreasonable to you?
No, I am not defending the banking industry. In fact, I was short most of the subprime lenders and several of the larger, money center banks. You didn't have to be a genius to see that they were all overly exposed to the real estate boom and that even the slightest of contraction in real estate values was going to completely decimate their equity.
I expect people to be responsible for the documents they sign. What you conveniently omit is that many of the people who signed those documents with "convoluted" loan language were acting out of greed themselves. No matter how convoluted the language, I expect a consumer to know the difference between an adjustable rate loan and a fixed rate loan. Is that really so complicated? And I furthermore expect a consumer to understand that the equity they have in their house(s) is a simple mathematical equation of taking the current market value of their property/properties and subtracting the outstanding loan balance on their mortgage(s). Is that really too much to ask of a consumer?
The real problem with '07/'08 was that almost everyone, home owners, bankers, builders, regulators, credit rating agencies, mortgage-backed securities investors, and underwriters all thought that real estate values would continue to grow, just as they had for years.
They were wrong. And being wrong had consequences. Those who saw the fly in the ointment and positioned their money accordingly cleaned up.
I feel that if a hedge fund manager identifies an opportunity to make money and finds capital to commit to a position that will generate profits if their analysis of a situation is correct, then they absolutely do deserve to reap the rewards of their work. Why would you or anyone else think otherwise?
If you really believe that, then you should be shorting oil at its current price.
But I suspect that your take on the oil market is probably way wrong.
The short answer is because you'd prevent producers, and consumers, from managing risk.
Even a small producer (there are over 2000 small oil production companies in Texas alone) can take advantage of the risk management facilities an active, liquid commodities market provides to buyers and sellers. The CME crude oil contract is for 1000 bbl's. So a micro producer, with daily output in the range of 20 bbl/day, can easily utilize a futures contract each quarter to lock in acceptable prices against their future production.
On the consumer side, if you run a plastics plant or have any kind of a transportation business where your next quarters' or next year's profits are price sensitive to future energy prices (especially the airlines and railroads), locking in prices for one of your biggest inputs to manage your firm's profitability makes sense. Thwarting the ability of consumers, and producers, to manage their financial risk against a commodity's price wouldn't be a good public policy decision.
There are some people who recognize and understand the value of having a market for commodities contracts for consumers and producers, but they wish to block "speculators" from these markets. That's a stickier debate. But again, it does come down to one of risk management. In a perfect world, maybe the number of contracts sold by direct producers would precisely equal the number of contracts of purchased by direct consumers. But we don't live in a perfect world. "Speculators" correct for these imbalances by providing liquidity, and assuming risk, when the number of contracts sought by direct consumers doesn't match the number of contracts offered by direct producers.
On a personal level, I value free markets and individual property rights. This might not sit well with some people who are comfortable with the idea of having the government dictate who can do what with their money, but I'm of the opinion that if I examine the oil markets and decide that taking a long (or short) position in the futures market makes financial sense for me, then I should be permitted to do it without outside interference.
As a general rule, I tend to find governmental intervention distasteful, too. But if FDIC dollars and/or other taxpayer funds are backstopping these banks, then some form of governmental intervention needs to be in place. We can only hope that what governmental intervention takes place is rational and conducive to economic stability and growth. (Wishful thinking, perhaps, but we can always hope.)
The problem with hiking capital requirements is one of timing. Yes, absolutely, the capital requirements for US-domiciled banks should have been much more stringent in 2006 and 2007. Unfortunately, they weren't. Hiking capital requirements before (or even during) the real estate bubble formation could've alleviated some of the systemic risk our financial sector faced.
However, focusing on capital requirements after a collapse is the worst form of timing. The barn has burned to the ground. The first order of business is to rebuild the barn, not to force the farmer to go out and buy a new sprinkler system. (However, as that barn gets rebuilt, let's be certain that measures to control and contain future fires are taken into consideration as the rebuild is taking place.)
To their credit, I do think our public policy makers attempted to focus on "barn-building" after the collapse. Both the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve made incredible efforts to inject liquidity into our banking system. But there is only so much the government can do when you've got a bunch of bankers who've been scared $h!tle$$ by the most horrifying asset bubble collapse we've experienced since 1929.
Well, first of all, hedge funds aren't going to take pay cuts if you "take back the commodity market". That capital will just move off shore to other venues. And because most commodities are globally priced, if you've managed to force hedge funds and other financiers out of Chicago or New York, and to move their activities to Singapore, Belize, or Rio, what will you have accomplished, price-wise, if food, energy, and metals are subject to the same market forces after you "take back the commodity market" as they were before?
Essentially, you'll have just cut off a stream of tax revenue to the US Treasury. Not smart.
As for the banks destroying everything financial? Very, very few of them profited from that destruction. In most instances, it was their very own capital bases that got hammered as the real estate bubble of '07/'08 came collapsing down. The survivors were the ones who wisely tempered their exposure to those toxic instruments. For that, they should be rewarded. Not punished.
Well, no, naked short selling is not illegal. If it were, you'd be able to cite that portion in the U.S.C. which bans it. But no such ban exists.
Naked short selling is a procedural violation for those entities who subject themselves to SRO's like FINRA or the NYSE. However, if you or your firm is not a registered broker/dealer with these SRO's, then there is no law that prohibits you from engaging in naked short selling.
Yeah, I know, Jimmy. You don't get it. But at least you're kinda funny to watch.
The reality is that what we've seen in the commodities sector can be directly attributed to the Federal Reserve's monetary policy. For inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.
But what do you accomplish by "blocking" bank ownership of commodity contracts, besides thwarting their ability to hedge currency risk?
Inevitably, you force bankers to find less attractive, alternative means to hedge their currency risk (and thereby increase banking risk along the way).
Does that strike you as good public policy?
I would never knock a vehicle like the second-gen Chevelle.
Most investors will probably do much better in the decade to come with a simple index fund. And if you have even a simple understanding of value, adding a nice chunk of alpha should be no problem at all.
But for you? Yeah, probably better that you stick to the SS. You have no business investing in stocks.
That's nice, Jimmy. But it doesn't really excuse your ignorance about the stock market if you're going to participate in a public forum about investing.
Most investors do pretty well, Jimmy.
Then again, most investors don't fall for scams like CMKM Diamonds or buy into flim-flam outfits like Overstock.com.
Perhaps you should actually take some time and learn how to invest properly, Jimmy.
For someone who's so put off by corruption, your support for a crook like Skippy Byrne and Overstock.com is definitely inconsistent, Jimmy.
As for spiraling food costs, that's not really something you can blame on Goldman Sachs. They're a consequence of unusually accommodative monetary policy. Anyone who has seen what the Federal Reserve has been up to the past three years knows exactly what the consequences are going to be for commodity prices.
Or is it your position that investors shouldn't be able hedge their currency risk by owning commodities?
There is nothing corrupt or unethical about naked short selling, Jimmy. When confronted with a security that is horrendously over-valued by any reasonable financial metric, the correct action to take will always be to short it... naked if necessary.
What I do find is that amongst the most obtuse of investors, you know, like those who buy into lousy pump and dump schemes like CMKM Diamonds or horribly mismanaged companies like Overstock.com, when their investments inevitably tank, instead of learning from their mistakes, they'll blame those who knew better of being "corrupt and unethical".
Insider trading and naked short selling are two completely different animals, Jimmy.
And I didn't need inside information to realize that Overstock.com was a horrible company where a short position was going to end up making me a lot of money.