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.
Seems like you usually see T-trades in two situations. If a company is diluting and dumping shares into the market you will see T trades sometimes for several days in a row.
When a larger entity is buying up shares and they want to keep it on the quiet, they'll buy blocks of shares throughout the day and then average share price will show up as a T-trade at the end. Frequently the purchase price in this instance will be an average of buys, say at .365, .37, .39 and .38. They'll average the prices of all the blocks to something that did not show up during the trading period. Here's today's trades. Looks like the averaged them:
16:02:54 0.377 37100 OTO
15:59:57 0.38 500 OTO
15:59:09 0.37 4761 OTO
15:56:45 0.38 206 OTO
15:47:47 0.38 5000 OTO
15:07:02 0.38 700 OTO
15:06:51 0.38 5000 OTO
14:23:37 0.395 500 OTO
14:01:49 0.39 100 OTO
14:01:10 0.39 5350 OTO
14:01:10 0.39 7900 OTO
14:00:39 0.395 250 OTO
14:00:21 0.395 1000 OTO
14:00:07 0.398 9000 OTO
13:59:55 0.40 5000 OTO
13:59:50 0.40 2000 OTO
13:59:36 0.40 2000 OTO
13:36:19 0.398 8000 OTO
13:34:21 0.40 35000 OTO
13:30:27 0.398 3000 OTO
13:25:16 0.40 5000 OTO
13:23:42 0.41 500 OTO
13:23:39 0.41 1000 OTO
13:23:31 0.41 10000 OTO
13:23:24 0.40 5000 OTO
13:17:43 0.40 1100 OTO
13:17:02 0.40 5000 OTO
13:16:55 0.40 6900 OTO
13:16:01 0.398 5350 OTO
13:16:01 0.398 10000 OTO
13:04:36 0.395 550 OTO
13:03:53 0.395 5000 OTO
13:01:45 0.39 2100 OTO
12:56:24 0.381 200 OTO
12:56:19 0.383 250 OTO
12:47:50 0.395 5000 OTO
12:42:07 0.395 500 OTO
12:33:12 0.385 5000 OTO
12:22:38 0.37 5000 OTO
12:10:28 0.37 1000 OTO
11:27:21 0.39 10150 OTO
11:25:41 0.37 1800 OTO
11:20:09 0.38 375 OTO
11:20:04 0.38 8000 OTO
11:18:09 0.38 1625 OTO
11:18:02 0.38 4875 OTO
10:45:47 0.38 125 OTO
10:45:42 0.39 10000 OTO
10:31:30 0.37 3239 OTO
10:20:23 0.37 7000 OTO
10:17:14 0.356 5000 OTO
10:13:56 0.38 161 OTO
09:42:41 0.38 6000 OTO
09:38:03 0.38 5105 OTO
09:36:40 0.38 300 OTO
09:34:05 0.39 2300 OTO
09:33:03 0.39 6000 OTO
09:32:46 0.39 7400 OTO
09:30:44 0.39 12750 OTO
09:30:10 0.375 350 OTO
Looks to me like sellers don't exist. Take away the one buy today at 1 mil shares and the volume was less than 500K. Plus the price is ranging upward and sellers can get more money for their shares.
What will tomorrow be like, look at daily volume it continues to fall and no sellers. Shareholders are really holding tight.
The market seems to think MIMV is worth more than twice what it was several weeks ago.
You should read IMPERIAL WHAZOO's post on volume weighted DMA as it reveals more about MIMV than the current share price:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=80421828
It almost always takes time to digest a big run and move into the second wave. You may be interested in reading about Elliot Wave Theory, market patterns and psycology.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/technical/111401.asp#axzz290gGWFCE
How refreshing to have KMAG's CEO that has endured cancer, revived his business after the illness and stayed with his business plan. A CEO who created a marketing network, (see baseballfans's post today). One who has grown revenues, developed Far East relationships and manufacturers. A CEO that communicates with shareholders and who immediately denied the SEC's accusations. One who is willing to battle to save his company from the smear campaign currently waged by the U.S. Government, Minipoo and minions.
Sounds like a stand up guy.
Did you find that "massive management dumping" you claimed was happening earlier? Really looking forward to your findings.
Did you notice that Michael Poutre was listed as the CEO in yesterdays Form 4?
Misrepresent MIMV any way you want but you can't take away the fact that they have a MICROSOFT PARTNERSHIP, top tier Management and Insider's picking up on Options.
How many "typical" penny stocks have the agreement they have?
I'll favor the company's assessment of "significant" over yours. They know the relative impact of the Microsoft partnership whereas you're simply speculating that it isn't significant.
Several pundits including Motley Fool, SeekingAlpha and Tobin Smith also disagree with your assessment of this Partnership.
I know that large, successful, high tech companies in ultra competitive environments don't throw money around without doing significant due diligence.
Here is Motley Fools conclusion of the partnership:
Conclusion
Microsoft is unlikely to have made this investment without having a good, long look under the hood of Mimvi's technology and the likelihood that Mimvi is acquired by Microsoft or another suitor is only increased with this news. And with these type of aggressive partnerships in the mobile space, I would recommend Microsoft as a strong buy
http://beta.fool.com/danieltodd/2012/09/26/microsoft-partners-mimvi/12993/
LOL, several people have contacted MIMV and they have stated exactly the opposite of your "point of fact" blather. Here is officerk's response from the company:
Thursday, October 04, 2012 3:24:36 PM POST 1126
JUST GOT OFF THE PHONE WITH:
Just got off the phone with Investor relations from MIMVI.
According to Franks MIMVI's technology and platform is better and more advanced than Chomp and Quigley.
Microsoft partnership is not just a small partnership for Hyped PR stunt, but this is Major Partnership that included engineering resources, software and cash.
Mimvi is currently in talks with multiple companies including Google and Facebook. Mimvi is preparing filing's from Microsoft contract and will be released in about six weeks.
I was told that because of legalities there would be no further information of Microsoft deal until then.
But, I was told that prior to then, there will be other news and updates concerning additional developments and MIMVI's ongoing progress. I was also told that this quarter looks to bring in Company High REVENUES!
Well Seymore, its your theory and Microsoft certainly doesn't agree with you. If you're worried, sell and move on.
Why don't you show where this massive unloading of shares is happening.
They were optioned 1 million shares each. There are two forms.
Look at TABLE II and then Box 5. Here is the text from Box 5:
5. Number of Derivative Securities Acquired (A) or Disposed of (D)
(Instr. 3, 4 and 5)
If you look at a MIMV chart, the closing price on October 5th, the day they bought shares was .42. No discount at all. Usually when insiders get options, they get a huge discount from the current price. These guys bought current value and probably have no worries at all.
Yuppers!!!
They had options AND they exercised them on the earliest date possible. They paid $420,000.00 each, for a million shares each. The option dates allowed a ten year period for exercising, from October 5, 2012 through October 4, 2012.
They would spend $420,000.00 and exercise options on 1 million shares now because they have inside information. With that inside information they have insight into what the immediate future of MIMV holds. They both obviously feel MIMV will be worth more in the next future than it is now.
The PR on the release of Echo intimated there were more software products coming soon.
300DMA = 1.00+
Two insiders, Kevin Conner the CFO and Michael Poutre the CEO exercised options issued on October 5th and bought 1,000,000 shares each at .42 cents. The option time was good until 2022.
Very, very bullish sign.
Short Squeeze is basically the official bi-monthly listings taken from FINRA's site and shows the 1st and 15th of the month shorts. I have stated my opinion that most shorts really don't want to mess with MIMV, too big a potential liability and this Website backs that up.
The OTC Short Report has created heavy debates as to its veracity. Some say it is accurate. Others say the "shorts" are simply trades between two different brokerages and they simply haven't closed the books on trades that day. I agree with the second definition. The info for this site is collected here:
http://regsho.finra.org/FORFshvol20121009.txt
This is just being played IMO. I think we turn around, if not today, soon.
Again, do some reading. The CEO, Jeff Reid had cancer during that period of time. He had to choose between staying alive and helping KMAG grow. He chose life.
From officerk: JUST GOT OFF THE PHONE WITH:
Just got off the phone with Investor relations from MIMVI.
According to Franks MIMVI's technology and platform is better and more advanced than Chomp and Quigley.
Microsoft partnership is not just a small partnership for Hyped PR stunt, but this is Major Partnership that included engineering resources, software and cash.
Mimvi is currently in talks with multiple companies including Google and Facebook. Mimvi is preparing filing's from Microsoft contract and will be released in about six weeks.
I was told that because of legalities there would be no further information of Microsoft deal until then.
But, I was told that prior to then, there will be other news and updates concerning additional developments and MIMVI's ongoing progress. I was also told that this quarter looks to bring in Company High REVENUES!
Thursday, October 04, 2012 3:24:36 PM post 1126
Ref: "You might want to consider why the need for such horse power."
If you were to do some reading, you would see that they have planned on up-listing to the OTCQX. To do so takes holding .10 for 90 days, audited financials, a good adviser/attorney and a DAD. That is why the need for such "horsepower".
Good point.
I think the BOD would have something to say about overpaying for oil properties.
BOEPD is something an oil man understands. Barrels per day is a pure and simple goal. It also puts incentive on him to develop the best options earliest.
If you look, you can find what you want. Should Echo become part of Microsoft's software, it will be much quicker to find apps
IMO lots of holders thought this would rebound after the run to .70, myself included. Once it began dropping and holders saw no rebound was happening, they began to sell to protect profits.
IMO shorts would be stripped ape crazy to short this with a potential buyout looming. I could see intra-day shorting and closing out positions before the bell. If that was happening, you'd probably see a bit of a run towards the close.
Sure can't see anyone, that can read, holding a short overnight.
MIMVI news this morning is significant, despite how the share price is reacting.
They just placed into service their main revenue producer, a mobile APP search engine. It puts into the hands of 10's of millions of mobile phone users the ability to find and use virtually any APP created. This one piece of software is MIMVI's main reason for getting Microsoft's attention.
We agree on one point. I don't see this as being shorting today, just people taking profits from the .0, .1, and .2 ranges by "selling the news".
You are aware that after a 350% run, almost every stock will pull back some, right? Yet you expect MIMV to be different. Pretty funny.
Your words, "supposed good news". 99 of out 100 people would say a small firm getting a partner like Microsoft is good news. Funding, a specific project, and co-engineering.
You may want to take a real look at other small firms, (Chomp, Yammer, Perceptive Pixel, Phonefactor) that were bought out by the players in the Mobile sector.
It isn't fantasy, it's reality. The inventive and creative small firms get bought out by the big boys.
I agree with you Atlanta1, there is nothing wrong with asking Mason hard questions. If management expects shareholders to always agree with them, they'll do whatever they want and expect no consequences.
Outside of MIMVI and Microsoft, according to you, exactly who is in the know that is selling?
Ref: Your statement "supposed good news". What is supposed about this "good" news?
This mornings PR is on Microsoft's own financial network Money and after dozens of pundits, PR's and articles, Microsoft hasn't denied the relationship with MIMVI.
Let's deal with reality here, not fantasies.
http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=PR&Date=20121009&ID=15649920&industry=IND_MEDIA&isub=
So, you're saying you think MIMV is worth less than it was prior to the MSFT deal. Yikes.
From Tony Mason this morning: "this particular reservoir has been shut-in for over 20 years and may have “recharged” – hence we are producing more oil than originally anticipated along with some gas."
An article on re-charging:
http://trilogymedia.com.au/Thomas_Gold/recharging/
Recharging of oil and gas fields.
There have been numerous reports in recent times, of oil and gas fields not running out at the expected time, but instead showing a higher content of hydrocarbons after they had already produced more than the initially estimated amount. This has been seen in the Middle East, in the deep gas wells of Oklahoma, on the Gulf of Mexico coast, and in other places. It is this apparent refilling during production that has been responsible for the series of gross underestimate of reserves that have been published time and again, the most memorable being the one in the early seventies that firmly predicted the end of oil and gas globally by 1987, a prediction which produced an energy crisis and with that a huge shift in the wealth of nations. Refilling is an item of the greatest economic significance, and also a key to understanding what the sources of all this petroleum had been. It is also of practical engineering importance, since we may be able to exercise some control over the refilling process.
The debate about the origin of all the petroleum on Earth lies in the center of the subject. If we really knew that it is only biological materials, which, in their decay, could produce hydrocarbons, then the quanities that could ever be produced would be limited by the biological content of the sediments. But then the clear and strong association of petroleum with the inert gas helium would have no explanation; the finding of hydrocarbon gases, liquids and solids on most other planetary bodies in our solar system which have surface conditions quite unsuitable for surface life, could not be understood; the presence of hydrocarbons which we now find in abundance in basement rocks would also remained unexplained.
If we accept the fact, now known full well, that hydrocarbons are a common constituent of the cosmos and the planetary condensations that formed in it, then we have a totally different viewpoint. Hydrocarbons are stable down to great depths and the high temperatures there, contrary to many statements that have been made that the temperature reached at depths between 30,000 and 40,000 ft would dissociate most of the hydrocarbons. But these calculations are seriously in error, because they ignored the strong stabilizing effect of pressure at depth, that had been calculated by Soviet (Ukrainian and Russian) thermodynamicists.
The existence of diamonds, crystals of pure carbon that form at pressures which are not reached on earth at depths of less than 140 kilometers, proves that unoxidized carbon exists at such depths, and also carbon-bearing liquids must flow there that can deposit carbon at high purity. High pressure fluid inclusions in diamonds prove that liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons were present at their formation. Present day meteorites give us examples of the solids responsible for the building up of the Earth; among those only one class, the carbonaceous chondrites, contain much carbon, mostly in unoxidized form. That this material is present in the Earth's interior in large abundance is shown by the distribution of noble gases and their isotopes that have emerged into our atmosphere and show distributions that are strikingly similar to those in carbonaceous chondrites, but dissimilar to those of any other class of meteorites. The presence of this type of material would account for a continuous supply of hydrocarbons to the atmosphere, as the outer layers of the mantle heat up over time and make fluids form from the solid hydrocarbons that were included in the forming Earth (as also in most of the other planets and their satellites, in the asteroids, comets and interplanetary dust grains). Such fluids are less dense than the rocks, and buoyancy forces will propel them upwards.
Rocks and lower density fluids can co-exist at any level in a solid planetary body, provided that the pressure of the pore fluids is sufficiently high to make the differential pressure between rocks and fluids less than the crushing strength of the rocks. For a static case (with no upward flow of the fluid), this would result in pressure domains, within which the fluid pressure shows a pressure gradient with depth given just by the density of the fluid (the "head"), and where the bottom of each domain is at the level at which the fluid pressure is insufficient to maintain pore spaces against the higher pressure of the rock. (See Figure 1.) It is assumed here (for the static case) that this makes a complete barrier. As for the top of any domain, this cannot be at a level higher than that at which the fluid pressure equals the rock pressure, since fluid pressures in excess of this value cannot be maintained in rocks that on a large scale and in long time-intervals, have no tensile strength and therefore cannot resist the intrusion of the fluids and the generation of new pores.
If we consider the case of a slow upward migration of fluids (liquids or gases), then this picture changes to one in which each domain
Idealized stacked pore pressure domains that make up a stepwise approximation to the rock pressure.
Pc is the critical pressure at which the pore fluid pressure cannot support the rock against crushing.
will be stacked on another one below, all the way down to the level of origin of the fluid. The fluid pressure would thus make a stepwise approximation to the pressure in the rocks. Now none of the barriers can be absolute, since they would be torn open by the fluids that arise from deeper and higher pressured domains. But the barriers would be torn open in each case only to the point at which the flow to the overlying domain causes it to suffer a pressure drop resembling that of the static case. This rule will apply whatever the nature of the rock. The heights of the domains will be determined by the rock and fluid densities and the crushing strength of the rocks; this height has been found to be between 10,000 ft and 15,000 ft in many sedimentary rocks, and in excess of 20,000 ft in granitic basement rocks. The upward seepage of methane is very widespread all over the Earth, as is shown by the great extent of methane hydrates on the ocean floors and in permafrost regions on land, where mostly no shallow source of methane can be invoked.
Vertically stacked domains of hydrocarbons have been found in all cases where drilling was sufficient to display them. The consistent tendency to find hydrocarbons below any producing region has been given the name of "Koudyavtsev's Rule", after the important Russian petroleum investigator who discovered this effect and collected a very large number of examples of it from all parts of the world. This rule would be the consequence of a deep origin of hydrocarbons and a steady process of outgassing.
With this picture in mind we would readily understand that refilling of hydrocarbon fields is possible and even probable. But if merely the steady upward flow from deep sources had been responsible, the refilling time scales would be much too slow to be of commercial interest, or to match the speed that appears to have been observed. A limit to the global average of that flow speed can be derived from the approximately known supply of carbon to the atmosphere over time. On that basis a large gas field may be recharging in times reckoned in tens of thousands of years, still very short compared with many millions of years, as had been the widespread belief. But observed refill times of just a few tens of years cannot be explained by this. However another effect will set in when a field is under production and the pressure in its domain is thereby diminished. The pressure difference between the producing domain and the one below it will then be increased, resulting in a higher rate of flow through the low permeability layer that divides these domains, or it may even result in a physical rupture of that layer.
There is an analogous case known in Kuwait. The extraction of goundwater at the shallow levels results in the disintegration of the barrier to the oil levels just below, and the water in the wells is suddenly replaced by oil. The delicate pressure balance that had established itself, just up to the level that the strength of the rock could bear, had been upset. Similarly in stacked domains of hydrocarbons, the lower domains will be opened quickly, once the upper ones had been depleted and the fluid pressure thereby reduced sufficiently. This process can be fast, just as it is in Kuwait, where we had the advantage that a different liquid (water) filled the upper domain, so that one could identify the rupture to the oil filled domain below.
This type of refilling process thus allows exploitation of the domain below that from which production had been obtained before. In turn, when this lower domain had suffered a sufficient pressure loss, the process may continue to the next lower domain. How much more than the original content of a hydrocarbon field can be produced in any one case will depend on numerous details of the formation, but present indications are that it is often at least double. The present global gas and oil glut appears to be due to this effect, and we have not yet seen the end of it, or any indication that it will end soon. Gas fields will be subject to faster refilling than oil fields, and moreover the volumes of gas in lower domains will in general be greater due to the higher pressures there and the higher compressibility of gas. Gas will thus become more plentiful than oil for this reason alone, but gas seems to be generally more plentiful and more widespread than oil. The environmental advantages of changing from coal or oil to gas, by far the cleanest of all combustible fuels, are very large, and the changeover is at present still handicapped by the mistaken belief that the supplies of gas will run out soon.
Thomas Gold
September 1999
Today's' PR interesting to re-read. It's crammed full of information.
* "the first of a series of mobile app products"
* it contains "social search" and is "combined with years of technology development"
* "multiple patents are in process"
* "Mimvi will be working closely with the Microsoft Azure team to advance Mimvi ECHO™ algorithms and apps"
* "Mimvi ECHO™ is a full-service marketing platform."
Volume hitting the ask pretty solidly the last half an hour. Realists know this is a time bomb waiting to be acquired by a mobile player needing an App search, at much higher prices.
I doubt anyone falls for your games, MIMVI is a real firm in a real sector.
Lol, you'd best call MIMV's new partner MS*T and let them know that the months of DD they did was all for naught. You should also call GO*G and AA*L let them know they may want to look for a new App Search company.
Motley Fools take on the MIMVI/Microsoft partnership. Loved this bolded line from these guys.
"Conclusion
Microsoft is unlikely to have made this investment without having a good, long look under the hood of Mimvi's technology and the likelihood that Mimvi is acquired by Microsoft or another suitor is only increased with this news. And with these type of aggressive partnerships in the mobile space, I would recommend Microsoft as a strong buy."
http://beta.fool.com/danieltodd/2012/09/26/microsoft-partners-mimvi/12993/
MIMVI hit .391 for a low after the Microsoft announcement last week.
The huge volume yesterday afternoon and early this morning looked a bit like a short cover to me. If it was, they covered and then all buying basically stopped. The bulk of today was simply small time flippers heading for the exits. We should stabilize price wise.
Apple has almost $100 billion cash on hand, Microsoft has over $50 billion, Google has close to $50 billion. With the mobile market being ultra competitive and a mere 1/4 billion needed by buy MIMVI, it's going to happen by one of them at some point.
Holding shares for a while is just plain smart.