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.
*If* EXPH has a $2M LOC... why did they have to sell nearly a Billion shares to raise money for materials and equipment?
as most *regulars* know .. the AS was raised
as a direct result of the etc spin off not being
*done* .. and access to capital a *requirement*
of a legit co. like expo holdings for such clients
as lowes and yeppers .. food lion
Directly from the SEC FTD site:
Please note that fails-to-deliver can occur for a number of reasons on both long and short sales. Therefore, fails-to-deliver are not necessarily the result of short selling, and are not evidence of abusive short selling or “naked” short selling.
look for an implosion when the covering begins in earnest :0
Did you get an answer yet, Penny?
It really isn't so much who you talked to, but rather what you asked...
Tell you what Penny... send them say this post:
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47356938
And ask them to correct it if/where it is wrong...
Fair enough?
I, as a shareholder have done DD
and because I am at a particular comfort level with the company, my investment is not a day to day concern, to me.
I can imagine that if I had not completed any DD, the daily concerns with everything that is to do with EXPO/EXPH, would have driven me mad/crazy!!!
Seems like a convincing argument, thanks... I agree, at least 2 stores done!
It still doesn't answer *when* but certainly does appear to be 2 different stores.
How do you know that they are pictures of a *new* installation... vs. *more* pictures of an old installation?
SEC Says New FinReg Law Exempts It From Public Disclosure
By Dunstan Prial
Published July 28, 2010
So much for transparency.
Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.
That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings."
The SEC cited the new law Tuesday in a FOIA action brought by FOX Business Network. Steven Mintz, founding partner of law firm Mintz & Gold LLC in New York, lamented what he described as “the backroom deal that was cut between Congress and the SEC to keep the SEC’s failures secret. The only losers here are the American public.”
If the SEC’s interpretation stands, Mintz, who represents FOX Business Network, predicted “the next time there is a Bernie Madoff failure the American public will not be able to obtain the SEC documents that describe the failure,” referring to the shamed broker whose Ponzi scheme cost investors billions.
The SEC didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Criticism of the provision has been swift. “It allows the SEC to block the public’s access to virtually all SEC records,” said Gary Aguirre, a former SEC staff attorney-turned-whistleblower who had accused the agency of thwarting an investigation into hedge fund Pequot Asset Management in 2005. “It permits the SEC to promulgate its own rules and regulations regarding the disclosure of records without getting the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, which typically applies to all federal agencies.”
Aguirre used FOIA requests in his own lawsuit against the SEC, which the SEC settled this year by paying him $755,000. Aguirre, who was fired in September 2005, argued that supervisors at the SEC stymied an investigation of Pequot – a charge that prompted an investigation by the Senate Judiciary and Finance committees.
The SEC closed the case in 2006, but would re-open it three years later. This year, Pequot and its founder, Arthur Samberg, were forced to pay $28 million to settle insider-trading charges related to shares of Microsoft (MSFT: 25.92 ,-0.24 ,-0.90%). The settlement with Aguirre came shortly later.
“From November 2008 through January 2009, I relied heavily on records obtained from the SEC through FOIA in communications to the FBI, Senate investigators, and the SEC in arguing the SEC had botched its initial investigation of Pequot’s trading in Microsoft securities and thus the SEC should reopen it, which it did,” Aguirre said. “The new legislation closes access to such records, even when the investigation is closed.
“It is hard to imagine how the bill could be more counterproductive,” Aguirre added.
FOX Business Network sued the SEC in March 2009 over its failure to produce documents related to its failed investigations into alleged investment frauds being perpetrated by Madoff and R. Allen Stanford. Following the Madoff and Stanford arrests it, was revealed that the SEC conducted investigations into both men prior to their arrests but failed to uncover their alleged frauds.
FOX Business made its initial request to the SEC in February 2009 seeking any information related to the agency’s response to complaints, tips and inquiries or any potential violations of the securities law or wrongdoing by Stanford.
FOX Business has also filed lawsuits against the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve over their failure to respond to FOIA requests regarding use of the bailout funds and the Fed’s extended loan facilities. In February, the Federal Court in New York sided with FOX Business and ordered the Treasury to comply with its requests.
Last year, the network won a legal victory to force the release of documents related to New York University’s lawsuit against Madoff feeder Ezra Merkin.
FOX Business’ FOIA requests have so far led the SEC to release several important and damaging documents:
•FOX Business used the FOIA to obtain a 2005 survey that the SEC in Fort Worth was sending to Stanford investors. The survey showed that the SEC had suspicions about Stanford several years prior to the collapse of his $7 billion empire.
•FOX Business used the FOIA to obtain copies of emails between Federal Reserve lawyers, AIG and staff at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in which it was revealed the Fed staffers knew that bailing out AIG would result in bonuses being paid.
Recently, TARP Congressional Oversight Panel chair Elizabeth Warren told FOX Business that the network’s Freedom of Information Act efforts played a “very important part” of the panel’s investigation into AIG.
Warren told the network the government “crossed a line” with the AIG bailout.
“FOX News and the congressional oversight panel has pushed, pushed, pushed, for transparency, give us the documents, let us look at everything. Your Freedom of Information Act suit, which ultimately produced 250,000 pages of documentation, was a very important part of our report. We were able to rely on the documents that you pried out for a significant part of our being able to put this report together,” Warren said.
The SEC first made its intention to block further FOIA requests known on Tuesday. FOX Business was preparing for another round of “skirmishes” with the SEC, according to Mintz, when the agency called and said it intended to use Section 929I of the 2000-page legislation to refuse FBN’s ongoing requests for information.
Mintz said the network will challenge the SEC’s interpretation of the law.
“I believe this is subject to challenge,” he said. “The contours will have to be figured out by a court.”
SEC Financial Regulatory Law H.R. 4173
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/07/28/sec-says-new-finreg-law-exempts-public-disclosure/?test=latestnews
That is quite a bit of wood! I wonder what order it is for?
With all due respect... if companies like say Ford, Citi, or GE can announce a CEO the day he is hired, I don't see why EXPH can't!
The new ceo...
*Some* have claimed that he/she has been around now for months. Can anyone explain why this would not have been announced? I can think of no reason not to announce it the minute he/she came on board...
but it's been *answered* too many times over now to count
I said:
Even the *JD Friendlies* can't explain the filing's absence...
sure we can .. first off expo is an electively reporting co.
and anyone who's done their DD .. UNDERSTANDS THAT CONCEPT
indeed reading all the posts *touting* the co. and mgmt
last year pre 2 well orchestrated runs .. that *morphed*
post *SELL* last sept understood that concept as well
i'm real curious to see if or when this data *changes* since at best it's suspect to me ~ at worst it's collusion and just another piece of the puzzle to send on to those who can actually do something
about it
WHy else would he simply refuse to file a free form that takes all of 5 minutes to file?????
Omega, thanks for that info. I have also had various trades *identified* as conspiracy trades...
All that penetrates the foil is that WE are the ones behind the conspiracy rather than the reading of the l2 teas leaves is dead wrong!
TAKI,
What is your take of the coming EXPH news? Are you still holding?
SHORTED THE STOCK DOWN since mid sept 09
I have to say that the last time I was in a penny stock where shareholders began to compare notes on their holdings and sum them up... and they added to well in excess of the A/S... it didn't turn out well! There were far more shares outstanding then the A/S... the company is no longer around and people went to jail!
I do not believe that to be the case here, but rather the totals posted by 4K are simply wrong... I think a rational individual would conclude that at least one person on that list MUST be lying about their holdings!
so those with search features can take a look see
at 2010 .. 15 pages cover *dilution*
and starts bright and early in the new year
why did so many post flat out false info for
the 6 months covering oct 2009 to march 24th 2010
ETMM raised their ask to $100.05 @ 15:51...I think they see it coming too!!!
here's the shorter cliff notes version of what i posted earlier
feel free to utilize ihub's search feature
they are absolutely there and were done by
some of the same folks who imo have plans
to buy exph shares at .0001 ..
curious to see why they have been avoided since
i first posted them approx a week or so back
like the etc div not being spun off would
indeed result in an AS increase
i actually see 2009 fins meeting guidance
It really isn't so much who you talked to, but rather what you asked...
Tell you what Penny... send them say this post:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47356938
And ask them to correct it if/where it is wrong...
Fair enough?
So one poster on IHUB lies and it is now the gospel
iHub has many reports of discussions with FINRA that reflect exactly what I have verified with my conversation with them. For example, my favorite is this one:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47356938
But this one also brings up an interesting point about restricted share selling:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=50105799
2. the other factor that could affect the daily short figure is very interesting. if a sale is being initiated by the holder of restricted 144 stock, even though the owner of those shares is technically a long, the sale is listed as a short sale because the actual certificates are not yet "clean" via the transfer agent.
They confirmed that in order to ascertain the true "open short" position one should look at the bi-monthly short report. it was also stated that any of the daily shorts which were not delivered within the prescribed time would definitely end up on the FTD list.
END OF STORY!!!
but then folks truly wanting their
questions answered re: what the data
means pertaining to their exph stock
should just *contact* finra *directly*
and >>>> ASK
If that's the way it is then the numbers they put out are useless to anyone and there is no reason to even place them where people could look at them.
Personally, I think the person you talked to was full of it. Someones secretary maybe?
Shortcomings [by what is produced] will be praised by pump/advocates as "something"
As I posted after discussing it in depth directly with FINRA on March 3rd:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47355431&txt2find=finra
FINRA Daily Short Numbers - Defined by FINRA
I just spoke with FINRA to *officially* confirm what some of us had posted before regarding the Daily Short Sale Volume File that is thrown about here as evidence of shorting and/or naked shorting.
In a nutshell, the daily short numbers represent only one leg of a transaction. As I've stated before, MM's want to be flat or net neutral (i.e. not long or short). If you place an order for 1M shares, they generally don't have 1M shares in their account. So they will then sell you 1M shares to fill your order (which shows as 1M short), and then buy 1M to offset it. However, the 1M short report is not negated. So, in theory, seeing 50% of the daily trading volume reported as short in a pinkie should be no surprise and is of no consequence... just MMs doing their job and providing liquidity.
Additionally, if the Monthly Short Sale Transaction File does not show an increase in the short position... there isn't one... period!
We also discussed the FTD numbers. With no reported FTDs, and no increase in FINRA's published Monthly Short Sale Transaction File ... THERE IS MINIMAL (IF ANY) SHORTING GOING ON... PERIOD!
The EXPH short selling myth (including NSS) is officially BUSTED...
I invite anyone to call FINRA and confirm what I have presenting here.
Can You Believe It???
I think the closet and garage storage division was put on the backburner along with the Southern Candle acquisition...
Does anyone else see the irony of the fact that Expo was going to buy SC... and now SC is buying shares of EXPH?
well orchestrated runs have nothing to do with *valuation*
I know that I was NOT on the edge of my seat in anticipation of an earnings date from Yahoo Finance that was probably created based on a random number generator...
posts about JD not tucking in his shirt.
I don't believe the failure to acquire SC was ever formally announced by the company... it was left as maybe something that will happen in the future...
Interesting parallels to the WW deal though... A formal announcement/PR/hoopla... followed by a footnote on their website saying it wasn't happening the very next day...