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.
Ok this is finally a bit of fact about the NSS situation in 98's post.
It is also the reason I have repeatedly said there is nothing to see with NSS.
The naked part means never existed. This is an internal mechanism that all of the possible external indicators, such as dilution, bearish down pressure, etcetera can all be explained away as "normal market activity."
It only really becomes outwardly visible in extreme conditions. FTD's mount as there was nothing to deliver. Basically what we saw with Lehman. It was not the reason for the collapse but certainly a nail in the coffin.
This is why it was made illegal when it had been a common practice, although frequently abused. Problem is it was made illegal "except." There are still provisions for it's use.
I understand why the NSS discussion in DBMM. DBMM has several earmarks of the possibility. The easiest finger to point, is at all the toxicity within the company's financial partners. Plus the ease of which DBMM could be taken out, that meant any nonexistent shares go poof.
But regardless of the what if's, it is difficult to prove something that never actually existed. So again I will say, it's speculation at best.
The only angle that intrigues me, is what that judge saw to dismiss. There is no disputing the fact that per regulation DBMM deserved revocation and ALJ readily admitted this. So then what did the ALJ see to recommend dismissal? Surely wasn't bad actors, as 95% of OTC is just that.
My personal thoughts are, she saw a disparity in the decision to go after DBMM, when there were many others in the equivalent or far worse regulatory compliance. I think she saw the decision to go after DBMM was not a throw at the dart board. Something indicated they may have been targeted. SEC is infiltrated with nefarious actors, same as many other government bodies. Anyone hear of the FBI?
This is my own huge speculation here but it certainly explains going against the historical collusion between DOE and ALJ. Then the exuberance with which DOE displayed defending the position.
Could just be a cat fight, lord knows. But certainly seems like some has a dog in this hunt somewhere...
I hope you are correct. It would be a significant profit. Hopefully comes next year though. I don't want to be dealing with DBMM why I am playing.
Can't disagree with much of this but long way around saying pump and dump lol.
I still don't get the argument over proper DD in DBMM and same with NSS speculation. No room for speculation in DD. There is no pro or con DD, it is only a collection of historical facts. The historical and fundamental facts in DBMM is a train wreck. That reality, is 99% of the OTC marketplace. But absolutely none of that fact is what's in play here.
Right now we have one side spinning a good fiction and the other a good docudrama. Then we have the critics. Critics most crucial role is to drive sales. Because no matter how low they rate the fiction, it sells even better. Why? Most are bored by drama but no matter how poor the fiction, it's hard to turn away from a train wreck.
I am pro DBMM. Certainly not because of company history or fundamentals though. It is because conditions are ripe for a significant up tick. How sustainable it will be? That is irrelevant, I will be long gone by then. My opinion is CE drops and DBMM sees a pump. What they do with this gift horse, is up to them.
You know as well as I do, those examples cover about half of the OTC marketplace.
I keep saying this, NSS are real, it occurs. Is it occurring here? Possibly. If you can prove it, they are doing it wrong.
Although, another very good reason to drop CE and let it rip. That's the only way you have a legitimate chance of proving the theory in DBMM.
Another view point.
"Sure, it is up to OTCMarkets to make the decision about dropping the CE, but their decision is based on whether or not DBMM is a risky stock... which the ongoing SEC case is very relevant to!"
This is factual but only looking from certain angle. Who are you saving from DBMM by not dropping the CE? New investors? New investors that if any DD was done would see all the things you repeatedly detail here? You are not the only one talking about the failures within DBMM.
But by purposely trapping existing investors are you saving them? They were fed plenty of misinformation prior to being trapped in the debacle.
One could argue that by opening up trading it would allow those investors an exit point. I believe this would do far more good than harm. And if the many posts about zero interest in DBMM are correct, either it would be thinly traded or not at all. So from a different perspective appears withholding CE decision would possibly do more harm than good.
Of course, the facts are, once OTCM rules were changed here, giving them authority over this action. They would have to find definitive evidence to withhold CE removal. If the ALJ did not find this, FINRA did not find this and the Commission has a historical precedent of not overturning most ALJ decisions. My opinion is they likely open up trading and let the chips fall.
Plus, in case everyone forgot, MM's profit from DBMM trading. Regardless of whether or not investors do...
Yes. It should and can. But is up to the OTC.
Canada has a different regulatory structure.
The ALJ decision stands until it no longer does. This is also why OTCM will likely drop the CE once their review of the application is complete.
Might be other factors but honestly that's just speculation. Not that it is not an interesting debate, just not wise to lose sight of that fact.
What if can be friend or foe.
It is designed as a check and balance for the ALJ decision really but rarely does the DOE request it of the ALJ.
The Commission has decision making authority but primarily they're there to make sure no errors in law were made.
I expect they let it stand.
The CE drop has nothing to do with the review though.
Well I think you misunderstood the information. I am sorry if mistyped something I didn't really proof read it well.
DOE is challenging the ALJ decision for dismissal, through the review process, correct? If the Commission sides with the DOE, in other words agrees that the ALJ is in error, then several things can happen. It is not likely they decide error within the entire decision. But all of that is what if's
Facts are this is not common, the ALJ generally sides with the DOE or company just caves beforehand and accepts revocation.
From an investor standpoint I understand you viewing this as greater than a pissing match, but I assure you, I know a bit about the internal workings and if you think these people don't have little cliques, you are mistaken. Think of the SEC more like our branches of government and less like a legal system.
Generally these proceedings are petitioned by the company in question. A last ditch effort to plead their case. But the ALJ and DOE are already in agreement generally, so likelihood of the commission going against both of them is slim. Here, probably due to excellent representation on DBMM's behalf, ALJ found that revocation was not necessary.
If you read every case used as evidence of precedent by the DOE, it is not of like kind. DOE has cherry picked similarities but same as, it is not.
I am guessing by the wording that this is personal and more than a simple disagreement on policy.
Now if I get that, you know the commission does.
LOL. I think I told you how I wound up here before. Honestly never had much use for this platform until I got into MJ stocks and this was one of the few places you could get news. surprisingly I found there are some tenacious investors here. DD is sometimes substantial if you done mind weeding through the muck.
I have been with IBKR for a long time. I have traded on tons of exchanges including Canada. Now I have not traded Canada in a while but I am pretty sure I could get it done their.
I just have property in several countries so I go visit them but I live most the time now I slowed down in Belize.
Your points of irrelevancy are mostly correct, except one, DOE being the respondent. This is relevant and substantial. If you read the DOE petition for review, it seems very contentious. If that was only directed at DBMM it might be irrelevant as well. But DOE goes after the ALJ almost as aggressively as DBMM. This implies the possibility of an internal pissing match.
I have read this as another moment of "strangeness" in this saga of the DBMM soap opera.
Now in DOE petition and the corresponding respondent-appellee's brief, the both state several ruling providing case precedent to back up the respective positions.
What I find interesting is the DOE used a case ruling and commission quote that has zero to do with the DBMM case, except for aligning with the DOE narrative.
"Commission has previously pointed out the important role deterrence plays in investor protection:
We have held repeatedly, however, that "[t]he extent of any harm that may result
to existing shareholders [from revocation] cannot be the determining factor in our
analysis"; rather, ~'n evaluating what is necessary or appropriate to protect
investors, 'regard must be had not only for existing stockholders of the issuer, but.
also for potential investors." ****Moreover, it is necessary to deter Absolute and
other issuers from disregarding their obligations to present accurate and timely
information to the investing public until spurred by the institution of proceedings."
But this quote about the Absolute case was accurate for those circumstances. While the ALJ never contested CorpFin' s findings regarding delinquency, the Absolute case had far more to it than 3 years of back reporting.
I think I have made it clear that I believe DBMM probably deserves whatever comes it's way. Although, if you view only the recent events regarding DBMM I can see how they could make a case that extenuating factors led to at least some of the reason for late reporting. Coupled with several years now of "better behavior" it takes a lot of the implied threat to investors off the table IMO. Again, not in agreement presa, but I could see the argument.
Back to the internal cat fight. I see an interesting conclusion to all this as well. Commission has the ability to take the mulligan here. They could side with the DOE on the decision and then offer a stay.
"The Commission has stated that it "generally considers four factors" when evaluating the appropriateness of a stay of its own orders:
(1) whether there is a strong likelihood that a party will succeed on the merits in a proceeding challenging the particular Commission action (or, if the other factors strongly favor a stay, that there is a substantial case on the merits); (2) whether, without a stay, a party will suffer irreparable injury; (3) whether there will be substantial harm to any person if the stay were granted; and (4) whether the issuance of a stay would likely serve the public interest."
I will say this one last time, this DBMM debacle has caused me to review a lot of old cases and precedence regarding it. Generally you can find very clear cut, multiple cases that check all the boxes. This one, I haven't found it. Not saying this hasn't happened before, just saying because of the overbearing nature of the SEC, companies that have been in this position generally submit and fade away.
Just my opinion, maybe not completely irrelevant lol.
LOL. Well like I said before, not that NSS doesn't occur.
Just if you can prove it, they are doing it wrong...
I know Interactive Brokers does and Lightspeed. Etrade and TD used to for the people who can't meet minimum requirements. But TD changed hands so not sure but if anyone wants to buy in Canada I suggest they just Google brokerages that support Canadian Toronto exchange trading. There will be fees.
That is referring to the original action against DBMM and they are recommending that it be allowed to continue rather than be dismissed. The commission would need legal reason the strike the dismissal decision but they have no authority to decide the case in place of and ALF.
You are misunderstanding the review process. It is akin to a cooperate internal review. They are reviewing the ALF for errors in the decision, not whether it should be a different decision.
Hahahaha! It seems to be. I have relationships with most prominent US brokerages at one point or another and I never knew one that couldn't set it up the trade for you, for a fee of course...
Not correct.
The 2 are unrelated at this point. OTCM is only bound to review the application for adherence to the rule. Since there has never been any legal decision made except that of dismissal. There was never any revocation to take place. So nothing but procedure holding OTCM back. CE will drop in due course.
The decision being decided is if the ALF followed the word of law. The review committee has zero to do with creating legal decisions here. If they did find errors, it simply reverts and the process continues again. It also doesn't mean the decision changes either. Could simply be a technicality that gets kicked back and decision ends up the same conclusion.
All requirements were met to receive the FINRA approval. OTCM is only going through the reqiured process. As soon as that is finished it will drop.
This is not just Canadian interest. Americans can trade the Canadian exchange.
Your assuming a connect between this review board hearing and the OTCM review of DBMM.
There is none.
OTCM can move forward with the decision as soon as they have done their DD.
Thing is with the changes in the rules, OTCM has to be very thorough in the review. So it hasn't factually been that long since submission for review. CE will drop as the SEC review process will not affect it, regardless of the outcome. If they decide the decision was wrong, I will go through another arduous process. These people are all lawyers for the most part. Lawyers are masters of delay tactics. Even though this is just a curtesy internal review at the SEC and nothing legal about it, they will do what lawyers do.
As I said the other day on here regarding this process and now the DBMM update says the same. They are simply dragging this out because they can...
Well this is all my opinion absolutely, just maybe a perspective not everyone is allowed.
Let be clear, anything could happen here. There are definitely some unusual overtones to some of this.
The most of which, is why? A lot of things make no sense here. I have generally found that when this happens, somewhere there is a puppet master.
That is why when you smell smoke, you look around and find the guy running before anyone yells fire. Grab those coattails and hold on for the ride.
My friend, I am absolutely not contesting you are theoretically correct on many of your points.
DBMM should not be here today. Your last paragraph is accurate and the reason the reason the situation today exists. DBMM screwed the pooch for quite some time and then when SEC jumps in they seem to have followed suit. This whole thing has been amateur hour. It was littered with bad actors as well.
But way I see it is like this. Regardless of everything before DBMM got pulled, after that occurred the SEC never followed through with revocation. I don't have everything the was looked at to dismiss the proceedings but I have to assume there was something that swayed the opinion.
Really doesn't matter now though. As much as there is a historical precedence for the revocation process being non negotiable, there is absolutely one for these agencies protecting their own.
That coupled with some serious incompetence I do see the SEC dying on this hill.
Ok no point in arguing assumptions of how the SEC works internally.
Not being rude but I have first hand knowledge of their function. I know you would be appalled, just by your lofty idea of that function.
I may be assuming myself, that you are current on all of the recent failures of duty, manipulative behavior, collusion, incompetence, the list is long at the SEC. Certainly not going over it, Google is a treasure trove of knowledge.
Not 2 seconds are wasted on DBMM at the SEC. In fact, even the extension letter is copy and paste. Only one reason this is dragging out.
Because they can.
No commission debate behind closed doors, no reviews of information, nothing. Simply push it along until they can no longer and it fades away.
This procrastination is the norm, not the other way around. Unless there is an adgenda in place or lobbying, it stagnates. DBMM decision will stand.
OTCM has zero reason for not dropping the CE. There are plenty of companies trading right now with far more shareholder risk than them.
I don't know how to get people to understand, this market is manipulated. DBMM has the greatest makings of a pump for a penny stock. These people will not let that opportunity go to waste.
Lol. My guy has been with me a log time. Plus he speaks like 7 languages.
I heard of that
Sorry my friend but if current events doesn't help you understand how this works, I can't help you.
You're right, they are appointed, you're right, they can be overruled and you're right, DBMM is an ass pimp for them.
So what makes more sense? Disqualify a presidential appointee or let a nothing ticker slide?
I never say never but imo not going to happen. DBMM decision gets pushed back till it can no longer and then the decision will stand.
I fly private. Always wifi.
New Zealand,
Peru, Argentina and Belize (I own property there and my trading account lol).
Oh the reason to extend into oblivion is the longer it goes the less impact it will have to them. People forget that it ever occurred.
I actually stated the reason in a reply to jet.
But the nutshell is, Jet is right that it opens up a can of worms for the SEC.
But they will play triage here and take the mulligan on DBMM. This is a very specific case and sets a specific precedent. If they over turn the decision, they have to say they don't trust their own. Which then opens up virtually every decision to that. So least of 2 evils. Because he is correct as well that DBMM is insignificant to the SEC.
Was not long enough. I am fixing to head out of the country for the holidays so need the rest lol.
I was hoping this wraps up before EOY but we'll see I guess.
If not I have to set notifications.
The saving face part is exactly that. Yes DBMM was in violation before all the extenuating circumstances. So by rights SEC should have decided that way, let DBMM fight the rest out in civil court.
Facts are now, they did not. SEC decided to dismiss. Doesn't matter if it was one of there own. It is an almost unbroken rule they will side with that decision. Because otherwise SEC will have to admit a no faith decision upon one of their own. Better to let DBMM slide than go down that rabbit hole in court. Because no faith has no direction to it. They effectively open up criticism of every SEC case. Not going to happen.
I honestly hope it turns out in everyone's favor, with life changing money. Lord knows so many could use it right now.
It's nice to see some people win a golden ticket.
Yes Sir, it's like a train wreck. You can't look away lol
Nap part I can agree with. Short discussion started long ago. But honestly, for such a blatantly simple concept, I have never seen the exact same argument debated the exact same way for so many years in my life.
I go take a nap and the longest short discussion erupts again...
I agree. Most don't realize Canadian markets are very susceptible to manipulation, like most others.
You know, dumping shares here at a loss and buying back in preparation for a pump could reverse what was a losing proposition.
I really don't think this is "Canadian investors" driving the volume in DBMM.
I know many here are not accredited or have accounts at brokerages like Interactive. Plus the fees are high so small buys doesn't make sense.
But this churning around the .01 mark is not Bob and Doug Mckenzie trading for some strange brew dinero.