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.
> people who try to sell PDRs and buy shares to re-convert IMO have no chance of conversion or new foundation membership.
If a person manages to sell PDRs (and make money) in order
to buy more cheap shares of stock directly, then he would
already be a foundation member in order to sell PDRs, right?
Furthermore, how would the foundation know that a person
had the intention of being a 'flipper' by selling PDRs,
buying new stock cheap, and then converting? Plus, what's
wrong with that? Wouldn't that contribute toward the
goal of converting all shares to PDRs?
> Has anyone received any funds back from Pedro after selling a PDR?
I'm not *quite* as skeptical as OA, but I think this
is a legitimate question (although no one is obligated
to answer it, either). My skepticism about the
liquidity of what I might put into the exchange is the
major reason I haven't converted to certs and sent
them in.
Knowing that the cash cards have been issued and that
they really work is a HUGE piece of important info that
should be publicized by someone.
> Did any PDRs of any type trade today?
Proof that any PDRs are trading would be a good thing.
Is this sort of info available without having an account
on the exchange?
I googled "wash trading" and got a definition that it is
when one investor buys and sells in the same company through
two different brokers.
I was asking about two different people agreeing to be
the transaction parties, and somehow making that happen.
Is that illegal, if it can be made to happen?
That reminds me of a question I had about stock-buying in general :
Can person A arrange privately to sell X shares of Y to person B,
but selling through a broker so that it would show up on the
charts that we all watch (meaning that person C couldn't jump
in and grab them just by putting in a random order)?
Thanks for the link. Very interesting.
But to take the other side for a moment - it's all part of a
master plan to create a bogus exchange to encourage existing
shareholders to send in their certs so that the 'scammers'
can sell them (for nothing, like now) to make the MMs who
need to cover their short positions happy, and then run off
with the meager payback that they are getting, which somehow
is setting the stage for some brief future run-up that will
further enrich the scammers [but not any honest shareholders],
who will then finally disappear with all the cash leaving
everyone else holding the bag.
To take the non-scammer argument, it could be a legit attempt
to make things wonderful for Latin America, but maybe it will
fail with the same effect as if it were a scam.
Or maybe it will work ... but I haven't seen many verifiable
facts that explain the current situation with the stock price.
Is it just massive no-confidence by the marketplace?
>***They will be selling the actual shares they own for a lot more than .0002. They are selling these to let an mm cover that shorted this down to where we are now.
I see. So, they CLAIM, in public, to hate the mms who have
shorted the stock down, but they are really in league with
them, selling to those same mms so they can cover? Very evil.
Wouldn't the mms covering with certs that are supposed to
be stored in a vault to back PDRs mean the mms are
participating in the fraud? Or are mms all ostriches who
turn a blind eye to where the certs must obviously be
coming from? [After all, if YOU know this is a scam,
how can the professional mms NOT know it is a scam?]
It is encouraging, however, to think that since the scammers
will one day "be selling the actual shares they own for a
lot more than .0002," maybe some who hold shares in good
faith can catch a ride on the pump. Or would that be
unethical for good faith share-holders to sell at the
high that the scammers will sell at?
>***You must be new. Sending in the certs has reduced the float here. Something that needed to be done if any kind of decent run was to be had here.
Um ... OK; so that's the theory. But has there really been "any kind of a decent run" on the stock of the rest of the float? When will that kick in, I wonder?
>***No it wouldn't. Those certs were turned in with power forms. The company has every right to do with them as they wish. Who's going to know if they turned them in or not. The fundacion is private. No one will ever get to account for those shares ever.
If the deal is that the company promises to take care of the
interests of the fundacion members (who own PDRs), then the
doesn't have the "right" to break that promise just because
the certs were turned in with power forms.
I don't disagree, however, that if it is a scam, the
privacy and cert ownership gives them an advantage to
abuse.
>***Again you are wrong. They wouldn't be dealing with stolen stocks. MT and Pedro cannot sell their own stock without filing form 144. It would thogh be very easy for them to sell the certs that were turned in. If anyone ever asked for their certs back Pedro or MT could just give them some of theirs.
OK - because people sent them in, they weren't 'stolen' as
though they broke into some bank vault and took them away.
But since the deal is that the fundacion claims that it
will hold the certs that back the PDRs, selling the certs
out from under the PDRs is stealing. It's just a
technicality that the supposed theft would be possible because
the certs where signed over to them. If that is the scam,
the fraud, to sell the certs sent in by PDR buyers, how
is that not stealing?
"The Business Judgment Rule" ... Google it for information
that demonstrates how hard it can be to legally distinguish
bad business judgment from fraud.
Or follow this link:
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5078&context=expresso
for an interesting paper on it.
>Have you considered that they just might not be very good at scamming?
Ha, well, given how much fun it is to read about 'stupid
criminal tricks' in various places, and given that scammers
are bad guys to begin with, sure it's fair to ask: why
assume that they are good at being bad guys?
But the counter argument/possibility is that they are legit,
but just not very good at being legit. I was rather appalled
to learn just how hard it is to bring shareholder derivative
actions against corporate officers, because the law gives
a very heavy presumption in favor of the corporate officers.
Corporate officers (or, maybe, the Board of Directors) get
to decide whether a SDA is in the best interests of the
company. Guess how often those are given the green light.
The theory is that since business is a risk, the law wants
to encourage business risk taking, even by people who may
not be very good at it -- sort of a 'no pain, no gain'
theory. Although there may be little difference in the
end results when you compare blatant fraud with plain old
bad judgment, the law gives much greater protection to
bad judgment because it has to give people equal opportunity
to take business risks.
Sadly, at this moment, if the stock price is what convicts
PNMS of the truth, a good case for bad judgment seems like
it could be made. Sigh.
BUT, just to argue the other side again, the Exchange
really hasn't gotten going to prove its worth -- or
utter lack thereof -- beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Re wash sales - the only thing I sort of know about them
is that you have to sell your entire position. If you
hold onto some, you can't claim the wash. [Having sold
stock at a loss before, I recall getting a message of
that sort when I sold.] You may also have to wait so
long between the sale and the re-buy.
I suppose I ought to Google "wash sales" and learn more.
>Who else has 100s of millions of shares?
I don't know (and never claimed to know).
All I was asking was whether you knew for a fact
that MT, JB, and Pedro were selling theirs.
I take it, from your answer, that you don't know
that they are, but only presume that they are.
I'm not saying your guess is wrong; and it's obvious
that SOMEONE is doing all the selling. But at .0002
a share, 100,000,000 shares is a whopping $20K. I'd
like to have $20K extra, times however many 100s of
millions were sold -- but even if a billion shares
were just sold (at .0002), that's only $200,000.
Is that the sort of money that is typical for a
stock scammer to be after? Is that all MT and Pedro
are really after? Why would they go to all that
trouble rather than, say, just start dealing drugs?
Arguably SOMEONE must feel it's a plus to be selling
for virtually nothing. JF's blog said it was those
looking for tax breaks. I don't know enough to know
whether that's a credible argument. But still, I
just wonder how this could be such a 'good scam' for
the scammers when there seems to be so little money
to make (at these prices). I mean, don't the guys
who write those spam-letters from Nigeria make at
least as much, if not more?
What I wonder is this: if the Exchange is legit,
and will go on-line soon, work, and make $$$, how
might all the dumping (which someone is buying)
be putting someone in a position to make $$$ later?
[BTW - thanks for all replies. Both sides of this
issue are very interesting.]
>Correct me if I'm wrong...the PDRs link you to the quantity of shares,
I don't have any PDRs, but that would be my guess.
> and the TA has your name and the fact they issued the certs to you, so that is on record as well.
If "TA" is the issuing authority for the certs, sure.
But the TA wouldn't/couldn't track my choice to physically
send my certs to the Foundation. I presume that the
Foundation has no obligation to register the fact that it
holds my certs with anyone other than myself (if I had some)
via the PDR they give me.
Re the certs sent to the Foundation w/ a medallion guarantee -
Mike and/or Pedro are turning them over to their relatives,
or have their hands on them themselves, and have deposited them
with UBSS, and UBSS took them no questions asked (the ostrich
defense) and has happily agreed to dump them for cheap?
Is that the way UBSS typically operates, as a laundry for
stock certs? UBSS isn't required to perform any degree of
verification, that they aren't dealing stolen property to
the public?
Even if Mike and Pedro are as dirty as you say they are,
UBSS is readily complicit with them? [I've never dealt
with stock certs, so I don't know. Is it really that
easy to trade in stolen stock certs, once you get them?]
OK - so ... how is he part of the scam?
And to ask a prior question again, do you know as fact
that JB, MT, and Pedro are selling their personal stocks
at these fire-sale prices?
Re the new CEO - that's a great question for those who believe it's all a scam. I'd like to hear the 'pro-scam' answer.
>Sorry but you have the wrong guy there to give you an expert account of PNMS and Jack Brown.
Maybe so - but I'm open to hearing both sides in full.
If there are 5.6B shares outstanding, and the goal of
the scammers is to get us to send in all 5.6B certs
worth, so they can then steal them and sell them back
to us on the open market at .0002 per share (or even
.0001 per share), that's just over $1M. Sure, I'd
like to have $1M+, and I suppose $1M+ gotten by scam
is still $1M+, but I'm just wondering if those
who believe that PNMS is a scam also believe that
it's believable as a scam.
Today, I can't disprove that it isn't a scam, but
I'm also skeptical of claims that it is; so I'm
open to real evidence (i.e., that isn't just bashing).
>you have gotten a more precise answer from StockSniper.
Thanks for reminding me that I forgot to say "Thanks" to SS.
>Why would the broker be involved with the fraud?
Under the doctrine of what a broker knows or should
know (i.e., have reason to suspect). After all, it
isn't a secret that the Foundation is telling people:
'Convert to certs and send them to us; we will
give you a receipt/PDR that you can trade on
our exchange.'
Surely a legitimate broker has a duty to inquire
about the origin of any shares that a company
presents to it to issue for public sale. Is it
a wild guess to figure that brokers must not only
avoid actual fraud and impropriety, but also the
appearance of it? Or am I being naive?
>Those certs have all been signed over to the foundation.
Yes, I know that. That was a detail that made me
uncomfortable when I first read it, but it does rather
make sense (but is a matter of trust), otherwise
what would it take for me to sell a PDR to someone
else if MY name was on the cert that they held?
It would also be a pain to buy PDRs if I had to
wait for the 'real owner' to sign them over to me,
right?
I admit to being somewhat ignorant about the details of
regular stock trading, but I know I haven't literally
signed the stock certs that underlie the shares
in my brokerage account. When I sell stock, no one
asks me to sign over my certs to the new owner.
Obviously I am trusting one or more middle-men to
hold my actual certs and then do whatever needs to
be done when I sell stock. They must be in a form
(unsigned by me) that is suitable for trade -- unless
every stock trade causes a real edit or reissue of
the paper stock certs to record the new owner.
[I never liked the lack of liquidity up until now
in the PDRexchange, which is why I never converted
to certs and then PDRs. But I convinced myself
that signing them over wasn't much different than
what it must take to own stock via an on-line broker.]
So ... they are selling stock that THEY legitimately own
for virtually nothing because not even MT and Pedro
actually believe in their own exchange, so are happy to
pocket a 'few thousand bucks' while they still can,
knowing that there are still a few suckers out there.
Is that what you are saying?
But again - that's speculation on your part, and not
actual knowledge, right?
If they are selling their OWN shares, how does the
'scam' of having people send them certs fit in? Are
you saying that they are also now effectively stealing
those certs by selling them (via some broker) back to
us on the US market (also for these ridiculously low
fire-sale prices)? If so, wouldn't that mean (or be
likely) that the broker who has accepted those certs
[to make them tradeable again to you and I via our
own brokerage accounts] would be in on, and thus guilty
of, fraud? What broker(s) would take that risk for
a pink stock?
I admit more ignorance here, and have seen reference
to "MMs" (market makers) being involved. If the MMs
are legit, is it really likely that the risk to them
isn't greater than the gains to be had by dealing in
stolen stocks (i.e., the ones that people have
converted to PDRs by sending in their certs)? I mean,
that's quite a bit more risk than naked short selling,
isn't it?
Thanks in advance for all the replies. I appreciate
the replies so far.
You say "If Jack happens to be one of the three who are
selling" - which could be generalized to 'If Mike and Pedro
and Jack" are all selling.
Do you have personal (and objectively verifiable) knowledge
that they are the ones selling? Or is that just a guess?
Since other postings indicate that there is no large
outstanding short-sale position, it's hard to deny that
*somebody* is (or somebodies are) selling - but could the
sellers not be other holders who have simply lost
confidence in the market, or (alternatively, but maybe
less likely) can afford to sell at a loss and are doing so
for spite (or because they gain in some other way by
driving down the price)?
I agree that assorted failed promises seem apparent - but
starting a scam with a 'bogus website' that was broken,
and THEN going off and fixing it doesn't seem like the
strategy of a good scam (maybe a bad scam - which may
be your point?). To me, it looks more like poor
management - and poor management, while still harmful,
isn't legally actionable. From what I've learned
(in a Business Organization class, about biz-org law),
there is an AMAZING (almost shocking) amount of latitude
in the law for bad management.
Pardon my ignorance - who is Jack Brown, and why and how
is he being "forced" to liquidate his shares?
Further, if he is being forced to liquidate his shares
at fire-sale prices, doesn't that imply that everyone
else holding shares (not PDRs) is also screwed in
whatever way Jack Brown is -- i.e., everyone else
should be liquidating their shares too?
How do the shares that are liquidated benefit, or
conversely, what point is there to being a buyer of
those liquidated shares? Who is going to quickly
buy up the remaining shares?
>anyone want to sell me some shares at .0012??
At the moment, someone will sell you shares at:
.0013
.0015
.0018
.2100 (!!)
From:
http://66.201.236.134/export/level2.jsp?symbol=pnms
Ask:
.0015 2xMM's 101 (Size)
.0040 1xMM 100 (Size)
.0040 seems optimistic.
Question - is "Size" in blocks of shares?
If so, how big are the blocks? Size seems
to almost always be 1 or 100.
Bid:
.0013 1xMM 1 (Size)
.0010 1xMM 100 (Size)
Do I understand correctly some claims that the
brokerage houses sometimes don't let bids through,
so that Ask meets Bid?
Thanx.
>ubss will only lock it up if someone keeps trying to test them, they're quite versatile when unchecked.
May I ask who UBSS and NITE and the others listed on "Level 2"
as "MMs" are? Does MM stand for 'market maker' (whoever they
are)? [Are they the ones who naked short sell stocks?]
Oh - and why does UBSS do that?
Thanks.
What does the abbreviation "r/s" mean?
.001 x 100,000 = $100 less commission
.001 x 30,000 = $30 less commission
Who sells so few shares for so little
per share? That isn't really even
dumping, is it? Is that a spite sale,
to purposely drive down the price?
>Who cares... The pps is .0011 for real
As a novice penny-stock investor, I have a question
about bid/ask behavior. Early today the bid was
.0011 and ask .0013 (according Scottrade); then
1M+ shares traded at .0011. As I write this, the
last trade was at .0012 (bringing volume up over
10M), but ask is now .001.
Aside from the obvious - that someone hopes to
deflate the stock price and grab more at a bargain,
what is that sort of behavior - to automatically
ask lower than the last trade - evidence of?
Is that an automated bid? Or what?
Also - what is a "mirror trade?"
Thanks.
Earlier in August I got e-mail from Theresa which said:
>If you have any questions, please call me at
>214-257-8090-- we are changing phone systems.
Perhaps the number for the other company was recycled
by the phone company, but PNMS didn't update all of
their website/form numbers.
Speaking of naked shorting, I have a question (and yes, I'm
new to the board, new to IHUB, and, really, new to penny
stocks; and this is my first post).
In a posted-link on naked shorting, I read a story about
how naked-short activity of bogus shares in now ruined
stocks could still be seen, as the cover-sale ping-ponged
around somewhere, indefinitely. [I'm a little unclear
on what that somewhere was...]
I also skimmed some posts on recent changes to prevent
naked shorting of penny stocks, but that some naked
shorting was grandfathered (perhaps like the above-mentioned
ping-pong sales of now ruined stocks).
So, my question is this: given that on certain days, of
late, trading in PNMS has virtually come to a halt,
is there evidence that PNMS is currently subject to
naked short selling (to drive the price down, and/or
to cover prior short sales of the grandfathered types)?
Is my understanding correct, that those regulations
today prevent new naked-short selling of PNMS (under
any or only certain conditions), but would not prevent
'grandfathered' selling (and again, see above - is
there evidence of such grandfathered naked short
selling going on right now)?
If I've got any facts or concepts wrong, please feel
free to correct me (but be nice, thanks).
==
On a different matter, I own a few shares, but didn't
convert them to certs/PDRs because I didn't see sufficient
assurances that once converted to PDRs, they were
liquid enough for me to get my money out (which seems
to be a major topic of conversation on this board).
Furthermore, I bought shares when the 'promise' by
MT (or, if promise is too strong a word, the publicized
intent) to eventually move from pink-land to NASDAQ
was current. To say the least, I'm disappointed that
that intent has been rescinded, and don't fully
understand why that plan was abandoned.
Thanks in advance for any replies.