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.
"Fairy tale are for children"? I will assume, from your sentence structure and spelling, that English is not your first language -- which therefore excuses what might otherwise be considered insulting. I don't know who you mean by "we," but I've practiced law since 1983 and have traded directly through market makers since the early '90s, I'm quite comfortable reading and interpreting complex regulations, and I don't particularly enjoy being condescended to. And "patchman" (Dave Patch - who many on IHub knew and respected) didn't have an agenda when he spoke to FINRA and received that detailed explanation that he posted, which I would be interested in seeing your contacts attempt to rebut.
I will reiterate, for other readers of this exchange, that partial executions on my own sale of N**K a couple of years ago were recorded as intraday "short volume." My sales were the only volume of that day.
Now, as to your new point... yes, absolutely, without question, thinly traded and/or low-priced stocks are easily manipulated by those who place large blocks on the offer. I noticed ARCA's bogus 100,000 share offer the other day, and saw it disappear immediately after someone hit it for 25,000.
You have a splendiferous weekend as well. -satguy
Suit yourself, but I don't know what you mean by "confirm the FINRA data." Garbage in, garbage out, but I guess you can still find someone to "confirm" it. Here are a couple of good explanations, along the lines of what many other people who aren't "beginners" have posted all over IHub:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83559197&txt2find=finra
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83500219&txt2find=finra
Again, I'm not saying that some market makers don't naked short stocks on behalf of their customers. It can and does happen... but no one should rely on the intraday "short volume" numbers as proof of anything.
b9, just to be clear on this... I don't doubt that there is an outstanding short interest in IMSC, whether disclosed or undisclosed. I was only intending to comment on the unreliability (or downright uselessness) of the RegSho numbers. Also, I tend to pooh-pooh the conspiracy theories that are all over IHub (and sometimes even on this board), BUT I did see some unusual trading activity in IMSC over the past couple of days. It could be DMRJ hedging, or it could be some other party. Nothing that a couple of large product sale announcements won't fix.
I mentioned GE yesterday. GE sells scanners of various types (MRI, CT, ultrasound, etc.) and once bought Invision. They have also manufactured shoe scanners and explosive trace detection scanners -- look it up. They understand the technology and could certainly decide that they like IMSC, but I was only using them as an example of a large, deep-pocketed conglomerate who would have the wherewithal to do an acquisition in this space. Plus, Dr. McGann used to be CTO at GE Security and still knows people over there.
Guys, intraday "short volume" doesn't equal "short interest," which is reported twice a month. There is plenty of discussion of what those RegSho numbers really mean elsewhere on IHub, and FINRA's own guidance on the subject has been quoted repeatedly. If I wanted to sell 100,000 shares of IMSC and my broker sent the order to a market maker, the sales would be done in pieces and each of the trades would be recorded as "short volume" because my shares wouldn't be journaled over to cover the "short" until the order is completed or the end of the trading day. I have personally seen days when my sales were the only volume in a stock (not IMSC), and it showed up as "short volume."
Right. And L-3 is another potential acquirer of IMSC, along with the usual suspects like GE.
Everyone will have to be patient. We are only just now at the stage where industry players are beginning to say to themselves, "damn, I guess TSA approval means those little dustbuster-looking things really work."
I look at it this way: DMRJ controls the company. They have provided AT LEAST financial and moral support, and probably strategic assistance as well, while IMSC assembled a world-class management team. They have stood by the company and repeatedly rolled out the due dates for debt while all of us waited for the TSA approval. We might as well continue to trust that DMRJ's interests and ours are "mostly" aligned.
BTW VS, I wouldn't share publicly the theory that you and I discussed earlier, because it could be easily misconstrued. But it may become apparent from the next several days' trading whether I'm right.
What does market cap have to do with the float?
I don't have time to go into detail, but I can assure you that this is not true. However, if it makes you feel better, go right ahead.
I was trading it for the spread and when the music stopped I got caught holding a small number of shares, but not enough to worry about.
I don't think there's much anyone can do right now. Even if there were legal grounds for a lawsuit, which I doubt, no lawyer will take on a class action unless there's a pile of assets to go after, like an insurance policy or a deep-pocketed insider who committed some wrongdoing. I don't see that we have either one here.
Aha, that explains it - thx. I don't know anything about ECGA other than what you posted, but your ownership interest in Insynq from the last moment it was a public company to its first moment as a private company is unchanged -- the only problem is that there's no longer a public market for the shares.
Load the boat before you miss the bus!
I don't understand the basis for your statement. A corporation has no legal obligation to be publicly traded, or to redeem the shares of any stockholder. I've been stuck with a ton of stock in a company that went private in 1998 -- it is still in business, but there is nothing anyone can do to force them to go public again or buy back our stock privately. Same thing with the former INSQ.
If you'd like to copy and paste a link to wherever you think you read that information, I'll try to explain where you went wrong.
As a lawyer with some knowledge of this area, I can tell you that this would be a waste of effort. Stockholders have no legal basis for either demand.
Depends how you define "good."
Here's another "different take," since no one has posted this in the past couple of days... you say "those short," but there is no evidence whatsoever that there's any short position here. There's been a cumulative total of only a couple thousand shares of TEVE traded in the past YEAR, so buying interest is virtually non-existent. The company is losing money and has just gone dark. Why would a short seller, if there were any, be at all concerned?
It's not an issue of "belief." You still seem to be missing the point (which is simply that even what you or IHub's Trades page call a "sell" has a real live buyer at the opposite end), but we have beaten this into the ground pretty thoroughly. Go ahead and have the last word while I go do something productive.
There is no such thing as an "official" buy or sell. Even though IHub and some other quote services like to label trades as one thing or another, there is nothing "official" about it. Trades are not marked on the tape as "buys" or "sells" by OTCMarkets, the OTCBB, or any exchange. However, ADVFN's Trades page says:
"Trade definitions are based on the mid-price and are indicative only"
This means, roughly:
1. If the print is closer numerically to the bid at the time, they'll label it a "sell," and if it's closer to the ask at the time, they'll label it a "buy."
2. "Indicative only" = "we know this stuff doesn't really mean anything, but we will provide it because some people like to see it"
"the order of orders placed determines whether it's registered as a Buy or Sell"
Right, that was my point. How IHub's "Trades" report categorizes the trade depends only on the sequence of the buy and sell (or sell and buy) orders entered by two individuals, and it makes no logical difference. If I put in a bid at 10:01 that you hit at 10:02, that's a "sell," but if you put in an offer at 10:01 that I lift at 10:02 that's a "buy"? Why would anyone consider that a worthwhile distinction? This whole "buy" vs. "sell" thing is an anachronism - left over from the days before individuals' orders were directly represented in the Level II quote.
Every trade has one buyer and one seller, so it makes no difference what IHub's primitive algorithm calls it.
Market makers don't hold inventory on stocks like this, so it's just one person selling to another. As far as you're concerned, it's a buy. To the guy who sold it to you, it's a sell.
Glad to be one of the .165 buyers. Let's roll!
See, can't get away with anything.
"That's totally ridiculous and an irresponsible thing for a losing company to do."
No question. It would be totally ridiculous even without the suggestion that Lenfest would allow the company to pay this dividend to all shareholders other than himself. That is truly loony. I don't even know how it could be done, from a legal and tax standpoint. That would be unequal treatment for people who hold the same class of stock (i.e., common stock), not holders of different classes of shares.
Well summarized, Hank.
Oh, really? Do you have a link to what has been updated? This one still looks like a zombie stock to me.
DOLLAR LAND? Imaging is a very tough, highly regulated business, with lots of competition, and reimbursement rates are heading in only one direction.
I agree that .05-.06 seems cheap, and I'll keep an eye on this one, but I can't imagine that a 15-20 bagger is remotely possible.
You get credit for telling me about it first, and I did trade it a couple of times but never tried to pump it for you :).
Hope it's a huge winner for you guys - I think it has a shot....
Hi Slo. I'm behind on my IHub reading and am just catching up on this board. There were a slew of those pumps with the same M.O. dating back to fall 2010, some of which involved the same cast of characters. LOCN, TRDY, LDPP and PFOB were a few in that time period. Then there were more recent variations, like ASYI. I know there were a bunch more as well.
Once in a very great while the merger actually happens, like with JAQC (will be RAFA as of tomorrow).
2013 will be an important year for EIPC.
"Level 2 does not show the real picture even though the buying pressure forces them to show higher prices."
That's not the way it works. Actual bids and offers from real live people will be displayed when they equal or exceed the minimum order size to be displayed.
"There was 32,555 shares offered at .0047 but when I bought 5K at that price L2 still showed the same number of shares offered - not likely."
There are several perfectly fine explanations for this. One possibility is that your own brokerage, or the market maker it deals with, filled the order itself (sold the shares short to you) without going into the market and then went on the bid to cover. We are not talking about a lot of money, after all. It is also possible that someone had an "all or none" order in to sell 5,000 shares -- AON orders are not displayed publicly.
Any order with a size of less than 10,000 shares will not be displayed at this price level.
http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/finra/2012/34-67208.pdf
"Is someone trying to artificially hold the price down?"
No.
That is incorrect with respect to taxpayers in the U.S. The IRS tax reporting date is the trade date, not the settlement date.
Ok that's it......I'm selling my 20 mil Monday, chow!
Didn't they once date?
Yep. Whoever had to liquidate did so, and the price bounced back. Same as it ever was.
all wrong nothing but miss information try again companys change and things change XXXX is moving forward
I'm not bitter, and I don't actually hang out here often. I owned a lot of CYIO in 2007 and traded it a bit in 2009, but at this point I'd simply like to make sure that anyone who reads this board understands what an incredibly awful CEO this company has (IMO of course). His numerous lies are a matter of public record, his press releases are mostly incomprehensible, and as far as I can recall nothing he has ever forecasted for the company's business has remotely come to pass.
You're right that the company does not appear to be selling shares at this point. Eventually, they'll hire some small-time stock promoters as they've done periodically over the past few years, and maybe anyone who buys the stock around a penny or less will do ok.
OK, fair enough. I'd actually consider picking up a few on spec at .001 or so. However, in my opinion, they have an incompetent CEO who lied to the investment community repeatedly for years, which is a problem.
"Strong revenues"?
Revenues for the three months ended September 30, 2012: $ 243,051.
Revenues for the three months ended September 30, 2011: $ 482,993.
Revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2012: $ 1,017,449.
Revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2011: $ 1,453,131.
Revenues from sales of their hot new product CYIPRO since they began marketing it a couple of years ago: ZERO.
It's an epidemic:
Yessir, a few duckets at 075....
Found $40 duckets--bought 6500 at .0049
I'm out of duckets or I would see how many .043s are there
And this stock makes me duckets.
Got my duckets bro!