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.
How so?
It's also been used a positive way for years on OTC stocks too.
What's your point?
In equally unrelated news, nuclear bombs also kill.
.0004 or .0007
Hope some of you can use this bounce to cut your losses and get out - zero transparency with this company.
IMO, I'd be wary of anything they say knowing they have 2B of new shares to dump into the market.
Just doing a quick drive by to see what this board looks like in the teens for one last time.
Looking forward to shareholder meeting and the news leading up to and after it.
$MCCU
How is this post related to ORRV/MCCU merger?
Hahaha. That's funny bro.
... Because we are just getting started.
Agreed. Finra, APO. Acquisitions. Timing is everything. You either trust DD or wait and get left behind. Man, you should hear the stories of regret from DOLV
I wonder what that means... hmmm.
Does this mean FINRA is in late stages of the approval process? If I was an investor looking for the right time to buy, you think i should be loading up now? Or after the news hits and i'm sure this is not just some scam (which will likely be when everyone else is trying to buy)?
Good call.
Yo AXE.
What's the 4-1 on this stock. Looking to setup a rig here.
Looks like its been waiting on FINRA since last Dec!??
Excellent.
Will check it out.
Good call on AZFL (among many other good calls).
Morning boss.
Noticed your list starts in the 8s. Got anything in the trip 1-3 range?
Good morning boss!
$ORRV. Mismanaged R/M. Support at 3/4 until FINRA approval. Expected PIPE after name change will set market price well above current level.
This could either be a memorable week that begins our run to copper or silver, or another week inching us closer to a memorable week(s). Win-win if you ask me. GLTA
Lot of news coming out all at once.
I'd have preferred an otc document summarizing all this instead of tweets but this'll do for now.
My thoughts (and yours IIRC) were right, the delays were on the TA side. It would be helpful if Frank can disclose the why of it all. Why was the TA change necessary? I suspect the agent is being uncooperative or unnecessarily unresponsive.
In any case, I see absolutely no reason the name change does not go through. Folks don't understand that the big hurdle was the merger, which is done. The name change is simply that: a name change, which happens every day and for a multitude of reasons ranging from "i just don't like our ticker/name" to "rebranding" etc.
I looking forward seeing where the stock price will settle after it's said and done.
TBF, when the factual verifiable data is out, there will be a premium for the stock price. I'm not very sure this is a valid position in trading pennies...
Agreed.
This is what I'm trying to get folks to understand. There are stages/steps to this process. If FINRA did deny this application, we would not be at the stage where a TA is involved. Again, this is my personal interpretation and I'm yet to confirm it definitively. Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.
Nice post AXE.
Agreed.
IMHO, per letter from counsel, all of this should be updated after all filings regarding name change is completed. I think it is a low or no priority.
Just so I understand your position, over time you have come to the conclusion that you agree with others on this board that this stock is a scam/sham? So is it safe to also assume you have since closed your position on the stock? If so, are you looking to reopen this position if the company moves forward with merger (e.g. an update on FINRA showing ticker change)?
None taken.
I don't know why and I don't care enough to speculate.
It's not uncommon and it wouldn't be my priority right now if I was trying to complete a reverse merger and PIPE...
What I do care to speculate given my position is what the float is and not why we don't have the official numbers.
This way I have a "bounds" on where this will settle given the float and known revenue.
There's been no update from ORRV at this time. We can only "speculate" as to why. If you have done your DD, then the important question is what has changed? If you haven't, then you should definitely exit because you should never hold a clueless position (no pun).
This part is for those who are holding for the RM so you can ignore it if doesn't apply to you.
That said, i'm working with others on this board to come up with an estimate of float. The best we have so far was from axe's post using the cumulative sum of debts we know of and an approximate sell value to derive how many shares were sold.
We want to compare that to T-trades posted since January. We are still working on acquiring that data so any ideas are welcome.
GLTA.
Instead of going this route, how about we collate all the Ttrades posted since January? that will give us a fair upper bound on how many shares were added.
Private Investment in Public Equity.
The key takeaway is that there are private investors. Similar to IPO, APO will set price for stock once it is announced. Similar to how snapchat opened at $17 based on valuation, MCCU will open at price set vis-a-vis APO.
Trading will be executed at set price (.05, .1, .5?) but should see a movement up and down until stock settles into some perceived value.
No one knows the valuation but per experience, it should be north of .05 IMHO.
No worries. Like I stated though, "If I Understand Correctly". I may be wrong, but that is my understanding from looking at the page. Someone else who may know better can either confirm or correct me if i'm wrong.
Volume of shares traded is not the same as A/S or O/S. Nothing to do with share structure. Just market action IIUC.
.02 is not a bad number from .0007...Agree?
Because this isn't their primary venture, I see nothing wrong with it per se
Did you just call Bloomberg fake news?
Now you have my attention.
"Incredulity" is a heightened state of disbelief. So many people have been misusing the word lately. Even in print.
I'd refer you to your own comments. Frank is not a lawyer. He wouldn't have needed to ask for advice if he already knew what to do.
The advice Dieterich offered consisted of a single sentence.
That is not what "incredulous" means.
Do you believe Dieterich is company counsel....
But hijacked shell has a nice ring to it. Can we keep it?
Let's not flatter ourselves, shall we.
Deceit, in whatever capacity is wrong. Now, since I didn't mention any names, I'm not sure why you'd interpret my words in that way.
What about them. Is there a trained lawyer on here who's opinion we should value over not one but an entire law firm?
"Dieterich & Associates", "We have reviewed". Operative words being "& Associates" and "We". Meaning we have reviewed. Not one lawyer but a team of lawyers and paralegals within that law firm have reviewed the case and prescribe the following actions. Which actions Frank, MCCU IR person, has publicly disclosed each step leading to the FINRA submission.
This is a legal document from a law firm to a client as to what to do next. It is not a casual suggestion. So again what "things" are we discussing? The authenticity of the submissions? Whether Frank is lying about the filings? Or that some of us are more competent than a team of legal professionals and therefore are in a position to know better than they do?
Which "things" exactly?
Oh no, and I was going to get in, was about to buy $<enter now life changing stock amount here> but I bid-sat. Now i will forever blame myself for counting pennies instead of holding the long-term picture in mind. While 10000% of 0.0009 > 10000% of 0.001, 10000% of 0.0009 >>> 10000% of 0!
Stories of regret will be made on this stock. Stuff for the ages...
LoL.
I expect to see a flying cars tomorrow so..
Another logical fallacy. Being consistently right does not add anything to the current question.
Will being wrong or uninformed about the legal ramifications of certain statements, what they entail or require does not imply that you are correct here.
Will is not a lawyer, is he?