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.
Worked like a charm for me.
Right -
What I got from the first doc (the one available to the public) is that Pedro basically recorded a document that he was going to make the financial situation of the Fundacion available to, and only to, co-founders/beneficiaries of the Fundacion, --
and
that he was going to make each person aware that the information they were going to receive is private and confidential and that legal problems would follow them if they disseminated the cotents of the documents in any way...
---
Basically, it's the document that shows that they had to go to extreme measures in order to make the financial situation of the company available to it's shareholders
Comments/Corrections/Clarifications??
Sorry if it sounded like that - didn't mean to say it that way.
Truthfully, i think we all have that little nagging doubt every once in a while, but reviewing the reasons we are here, and using a little logical and deductive reasoning always helps bring back the faith. That, and CERTIFIED BIG $$$$$ IN THE BANK!!!
6 months should bring you a nice return, IMO.
An incredible return by "traditional" investing standards!
Best of luck to you and all my fellow co-founders and beneficiaries of Fundacion Pan America.
Now go kiss your wife/girlfriend/Mom/dog/cat/snake/tarantula and have a beer/cocktail/wine/sweet tea/Starbucks/Snapple and relax/chill out/chillax/take it easy/lounge/vegetate!
YEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!
My advice would be...
Now that you know that the company is for real, just sit back and don't sweat the PPS next week, or the next week, or the next week.
Let the boys do their thing, and just look at your shares like a Golden Goose.
Think long term (well pinky long term) - 1-2 years.
So, where is the line in the sand as far as what we can talk about.
Can we post the 2006 financials and say "they were officially certified"
I guess we get to see some of the naysayers in their cheerleader skirts again.
This is definitely cause for celebration.
Another piece of the elephant revealed.
Naysayers will find something to say, but many of us here know the truth.
Congrats to those who kept your cool and your dignity.
Must login to website to see the Certified Financial docs!
Don't get giddy and post them though!! You'll be in a Panamanian jail for Easter!
Jumping up and down!!
Scanner = Dead Horse
I wish "ignoring" people in real life was as easy as on Ihub.
Iggy = peace.
hear, hear sir,
Sorry you're dealing with so much now, but it seems to have brought your perspective on life into razor sharp focus,
My prayers are with you,
midas,
See post 56847
lurking and waiting.
our time coming soon.
Exactly.
They will justify what they do by saying that anyone else on the board defending the stock is a pumper, and only trying to make money in the same way. These boards are only a tool for them.
Betcha Shane67 is looking for an entry point this afternoon or tomorrow after his SEC comments this morning.
Karma will always take her vengeance.
Oh, that's an intelligent answer.
I'm convinced now.
Do you have ANY specifics?
It's funny how the ones who throw the biggest stones will turn right around and jump up and down on the pump when things are going well.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
- Mark Twain
Mr. Jonathan Elkind, Eastlink Consulting. LLC, and Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Principal, and Adviser to the Prime Minister of Ukraine on Oil & Gas
Time for the company to sit on the Bid and buy out anyone who sells.
Perhaps was planned??
Bloomberg Special Report - Phantom Shares
SEC Seeks To 'Modernize' Short-Selling Regs - Official
By Daisy Maxey, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- The Securities and Exchange Commission is taking a " carefully honed approach" in its efforts to address short-selling abuses with as little restriction as possible and is hoping to make recommendations by late spring, an SEC official said.
The goal is to modernize regulations to prevent abusive and manipulative short-selling practices with minimal impact on liquidity, James Brigagliano, an associate director in the SEC's market regulation division, said Thursday. Brigagliano made his comments at an educational seminar on regulatory issues for hedge fund managers sponsored by the Managed Funds Association, a hedge fund trade group.
On the sidelines of the conference, held at the City University of New York, he also discussed briefly the commission's efforts to look into the practice of some big investors, including hedge funds, to vote shares that they have borrowed, but don't own.
Short sellers borrow shares, then sell them, hoping that they can buy the shares back later at a lower price to repay their loan. Some sell shares that they haven't actually borrowed, which is known as naked short selling. Short selling is a common practice among many hedge funds.
The SEC has proposed changes to three regulations - one governing short selling in connection with public offerings; another governing failure to deliver shares on time after a stock transaction; and a short-sale price test, which restricts the prices at which short sales may be executed.
The commission proposed in December that Rule 105, which governs short selling in connection with public offerings, be altered. The rule bars a person who sells short just before an offering is made from covering that short sale using securities purchased in the offering. It's meant to prevent activities that may artificially depress market prices and reduce offering prices, but there have been numerous violations, Brigagliano said. "In recent years we have brought a number of actions" related to violations of the rule, he said.
The commission recommended in December that any short seller be banned from purchasing any security in the offering during the Rule 105 restriction period. The period to file comments on the proposed change ended in February, and the commission is now reviewing the 13 comments it received, Brigagliano said.
The commission also proposed an amendment in July that would eliminate one provision and limit another provision of a regulation known as Regulation SHO, which governs failure to deliver shares on time after stock transactions take place. The regulation, which went into effect in January 2005, imposes close-out requirements on broker-dealers for securities in which a substantial number of failures to deliver have occurred. The commission recommended eliminating a provision known as the "grandfather clause," which exempts some failure to deliver from the closeout requirement. It also proposed narrowing an exception for registered options market makers.
The commission will consider how any change in Reg SHO could affect prime brokerage arrangements, he said.
In addition, the commission has proposed the elimination of the short-sale price test, commonly know as the "tick test." The "tick test," meant to prevent downward manipulation of stock prices, allows short sales only at a price above the last sale price.
The rule has been in place since 1938 despite significant developments in the marketplace, Brigagliano said. Decimalization and changes in market strategies have undermined the effectiveness of the test, he said. "The current price test may not be a good fit for the modern markets," he said.
The commission started a pilot program in 2004 to test the short-sale price restriction by temporarily suspending the rule on about 1,000 securities, and concluded that those stocks weren't more susceptible to patterns associated with downward manipulation, Brigagliano said.
The comment period on the elimination of the "tick test" ended in February, and the commission is reviewing the 26 comments it received, he said.
As for the practice by large investors to sway corporate contests by voting shares that they don't actually own, Brigagliano said that the issue is important to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. The commission is collecting information and "will discuss at some point in the future what, if any, change we would recommend to insure that votes are properly counted," he said.
-By Daisy Maxey, Dow Jones Newswires; 201 938 4048; daisy.maxey@dowjones.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
03-23-070951ET
Copyright (c) 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc
SEC Criticized For Delaying Short-Selling Changes
March 29, 2007 17:28 pm
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is coming under criticism for delaying action on persistent problems involving short selling abuses, an area where SEC Chairman Christopher Cox has said existing rules have been inadequate.
The SEC announced this week that it is reopening the public comment period on changes it proposed last summer to tighten its 2004 rule, known as Regulation SHO. Although the comment period closed in mid-September, the SEC said a new, 30-day extension is warranted in light of the "continuing public interest" in the matter and concerns raised by a handful of groups and individuals who complained the agency had not issued data it referenced when proposing the changes.
"There's really no reason why they should delay," U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief operating officer David Chavern said in a telephone interview Thursday. "The things they're proposing make perfect sense." The proposed changes aimed to bolster the SEC's earlier efforts to combat "naked" short sales. Unlike short sellers who borrow shares in hopes of replacing them later and profiting from a price decline, naked short sellers don't borrow shares they sell short, a practice some compare to counterfeiting.
Although Regulation SHO imposed new restrictions and stock delivery requirements, it contained an exception for options market makers and excluded pre-existing failures to deliver stocks sold short. Cox told a House subcommittee Tuesday that the rule proved "inadequate" because of the so-called "grandfather" protections for prior delivery failures. Last July, faced with chronic failures to deliver certain stocks borrowed for short sales, the SEC proposed ending those protections.
Eliminating the "grandfather loophole" and market maker exception are "no-brainers," according to Chavern, who urged the SEC to "move ahead expeditiously with the reforms that they've proposed."
The SEC said it is reopening the proposal for comment after releasing data sought by the American Bar Association and others, including by CTC LLC, which specializes in options trading.
"We provided additional data because the commenters asked for it, and we look forward to considering their views," said SEC spokesman John Nester.
The SEC had previously referenced the data from the National Association of Securities Dealers, but didn't release it because it contained "confidential, company-specific" findings. An edited version of the NASD findings showed many of the stock-delivery failures over a 10-month period in 2005 had pre-existing delivery failures and may have been exempt under the "grandfather" treatment, while others appear to have been covered by the option market maker exemption.
-By Judith Burns
Your broker will have to reimburse you for 'bogus' shares.
Just because it has never been done....
doesn't mean it's not possible.
To all longs,
Still here, just busy.
Rollercoasters are FUN!!!
LoS
You're quite an emotional person Joelu.
Didn't you sell and go on vacation?
Silence was golden.
Wonder if dlewisfl will listen to that?
Very interesting - just another case of "creative" investing.
I think you're right.
Would you be willing to take a PDR denominated in a % of the company in exchange for your shares?
Not saying this is realistic,
but, if the MOMO runs this to .10 or .15 cents - it seems obvious that MT wouldn't be able to buy out everyone.
I'm sure that they won't be able to legally pay someone less for their shares than they paid originally.
So, by that logic, I think we can say that the buyout will have to be at least .04 cents.
The MOMO boards have this on their radar and even Jim Bishop is in, so whether or not you buy this story - there will be some money to be made here.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17755158&txt2find=pnms+
Hey Million,
Your post just made my 8 year old niece go wild!!
She's still laughing.
Nice one.
#1 most read board.
Valuation of Companies
Buyout Valuation Generally speaking a business can be sold for (3) years of net income, plus the value of the asset of the company. Assuming a Company has $1 million a year in 'net revenues' and $1 million in assets, then the value of that Company in $1M + $1M + $1M = $3M income value = $4 Million
A general business, and commonsense, principle is that the higher a Company's profits, the greater it's worth, and the more investors should pay for a percentage ownership in that Company.
Stock Market Valuation the 'stock market evaluation' of a publicly traded stock uses the same methodology to calculate the value of a company as a 'buyout'.
The difference is that the stock market uses a 'floating number' for the amount of years for the Company's net revenue to establish a value called a 'Price Earnings Ratio' (PE Ratio)
The generally accepted PE ratio has fluctuated in near term historic times from 10 times earnings to 35 times earnings, and at the current time is approximately 20 times earnings. This assumes that the Company will continue to make the same amount of money for 20 years, and that all of this profit will be equally divided among the 'issued and outstanding' shares of the Company. Under this evaluation method then the formula for the same Company noted in 'Buyout Valuation' would be $1M X 20 = $20M income valuation + $1M asset valuation = $21 million.
To arrive at a 'stock market price' the $21 million in valuation is divided by the amount of stock that is issued and outstanding. For instance, if the amount of issued and outstanding stock is:
...5 million shares: then $21M valuation divided by 5M shares = Share price should be $4.20 per share.
...21 million shares: then $21M valuation divided 21M shares = Share price should be $1 a share.
...50 million shares: then $21M valuation divided by 50 million shares = Share price should be 42 cents a share.
In general a stock almost always trades above or below the should be price per share, based on PE ratio changes, general market conditions, specific industry 'groups', and predominantly on market expectations for the future earnings based on market of a specific Company, and/or a specific industry.
UBSS selling to himself.
UBSS and NITE need new diapers after that PR
HERE IT GOES!!!!
UBSS is trying to hold this down until the weekend so they can try to figure a way out.
MT has the cash to kill them, and he's threatening them now.
Time for an uptick!!!
Best way to beat the shorts.
COLD HARD CASH!!!
That was my point - they obviously are planning on using a PE to calculate a fair buy out price - So, easily a penny or more.
Based on cash on hand alone, which will be certified on the 15th , and the recent reduction of the O/S by 2 Billion shares, our cash per share is $0.0035. Using any conservative multiple clearly illustrates the undervaluation of our stock."