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.
I cannot say for certain but according to Schwab's website:
Shorting can only be done in a margin account, and is subject to the initial minimum $5,000 equity requirement for using margin.
Schwab's initial and margin maintenance requirements on short sales
Security price Schwab initial requirements (prior to settlement) Schwab maintenance requirements
(subsequent to settlement)
> $16.67 per share 50% of proceeds 30% of market value
$5 - $16.67 per share 50% of proceeds $5 per share
$2.50 - $5 per share 50% of proceeds 100% of market value
< $2.50 per share 50% of proceeds $2.50 per share
Source: Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
It's important to note that this table is just a guideline. If a stock has a higher margin maintenance requirement, the maintenance requirement on the short will also be higher (the above figures assume a margin equity requirement of 30%).
All this talk about people shorting pennies amazes me - let's go into detail here:
Brokers require investors to put up collateral to guarantee against potential losses in the form of margin requirements. Often times, brokers will require OTC investors to have $2.50 of margin per share to short a stock under $2.50, which can make shorting penny stocks very costly. For example, if an investor shorted 2,000 shares of a stock at $0.50, you have to have $5,000 in your account. All along, the maximum profit for this position would only be $1,000, if the stock went to zero.
So in the case of AFPW -
100,000 shares would require a minimum of $250,000 of margin to potentially make $310 if AFPW went to 0.0000!
So - if it is worth putting up $250,000 to make $310 then I'm sure shorting is happening by individual investors every day of the week; however, my opinion is it just is not worth it.
Almost all US DOD contracts go out for bid through fedbizopps; however, smaller contracts can be awarded essentially as a sole source. The preferred method of any federal contract is to receive at least 3 bids but the 'rules' can be changed under certain circumstances.
I have enjoyed reading this over the past few months especially considering there has been little to no mention of this. May has come and gone, June has come and gone and now we are almost halfway through July.
I also find it amusing that they are willing to pay a premium for coal from an unknown supplier.
They did cover their bases somewhat by saying the delivery point is the sellers mine. This cuts out a lot of the logistics.
I know I have seen them listed with AFPW and GLER but that is it. Based on their valuations of both mentioned above I would guess they are not very legitimate.
Most companies with any significance has a web presence or some information can be found. Even LLC/LTD can be found but in this case there is little information that indicates they are of any significant size.
Hmmm...20 would be a great entry point IMO. Regardless of opinion if the support stays, buying at 20 would provide a decent chance of making a significant profit.
OK - now anyone that has really followed the current US government status will realize part of the problem has to do with the approval of the current budget AND the disagreement over future budgets.
There is a HUGE push within the government to reduce military spending - the plan right now is to reduce salaries, cut staff, reduce developmental programs, reduce medical care policies and other methods of reducing spending within the military.
With that being said - if the interest by a military customer is any organization within the US DOD then it will likely be scrutinized on many many levels. To demonstrate the scrutiny on spending right now I am involved with a project that is required to meet BRAC deadlines and we have had to jump through several hurdles to receive funding. Since funding has been delayed the costs have went up due to increased time constraints.
It really is and I am surprised that it broke the support at 40. A month ago I commented on it holding the 40 supporting looking very well. Once it broke 40 it didn't stop until it hit 25 then it raised again.
I would have to look at the charts again and see how things are looking now but would agree that somewhere around mid-20's looks very nice.
A month ago the stock peaked at 55 today it is at 30. From 13 June to 21 June the stock fell from 55 to 25 and then raised again to 45 and now back to 30.
If you look at the 1 year chart you are down from 0.02 to 0.003 with a very apparent down trend. If you look at the 2 year chart you are down from 0.15/20 to 0.003 - again, a very apparent down trend.
Once again I will say this has had quite a few opportunities to make money on the short term but long term investors are down significantly.
Information on Cheyenne Resources and Executives:
CHEYENNE RESOURCES INC
367 W SHORT ST
Lexington, Kentucky 40507
Phone: (859) 254-0525
Website: No information provided.
Classification:
Bituminous Coal and Lignite Surface Mining
Contact: RICKY D KIRK, PRESIDENT
State of Incorporation: KY
Est. Total Employees: 35
Est. Years in Business: 10
Cheyenne Resources Inc in Lexington, KY is a private company categorized under Coal Preparation Plant, Bituminous or Lignite. Our records show it was established in 1992 and incorporated in Kentucky.
Location on map - Google Maps:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&biw=1899&bih=904&q=367+W+SHORT+ST,+lexington,+ky&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x884244ed0afef9b3:0x67e86e360b325c14,367+W+Short+St,+Lexington,+KY+40507&gl=us&ei=EmgcTvCjL6bz0gHF5aXIBw&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ8gEwAA
Cheyenne Loadout
48 Kentucky May Rd, Neon, KY 41840, (606) 855-4178
Cheyenne Elkhorn Coal Co
447 Cheyenne Rd, Jenkins, KY 41537, (606) 832-0269
Carbon River Coal Inc
48 Kentucky May Rd, Neon, KY 41840, (606) 855-0242
Carbon River Coal Inc - Millstone Mine
48 Kentucky May Rd, Whitesburg, KY 41858, (606) 855-0242
Cheyenne Resources Inc
1965 Montgomery Creek Rd, Vicco, KY 41773, (606) 476-8188
Cheyenne Resources Load Out
1965 Montgomery Creek Rd, Vicco, KY 41773, (606) 476-8198
Cheyenne Resources also does business as Montgomery Coal Corporation.
Ricky D Kirk is also connected to Carbon River Coal Company that is connected to Jerry Wells.
Carbon River Coal Company is a subsidiary of Cheyenne Resources.
Ricky D Kirk's Campaign Contributions:
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/ricky-kirk.asp?cycle=10
Form S-3 Registration Statement involving Cheyenne Resources and James River Coal Company:
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?ID=6041623&SessionID=hmZFHFiYvetBjP7
-Halfway down page is:
(5) Ricky D. Kirk and Jerry Wells, Jr. each own 50% of the common stock of Cheyenne Resources, Inc., and this prospectus covers possible sales by such persons in the event they become the record or beneficial owners of such shares of our common stock as a result of one or more distributions from Cheyenne Resources, Inc.
2 July 2008:
James River Coal (Nasdaq: JRCC) will pay $40 million in cash and stock to acquire coal reserves and permits from Cheyenne Resources. http://blog.marketminute.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=2&tag=APOL&limit=20
Elk Horn Coal Corporation vs Cheyenne Resources:
http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/1998-CA-002375.pdf
Briefly - contract existed between 2 parties, Cheyenne did not begin coal operations per contract, lower court claimed Cheyenne did not breech contract and was awarded $9.5 million, Elk Horn appealed, Elk Horn won on appeal.
Indicates number of miners at Cheyenne
http://www.msha.gov/media/press/2000/nr000929.pdf
Royal Coal Annual Report - includes purchase of Cheyenne property by Roal Coal - Big Branch Project - Knott County, KY:
http://www.royalcoal.com/i/pdf/2010_AIF.pdf
This report includes a lot of information regardint the coal in the area!
I agree that both sites are not necessarily needed; however, to have a site shut down due to billing issues is not proper business practices in my mind.
Very interesting find but not surprising - I would be curious to hear what others have to say about this.
It certainly does not appear promising and as previously stated just look at previous history and charts to see where this stock goes.
Interesting concept but highly doubtful. Some here stated it would not go back to 000's again either...
Brokers require investors to put up collateral to guarantee against potential losses in the form of margin requirements. Often times, brokers will require OTC investors to have $2.50 of margin per share to short a stock under $2.50, which can make shorting penny stocks very costly. For example, if an investor shorted 2,000 shares of a stock at $0.50, you have to have $5,000 in your account. All along, the maximum profit for this position would only be $1,000, if the stock went to zero.
So in the case of EMXC -
1,000,000 shares would require a minimum of $2,500,000 of margin to potentially make $900 if EMXC went to 0.0000!
It will likely go back to 4-5 and then go again. Look at the past history of this stock and you will see a pretty strong pattern.
Mining regulations on an abandoned mine? I cannot say for certain if this would apply or not. My opinion is for surface related mines that are abandoned there should not be anything that prevents a tour of the surface property.
As far as kudzu - that is really nothing; however snakes are a little more to be concerned with. Did he specifically suggest February? I'm curious why he suggested that time frame.
I commend him for agreeing to the idea.
If specific details are not provided the deal can fall through the cracks without anything negative being proven.
If I were still in the WV/KY area I would say absolutely! I think that is a great idea and would be curious to the reaction - this would turn the tables in one way or another.
From what I recall the reports, pics and property description do not correlate to Samuel Coal.
Details that tie everything together would certainly add extreme credibility to this.
Granted I already have the idea that this is a play rather than investment so it will take significant connections to tie everything together.
I'm sorry but I do not believe that is the case. Before this even gets started I would recommend researching it a bit more and getting an answer that satisfies you.
My apologies - the coal tests you reference are from November 2010. The testing from the loadout I would still not consider accurate or adequate.
The testing from November 2010 is certainly something verifiable.
I am curious why the customer name is not showing though.
I agree - we will see in due time if it all works out.
Sorry but no - the company may have received inaccurate data. If the testing results were blacked out before GLER how can that be considered reliable? At least 8 years has passed since the coal was tested - files do get mixed up...trust me I know...I worked for an engineering firm!
The way a sampling and testing program is supposed to work:
1) the testing agency obtains the sample from a specific location (some times the location is further defined by a location map).
2) sample is returned to the laboratory for further analysis
3) results are obtained
4) testing report is issued to (and in the name of) the client. Client is generally the mining operator but can be an outside interested agency.
Generally the mining operator maintains these reports and will retest at various times to maintain proper quality control.
They have provided some information in the various postings; however, the reports comment on the specifics of coal in the area. The testing reports of the coal have areas that are blacked out. Now although the testing company still exists, the company is no longer known under that name. The name change occurred 1 July 2003. We know this report is at least 8 years old and may not be for the same area.
I cannot state whether or not GLER blacked out the information or if the information obtained by GLER was blacked out. Regardless the testing information cannot be considered reliable without adequate location information.
The subsidiary was announced on 26 May and as part of that being found by wangdo the company issued a PR regarding the subsidiary and WL.
The honest answer is yet to be seen; however, my opinion is the entire deal will fall through on 11 August 2011.
The coal from Samuel Coal Company is no more special or different than can be obtained elsewhere in KY or many other coal producing states.
First we do not have the requirements of the coal from the foreign buyer. In order to say that this coal is worth the premium we would need these requirements PLUS we would need to know the testing results of the coal from this 'abandoned' mine.
Secondly the coal is not going to be directly purchased from the operator of the mine by the foreign buyer. The foreign buyer will get a contract with a broker and get it cheaper.
Third as you pointed out - the coal will not be separated out once it gets to the shipping terminal. You are correct, it will be offloaded, stockpiled, and shipped.
It is interesting how much support this has but I think you have the same opinion I do in terms of this not being believable.
Completion of Acquisition or Disposition of Assets, Including but not Limited to Mergers.
Mammoth Energy Group Inc. (PINK: MMTE) a lithium and alternative energy mining company
announced today that it acquired Compania Lithium Investments Limitada in an exchange of
125,000,000 shares of restricted common stock for 99.9% of Compania Lithium Investments Limitada.
Compania Lithium Investments Limitada was created to acquire, develop and explore lithium and mining
assets in Chile on behalf of Mammoth Energy Group Inc. Compania Lithium Investments Limitada of
Chile has acquired an initial thirteen lithium concessions for a total of 8649 acres (3500 Hectares) in the
southern section of the Salar de Maricunga basin located in the province of Copiapo, Chile. The company
completed this acquisition on May 23, 2011.
Mammoth Energy Group, Inc. will operate this acquisition as majority owned subsidiary. This acquisition
is a related party transaction since Mammoth has acquired its majority stake in the acquisition from
William Lieberman, CEO of Mammoth. Mr. Lieberman exchanged all of his 99.9% ownership to the
Company.
Mammoth Energy Group Inc. acquired Compania Lithium Investments Limitada in an exchange of
125,000,000 shares of restricted common stock for 99.9% of Compania Lithium Investments Limitada.
s/William Lieberman
It is possible for the end user (foreign company) to provide for the storage and shipment of coal.
It is not the way it is typically done but again it is possible.
If a foreign end user wanted coal the easiest and most widely accepted method is for that user to place an order with a broker. The broker obtains the coal from the huge stockpiles available at almost all coal shipping terminals. The coal is loaded on a ship and the end user receives the shipment in their country.
In your scenario and using the few known facts about GLER right now:
1) End user obtains an agreement with a shipping terminal to set aside a space for coal obtained from one source.
2) End user also obtains an agreement with a shipping terminal to load the coal from this single source.
3) End user also obtains an agreement with a shipping company to ship the coal from the US to their country (or nearest Port).
4) End user also obtains an agreement with shipping companies in their country to get coal from Port to facility.
5) End user pays a premium to an unknown company to obtain coal from a single source of unknown quality.
You are correct WL owns the rights; however, he has 'gifted' these rights to MMTE. This is beneficial for all considering WL owns shares in MMTE and as such he is looking for a greater return on his investment.
You are certainly correct - there are different grades based on various factors. The seams of coal are different and can vary throughout the seam.
The point of the original post is that GLER supposedly has a contract to provide a certain amount of coal from their mine to the end user. This requires the coal from their mine to remain separated from all other coal.
The $999,000 came from William Lieberman (NOT MMTE) - I may be wrong here but it is my opinion that he has used his own money obtained through salaries and sells of shares of other companies to obtain the rights in Chile.
You are certainly correct - there are a lot of things that are unknown at this time.
You are also correct in that GLER does not have to own their own loading/shipping terminal but most (if not all) loading shipping terminals receive coal from various sources and it is sold from there stockpiles to other buyers. In this case GLER has a contract to provide to a specific end user so the coal would have to be completely separate from mining all the way to shipping. The shipping terminals I am aware of would not separate the coal this way. I'm not going to say it is impossible because I am not that certain but I will say it has significant difficulties in doing so.
I agree - time will tell. Past history indicates this can be a profitable play. I would encourage everyone to read charts more than PRs. PR's can be altered/skewed/etc to fit one's agenda; however, charts generally paint a good picture (but in pinky land charts can lie as well!)
It is a possiblity - they could barge it down the Mississippi to New Orleans. Once again though the coal is barged to a shipping/transfer terminal where it is loaded onto a ship.
Fact remains - none of these 'minor' details have been provided and the simple fact that most foreign contracts are not directly with the mine is in question.
Why would a foreign company obtain a contract with a small unknown firm, pay a premium to do so, when all they would have to do is get in touch with a broker, tell them they need X amount of coal and it's theirs. End of story.
Now if this foreign company was going to purchase the mine (or a percentage of) then it is justifiable. I do not recall seeing this in any PR - the PRs indicated just an order for coal.
This has been widely discussed on the board.
This was initially listed on the board by wangdo. mspzoom, myself and others discussed searching for the subsidiary to provide additional details and further legitimacy to the Chilean claims. The topic went silent for a few weeks until the subsidiary was listed.
So yes - this is great news but it is news that we have discussed in depth prior to 26 May but was enhanced by the finding by wangdo. Others received credit for it but the intial posting is listed below.
#66147 Finally they are listed in the Dairio Digital.... wangdo 05/26/11 07:06:41 AM
I could not believe what happened with that one - I never expected it to go so high...still don't understand why it did...and then I expected it to drop like a rock but it didn't.
I have read several people say get in, take your 25% and move on.
In terms of find those stocks before the pumps I agree - it is difficult to do. I have only been lucky but wish I could break that code as well.
OK let's explain the coal shipping progress:
1) Coal is mined
2) Coal is transported from mine to holding area at mine
3) Coal is loaded on tractor trailers
4) Coal is transported from mine to larger storage yard
5) Coal is loaded on trains
6) Coal is transported from storage yard to shipping terminal yard
7) Coal is loaded on ships
8) Coal is transported from shipping terminal yard to overseas destination.
Now - GLER has not indicated how the coal gets from the mine to the overseas destination. GLER at this point does not have it's own loading/shipping terminal on the east or west coast. My guess is IF this were legit the coal would be transported via Rail along the Heartland Corridor to Hampton Roads, VA (either Norfolk or Newport News in particular). Since at this time GLER does not have any contract with a shipping terminal they have no way to ship it from Hampton Roads to any country.
I would like to think that we have all lived and learned that lesson...unfortunately.
There are a few rare cases of pennies exploding more after the PnD (IE LEX*) but generally speaking once they hit the 'news bulletins' it is too late to jump in.
I try to let people know my unfortunate lessons on certain stocks and certain topics I know about. Like you said - if one person listens than it's worth it!
What I do not understand is why do people not look at charts before they buy? Yes it is being pumped but look at the charts - they show you the sudden spike starting 5 July.
Who wants to bet that within a short amount of time this stock will be back to 15 like it was before the 5 July spike?
It is possible but generally speaking the correct answer is no.
There are a few coal loading facilities in the Hampton Roads area and generally speaking the coal is purchased by a broker who then sells it to the end user.
For most (if not all) foreign trades the coal arrives via train (in most cases) and is held until the ship can be filled. The ONLY way this particular deal can be anywhere near true is if GLER and company had a storage yard to hold it and then load it on a ship.
In terms of localized and/or within US coal sales there are agreements between companies to provide coal via tractor trailer or rail to the final destination.
This single piece of information that you have asked has really provided a critical piece of the puzzle many are not aware of. This also makes this latest deal even more of a scam.
You are somewhat correct - what we are talking about is the unlikely event that GLER/GENR/Modern Coal will ever actually begin mining in KY.
I belive there is more than enough evidence to support our conclusion.
No - there is a LOT of coal in KY! I have done a lot of engineering related work in Eastern KY - there is a lot of coal there!
What I am saying is KY has a lot of stockpiled coal, a lot of active production mines (both surface and deep), and considering it takes money to start actively mining I do not believe this mine will be used until the other more prominent areas are mined.