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.
R/S happens to .0001 cellar boxed stocks that would trade below .0001. NMGL trades at over one dollar. They won't R/S and as RocketMan said, it doesn't matter anyway (to the dividends or falling price, etc.)
Thanks, RocketMan, that details the entire sales agreement and puts it into context of where it came from (8-K,Items 1.01,9.01).
TomSawyer, the sales agreement occurred. It appears we should have received NMGL A&B's by Aug 17,2010. It would be helpful where exactly those two lines you quote come from. The record date should be put in context of the 8-K and the sales agreement.
The time frame was spelled out as up to a year or more. If the word "immediately" followed the word "will" I would be inclined to agree about a misleading time frame. The timing of a Record Date has nothing to do with whether the sales agreement has occurred which was documented in the filing of $258,000,000+ sales agreement of the gold mine. This has nothing to do with the Sloane filing at all, which prompted your out of context quote.
You seem to be mixing and matching filings and FAQ's and posts. I was talking of one post with the Sloane filing (cash) which I had a seperate post and link. I disussed NMGL/FFGO filing with in a different post that I discussed share exchange.
That quote seems out of context.
Upon completion of the sale agreements, the proceeds will be paid by the Purchaser to Fortress Financial Group, Inc. The Transfer Agent to Fortress Financial Group, Inc. will then set both a “Record Date”.. TomSawyer qoute
The sales agreement is the share exchange of NMGL A&B's by the Purchaser (NMGL) for FFGO's share of the gold mines. See the "by the Purchaser" (NMGL) "to" FFGO. You have to give something TO FFGO. The TO is the NMGL shares that FFGO receives.
The next sentence confuses your meaning of the first sentence. The "set a record date" has to do us shareholders. FFGO has been committed to giving us a dividend. They want NMGL to carry through with giving us a dividend. The record date has nothing to do with sales agreements in terms of the exchange of shares. It has to do with distributing a dividend. What does NMGL or FFGO get out of a Record Date. That is for us, Shareholders. A record date for the dividend. Really, what does the record date have to do with the sales agreement. The sales agreement has already occurred when NMGL A&B's were exchanged for FFGO's share of the mine IN A FILING.
Something has been paid. In one case, cash. In another case, shares. The record date and the dividend are a future event that are unrelated to the other events as I described.
Show me where it says a promissory note. It says cash. In the NMGL/FFGO filing where the gold mine was bought, it says shares and even says where the shares are to be delivered. The sloane filing was also very clear to cash.
If WHEN is the only question, then IF has already been answered. You must know that the dividend is indeed real and is coming.
That is the big picture. There is a 3400%+++ return coming. There are millions invested at dividend price (Sloane) and millions invested at par price (NMGL). Patience will pay off in the end.
I don't know what initiates a "critical mass" event for FFGO or NMGL. Downgrades, filing due dates, etc. I have never posted a date something would happen because of my severe disappointment on 1/1/11 when I "held my breath" believing I would actually receive NMGL A&B's whether I could redeem them or not. I am a little sore that FFGO atleast has their A&B's even if they can't redeem them yet.
So dates like 6/30, 9/8 etc. really have no meaning any to me. Sorry.
"Reputational" events such as downgrades (caveat emptor, pinksheets, etc.) and filing deadlines seem to matter little to both FFGO and NMGL.
I don't know the "financial" event that triggers a filing. There was a filing when NMGL bought FFGO's portion of the mines. I don't know if that was for financial reasons or reputational reasons or both. There doesn't appear to any financial consequences for not filing a 10Q, so it remains undone. So, it is unclear to me if a financial event is necessarily a trigger.
I would think that the sale of the entire mines would be a big share seller for NMGL. Any cost of filing would be negligable to the increase in value to NMGL. I would think that would be a "critical mass" event. I know others are more confident with dates they believe in or unconfident with dates of 30 years to never.
I do know we are trying. FFGO and Sloane cannot get paid til the mines are sold and they can redeem their NMGL A&B's. There is an effort. I just don't know that filing dates or payment dates or other dates have much meaning to FFGO and NMGL.
Overall, we have a lot to be excited about. Millions in cash (Sloane) and shares (NMGL) were paid in an effort to sell this entire mine. It will be done. When is another question.
A historic reminder. Sloane paid $61,760,883.40 for 17,645,966,686 shares of FFGO at .0035 a share. That is more than the price of the dividend per share. Someone would not spend almost 62 million without knowing something.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/802206/000101376210001524/form13d.htm
I believe that paying the dividend price makes perfect sense if you know that there is a naked short position that would eclipse the dividend price.
Economics???? Can we be specific???
CONCEPT--an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances
Yes, an abstract or generic idea. Particular instances or examples--no.
Again, no concept, no specific reference to any particular lies.
Can we see a specific lie? I asked 3 specific questions and asked if they were lies? I will ask again. Is the sale of the gold mine a lie? The $258,000,000 filing a lie? The existence of NMGL A&B's a lie (as the filing shows)???
Are we going to hear a specific lie or again tell us that an abstract or generic idea "blank statement" qualifies as a concept without any particular instances? Do we have a specific lie or are you unsure to pursue something that can be quantified and qualified such as a specific lie or false claim?
You see how Rocket and I have specifics. That, to me, is what it's about.
EVENT-- A subset of the possible outcomes. Like the ghosts of christmas, it can be present, past or future. The dividend can be a possible future occurrence or outcome.---- Webster's Dictionary (italicized portion)
We finally have a premise. Everything said or claimed by FFGO is a lie (except if they say they are a "worthless shell").
Now that we finally have a premise. Will we have specific arguments and a specific conclusion? "Everything" and "Anything" are non-specific to details and facts or arguments. Examples of specific lies or false claims can try to lead to empirical evidence of an occurrence that should happen every time.
For example, empirically we induce, from induction, that the sun will rise because it has an empirical number of times, risen. Empirically speaking, we have no examples of lies that you have provided. We have no claims, if held true, we can deduce, through deduction, other truths or falsehoods based upon previously established argumentation to argue those deductions.
I am sure a college professor would disagree that you have provided statements that could not be "any more direct, clear and precise." Especially, if that professor is a philosophy professor.
If I sent in a paper that said, "everything is a lie," I can imagine the grade that I would receive.
So, the gold mine being sold is a lie? $258,000,000 being paid for the gold mine is a lie? A public filing is a lie? The existence of NMGL A&B preferred shares in a public filing is a lie? There is no gold or value to the mines FFGO had, it is also a lie?
Thanks, that is clear, as long as the answers are still yes to all the above questions.
No specific premise, yet. No specific lie, yet. I will still address your blanket statement that "What hasn't FFGO lied about?"
Here are a couple examples. The gold mines were sold as promised in the Newswires. A&B shares were paid in exchange for the gold mines.
Not very much, what specific lies and fraudulent information?
Objective type things like filings or other reports keep more subjectivity out of the equation. Statements such as "FFGO is a scam," "the worst" and other such statements are as SUBJECTIVE as it gets. How could that not be "your position." I usually quote such things as "$258,000,000 paid for FFGO's share of the gold mines" and other such statements. That is more related to the company and has less subjectivity.
My discussions have far less subjectivity as I back up my positions with facts and figures and argumentation. I see nothing to back up your statements. I see NO discussion about FFGO.
You have made the discussion about you without any references on HOW you believe FFGO is a scam or the worst. Tell me about FFGO. Phrases like "scam" and "worst" depict personal views and not argumentation about the company. Tell me about the company with specifics and I don't have to know your strongest personal feelings such as believing it is the "worst" and a "scam." Without any argumentation, I am left only with your personal feelings about the company. I was gracious to even call it a "position." A position usually has a premise, argumentation and a conclusion based upon the premise and argumentation.
I see no premise, argumentation and conclusion. Without a premise, argumentation and conclusion, I can only deduce your "feelings" from your statements.
Here are your three facts:
1) there is gold in the mines
2) $258,000,000 was paid for the mines
3) there will be a dividend paid as promised
You see how my three facts are based on actual events not unsubstantiated feelings.
I can't imagine MM's and the other NSS cast of characters NOT being on margin, or, in effect, being on margin with the unlimited downside of naked short shares. There might be just enough cash liquidity to handle what they anticipated would be a low volume cellar boxed stock such as FFGO at .0001.
A simple move from .0001 to .0002 is a 100% move. With any volume behind it, it would immediately crush the liquidity of any margin the MM's had on "tap" (account). The volume of a gold mine sale with a dividend "attachment" should force the MM's to have to execute buys and sells.
I can imagine the confidence the MMs had before the increase in regulation after 2/28. They are probably margined to the gills.
It's GO time FFGO time! It will be clobberin time.
FFGO - There is a difference between a buy and a sell.
When someone buys 2MM shares of FFGO, they simply buy it. Nothing magical happening.
The sell side is either recorded as a short sell or a long sell. Nothing magical about that either.
If someone buys 2MM shares and the daily short volume is 2MM of 2MM total shares traded, then the long buyer bought 2MM shares from a short seller. And 100% or the total volume for the day was short sold. PERIOD!
Exactly what happened today.
Good Luck!
---SevenTenEleven
I don't know how it gets any clearer than that. The question to explain is, not if there is NSS. The question is how could there possibly not be NSS. The "out there" theories are not if there is NSS, but how to twist all the numbers that are NAKED SHORT to not be naked short.
When you look at large ETF's or large companies, you don't see UNreconciled FTD's and Short Volume at 90% or better and is NEVER covered. It gets reconciled (with the exception of paper ETF's not having the metal to back up the paper -- but that's another story).
Does not track. It gets almost pointless to keep explaining things clear as day and some people do not want to understand.
TomSawyer, I'm sorry that you cannot follow along with what I clearly posted. They are the other owners. Why would the Company who owns 1/3 of the mines RECOMMEND ACCEPTANCE. They wouldn't need acceptance if they were the only party dealing with the buyer (NMGL). There were many parties involved.
NMGL would not have agreed to 1/3 of a gold mine. They are purchasing 100% to sell 100%. It is basic logic. I have provided many posts and sound logic and reasoning. I need to get some sleep. Later.
TomSawyer, Fortress Financial Group, Inc. (Pinksheets:FFGO - News) confirmed its Statement on December 9, 2009 that it has now received a confirmed Offer to acquire the Company's entire interest in both the "Bouse" and the "South Copperstone" Gold Properties.
The Company's Management has now recommended acceptance of this Offer to both the significant minority interest holders in the "Bouse" and "South Copperstone" Gold Properties and to the Company's Loan Note Holders.
At this time, these third parties remain in discussions with the Company's Management in respect of this Offer. The Company's Management is now confident that an agreement may well be reached between all of the parties and that the terms of the Offer will be amended in order to satisfy all parties. The proposed amendments to the Offer, in order to gain acceptance from all of the parties, have not presented a problem to the Offeree.
Acceptance is another word for consent. Third parties and signifigant minority owners = the other gold mine owners.
It was recommended and later finalized.
The Company's Management has now finalized the revised terms to the Offer required by the Company in order to complete this transaction, this being in conjunction with the significant minority interest holders in both the "Bouse" and the "South Copperstone" Gold Properties.
Where can I find that "consent"? I looked in the FAQ and don't see anything about consent. Is there a specific filing?--TomSawyer
It is not in the FAQ's or any filings. It is commonsense that it preceedes the FAQ's and filings because agreement or CONSENT much be reached by all parties before the gold mine was sold to NMGL. It was announced in marketwires after deals behind closed doors were concluded and "finalized" after consent was reach by all parties 100%.
It made sense to have a filing for FFGO as they held 1/3 of the mine. It would be unreasonable to have 10-15 or more?? filings for each of the remaining minority owners. So, no there should be no specific filing as you mentioned, regarding "consent." It should make sense why there isn't a dozen filings regarding the purchase of the gold mine.
I hoped I answered all your questions.
Officially, only around 1/3 purchased (FFGO's share). Unofficially, you have a hodge-podge of different people that make up the other 2/3. I know someone could give you all the names if they wanted to spend the time to track it down. Before FFGO sold the mines to NMGL, they had consent and agreement of 100% of all owners for the entire mine. So, the other 2/3 should be a filing formality like when NMGL bought FFGO 1/3 in a simple filing. They may want to group the other 2/3 together once they can sell the whole 100%. Not a detailed answer I know.
I have watched a friend of mine make millions with a computer, printer, phone and an active imagination. He delivered real products. FFGO will deliver a real product, I believe.
NMGL is up 50% today!!!
Keep betting on that LOL.
Never bet against a gold mine!!!! Should be a saying or something. After this hits, my friends and family will be hearing, "Never bet against me or a gold mine" and "Never, Never bet against me and a gold mine."
I wonder how many advocates will be around to congratulate us after the big payoff? And to direct us to other (long) investments??
Then we might really find out that the $258,000,000 is a real number, real gold exists in large quantities, and there is a NSS position in FFGO and receive a dividend or cash payout as all assets are reconciled.
I am just as confused as you are, which is it, no gold or some gold or a lot of gold. To me, based on the purchase price of around 1/3 of the mines for $258,000,000 I would say a lot of gold. What is your answer in a more definite way????
TomSawyer, we are making some inroads here.
Yesterday, you said that,
1) Both Bouse and Copperstone have already been owned and pilfered by MANY past companies since 1800! Maybe there is a little bit of gold left somewhere, or maybe none. But I find it very difficult to believe that any past company walked away from these properties leaving a lot of gold behind!!
Today, you said that,
I'm sure there is gold there. The unknown is "how much".
We went from none to a little gold yesterday, to there is gold, today.
Moving from the quantity of gold in the mines. Let's look at the value of gold in relation to our dividend.
It might have something to do with the company's "deal". But nothing to do with OUR DIVIDEND -- TomSawyer.
The price of gold does not affect the price of the dividend. But, the price of gold does have everything to do with whether it is profitable to distribute the dividend (by profitably selling the mines).
Having NMGL pay $258,000,000 in a public filing does give some idea as to the value of the mines. If you don't believe the filings, then why believe reports on behalf of the filers such as Assay reports?????
Assay and audits give you a ballpark (in relation to me or in my opinion if you prefer LOL) to the value of the mines. If this ballpark value is "less than hoped for" (after a potential buyer performs a possible additional audit or after production -- if there is some production clauses in there or something as part of the sale) then the difference between gold at $1050 (deal price) and gold at over $1500 (current price) provides a buffer or cushion to still make a ton of money.
The deal will not be destroyed because audits were carefully done before NMGL took over the mines from FFGO and paid $258,000,000 and because of the "buffer zone" in the price of gold I have referred to.
The rising price of gold gives NMGL more margin for error and more profitability if the assay and audits are less than hoped for. With the deal based on $1050 gold and gold now above $1500, that is a nice little margin to play with. A cushion to make a lot of money. The price of gold has everything to do with the deal.
OldBen: "in relation to FFGO to me"
Yep, it has nothing to do with you. -- Tom Sawyer
I am sorry I don't make redundant phrases like IMO IMHO JMO and so on and so forth. The, "in my opinion part," is understood or at least should be.
As Rocket Man said, did you scroll down to Arizona? LOL
Now let me connect the dots. Posting a link to buying and selling gold mines or scams in gold mines proves nothing in relation to FFGO to me. If a novice was buying a gold mine, there certainly would be steps and precautions to take. In our case, with FFGO we have an "all-star" in the mining business whose education, successful projects and years of experience is undeniable. Ronald Lowenthal is a proven winner and despite cartoons with an "evil looking Ronald McDonald," it changes nothing.
There are 24,183 abandoned hardrock mines in Arizona alone. Why would NMGL pay over a quarter billion dollars for a worthless mine? Why spend the money buying, filing and auditing a worthless mine? Why would Searchlight put up a couple million in cash to keep FFGO going while they sold a "worthless mine?" By the way, don't they owe Searchlight over a million dollars if we don't sell the mines by the end of July? Who would put themselves in that situation for nothing?
AlanC, thank you, posts directed towards you was my main inspiration. Thanks Lebron and tattoo and wdaubie.
Altruism--devotion to the welfare of others. It is so nice to see all the numerous posters who have no personal self-interest in holding FFGO or NMGL, but are here to provide encouragement and support in the form of constructive criticism.
A whole bunch of people thought Noah was drinking way too much Kool Aid when he was building a huge ark on dry land. A whole bunch of people thought that Bill Gates was drinking too much Kool Aid when he was building an operating system in his garage. A whole bunch of people thought some friends I know were drinking too much Kool Aid when they sold their home in 2001 and bought gold. Houses were skyrocketing and gold had "peaked." Too much Kool Aid. I would guess all great inventors were perceived as drinking too much Kool Aid.
By the time a person follows the herd, it is rarely profitable, as it is too late. The person that follows the herd has little faith in his own direction. As such, he is rarely rewarded, as his lack of vision and planning limit him to what is directly in front of his face.
It is the man who plans for things that cannot be directly seen and stays true to his vision that is most often rewarded handsomely. There are things that a person never sees coming great floods, great housing depressions, great unemployment, tsunamis, earthquakes........
Derivatives, NSS, etc. can rarely be seen beforehand.
Whatever the outcome, I APPLAUD everyone who has stayed the course and had the courage to try. You cannot win if you do not try. You cannot fly if you do not buy!
AlanC, would covering FFGO shares, necessarily mean Buying NMGL shares? Technically, only FFGO owns Preferred A&B's, so where is the short position. Unless, the short position is the FFGO shorts that will need to become Preferred A&B's. In that case, there is a face value conversion for A&B's not a run up in price. NMGL only bought the gold mines from FFGO. FFGO may be dormant, but, they are not owned by NMGL (as far as I understand).
If NMGL wanted to help FFGO then I see that possibility of "trapping shorty" by allowing FFGO to put a squeeze on Shorty. By allowing FFGO, not the SEC, to put the squeeze on, then the money goes to FFGO not the SEC.
I guess Shorty either doesn't believe this and has not started bidding up to cover or that any bid up would instantly break margin requirements. It still would be cheaper to cover now versus covering later.
AlanC, I understand a strategic non-filing revocation of FFGO. I imagine the $258 million in A&B preferred NMGL shares that have already been paid (but are currently restricted) could be distributed to all shareholders. That sould great to me as long as there is no curve ball somewhere in there I am not seeing.
The part that I don't understand as well is why that NMGL continues to fail in it's filings. NMGL, I don't believe, wants to be revoked. I don't see any strategy here. Maybe there is a "plan" in place that requires a little stealth. At the moment, I don't see what that is. We still need a billion dollar buyer and current filings. If no FFGO revocation occurs, we still need NMGL to file, FOLLOW THROUGH on purchasing the mines, and FINALLY sell the mines. If there is a possible "stealth" plan for NMGL, I am all ears. Otherwise, they need to follow through like I laid out above.
Interesting theory!!!
Thanks, Texan77, that is a good point. The velocity of money could be affected in an adverse way to risk free money. There is no burden or obligation to increase the velocity of money with free federal QE funds. A large chunk of QE1 went directly to Large banks. These large banks did not loan out much money which would have increased the velocity of money, thereby leveraging the economy. Instead, the QE1 money went directly back to toxic assets such as bad loans, credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations, derivatives, etc. In effect, we financed an improvement of the large banks balance sheets while decimating our federal balance sheet with little or no increase in the velocity of money or any leveraging of the economy.
Ultimately, these moves will benefit FFGO and gold in the long run. Economics 101--Supply equals demand. There can be an infinite supply of paper currency. All hyperinflation in recorded history has come at the hands of paper currency. Gold has a limited supply and a solid demand. Gold is money. People short a 10million oz gold claim, people use short gold ETF's, mines short against their future production, etc. etc. It may work well for a while with excellent timing, but, I believe in the long run shorting gold, silver, etc. is playing with fire. Someone can be burned. Ole FFGO shorty might be getting a little hot under the collar right now.
Fine, we never made a correlation between the price of gold and the dividend. I understand these relationships.
You made the statement that the value of the gold mines will be diminishing. That is false, in the long term, I believe.