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.
Hey, it was you that floated the idea that 1% should go to big oil, not me, LOL. You defend it; don't ask me to take up any portion of a flagrantly flawed idea that has been put out there, LOL. You suggested it, not me, so you get out on point and explain it to the rest of us, LOL.
And while you are busy suggesting that another fortune 500 company, such as a big oil company, might want in, lets not forget RKT. Remember them? If P2O had the notion that it would be a good idea getting in bed with a fortune 500 partner holding an ownership position, maybe it needs to be pointed out that the situatiion under which they now find themselves is exactly such a situaion? Ever think of that?
It sure looks to me like RKT might have recognized that this is a very nice opportunity for them, and they sure look interested, if you ask me. The cautious way they look to be proceeding is the current arrangement we have right now, IMHO. I would not be the least bit surprised to see the next step be an actual ownership position, and I seriously doubt it would be the absurdly tiny 1% position previously suggested, LOL.
And as to other fortune 500s showing an interest? Bring it on!!
Frankly, I'd welcome a bidding war, LOL, and I have no doubt that all the people who have an investment here would likewise welcome such an entrance into the arena of multiople big companies.
So bring it on.
But it remains totally absurd, IMHO, to suggest that a 1% interest be sold to big oil, LOL, and you need to defend that rather than me. It was your idea, not mine.
Hope that helps.
:o)
Imperial Whazoo
I love it when your pictures refute things that have become the stuff (LOL) of urban legand around here.... as is usually the case with your excellent photo work.
And bear in mind that the misrepresentation was made yesterday that the long list of 100% claims reported by SFMI in the last 10K was not material.
Instead, we were all redirected to the inaccurate idea that that the average position of SFMI was 30%, an idea that was incorect the first time it showd up. After all, the 10K clearly shows that the only party with any 30% positions was the related company, GHDC. And it plainly shows that SFMI only holds 100% positions. No 30% positions at all, and even using my public school math skills, it is impossible for a long list of 100% positions to average out to 30% positions, LOL.
In fact, the 10K plainly and unargueably shows that the positions held by SFMI... EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.... is a 100% position.
So, while you deal with this unsupported idea that the water is polluted and so forth, remember that the fact that the positions held were proven to be 100% got tossed out as irrelevent (LOL) by simply claiming that the claims were worthless.
The excellent thing about an SEC filing is that it contains facts that can not simply be tossed aside, and the same strength applies to photographic evidence like you typically supply us all with. I look forward to seeing the photos.
Of course, there is nothing supporting the claim that the 100% owned claims are worthless and I doubt there is anything supporting the contention that the water is polluted, but even so, actual evedence via pictures will be massively strong. Facts based on the 10K are permanant entries on the side of the ledger sheet where only truth is allowed, and I look forward to adding your photographic evidence to the same side of the ledger sheet.
And if you do go up there, please also come back to us all with something that redresses the erroneous idea that the road is closed down, which was another bad idea that got put into the conversation recently. It needs to be shown.... and if, by going up there and doing the photo work you do.... if your doing this photo work self-evidently shows the road is not closed down, please do whatever you can to put that idea to rest, too.
TIA
Imperial Whazoo
Put yourselves in the shoes of a big oil company. Suppose they did the DD to find out that P2O works and suppose they are offered the measly 1% you bring up.
If the technology in question is solid enough to attract their genuine attention, in which parallel universe would a big player be willing to accept entrance into this company with a holding of a mere 1%?
Come on now.... be realistic.... these big boys no more want to have a tiny 1% ownership position than they intend to become environmentally green in everything they do worldwide.
If they want in, they want in in a way they control, not a tiny little 1%.
Insufferable nonsense, IMHO. Its a blog site so we all have to accept unrealistic ideas as the standard fare of the day, but for heaven's sake, some ideas are just too silly to even contemplate, LOL. People in an open discussion are certainly free to talk about anything that catches their fancy, but it seems more of a legitimate use of time for whatever is proposed.... that it at the very least be somewhat possible, LOL.
Imperial Whazoo
I was just sitting here waiting for somebody to raise the issue of what is owned because I have a lengthy treatment in the past of this. I am not on top of it well enough to link back to it, LOL, but maybe somebody (dc... do you have that link???)...???
Anyway, it was just misrepresented that SFMI is mostly a partial owner.... averaging only about 30%.
So, that is either true or false, but here are the ACTUAL fcts. Is it hogwash or am I just misrepresenting things?
The following list is found in a table in the last 10K, which is found at the following link. Check into it yourselves, people. And make up your mind regarding who is to be trusted.
Link:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1464830/000109181812000111/sfmi0410201210k.htm
What the layout below is is as follows:
Name of each property or claim
Ownership Interest in it
Type of Claim
Acres involved.
As everyone can plainly see, it is 100% false that SFMI averages only 30%.
WRONG!!!!!
Hmmmm.... who should people believe? LOL
:o)
Anyway, to fully refute what we just got given, here is the exact info from the most recent 10K regarding this matter.
Note that fact people: all I'm doing is taking the time to actually show you the REAL TRUTH, direct from the filings themselves.
Hmmmmm....????
Anyway, since my thoroughness is itself the subject matter of criticisms, let me apologize for the length of what follows.
Its a lengthy list, folks, but you don't need to actually read it all to get my point.
hope this helps.
:o)
OH... and before I forget the point, there is not a single instance where SFMI owns the alleged mere 30%. Every instance where there is less than 100% involved, the property in question is owned by GHDC, not SFMI.
Fact are wonderful things aren't they, LOL?
Owned Land and Claims:
Burka #1
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
18.85
Burka #2
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
14.75
Burka #3
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
12.75
Burka #4
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Burka #5
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
4.00
Burka #6
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
14.00
Burka #7
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
9.95
Burka #8
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
19.05
Burka#9
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
18.25
Western Horn #1
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
18.50
Western Horn #2
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Western Horn #3
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
19.50
Western Horn #4
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Western Horn #5
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Western Horn #6
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Western Horn #7
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Western Horn #8
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
13.50
Western Horn #9
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Western Horn #10
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Western Horn #11
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Western Horn #12
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Western Horn #13
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Western Horn #14
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Diamond Creek #1
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Diamond Creek #2
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Diamond Creek #3
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Diamond Creek #4
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Diamond Creek #5
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Diamond Creek #6
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Diamond Creek #8
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
9.85
Diamond Creek #9
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
7.25
Diamond Creek #10
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
19.75
Diamond Creek #11
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
17.00
Diamond Creek #12
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
13.00
Diamond Creek #13
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
14.75
Diamond Creek #14
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
2.50
Diamond Creek #15
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
6.50
Diamond Creek #16
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
5.25
Diamond Creek #17
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
2.00
Diamond Creek #18
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
2.85
Diamond Creek #19
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
6.85
Diamond Creek #22
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
8.00
Diamond Creek #24
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
17.25
Diamond Creek #25
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
18.65
Diamond Creek #26
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
17.50
Diamond Creek #27
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
5.50
Diamond Creek #28
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
4.75
Diamond Creek #29
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
7.25
Diamond Creek #30
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Diamond Creek #31
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
16.85
Diamond Creek #32
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Diamond Creek #33
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Diamond Creek #34
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Diamond Creek #35
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
16.00
Diamond Creek #36
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
17.00
Diamond Creek #37
100%
Unpatented Lode Claim
20.00
Sinker #1
100%
Mill Site Claim
5.00
Sinker #2
100%
Mill Site Claim
5.00
Sinker #3
100%
Mill Site Claim
5.00
Sinker #4
100%
Mill Site Claim
5.00
Sinker Tunnel
100%
Tunnel Site Claim
207.00
Cumberland
100%
Patented Lode Claim
5.93
Louisiana
100%
Patented Lode Claim
14.00
Maybe raw or Z can pin this down but my recollection is very specific.... the site is fully licenced, with all permits issued and the space is ready & waiting.
How about linking to whatever it was that supplied that confident recollection, please? I don't have the database of recallable posts some of the other posters have & I have to rely on their resources to buttress my recall skills as regards specifics, LOL.
Imperial Whazoo
Thank you for speaking plainly about the now released snippet of fact: the site, long "known" by pretty much everybody, is now so openly known and confirmed to be Jacksonville Florida, that refernces to is are all but casually tossed out side comments. LOL
I took notice of it haveing been plainly stated in this PR today but I also noticed that every past doubt remained unretracted. Whatever, LOL.
All of us longs have grown tired of the rather slow emergence of news and we longs have longed (Pun intended) to get an actual statement.
Now we have it in no uncertain terms and the act of finally feeling confident enough to take the wraps off of it means a great deal to the future prospects, if you ask me.
Very welcome to see it begin to be confirmed, despite the fact that the issue is now the subject of all but casual side references. I doubt if I'll ever understand why they have always insisted in soft-pedalling the most fantastic of the needed news events, but I'll take it any way I can get it, LOL.
Well noticed and good to have it pointed to by you.
Thanx.
Imperial Whazoo
What are you talking about?
Here is the very top section of what you tried to call everybody's attention to, and which says exactly whatb I said AND EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF YOUR POINT:
The Holder of any shares of Series B Preferred Stock may exercise the conversion rights as to all, but not less than all, of such shares
The link to the filing:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390012007055/f8k121212_jbi.htm
I've started to read it thoroughly, but let me point out one thing that I think protects shareholders:
From paragraph 2, this -
Upon any conversion, a holder of shares of Series B Preferred Stock must convert all shares of Series B Preferred Stock then held by such holder
I did some DD on Iliad Research and Trading & on guy who is the solo act running the thing. The fact is that back in 2009 & 2010, he pulled pretty much the same act involving another company. I don't know yet whether he is above board or not but I looked at some of the court filings & they look like templates for what is unraveling here. Thing is, he can not break the ownership canundrum with PQ unless he succeeds in getting it done another way, which would account for the tactics thusfar, I imagine.
Its like this, though: even if he succeeds in prying apart SFMI's ownership lockdown, he still has to figure out how to beat PQ et al at the mothership company, to whom SFMI owes the whole kit 'n caboodle, so kinda looks like the benefits of PQ setting up a second, controling entity that operates as a royalty company.... the overall genius of the thing kinda jumps out at ya.
PQ set it all up to protect himself from having his risk turn into a costly failure. It seems to be on plan, even with all the trouble that is afoot. And anyway, I trade it in and out, so its never been much of a problem for me to concern myself with.... I think everyone would have been better off trading this like I've done.
I never thought the thing was a slam dunk with all the cards known; and I'm also not a believer that he is just scamming everyone and playing out a complex fraud. The hand held by each player who is belly up at the table and sucking on a big ol' cigar... the mix of complexities is far too much of a complicated decision tree to decipher on a heads up basis, but that said, it is not like the setup is a prescription for inevitable failure, IMHO, either. Its a very complex game that some very smart people, including but not limited to PQ himself, have been slowly playing out.
My basic thought is, and always has been, that PQ is accutely aware that most risk-takers in his position in a start-up junior miner ventures... most in his position get robbed by the big-time pro's, and I think his basic thought was to avoid, if possible, selling off too much of the company to do the dance that he was expected to dance. Thats my guess about why he operated differently: he wanted to try to come up with an approach that was an escape route from being pinned down in a box canyon.
Now, it looks like one of the feared thievery pro's has stepped into the open. I figure the next move will involve a legal battle or two to prove whether the player who showed up is the short artist who appears to have been at play here this last year.
Your average joe proly is worn out, but I figure the real musicians are just now getting their instruments out and we are about to see quite a clever thing or two uncurl on us.
I chart for a guide, though, and I trade in and out. I never gave a tinker's %$#& about maunderings about his character or any such thing. He is as pure as the driven slush, LOL, but no mre so that most everybody involved at a high financial level, IMHI. So what. I like to study how these guys play their cards and doing so is a far different thing from liking or disliking the guy.
I just think making money on SFMI is a volume based deal. If there is more vol at the bid side, we come down. At the ask side, we go up.
I do think it is highly likely that there is a real short seller & I think PQ is doing the right thing by setting the stage for a legal battle. My bet is there will be counter-suits to balance the battlefield. And I bet he and DLNY, the MM he has to have to be correctly under the auspices of FINRA.... I bet they have tracked the trades for a long while & they have evidence.
They need to have a warchest to throw at the thing, and given that it was they who calculatingly made the move to refuse to issue the shares (as described in the 8K).... I figure they are not scrambling all that much to reply to the default fired off in their direction.
So, I never thought they would be destroyed, no matter how they get assaulted, because they have the second company, which can (ultimately) fall back on demanding that SFMI pay the waived rent due these last few years. So, even if SFMI gets pried open with deftly weilded legal pry bars, they could just roll over and sock it to whoever ends up "winning" the current wave of legal warcraft stuff.
Ultimately, the legal setup favors SFMI, even if they don't win the combat over the default of shares that are the subject of the lawsuit.
I want to see if there is a warchest in place to hit the ask & execute a short squeeze. Like I said earlier, if they force a short squeeze over all this, they obviously prove there is a short artist in the recent trading arena. Yhe very act of having to cover proves the obvious.
By forcing a short squeeze, they can force the guy out into the open and turn the tables on him.
We'll see.
I still think PQ has been far cleverer and far more competent about running this little company than he is said to have been. I think he always figured there were hiden enemies just behind the vegitation wall at the edge of the clearing.
I think he figured he was going to see people make attempts to eviscerate his high risk deal. I think his chief concern has always been to keep agents-unknown from pulling off the kind of company theft that happens all the time to little start-up mining ventures. Hence, he never played the game according to the expected guidelines. Effectively, he appears to me to have deliberately taken a non-standard approach, and my guess has always been that he did so out of cunning rather than out of inexperience or incompetent. All may think he was just robbing the shareholders, but I refuse to go along with that line of reasoning because of the way he set himself up (and the others in his family, too) to get paid in non-tradable shares.
I decided long ago that I was willing to let him try doing it a non-standard way because I firmly think that doing it the standard way would have doomed the company anyway. The dynamics of the 43-101 drilling approach, for example, are a formula for a one-way pronlem path. Its a wash-rinse-spindry cycle from which a player has almost no chance to escape, once he is forced onto that path. Do the filings, drill a bit, sell off as small a bit as possible to finance the next leg of needed forms.... and do it all the same way over & over again.
It seldom works so that the guy originally taking the risk ends up winning by holding the cards at the end, but I think what PQ has attempted was a clever way of trying to avoid the otherwise inevitable.
And I don't think that havong a threat actually emerge, who is trying to pull off this very thing, and who has done it in 2009/2010.... I don't think the coming out into the open is all that terrible. It looks to me like the threat has a face now and it looks exactly like the very thing it always looks like in little mining ventures like SFMI. PQ appears to have been spot-on in his fears that this is what he actually faces, behind the scenes.
I was willing to be onboard, from time to time, because I think War Eagle Mountain is uniquely valuable. And I kind of like a guy who will, at his age, try to pull off a hard deal to pull off.
And given the two-company structure that is in place, it also appears to me that the end is not yet predictable. He may actually pull it off.
And anyway, when I put myself in the shoes of a guy who wanted to use these kinds of techniques to steal a company from a guy like PQ, it always seemed kinda obvious to me that one of the things I have been blogging about would have been that PQ was not playing from the prepared sheet music. Thats really why I never took all the clamoring as very unusual. I'd have been clamoring too if I were counting on pulling off a theft of a company and the chief player sitting across from me refused to play the game the standard way, LOL.
So I watch for the next set of moves, and in my book, the volume fingerprint is going to be the tell-all.
So, now we come to find out that there are going to be legalities involving whether there has been a breech of contract by either SFMI or the guys who are accused of shorting (in breech themselves). And obviously, in that the evaporation of sell side support has resulted in a long set of green-bar days, I'd say there is at least circumstantial evidence supporting the accusations that there is fraud involving short selling.
We'll see.
Imperial Whazoo
It looks to me, from the chart behavior, that what has happened is that SFMI was being shorted and the lawsuit has stopped that dead in its tracks. Why else would the last few days act like they have acted? A short-artist who has been caught flat-footed by litigation they had not expected might be a perfect explanation of chart behaviors that, otherwise, lacked explanation.
I think the solid green performances the last few weeks speak volumes about the genuineness of the allegation that SFMI has been being shorted. Reading thru the 8K, it looks like they raised money in a private deal and the folks with whom they were dealing were shorting them bigtime. So the suit gets aired and VOILA!!! Instant stop to the illegal shorting activity, and hence, instant cessation of the fake decline that the short artists have been forcing.
After all, with the actual filing of a lawsuit about the shorting that they have been doing, how could the short artists dare to go on shortring? And minus the contrived downward pressure the short artists have been applying, there is no reason for the prior behavior, which was entirely forced by the illegal shorting, to continue.
Suit gets filed.... short artists get caught with their pants down... Thier bundle of short positions is now a boat anchor and they can, in no way, continue to send out smoke signals and short like they have been doing. Hence, the decline reverses and a series of green days appear out of nowhere. Without the short meister working his crookedness, there is no natural downward pressure to fill in for what was being applied by the short meister. So, green days abound.
If my theory, just enunciated above, is what has actually transpired, we will soon have a lot of evidence supporting the contention that there is nothing natural about the way this stock has had its price crater.
IMHO, even if the short artists wanted to continue to short, they now have no choice but to pull in their horns and hide from view. Otherwise, they would be operating fully exposed, wide open.
The stock price stopped falling tin the last couple of weeks and now its pretty clear why this has been happening. Nowhere to hide means that there may just be a short squeeze coming.
Frankly, if SFMI has been planning this litigation, it would not surprise me in the least bit if they have a warchest in place with which to attack the short-miesters. The short meisters could be forced to cover. The counter-intuitive thing to next happen would be a short squeeze that forces them to cover. I mean, they may have now forced the shorting to cease (and no player has stepped in to take the place in the batters box, meaning that the weighting of the bid/ask action is now skewed to the upside for once, LOL), but the logical thing to do is to force them to cover.
If they can be forced to cover, they will face calls that they can not hide from.
You force them to cover and you have all the evidence you could ever ask for to demonstrate that they have been committing the crime of short selling, which violates the terms of the contract they are claiming they have a legitimacy concerning.
So, force them to cover, I say. Force the issue and they hang themselves, wide open and with nowhere to hide. Instant evidence galore!!
This could get interesting, if you ask me. I'd always thought it was a natural fact that a stock telegraphs its next move, and if this is the case, then what has been a series of unexplained green days may have just telegraphed the next short-term wave in the stock price.
I say: watch for a forced cover to generate a lot of evidence substantiating the claims made by SFMI that there is a short that has been illegally underming the stock price. If they succeed in forcing the short artist to cover, this could be a very interesting few days.
geomine - I challenge this idea that has yet to be challenged that depicts family owned and controlled businesses as somehow sinister. I do not see that family owned companies are suspect. You state that the chief reason you hold your view is that both SFMI and GHDC are family owned. I could not disagree more.
EDITED:
A long time ago, a smooth operator (Lebed) attempted to insinuate himself into the SFMI story, but anyone who was around back then knows that Lebed's attempts to include himself with that alleged 900,000 share position, were totally rebuffed and any ancient references to that unsuccessful stagecoach robbery is not accurate. Lebed, according to "Frenchie" at the time and at the shareholder's meeting immediately after that event, was a completely bogus player who did not succeed in getting 900K shares to pump 'n dump the stock. Anyone saying otherwise needs to look into it and they will see that SFMI has NEVER relenquished control to any pump 'n dump outfit, including but not limited to Lebed. Period. First & foremost, the hated PR guy brought the deal to PQ and he will not let that kind of PnD happen. Hope that helps, because it ought to.... its the true recitation of the actual case.
:o)
Now , back to my original post.
END OF EDIT
My degree is in American Economic History and I could cite you ten thousand examples from our history of family owned companies that are part and pacrel of America's success story.
Sorry, but contrary to your conviction that its bad for SFMI & GHDC to be family owned, I think that family owned and controlled businesses are at the very core of American economic success over the last 300 years.
And regarding the other related company, I love it. I think it is pure genius.
All I can say is that I think its a stroke of genius. In point of fact, what it is is a Royalty Company. If you want to see what makes it such a brilliant idea for "Frenchie" to have done, just look at Royal Gold. Royal Gold is a marvelous success story and is one of the best vehicles out there for investing in the mining sector.
"Frenchie" did a brilliant thing in creating a couple of family owned companies, and in making one of them a Royalty Company.
Our American economic history is simply saturated in examples of family owned enterprises being the salt of the earth.
To dislike SFMI for being a family controlled enterprise is to dislike it for the very thing that gives it a fighting chance to succeed in the cut-throat world of start-up mining endevours. Hire professionals or grow them in the start-up, but I could cite you chapter & verse of examples where the professional mining types stole the company from the entrepreneur who originated the endevour.
I'm not even close to being as smart as "Frenchie", but I'm at least bright enough to hold the opinion that the brilliant and unique business plan he is charting is probably the only way he can keep from having vultures and canivores steal his efforts and pocket the ultimate profits themselves.
Because he could set up a set of companies controlled by him, and because he could process the piles without selling the assets off from the outset, he is the only one I have ever seen with even a tiny chance of beating the stacked system at its own game here in the United States of America today.
I think you have it right.
I want everybody to think about the various paths "Frenchie", as he is disrespectfully referred to, could have taken in financing his company.
Go back to the base SEC filings, folks, and read them in order.
In way of preface, I held a small developing mining operation about two years ago. They gradually sold their assets to Standard Bank and to a branch of a big Japanese bank. The sellingtook about 6 years, and each time they did a deal to raise money, the banks took, as collateral, a little bit more of the company. Money flowed in to build out the mine and each year, the process repeated. Every time a deal was done, the company issued a PR praising the loyalty of the banking partnership members.
Finally, just about 8 years in, they finally got to the point where they were ready to open their mine.
Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Their loyal banking partners foreclosed on them, even though the company was current and even though the years of hard work were on the brink of turning out favorably.
Standard Bank & the Japanese consortium forclosed & all the common shareholders lost everything.
Question: could it be that SFMI has done a good thing by not selling its soul to bankers and finaciers in order to do their 43-101, similar to the above mentioned real hisrorical example?
I mean... realize this fact: they borrowed, drilled a bit, proved something up, used the results to get more loans, and did it (that holy "43-101") over and over again. The calls for a 43-101 are made legitimatekly, to an extent..... but it must be inserted as a fact in the conversation that, to do a 43-101, you have to raise money. And since a 43-101 is never "DONE", it becomes a patterened thing and it alone can account for the very destruction of the company having to do the many stages of a 43-101 to make developmental progress.
See?? A 43-101 is not just a favorable thing. It can, and often does become, a lead anvil that drowns the company. Thats REAL WORLD, people.
Perhaps, the "NOVEL" approach "Frenchie" has charted is not all bad, after all.
Hmmmmm?!?!???
Fact is, SFMI, run by "Frenchie", could have done this kind of thing and in doing so, the yowls of outrage over the pace of progress and the lack of drilling and the failure to do a 43-101 would have been quieted.
And I bet my bottom dollar that, had "Frenchie" followed this "BETTER" (LOL LOL LOL!!) business plan, we would all eventually lose everything to the carnivores and vultures.
And so, lets look at what "Frenchie" did, instead.... and at what he also, did not do.... instead!!
It is a fact that the insiders granted themselves big salaries & perks. If anyone is of the mind to think it is wrong for them to have done this, then thats fine with me. People can feel that nepotism is a terrible crime, if they wish. I just happen to hold a slightly different view, LOL.
I'd really rather have "insiders" control SFMI than to have to have done the slow death sellout described above. I hate vultures and carnivores a million times more than nepotistic insiders.
Anyway, regardless of what is felt about the merits of insiders benefitting in the manner they have done at SFMI, it remains that the set of FACTS with which we all have to deal are that SFMI is a family owned company. Simple as that. Live with it & consider that there are worse things thatn having a family control a start-up company's fate. Think about that, or as my roommate used to say: "Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!!" LOL.
OK. So, insiders control things and they gave themselves fat pay packages.
What did the insiders do with the fat salaries they gave themselves?
Did they hire a batallion of pump 'n dump newsletter writers to trumpet the company?
Bear in mind that a lot of companies in stinky pinky-land hire armies of promoters and they give them vast amounts of half price shares to pump the stock.
Did "Frenchie" do this?
We all know he did not.
He could have. But he didn't.
Had he done so, I'd be right there with the people who despise him. I'd be first in line to say the "Frenchie" troupe was nothing more than a clitch of crooks who use SFMI to print money and dilute the value of honest shareholder's positions.
I'd be first in line to call him a fraud.... and worse!!
But FACT IS: "Frenchie" did not do this.
OK. So, did he hire Apple or Mirimar or any other such vulture firm to "lend" him funding in exchange for half price shares?
A lot of folks on this board were holders of shares in a company that I, too, got deceived by, which did hire Apple and did dump vast shares at half price. The money did not flow to the company. It diluted the shares outstanding to where they were worthless and the money apparently went into the pockets of a guy from Chicago who has since disappeared.
Did "Frenchie" do this? Did he hire a vulture firm via a dilution scheme like the above?
We all know he could have, but he did not.
For all the accusations of dilution, it looks to me like none of the commonly used dilutive trickeries/schemes were ever employed by "Frenchie".
What "Frenchie" did was this.
He and his cadre of insiders took large deferred salaries. Check the facts. The SEC filings openly tell us this happened.
Then, last year, they paid themselves. Again, check the facts. The SEC filings openly tell us this happened.
But they did not take money. They took RESTRICTED SHARES.
Check the facts. The SEC filings openly tell us this happened.
They did not issue half-price shares, either. Again, check the facts. The SEC filings openly tell us this happened.
They paid themselves fat salaries with restricted shares.
From an accounting point of view, debts owed to them were removed from the books and they took onto the books shares that they voluntarily chose to get which they can not trade. In accounting terms, they made a maneuver that greatly improved the company balance sheet rather than simply enriching themselves via cash generated from discount share issuance schemes.
Was what they did.... was it dilutive in terms of total shares issued, for them to have done this?
Yes it was. But they are RESTRICTED. They could have taken cash for half price shares, but instead, they sanatized the balance sheet and deferred the day they get RICH until all of us benefit from the sale of the company.
Bear this in mind, too. All the half price schemes to issue shares for cash take money out of shareholder pockets. However, by taking deferred salaries as restricted shares, they set up a situation where their getting rich happens when cash flows from an outside party (NOT DILUION OF SHAREHOLDERS). Their getting rich happens at the sale of the company rather than at a present-time moment when they issue half-price shares to vultures.
"Frenchie" chose to take business steps that diluted the company the least possible amount and which, from an accounting point of view, resulted in a healthier balance sheet. And "Frenchie's" actions set a future date for getting rich AND SET UP A CASE WHERE HE GETS RICH FROM OUTSIDE MONEY AT THE TIME OF THE SALE OF THE COMPANY RATHER THAN FROM SHAREHOLDER DILUTION IN THE PRESENT.
When they sell the company, they make massive amounts, but the money that makes them rich comes from the deal & it does not come out of shareholder pockets.
In America, we all hate nepotism, but given the choice of what happened when the "STANDARD" financing path was taken (via loans from banking sources) or via a pump 'n dump scheme, I much prefer nepotistic insiders who illustrate that they are not simply gutting the company.
It also is a fact that any and all other developmental stage miners have to take on considerable dilution to progress through the necessary steps of which each and every one of them has to go.
It always strikes me as being similar to criticizing me for aging. Everyone ages. Nobody is exempt.
Likewise every company that is attempting to develop a mining potential has to fund the efforts via issuance of diluting shares and/or debt.
EVERY SINGLE ONE.
The criticisms of SFMI for all this "TERRIBLE" diliution fall on deaf ears with me because I'm smart enough to realize that, caompared to any alternative method, the method "Frenchie" has chosen is the best he could have chosen. The other approached are 10000000% worse in almost every instance when they are the approaches taken by similar companies in similar circumstances.
Period.
The shares he issued are not free trading, by and large. Just read the SEC filings and it will smack you across the jaw-bine like a Mike Tyson left hook.
I could care less that "Frenchie" issues his family shares. You gotta fund it some way and the alternatives are 10000000 percent worse for shareholders: Issuance to outside parties that are all over the place in every other newbie mining company.
These outside parties are vultures and carnivores. Always are. Always will be. Fact, Jack.
It is clear I satnd alone in NOT thinking it wrong for "Frenchie" to issue shares to insiders and family members. I appear to be alone when I fail to crumple like a sack of dirty laundry at the horrid aspect of family members enriching themselves by getting largess from big daddy "Frenchie". Fact is, I trade this type of company for a living, and I have done so for nigh on 7 years.
I have seen a hundred instances of where a company issues shares to fund their operation and the entities to whom they issue them are vicious traders who screw the company coming and going.
Thank God that SFMI has not done this, or employed pum-'n-dump newsletters to pump up the share price. Thank God for this blessed example of a rare quality: the wisdom to take the slower route and to keep controo and so forth.
I know funding necessary. I also recognize that, since every start up has to fund somehow, dilution is likely to be necessary. So what.
What matters is not that dilution happens. WHAT MATTERS IS THE TYPE OF DEALS CUT TO TAKE ON THE NECESSARY DILUTION.
Frankly, I have never had the least bit of trouble comprehending that it is 10000000% better to issue shares to inside parties where the fact is (AND IT IS A FACT, BOYZ 'N GOILZ) that the shares are restricted and are not free trading....
.....than it is to do like the vast majority of newbiE companies who do a land-office business in selling their soul to carnivores and vultures who destroy the company in the process of allegedly "funding" it.
Funding has to come frome somewhere. Rather than to just lump SFMI together with all start-up mining companies, as though they are all the same, the legitimate thing to do, IMHO, is to legitimately describe the actual deals being done that "dilute": SFMI's "dflutive" shares are not free-trading, open market shares.
They are issued to insiders.
I read each and every SEC filing, and this is just a fact. By far, the facts found in all of the filings tell the simple story that SFMI's insiders are fattening thier nests with shares, but these shares are not free-trading. Simple as that.
So, OK.... big deal that there is this growth in shares. The alleged "diluttion" of shares that can trade will only happen if the holders file the appropriate paperwork with the SEC, which has not been done.
If they ever do the conversion to free trading shares, you are 100% certain to see it because they will file SEC filings and it will be obvious.
And also, there would be a tell tale flag in the volume of traded shares too. There would be filings and there would be huge increases in volume.
A huge majority of start-ups do it another way. They sell, at 50 cents on the dollar or worse, to raise money from vultures who turn around and sell in volume on the open market. These types of deals are not done at SFMI and these kinds of dilutive events are not happening. They never have, either.
If any small start-up ever showed up that was well enough funded to not have to dilute in some fashion to raise money, I'd eat my Oldsmobile for dinner tonight. The fact is that every company in SFMI's place in the universe of trading companies faces the need to figure out how to fund themselves.
The only choices are these:
Sell off the land they hold.
Sell shares at a discount to outside parties who are always vultures looking to gut the company.
Do pump-'n-dump deals with newsletters in exchange for dilutive shares.
Forward sell the gold/silver/whatever...
OR
TO DO IT LIKE SFMI HAS DONE, WHICH IS TO CONTROL IT BY ISSUING NON-TRADABLE SHARES TO INSIDE PARTIES WHO WILL NOT CUT-'N-GUT THE COMPANY
Its called common sense money management.
Regardless of whether there is any news ib the next 4 weeks, in that losses have a 30 day wash time, the sooner you take a loss IN CASE THERE IS NEWS, the better off you are should there be an intent to re-buy shares followed by good news.
I happen to think the price action self evidently suggests that professionals are of a mind that assumes that there is news to soon come, and I happen to be of that same mind.
In that we already have the declared intention to attain cash flow positive status, and in that it is self evident that a period of time has passed since that declaration was assuredly asserted, it logically follows that the common sense smart thing to do is to sell as soon as is practicable and to reaquire a position after the 30 days have expired.
That way, you get both tax loss benefits AND a good risk level as regards there being good news soon to come. The best of both worlds.
Some obviously great events loom, if the chart behavior (the narrowing downward sloping wedge, for example):
SEC settlement
machine completion news
sales figure news
formal site announcement of Florida site (which we all know is Jacksonville)
And so forth.
Obviously, a bad event could force the price down, but there are more good events pending than negative events. Risk leans toward one of several known pre-stated positive events happening, if only because there are so many positive events looming.
So, in reply to your question about what you missed, it is my opinion that you entirely missed the obvious logic of going ahead and taking your tax loss in a usable timeframe, and of intentionally re-establishing a new cost basis for next year when the wash rule constratints have elapsed.
And to say it one more time: it matters not, as regards the sheer logic involved, whether there is any news in the timeframe I suggested is most likely. The tax loss would have been a good move anyway, and if such a seller thinks there is even a slight chance of a significant increase in price next year, it logically follows that getting a tax loss PLUS getting a new cost basis for the next year makes sense.
:o)
Imperial Whazoo
What everybody needs to realize about the possibility of tax loss selling is that there is a wash rule out there that has a genuine impact.
As I see it, lets assume that some JBII shareholders wanted to lock in losses for tax reasons for the year. Well, if they do it too late and there is some news, then they have to make an uncomfortable decision about whether to buy back in and lose the loss that the wash rule affects.
My postulate is that selling to take a loss in a stock that is awaiting news in the near future will naturally diminish in the weeks to come because, the later selling occurs, the greater the risk that, between now and 30 days out, an event will happen that moves the chart up in a major way and the players who waited too long to take a loss will be faced with the decision mentioned above.
So my working postulate for JBII is that any tax loss selling has probably passed and that we will see positive news between now and the start of the year, or perhaps in the first week of 2013, meaning that it is far more likely that we will break in a major way out of the decending triange in that chart than that we will break out of it to the down side.
Thats how I see it, anyway.
Imperial Whazoo
Yesterday night, I posited that we would begin to see less and less selling because the people selling now are vulnerable on two fronts due to the wash rule.
My postulate is that, in an example of raw calculated risk taking, dumps were happening in the first part of the month. Due to the wash rule, it can be expected that a seller who deliberately established a loss but who believes the gold is there and who has eyes to see the build out that is underway.... such sellers will gamble that they can sell in the early part of the month and re-buy after getting the loss for tax purposes. The wash rule places a 30 day period of time to the matter.
The only hiccup would occur if there is news that spurs the stock to go back up. Under that scenario, SFMI would surprise them with news (forward sale of part of their concentrate piles to raise money, the joining of the BOD by someone prominent, the approval of one or more of their several applications, the arrival & photographing of the drills.... something along these lines would do it)...
...and they would have to choose between losing out on an up move and keeping the tax event in their side of things.
My postulate is that, given that behavior being affected by the wash rule is logically rational, it thus follows that the selling that has been happening will most likely dry up as the year draws to a close. In fact, I just tossed an Accumulation/Distribution line onto my daily chart and guess what?
Starting at precisely the first days of December, when we all experiewnced this latest wave of dumpage, SFMI has ACTUALLY been under steady accumulation. In fact, the angle of inclination is pronounced. This dumpage has been seen by the chart as ACCUMULATION!
Now then... segue forward to the buying in large chinks we just saw a few minutes ago..
I say that it is far more likely that the old lows of approx 1.4 cents will hold than that they will break down.
Furthermore, I think that there will be ever increasing pressure that serves as support between now and next January because, the longer they wait to sell, the greater the likelihood that folks who want to gain the tax loss by selling will be caught flat footted and be faced with being frozen out of re-entry at the best prices for trading in 2013 if there is any kind of event like the ones I listed in my parenthetical above.
Risk of being caught unable to buy increases every day they hold off on selling. I'm thus watching for what just happened: a wave of large chunk buying.
And given the chart evidence that one man's loss is being taken in as another man's advantage (hence the accumulation), it looks like we are daily more and more likely to have seen the last of the tax loss dumpage.
Just my opinion.
Imperial Whazoo
Good to see you back. Long time no see.
First off, as selling in all kinds of things is going on marketwide, remember the wash rule. The sellers will honor the wash rule, and this will have a say in the timing of repositioning after the first of the year. Just be aware of this fact.
And as to the effect of the wash rule on SFMI, bear in mind that, if there is a surprise of some kind, sellers who are constrained by the wash rule will get caught flat footed. So, my "guess" is that the bulk of the sellers who want to protect themselves for tax reasons and who intend to buy back in after realizing the benefits they seek, will have already done their selling. So we may not have a lot of selling pressure between now and the first of the year. Just athought.
If SFMI surprises everyone with news, then anyone who sold and took a loss and is constrained by the wash rule will be caught flat footed.
So the wash rule ought to constratin both sellers who don't want to be locked out of stepping back in, and it also will control, to some extent, the timing of any January rise in price, IMHO.
As to the mill itself, just look at the pictures. The build out is not random. It has happened, and the various buildings are visibly getting done. And the organized way the huge pile has gotten positioned on the input side of the pictures posted this week tells me that there is life here.
And the Sinker is said to be being bolted down, end to end. Who knows how far along they are. And drills are to arrive, or so it is reported, so there will be a major impact if they actually get delivered and photographed. We'll see.
Good to see you.
Imperial Whazoo :o)
Hey Garick -
Nice photos. As you point out, the framed buildings of September 2012 are now built out, as can be seen so easily in the 12/12 photo.
And another thing jumps out at us in your 12/12 photo: the gigantic pile that has been moved to the input side of the workflow. The pile was not in the Sept picture but it is there in the 12/12 picture. Obviously the intent is to have a sizable pile of feedstock to send into the plant all winter long.
Real progress. Grind up that huge pile!! Grind away, all winter long, baby!! Special fact about photos? They show things in an undeniable way. They have a plan they are working according to and it shows itself clearly via photo evidence like the photos you so kindly posted.
There is a simplicity about the plan they are working by. Nothing complicated.... Move the pile & grind the rock, uninterrupted. Build out the work areas like the picture shows concerning the new lab building!!
Word has it they are making similar methodical progress in and around the Sinker tunnel. Progress. Progress. Progress!!
Imperial Whazoo
Hey raw... checked out that article and this jumped out at me:
total cost per gallon drops to $5.95 by 2013, $3.73 per gallon in 2014, and the magic sub-$3.00 figure in 2015 when it is expected to reach $2.62 per gallon at full-scale
Same happened y'tday afternoon on Bloomberg where they spent about 15 minutes late in the day (just after the close, if I recall) with Branson, the guy behind the "Virgin" brand, and the subject was the reasonableness of decriminalization here in the US.
The former President of Brazil and Branson were the only two on the panel, with a Bloomberg host or two conducting the discussion. They talked about decriminalization in Brazil & in Portugal and they made extensive comments about various reasons for decriminalization to be implemented here in the USA.
Imperial Whazoo
I had taken time to watch the thing right when it was newly out there and I can tell the blog that, IMHO, criticisms of it were overdone. I came away better informed and having a more robust understanding. In fact, my reaction was not at all negative. So, when I read all the criticisms of it (unprofessional, poorly attended, and so on), I chalked them up to being propoganda on the frontlines of the war between pro-company and anti-company forces. Not surprising in the least.
So, for you to say you watched it again and came away better convinced that it was a sound risk to take does not surprise me at all.
Imperial Whazoo
I've wondered what the deal is today because the volume is so pronounced. I say the open, watched it retrace & began to make up my ming that the open was a flash in the pan. then right about 12:30 PM central time it started to pick up and its trading rather solidly at HOD right now.
Bears watching, if not buying.
Imperial Whazoo
Oh who cares if some stranger insults me? I could care less. My approach to buying and selling stocks, regardless of whether they are a pinky like MIMV or a major like IBM, is a better set of ideas and it works.
As a matter of fact, I just used this set of ideas to buy a chunk of shares in another pinky stock. I saw a volume punch down to the 786 on this other one, at which point the buyers stepped in and I followed suit. Bird nest sitting on the ground. And again, I could care less if the stock in question is a scam. Fib retraces viewed through the prism of volume work reliably, and I do it as a professional day trader. It works like cutting butter with a hot knife.
And I'll use the same set of ideas in MIMV when the system particulars declare that the timing is correct. I've done it once already and I'll do it multiple times in MIMV, because the fact is, their story is genuine and they are far from being a one-time-Johnny. This pinky is more than a flash in the pan, baby.
Why let it even matter that my ideas generate insults as their replies? Who cares. Water off a duck's back. I know what I'm doing and I do not see what is lost by telling all the people reading the blog that there is a better body of ideas out there that they can use. Why not do something good with my time?
The reason I post is to find folks who teach me things.
So I post. If there is only one person on the blog and that person insults me, there is no point in casting my pearls before swine, but so long as there are sentient people out there, I forge ahead and build relationships. You replied to my comments, didn't you? Point made.
MIMV is the bridge between Windows 8 mobile & desktop. That is VERY, VERY important.
Use the Fib retrace levels and the volume fingerprint to build a position and this stock will make you money. This is not as flash in the pan. This relationship with MSFT is a big deal and its not dissipated as of it having impact on the chart, to the upside, in the next month, and thereafter. It will do it again and if you time things intelligently, you will profit quite a bit, IMHO.
:o)
Imperial Whazoo
I'm sure you are not the least bit wrong. :o) Yeah... right. LOL.
Hey people, check it out.... If you want to time your trading of MIMV, get educated on the system I use, which enabled me to see what was happening to MIMV as it happened in the chart. Just go to Amazon and spend the time to get it. The link follows.
MIMV is every bit as tradable using these techniques as is AAPL or SPY. Every stock with sufficient volume can be analyzed and understood in this manner, and the fact is that MIMV has sufficient volume. MIMV is simply a chart and it is subject to behavior rules, just like any other stock with sufficient volume to trade. And this is true even when the stock in question is a P&D. MIMV is not a scam and not a P&D, but even if it were, these rules apply to any stock with sufficient volume.
Simple as that.
So people, here is the book. Go get it and study it. You will have an epiphony.
http://www.amazon.com/Timing-Ultimate-Trading-Mastery-System/dp/0976352915/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y
"The Art Of Timing The Trade, Your Ultimate Trading Mastery System"
Book Description
Publication Date: May 10, 2011
The Art Of Timing The Trade, Your Ultimate Trading Mastery System, is a complete system for making money, protecting profits and minimizing losses. Tom O'Brien walks you through a combination of subjective theories like Quality Volume and Cause and Effect, the objective aspects of Fibonacci and Swing Point analysis, the never-before-seen Tiger Gartley Pattern and Tiger Scaling, all the while teaching you risk management techniques that can be profitably applied to any stock, commodity, option or future market. Tom O'Brien's system will make you money on a consistent basis.
About the Author
Tom O'Brien is the founder and CEO of TFNN Corp. The mission of TFNN Corp. is to help individuals take charge of their financial destiny by educating investors directly and interactively through its radio programming and its instructional web site both found on TFNN.com. Tom is a professional trader and educator. He is the host of the long running syndicated Tom O'Brien radio show where investors across the country, and the world, call in to hear his views and become educated as to how markets move and what they should be doing about it here and now. Tom's audience proudly call themselves Tigers and Tigresses. Tom is a bestselling author. Tom's first book Timing the Trade went number one on Amazon. Additionally Tom publishes two investment newsletters: Market Insights, a daily subscription that calls the market each day; and The Gold Report, a weekly newsletter in which Tom analyzes over 40 equities as well as the physical market. Tom is quoted in Forbes.com, is a regular guest on CNBC analyzing the commodity markets, was named Gold Timer of the Year in 2009 by Timer Digest, and has been helping people into the gold market since properly calling the bottom of the market in 2002 at $282.50. Tom served in the United States Marine Corps from 1968 to 1970.
Product Details
Hardcover: 271 pages
Publisher: Red Rock Publishing; 1st edition (May 10, 2011)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0976352915
ISBN-13: 978-0976352914
Scam or not a scam, this set of ideas is usable to make money. Scam or not.
Imperial Whazoo
Hey listen up man: chart techniques told me ahead of time what to expect in MIMV, and what they predicted is happening exactly as I read the chart to have told me.
I told everybody early on that we were in a Gartley, and we are doing the step by step walk thru of which such a chart pattern consists. To diss charting when it is behaving exactly as it needs to do, as preciscted by chart reading techniques like the ones I make money employing.... well, criticizing using Fib techniques on a stock like MIMV is a little like standing in the wan light of the sunrise and cussing at the sun. Whether you like it or not, the sun will rise, and regardless of whether it is granted to be the truth, the fact remains that Fib numbers work on stocks that have sufficient volume. And MIMV qualifies in this regard thusfar.
The standard Fib waves and pullbacks are happening right in front of all of us and its a money making proposition to employ these techniques in any stock, regardless of price point, if there is sufficient volume.
Charting ALWAYS works if there is enough volume.
joe, you are spot on, buddy. The instant they reveal the other partner, there will be an exponential whoosh to the upside that will be another instance of what happened on revelation of the MSFT deal.
We are in a Gartly Butterfly Fib formation to the upside. If you can draw a simple Fib splay, the fact that all we have done is an ordinary and fully precictable 618 retrace will jump out at you. Its as plain as the nose on your face.
If anyone has experience with Fib retraces, you know that the present retrace is not even close to being a danger sign. We went up on rumor, sold on news and retraced to exactly predictable levels.
Cut and dried. Nothing even remotely odd or unexpected. Not even close to being a trobling setup in the charts.
And again, pay attention folks, to the fact that MIMV is aimed at a crossover usage of BOTH Windows mobile & desktop 8. Mobile AND desktop 8... Pay attention and it thru. Its a ganme changer.
It matters materially that the folks who DOMINATE the desktop are the party who pounced on this opportunity to provide a crossover, cross device solution that is under their control and influence.
Very important, folks. Very, very important.
MSFT owns the desktop. The people sitting in cars and airports and in transit with their phones are locked into phone interfaces at this point, but the day that there is a way for a familiar interface to provide the common metaphore for both their desktop & their phone.... that will change the demand flow dynamics (MONEY FLOW, baby!!!) in an unalterable way. Simple as that.
The desktop is being de-emphacised in the present moment due to the power of the phone interface, but the fact remains that MSFT dominates the desktop. And the fact is that by doing this with MIMV, MSFT is leveraging their dominance in the arena they dominate as a steroid, as it were, to springboard their entry into the mobile world with an operating system that is common to both the mobile world and the desktop worls.
They are bridging the two and MIMV is the bridge.
Opening the desktop to the same thing as is out there for the phones is beyond measure a game changer. And it is a very smart move on MSFTs part.... and any idea that they are going to be mum about this bridging is, IMHO, wrongminded. There is no way this bridge is not going to get trumpetted. Its a given that it is too important to let happen without being pointed to prominently.
The fat lady is not even in the dressing room yet. Just wat till she gets into costume, warms up her pipes, and begins to belt out a.money making melody in the bright spotylight on center stage. You ain't seen nothin' yet... because the fat lady ain't even begun to sing yet!!!
This is only just beginning, people.
Stay tunerd.
Imperial Whazoo
I listened and watched the Times Square thingy and yesterday, I posted that the great "detail" not yet grasped by most folks (certainly not by those who are public critics of MIMVI) is this, which is mentioned prominently in the artcle today:
Franks went on to point out that with the release of Windows 8, Mimvi's discovery engine will ultimately allow users to search for, and run, mobile apps on the 400 million or so PCs running Windows out there.
Here is what I learned by listening to the presentation.
They will model their money / pricing model on what Goog does in directing folks that pay GOOG. So, the money from the apps will be flowing in since apps developers need a service that they can pay to help attention arrive at their apps. Solves a basic problem.
But think about it from MSFT's point of view. MSFT is WAY behind both APPL & Android with the new Windows Mobil 8. Both of these players are way ahead in terms of how many apps are out there for their respective platforms.
So what this means for MSFT phone platforms is that they have no choice but to play catch up just to get apps available for their phones.
Enter MIMV.
MIMV is their way of jumpimg right in and making the gap in the number of apps less daunting.
MIMV will also allow apps to run on the MSFT win 8 desktops. You have to listen to the presentation to get some of these details, and this was in the presentation about halfway in.
The guys making the presentation pointed this out & its vvery important to wrap your head around.
Here's why it matters:
MSFT owns the desktop. They will move a huge number of people onto Win 8 this yerar, and to the extent that the same app that runs on your phone runs on your desktop, MSFT has a real attractive drawing card here. A fundamental advantage, if you ask me.
So as I see it, MSFT is not going to be a silent partner in promoting the MIMV prelatiuonship because they desparateky need to populate their phone platform with apps, and they have the major advantage of a selling point.... a selling point regarding running things the same on the desktop as on the phones.
MIMV is smack dab in the middle of this whole picturew over at Windows 8.
Simple as that.
Thats what makes MIMV very attractive going forward, IMHO.
Imperial Whazoo
Remember the fib splays that are at play here, folks. I posted about them back when this thing first took off.
Using a fibonaci splay that consists of a 382, 500, 618 & 786 pullback set, you have to be aware that the 618 is .3862.
And where are we right now? Just above the 618 level, at .40, thats where.
So the fact is that we took out the 618 in the move we just saw, but it has now retaken it.
Actually, to be precise, we retraced to the 786 line (.2957) on Oct 16 & 17. Then we experienced a steady climb back above the 50% line, which is where the takedown began today. And now we are back up. We made an attempt at eviscerating the dynamics of the chart by the takedown below the 618, but that failed miserably, and we are now done with that tripe, and we have firmly retaken the 618 level.
So, apparently, the 618 is a primary fib number and, to the extent it holds on or around that level, all we have here is a normal behavior. IMHO, it was a contrived, artificial takedown that was designed to let a set of players accumulate cheap shares, but as is pretty much always the case, the fib levels are still the levels where bouyancy happens, and in this case, the 618 appears to be the resting level.
We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?
Imperial Whazoo
Well I don't believe that is anything except nonsense. We have just seen the chart repudiate, in no uncertain terms, the deliberately contrived takedwon, that did not succeed.
We are now firmly instanciated with a basis for moving back up.
42.5 as I type. Moving on back up. The attempt to eviscerate the chart and weigh this thing down with contrived fears and artificial worries failed to result in a cratered chart. It held. Weak hands bailed and the folks who deliberately staged this event ended up getting people to sell them cheap shares than they would have otherwise been able to get their hands on.
Simple as that.
Imperial Whazoo
Here it comes. Run, baby, run! I just told folks what was underway and it is happening right in front of our eyes..
The staged event failed and the slather was wrung out, like a dishrag. Its moving back to the upside, as is to be expected..
Imperial Whazoo
Here is precisely what just transpired, IMHO.
The folks wanting shares took it down firmly just as the news was hitting. Very precisely done. They managed to get it to .33. Put it up on a 3 min chart and you will see it having attempted to punch thru 4 times in about 30 minutes.
Now, its climbing back.
So, as far as I'm concerned, they failed to devestate the chart. Certainly tried, but they did not succeed. To be sure, the players behind this precision timed move did succeed in getting some cheap shares, but they failed to destroy the chart and it is right this minute climbing back to former levels.
If you take the point of view that it serves us well for an "event" like this to have been staged, effectively forcing froth into the chart and wringing it out so that the folks likely to sell have paniced and traded out, then you will have to see that what just happened sets the stage for a renewed up leg by having forced the "weaklings" out into the open.
I like it having happened and, if I'd had spare change that was not already at play, I'd have loaded up big time.
Imperial Whazoo
Yeah, I've actually been about this little private project for a while and I seem to recall that there have been several such boards. None got a toe-hold that held it as worth following for any meaningful span of time, though.
I frankly expect every P&D player to have failures. My idea is to watch the players regardless of whether they encounter failures or not. I mean, it may be that, by watching the failures happen in real ticker time, I might learn to see the ones NOT to play before I lose money, LOL.
Take this stock, (SVEN), for example. There was a high volume 1 minute bar at 10:40 AM central time. It was a re-launch of the next leg up, which we are experiencing right now. The bar was approx .23 and it has since climbed to a high of .30, but on a lot less volume than the initial wave.
Watchiing closely.
Imperial Whazoo
Thnx.
I recently started a list of web sites that were mentioned when a stock was a p&d. My scanner notices pretty much every one every day and I spend much of my day looking into the ones that pop up for me to notice. There are just so many web sites doing p&d and its always the guys on a particular stock blog who tout the one that was responsible for the particular stock poppoing up for me to l;ook at on a given day. Figuring out who really is the best p&d is a goal I've set for myself.
That said, I have yet to observe a genuie hierarchy of who is best. I'll be adding APS to the list, though.
I wish there were an iHub blog that focused on this as its subject because, IMHO, having an excellent working list of which web site is doing what would allow a strategy to be employed that works thru the web sites each day and anticipates, rather then reacts, to the p&d activity out there.
Thanx.
Imperial Whazoo
I designed a script in a TDAmeritrade tool that I subscribe to & it popped this stock symbol up as one to look at today. I use a volume basis as the key to my candidate detection within my script.
that said, what is APS? It is referred to several times thusfar today and I noticed it but am in the dark about it. Don't recognize that abbreviation.
TIA
Imperial Whazoo
Great to have happened!
And IMHO, it matters a lot that the fine was a measely 25K. If there were a way to track the exact cost of the SEC's process... their clerical costs, their database costs, and all the salaries of their litigators and travel time and so forth... there is no way that the SEC spent less than 25K administering this tiny little slap on the hand. I mean, just the database overhead & salary overhaed had to be greater than the fine. So, IMHO, this is a win for the company.
Imperial Whazoo
Listen to this guy for a while...
Tommy O'Brien
http://www.tfnn.com/
He has several programs he participates in. One at 9 AM Central time, and one at 3 PM, at the end of the market. His other "contributors" are not as meaningful and they can confuse what he clarifies. Focus first on his ideas. They are the best of breed. Listen and listen and listen to his daily programs until it gets drilled into your psyche.
Thats my experiance.
And buy his book. Read it. Re-read it. Re-re-re-re-re-re-re-read it.
Get the system down by study, study, study.
Volume is the key.
VOLUME. Fib levels measured by volume.
Hope this helps.
Imperial Whazoo
I know that its a usable tool, but nobody can ever say that they actually know why it works. It just generally works. The key thing is not to "guess" at what is going to happen.
There are several basic levels, and you have to realize that, at any given price pullback, you have another that could be what happens next.
For example, lets say the chart wave pulls back to the 382 level. OK. Thats a major Fib number. But there is a 50%, a 618, and a 786 looming beklow. So how does anyone ever know if the wave will hold at 382? Or 618? Or 786?
The only way to do it, IMHO, is as afollower of the action. In my experience, every time I ever got out in front of the behavior and tried to guess the hold was going to be at approx 618, I 9 times out of 10 get burned.
What I do is I watch volume. Generally, when you see a wave coming down thruogh 382, 618 & so forth, what to watch for is the point at which buying comes back in.
What I do is I put up charts in different minute ranges... 5 minut, 1 minut, 10 minute... and so forth.
And I watch the VOLUME at the 382, 618 and so forth.
When I see a wave point find a toe hold based on volume, thats when I pay attention. To guess is no better than gambling. To employ a volume based approach is NOT.
So I watch volume behavior in multiple timeframes to see if I can ascertain when the PROs have stepped back in.
Hope this helps.
Imperial Whazoo
OOPS! My bad, but unintentional...
I mistakenly typed in the wrong low to use in my first Fib splay.
So, use .007 as the low on the first of my referenced Fib splays. My bad.
Sorry about that folks. Too big a hurry. I had it on screen right and the 382, 618 & so forth were correctly stated, but the low I really used did not jive with what I inadvertantly typed in. No idea where I came to get crossed up in the numbers I typed, but I did it wrongly & it was my bad.
Again, though, since I had the lines right on screen, the confluences were stated correctly. The 386, 618 & so forth were correctly noted. Only the low I was employing was incorrectly typed.
Imperial Whazoo
Flattery will get you everywhere, LOL.
So, that said, lets talk "confluence". Whoa.... what?!?!?!?
Confluence is where two sets of Fib lines overlay each other.
As I pointed out in the prior post, the long Fib splay to use in this instance is fro the 11/12 low to the 11/14 high.
Here are the "thumbnail" numbers I drew up quickly, eyeballing the chart and using my chart package's Fib tool:
382 = .0236
500 = .0204
618 = .0172
786 = .0127
OK, so now on to "confluence"
To employ confluence, two Fib splays are needed. So, to that end, lets use the move yesterday, shall we?
When it opened yesterday, it immediately pulled back to a .0202 low, then in about 30 minutes, it climbed back to a high of.031
So, put up a 1 minute chart and use a Fib splay to draw out a Fib splay that uses .0202 as the low and .031 as the high.
OK, so here are the levels of that one:
382 = .0287
500 = .0271
618 = .0255
786 = .0232
1000 = .0202
1272 = .0164
OK, so we have multiple confluences, don't we?
And what were the points at which things held, yesterday & today?
These confluence. Thats the answer.
382 = .0236 <---> 786 = .0232
500 = .0204 <---> 1000 = .0202
618 = .0172 <---> 1272 = .0164
The thing danced within the Fib splays and the pro traders conducted themselves appropriately, with the several confluences acting as the focal points of action.... repeatedly.
Hope that helps, too.
Imperial Whazoo