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.
Please post his email stating this.
Er, not exactly! I placed my buy order YESTERDAY and my broker said there are 150,000,000 buys at 0.0001 ahead of me just at that one market maker so it appears your claim lacks factual basis.
"What is the problem, then buy @ 2"
May I use your money???
All kidding aside, if I can't get ones then I may be forced to buy half as many twos which obviously is better than one third at three.
I have been trying to buy at $0.0001 since yesterday morning and have not been filled. Please don't give me false hopes of getting filled because the tape doesn't substantiate that. The $0.0001 volume today is miniscule. It is moving to a new higer level.
"That's alot of money and awfully generous of the company to just give it away. "
The Company is not giving anything away; I own part of it.
"...debt conversion stock can be freed up very easily if the debt has been held long enough."
Please indicate the SEC Rule 144 citation where you see that? I was not able to validate your statement.
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/rule144.htm
Note:
Rule 144: Selling Restricted and Control Securities
What Are Restricted and Control Securities?
Restricted securities are securities acquired in unregistered, private sales from the issuer or from an affiliate of the issuer.
If I Am Not an Affiliate of the Issuer, What Conditions of Rule 144 Must I Comply With?
If you are not (and have not been for at least three months) an affiliate of the company issuing the securities and have held the restricted securities for at least one year, you can sell the securities without regard to the above conditions. If the issuer of the securities is subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements and you have held the securities for at least six months but less than one year, you may sell the securities as long as you satisfy the current public information condition.
Adequate Current Information. There must be adequate current information about the issuer of the securities before the sale can be made. This generally means that the issuer has complied with the periodic reporting requirements of the Exchange Act.
"Since all that unrestricted stock was NOT bought on the open market, then where did it come from?
It could only have come from the noteholders. Therefore their stock is NOT restricted."
Huh? What you wrote doesn't make sense. The noteholders are not affiliates since they are lenders, not owners or decision makers. How does this affect the 10% ownership rule to be an affiliate and therefore posess restricted stock?
Definition of Affiliate:
An affiliate of an issuer is a person that directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, such issuer.
Link for definition:
http://content.lawyerlinks.com/default.htm#http://content.lawyerlinks.com/sec/securities_law/rule_144_145/rule_144a_definitions.htm
They bought unrestricted stock that BECAME restricted when Sloane went over the 10% threshold and became an affiliate.
Where is the SEC Form 4A 'Change in Beneficial Ownership' if insiders are selling? Stating it must be dumping by insiders simply contradicts reality and the LAW. This form has to be filed anytime an insider sell shares. Furthermore, it is against the law for an insider to sell just days before MATERIAL info is released to the public. The shares are OBVIOUSLY from another source; shorting rather than from either the company or its insiders.
It can't be dumping because there is no SEC Form 4A 'Change in Beneficial Ownership'. What is another more plausible scenario? ...Naked Shorts!
It was NEVER said there is only one buyer. The reference in the press releases was to "Buyer". Buyer can refer to a consortium.
Then where are the SEC form 4 Change In Beneficial Ownership submissions???
I don't think it is a change of management's heart, rather finally finding a buyer. Once the company pays the dividend it is essentially out of business. There will be a "shell" corporation as a residual. The co. is free to then go into another type of business at a later point if it so chooses. The reason for the dividend is to release the intrinsic value of the company. The capitalization (number of shares time price) was less than the value of its assets, the gold mines. These anomalies happen occasionally. To release the value, the company is selling the mines and distributing the proceeds. The profit is the difference between what the company paid for the mines vs their value. For shareholders, each share will be paid $0.003449 but the value of the shares will then become worthless until such time that the company goes back into a business. If they don't then the shares remain worthless. HOWEVER, the profit to the shareholder is the difference between what was paid for each share vs the dividend. If the shares become worthless then it can be a tax write-off.
Illegal entry, otherwise it would be legal. OK?
They sell but the MM puts on a ficticious illegal borrow from an in-house account. The air shares were never hypothicated.
Appreciated!
No SEC Form 4A were filed. Simple.
From yesterday's post:
It is not illegal for a corporation to pay dividends at a deficit. Look at all the utilities that were building in the 1960-1980's that were paying in excess of their earnings as they installed new generating plants. It is considered a return of capital and decreases the cost basis. [e.g. Texas Utilities, Long Island Lighting, Florida Power & Light, etc.]
"Nope. First of all, in a case of naked shorting there aren't any borrows. Therefore all legitimate shareholders will receive their divvy. The naked shorts wouldn't get a divvy in your scenario, because there'd be no record of their ownership.
Sorry.
The legitimate shareholders that had their shares hypothicated would indeed get their dividend, we agree.
The air shares were paid for by their buyers and these buyers have ticket confirmations. Those persons would be due the dividend too. The naked short would have to come up with the dividend.
Sorry.
"In that case, no one would ever have to cover.
...until they have to pay out the dividend. OUCH!
Unless you are an insider you cannot say it won't be cash. Conjecture!
OK, whatever....
What will be good about after the payment date is that these insipid arguments will dissipate. Your argument is composed of conjecture, sorry.
Great post.
There are also people who walked the moon but it is safe to say people don't walk the moon. The exception doesn't prove the rule, and the people you referenced are the exception.
Really.
The fallacy in your argument is that Sloane doesn't have some information that the value might be well north of the minimum. If in fact they have this informantion then your argument falls flat and shareholders, including Sloane, gets significantly more than $0.0035. ...and shareholders have money to attain their aspirations. Great, huh?
Yes, but this is not the case here. You know it! Too many licenced professionals involved, CPAs, Attornys, paralegals, surveyers, Transfer Agent, etc. that wouldn't risk their careers. Your argument is lacking, sorry. Who would I believe: them or you. THEM! Obviously.
When a company sells something for higher than they bought it for is that magic? No, it is capitalism.
"Magically" is the wrong word. "As expected", "As announced", or "As predicted" are better. Right?
You can't negate the fact that there could be a cash dividend just as you can't negate the fact there may not. However, what we do know from the December 9th release is that it won't be restricted. This was posted numerous times. Also the majority owner, Sloane, would not want their shares tied up either, so arguments to the contrary are vapid.
I was waiting for you to say something nice, thank you! I understand you don't believe in it but take it easy on those of us who did lay out money. Thanks again. I hope this is a new leaf; encouraging from the sidelines but highly skeptical nonetheless.
A visual of what? Also, FFGO's Buyer has all the requisite documentation, rest assured. Monday at 8:00 is approaching.
Having gold doesn't represent liquidity. FFGO doesn't have the cash to install mining inferstructure so they are releasing the value via a sale...the prudent thing to do, Yes?
Gold claims on EBay are not in the same league as professional corporate claims. Come on now!
If an asset is written off and it turns out the asset has value after all, it goes right back on the balance sheet as a recovered asset. Furthermore, the previous tax writeoff is reversed too.
You feeling the excitement too?
No, not Monday. 10 days after the record date.
Then what you are saying is it was not material. If that is so, then no one should care and it refutes there were insiders selling as insiders would have to file with the SEC. It doesn't matter whether insiders sell one share or all their shares, they are required to file.
What do you mean?