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.
Thanks, Tasha. I will share with you and others any info that I found helpful.
Another Korean Newspaper article about Hutech and its product on Oct.10, 2010.
The article says that the Hutech's transformer for Digital TV is used in the three major Korean broadcasting companies, and the companies in the US.
This newspaper is a like Wall Street Journal in South Korea.
Again, you may use Google translator, even if the text may be broken.
http://news.mk.co.kr/v3/view.php?year=2010&no=568751
No, thank YOU! I am also an investor. I am in the US.
The 2009 target revenue of the company, Hutech, was $23 million, according to the CEO's interview below. If I find the revenue of 2010, I will post it. The economy in 2010 was much better than 2009 worldwide, as you know.
Interview with CEO, Mr. Park, by a Korean Newspaper
The following link shows who the CEO, Mr. Park.
He says he reads books on history when he thinks of the strategies for his company HUTECH TECHNOLOGIES (Hutech 21 in Korean Name). He started his career as a government official in the Commission of Broadcasting and Telecommunication. Later, he worked as a director in SK-Telecom (the Largest Cell Phone carrier in South Korea, like AT&T or Verizon in the US.) Then, he found his own company Hutech 21 to venture his entrepreneurship. He and the employees in his company go to an orphanage once a month to help the children as a social service.
The following is Korean. You may use Google translator.
(If your computer doesn't have Korean font, the text might be broken. Nevertheless, you could copy and paste into Google translator.)
http://news.mt.co.kr/mtview.php?no=2009080619021878568&type=1
A patent and technology was transmitted from a world-renowned Korean Institute to the company, and that technology is used to make the transformer for Digital TV in the US and in the world. The Institute developed a technology, among others, that dwarf Qualcom’s. http://www.etri.re.kr/eng/
"The absolute short volume might also do matter, as well as the percentage" That was a conjecture of my former posts. For example, on April 7, the short volume was 85M, and some of them may have been covered that day and until now. Since the current PPS is pretty low compared to the PPS at which the MMs shorted that day, the MMs have a very good merit to cover them "With Respect To" the price.
However, "With Respect To" the volume, does the MMs have enough volume to cover? The entire trading volumes on past Thursday and Friday were 5.5M and 6.1 M, respectively, which are much low compared to that 85M. I am really curious about how much, for example, of that 85M has already been covered, and should be covered shortly. This question can be applied to all other large short volumes after April. 7.
To sum up, in order for a shorter to cover a short very well, two conditons should be meet.
1)the price is low; 2) there should be enough volume.
For the first, the MMs win; the price is pretty low.
For the second, however, there have seemed no volumes enough.
Therefore, the conclusion is that the MMs should raise the price in order to make enough volume.
This has been my humble argument and question, and I have asked this question to the experts on this board since last week, but I have not received satisfiable answer yet. Is there any theory on this kind of question? If the theory is not available on this board, OK, then let's learn from the real life: Let's see what the price and volume move this coming week and later.
This is yesterday's one. Oops! Thanks always, in advance.
Yes, if the price shows some sign of up-trend, I think daytraders and short-term traders will come, and flippers also work. These activies will increase the volume, which the MMs need in order to cover.
I also curious about what will happen, when the volume reaches certain amount that the MMs currently need. Let's say, the MMs need currently 50M to cover the shorts that they sold last 10 days; They slightly increase the price to cover; however, what if, suddently, a flood of buyers come again. Then, even though the volume reaches the amount that MMs initally planned to cover, they have to short again.
My thought on this scinario is just my own humble question. I am never an expert on stock trading. I hope some experienced and seasoned experts shed more light on this matter. Nevertheless, I am afraid that the MMs must cover 13 days, not 15, their shorts, which I have learned from this board,though still not certain.
your post reminds me of the recent Goldman Sachs scandal.
So, investors' "slow accumulation and holding for the long term easily achieves the desired effect to force MMs to cover and knock off the tactics or bury themselves deeper." Let's see.
Valleyboi0, "When volume dries up, how can MMs cover their shorts, even if the price is down much?" That was my question, basically. Thanks for your post of the former MM's explanation below. As an education, I really want to see what will happen with ETLS in 10 days when the volume itself will dry up.
How and When MMs cover their short volumes?
I have a question. Could anybody enlighten me?
I believe that the absolute volume of the short is also significant, as well as the percentage. For example, on Mar. 31, the short percentage is 87 %, which is very high, but the absolute short volume is only 2.9M; by contrast, on Apr. 7, the short volume is enormous 85M. During that day, the price was between $0.0025 and $0.0050.
My question is whether those shorts of 85M between 0.0025 and 0.0050 on Apr. 17 have aleady been covered, or should be covered soon.
I think, since the prices for the last four trading days were below $0.0050, if the MMs wanted to cover, they were able to do that, with respect to price; however, was the volume enough? For the last four trading days, the sum of entire volume is 134.8M, but short is also 54.9M. Then, the net volume, which was not shorted, is 134.8-54.9=79.9M. This volume seems not enough to cover the only one day's short, 85M. Besides Apr. 7, MMs has shorted a lot.
I know that MMs must cover their shorts within 13 days. However, if the absolute trading volume itself dwindles gradually (as we have ovserved recently), then even though the price goes down, how can the MMs cover their shorts. There is no enough volume!
If you were an MM, what would be your strategies?
Could anybody in the mountains and buildng woods give us a lesson?
Short Volume Percentage
20100419|ETLS|10,528,291|25,386,615|41%
20100416|ETLS|12,731,135|24,837,515|51%
20100415|ETLS|9,395,495|19,871,388|47%
20100414|ETLS|22,310,473|64,982,586|34%
20100413|ETLS|15,968,631|52,754,962|30%
20100412|ETLS|32,573,034|70,403,821|46%
20100409|ETLS|33,602,351|85,769,859|39%
20100408|ETLS|26,961,454|54,840,088|49%
20100407|ETLS|85,173,530|195,656,825|44%
20100406|ETLS|25,345,080|74,477,428|34%
20100405|ETLS|6,124,134|10,718,199|57%
20100401|ETLS|3,397,000|12,089,493|28%
20100331|ETLS|2,951,000|3,410,000|87%
51.2% Short, wonderful! The higher, the better.
This is what we have expected.
Valleyboi0, thanks for your diligent report. It's actally 51.2%
Could anybody explain us what exactly those numbers mean?
Could anybody find some mathematical funtion between the short and the price?
Short Volume Percentage
20100416|ETLS|12731135|24837515|51.2%
20100415|ETLS|9,395,495|19,871,388|47%
20100414|ETLS|22,310,473|64,982,586|34%
20100413|ETLS|15,968,631|52,754,962|30%
20100412|ETLS|32,573,034|70,403,821|46%
20100409|ETLS|33,602,351|85,769,859|39%
20100408|ETLS|26,961,454|54,840,088|49%
20100407|ETLS|85,173,530|195,656,825|44%
20100406|ETLS|25,345,080|74,477,428|34%
20100405|ETLS|6,124,134|10,718,199|57%
20100401|ETLS|3,397,000|12,089,493|28%
20100331|ETLS|2,951,000|3,410,000|87%
Recent Love Affair between PSC followers group and ETLS shareholders group
Here is my humble opinion about the recent roller-coaster ride with PSC followers: That ride was not so bad.
First, let’s see some twitter talk. (You could refer to the link http://twitter.com/#search?q=%24etls)
PSC sent tweets Wednesday afternoon:
2:38 PM Apr 14th “PSC still has every single share of $LHPT we received.”
2:46 PM Apr 14th “$Lhpt and $ccgc are still on our buy lists. ---“
An investor replied to them:
2:46 PM Apr 14th “@stockchaser how bout $ETLS?”
Another investor expressed some questions:
2:51 PM Apr 14th “RT @stockchaser: $Lhpt and $ccgc are still on our buy lists. --->That means now $ETLS is free from PSC's obstruction, or what?”
3:01 PM Apr 14th “PSC followers' selling off has been hung heavy on $ETLS so far. If it's done, now why not moving up?”
Some other investor replied:
3:40 PM Apr 14th “@stockchaser great call with ETLS..*sarcasm*..do you feel sick after telling people to buy buy buy at .007 when u know its headed for .003??”
Finally, PSC replied to this *sarcasm*:
4:35 PM Apr 14th “@mgm------- $ETLS made everyone money. We first alerted it at .002 and soared over 200 percent to .01. Did u invest any money in etls? “
PSC mentioned ETLS through Twitter first time, 2:36 PM Apr 8th, and at that time the price was $0.0032. Now, after a roaring roller-coaster ride, we are at the similar price again.
I don’t think it is so bad that PSC followers and other investors encouraged by stock newsletters flooded into and retreated from ETLS quickly this past week. During that time, perhaps, the volatile movement left some new investors here (who might currently seem bagholders) and took some old investors (who took some decent profits.) Nevertheless, at least one certain thing is that, I think, more penny stock investors than before are exposed to the “explosiveness” of ETLS, regardless of whether they are gone, or still remain here.
As we all are well aware, the “explosiveness” is simple: The outstanding shares are around 300M; two long-time investors hold 120M; and some investors who may read this post here hold, I guess, let’s say, 50M. Then, 130M is the float. Do you remember the outstanding (and possible float) of THRR, for example? It is, I think, around 11,000M (11B). Compared to THRR, ETLS’ float is 130M. Furthermore, they are sub-pennies: The entire price volume of the float is 130M x $0.0030 = $390,000, which is much smaller than those of famous or notorious short squeeze (low float) plays such as ZANE’s (the price of it is over $2).
Since this simple fact is now shared by the gone and the remained, ETLS can explode anytime: The gone come back when ETLS is ready. We witnessed how quickly the price became 10 baggers, and it may hard for investors to overcome the temptation of that experience. The percentages of short transactions for the recent trading days are as follows, which are all available from this board.
Short Volume Percentage
20100415|ETLS|9,395,495|19,871,388|47%
20100414|ETLS|22,310,473|64,982,586|34%
20100413|ETLS|15,968,631|52,754,962|30%
20100412|ETLS|32,573,034|70,403,821|46%
20100409|ETLS|33,602,351|85,769,859|39%
20100408|ETLS|26,961,454|54,840,088|49%
20100407|ETLS|85,173,530|195,656,825|44%
20100406|ETLS|25,345,080|74,477,428|34%
20100405|ETLS|6,124,134|10,718,199|57%
20100401|ETLS|3,397,000|12,089,493|28%
20100331|ETLS|2,951,000|3,410,000|87%
If there is something wrong, please correct and enlighten me further.
Added later: I think last time when ETLS passed one cent $0.01, it was too noisy and vociferous. The entire penny stock community has observed it. Now, this time when ETLS passes one cent again, we need to be more quietly in order for ETLS to follow the odyssey of VC*Y ($0.0265) or LY*N ($0.175).
So, the attractive material is "ThermaLite", not "Talon"? Wow, this is a new idea for me. You mean the buyer group is interested in the buyout because of THRR's new material, "ThermaLite"? The press release about it was on Feb. 24, and the daily volume started to increase on the day before, Feb. 23.
That is, I think that your hypothesis could explain the correleation between the PR about a new material and the volume increase, regardless of whether this is a scam or not. (I mean those con men might begin with this PR.)
Very good finding.
And also, I'd like to introduce you to other poster, elf's explication in Yahoo board.
"An Assignee is not the owner of a patent but is a representative agent of the Inventors(usually Lawyers or can be a company). Very similar to music copyright law which I have extensive knowledge. Again if there where another owner they'd be listed as an Inventor even if in theory they didn't come up with anything to the patent.
Basically Alyn Corporation filled for the patent on behalf of the Investors, just to make things more clear."
About where is the truth?
What have happened with the technology, MMC, since then?
My mistake! The asignee was not the inventors, but a company, which I didn't see. I am truly sorry, Overachiever and folks.
However, then, the patent was filed in 1999. And now, both companies advertise the technology, Metal Matrix Compoiste (MMC), in an inteview (THRR) and its homepage (Talon).
I wonder what have happend with the further development of that technology, since the filing in 1999, and during their "marriage and divorce".
This play is getting more interesting.
A Patent co-owned by both CEOs of THRR and Talon
Here, the issue is the technolgoy of Metal Matrix Compsite ("MMC") Materials. According to your link below, both Flessner in THRR and Robin Carden in Talon seem to have the co-ownership of the patent. I think we need to listen carefully to Flessner's CEO interview, in which he emphasizes on the MMC technolgoy of THRR.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=12&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=FLESSNER.INNM.&OS=IN/FLESSNER&RS=IN/FLESSNER
Hi Dave,
(As I wrote in my reply to Neo's post, Sorry that my reply is late. I am not familiar with IHub's message board system yet. I often lost my way in this maze. Yahoo board is much easier to me. I am not sure whether you will read this reply, but I thank you for your) critical and insightful words.
Now, I may be open to the possibility that this game is a scam, so that the CC was schemed in such a lousy way in order to take profit in the other direction: shorting. Nevertheless, one of your argument is not so persuasive: your argument that if the CC was schemed in such a lousy way deliberately, then it is much better that the initial PR itself should not been released. If there is no such a PR, then there is a neither game nor scam.
We'll see how this saga culminates.
Thanks.
Hi Neo,
Sorry that my reply is late. I am not familiar with IHub's message board system yet. I often lost my way in this maze. Yahoo board is much easier to me. I am not sure whether you will read this reply, but I thank you for your warm words.
Actually, I was not so astute that I was not able to sell any share that I hold while it was tanking during and after the CC, and, today while it went up.
Like the idea that you give in your reply to mine, I think it might be still possible that the lousy CC was schemed deliberately in order to fleece the general investors one more time in both ways: shorting and pumping.
We'll see how this saga culminates.
Thanks.
The purpose of the conference call (CC) on Wed.
Stockoboots, I am sympathized with your idea, "perceived as a scam". I've just posted the following on the Yahoo board, too.
As I listened to the CC and observed the regretful aftermath of it, I have thought that if this game were a scam, the CC would not be like this.
If this were a scam, the CC should be plotted to be much more sophisticated, elegant and eloquent.
But it was not: What a clumsy, and unkind to the shareholders! Furthermore, the terrible clicking noise!
My own humble intuition tells me that the CC was schemed like that "intentionally" and "deliberately".
(Did anybody listen to the CC of Cell therapeutics today? How sophisticated, at least, the format was.)
Then, why did the company and the management do like that? Because they want to make the price down.
If they did the CC in that way, everybody knew that the stock price will be tanked.
Then, my next question is why they wanted to make the price down? For whose benefit? For them, or for the buyer group?
(or for us, the shareholder" sorry.)
Here, I don' have a good answer.
If there is some agreement between the company and the buyer group, so if the company is to help the buyer buy the cheaper stocks in the open market, then the buyer were able to buy much cheaper ones in Feb. Then, why?
Is there anybody who would give us a good explication?
Summary: If this game were a scam, the conference call would not be schemed in such clumsy manners.
Therefore, I would not believe that this game is a scam.
(Well, paradoxically, if the clumsiness itself is originally plotted in the scam, then I am willing to drink this poisoned chalice (glass).)