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.
What? 1.5bil = 500mil x 3. Then you gratuitously multiplied that number another three times to 4.5bil. lol Prove that with hard data and published numbers.
The markets generally like forward splits. It's the reverse splits that are the kiss of death in most cases.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A "Forward" stock split is almost always regarded as a net positive event for the investor who holds shares in the respective company, the basic concept is as follows.
A company up until a specified date after the split is announced, will distribute additional shares at no cost to all investors who own or hold stock. The number of new shares received will depend on the "Split Ratio". For instance a 2:1 stock split means the individual investor or institution is entitled to receive 1 additional share for every share currently owned and or purchased in the future up until the designated cutoff date. If an investor owns 100 shares, an additional 100 will be distributed and automatically deposited into their account for a post split total of 200 shares. A 3:1 split will result in a total of 3 shares for every 1 an owner holds prior to distribution, and so on, 4:1 = 4 shares for every 1, 5:1 = 5 shares for every 1 etc.
A forward stock split will increase the number of shares outstanding by the exact number of new shares distributed to shareholders without resulting in dilution. Even though terms like "New" shares or "Additional" shares are frequently used by the "Street" to describe the process, there are no "New" shares either issued or distributed from the "Authorized" batch. Current outstanding shares are simply "Split" in half at the administration level.
If one share of ABC sells for 0.99 pre-merger, and one ABC share is exchanged for three XYZ shares, the XYZ share price will adjust to 0.33, post merger.
Before: 0.99.
After: 3 x 0.33 = 0.99.
Same difference. It's like dividing up a large slice of pizza into three smaller slices. You have the same total quantity just more pieces.
Preferred shares can't convert to common until at least one year in future, it should be noted.
A/S is 500Mil +5Mil, not 550Mil. O/S 362+Mil common. There are 5Mil preferred shares. Therefore 505Mil, not 550Mil, is correct for total O/S.
A/S 500Mil + 5Mil preferred. O/S 362+Mil common.
SKTO-->MG. SKTO holders maintain the same proportional share of new O/S. SKTO O/S is 362+Mil.
Market loves the news! Up next, Larry King interview with Chairman K. Allyn. Blue skies. SKTO.
LA: Even Pat Robertson supports legalization of MJ. In 2012, he denounced war on drugs as a failure. The prisomn
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/pat-robertson-backs-legalizing-marijuana.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
America makes up 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of jailed prisoners, Robertson said: “We’ve said, ‘We’re conservative, we’re tough on crime.’ That’s baloney. It’s costing us billions and billions of dollars. We need to scrub the federal code and the state codes and take away these criminal penalties.”
------------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 31, 2011, there were 197,050 sentenced prisoners under federal jurisdiction. Of these, 94,600 were serving time for drug offenses, 14,900 for violent offenses, 10,700 for property offenses, and 69,000 for "public order" offenses (of which 22,100 were sentenced for immigration offenses, 29,800 for weapons offenses, and 17.100 for "other").
------------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 31, 2010, there were 1,362,028 sentenced prisoners under state jurisdiction. Of these, 237,000 were serving time for drug offenses, 725,000 for violent offenses, 249,500 for property offenses, 142,500 for "public order" offenses (which include weapons, drunk driving, court offenses, commercialized vice, morals and decency offenses, liquor law violations, and other public-order offenses), and 7,900 for "other/unspecified".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Stats
Federal marijuana prisoners in 2004 = 11,630
State marijuana prisoners in 2004 = 33,186
Total federal and state marijuana prisoners in 2004 = 44,816
Note: These data only address people in prisons and thus exclude the 700,000+ offenders who may be in local jails because of a marijuana conviction.
Allyn was not listed as an advisor at IVEST Private Equity, only as a partner in IVEST Consumer.
Allyn is one of three partners at IVEST Consumer, the other two being George Jones and J Sam Bremner.
George Jones
Partner IVEST, Former CEO of Borders Books, CEO Saks Dept Stores, President of Warner Bros Consumer Products, EVP Target Stores, Chairman of the Grammy Foundation.
Kevin Allyn
Partner IVEST, Former President, King World Productions (global syndicator of Oprah, Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy, Dr. Phil and many others)
Sam Bremner
Founder of IVEST Private Equity, Partner IVEST Consumer
In my view, SKTO has quite favorable risk/reward. The market cap is tiny, and the big picture has staggering potential. The team is impressive by any standard. Never seen a pinkie with such a cast of heavyweights. Happened to talk to a respected veteran media person not long ago who knew of Kevin Allyn and spoke very highly of him. The CUSIP and other changes are likely all to the good for shareholders. It would be beneficial if company clarified the matter, however, and gave more detail as to share exchange and estimated timeline.
The sector is a giant just awakening, and SKTO is in the thick of it.
The "Martha Stewart" of mary jane, coursing the media circuit, is Cheryl Shuman of Beverly Hills, Allyn's stomping ground. Interviews all over radio and TV.
Thanks. Rough read, but does it apply to the SKTO case where parent and sub are incorporated in different states, respectively?
One of the conditions is:
(3) the holding company and the constituent corporation are corporations of this State and the direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary that is the other constituent entity to the merger is a corporation or limited liability company of this State;
What's bothersome is the preponderance of "superior" knowledge of the rules on parent/sub mergers in Delaware without any quoted references and links to truly authoritative, explanatory sources that directly back up opinions proffered. Therefore, those vaunted opinions can be discounted, in my view.
It is 2003 lecture. Please then point to links from authoritative sources that clearly explain parent/sub merger variations and the rules that apply in California and Delaware to same. Facts not unsourced opinions are needed here in this particular case. Otherwise, we could get preposterous assertions like "84Bil" O/S.
Lecture notes by Prof. Akula of MIT on various merger scenarios governed by Delaware or California law. It would be good to find his complete lecture on this subject. Many facets to parent/sub mergers. A clear recitation of the matter from recognized authoritative sources is needed here.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-649-the-law-of-mergers-and-acquisitions-spring-2003/lecture-notes/lec4.pdf
BL: Thanks for link. Hawk Associates explains how Reg SHO and "failure to deliver" rules can be skirted by naked shorters. Naked shorting is so profitable that it makes sense the crooks would find a way to do it.
Full article
http://americanmicrocapinstitute.com/featuredcolumn2.htm
Section of article
"HOW DOES NAKED SHORTING ACTUALLY WORK?
Based on the accounts of CEOs who believe they have been the target of naked shorts, here is how the worst-case scenario might play out using an ill-intentioned hedge fund (“Fund Malicious”) as an example.
Fund Malicious first identifies a target in the microcap world for naked shorting, most likely an obscure company in the development stage or having otherwise questionable fundamentals. The hedge fund gets that firm listed on a foreign exchange in, say, Berlin, via a request funneled through a complicit broker or official in that country. Malicious then sells short shares it doesn’t have (naked shorts them), waits three days for the DTCC to call and ask for the shares, and then replies either, “I borrowed them on the Berlin exchange, and they’ll take some time to get here,” or “I’m a market-maker for that company’s shares in Berlin and naked shorting rules don’t apply there.” The DTCC then loans the fund shares from its inventory and charges the broker a fee until the stock loan is repaid. Malicious, in the meantime, continues to drive the price of the target’s shares down as long and as aggressively as possible. In the event the fund does cover to pay off the stock loan, it doesn’t take much effort to begin the naked shorting cycle again.
Other theories exist as to how the hedge fund might skirt additional rules. To prevent “piling on,” exchange rules mandate that a stock cannot be shorted on a downtick or decrease in stock price. In other words, Malicious must wait for the stock price to increase briefly before shorting the company. Rather than wait passively for an uptick, though, Fund Malicious can create an uptick in the stock itself by purchasing a few shares through a small offshore account. The hedge fund is then free to short (or naked short) the company with both barrels at home.
Malicious may get additional leverage out of the original naked short by choosing to target an ugly, obscure microcap company. By driving the price down, the fund hopes to scare existing shareholders into selling their shares, too, out of fear that something is going on that they don’t know about (i.e. the fund can “paint the tape”). This, of course, drives the price even lower while further obscuring the role of Fund Malicious.
There is plenty of room for additional mischief in the above scenario. According to the most vocal critics of naked shorting, funds like Malicious have relationships with reporters and/or message board regulars who are compensated to distribute negative news about the company in order to exaggerate the selling. There is also plenty of irony possible, in that a CEO can be her shareholders’ worst enemy by merely uttering the words “naked shorting.” Investors may panic, the stock might dive further and legitimate short-sellers could begin to circle."
http://americanmicrocapinstitute.com/featuredcolumn2.htm
skto
Are you saying the Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) does not help expose short or naked positions during share for share exchange during a Company Name Change, Ticker Change, and CUSIP change?
If not, what does expose those positions?
The discussion has shifted away from CUSIP to LEI. Any insights on LEI and whether it can expose naked or short positions in a share for share exchange which accompanies Company Name change and Ticker change? No takers on that question yet.
None of us really know "truth" but we ask questions. For example, could you elaborate on the Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) and how it would expose naked and-or short positions in a share for share exchange? Thanks.
In deference to stervc, he did explain in his post that his conversation with CUSIP occurred sometime in the past and he was reprising old conversation.
Thanks. Good DD from CUSIP and DTC. As I read it, a New CUSIP along with Company Name Change (matched with address of company) plus New Ticker force full "accountability" and, importantly, a "movement of shares," that is, the actual exchange of bona fide old shares (old inventory) for bona fide new shares (new inventory). This comprehensive multi-stage process almost seems mechanical in process whereby any shares, short or naked, would be exposed and therefore could not be electronically masked as they could be were there fewer changes.
Very interesting. Great post.
Full Post
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=89229433
Segment
Re: "Vinnie, from the CUSIP Service Bureau, explained it to me as such...
When stock 1234 changes its name and CUSP# to stock 5678, the shares of stock 5678 are given to them electronically by the TA to replace stock 1234. This is the key transaction. If only a CUSIP# change transpires then a lesser type of accountability takes place. The name change matching the address of the company is what actually forces an exchange of the "old inventory" of shares to the “new inventory” of shares. Without the name change, there is NOT a "movement of shares" from the TA that takes place.
Here with SKTO, the share transaction between SKTO and Medical Greens is what will force a “movement of shares” which means that any short or naked short positions can’t be masked as it would if the transaction was done electronically alone."
A: A re-release to MarketWire gives the company a good opportunity to clarify the information. The text seems to imply a share for share exchange almost by default. However, I agree the PR needs clarification on this point and would like to see a revision with a fuller explanation of what shareholders can expect. I'm sure the company will accomodate us.
The opinions on the boards about this particular issue aren't reliable or trustworthy without reference to clear and reliable sources.
Jun 20, 2013 (ACCESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- MIAMI, FL --June 20, 2013- SK3 Group, Inc. (OTC Pink: SKTO) announces that it will be merging into its California subsidiary Medical Greens, Inc ("Medical Greens") and will apply to have its newly re- issued common shares admitted for trading under the name Medical Greens, and with a new trading symbol, upon approval from FINRA. Shareholders of
SKTO will be required to exchange their SKTO shares for new shares of Medical Greens, the survivor in the planned merger. Also, SKTO will be applying for a new ticker symbol and CUSIP to reflect the new corporate name. The company will register the shares to be issued in the merger.
The previously announced distribution of common shares of Alternative Energy Partners, Inc. held by the company, to its shareholders is still underway and awaiting the filing and effectiveness of a registration statement for the shares, to be filed by Alternative Energy Partners. The company is advised that the registration statement should be completed and filed next week by Alternative Energy Partners.
About SK3
SK3 is a healthcare logistics and fulfillment consultancy focused on the delivery of alternative care and medicine. With seasoned management, breakthrough technology and best practices, SK3 brings standardization and transparency to this rapidly growing segment of the alternative care field.
Contact:
A. Mayor
info@medicalgreens.com
http://www.accesswire.com/img.ashx?id=405158
Copyright 2013 ACCESSWIRE
Good DD on Tell Canada. eom
Everyone save one knows Bremnar (sic) didn't graduate from Harvard University. He (Bremnar [sic]) never wrote that he did. eos
Yes, he attended a lecture series. Any reasonable person would conclude that. However, from that information, it was wildly extrapolated that he graduated from Harvard followed by campaign to prove he didn't graduate there. Yes. How can anyone make that leap unless driven by other motives?
The fact is Bremner never did say he graduated from Harvard! He wrote that he went for an M&A series (those are lectures) given at the Harvard B-School. That's all. This witch hunt for Bremner at Harvard is preposterous.
More than that, the unfounded and spurious attacks upon him are out of order, to say the least. I do hope that Bremner takes action against the libel. It's gone way beyond the pale.
And the Registrar would still ask if you have a "legitimate educational interest" that merits the disclosure of that information.
Based on Harvard regs, you claimed falsely, "Harvard Registrar just got back Re: Bremnar. No Sam Bremnar, nor John Bremnar ever attended there let alone graduated from Harvard University."
Under Harvard security and privacy regs, the Registrar at Harvard would not and could not give you that information. A cold caller outside the university would not have "a legitimate educational interest" to merit that info -- a very restricted definition applies. See below.
Even those within Harvard University must have "a legitimate educational interest" to justify the registrar's disclosure of student info.
http://www.security.harvard.edu/resources/references/ferpa-glossary-terms
"A student's education record also may be shared with parties outside the University under certain conditions, including, for example, in situations involving a health and safety emergency. In addition, a Harvard School will forward a student's education records to other agencies or institutions that have requested the records and in which the student seeks or intends to enroll or is already enrolled so long as the disclosure is for purposes related to the student's enrollment or transfer."
Other Disclosures permitted under FERPA
"In addition to permitting the disclosure of directory information, as set forth above, FERPA permits disclosure of educational records without a student's knowledge or consent under certain circumstances.
For example, disclosure is permitted to Harvard officials with a legitimate educational interest in the records, meaning that the person needs the information in order to fulfill his or her professional responsibilities, including instructional, supervisory, advisory, administrative, academic or research, staff support or other duties. "Harvard officials" include: faculty; administrators; clerical employees; professional employees; Harvard University Health Services professionals; Harvard University police officers; agents of the University, such as independent contractors or vendors performing functions on behalf of a Harvard School or the University; members of Harvard's governing boards; and students serving on an official School or University committee, or assisting another Harvard official in performing his or her tasks.
A student's education record also may be shared with parties outside the University under certain conditions, including, for example, in situations involving a health and safety emergency. In addition, a Harvard School will forward a student's education records to other agencies or institutions that have requested the records and in which the student seeks or intends to enroll or is already enrolled so long as the disclosure is for purposes related to the student's enrollment or transfer."
That post crosses the line, in my opinion.
IVEST Private Equity Announces Investment in Mogo Financial, Canada's #1 Online Short-Term Lender
http://www.prlog.org/11761989-ivest-private-equity-announces-investment-in-mogo-financial-canadas-1-online-short-term-lender.html
Number one, you misspelled his name. Number 2, he partook of the Harvard Business School's "Focused Financial Management Series on Mergers and Acquisitions." He never said he was graduate of Harvard Business school, simply that he went to a series on M&A given by Harvard B.
And since when do registrars give out information on students to cold callers?
SEC? IVEST is Canadian firm. They (a private firm) deal with private firms and entrepreneurs. What are you talking about?
http://www.ivestconsumer.com/#!strategy-collaborators/cn7t
The cream of the crop.
So what? One size doesn't fit all. Different firms have different styles. They prefer not to advertise their clients, and the confidentiality has worked for them. IVEST is in business for 13 years with $1.3Billion under management and thriving. It's #7 largest in Canada, and they've not been taking marching orders from hub. Gee whiz.
FAQ
What size investments does IVEST make?
IVEST invests equity in premium branded well run consumer product and service companies. IVEST seeks to invest $20 million to $100 milllion dollars. IVEST is also capable of larger size deals with direct investment from LP's.
Does IVEST invest Venture Capital?
IVEST partners have a private venture capital model that is instituted in select smaller investments. These companies are well run, good for you and better for you products and services. IVEST seeks companies that are profitable and high margin businesses seeking growth capital.
Does IVEST buy controlling interest or minority stake?
IVEST makes minority and majority equity investments with lowest possible debt on the transaction in order to have a strong balance sheet so a consumer company can focus on spending to build the brand, scale, and quality of its offering to a premium consumer who wants quality at a good price.
Does IVEST get involved in managing the company?
To the extent that the owners and managers want help, IVEST can offer strategic consulting, but IVEST doesn't seek to own, run, and control companies. IVEST's purpose is to provide strong strategic help to already well run, great companies, with great management teams, looking for that extra edge.
Yes. A private equity firm is private. Their clients would expect confidentiality, if for no other reason than not to give competitors or outside idea seekers a huge edge on them.
SKTO with endorsement of Lt. Gov California and chaired by Kevin Allyn -- a partner in $1.3 billion dollar private equity firm whose team includes top executives and key managers who hail from Warners, Saks, Bloomingdales, Bed&Beyond, Dayton-Hudson, Meijers, Lord & Taylor, Victoria's Secret, Macy's, Niemam Marcus, Nordstrom, and Home Shopping Network.
SKTO. A tiny $6.5Mil market cap.
IVEST are specialists in premium consumer brands and how consumers relate to them. At the core of marketing is psychology. The game is on. Stay tuned! SKTO
Strategic Growth Capital
IVEST Private Equity
Partnership; 11-50 employees
Investment Management industry
March 2000 – Present (13 years 4 months) US Canada
"Premium Consumer Brands offer discerning shoppers substance, added-value and an enhanced brand personality that evoke a deeply gratifying emotional response. A 25% cost upgrade from a standard product to a Premium Brand Product can often deliver a 100% emotional upgrade in the product experience. More so than ever, profitable growth is based in satisfying wants, not needs. Successful premium brands can 'own a market' by identifying large, yet overlooked, niches of people who share an unsatisfied 'emotional want.'"
Value of assets under management, $1.3 billion, in which IVEST may take a minority or majority interest.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=89101434
That opinion is called fencing in the dark without a sabre.
Correct. They work with branded names from many parts. And will take a minority or majority interest in same.