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.
In order to supply the kind of background info about this filing, I found this headline & link to it, which explains the METIULOUSNESS (which is very encouraging, frankly) of DWAC in filing every necessary jot & tittle....
"17 CFR § 230.425 - Filing of certain prospectuses and communications under § 230.135 in connection with business combination transactions." is the headline.
And this is the link:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/230.425
Hope this helps. It certainly helped me continue in my confidence. I never want to be downstream in my understanding.
Best regards,
IW
Maybe. Maybe there will be a rising tide.
It may be an "End of Month" buying event. Timing of the trade by the pros, as it were. Needs confirmation from a charting point of view, IMHO, but it's worth watching....
I'm looking at a considerable pick up in upside volume vs the volume levels as it declined. IMHO, if there is more buying as it moves up, the volume tells me the buyers have, at least temporarily, regained control.
We'll see. Keeping my fingers crossed. As for me, I kept the faith and did not let myself get spooked out, but I'm just like everyone else. I'm a retail guy, not a pro, and the big money always runs the show.
Like I said.... We'll see.
Just my opinion.
IW
Thanx.
I was going to go look for that stuff because it made sense that it was out there to be found, but you saved me the time. I was reading Seeking Alpha articles right now and planned to get to what you found later, so thank you for saving me the time.
IW
If this hedge fund bought prior to the spike of 10/22/21, then they bought at a price NOT GREATER THAN 17.33 (the high of the day on 9/30/21)
So, by selling in last year's tax year, this hedge fund generated quite a profit for their participants. That explains the filing.
In short, they bought, booked a considerable pre-tax profit, and thus avoided a substantial tax liability in the current year.
By doing so in last year's tax environment, they removed as much risk as was possible. Remember the rumors that were swirling prior to the current Congressional events regarding the current administration's tax proposals.
Further, it is rational to presume that they were, as a practical matter, legitimately responsible to these participants for generating profits & managing their investment correctly, it follows that the hedge fund had an actual responsibility to take profits at year end rather than undertaking unnecessary risk by continuing to hold.
Thats the way I see it.
And all of this means that this filing is simply a regulatory necessity and it does not indicate that the hedge fund has pulled out for reasons that should trouble parties, such as myself, who are trying to make money via DWAC.
Hope this helps.
Imperial Whazoo
An "Amended Statement of Ownership (sc 13g/a)" filing.
I just read it multiple times and I do not see any declaration of the # of shares necessitating the filing. Looks like a form bearing nothing but zeros. I don't see why the filing has happened.
IW
Do you mind clarifying your comment because I am uncertain whether you are saying that DWAC rises faster than DWACW or the other way around. And if its that DWAC is faster in its % increase, what makes you favor DWACW?
TIA
Imperial Whazoo
Bull Dolphin - Thanks.
IW
You clarify the value proposition presented by this deal w/Parallel
And isn't it nice that I can ask an intelligent question & get a very clear answer? There is an irony here: I am an experienced poster here, going back years, and I can guarantee that many a time, I got pretty much insulted for daring to ask what some thought was a dumb question. Juxtapose that with the freedom proposition presented here in Rumble. Ironic parallel in your EXCELLENT "connect-the-dots" of the value proposition in the deal w/Parallel and the idea of freedom and decency of conversing together. Seems very apporpriate that you answered this way. Thanks very much
IW
I was aware of this stuff going on. Believe me. I have a long bookmarks file structure where all kinds of similar things get saved.
But what I did not figure out was the mechanics of how working with Parallel Economy actually adds value.
Also.... quite perceptive for you to notice the use of "create" in the announcement.
Apparently, the actual 'thingy" (whatever it actually ends up being) still needs to be created. Proly not possible to get an existing entity to provide these services (political headwinds etc...) so Rumble is just plowing ahead and creating it out of necessity.
Thnx
IW
Thanks e
Now THAT was actually helpful.
So, to summarize: control the money & you take away one more avenue of violations. Got it. Thnaks mucho.
IW
The news release says
"This investment in a digital payment processing system is another example of Rumble's commitment to put creators first. With Parallel Economy, creators won't have to worry about arbitrary cancellation. Giving creators financial security is a critical part of Rumble's mission to protect a free and open Internet."
This could use a bit more info to explain the reason adding Parallel Economy to the the mix with Rumble adds value.
It needs more details to explain the connection and I thought somebody might know more and would take a moment to share. It look like you are not the guy to expect that kind of helpfulness from.
Anyone else able to add info here? Would be much appreciated, IMHO.
IW
What are the full features you refer to? I mean, isn't the news about a payment system or is it more than that? Thnx.
Question: Would somebody explain why an independent payment platform adds value to Rumble? I ve read & re-read the news release today & could not figure out what the relationship is.
TIA
Imperial Whazoo
I don't know. Thats what the other guy seems to be saying will not automatically happen. He's saying the ticker change necessitates a squaring of shorty.
He says its a fact. I say that, if it is the case, then there should be a dampening effect on short artists. You need to direct your question to the guy who originally asserted the point. Not to me. All I'm doing is pointing out that -
IF this is the case, then shorty will be held at arms length between now and the ticker change
Peace.
IW
Yeah. You observed that a certain fact was in existence.
My point is that.... :
It stands to reason the upcoming ticker change will stop short players from plying their destructive practice between now and the date of the ticker change. Obviously, both you and I have a point of view on this that is aligned.
Peace.
IW
Perfect flag chart, complete with darn obvious upside breakout.
IW
What's "MOASS"? Unfamiliar w/term. Sorry
IW
Now THAT is an interesting observation.
Short artists (pros), aware of this, could rationally be expected to more or less STOP their short side attacking between now and the date the ticker changes, if you are right.
And this will mean the stock will behave more or less unmanipulated in the leadup to the ticker change date.
We'll see.
IW
Never mind. Found it.
What are the terms of the warrants? How long duration? how much to buy ordinary shares? Any link to a prospectus?
TIA
Imperial Whazoo
Say....
What link did you get that from?
What do you use to track shorts like you posted? I appreciate it ahead of time.
Thnx
IW
That was a pretty good article. I'd read one that a technical analyst wrote on either Benzinga or Seeking Alpha and it was (IMHO) confusion mixed with obfuscation and distorted like the mirrors in a freak show.... so this one made better "average guy" sense. The projections may be aa lot of hooy because, after all.... they are "opinions" framed on pseudo-math, but even stripping them back to the bare minimum, it looks like "the future's so bright, ya gotta wear shades".
IW
I was charting DWAC as the take-down took shape. The professional investors, probably sitting at "trading desks" in hedge funds & private wealth funds, knew where the likely protective levels were & they forced people to sell, specifically to grab lots & lots of shares they otherwise would not get a chance to get. Logical & well done. Applauds to the pro's.
Nunes knows that he could ascend to power in a Congress that is highly likely to sweep in the right wing, so for him to choose to leave as he has now formally done, speaks volumes about his comprehension of what will be more important in the long run: being one of the key people in the next Congress or running a company that intends to let free speech return to the internet. His timing in resigning tells me that there is going to be a release of news that will put a time-line on the upcoming formalization of the plans of DWAC.
Just my 10 cents worth. I was too slow to anticipate the buy at the bounce at $45.20, but I COULD have bought if I did not have a rule that says: "NEVER. NEVER. NEVER.... Never chase." So now, its a waiting game to see when or if news comes out.
GLTA.
Imperial Whazoo
Thanx. I'll study your answer because I don't instantly grasp its intricacies.
that said... My reason for asking was that DWAC dropped a great deal... as though it were the inverse of a short squeeze & I was trying to test the idea that the opposite of a short squeeze had happened. Take a look at the 5 minute candlesticks today on DWAC.
My basic conclusion from your answer is that this "theory" (opposite of a short squeeze causing it) is probably fatuous. Correct?
IW
IMHO, there had to be some deliberate play going on in it to have caused it, but it (based on your post) is not traceable back to some kind of options imbalance. Correct?
Hi - I posted a kinda dumb question a short while ago and now I think I have a more clear way of asking aboout what I'm unclear on.
I understand a short squeeze, but in DWAC a while ago, there was the opposite that appears to have happened.
So, my question is:
is there an opposite options play to a "Short Squeeze" that contributes to( or more or less actually causes) a PRICE PLUMMET rather than a sharp rise? If so, what is it called so I can go to youtube and play videos explaining how it works.
Thanx
Imperial Whazoo
Thanx .
But, I do not understand. "4 million plus shorts at DWAC 69m X 17 = 1.173 Billion...equals nothing to mm's" Are you saying that there are 4 million plus shorts at DWAC?
And where does the math... 69M X 17 come from?
Thanx though.
Appreciate your having posted. I don't mind being seen as dumb about this because I do not get what you are saying.
Got it. CFVI is the vehicle thru which Rumble is goin public. So, here we see two flash crash events. Got it. thanx.
That said.... still wondering about how to check the options imbalance levels so that I can comprehend the METHOD by which the professional executed the flash crash, along with learning more about how options imbalances can be used as early warning radar, as it were. Anyone got a site for checking into options imbalances?
Hi - new poster here. Gotta question for anyone who can help.
I don't understand this message from Benzinga:
"Option Alert: Dec 31 $53 Calls Sweep (28) near the Ask:221 @$2.311 vs 589 OI; Ref= $52.695"
The stock is DWAC & it flashed down a few minutes ago & I don't understand whether the underlying reason for the flash crash was an options imbalance where the professionals slammed it down to flush people to sell to them at low prices.
Thanx
Imperial Whazoo
Hey... is there a connection between DWAC & CFVI? I looked at CFVI & it did not suffer to the degree DWAC just did.
IW
Thanx....
do you or anyone else know a link to find out the current options levels for stocks? I've seen messages referring to sites like that but I never bothered to explore them, but now that this just happened, I think I need to poke around and try to figure out what the Benzinga message meant.
I'd like to look at the levels for DWAC & don't know how. Does anyone have a site for me to go to?
Thanx
Hi everyone - I'm have a question -
I don't understand this message from Benzinga:
"Option Alert: Dec 31 $53 Calls Sweep (28) near the Ask:221 @$2.311 vs 589 OI; Ref= $52.695"
DWAC just saw a smash down in a lightning fast sell down. Could it be that there was a Call side imbalance so professional traders smashed the price down to force people to sell at the smash down price?
I just don't understand the message from Benzinga and how it could explain the action we just had.
Thnc.
That is fabulous news
Whats an ss?
Anyone ever done a statistical study of whether it is statistically better to hold thru a revers merge or sell on the upswing? I've never seen a study of the statistical frequency of outcomes. anyone know what the statistical likelihoods are?
IW
Anyone got a link to the rumor that CocaCola is REALLY interested? I mean..... how solid is this rumor (and I readily grant that a solid rumor is an oxmoron, LOL)
Imperial Whazoo
I'm not from that part of the country. Is the idea in the last couple of posts that the good news can somehow be undone? The permits can not be pulled, I would think. So how can a democrat win rather than a republican result in a loss of them? I'm sorry but I don't understand.
TIA
Imperial Whazoo
Does anybody on this board ever call the company? If anyone is close enough to get thru {instead of a callback or email), call and ask if the company is just going to let this happen with no investor reassuring PR's.
IW
I thought it might be telling to put a Fib retrace tool overlay on the candle move of yesterday.
The .618 is 1.04
The .786 is .99
The .5 is 1.08
The .382 is 1.12
Just wanted a look at it. Thought knowing might be helpful.
Imperial Whazoo
EDIT: Not changing the comment I just posted, but I also need to add this.... the volume on the 6/12 was higher than that of 6/11, which would tend to mean that the days after 6/12 would have continued down. BUT THEY WERE NOT!!!
So, if today turns out to be both down in price and up in volume, it does not necessarily imply that there is going to be more down action in the days to come. After all, the news causing yesterdays price move is the best yet.
JMO, folks. JMHO.
Original post:
I've got a yearly chart up and it looks to me like this: the price move of 1/31/18 was at a daily chart high.... It was a big daily price move, just like yesterday. There had been a relatively steady 2 month climb in price, so, ipso facto, the 1/31 price move was a topping action.
As would be expected, there was no continued climb. Price declined from there until 6/11/18. That was a big price rise in a day, just like yesterday and 1/31.
What I'm doing is comparing the chart behavior of each recent "Big A$$ White Candle" day. So, when the BAWC on 1/31 was at the top of a chart range & the one on 6/11 was at the bottom of a long pullback, the question is: can we extrapolate something helpful from these evidences?
I say "YES". Look at the BAWC yesterday. It began, like 6/11, at the bottom, not the top.
Here's what I'm hoping is true: the 6/11 BAWC was followed by a pullback (6/12) but, in that the BAWC was at a chart low, it just so happened that the next week saw a climb.
I look at the action both 1/31 and 6/11 and conclude that it matters WHERE the BAWC occurs. At the top, there is a pullback over time. At the bottom, there is more upside than just the one BAWC day.
My guess, and I'm counting on this because I did not bail at 1.25 today, is that the pullback of today, WHICH IS AT A BOTTOM, is a pre-cursor to more upside in the near future.
And this matters: THE ACTION YESTERDAY WAS ON THE BEST NEWS OF THE PRIOR BIG MOVE DAYS.
So, here's hoping that the chart tells the story, not the level 2 action and the smash down artists.
Not guaranteeing anything. Just trying to read the charts.
Imperial Whazoo
I've got a level 2 up & there is a seller, BATX, offering 180K at the ask, so obviously, there is a seller. At first, I thought this was a take down to force protective stops to trigger. Now, it looks like a friggin smash down player. Somebody may be trying to accumulate in anticipation of a buyout or big partner entrant into the picture.