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.
“This is a legal obligation of every SEC-registered and U.S.-based corporation. The fact that GERS shareholders have not received a 10-K for 2016 or 2017 is proof that Greenshift never filed one for either year.
Watch for an important announcement soon regarding .”
I can’t wait, the suspense is killing me! I’m placing my bets on a separate complaint at the sec for each missing filing for each year.
Thanks to budging Bitzio
I already did suspect it was something like that. But to be sure I looked in Google. And the "translation" I did find in the urban dictionary was kind of laughable. Especially after it added
Ah....okay....thanks!
I already started thinking that explanation on the urban dictionary was the only option. It would certainly bring the posting to a new level
Can you guys help me? What’s budging? I keep ending up on this page: “https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=budge&=true” and wonder how much of this discussion is “on topic”
Nice!
“Looks like a 8% commission for finding new investor money for Santa Elena. Does this writing style look familiar?”
Yep, very familiar. It’s the same BS you posted before and before. No doubt, I’m recornizing your style of sharing BS.
“Why the sudden interest in Mexus on Friday and today? As far as I know there was no PR, no new info on the website.
And why is their exciting new partner ITRO in the dumpster these days?”
A guy like you should be able to figure it out.
“So, what do you think is prompting this amazing run today and Friday? “
I think mexus is showing it’s true color.
Does any consultant at a company giving advice about investor relations work for free? Does it make it illegal when they give advice? I'm finding it interesting when someone needs to see a countersigned contract about drilling before he believes it, posts like he believes a rumor about a fee, even without knowing if this contract has been exercised and people have been paid based on the things stated in the message board members posts, and says that if they don't get paid in the way stated, they should be working for free. Like there are no other options. Sounds like a flip-flop to me
Can it just be that some who got in at a low price, just think it's taking to long? Either to long for judgment day, or for GERS to supply the filings?
Bu they haven't been in a real hurry to sell, otherwise the price would have dropped.
Yeah right, then why making such an issue each time about the deal Mexus has with their consultants if Mexus never published anything about it, and if nobody ever told that a payment has been executed, and if you're also skeptical about posts by chat board posters. It seems a huge contradiction to me.
"By the way, how do you know this if you pay no attention to private board posts: and which has disappeared "
I've only stated things you've supplied.
So you believe a message board member his word, that was posted in an unknown place, without any context and which has disappeared, over official company statements?
"Asking for "proof" here is not a relevant question. " You're so funny!
Yeah, but what can you do about it?
Still no proof? It's hard isn't it? I'm glad the justice system has better standards when it comes to judgment. I don't think they will accept: "I read it on a message board somewhere, the quote was deleted, the info from this guy is mostly put aside by me as pure nonsense, but I did believe this quote and being written down on a message board, must also mean that they have paid these consultants for work as a broker, and for a fee based on the amount of shares sold. Yeah that message board poster didn't write that they also did act after those words, but I'm pretty sure they did. After all I'm always stating that Mexus is a fraud, so they must be"
So I guess, you don’t have proof that that statement is even mentioned in a contract, you don’t have proof that based on that any illegal payments did actually happen, you don’t have an official source, you are basing your findings on a fellow message board member, from who you normally never seem to believe what he says. You don’t even have a link to the source where that board member posted his thoughts, so nobody can put it in perspective. And that board member isn’t confirming that the quote you’ve been sharing is posted by him as a fact. And you want us to take your word based on all that for a fact? LMFAO!
“BTW, taking an 8% commission for share sales.....is brokering. The three B's ain't working for free.”
Please show the proof that they have been paid in a way that isn’t allowed or that they participated in activities they aren’t allowed to. Otherwise it’s all just fantasy.
And please not a non official quote, which can’t be found anywhere, made by a fellow board member.
“So, it is probably the private board, where inside info is dispensed like candy but only to those that are deemed loyal enough to hear it.”
Yes that secret board everybody seems to be on. It’s probably more exclusive not to be member... they know everything... just by clicking their heels three times, and saying ‘Mexus is the best’ people get invited.
Or can it just be all fairytales that there is info shared over there, and that being realistic is the key. Mexus is golden.
That’s why this part on investopedia might be of importance to you: “your broker may not always be sending your order to the best possible market maker.”
How did you ‘know’ the MM didn’t see your order and that the other order was a non-AON?
Also this is a nice read: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/01/022801.asp
Market makers somtimes have their own agenda. They do not always fill orders in the for us most logical
Order. I also think they might put AON sell orders aside somtimes to fill on a different moment. They prefer normal orders I think. It often seems like if they have the same sell orders AON and non-AON, they sell the non-AON first.
To do so, there should be an aon order to sell of the amount of your buy, or a normal sell. It it was a aon sell for a different size then yours, it’s normal your order didn’t fill
Unless the other was an all or none sell order which couln’t be filled by your buy. But only by a bigger one.
“Any other buyers would reject the 7¢ sell order and instead buy from someone else at a much more reasonable price of 4½ to 5¢.”
Also, If there’s only a small amount for instance 10,000 under that 0.052, I could care less if I bought them too on the way up. I would just put 140,000 a little above that 10,000 and buy a 150,000.
What nobody was saying, there isn’t much logic in being 150,000 shares for sale that cheap.
If there are not enough shares for sale at 0.052, and enough above 0.052 I can set a sell all or none order of 150.000 at 0.052
And with another account place a buy all or non at 0.052
That would move the price to 0.052, and look like a bigger sell, it wouldn’t cost me much, and I end up with the sane amount of shares.
I know it isn’t legal, but maybe somebody is selling some shares to himself trying to move it up.
Wish it was me!
Yep, but how many traders do you know that buy only winners?
Wow, if every trade was like that, that trader would be rich in no time. Either it's the next Warren Buffet (or the old one) or it is just a lucky shot, one among other trades that probably cost him/or money. There is a reason why equity funds make more money then most traders, and why monkeys are often better in trading stocks then human beings.
Woow great, glad it seems fixed!
Sorry, it has been a while
I hope they are working around the clock to get it right. It sounds strange for such a case. Indeed it makes you wonder how common it is.
Did you ask your attorney son in law? (Or what was it)
Any idea what the reason can be?
Sure thing!
“By the way, since here is no egomaniacal or narcissistic behavior exhibited on this board, I will not start that trend by reminding everyone that I have stated previously based on a reputable source that the OS count was 20 million two years ago, as it is today.”
LOL, watch out. Insulting someone might result in a sec complaint.
So, why isn’t one offence enough? Robbing one store should be enough to get you locked up, or in this case suspended. And to your opinion it seems to me, it wouldn’t make any difference to the sec. It’s all treated the same way. You can only get suspended once. In the analogy of the the robbery, you can get multiple sentenses, but what would it help to suspend them twice?
So do you think the sec is selective in what offence they treat in what way?
So to the sec one offence isn’t the other? Are you saying they are picky who they ‘prosecute’?
Yeah, probably right. We’ve seen what the wait can do to investors before.
I guess it doesn’t make a difference either way. Time will pass and things will happen