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.
That is a lie. First of all, I do not like much of what takes place with market makers. I also think there is a lot of corruption at brokerage firms. I am against ALL forms of dishonesty and corruption. I have followed many scam companies over the last 20 years. I am not saying this is one of them. That remains to be seen.
You really are either naive and new to the market or just intentionally wrong in what you are saying.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Yes, market makers do some bad things in my opinion, based on things I have read. All forms of corruption should be attacked.
If I steal from a thief does that put me in the right? Stealing and lying is wrong no matter who you are lying to or stealing from.
Agreed?
Okay, I apologize.
Let's call a truce because I do not know you and you do not know me. I was pretty cool until I got banned from HSM for challenging what I considered to be misinformation being posted by Phil and a couple of others. I don't want to let that corruption affect me as a person, so I would like to release that negativity.
I think the bad experience I had over there got a rise out of me emotionally. I hated being called a basher and a donkey and being told I worked for a market maker (ALL LIES). I don't even know what a "donkey" is and I barely understand what a market marker is. When I get called that stuff for challenging information which has since been PROVEN to be inaccurate, yes, I get defensive.
Remember one thing, Rufus may, or may not, be telling truth about everything but one thing is for certain. He stands to gain financially from what he says.
You guys often challenge the motives of "bashers." Some may be short. Some may even work for someone. I have no idea. I can only speak for myself. What I do find funny is that most of the people saying these things about "bashers" are holding long positions in the stock. In other words, they do stand to gain finanicially from what they say and they have the nerve to accuse someone else of doing that who may, or may not, stand to gain financially from what they are saying.
Anyway, I can't change the world, so I'm going to sit back and watch this all unfold and think of it like watching something entertaining on TV.
Have a good one today and I am sorry we have had tension between us.
Cindy,
I luv ya girl (hope you're a female LOL). Keep it real and enjoy your day. I got too caught up in this stock and I am taking a break from that. The number one rule in the market for me is play without emotion and when you get caught up in the message boards that gets tough. I don't have a position in this stock and never had one, but there were a few times I probably could have traded it for some nice gains if I was looking at it from the outside, on a strictly TA point of view, rather than worrying about whether things are real or not.
Later :)
Speaking of Anthony. Did you hear when Simon asked him about rumors that he was Ben and he said something like, I wish I was Ben so I could make all the money that I am (I mean he is) going to make off this great company.
Lesn,
I am going to assume you are also on HSM. Now, not that I have been right 100% of the time in my opinion, but I have always said two things. One, there is money to be made here on momentum, but be careful. Two, I don't have all the answers and anything is possible.
Your boy Phil over at HSM has either lied to intentionally or severely mislead investors on a number of occassions. Why not spend some time putting him in his place? He crawls, yes crawls, around over there like he has all the answers but the truth is he is the one spinning things.
Back in later August he was claiming that everything was in the hands of the SEC in regard to the reset and investors just needed to patiently wait. I pointed out that was impossible because CSHD did not even have an auditor at the time and he ignored me repeatedly.
Misinformation is misinformation no matter which side of the fence you are on.
Chill dude, please. Lighten up and be real. You know there is a lot of confusion in this stock on both sides, so stop acting like the bad guys are people who do not believe everything someone like Phil says on a message board.
I have backed off from posting my facts and opinions and I am asking that some of you back off too. Life is too short for all this crap. Let's call some sort of truce and relax a little.
Are you Rufus? Are you the 55 year old man who works for Rufus? Are you Ben?
Do you have anything better to do on a Saturday than post messages here? Haven't you made enough money on this stock? Go out and enjoy the day. You are really caught up in too much animosity.
Let me put this way. If I owned a stock that ran from .12 to $4, I'd be all smiles. If fact, I have made some pretty good trades in my life (never the kind of return this stock has had) and the next day I took all my friends out for dinner and drinks. That is what makes life good. Share it with your friends instead of sitting at home attacking people over a stock that surely has made you some money.
Naked short selling a Real Deal?
I believe there may be some truth to this naked short selling. I have never doubted that. I think it may be blown out of proportion and I think penny stocks are trying to capitalize on the HYPE of it, but that does not mean there isn't truth to it.
Even if there is truth to it, which I think there likely is, does that make the company worth more? It might make for a good momentum play on hype or potential squeezes but I do not think it adds value to the company as a business.
It seems to me that this company is focussed on trying to get the price up based on making shorts buy shares. It's a sad day when people think that is a way to run a company.
Whatever happened to developing a product or offering a service to create shareholder value?
Okay, well I must have imagined it then. The bottom line is I think I heard the previously mentioned name come out of Simon's mouth.
I will assume that if Simon said the name, it was a slip, so I won't repeat the name.
SEC attorney question.
Why do you make reference to this?
"Say.. here's a good poll.. how many people the think a SEC qualified attorney actually helped in the preparation or review of this bogus document?"
Simon, from Subpennyradio, said that he is going to have an SEC attorney on his show on Monday that will discuss these documents.
I have only 3 posts remaining so please be detailed in anything you have to say on this.
Two thumbs up. Let me ask you though, how did you discover this stock at .12?
First let me make it clear that I am speaking in general terms and not in regard to CSHD.
Let's assume that CEO Johnson knows his business plan is full of holes and will never work but his job is to get the stock price up at any cost for his venture capitalist and primary shareholders (could be himself).
Now buying shares before trying to promote his stock is a gamble. There is no way to know if his promotion of his company will be successful, but let's assume it is.
Now let's say that he gets his stock up hundreds or even thousands of percent.
At this point, shorting the stock is NO RISK to CEO Johnson. Who better to short the stock than the person that knows his plan will never work and the person that would be responsible for implimenting the plan even if it could work?
Some pump and dumps make money for those running it on both the way up and again on the way down. In many cases most of the money is made on the way back down.
If a company did a forward split after a big run, there would be more shares available to short on the way back down.
Sadly and crazy enough, I have seen companies who gave themselves shares and even filed in the SEC filing that the shares could be used for shorting their own company. Those companies share prices were soon slaughtered too.
Coincidence?
I read all of your post, why would you not read all of my post? Why won't you show me the same respect that I show you? What business is it of yours if I spend one hour a day here or 24 hours a day here?
Do I tell you how much TV to watch or which TV programs to watch? Do you play video games or golf? If you start following one TV program, don't you want to see every episode of that show rather than trying to keep up with every show on TV?
You seem to lack common sense, but rather than assuming you are dumb, I will assume you are so caught up in all of this that you are not capable of having a rational and intelligent discussion.
Actually I think your theories are well formed. I can see them as possibilities and had thought of them myself to some extent. I agree there is probably a large short position in this stock.
I would agree with those as being good theories. I have heard a few say that a stock dropping on low volume can be a good thing. I suppose there are cases where that is true. Most stocks must fill gaps, consolidate, etc. on the way up and you'd rather see this done on low volume than on high volume when the stock is in an uptrend.
I can also show evidence that low volume is a very negative indicator no matter which way the stock is moving and I can provide seemingly endless charts demonstrating how thinly traded stocks typically move up on heavy volume in steep spikes, but drop on steady low volume. There doesn't have to be large volume sell-offs for these stocks to drop back to where they started.
LOL, maybe you have me pegged finally. Good job. You're not the first to tell me I like to argue, would make a good attorney, and love to play devil's advocate. It is nice to see someone realize that there may be other reasons for someone to debate a belief other than that they are a "donkey" or working for a market maker or involved in some complex ring of shorts.
As for Tim, I like what he is doing. I like some things about Rufus too. I tend to not judge people until I know them but I still have the right to question them. Do I think Tim could be directly, or indirectly, related to shorting? Yes, that is possible.
I never fully trust someone's motivation for doing what they do unless I know them very well, but I have to say that the information he has provided is quite important to everyone and should be appreciated no matter what his motive for providing that information is. Even if he was short (I don't think he is), it doesn't mean what he is saying isn't right. People do actually short bad stocks and it would not be any more wrong for someone to provide negative information on a stock they are short (as long as they disclose that position and the information is believed to be accurate) than it is for you people who own this stock to provide links to positive information or repost over and over how this company has billions in bonds.
As for saying that information should not be repeated. That is completely wrong. Every day there is a new person exposed to this stock and that person needs to have all information available to them, both positive and negative, to help them make the best trading decisions.
That attitude creates bag holders. I am not saying you will be a bag holder on this stock. There is still a chance that all this is real and gloryful. What I am saying is that the attitude you, and some others like you, have with this stock is exactly why some people ride winning gains right back down to being losses.
At some point in life you have to let the PPS do the talking rather than the CEO. This time may be an exception to that rule (that remains to be seen) but usually it's best to make decisions based upon what the stock price is doing and not what people who stand to benefit from you holding your shares are telling you to do.
Opinions on what low volume means.
I would like to hear some opinions on what low volume down days mean to everyone.
Thanks.
Took me a minute to get it, but then I cracked up. There is something about Rufus that is likeable. Did I just say that?
He doesn't play with aces, but he manages to throw down 5 wild cards quite often.
It always fascinates me how Ben, Rufus and Anthony can't seem to keep from dropping calls or having connection problems. That doesn't seem to be a problem for most people and it usually happens about the same time someone asks a tough question or someone starts to stick their foot in their own mouth.
Dim, you bad boy. I heard your jabs tonight. I hope people realize it's all in fun. I don't take it personal when people call me a basher or someone with no life or whatever they want. That stuff is subject to opinion. I am only irritated when people state things as fact that have no factual basis and are not subject to opinion, like stating I work for a market maker or I am short the stock. That is outright libel.
CSHD is FHAL!!!! They changed the name of the company and the ticker, but it's still FURIA! It is the same company.
Dragon, you are avoiding my question. Until the s-4 is filed, I call BS. I'm tired of going back and forth. In the meantime, you could have sold for $4 a share. Today you can get $1.80.
Let's see where it goes from here.
Is Rufus the CEO of FHAL? I am waiting for you to tell me.
I have another question for you. If the stock price has to be over $5 before his institutional investors will step in why is he placing additional shares on the market rather than increasing the stock price to $15?
I'm not sure Rufus knows which company he is CEO of lol.
The powers to be was RUFUS. Do not spin it. He waited to the last minute to file and then he had to file a 10-KSB/A the following day.
Dragon, is Rufus the CEO of FHAL or CVSU. Let's start with a simple question like that for your complex mind. I only have 6 posts, so let's stick to facts and please avoid games.
Thank you.
You can't have it both ways sir. You want to ignore the bad parts because they are FHAL and yet include the good parts because they are CVSU?
Is this one company or is it two companies? I know the answer to that and I do not think you do or maybe you know but you're playing games so you will try to spin as if you do not know.
Important question from the interview.
Did I just hear Rufus say they already have the funds to back the businesses on his web site?
If so, why is this in the 10-KSB?
Specifically this part, "...but will require a significant amount of capital to commence its planned principal operations and proceed with its business plan"
2. GOING CONCERN
The accompanying financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. The Company does not anticipate re-occurring net losses for the foreseeable future, but will require a significant amount of capital to commence its planned principal operations and proceed with its business plan. Accordingly, the Company's ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon its ability to secure an adequate amount of capital to finance its planned principal operations and/or implement its business plan. The Company's plans include an offering of its common stock and the issuance of debt, however, there is no assurance that they will be successful in their efforts to raise capital. These factors, among others, may indicate that the Company will be unable to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time. The financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability and classification of recorded asset amounts or the amounts and classification of liabilities that might be necessary should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern.
TIA for honest and well researched responses.
Who is Anthony from the interview.
Cindy, I missed part of that last interview and could not figure out who that Anthony guy was.
He claimed he was an investors and experience trader but then all the sudden he happened to know Rufus wanted to call into the show? That really confused me. It almost seemed like they were in the same room.
I was also confused because I thought the guy who said he was Anthony sounded like a guy I had heard before that said he was Ben, but truthfully I am behind on the interviews and have not paid close attention, so can you fill in the blanks for me?
Cindy, these guys are good, very good. Put it this way, I have been in this business over 20 years. I have followed scam after scam for my own personal reasons but not for financial gain. I have listened to many CEO interviews including Bernie Ebbers of Worldcom who I pretty much figured out was lying and about to take a big fall back when his stock was over $20 a share. I smelled out the collapse of many of the internet stocks and have posted on several message boards that a CEO was lying in his interview just based on voice inflection. I am somewhat trained in this area of detecting liars.
Rufus is mesmerizing. The guy hypnotizes me. If I didn't do my own due diligence and thoroughly read through the SEC filings, I would probably believe every word the guys says. After an hour of listening to his interview I was ready to buy some stock myself! ROFL - he is very good. Either he is telling the truth or he has been playing con games so long that he could pass a lie detector test and he has ice flowing through his veins.
I can see why his followers are so loyal and I think if this stock fell back to .20 there would be quite a large number of shareholders still holding and believing.
Maybe he is just so convincing because it's all true. Who am I to say? Only time can answer that question.
Type CSHDE into your Level 2. The "e" means the company has issues with an SEC filing.
Bid 1.85
Ask 1.87
Volume is 584,760
Explain these statements in the 10-KSB.
1. The reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period may be affected by the estimates and assumptions management is required to make. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
2. The Company's plans include an offering of its common stock and the issuance of debt, however, there is no assurance that they will be successful in their efforts to raise capital. These factors, among others, may indicate that the Company will be unable to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.
I have a couple of others for you to address, but let's start with these two simple ones.
Thanks
How about please address the issues instead of slinging mud. If someone has to fight mud slinging with more mud slinging it usually means they are guilty of the mud being thrown at them.
Instead of attacking him back, prove that what he says is wrong.
We all know very well why he posts that on his web site. Even criminals can sue you and the United States is full of frivilous and false law suits. He doesn't want the head ache of dealing with that.
Do not get me wrong, I am not defending Tim because I do not know him or his motivation for doing what he does. I do believe the information he provides is most likely accurate.
I have been in this business a long time and I have seen where law suits were filed against web sites like his even though the people who filed the law suits were later proven to be active in criminal activity.
Capital needed and going concern.
I am still waiting for someone to explain this part of the 10-KSB.
The Company does not anticipate re-occurring net losses for the foreseeable future, but will require a significant amount of capital to commence its planned principal operations and proceed with its business plan. Accordingly, the Company's ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon its ability to secure an adequate amount of capital to finance its planned principal operations and/or implement its business plan. The Company's plans include an offering of its common stock and the issuance of debt, however, there is no assurance that they will be successful in their efforts to raise capital.
Thanks
Institutions? What a laugh. Give me a break. Do you think there is any chance that say Warren Buffet would ever buy this stock based on the current profile of the company? True investors might buy this company in five or ten years if these guys can show they are a legitimate company, but not today. They have proven nothing to me. This company has a history of failure and losing money. They pay themselves elaborate salaries and car expenses and whatever else with, guess what, your money. shareholder money!
They have a history of paying themselves and giving themselves shares as a reward for losing previous investors money and having to get investors money to continue business.
I think you missed some key wording that has been in the SEC filings where it stated that business was a "going concern" and that "capital" would need to be raised.
Did you miss the following information in the 10-ksb?
Why do they need to offer new stock to raise capital if the grass fields are green and blowing in the wind?
The Company does not anticipate re-occurring net losses for the foreseeable future, but will require a significant amount of capital to commence its planned principal operations and proceed with its business plan. Accordingly, the Company's ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon its ability to secure an adequate amount of capital to finance its planned principal operations and/or implement its business plan. The Company's plans include an offering of its common stock and the issuance of debt, however, there is no assurance that they will be successful in their efforts to raise capital.
I WILL short this if it ever goes to Nasdaq and goes over $5 and the shares are available. Well that is my last post for the day, so everyone have a great one - yes, even the longs. I have nothing personal against anyone who is not participating in unethical or criminal activity.
Sammy, (ponzi scheme)
If I lend you 100,000.00 and you put it in your bank account. Then you go in a bank to get a loan and they lend you money based on your 100,000.00 as collateral, the bank thinks you OWN the 100,000.00, but do you?
Maybe that is based on the wording of our loan? Instead of saying I am loaning this to you, I say, I am GIVING you this (as long as you give me something back in a year worth 110,000.00). If you don't, I take my money back. Even though I "gave" you the money, do you really own it?
Look up ponzi - rob peter to pay paul. However you want to think of it.
The sign of a CONFIDENT investor.
I have owned a stock for a year or two now. I add to my position as I can. I have NEVER, not once posted a pump on any message board in regard to that stock.
In fact, I don't check the stock price day to day. I don't read the news. I sure don't read message boards on the stock except for maybe once every two or three months if I see a big price change.
This stock I am speaking of has jumped big the last two days. I still don't feel the need to get excited or post about it.
I did my DD. I invested and now I wait.
I have a 5 year to 20 year plan on the stock. That is the sign of a confident investor.
Yes, I am so tempted to slam a couple of the callers but I'll be nice.
The caller right now is off base. I won't say he isn't intelligent but he is way off base.