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 shorters?
Anyone that truly understands what the numbers mean knows that it is not an issue down here in the stinky pinky's.
https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-051019
https://blog.otcmarkets.com/2018/11/13/understanding-short-sale-activity/
https://blog.otcmarkets.com/2023/05/08/what-investors-should-know-about-finra-daily-short-sale-volume-data/
Tell me again how withdrawing the appeal of FINRA's denial of corporate actions suddenly makes every problem go away.
Oh wait, the FINRA denial was based on not having several years worth of financials.
How does withdrawing the appeal suddenly fix the problem of missing financials?
Oh, that's right it doesn't.
Someone found guilty of something then filing an appeal doesn't suddenly become innocent if they later withdraw their appeal after it didn't go anywhere. It just doesn't work that way.
I love knowing when I'm being lied to.
OTC Markets' published guidelines dictate two years. I didn't write that for them, they wrote that themselves.
And anyone that reads the links I provided will understand that posts claiming massive shorting while citing FINRA Short Sale Daily Volume are total BS.
A little learning goes a long way toward knowing when one is being lied to.
https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-051019
https://blog.otcmarkets.com/2018/11/13/understanding-short-sale-activity/
https://blog.otcmarkets.com/2023/05/08/what-investors-should-know-about-finra-daily-short-sale-volume-data/
Those numbers and those websites are frequently cited as "proof" of "massive" shorting but they are not what they seem.
It's BS, in fact. It is foisted on the naive who don't know better and then just spread around by the other naive investors out there.
FINRA has explained it and OTC Markets has even made several posts discussing it, including as recently as just last month as a refresher.
https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-051019
https://blog.otcmarkets.com/2018/11/13/understanding-short-sale-activity/
https://blog.otcmarkets.com/2023/05/08/what-investors-should-know-about-finra-daily-short-sale-volume-data/
The "audited fins" are found as an exhibit attached to the Change of Accountant 8-K filed 12/2/22. You can find this on the VNTH Disclosure page at https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/VNTH/disclosure.
You won't find the fins in an official 10-K or 10-Q as one normally does with an SEC reporting entity. They are solely in that attached exhibit.
As far as the accountant, I just googled him, as anyone can. I don't see any evidence of his being part of a large professional firm or anything, he seems to be just a one man show that advertises himself on sites like freelancer.com and upwork.com
The "audited fins" was just a pump. They weren't even "filed" in any official way, they were just an "exhibit" attached to an 8-K. As far as cost, the accountant Haroon Imtiaz seems to be a one-man operation with gmail for an email address. Probably didn't cost too much I imagine.
They are both Frank tickers.
The guidelines state two years. They did not follow that with GVSI.
Interpret that however you like.
Nope. Plenty of tickers are Pink Current with OTC Markets yet have corporate actions denied by FINRA.
Tell OTC Markets they need to update the guidelines they themselves publish.
They clearly state two years are required. It's not my fault they didn't follow that in this case.
Let me know what their response is when you tell them they effed up.
Pink Current comes from OTC Markets, not FINRA.
Please post correct information, thanks.
Oddly, that's not an idea at all.
Seems more like a total moron that thinks they posted some picture they ripped off from somewhere when in fact all they did was post the phrase "Pic by Paulie Cashews". Again.
There is absolutely nothing about CE in that case.
Nada. Zilch. No mention whatsoever.
Calling something a "sister stock" over and over and over just because it had the same custodian makes no difference to it's performance, which is totally unrelated.
How about comparing to every other Sharp ticker at the same time?
Oh that's right, that would be a bad move to reveal the truth.
I provided the link so anyone can see for themselves and not just take it from a random internet commenter.
Oh look, here it is again, https://dealstream.com/financial/public-shells.
By opening the page one clearly sees that this shell section has 276 ads as of today.
There are a bunch of shells available.
https://dealstream.com/financial/public-shells
That's just one website, I imagine there could be even more listed elsewhere.
Where's the part that says they can move forward? Oh that's right, nothing like that has been said, just that it was unwinnable.
"Unwinnable" pretty much says that yes, he did not win. Otherwise he would have used a phrase like "daunting" instead.
FINRA's decision was never reversed, it still stands, and George gave up.
You left out the "unwinnable" part of George's quote. That's kind of an important detail.
That's the opposition that was withdrawn just a couple days ago and is the subject of all the new activity here.
I read Cutler's opposition statement. Yes I do know what he stated - and "for sure".
Oh look at that, anyone can read it for themselves.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/3-19407-2020-09-16-reply-to-finra-opposition-to-the-application-for-good-vibration-shoes.pdf
I know that the now-withdrawn petition was based on "we're now a different company from that last one, let us proceed!"
And it failed.
"LOL"
The restrictions are still in place and GVSI threw in the towel. As in stopped fighting. As in gave up.
That's what that means.
What "appropriate notifications"? They are OTC Alternate reporting - they don't even have to file stating that they bought or sold after the fact, like SEC filers do.
Changes will be revealed by examining Quarterlies. We will see if there are any when the next one is filed.
Sure, maybe he has been hanging on to them, but why would he want to tip off investors that he converted some, knowing that it is a strong telltale indicator of an intention to sell by an insider?
What reason could he have for converting and then just sitting on them, knowing that it will affect investor confidence in the meantime?
Actually, one could reasonably argue that he converted to sell immediately, not to convert and then sit and wait around. If he wasn't planning to sell immediately then why would he convert and have to report that, tipping off everyone that it was happening? After all, insiders selling is a bad sign of things to come. They wouldn't want investors getting that bad vibe if they could help it.
Yet he decided to convert anyway.
Anticipating the price going down could be another reason to convert. Sell for more money than it will be worth in the future... And yes, the share price now is less than it was when he converted.
Things are "just getting started", aren't they? Why not wait until everything is up and running and showing huge profits? Why show investors that they are already converting this early? That just lessens investor confidence in the future.
Maybe those huge profits in the future aren't actually going to be what people hope.
Additionally, there could be the realization that the OTC isn't at all what it used to be. There isn't nearly the money flowing in that there was just several short years ago.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Securing some early profit before others convert may have been a quite smart decision. It will be interesting to see next quarter's filings and whether he and/or others have made more conversions even while things are getting off the ground.
That would be a neat trick, seeing as insiders are already starting to convert their preferreds into commons.
A fresh billion is on the books in the last filing which covered through March. That seems to be the wrong direction for reducing the share count.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/financial-report/369531/content
Your eyes are not deceiving you. Yup, they will have to raise the Authorized Shares just to accommodate conversions from even just this one single insider whose preferreds convert to 30 billion commons.
So once again, it is admitted that there is in fact an avenue for changing the contract, just as I am claiming.
I am not claiming that there will be a reverse split before the period expires, just that it is possible if the circumstances dictate.
This is to counter the entirely false claim that one is "impossible" because "contract".
Yup, it can be changed if they want. Claiming that it cannot be is entirely disingenuous.
And the change of control was early April 2022, not July. There are just over 10 months left in the two year period. Here is the filing, anyone can see the date for themself:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=15717121&guid=tnu-kFMehiFUdth
Wrong. It just needs to be in writing. That's it. That's all it takes to change it.
Let's be real, it's just over 10 months away. The change of control date was April 5, not sometime in July.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=15717121&guid=tnu-kFMehiFUdth
And even though vehemently denied, the contract can absolutely be broken or changed beforehand if the circumstances dictate. We have gone over this. Do I need to provide the links and screenshots yet again to prove that I am correct?
Ending -32% upon CE removal doesn't bode well.
That may have been a nice catalyst several years ago, but now it seems to be just a liquidity event bagholders take advantage of to get out.
The OTC isn't what it used to be.
How is that one doing today?
Less than 11 months remain from that timeframe now.
And that can be gotten around easily enough if warranted.
I never claimed that TXTM filed audited fins.
I simply corrected the false claim that OTCQB doesn't require audited financials, which it does. Yet I was harassed and insulted for being wrong even though I was entirely correct the whole time.
Have a nice day.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171962803
https://www.otcmarkets.com/corporate-services/get-started/otcqb
What bs? You clearly referred to OTCQB and made an untrue claim about it not requiring audited financials, which it does. I corrected that. I have no idea why you brought it up yourself other than being entirely igorant of the fact that TXTM is OTC Pink and not OTCQB and now are trying to backtrack so you don't look quite so stupid. Too late, though.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171962803
This entire conversation started when I corrected your mistaken claim that OTCQB doesn't require audited financials. That is what this has been about this entire time. I even kept making it quite clear I was discussing OTCQB. I never even mentioned TXTM. I was just clearing up the misstatement about OTCQB.
Maybe you should try some of your own "Reading is fundamental" and "Comprehension is even more fundamental" that you threw at posters.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171962803
It doesn't matter that they can be alternative reporting as an option. To be OTCQB the very first requirement listed is audited annuals. It does not say "audited financials except for alternative filers".
https://www.otcmarkets.com/corporate-services/get-started/otcqb
All the attorney letters you see are for OTC Pink, not OTCQB. You do know that there is a difference, right? Or don't you?
Perhaps you should let OTC Markets know that the OTCQB eligibility requirements they list on their website is totally wrong and that in your official capacity as a random ihub commenter they need to fix it.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/corporate-services/get-started/otcqb
Makes no difference if "Alternative filing standards", the annual still needs to be audited for OTCQB's. It's even the very first thing listed.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/corporate-services/get-started/otcqb
It seems I'm not the one with the comprehension problem.