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.
Overshadowed by the SHO proposal, the SEC proposed some changes to the Rules of Practice, etc. The proposal is lengthy--too lengthy to post here--but it does have some items that may be of interest; eg: the section on Fair Funds. Here is the summary and a link to the proposal:
Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Practice and Related Provisions
Securities and Exchange Commission
17 CFR Parts 200, 201, and 240
[Release No. 34-48832; File No. S7-25-03]
RIN 3235-A198
Summary: The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") is proposing for public comment amendments to its Rules of Practice and related provisions in light of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, among other things, authorizes the Commission to review disciplinary actions of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ("Board") and to create "Fair Funds" in Commission administrative proceedings. The Commission is also proposing for public comment amendments to other provisions of the Rules of Practice ("Rules") as a result of its experience with those rules and to correct certain citations. The proposed amendments are intended to enhance the transparency and facilitate parties' understanding of the applicability of the review process to Board proceedings, and to make practice under the rules easier and more efficient.
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/34-48832.htm
#106 relates to purported government abuse of process and the recourse citizens have, particularly in regard to voting their conscience when serving as a juror. The object of the exercise in general is to effect change for the better.
Liberty's Last Legs?
Miss Beers, my sixth-grade teacher at Willard Elementary School, has finally been sanctified by none other than the US Supreme Court. Having been whacked on the back of her head by a wayward spitball, Miss Beers demanded the culprit fess up. When nobody breathed, she angrily decreed the bureaucrat's standard punishment: "Nobody gets recess!" Innocent and guilty alike. It was our introduction to the injustice of guilt by association.
Lost in the libertarian wrath and rancor of the Supreme Judicalcrats' anti First Amendment ruling that upheld most of the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Campaign Finance Scam was Miss Beers' No Recess validation. The Court's Guilt by Association ruling in December decreed that if cops discover a car occupied by multiple people plus contraband ('kän-tr&-"band, noun: any inanimate object declared illegal by a majority vote of Congresscrats) and nobody fesses up to owning it, everybody gets arrested. ("Nobody gets recess!") Innocent and guilty alike.
Prosecutors panting after the Governor's office will love this one. No more of that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt silliness. "He benched his butt in a Beemer near a baggie of blow. He's guilty and he goes to jail." Couple that with the "Should Have Known" indictment (i.e., The Boston Globe, November 18, 2003: "Meanwhile, federal authorities said Monday they would resume their efforts to try to seize the home of Wayne and Ruby Gibson, saying they knew or should have known that their son was using it as a base for his heroin dealing.") and you get: "He was sitting near somebody else's drugs and he should have known it, so he goes to jail and we get his Beemer to boot!"
In the campaign finance case, the Supremes ruled in favor of the politicians. In the guilt by association case, they ruled in favor of convenience for cops. They love to throw around phrases like "the government has a compelling interest" while seldom observing "citizens have a compelling interest." Since virtually nobody in any branch of government has our interests at heart, we're rapidly approaching the defense of last resort ? armed resistance.
(Note to federal cyberspys: I'm not advocating the violent overthrow of the US gov, so don't suck your Fruit of the Looms into your bureaucratic crotches. That's because there's still a peaceful trump card or two left to play, like jury nullification and libertarian litigation.)
The principal of jury nullification, of course, says that juries have the right and responsibility not only of deciding whether Andre the Accused is breaking the law but also whether the law is breaking Andre.
The best example of jury nullification occurred prior to the first ever Blue-Gray game, the one contested with bullets and bayonets. The Court of the Supremes, mindful even then of defending the status quo rather than extending freedom, ruled that slaves decamping into northern climes must be nabbed and "repatriated" downstream. Many citizens, mindful then as few are today that the Supreme Court is not (repeat, not) the ultimate arbiter of things Constitutional, cried foul. They established the Underground Railroad (which was not, as my sixth-grade teacher Miss Beers could have but failed to explain, an actual tunnel with train tracks extending from the Mason-Dixon Line to the Canadian border).
But we're beginning to see its reawakening, mostly in drug cases here and there. We need to see it in guilt by association cases and campaign contribution cases and tax cases and all other victimless crime cases. The prime mover behind the rebirth of jury nullification, as most libertarians know, is the Fully Informed Jury Association, aka www.fija.org. Jury nullification is the sleeping Andre the Giant of citizen activism, and we need to prod it back into vigorous life.
But that alone may not be enough to save Andre the Accused. Libertarians need to develop their own version of the ACLU, sort of an American Constitutional Libertarian Union, with copious coin and cahones (k&-'h?-n?z, noun: (1) chutzpah (2) objects found in some Fruit of the Looms). Someday, every Washingtoncrat who utters the oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution only to bail at the first sniff of pork will be charged with felonious dereliction of duty. We have the beginnings of this, too. They're called the Institute for Justice, doing business at www.IJ.org.
Politics? Think tanks? Public interest organizations? Single-issue groups? Why choose amongst them? Do them all!
If peacefully petitioning the proponents of power won't fetch our freedoms back, well, hold on to your Fruit of the Looms.
Published 01 January 2004 by Garry Reed
http://www.freecannon.com/LibertysLastLegs.htm
Do you have evidence that the Commission has monitored private email communication? If you do, it's the stuff of mainstream media who would jump all over each other to break such a story.
"Chat rooms" needs definition, but many are what could be easily be seen as 'public spaces'. This forum for example is such a public space. Invitation-only environments are not, but would invited participation by an undercover government agent be a violation of law? I don't think so, but I'm not an attorney.
This whole topic has the potential to break new legal ground.
Just a suggestion g--
It would be helpful if you would use the formatting features that are available here to make it easier to separate the text that you are quoting and your own commentary. I like to use italic for quoted text, but anything that sets the two categories apart will do.
So Gabe, you're posting some antique pieces about the SEC's 'surveillance' of the internet environment, and your sole comment is a question: "any false or misleading statements here?"
Are there? Would it not be more useful to point out and discuss these purportedly false/misleading statements? Pick one and we'll have at it.
pk- You're all over the place here. There are meds and neurofeedback techniques that can help with your ADD, you know. LOL!
Seriously, Gabe (may I call you 'Gabe'?), you've reposted a score of SHO comments, provided some useful links for detecting and reporting fraud, touched on PIPE funding, posted some links related to freedom of speech and SLAPP, and vented your spleen at Hartley B.; but not a word about SEC Surveillance.
I read "your" 12/23 press releases in (ahem) shock and awe. The first ( http://snipurl.com/3jdp ) claims that various agencies of the government are snooping on us here on the message boards. The followup release ( http://snipurl.com/3jib ) seems to be shopping for plaintiffs to file an unprecedented class action against 'bashers' on the message boards.
Can you please pull all of this together in a cogent post or two? These questions come immediately to mind...
What evidence or even anecdotal information do you have to support the surveillance claims? There have been many times I have wanted the authorities to be watching closely in the hope that they could nail some fraudster, but alas the crooks seemed to get away.
How are you going to sue message board posters without infringing on their right to express their opinions?
Wouldn't the natural result of these efforts be a decline in message board participation as individuals come to fear either unauthorized surveillance and/or getting caught up in unwarranted litigation?
Small consolation. Tirex still hasn't found a single marketmaker who will file a 211 to quote 'em on the OTCBB or EVEN THE PINK SHEETS. So the 'spread' remains something like .001/.02 and no rational investor will touch 'em.
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The following is management's discussion and analysis of significant factors which have affected the Company's financial position and operations during the three month period ended March 31, 2003. This discussion also includes events which occurred subsequent to the end of the last quarter and contains both historical and forward-looking statements. When used in this discussion, the words "expect(s)", "feel(s)","believe(s)", "will", "may", "anticipate(s)" "intend(s)" and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected.
As reported in the Company's Annual Report for the year ended June 30, 2003, recently filed on Form 10-KSB, the Company's TCS Tire Recycling System has been ready for market since March of 2000, although further refinements were made to the technology during the remainder of Fiscal 2001 and throughout Calendar 2002. Throughout that period the availability of funds necessary to permit developmental stage companies, such as ours, to make the transition to the commercial stage has been very restricted. The Company was late in filing its September 10-Q on a timely basis, which resulted in our stock being removed from the Bulletin Board to be shown as OTC-Other, in which category the "Bid" and "Ask" are not shown. The Company has recently taken steps to attempt to rectify this situation and hopes to be re-listed on the OTC Bulletin Board shortly.
On the business development side, entrepreneurial confidence in investing into new ventures, such as tire recycling, has continued to manifest significant strong uncertainty, and particularly on the part of financial backers to such projects. For the past year, the Company has been working with a Puerto Rican entrepreneur interested in purchasing a TCS-2, but having difficulty in finding an investor partner, necessary to complete his project financing package. To date, no appropriate investor partner has been found. Similarly, the Company was working with a Canadian entrepreneur interested in setting up a tire recycling facility in Quebec. However, during the first quarter of Fiscal 2003, this entrepreneur informed us that that the facility he would establish would not involve our technology, but rather a processing facility using hammer mills. Such equipment is easily available on the used equipment market, permitting him to reduce his capital cost outlay. However, they project initially conceived remains viable and we are working with a Montreal-based consulting firm to bring in investors to support a quebec-based facility. To date, no such investors have committed to any project. We remain hopeful that such investors will be found, but we cannot guarantee that this will occur.
Our Manufacturing Partner, Simpro S.p.A. of Turin. Italy, has received the desired support from public sources and from a technical university, Polytecnico, to proceed with the construction of a demonstration unit in Italy. Construction has begun and the demonstration unit will be operational toward the end of this fiscal year. While we will not receive any royalty on the construction of this unit, we will receive a royalty on crumb rubber sales resulting from production operations of this unit. We do not expect to see such royalties commence before the first quarter of Fiscal 2005, however.
Simpro is currently in active negotiations with Brazilian interests for the sale of one or more TCS Systems. We have been informed that this potential Brazilian customer does have the financial capability to undertake this project. Regardless, there cannot be any assurances that an unconditional sales contract will result from these negotiations, and as of the date of this report, no such contract had been concluded.. Simpro has also received a Letter of Intent respecting a TCS-1 to be located in Botswana, a copy of which was provided to us. While Simpro's current business practices would normally have had them undertake due diligence examinations with respect to this potential customer as a precursor to proceeding with negotiations, we have not received any documents from Simpro attesting to the financial capability of the Botswanan entrepreneur.
We continue to respond to information requests with respect to our TCS systems from numerous sources. While the volume of such requests would indicate continued significant interest in our technology, there can be no assurances that any of these requests will proceed to actual negotiations for a system sale, nor that any sales contracts would actually be concluded.
With the suspension of rubber crumb production operations in January of 2002 and the concurrent reduction of R&D activity, we have devoted all of our efforts to being able to conclude a sale of a TCS System and to the raising necessary funds to keep the Company operational until revenue from sales can be realized.
In February of 2001, we concluded a private financing with an investor group managed by a New York-based company. Under the terms of the Agreement, we drew down $750,000 of the available $5,000,000 amount. The initial $750,000 was provided in the form of a Convertible Note. We defaulted by not having an SB-2 Registration Statement declared effective within 150 days of the date of the Note. Following lengthy negotiations, we reached a Settlement Agreement with the investors on April 26, 2002 under which the Company agreed to a reimbursement schedule and provided three series of warrants, 500,000 each, exercisable at different prices to the investors. The lack of financial resources prevented us from being able to honor the reimbursement schedule, and thus we are currently in default with respect the Settlement Agreement. On March 5, 2003, the Investors sent to us by FAX, demand letters of payments due for each of the three investor funds involved in the initial transaction, these letters being dated February 25 and February 26, 2003, being the two-year anniversary date of their investment. The sum total due, including interest, penalties and fees, was listed as $1,408,648.53. The Company is not in a position to pay this sum. The Investors also requested that shares be issued to them to permit conversion of some of the debt due. To respond to this request, and given the lack of shares available for issuance, the Company cancelled financial consulting agreements, with the consent of the consultants, and thus obtained 4,000,000 shares which were re-issued to the Investors under the conversion request in May of 2003. In addition, the Investors continue to hold 8,344,811 collateral shares as of May 12, 2003. The Company is working with the Investors to establish those conditions, related to the development of the business, such that remaining cash sums can be paid over time.
In connection with the original requirement of our having an SB-2 Registration Statement declared effective within 150 days, as noted in the previous paragraph, the Company has withdrawn its filing.
Because of the lengthy delay preceding the commencement of commercial operations, particularly insofar as regards the sale and manufacturing of TCS Systems is concerned, we have had to, and in the foreseeable near future, will be forced to continue to cover a substantial part of our overhead costs from sources other than revenues from operations. Since relocating to our current premises, our monthly cash requirements have been reduced to negligible amounts. Most of the expenses listed on our Income Statement relate to salary accruals.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/823072/000120445903000453/tirex.htm
Oh please! The old P.R. deal finalized? Who in their right mind is going to finance a totally unproven technology? The TCS-1 never could produce clean crumb in commercial quantities, and the TCS-2 design has never been built or tested. The company is completely broke, deep in debt, subject to litigation and out of shares to issue. Their corporate registration in Quebec is expired, and their r/d tax credits are no longer available.
Nice try wacko, but not believable.
http://www.sibirenergy.com/
prince- I wrote 'disruptive', not 'insulting'. There was nothing insulting about your challenge and I basically agree with what you're saying and trying to do. But I also think that it's ultimately futile and because it generates a number of responses each time you post it, it essentially disrupts the diamondiferous discussion. (triple alliteration! woohoo!)
I hosted a series of bulletin board systems in the early 1980's, then joined the first real non-internet PC network which was called FidoNet. FidoNet 'echoed' the Unix-based Usenet newsgroups, the precursor to these message boards that existed long before the world wide web was born in the early 1990's. The Usenet newsgroup databases were purchased some time back by Google and they have a convenient interface.
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/archive_announce_20.html
I've been messing with computers since 1966, and was a founding employee of an early microcomputer manufacturer, so yes, I've been there, and did that. LOL!
(off topic) from spain- Are you familiar with Spantel over there? It's an upstart telcom company and ISP--one of a number of 'em that emerged when Spain de-nationalized it's phone service.
It trades as SPAL on the OTCBB and it was completely strange today. It was .23/.25 then it totally crashed on a single 45k sale @ .11, but bargain hunters jumped in on the suddenly low price and bought it up to nearly where it started. The company's books don't look bad--one of the few profitable pennies. You could easily value it at around .50 but it's been trading low. I've been in and out of it a few times. Missed today's bargain price so I'm out presently. It's tricky because it trades quite thinly most of the time. Like I said, today was strange. Oh, the downside of Spantel is that Adnan Khashoggi, (yes, the infamous arms merchant) is a major shareholder.
[Sorry, diamond dudes, for the international interlude. I suppose this could have been a PM, but it's an interesting story. I don't mind if from_spain replies via PM.]
prince- Give it a rest, eh? Your 'challenge' is just as disruptive as an insulting post. As the target for much of the animosity here, I can say that it doesn't bother me. Indeed, considering that I generally post in counterpoint to hype and oppose false statements, I expect to be cast in the role of the villain. I understand that this medium amplifies emotional content and I've been messaging on the 'net for two decades so in a way I've seen it all.
Let it go. It is what it is. You aren't going to change the nature of the beast with a few rational pleas for peace.
I looked at Reuters Spain...
http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsAdditionalArticles.jsp?type=businessNews&locale=es_ES&art...
...and Reuters Finance:
http://www.reuters.com/finance.jhtml
Searched for SBE. No luck.
The posting is bogus IMO.
Next!
Pretende means "tries" in Spanish. Here's a translation of the unverified news item:
SBE tries to acquire 24.8% of NSDM
The SBE Group said Thursday that it has "practically" reached an agreement by which its primary goal is to have a participation of 24.8% of the diamond extractor North Star
Diamonds (NSDM).
Without a link to the source, it is meaningless. A quick search doesn't find a 'Grupo SBE' in Spain, so I'm going to assume this is bogus pending further information.
Where did you find that, wacko?
Faking news will get you in BIG trouble. Got a link to this 'Reters' story?
fickster- You're question is a bit vague, but I believe the answer is yes, it is legal. This is especially true with regard to the Pink Sheets where there really is no 'market' price. For OTCBB stocks, NASD rules apply. Here's the trader manual which contains some of the info you need to properly answer your questions:
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader/tradingservices/marketwatch/tradermanual/tradermanual.stm
heilman- The OTCBB is older than four years...
...but prior to 1999 there was no requirement for current filings. Back then, the OTCBB was more like the pink sheets are now, filled with non-reporting trash. Now it has a much better class of trash stocks who at least keep their filings with the SEC current.
end2war- Upcoming demise of the OTCBB? I don't think so...
That piece was written some time ago, when the BBX was still being proposed as a replacement for the OTCBB. The BBX proposal was abandoned in late June:
http://www.gopublicusa.com/bbx2.htm
fick- I did answer...
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1959299
...but you won't see anything negative. LOL! (get it? my answer was 'no') I don't interpret 'agenda' as a derogatory term, but I also don't mind if it is used that way either. Insulting posts come with the territory for a skeptic like me, and I am immunized against 'em.
I've nothing against speculation at all...
Gynecologists use 'em all the time. LOL!
I've learned the hard way that it's better to 'distrust then verify' than it is to 'trust but verify' with regard to OTC stocks. You may call it cynicism if you like, but in general what is hidden is suspect.
Anyway, I'm not saying that Stunder is a crook. I'm saying that to discount the possibility that your dreams will not be fulfilled here is naive.
I will remain skeptical (a more accurate word than cynical) unless and until I see credible third party verification of NSDM claims. I'd like to see some explanation with regard to the anomalies in the Black Sea filings, and an explanation with regard to the personal titling of the Canadian claims. Stunder may well have signed over the rights to the company, but there is no documentation of such. These are the pitfalls of a non-reporting company. An auditor will not permit putting the geological claims on the books without proper assignation to NSDM.
I'm the canary in this mine, dude. Please don't be too flatulent. LOL!
end- No and no. When I use the term 'we', I mean 'the public'.
fickster- Please! I obviously mean corraborated by a credible and qualified third party that is accessible to the public. Apply the same standard that a columnist from the Wall Street Journal or Globe and Mail would use. As it stands all we have is "Stunder says". If we had something like "Stunder released a report today from Dr. I.M. Credible and Dr. Will B. Available of the Very Well Known Institute..." the stock would not be trading under a nickel anymore.
fickster- I really don't understand what you mean by this post. What plausible deniability is there with regard to Microsoft's trading history or the two possible reasons I suggested for the price stagnation? Would you please clarify?
fickster- The SEC's enforcement pages are filled with prosecution of the officers of public companies who have misrepresented the facts and defrauded investors. It is not such an unusual occurrance. Nor are totally brazen frauds so unusual either. Search for 'Allen Z. Wolfson' at the SEC or Google for a perfect example. I'm not saying Stunder is in Wolfson's class, but to disregard the possibility is indeed (to use your own word) naive.
We've already seen one relatively minor misrepresentation with regard to Torliefson's involvment. I wrote that one off to puffery. The press release about acquiring more claims was somewhat misleading if you look at the actual dates of the claims and the fact that they seem to be still held personally by Stunder rather than the company.
Stunder's track record in the Ukraine is questionable in my opinion, and I'm referencing the information about Black Sea that we have from its press releases and few SEC filings.
So you see, if you're not biased by having placed a big bet on black, it's not so far fetched to consider that red might just come up.
Correct eibbanker. Microsoft was never a penny stock, yet it's been touted as such time and time again on the message boards. I agree that any such false information should be refuted (a better word perhaps than 'discredited') and the facts presented.
Here's the historical pricing for MSFT: http://snipurl.com/3gmp Notice that the company's forward splits over the years show a split-adjusted price of a dime or so back in 1986 when it IPO'd. Charts that use the split-adjusted pricing are probably the cause of the MSFT_as_penny-stock myth.
That the price here is stagnant would seem to be the result of at least these two factors: 1) Stunder's claims of diamondiferous finds are not corraborated by any qualified independent third party; and 2) there seems to be no shortage of shares available for sale.
Sorry heilman, but 6710 is the post in question to which ralph replied before it was deleted--a reply to you--not 6559. Here is 6710 again:
Posted by: DueDillinger
In reply to: DanHeilman who wrote msg# 6693
Date:12/15/2003 10:49:17 PM
Post #6710 of 6710
heilman- I don't mind being called a 'basher' because the word is meaningless. It's essentially an epithet hurled by those of a toutish persuasion at anyone who doesn't cheer the stock. Well, I'm sorry dude, but what I see is a classic pumpadump here. The past is absolutely prologue and a glance at Stunder's performance with Black Sea is a preview of things to come with NSDM, in my not so humble opinion.
I realize that's the minority view here, but unless anyone can provide some verifiable confirmation of the company's claims by a credible third party, it's as valid as the majority view of the 'faithful'.
Now just because YOU 'abhor' me doesn't give you the right to delete my posts as you please. I'm entitled to my opinion and the fact that it's opposite from your own is what makes dialogue if you can manage somehow to be civil about it.
You may have noticed that more often than not, I've brought facts here. Indeed, I was the first to identify Stunders initial claims. I was also the one who pointed out exactly who was doing all the promotion earlier this summer. I deal in facts, heilman, not hope or hype.
I see no reason for 6710 to have been deleted. Do you? I'll be pleased to accept your apology for unjustly accusing me of lying.
Yep, ol' Walter's drillin' and chillin'. LOL!
ralph- I don't see how not having financials makes NSDM NOT a 'pumpadump'. The notion of 'pumping' up a stock's price doesn't depend on financials. Look at the initial run here for example. I use the term 'pumpadump' rather than 'pump and dump' because I see the pumping and dumping as simultaneous rather than sequential events. Some kind of impetus is given to create buying volume, and those orchestrating the event sell into that volume. A pumpadump is an orchestrated event, generally fueled by press releases/newsletters and reinforced from a boiler room. In the old days (98-01) the boiler room boyz discovered that they could use the message boards for this purpose, but participation on the boards no longer has the critical mass necessary to move the price very well. RB is in a steep decline, and IHUB isn't there yet.
I find it interesting that my original post, the one to which you replied, is now deleted. As I recall, it was relatively benign. Now I'll have to review my posts to see what else has been censored.
You may recall that when I first encountered this stock many were all excited about an OTCBB listing, and I pointed out that it couldn't happen before an annual report was filed. Then some were expecting the move to OTCBB to occur right at the top of the year, and I pointed out that annual reports must have audited financials, so with the period ending with the calendar year it wasn't likely that we'd see the 10KSB right away. Most companies whose fiscal year coincides with the calendar year file their 10K from the end of March to mid-April. The SEC gives companies 90 days to file, and a 15 day extension is available.
chris- Yes, I was reading from the bottom up when I composed my reply. Thanks for the figures.
chris- I don't know what the o/s of TAH is, but there's a significant difference in the way information about their exploration is presented. Here's a recent release:
http://biz.yahoo.com/cnw/031020/diamondiferous_dyke_1.html
Note that they give the name of their consultant who is analyzing their samples--Michael J. Michaud of SRK Consulting. SRK is a credible third party and one can contact them for verification.
http://www.srk.com/
If Stunder were to publish similar references with regard to the purported discoveries, the price would reflect the increased credibility.
A2- You might also take a look at QuickTopic for creation of private message boards with just a few clicks. Posters can participate with their browsers or via email, and you can make a topic public or by invitation only. Worth a look and they also have a very useful collaborative document review capability.
http://www.quicktopic.com
heilman- Your ad hominem response indicates to me that you have no way to deal with the facts of the matter, so you would impune my integrity with a wild and unfounded accusation. You tried to compare an apple with a lemon, and just can't stand that someone would present facts to demonstrate how inappropriate your comparison really is.
heilman- Fipke's got a track record of success, the o/s is relatively low and it's a fully reporting company. To compare this with NSDM (where Stunder has a track record of incomplete projects, the o/s is over a half-billion shares and it's a non-reporting pink sheet stock) is patently absurd.
By the way, check your math. C$2.30 is U$1.75 Here's a handy currency converter:
http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic
christian- What is the number of outstanding shares for TAH? Regardless of the similarity of the companies in terms of their exploration progress, the o/s is an important factor for valuing the shares and if the o/s for TAH is low, it would explain the disparity in price to some degree.
silkworth- It won't work because people are naturally greedy, and furthermore, an orchestrated effort to bid higher than the market could be construed as price manipulation.
gas- It seems the previous BSM SB-2 was never made...
...effective, and from the number of blatant errors in the recent offering I doubt if this one will be approved either, certainly not without an amended version. One has to wonder why there was no mention of Stunder's interest in NSDM, especially considering the common thread of Ukranian mineral export.
Until NSDM is fully reporting we won't know the answers to many of the questions that naturally come to mind, such as whether or not Leo is involved in NSDM. I wouldn't be surprised.
But like I wrote earlier, SB-2 filings are always rich with information and to coin a phrase, the market abhors a mystery.
gasaraki- LOL! You posted this while I was composing my own comment on the same filing. Have you read it? It looks to be essentially the same as an earlier filing that promised great results from the garnet operation. Apparently little has happened. Here is the earlier SB-2 which apparently was never made effective by the SEC:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1082773/000117625603000084/blacksb2april10.htm