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 you don't seem to understand, the fillings were kept current long after the DTCC put the freeze on and could no longer be traded.
Money down the rat hole keeping current and unable to trade, go back and check the history, then make your comments. Folks here would be more apt to listen to you if they thought you knew what you are talking about.
What you should be asking, what happened to the money that brokers received, the value was .15 when the freeze was applied by the dtcc, at that time "NO ONE" could trade, so how did the price go to zero without any legal trades.
Who has the money???????????????????????????????
If they followed the basic concept we wouldn't be in the total mess we are in. They are not following the margin account rules to allow a % margin on shares that they take and put in street name. We all had to pay cash without the basic concept of allowing us to margin.
Yes I know there is a minimum share price limit on margin, but it doesn't seem to apply to brokers that take our money and put our shares in their name.
Your concept of each transaction buyer needs a seller, is out the window, when shares are being hypothecated with IOU's that every on line broker issues, and imo trades among themselves
When you sell the buying broker issues IUO's to his client and the selling broker erases his, so what exactly is being traded?
Certainly not shares that were never issued.
Yes Janice, they did not sell 1.3 billion shares, as they did not have 1.3b shares to sell, however they did place 1.3 billion IOU's in our accounts.
And they did have 1.3 billion IOU's (made their own) and placed them in our accounts, I along with every other person here that does not have certs, has those IOU's to prove it.
And yes I purchased some of mine after the Aug 11 date, so now what?
Once again you post this stuff without a shred of proof, how in the world can you determine why anyone bought into this stock, there are many factors besides short squeeze to purchase, including market indicators i.e. volume and pps movement etc. Nothing ticks me off more than someone telling me why I made a purchased in a stock.
Anyone buying for the sole purpose of a short squeeze better have plenty of time and have money to waste. It seldom happens, especially with IOU's in the system.
To say WE ALL purchased for a short squeeze is absolutely false.
What!!!! You gota be kidding me!
absurd comment>>>Pino hijacked the shell first, but in some ways, we fraudulent shareholders hijacked BCIT a second time by knowingly buying naked shorted shares. We all bought BCIT hoping for a short squeeze.
"WE ALL"??????? put money out looking for a short squeeze, totally ridiculous statement, do you have any idea how much time it would take to prove and receive any type of compensation for a short squeeze, your statement is nothing but garbage and I for one do not appreciate being part of your "WE"
mastaflash, It is the IOU holders that have put up their money in my case $5,000 I see nothing issued by the company, as they have stated, there are only 73 shareholders and "no brokers" on their TA list.
So the money owed by brokers is to the IOU holders not the company.
They cannot receive money on shares that they never issued, our purchases are what was what used to generated IOU'S and then shorted, not any shares that company issue.IMO
How many times has Carlton stated that "no shares were issued", although I can't believe that none were issued.
Now it seems the company is claiming that money is owed to them by brokers, once again they can't have it both ways.
Direct Registration System: Interesting info from another TA
http://www.stocktransfer.com/index.cfm?action=shareholders.FAQ.dirRegistration
mastaflash, "Question becomes, which broker(s) created the bogus book entries to begin with? Did they all do it?"
That is exactly what I would like CarltonH to address, he states that there are no brokers on the TA records.
Or that Megas has not made any money out of selling shares.
And that there are only 73 bona fid shareholders none of which are brokers.
The way I see it,brokers had to have shares in order to hypothecate into the IOU's they generated, I feel the hypothecation is 9 for every share issued, just as the federal reserve receives $10.00 for every $1.00 printed, this is not unique to just stocks central banks have been doing it for years, brokers just took a page out of bankers book.
CarltonH states that no brokers are on his shareholder list yet he mentions brokers holding shares in street name, how can that be?It's either one or the other,cant have it both ways.
How did brokers get the shares if they were not issued by the TA which in turn, received them from the company, and at that point money did change hands, the TA does not issue shares free unless it is a company announced dividend, and they are instructed how to dissimulate to brokers.
That is the problem I am having with all this, it just doesn't seem that those representing the company understand the workings of TA/Brokers streetname shares/IOU's OBO/NOBO broker list vs TA list.
How did brokers ever trade shares if the TA never issued any from the company,and if they did issue for trading then there are brokers on the TA list and each and every broker is counted as only one shareholder each regardless of how many times he hypothecate the shares by issuing IOU's the TA still carries him as 1 shareholder, therefor only a total of 73, the 1500 is from the broker's list of OBO/NOBO list of clients.
Carlton, There are not 1500 "shareholders", whatever you have for a shareholder count from the TA are the actual amount of shareholders.
I know you were not happy when I told you previously that each broker that has clients with IOU's in accounts (the majority of position holders here) each broker is only counted as "ONE" "(1) shareholder" no matter how many shares he has converted to IOU'S, or how many clients he has issued those IOU's too.
The brokers log into the OBO/ NOBO list for their clients, that is where we are located, you wont see us anywhere on the TA list, you will only see the broker's name..
So my question how do you trade a 1 for 1 shares when you have new company shares on the company side and IOU's on the other.
You have to be very careful of the stock manipulation, SEC's line in the sand, do not cross it !
I would be more willing to join your group, but I need to know that you fully understand how all of us became position holders in BCIT (1500 minus those that the company has records) when we are shown nowhere on the TA books or company list of shareholders.
Once I am satisfied that the process is fully understood by your people, and it is shown just how this can be accomplished, with us holding brokers IOU's or whatever you want to call our positions, I will be happy to join your group.
Thanks
What makes no sense to me, this is a manufactured item they are selling, they have not sold any how do they keep the manufacturing going, until the do get someone off their butts and make some sales?
I can just see all these workers sitting around waiting for someone to make some sales lol.
Yeah I'm interested in buying a wind mill but don't think it will ever happen.
If someone is interested take a deposit, or stay on the string waiting IMO.
AlanC, NSS, will never be stopped until they force the brokers to allow on line traders to actually have a true cash account.
As it is now with 1/2 cash, (shareholders 1/2) the other 1/2 is treated as if it were a margin account that, allows brokers to stuff the actual certs in the DTCC depository in their name, take our money, and generate false indications in our accounts that we own shares, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.(we have NO shares).
How can trades be cleared when brokers trade what they generated, i.e. Broker E*trade has a client that puts in a buy order and has a client that puts in a sell order for the exact amount, don't you think the broker or his MM would just clear out an IOU in the sellers account,make a balance entry, and establish another IOU in the buyers account.
The only cash that changed hands was the client that made the purchase, no shares were moved from the Brokers depository account and no actual money was placed in the sellers account.
Now as long as the clients with a cash balance do not all request their money at the same time,or a cash dividend is offered by a company the beat goes on.
That would be all well and good if the brokers had a vested interest in the transaction, i.e. offered a % loan margin money on the accounts as a true margin account would.
However we all know the rules that the SEC actually enforces along with brokers blessing or Vise Versa, is the PPS lower end limit on borrowing on margin.
Brokers have the enjoyment of a margin account that is not on margin, therefor they have no vested interest.
They will never fix NSS until that procedure is addressed and changed.
mastaflash, Problem is, the delay in trades will automatically de list the stock. So if the DTCC will not clear, and the stock has not traded for the required amount of days, it will be moved from the OTCBB to the pinksheets, and there if it does not trade for 5 days it goes to the greys.
JC Well, that's one opinion! Like you always say, show your proof.
Dr Trimbath has credentials that would be far reaching to a career poster such as you. IMO
"And who lied about the importance of her position there. Not a source I'd trust."
mastaflash, I guess "but" means there is an alternative plan, I can't imagine what would usurp the steps posted, but then what do I know lol.
The minimum steps that must be taken to get back on the OTCBB.
1. Remove the DTCC lock
2. File all required Q's fully reporting
3.SEC hearing to re register the revoked status
4. File a SEC 15c-2-11
5. Sponsored by an MM's and his a written request to SEC that BCIT is now a viable company with back up data.
Then we may be ok ed to be re listed on the OTCBB.
Janice How little you really know! I'm wasting time with you as I did once years ago, when you were so adamant about "no such thing as NSS". How wrong can you be. I'm outda here!
CIM Totally differant ball game,some day the brokers will be buying tickets for that well played game. They have hundreds of billions of IOU's on that one.lol
Janice Not true! BCIT is not a private company, it is a revoked public co. and the brokers are carrying our IOU's/Markers or what ever you want to call them, in our accounts.
Tell me when has brokers ever carried an account for private co shareholders??
As well as if we were private the brokers would be forced to supply the requested certs.
I don't know where you get this stuff from!
"Bought shares from MM'S" What shares, there are none according to all the brokers, also the on line brokers have their own MM's that service their IOU trades.(shares not needed) just remove an IOU from one account and put it in another, Oh yeah! be sure that all funds are collected from the so called shareholders and stuffed in the proper brokers pocket.
IOU's go to the buyers account, and a journal entry (known as a account balance) goes into the sellers account.
Brokers are in great position as long as accounts are not closed out and account balances are traded and not requested. its all generated no cash no stock. Where is the money?????????
Just pray that your broker friends do not come up against a company cash dividend, the IOU/account journal generation Ponzi will all come crashing down.
2late, The bottom line, all thinking they were purchasing stock in BCIT, in reality, we purchased Broker promissory notes, that were "to be" backed by company certs held in the brokers name.
The brokers missed the portion of the backing however.
The company states they were fraud ed by the billions of shares sold, because they were not paid, (they really lost nothing as the company, invested or sold nothing) how about those that put up "hard earned money" for the purchase of what they did not receive?
AlanC,You and I know, that with the proper pressure applied that results can be achieved, however I am not so sure that the action being taken here is what will conclude in a positive result.
Just wondering, that the end would justify the means of what is being done,I stated that we needed company sponsoring our cert pull action, but I don't think the method of the action now being taking will result in anything more than we have been exposed to in the past with BCIT.
You and I have been down this road before, with the best of the best leading the way, here I just don't see that yet.
Just my opinion, hope I'm wrong!
Well it certainly looks like Janice and Carlton are keeping each other busy today lol.
2late great posting, I hope CH is reading!eom
realwood, The one question that hasn't been answered is what is the percentage of the outstanding that was posted, are insider shares, and what percentage are the float??????????????????????
itsmikie, Just a thought, If we can't collect on our purchases that we didn't get, how are we ever going to collect on a court judgement?
Sure, you can get a judgement, but it's up to you to collect it.
The root of the problem is, we bought shares and we received broker IOU's, (promissory notes)then the underlying stock that backed those IOU's was conveniently frozen by a third party, that had nothing to do with our purchase.Now brokers are skating on the frozen status to get out from under their fiduciary responsibility of their IOU's.
2late, Great info,I think however that our situation of a partial margin account, may not follow those margin requirement rules.
We have a margin account only because the brokers are able to put our shares in their street name, that is the only resemblance to margin we are offered.
As for our portion of the margin "WE HAVE NONE", we must pay cash, there is no margin offered due to the pps being below the margin requirements, that however does not stop the brokers from taking our shares as he would in a true margin account., and using them as he see fit.
Because of this questionable practice the brokers are the only ones receiving the issued shares from the company TA, "UNLESS" you are either an insider,have certs, or have stock registered in your name.
Yes there are two sets of books, the TA has a list of who received the issued shares and the brokers have a list of who they issued IOU"s too.
The TA, or company in most cases do not have access to the broker OBO/NOBO list, that is IMO, why the company only shows the list of shareholders of only 73, the brokers are counted as one shareholder, regardless of how many IOU's he has generated.
That in my opinion ,is the major problem in all this,so far we have no record of who was issued shares, CH says there were no shares issued to brokers,I just do not see how that is possible?.
I wonder if it would be possible for CH to obtain a percentage of that 73 holders, as to how many are insider, and how many are in the float,as well as the total O/S what percentage is insider, and what is float, IMO that would be a good starting point.
weebie, It's not that I am impatient, it is that I am concerned that the company will be selling un registered shares.
The statement by Carlton that shares have always been for sale and still are, is concerning as we are ""revoked"".(shares are not registered for public trading, buying or selling)
I am just trying to advise that unregistered shares can not be sold, and there can not be some shares that are exempt from that revoke ruling,all are revoked not just a select few, they had better be very careful about telling us that shares are for sale at this time IMO.
We are not a "private" company, we are a revoked "public" company, because all outstanding shares were purchased within a public forum, that can not be changed unless BK is filed or steps are taken to remove that SEC action of being revoked.
CarltonH, A few questions on what you posted.
1. I don't believe asking SEC what their regulations are pertaining to removal of the revoked status of BCIT is an attempt to obtain legal advice, only what they (the SEC) require.
You posted!
" With regards your very sensible suggestion about seeking clarification from the SEC their response tends to be "We cannot give you legal advice".
2. Please tell us how and when "any" shares can be registered, after the action of revoking the registration of BCIT by the SEC. What action has been taken by TM to relieve and rectify that status?
You posted!
"The shares are registered and it is not the intention to be wilful."
Thanks
mastaflash, All well and good, however if someone here on this board took up the offer of buying shares, would that not be a public forum? Do those shares not go through a TA?
Just went through a case that a TA issued un registered shares and lost her license to operate and was fined in court along with the sellers of those shares by an SEC complaint.
I am just trying to pass on some information, we don't need additional problems by selling or buying unregistered stock.
Like I have been saying in my previous post, this road has been traveled before, and we need to learn by what that history has to teach us, not reinvent the wheel.
Carlton, Yes I know the conditions of reporting, what I am asking is how shares can be sold with the registration of shares being revoked.
What you are citing is the case against revoking due to not reporting, however it is a little late for that, that should have been accomplished when the registration hearing was in session and ended up revoked.
I don't know if an appeal of the revoke hearing out come could be requested at this time, might not be a bad idea to contact SEC, and see what steps can be taken to get re registered.
I have in the past seen many problems and investigations resulting in SEC levied fines because un registered shares were sold.
I think that selling un registered shares would only add to the problem. IMO
CarltonH, I know that the DTCC has the lock, but in addition the SEC has revoked the registration of the stock because of failing to up date the Q's. I totally understand why TM stopped reporting as it was money down the drain, I don't however understand why he did not appear or contest the revoke of BCIT registration.
I think that would have been the time to fight the lock as well as provide his case of why he did not report, I know for a fact that he continued to report long after the DTCC action, but had no impact on relieving the lock (the reason for lack of Q's) or help us back to trading.
My question now is how can stock now be sold to anyone,now that the SEC has removed the registration of the shares, that registration revoke in itself, is far greater than any halt or DTCC lock.
BTW, great PR!
Thanks
realwood, I say that because of Carlton's post today, I would like to see a link of that filing.
CarltonH Share Wednesday, November 02, 2011 4:09:27 AM
Re: bobbybdb post# 141129 Post # of 141232
"The dates for the first court hearings have been given."
"What's next" I hope a link to the filing of a court case against etal.
f1fans,What we bought were Broker IOU's that had no cert backing in the DTCC, therefore we paid the brokers money they in turn gave us their promissory notes.In other words we unknowingly loaned the brokers our hard earned money, interest free.
What then were traded and hypothecated, were IOU's not shares.
How we can bring this all together I have no idea, brokers will not grant our request for refund or buy certs from the company to cover our IOU's.
Pressure must be applied as it was in the CMKM incident, that pressure must be headed and applied by the company, to put brokers in a position that they have a offer that they can not refuse, as IBM managed to do in the past, causing brokers to hand deliver certs to shareholders through their representatives, that were purchased to cover, (boxes full).
IMO the only outcome is to have brokers purchase certs from the company and either deposit them in the DTCC in their street name as they told us they did, or forward those certs to IOU holders, and clear their books.
mastaflash, Those were not my words, I was quoting Carlton's comment, notice the" " marks lol.
"six year global lock had no purpose"
Buck, Just put enough money in your account to cover for a year, the broker will have to inform you by way of your account what they took out on fees and what they were for.(will be in your history/transactions tab)
If Carlton's group excells in their quest, you will then need to request those funds to the broker be returned.
CarltonH, With that "evidence", we could all use to go to our brokers with something besides a frivolous demand, that we know will not be granted.
That would be fantastic, the most positive statement I have heard in a long time, THANK YOU!!!!
"On the evidence available now we can prove that the six year global lock had no purpose simply because there were no significant number of certificates in circulation let alone unauthorized one.
The brokers did not buy the shares and sold what did not exist."
Buck, If you have no outstanding fees that exceed $9.00 then I would call your broker, and ask him why without authorization he removed your shares. To return them immediately to your account.
itsmikie I don't believe this statement is true,(below) we shall see, IMO the TA is only concerned with the list or shares that they issued, not what the brokers have IOU's for, just my opinion.
The brokers keep that OBO/NOBO list pretty close to the vest and don't release it too readily unless summons or court ordered. That after all is a list of their clients..
Dividend is issued to the brokers for disbursment, the TA has no knowledge of who receives it except they do know that the brokers do.
"the Brokers will then have to give a list to the TA on the Street name accounts now. This will be so the TA will know exactly where the Dividend will go, and not just to a Broker's account."