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.
Question was asked. So now you know as much about DBMM members as you do about Linda? Laughable.
SEC was never designed to protect shareholders from companies. It is the other way around.
Long time shareholder. Long time trader, multiple business owner, sit on 2 boards and technically retired.
There is an assumption that nobody of interest watches these boards. It is true that not everyone of interest personally watches everything. I paid significantly to have custom algorithms built that track sentiment across all available digital sources. They are watching.
Again, I do know.
If they filed the application, they are below .01 now, so if the application is approved, that final requirement is not met.
If DBMM has not filed, they do not meet the requirements to file as of today.
Very simple.
Not what was said. Please read with comprehension. I said I called to get clarity on the processes. They are the same for DBMM as any other. I don't have to ask about a specific company. Only rule clarity.
If DBMM has filed the application, they do not qualify as of today. If they have not filed, they do not qualify as of today. Call and pretend you're working for a firm that is considering OTCM uplisted. Maybe they will speak to you.
Don't believe me, call OTCM and ask, I did. They have agents available to assist with questions, as any organization does. In fact, this is how I know the application will need to be resubmitted if it doesn't meet the criteria. It is not a high school with counselors. Information is provided to every company the same. No frat parties or dinner engagements.
There is no relationship to give a foundation to.
This is exactly why I say amateur.
Said busy. Never anything about accomplishments lol.
I think Alpine could cause a pump, but I don't see it being very significant to DBMM.
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but SEC has a busy schedule for a while...
Lot of can kicks coming.
That is correct. Nobody knows when or if the application was submitted. But the undeniable fact is, if it was submitted, they no longer qualify today. If it was not submitted, they do not qualify as of today.
This is true. I stayed because regardless of the divided, nefarious nature of comments, some here are very tenacious. As you are referring, they gather information from sources to form conclusions. Not make up narratives or parrot others. I still think DBMM has potential but not without a catalyst. That catalyst just left the building for now. So time to wait again. It's been years. A couple more won't hurt.
Yes, they succeeded where others did not try. A pitifully small number of companies even attempted to fight revocation.
That is very different from succeeding where others fail. They would need to try in order to fail.
The assumption that uplist is occurring is much easier to determine. Until they meet requirements for uplist, it isn't going to occur. They no longer meet requirements. Once they do again, the conversation can continue. Until that happens, there are zero chances of uplist.
Key word met. Does it meet the criteria now? Nope
DBMM requested the forms to uplist. They received a packet with instructions and requirements. This is not grade school. The company is not assigned a homeroom teacher. Any company wishing to uplist receives the same thing. If there are questions, there is a number to call. Questions such as what happens if we are not trading at .01 when approved for uplist? They would then say your application will be denied, and you will have to meet the criteria again and resubmit the application.
Poo to can make that call and find this information out. It is not a secret society. It is the OTCM.
Well the tone was denial of the possibility I agree. The reasoning was sound. DBMM had done little to prove they could take any of this to fruition. So skepticism regarding 211 and CE was duly warranted. That being said, all speculation can make fools out of the speculator.
My remarks were pertaining to the incessant need to qoute nonexistent rules or rose color everything DBMM.
It doesn't help when serious traders are deliberating a position. It looks amateur. If an investor believes the position has value, it should not need defending. That argument should have been settled while doing due diligence.
Different processes and different organization.
I think most people figured DBMM could not find a maker to back them. Not that they were incapable of filling out the application.
More DBMM amateur hour in session.
So exactly what rule was this statement pulled from?
I understand that it is all rainbows and unicorns in DBMM, but I actually read the OTCM rule regarding the application process.
It is not an automobile. The application doesn't have a gear shift. It is filled out, submitted, and processed. If it passes all requirements, the final stipulation is the ticker be trading above .01. Now, could they keep it in lmbo for eternity until they rise above .01 again? I suppose it's possible, because it doesn't address that. Highly unlikely, though, because all of the requirements they passed to become compliant could have changed. Much more likely, it would require to be resubmitted. Just like most SEC applications.
Don't know about other shareholders, but I am definitely chuckling at this comment. This is how one can tell who has been in the markets. Regulators don't take names or we wouldn't have the problems we have. Secondly, they are already well aware of my operations within and outside the US. Regulators are nothing. It's the IRS you need to worry about. Their powers far exceed the SEC. DBMM knows this as well, and that is why the empty threats from company executives are hilarious. Factually, I don't care what DBMM does from here on out. I made considerable profits here so what is left is free money.
Not sure what's being replied to here. Makes no sense and has zero to do with what was said.
I pointed out before that Reggie was reachable but Linda is almost impossible to nail down. For whatever reason they don't want contact. This is way the numbers and addresses are all virtual. Anyone can use this service, I have used these services before with a couple of my companies. Actually quite convenient when you need to have some sort of front office but don't want to staff it. I don't think it is actually nefarious in nature though. She is an old woman. I would venture the true reasons behind this fight to save DBMM have something to do with obligation, not desire. I see some feelers got hurt in the cult of Linda though.
This is exactly what I was referring to months ago when I said DBMM was looking at paid promotion. I can say now that a promotor I know was contacted by someone not of DBMM wanting them to do PR on DBMM. In this world, it could be anyone from Linda herself, to someone here on this board. The proper protocol is to use a proxy just as was being done here. I know that many would turn this job down as it has too much risk. So it doesn't surprise me this nobody tuber was involved.
I get the precedent argument. I made it in the beginning when the DOE recommendation was filed and subsequently challenged. What you have pointed out, in length, is correct to the point of prior cases.
But, where it falls short, is the assumption the ALJ not agreeing with a DOE recommendation is rare or would affect ant SEC established rules. This process was setup as a check and balance in the system. These proceedings are not court proceedings, they are internal rule compliance governance based on the established rules within the SEC. Every company has a right to challenge them, just as DBMM has. Most do not because OTC is largely a scam wasteland. Some challenge SEC and some win. I am not just talking about revocation, as well. DOE has more purpose than revocation.
In addition, this process to establish a moderator(ALJ) to review the DOE and any information the company may want to present, is designed to allow for a case by case review. As many cases could have extenuating circumstances that are not in anyway related to other companies. You can't have a zero tolerance policy and maintain a working system with equality throughout. This is why, if both the ALJ and DOE come to the same unfavorable conclusion, it can be challenged in a court of law. What makes this DBMM case stand out, is almost nobody fights revocation, not any assumed precedent.
I assume "she" to mean Linda. If something pertains to active litigation, this theory holds water. But facts are, Linda or any DBMM management has yet to show competence in communication with shareholders, that apparently know everything through psychic ability. Before a barrage of but 9 times, 9 times, we are winners. It is true that DBMM has done all those things. Shareholders learned of the facts regarding those from publicly available information, not shareholder updates. Of course, eventually, DBMM updated to claim credit for these outcomes, but facts are that information is publicly available. Now, when there are considerable questions and speculations regarding the future of DBMM, shareholders get a lackluster update. Basically, saying trust use, we have it under control. Sorry, it is not adequate for experienced investors. I realize many here don't trade extensively and do not have experience with many other public companies. Especially in regards to how they handle shareholder relations. This company does a horrible job in this regard. Not opinion. Verifiable facts: Should anyone simply look at many other OTC companies.
Shareholders apparently don't know that reinforcing current data by looking back to 2015 is a disingenuous act to conflate and call that information accurate when it isn’t even within the Statute of Limitations.
Risk is only there if the naked short is not within the regulated framework. If done illegally, then all the risks of that practice are present. The problem is in the consequences for unregulated activity. If the consequences for selling fictitious shares were the same that is dealt out to companies not filing in a timely manner, doubtful we would see much nefarious action. Now it's just a fine that goes into SEC bankroll, and every shareholder is left unwhole.
I agree that fraud is rampant. Thing about fraud is it hurts everyone except the perpetrator. My point was not directed at you personally, my friend. Was just clarifying your point. The naked short has a deliberate market beneficial function. Gone unchecked it kills everything it touches through. While CDEL is a gross offender of this, it is made possible by the organization that is supposed to be protecting everyone.
You have a great weekend as well!
Someone is confused about the process and what constitutes legal and illegal shorting. Also misunderstood is the reporting process for synthetic shares MM's use in times of low liquidity. There are absolutely bad actors out there that take advantage of the process but these entities are self-regulated. Unless there is a problem you won't see the SEC getting involved. Even when the SEC does jump in it's settled by a fine with no admittance of guilt. This is why all the hype about SHO is BS. Regulations only matter is reinforced.
Not defending bad actors, but running around scared spraying water on everything because someone yelled fire is ridiculous.
Yes, I prefer not to debate something that can't be proven. Was there abnormal trading in the years prior to the attempted revocation, yes.
The facts should be plain by now. The entire financial sector cooks the books. Always have and always will. But there are no better chefs than in the OTC. If DBMM gets the uplist complete and decision uncertainty rectified, there will absolutely be a pump. Any other catalysts at the time will aid that. Certainly would not fall in love, though. I will lead to a heartbreak.
The reason the SEC allows this, knowingly is they received a fee for every sale. There is nothing for a buy, so no interest in long positions. It is a very small fee, but consider it times trillions upon trillions. It is substantial.
Yep, this has been run through many times here. I gave up. Same with naked shorting. Obviously, it is possible, but regardless of what is likely or not, there is zero chance of proving it until something causes a mandatory cover.
Ok, yeah, none of that is relevant. In fact, might even hear from Coke and the Mantle estate for defamation of character by lumping them in with DBMM.
Had more than one small business. I understand time is of a premium. But not once did I not take time to dance with the ones who brought me there. In DBMM's case or more to the point Linda's case, that would be the shareholders. In addition, fundamentally DBMM has had poor performance. Only thing they appear to excel at is getting themselves out of trouble largely self created.
Well Problem is, for whatever reason, very little has been updated except these chatgpt written updates, that say nothing in 500 words or less.
Ok I will refer then to your considerable knowledge on going after market fraud. I have yet to see anyone keeping there mouths shut about this though. The new favorite hashtag CitadelScandal is not hiding. Now thanks to our administrations infinite wisdom, nobody has to be worried about failure. Uncle Sam is going to bail everyone out, except the taxpayers. If anyone ever was in doubt, who they are going to protect, defiantly shouldn't be any longer. This government just bailed out all their woke buddies. Anyone not see that happening in the SEC? Maybe Linda somehow became the CEO she always should have been, and is now launching an all inclusive campaign to take down marketplace fraud, that will rival Roger James Hamilton.
Of course, there is always the possibility she is sipping tea on the porch, hoping OTCM and SEC go her way.
Linda isn't going after anything. She is supposedly filling an application, but once that is sent in, she doesn't have anything to do with the process. Everything with DBMM is reliant on SEC review board and OTCM.
If 100 people when on all social media and talked bad about DBMM, not a damn thing she could do about it legally. But how you combat that type of behavior is come out of hiding and show everyone the truth.
I don't know about anyone elses family, but I don't have to question if they do what they say. In fact, I can say the same of my friends. No point in having either if they can't be trusted.
As for competently gathering information, it is not our first rodeo. There is a way to fish for and catch information without throwing up flags.
Frankly, if I were able to receive information good or bad, I would share it here unless requested, not too.
I don't have a problem with private companies keeping the doors shut. If it's public, they no longer own the door, so better be open to all.
Well I hope you are correct. I can't tell anyone how to interpret research. I can only interpret mine. We pay a lot of money a year for research materials to guarantee as much as possible what any public company says is verifiable. Interesting thing with DBMM is, it is easily verified what has gone on since revocation in regards to SEC and actual court cases. The filings are all accurate to the OTC minimum requirements. The legal teams and accounting teams are easily located. DBMM principles, nonexistent. It is excruciatingly difficult to even prove managements physical existence. That is not transparent or indictive of a company looking out for shareholders.
Not a family business. A company looking for services. I have a family member who works for Johnson Matthey in the UK. Just had her try to reach out under the pretense of looking for digital marketing services in Europe. Eventually reached
Digital Clarity. DBMM, the very limited information that wasn't disconnected was not monitored. Also attempted from investor relations desk and same no reply. The office listed is a virtual office that anyone can get for a small monthly fee. Not saying that they don't exist. Saying they have zero interest in shareholder transparency. Trust in this company is all one-sided. Shareholders are expected to blindly trust everything without any reciprocation.
https://www.davincivirtual.com/loc/us/new-york/new-york-city-virtual-offices/facility-3653
Investor Relations Contact: info@dbmmgroup.com
TEL: +1 646 722 2706
Very respectable history. But I never questioned any of that. Only that DBMM has been the best trade since 1966. I started when everything was transitioning to trading as we see today. Can remember a time before online trading, though.
I also question, with such extensive knowledge, how a conclusion is reached that DBMM is going to continue to be the best trade since 1966. I have tracked down a lot of corporate structure and evaluated many for viability. So, by all means, enlighten us on what should lead investors to this conclusion that makes DBMM a best of since 1966.
If it was some typical call from some nothing shareholder, I would agree.
But when a business calls about doing business and nobody responds from any sources except a subsidiary, doesn't look like hard work. Looks like working hard to hide.
You might want to check your sources. That online information is very dated.
Lol. For being around so long, DBMM, being the best since 1966, is not something I would brag about. Had so many equally as good or better. But I also don't trade in OTC as much. Maybe if OTC was the majority of the trades, I suppose this is possible.
My family was head of Arthur Anderson in the late 60s, early 70s. Famiky has been active in finance a long time and is well funded through multiple trusts.