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.
CHID sounding very scammy to me
(And that's coming from someone who still owns a few shares.)
How many legitimate companies change industries overnight? Even worse is this swapping companies nonsense.
Imagine the following: "Yes, it's true that we here at Oracle Corp. were very high on our growth prospects just a year ago. But in that time, we've come to realize that the software business is actually darned competitive! Therefore, in order to continue to grow the business, we've decided to swap our software business for a bamboo farm! We feel it's a perfect fit because we have absolutely no experience at bamboo farming."
The CHID press release is also extremely vague with zero specifics. No link to company websites. No mention of the names of the incoming officers of the new company. Who are the selling shareholders?
Searched google for all three company names mentioned and found absolutely nothing.
One scenario that i always think about when I see something like this is that maybe the auditor said "hey, there's no way we can sign off on these numbers for the end of the year audit."
The quarterlies don't get much scrutiny and aren't generally audited. I've seen more than a few companies have three allegedly great quarters and then mysteriously re-state, or charge-off, or acquire, or change businesses when audit time comes around.
If the whole CHID thing is a scam, this swap sort of creates confusion and plausible deniability for everyone and also allows the auditor to continue collecting fees. The auditor can sort of cover themselves in the audit by saying the old business is no longer being audited and we're in the process of auditing the new one. And basically everyone buys another year.
But bottom line, you really have to ask yourself how many legitimate companies do a paper swap from being a battery manufacturer into "the wood-carved art and furniture and auto accessories business."
Reason for .OB and .PK on stocks
Firstly, Len, I totally agree with you that it's a pain in the butt to have to enter in .ob or .pk on yahoo. Especially when they give it to you anyway and just make you go through another click. Might not seem like much to them, but for people looking up lots of stock symbols, it's quite a waste of time. I'd prefer if they would just accept the four letter symbol and then it takes you right to the page which might then say "this is a pink sheet stock" or some other disclosure.
And that's how all this came about, as I recall. Nasdaq insisted on data providers differentiating between nasdaq stocks and bb stock and pink stocks. In theory, I don't think this is a bad idea, because a lot of people think if it's got a symbol it's all traded the same way. We know that's not true, so I really don't mind the idea of it being pointed out to the rookie investor because it is important. But it should be done in a way that lets you enter in just the four letter symbol and THEN there is in red letters "pink sheet" or something like that.
If I recall, this all came about when Nasdaq got involved with, and started the delisting process for, the BB stocks that didn't file with the SEC. Nasdaq was worried that because of its involvement, investors would now think that anything on the BB was the same as the Nasdaq.
Though they certainly don't publicize it much (or want it publicized), The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. now owns and operates the otcbb.
By comparison, if McDonald's owns Boston Chicken, there's really no confusion because people realize that one company can own two separate businesses that do two entirely separate things. They're both restaurants, but the similarities end there.
However, it gets a bit merkier when it's two different businesses in the securities business and both involve ticker symbols. I think Nasdaq just thought it's way too easy for the average person to think it's all the same business. And that's why they insisted on the distinction.
They certainly haven't done much to police it though, because almost every data provider but yahoo accepts a four letter symbol without any additional designation of bb or pink.
But anyway, just as an fyi, that's how I recall all this coming about.
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/1998/vendoralerts/va1998-11.stm
OT: Thanks for the note bigpike. eom
Obtaining Pink Sheet Symbol for Foreign Listed Co.
I'd like to trade an Australian stock (listed on the ASX) that does not yet have a corresponding five-letter American ticker symbol.
I think I recall someone mentioning that they were with Etrade and it was a fairly painless process to get a five-letter trading symbol fairly quickly for a foreign-listed company. If you'd be kind enough, could you please re-post the process you had to go through and how easy/difficult it was? Any phone numbers or names of individuals at Etrade would be helpful too. (Or any broker who will do it, doesn't have to be Etrade.)
I have accts with Ameritrade and TDWaterhouse (same company now) and they want to give me an answer of they can't do anything. I know that's not true.
What I'm really interested in here is the *practical* way to get the five-letter symbol so I can trade the stock. I'm fairly familiar with all the theory (form 211 and all the exceptions, unsolicited bids, etc), but getting to someone who will actually do something is another story.
Bottom line is, I think I understand the rules better than my broker, and for a one-time trade they don't seem to be real excited about wanting to do any extra work.
Anyone who can offer any practical advice for getting the ticker symbol, your response would be appreciated. Thanks
OT: Kozuh, polite request, could you please refrain from putting multiple exclamation points in your posts. I fear it only encourages newcomers to the board to make "hype" posts. The people who have been here a long time aren't going to be swayed by exclamation points. I don't see that they add anything.
The VMC boards are good because they aren't hypey and don't look hypey.
Don't read, (my question was answered previously)
BBC Yeah, Herb and Byron are both very good and have been doing this a long, long time. When both of them are having alarm bells go off, it's probably not a good sign at all.
Len, yes I believe that is what happened. It was, and I think still is, the only board I'd ever set up. I don't think I even knew the boards had moderators at the time and I certainly didn't know how to claim it. I just filled out the ibox and posted the first message and got back to work. My job frequently requires me to be gone for long periods of time and at some point while I was gone Bob claimed the moderatorship. Was fine with me.
I think Clever removed the ibox stuff a couple of months ago, but until that point I'd say about a third of the ibox stuff was my original info, and probably two-thirds was stuff Bob had added at later points.
But the bigger point for any newcomers reading this board is that in a few months it will be two years that GFCI has been telling their stories.
GFCI History
(Hey all, haven't been able to post on any of the boards for awhile because of my work schedule, but finally got a bit of a break.)
Here's my recollection of events on GFCI. I recall it being mentioned a few times on VMC but Len rightly deleted the posts because the company had no audited financials. Then the discussion moved to ZCC where it started taking up quite a bit of space on the ZCC board. A few people properly complained that it was taking up too much of the board and that someone should start a separate board for GFCI.
For whatever it's worth, I was the one who started this board, not Bob (check post #1, if you like). It's been mentioned several times before that Bob started the board and in fact I think he even mentioned so himself. I never corrected it before because it doesn't make a hill of beans worth of difference. The only reason I bring it up now is because this is an interesting example of how eyewitnesses can remember things differently. 10bag, Len, Bob, myself, and many others have been here since the beginning and we all remember it a little differently and I'm sure none of us are 100% accurate. If you're ever on a jury, this is a good example of why eyewitnesses shouldn't be relied on as gospel. Your biases coming in, other things going on in your life at the time, your emotional mood during that period, etc., all these things can affect an eyewitness without a person even knowing it.
-Back to GFCI, I recall most people in the early days being pretty upbeat about the stock, if we could just verify things. Never could. Company claimed earnings, big cash balances, no debt, low p/e, everything you could dream of . . .but not verify.
I can't recall the company ever meeting a self-imposed deadline. The claims of earnings have mostly stopped.
Press releases are all the company has ever produced.
As I mentioned previously, the analog here seems to be IDWD.pk, which is run by a convicted felon. Read their press releases and it's eery how GFCI is doing almost the exact same thing to the letter. The delays, the confusion, blaming things on others, doing business in far away places, business is booming, special dividend announcements, then increases in the dividend, clarification about the dividend record date, rumors of buyouts from unnamed companies, increased buyout offers, new products, expansion, acquisitions, stock buybacks, mergers, restructuring, splitting into multiple divisions, tons of press releases, etc, etc.
But somehow IDWD just never can produce audited financials, sharecounts, and filings with the SEC. Darn the luck.
Sounds somewhat familiar.
Look at how many press releases IDWD has had over the last several months, and yet nothing has happened. Everything is always "just about to happen," and yet never does. Always an excuse when a given date comes and goes. Plenty of stock being sold, though. Look at how familiar all the IDWD press releases sound to GFCI watchers. Start at the bottom of the list and read up from there. It's eery:
http://investor.news.com/Engine?Account=cnet&PageName=NEWS&Ticker=IDWD&Limit=105&Mod....
And here's GFCI's press release history:
http://investor.news.com/Engine?Account=cnet&PageName=NEWS&Ticker=gfci&Limit=105&Mod....
TDAmtd, I've been having trouble loggin in also. I'm guessing they are finally starting to try to integrate their two systems after the merger and are having some trouble.
I previously had separate accounts at TD Waterhouse and Ameritrade. Can't log in to my TD Waterhouse account, but can get into my Ameritrade acct.
HCTL, This one looks kind of interesting, but earnings have been just all over the place. Not the first time they've reported a decent first quarter, only to have things go awry in subsequent quarters. So I don't know that just multiplying the first quarter by four is the way to go.
I've been gone for work quite a bit, so if anyone has talked to management or has further info to share, I'd appreciate it. Looked through the 20-f and didn't see anything that seemed too glaring. But also didn't see anything too exciting.
I'm a little bothered that I could find no email address for management, either in press releases or on their own website.
The terminated sale of the company (looks like it was basically a reverse merger with another company) also concerns me a bit. One of the companies must have found something they didn't like. No real way to tell which one.
"Remember ACLN" is my "Remember the Alamo" phrase.
That fraud was constructed almost totally to lure in value investors. Cash in the bank, no debt, great growth, low p/e, etc., -- all fake. Even had the endorsement of JP Morgan at one time.
I found it very early on. Then Motley Fool picked it up. Then JP Morgan. Started on the Naz and went to the NYSE. Surely JP Morgan and/or the NYSE has checked everything out, right?
It's also a perfect example of why things should simply look right, rather than constantly need an "explanation" from management. Because a crook can come up with endless "explanations." It's not really that hard.
I owned it and actually made about a triple on it. But only by luck. I should have lost my shirt. The only reason I got out was that after the Sep 11 bombings I thought there might be real tensions and backlash in Nigeria which has a large Muslim population. Shortly after I got out is when Herb Greenberg and short sellers picked it up and started pointing out the things I already knew, but chose to make excuses for.
I was aware of all the red flags. A lot of little things were obvious. A lot. And I knew them all . . . but just wanted to believe.
Just a few examples.
Before they claimed to own any ships, ACLN claimed to just be renting space on empty carrier ships to ship their vehicles. But on their very own website they had a picture of a ship in port with the letters ACLN painted on the side. It was a small thing that I doubt many people even noticed. Oddly, I made excuses for the company in my own head. "Well, maybe it's just something the web designer did," or "maybe they're just trying to show that their cars are on that ship," etc. But think about it. If you were an honest guy running a company, you would never photoshop your company name onto a ship under any circumstances. But rather than look at the obvious, I made excuses for them. Never again.
Same thing about them claiming to have two CFOs at the same time. A totally preposterous notion. But at the time, they explained it as one guy handled things in Europe and the other guy here in the states just sort of needed that title for capital-raising purposes to be able to meet with the right people as they were in the process of buying ships and making some big agreements, etc. If you wanted to believe, it sounded plausible. But if you were not emotionally tied to it and looked at it objectively, it's complete nonsense.
And that "second CFO" is also a good example of why to be suspicious of people who omit things from their resume. It's usually on purpose to hide the bad stuff. Motley Fool had a follow-up on this guy who is now CEO and Pres. of an accountancy corporation, believe it or not:
http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2004/commentary040204bm.htm?source=EDNWFT
What I already knew, but what ACLN really pounded into my brain, is that getting "explanations" from the company is NOT due diligence. It's a circle. A circle where they are always your sole source of information. If I say I'm the King of Spain and the only thing you ever do to verify that is to talk to me some more . . . well . . .
I knew about the screwy relationship with the "auditor" who was clearly not at arm's length. The company explained it away. "Probably no big deal," I told myself. Even though I knew it was.
-In a Monaco newspaper I'd found a bankruptcy filing for a previous company that was run by the same heads of ACLN. It had never been disclosed.
Common of many frauds, ACLN claimed to be doing business in a far away place, so there's almost no communications or ways to verify things. They claimed their sales agents were independent guys who might hang out at a local petrol station and that's just how things were done in Nigeria. A lot of this was word of mouth, literally, and not someone you could call, plus many of them were in a part of Nigeria that didn't speak English, etc.
In other words, "you can't verify anything independently, but it's okay."
-I remember I even contacted Hyundai Merchant Marine (HMM), who ACLN claimed was one of their main shippers. Found the guy handling ACLN's account. Asked what he thought of ACLN. He said they seemed to know a lot about cars and shipping, but they were very disorganized and didn't keep their word on a lot of what they said and he would not do business with them.
What did I do? Did that stop me? Heck no. I made excuses for the company. "Well, that guy at HMM probably just had an argument with someone at ACLN. It's probably a personality conflict."
When you "get religious" about a stock rather than just looking at the facts, you end up coming up with better excuses/explanations than the fraudsters themselves! No kidding. When management always has an explanation for things, pretty soon you just start making up the explanations yourself and don't even bother calling management. The process happens subtly and you don't even notice yourself doing it.
ACLN is also a good example that frauds are usually doing at least SOME business. A fraud usually isn't two guys with horns coming out of their heads sitting in an empty room with nothing but a telephone and signs on their forehead that say, "I'm a crook." Frauds usually will be conducting some business, have products to show you, etc. Things to reassure you. The operators will be smooth and polished. Nice presentations. They're called "confidence men" for a reason.
-I had plenty of suspicions about ACLN right from the outset. I asked all the right questions and did all the due diligence. But ultimately I let others reassure me, and when they did not, I simply made excuses for the company.
I remember talking to Scott Hood of First Wilshire Securities, who was a big investor in ACLN. This was very early on, before any negative reports started surfacing and even before Motley Fool had gotten into the stock. Mr. Hood was very smug because he had visited ACLN in Europe. They showed him a parking lot full of cars, showed him around a little. I raised some of the more serious issues with him. He told me I was being paranoid, that investing required one to have conviction and not be doubting oneself when all the numbers about a great company were there, blah, blah, blah. Basically, he sort of chewed me out rather than addressing the issues. He's Mr. Big Institutional Investor, he must know what he's doing, right?
Bottom line, never make excuses for a company on their behalf. When someone presents new facts, don't go into "defend the company" mode simply because you own the stock.
Things should simply look right, and be right, from the outset. No screwy arrangements. No need to call management to get the "real" story, even though the filings and the facts say something else.
OT: Interactive Brokers, Australian Stocks?
Any of you who are working with IB, could you check your system and tell me if you have direct access to the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX)?
I checked their site, but didn't see anything regarding stock trades for the ASX.
Thanks in advance.
OT: Somebody Emptying Your Brokerage Accounts. We've discussed this possibility before.
-Clark Howard is a consumer reporter out of Atlanta, I think. He recenlty posted this story on his site:
"Check your dormant accounts too!
Christa, Clark’s executive producer, nearly lost everything in one of her brokerage accounts recently. But thankfully she checks her account online several times a week and she prevented it from happening. While randomly checking her account, she saw that all of the stock in their pretty sizeable account was about to be sold. She immediately called the broker and learned that someone in Gainesville, Florida had hacked into her account and was getting ready to wire the money out. The really scary part is that there is no protection of brokerage accounts, but her company – eTrade – was able to get the money safely back in the account. So, if you don’t normally check your brokerage accounts, start! Often, if you’re not taking money out of these accounts, you don’t check them. But you need to. Brokerage firms are also starting “two-factor ID systems” using USB ports and other security methods to verify you are the account owner. But until then, monitor closely."
-I suspect that this is either becoming more of a problem, or at least there's the perception that it's becoming more of a problem because Ameritrade now states this on their site:
"Asset Protection Guarantee
If you lose cash or securities from your account due to unauthorized activity, we'll reimburse you for the cash or shares of securities you lost."
michaelt re: options, do you have any links that give a good summary of what the new rules are going to be when all this nonsense gets hashed out?
A CPA friend of mine refers to it as the CPA full employement act and he's been looking for a good summary himself. According to him there's about 300 pages of rules, and it takes a two-day seminar (with CPE credit) to get throught it. Lots of different ways to value things, so nothing has really changed as far as making things more transparent.
CHID- I own some too, but like others here I'm a little dubious about their eps estimates. It always bothers me a little when companies try to estimate their next year's earnings in advance. I just don't see any reason for that. It seems sort of like they're trying to realize all of that potential share price gain right now rather than just have the price go up because of actual results after they've come in.
Lots of things can happen during the course of a year.
Chart-wise, the low .60s looked like a decent entry.
michael t, re options, totally disagree.
If a company came out and admitted, "the company is going to issue $10 million in new securities and all the proceeds will be immediately given to management," the public would never stand for that.
Plus, you're looking only at the balance sheet. The income statement would look far different. It would render the income statement virtually worthless and not allow for worthwhile examination of the value of a company and how capital should be allocated throughout the entire economy. Bad for all of us.
We could just pay everybody in options and turn the whole thing into a stock-selling scheme. Revenues would fall straight to the bottom line on the income statement. No cost of goods sold, no SG&A expenses, nothing -- just pay everybody in options: employees, partners, vendors, everybody.
That sort of a system would not be helpful to anybody in the long run. Options make it way too easy to make an unprofitable company look profitable. If you've got $10m in revenue and $11m in expenses, no problem, just start paying everyone in options and now you're profitable! It's a disguised ponzi scheme.
To paraphrase Buffett, options are compensation, compensation is an expense, and expenses go on the income statement.
abh3vt, re options, I totally agree that cash is the way to go. In fact, one of the best questions to ask is why in the world would management use such a complicated system that even they claim they can't understand, when such a simple one (cash) is available?
The only answer is that it's to their benefit. Hugely to their benefit, and a huge ripoff to the other shareholders and even to all taxpayers. I contend they understand it entirely. Options are an almost socialist system in which the employees are stealing from the owners. I think it's been one of the largest wealth transfers in history.
"If a company just granted stock, and transferred all the risk of ownership to the new owner, then would that remove the time value component of the expense? If issued at market price, then wouldn't the "intrinsic value" of that stock be expensed by the company in the quarter the stock was granted? Sounds much cleaner to me, and from an accounting perspective is more in line with what the income statement is supposed to represent (i.e expenses associated with actions taken to generate sales in a certain time period)."
Absolutely, would be far cleaner. The reason it's not done? It's not to management's benefit. It would cause all the costs and burdens to be exposed right now, as opposed to giving management a free 10-year roll of the dice (at the expense of the shareholders), with no downside if it doesn't work out. Wouldn't allow them to cook the books anymore and push up the stock price fraudulently, which coincidentally makes their options more valuable.
A straight granting of stock would cause an immediate expense, an immediate increase in the fully diluted share count, and, perhaps most importantly and most overlooked, an immediate tax impact on the manager receiving the stock. And it would correctly be at ordinary income rates. That's yet another part of what a scam options are. Managers get to turn ordinary income into capital gains. Huge ripoff of the taxpayer.
Another thing that is ridiculous is that most options don't have any sort of minimum rate of return and/or inflation rate built-in before the options kick in. This is all the more evidence that they are compensation and not something given for superior performance. A 7% annual rate of return would be considered sub-standard by most, and yet in 10 years the stock price would double and the manager's options would be worth quite a lot -- for substandard performance. If the strike price were at twice the current market price, then it would be much closer to being fair. Otherwise, it's a bit like giving yourself stock options for putting someone's money into a savings account.
Finally, "If options are going to be valued using a time premium going out 4+ years, doesn't that overstate the expense in the period its incurred? Why not amortize this over that specified time period?"
Firstly, I would again say that the first question we should all ask is why are they using such a convoluted system in the first place? There must be a reason.
But further, I'm not so sure that it overstates the expense in the current period.
Management has a fiduciary duty to shareholders -- to place shareholder interests ahead of their own. Instead, they have done just the opposite.
Think about the entirety of the employee options transaction: Management ends up with a valuable company asset, and the company has nothing to show for it. To me, that means one of two things has occurred: an expense, or theft.
Did management even TRY to sell similar securities in the open market to see what they could get for them? Because that's the unseen transaction that's really occurring here. The company could have sold 10-year warrants to the public or a private investor and received cash right now (because of their time value) even if the warrants later end up worthless. That cash would have come onto the balance sheet and then be expensed out to the employees. That's what's really occurring. The company issues securities, and management gets the cash. Where is the cash the company could have received? It's all gone, right now.
Management has prevented the cash from coming on the balance sheet by giving themselves these company securities rather than selling them. Thus management also prevents the cash from being expensed on the income statement. But that certainly doesn't mean that nothing has happened. Real cash value has been tranferred from the company to management. Management simply pretends like nothing has happened, which is nonsense.
Looking at it that way really lays bare what is going on here.
Imagine if management gave itself a free 10-year option, at today's price, on a piece of company real estate. Has nothing occurred? Is that option not worth anything, as management claims? Did the company receive anything for it? Where is the cash the company could have received for it? It's all gone, right now.
Even more insulting and indicting would be if management claimed this was an "employee-only option" and not tradeable on any open market, and therefore it has no value. (An argument often used by managers about stock options). The fact that management admits that this is a sweetheart deal made available only to themselves goes all the more toward showing criminal intent. They made no effort to sell such a valuable company asset on the open market for its true worth. Instead, management makes the claim that because they gave it to themselves that means it's worthless. That's the argument that really kills me. I mean, you almost have to laugh at the bravado.
OT: Political posts are what's not allowed. Those are the things that Len has always correctly objected to. You chose to bold the sentence, "Any non stock specific posts will be deleted." But didn't bold the very next sentence which clearly says what Len is talking about,
"I have warned you many, many, many times that this board will not allow political debates."
Re: Employee Options. Disagree with,
"After all, the company receives money from the exercise of those options, so in my mind, the only real "expense" to the company is the difference in the strike price vs the market price at the time of exercise."
Not so. That only accounts for the intrinsic value of the options and not the time value. 10-year options have huge time value. Huge. The employees get this for free at the expense of the company.
10bag, Thanks for your answers.
10bag, yes, but that's why I didn't understand about your answer. I'm not talking about buying before the market opens. Just a regular transaction. I know there's no Santa Claus in finance. That's why I asked the question. I'm trying to find out how the risk is handled.
So, if you don't mind, let's go through an exact scenario.
Some small illiquid Australian stock. I place an order to buy here in the US. It gets executed. The arb was holding no inventory. (It last traded in the US six months ago.) I'm assuming that means he went naked short to execute the trade. Our market closes.
Next morning in Australia, before the market opens, the company announces news, and the stock opens 20% up in Australia. The arb buys back to shares at a loss?, or do the American and Australian correspondent brokers agree to lay off the risk on one another somehow because it evens out over the long run? (There will also be days when the stock opens down significantly in Australia.)
I've never had a trade not get executed (even on unknown stocks) and never noticed any significant markup in my executions, which is another reason I'm curious as to how the brokers handle the risk when the two markets are not open at the same time and the broker is not holding any inventory (or not enough inventory).
10bag, thanks. But I should have been more specific. GM is a global name and I understand somebody's making a market in it 24 hours a day. I'm thinking more of a thinly traded stock, not a GM type stock.
Say an Australian stock that isn't hugely traded in Aussieland, much less here in the states. I buy the pink sheet version here in the states. That's more what I was asking about. Some no-name oil and gas or mining company in Australia.
You know, like we buy these little unheard of companies in Canada that might trade 20,000 shares a day. If I bought some similar small, illiquid Australian company and the markets aren't open during the same hours there, how is that handled?
Are you saying you think it's still the same thing? I wouldn't have guessed that because there are probably very few firms trading it in Australia to begin with, much less brokers elsewhere trading it 24 hours a day.
Thanks again.
OT -- 10bag, you might know the answer to this. (When you reply, please indicate whether you know for sure how it works, or are taking an educated guess.)
-How do brokers handle arbitrage trades between two markets that aren't open at the same time?
For example, if I buy a pink sheet symbol of, say, an Australian stock, how is that handled? Let's say on the previous trading day the stock closed at A$1.00 in Australia, so the next day I buy it via the pink sheet symbol for US$.75, or whatever it would be after currency conversion. But then on the next trading day in Australia the stock opens up big, at say, A$1.20.
Which broker eats the loss? I'm assuming the American broker is not always going to have shares in inventory. In that case, does he simply have to pay the higher price to buy the shares, or is there some sort of gentlemen's agreement between brokers that he gets the previous day's price (so long as it's not for an outrageously huge dollar amount) because in the long run things will balance out since there will also be days when the price goes down dramatically from when the American trade occurred?
10bag, for what it's worth, (this is not a comment on BGH) I'd say it's best to always trust your own gut. Occasionally it will be wrong, but it's basically the culmination of decades of experience. There are always more companies to come along. If something doesn't feel right and that causes you miss one, who cares. Move on to the next. No need to start second-guessing everything.
Re: Sac real estate
I've got a cousin who is a realtor there and prices had just gone bonkers for probably 10-11 years straight. In some places prices tripled and quadrupled.
But he said they're definitely feeling it now. Especially the investment flippers who have now discovered that negative cash flow is no fun when there is no hope of selling in a year or two because of huge appreciation. And the negative cash flows are huge because home prices far outpaced rents.
He says the market has changed in a major way.
P.S. thanks for the PM, Len
EyeNEye, it makes sense to me that ihub has that sort of spam policy. Even the rules of this board are that you post something either here, or on the ZipCodeChangers board, not both.
Because otherwise all it does it make somebody sift through that much more information, and that makes the entire service that much less valuable for everyone. Plus, it turns ihub into nothing but a stock-touting, promotion site, rather than a site where we can all help each other gain valuable fundamental or technical information and make better investments.
We all have limited time. We all want to be more productive.
Imagine if I could hit a button and have a message posted to every single board. That would mean everyone else would have to have to read the same message on probably 5, or 6, or 10 boards, or however many they follow. Complete waste of time. And everyone else would be doing the same thing to me.
-Think of anything that is news in your life. Let's say you're having a baby. That's definitely news. If you send an email to your friends, they will all appreciate knowing it. But if you send an email to every single person on earth, that's spam.
Len, this stock has no financials.
And the previous post on CHYS is also being spammed on just about every board possible.
Gold - 10bag, I saw that too, but I didn't take that to mean a 20% discount, but rather margin that had to be put up until delivery occurred (delivery starts in fourth quarter). Sort of like a futures contract.
But even if one does view it as a 20% discount, the numbers still don't seem to work out. Gold's at roughly $650. 80% of that is $520, still substanially more than the price being paid ($415).
Personally, I would never use a market order on a BB stock.
Nonsense. If it's true then post some judgments or rulings.
Gold Currently $415 an ounce?
I've seen this story multiple places. Sounds bullish for gold. 36 tonnes purchased for $480 million:
http://www.tradearabia.com/tanews/newsdetails_snIND_article105452.html
But there's a bit of a problem when you do the arithmetic. Convert 36 tonnes to troy ounces:
http://www.google.com/search?q=convert+36+tonnes+to+troy+ounces
Divide $480 million by that figure and it's less than $415 an ounce.
Don't quite know what to make of this, other than maybe it's a government official giving a great deal to one of his friends.
I wonder if this was part of the reason for the price decline.
GHLT - Nice going cliff. That's the way these boards should be used.
-Same thing goes for when it's a legitimate growth company. It can be very helpful to hear from someone who lives in the area and can drive by and see what trucks are loading/unloading. Or even talk to an employee or two as they come out of the building and into the parking lot.
That sort of stuff can be valuable knowledge.
-So anyway, thanks for making the effort.
BMGX.OB - I like this one too, but one thing to keep in mind is that one of their main royalties is from a Bolivian mine, if I recall. So you could wake up one day and a big royalty is gone.
If your SEC attorney really existed, he could certainly provide you a link to the appropriate law or NASD rule to back up his claim.
Let me guess, you'll have an excuse as to why he cannot do this.
BBB, that's absolute nonsense.
Provide proof, not "someone told me."
The law and NASD rules are extremely clear.
The Dividend Delay Game
IDWD and BIGN are two other companies playing the dividend delay game, just like Grifco. Stringing things along for as long as possible. IDWD has been doing it for 7 months, BIGN for about 5 months.
IDWD first mentioned their dividend in October of last year. The symbol was IDWS then. I looked into it because it sounded good. Found out Downes was a convicted felon (financial fraud). Look at the litany of fantastic press releases and all the confusion he creates, especially the press releases regarding the dividend.
http://investor.news.com/Engine?Account=cnet&PageName=NEWS&Ticker=IDWD&Limit=80&Mode...
This is simply "playing dumb," because the NASD rules couldn't be simpler. Were it not for the introduction, the endnotes, and all the wasted space, the rules could fit on one page and are worded very clearly:
http://www.nasd.com/web/groups/rules_regs/documents/notice_to_members/nasdw_003997.pdf
These companies blame the NASD and make it sound like the NASD "just informed us of this."
That's total B.S. The rules are very, very clear. Companies playing this delay game know exactly what they're doing.
Agree re Yahoo and other sites. Seems to me like these guys must have consultants telling them they need to be contstantly changing the layout of the sites or else they're somehow falling behind (or some similar nonsense).
Just when the user figures out where everything is, it all moves around. And usually the functionality has changed little or not at all. Often it's made less efficient.
You have to spend time figuring out where everything is and how to use it again.
People want to be productive, not waste time having to re-learn the same thing.
Dividend Announcement Invalid, in my opinion.
Here's my take on it.
I think the confusion here comes from unintentionally taking things out of context.
Lawyers often write things in very confusing language. (The more confusing, the more chance for additional billable hours down the road!)
They often write stuff that must be taken in its entirety, which is not always easy because a "whereas" from page 4 might apply to something on page 7.
-In this case, the law is talking about how to give notice for three different possible actions:
1) dividends or distributions
2) splits or reverse splits
3) rights or other subscription offerings
Let's shorten those to dividends, splits, and offerings.
The law is not saying that all three are the same or are treated the same. A dividend is not an offering. A split is not an offering.
Some of the paragraphs do not apply to all three actions, others do. And other paragraphs specifically delineate that things are different for 1, 2, or 3.
Consider a different example that might help explain.
If I say, "the following law applies to these actions:"
1) walking
2) running
3) sleeping
And then the law goes on to say, "the above actions must be done while wearing shoes, or in the case of sleeping, while lying on a bed."
That sentence is a somewhat confusing way of saying that you must wear shoes while doing 1 and 2, but must be lying on a bed while doing 3. It does not mean that walking must be done while lying on a bed, or that you must wear shoes to bed. Nor does it mean that you will be following the law if you sleep on the ground while wearing shoes. It's saying that the rules are totally different for number 3.
-That's sort of how this record date law is written. If you re-read the entire law from start to finish in that light, I think it will make sense.
The part of the paragraph you're focusing on singles out offerings as being handled differently from dividends and splits. "10 days prior to the record date" is what applies to dividends and splits; the exception applies only to offerings. That part does not apply to Grifco because Grifco is doing a dividend, not an offering.
Read it all in context and take particular note of this paragraph:
"iv. Date of payment or distribution or, in the case of a stock or reverse split or rights or other subscription offering, the date of delivery"
That paragraph clearly applies to all three actions and is not optional for any of the actions. "Date of payment or distribution" applies to action 1 (dividends), "date of delivery" applies to 2 and 3 (splits and offerings).
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule10b-17.html
-The bottom line, as I read it, is that if you're doing a dividend or distribution, you must announce the payment date 10 days before the record date.
Grifco has never announced a payment date . . . . . and the record date has long passed.
-And on a separate note, since this would probably be considered a 25% or greater dividend or distribution by the NASD, the rule is that the ex-div date is the day after the payment date. But since at this time there is no payment date, then there probably is no ex-div date, regardless of what the company says. Because again, the NASD determines ex-div dates. Company press releases do not.
A dividend announcement without a payment date is not a dividend announcement.
It's basically . . . nothing.
It's a press release that makes it seem like something has occurred, but in reality nothing has.
It does, however, stir up a lot of excitement and make the price go up for a short period of time.
Resources: The Land Grabs Continue.
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/060515/0129197.html