researcher, yeah i'm apex too so hopefully it's gotten easier over the several months since i last tried. i know they've been trying to do everything so you don't have to call in anymore to trade canadians, so hopefully the whole process is improving

researcher, re amtd pink sheet symbol for canadian stocks, is there anyone in particular at amtd you've dealt with to get the pink sheet symbol, or process you went thru? how did you do it?

bbotcs Re: Lee Raymond and Nuclear

"Lee Raymond, of all people, former CEO of Exxon/Mobil, gave nuclear energy two thumbs up"

That's actually not surprising at all. He's long been a supporter of nuclear and was President of Exxon's nuclear division, but then 3 mile island happened.

I was no fan of his golden parachute robbing of shareholders, but that having been said, he's generally a pretty common sense guy.

When at at Exxon, he basically said, look, we're an energy company, we'll supply whatever kind of energy makes sense. If all these alternatives made sense, we'd be doing them. But they just don't make sense, and we've tried all of them. Nuclear makes sense but after three mile island, the regulatory environment made it impossible.

Hour-long vid with Charlie Rose will clarify many of his views:

OT: Yet Another Yahoo Re-design

Again, yahoo has changed design, making me re-learn everything and have to waste time rearranging my entire home page my.yahoo.com. They screwed up yahoo finance awhile back and seem to be on some plan where every two years the designers convince them to move everything around for no reason, and without adding anything useful.

Woke up this morning to find my entire home page has been changed without my permission and now I have to waste time re-doing it. Do they really think this makes people happy?

Just can't believe their logic

Re: Shanghai ETF

Both FXI and EEM have options, including long term ones. Could get pretty good leverage by buying in-the-money puts, which have little time premium.

Here's how they both have done compared to the Hang Seng:

http://tinyurl.com/2ybhek

ETF for Shanghai index

Although not perfect, FXI might be a reasonable facsimile. I'm not in it either way, just responding to your request for info.

CAGC - Frankvalue, that paragraph does not say she's been paid. That's the paragraph that I quoted that says she's being compensated similar to similar level executives at other companies, which is clearly not true.

The paragraph also says the company has two executive officers when elsewhere in the filing it says they have three: CEO, COO, and CFO

CAGC - Serious Red Flag

Not trying to bash anyone's stock here. I posted on this one once before and just wanted to say it with a little more emphasis this time and then I'll be through.

This company's filings have something that you should simply never, never, ever see: the company claims the person who is second in command is working for no salary, no stock options, no bonuses, no compensation of any kind, owns no shares in the company, no possible way to gain from the company whatsoever. Do a Ctrl+F search for lijun here:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1166389/000120445907000424/agritech10k.htm

(You can then scroll down a couple pages to see the section that says she also owns no stock)

That would, of course, be patently absurd.

-When any of us holds a particular company's stock, it's tempting to want to make excuses for them when we see something that doesn't look right, or to think up wild "could be" scenarios. I would urge you to resist doing this. You should never see a SEC filing that says the CFO/Controller is working for free. Ever. No excuses or "explanations" from the company are acceptable.

Technically, I don't think it's even legal to work for no compensation. She's a volunteer, not an employee.

I'm gonna belabor things a little further, because I've written before about how tempting it is to want to make excuses for a company when you hold its stock (I've done it in the past).

Consider the absurdity of this no-way-to-gain claim from all three points of view: the CEO, the CFO herself, and the auditor. Put yourself in each of their shoes.

If you were the CEO, would you ever, under any circumstances, place the welfare of your company in the hands of someone who had nothing to gain from its success? How would you know she's even working in your best interest? How do you know she's not a spy from another firm, trying to put you out of business? How did you as CEO recruit someone to work for free? What was that job interview like? Wouldn't you be worried that she might steal from you to make at least some money? Wouldn't you be worried she'd leave on a moment's notice for a better job, and you'd have to scramble for a replacement? Wouldn't you instead want her to be well compensated? Whose interests does she really represent? Does anyone work for free? Seriously? In the real world?

Now to the CFO herself. Why in the world would she work for free? Nothing better to do? Just out of the goodness of her heart? If you were the CFO, would you work for free? Under any circumstances? The documents say nothing about the CEO and CFO being related individuals. If she were being paid even by the related company, that would have to be disclosed. Nothing. Not being paid by anyone, and not related to anyone. Just working for free. No ownership, no options, no salary, nothing. No way to benefit financially. The filing further says that company determined her compensation based on a ". . . level of compensation paid to similarly situated executives in comparably sized companies." That is an obviously false statement.

And that brings us to the auditors -- the same auditors by the way who brought Bodisen Biotech public (another Chinese fertilizer company which proved to be a scam), an account from which they recently resigned. Again, rather than try to make excuses for the company, put yourself in the shoes of the auditor. If you were a legitimate auditor, would you ever sign off on a document that said the second in command was working for free and had no way to benefit financially from the company? Would you ever sign off on a document that said that level of compensation ($0) is similar to executives in comparably sized companies? If you were a legitimate auditor, wouldn't you demand that the company put in writing how this person is being compensated? Or at the very least a lengthy explanation as to the extremely unusual circumstance as to why this person is working for free? Like maybe the CEO gave her a kidney or something, some sort of an explanation? Nothing.

There are many other red flags with this company, but this one alone should be enough.

HNR - huge political risk. Chavez could steal everything at any time.

Broker Recommendations Please

Am incensed with Ameritrade as they won't let me trade a stock that I really like. Contacted the market maker directly and he said Ameritrade is the only one giving them any problems.

Any recommendations of brokers who specialize in OTCBB and pinkies and don't ever tell you what you can and can't buy would be appreciated

Credit Reports Often Not Accurate

D&B Reports and other credit reports for businesses are frequently wrong and often contain glaring innaccuracies.

The fact that the company will not disclose their own audited financials on their own website speaks volumes.

CAGC: Concerns

Reportedly has Same auditor as BBC, and the guy who reverse-merged CAGC public will no longer talk to Herb Greenberg.
(read the whole thing, including comments, to keep it in context)

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/greenberg/2006/10/bodisen_bruhaha.html

Len, I'd noticed this one awhile back, but must say that the connections, even if distant, to some of these other chinese fiascos kept me from buying. The balance sheet is great if it's true. But CESV seemed to have a great balance sheet too. CAGC having same auditor as BBC concerns me.

Those 100% losses on an investment can be bothersome. lol

Another thing that concerns me is the website. Not saying it absolutely has to be a scam, but just some concerns. Notice that they are not really trying to sell product. Lots of handy stuff for investors though. Ticker symbol on nearly every page:

http://www.chinaagritechinc.com/index.htm

Vague descriptions of their products. No pictures of management. Almost looks like a template website that could be put up in 30 min. Compare the CAGC website to a Canadian company website in similar biz, Hanfeng Evergreen. Pics of management, pics of product, concerted effort sell product, deals with majors, etc:

http://www.hanfengevergreen.com/index.php

And another thing I found concerning is you can hardly find anything on the internet that isn't basically just a reprint of one of CAGC's press releases. Couldn't find much in the way of independent verfication.

Also, (this is from memory, may have changed now) there was no independent directors on the board. And no audit committee. That's the way you'd want it set up if you were trying to pull a fast one. And from what I recall, there was also something screwy about one of the key employees was working for free, yet owned no shares, and wasn't related to anyone. Like I say, that's from memory (may not be exactly correct), but some pretty flaky stuff at one time, IMO.

Who knows, might be a perfectly legit company, but just seems like a few red flags to me.

Etrade International Trading

Anybody here have experience with Etrade's new international platform that they've been touting?

Specifically, I'd like to know if you can place order directly on other exchanges, or if you still have to go thru a market maker, in which case it probably isn't anything new.

OT: Firefox and Maxthon

Funny how different stuff acts differently on everyone's machines. For me, Maxthon is way, way faster than Firefox.

The other thing that bugs me about Firefox is that everytime they upgrade, half your extensions stop working. I've also had the problem of becoming dependent on an extension and then the developer stops updating it and nobody takes over. You can sort of become dependent on a 18 year old kid who takes off for college and stops updating things. I had to add many extensions to get the same features already in maxthon.

The other thing i really like in Maxthon is everthing you can do by right-clicking on a tab. All very intuitive. Assigning aliases is especially easy compared to Firefox.

Having said that, I'm not religious about any technology. If Firefox starts doing things better than maxthon, I'll use it more than maxthon.

One more thing. I'm on Vista and am not impressed. Quite a bit slower than XP. Only reason I got it was because my old machine broke down the week before Vista was coming out, so I waited. Would actually rather have XP. Vista just seems overly bloated and slow and no real upgrades other than eye candy, imo.

They can post audited financials on their website. Forget the SEC, forget listing, all they have to do is post audited financials so that their owners could see what's going on.

The PR says the exact same thing as the conference call did. I don't find it confusing at all.

-The only one receiving royalty revenue in this deal is Iconix. DANS will have to pay a licensing fee to Iconix.

-Royalties and revenues are far from the same thing, as far as Danskin is concerned.

If there's any confusion you can go back and look at Iconix itself. Back in 2003 it was a floundering clothing manufacturer, much like Danskin. Had tons of revenue, but very little profit. They made the decision to become a brand management company. They ceased all their manufacturing operations, because that's a hard, terrible business with exremely low profit margins. And they went into the licensing business, which is a great business with huge margins. Iconix had huge revenues as a manufacturer, but very little profit. As a royalty company, Iconix's revenues plummeted but their profits skyrocketed.

-We have no idea what liabilites, or how much, were taken over by Iconix. Nor do we have any idea as to what liabilities are left with DANS. They may have run up huge debt in the last 5 years. They could easily end any speculation by posting audited financials but they refuse to do so. Iconix bought the most valuable asset -- the brand.

-DANS could be making $60m in rev, or $100m or $500m it still doesn't mean they might not go broke because very little of that makes its way to the bottom line. Iconix was in a very similar situation back in 2003. But Iconix decided to get out of the "high-revenue, low-or-no-profit" business, and get into the "much-lower-revenue, high-profit" royalty business.

There's no proof of anything you stated. You're making tons of assumptions without any proof.

-In a previous message you said, "DANS will make $15 million in royalties alone from ICON as stated by ICON." That is simply incorrect.

-Royalty Revenues are not the same as sales. The statement, "This means that out of the $75 million in Royalty Revenues made by DANS, $15 million goes to ICON and the other $60 million must go to DANS since ICON stated that DANS is a $60 million company." That's simply incorrect. That's not how royalties work.

-All talk about the preferred is nothing more than assumptions. How do we know they didn't go further into debt int the meantime? How do you know they haven't issued another preferred. You're using 5 year old info. If everything is as they say, they could very easily display their audited financials. But they refuse to. A post on a bulletin board is not audited financials. There's no reason this company couldn't post audited financials on their website.

cashkill, you said, "what I know for a fact= dans does a min of 100 mil in biz per yr now, has zero debt,& now has 70 million in cash 5-7 x avg clothing companys cash balance."

How do you know that?

Please post a link to the financials so we can all see.

DANS - Yes, apologies on thinking you were confused about the $15 mil. It's the guys who wrote the ibox on the DANS board who said that:

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=18577305

You mentioned, "It is my belief that Danskin is profitable." What makes you think that? I know there's the stuff from 5 years ago, but that's 5 years ago. I don't see any financials since then. Am I missing a link somewhere? Please forward if so.

Seems to me like DANS sold their most valuable asset

Etrade Question -- Has anyone tried their new International platform that they've been touting?

If so, are you placing orders directly to those various exchanges around the globe, or are are you still going thru market makers, in which case it's not nearly as big a deal as they're making it sound?

DANS - I think you're confusing who gets the money. The $15 million mentioned was royalty revenue TO ICONIX, not to Danskin.

Here's the exact wording,

"The purchase price for Danskin was $70m, with a contingent payment for an additional $15m, based on the brand achieving certain performance thresholds."

"We are forecasting that Danskin will generate approx. $15m in royalty revenue to Iconix in its first 12 months."

Here's the link and you can start listening at about 13:35.

http://web.servicebureau.net/conf/meta?i=1112856323&c=2343&m=was&u=/w_ccbn.xsl&date_...

(Now back to me talking again)

Iconix is paying a max of $85m (one-time payment) for the intellectual property that will generate $15m a year for them, with almost no additional expenses for Iconix. That's basically a p/e of under 6 that they paid for an asset. A good deal for them. The royalty business is a good business. (See CHKE)

But the contract manufacturing business is generally not a great business. Seems like Danskin is basically a contract manufacturer now. The website, the wholesale business, etc., sound like very small items left. And revenues do not equal profits.

The royalty biz has great margins. That's the business Iconix is in. The contract manufacturing biz generally has pretty terrible margins. That, for the most part, is the biz DANS is left with as far as I can see.

DANS could go broke and Iconix could simply go to another contract manufacturer, because Iconix now owns the brand.

DANS - I think you're confusing who gets the money. The $15 million mentioned was royalty revenue TO ICONIX, not to Danskin.

Here's the exact wording,

"The purchase price for Danskin was $70m, with a contingent payment for an additional $15m, based on the brand achieving certain performance thresholds."

"We are forecasting that Danskin will generate approx. $15m in royalty revenue to Iconix in its first 12 months."

Here's the link and you can start listening at about 13:35.

http://web.servicebureau.net/conf/meta?i=1112856323&c=2343&m=was&u=/w_ccbn.xsl&date_...

(Now back to me talking again)

Iconix is paying a max of $85m (one-time payment) for the intellectual property that will generate $15m a year for them, with almost no additional expenses for Iconix. That's basically a p/e of under 6 that they paid for an asset. A good deal for them. The royalty business is a good business. (See CHKE)

But the contract manufacturing business is generally not a great business. Seems like Danskin is basically a contract manufacturer now. The website, the wholesale business, etc., sound like very small items left. And revenues do not equal profits.

The royalty biz has great margins. That's the business Iconix is in. The contract manufacturing biz generally has pretty terrible margins. That, for the most part, is the biz DANS is left with as far as I can see.

DANS could go broke and Iconix could simply go to another contract manufacturer, because Iconix now owns the brand

No, I read that, but what does it mean in terms of money? I haven't been able to find the terms of the license agreement. If anyone has a link, please provide. How much will Danskin have to pay ICON to use what is now ICON's brand?

Is what's left just a money-losing business? If the business were making money, there's no excuse for not posting their audited financials on their own website.

The latest sec filings showed the possibility of over 200m shares outstanding if all the preferred and warrants were exercised. If the company claims it's still far less than that, and if they have audited financials to give to those involved in the transaction, there's no reason they couldn't post those audited financials so their own owners could read them. There may be many hidden liabilities that are not known. Or hidden assets, for that matter. Maybe they own a bunch of valuable real estate, who knows.

But when the company won't post the financials even on their own website, the tendency is for there to be hidden bad news.

So what's actually left of the company? I'm confused as to how they will earn money. It sounds like they sold off their intellectual property for $70m cash and up to another $15m in cash or stock. Is it your understanding they will also be paid some sort of yearly fee? If not, what's left and how do they earn money? Kinda confused.

Also, information in the ibox seem way off-base and misleading. A p/e is not based on a one-time sale. These are not recurring earnings that will be there every year.

DANS - So what's actually left of the company? I'm confused as to how they will earn money. It sounds like they sold off their intellectual property for $70m cash and up to another $15m in cash or stock. Is it your understanding they will also be paid some sort of yearly fee? If not, what's left and how do they earn money? Kinda confused.

No Financials Concerns Me

As you mentioned, sweetpepperjam, the financials are usually in the merger filings. What do you make of the fact that they are not there? Doesn't look right to me.

Sounds like you see it the same way i do on the outstanding. No matter how you look at it there seem to be over 100m shares out after march '07.

That's $20m+ market cap. And no financials. Pretty unusual to not see financials in the merger filings.

Deep Down Financials?

Anyone have a link to the financials of Deep Down? I can't seem to find it in the SEC merger filings. The financials of the company being acquired are usually buried in one of the filings, but I can't find it.

Looks like they're be 100M+ shares out after the merger. Is that the way everyone reads it?

MQPH.OB It's interesting, but unless I'm misreading the filings, I think your share count is way off. Seems to me there will be over 100m shares out for the new company.

Although even that amount is confusing.

The 8-K said they were issuing 85m shares to the company being acquired, plus the convertible.

http://tinyurl.com/yc829o

The later 14F says they're only issuing 60m shares, but when you read the breakdown of shares later in the document, it shows three guys owning 75m shares of common, plus that does not appear to include Francis's preferred which are convertible into another 31m shares.

http://tinyurl.com/yed6ac

So it appears to me, this thing has well over 100m shares out, no matter how you look at it.

I've been looking for financials on DeepDown but can find the filing that has them, or I've missed it somewhere. If you have that link please post it.

ACBT There was only a pathetic attempt at a "balance sheet" in that link. None of the other financials were there. There is no profit & loss statement, and there's no such thing as a "retained earnings statement", as far as i know. Retained earnings, or lack thereof, are always mentioned on the balance sheet.

In a year and a half that's all the financials they could come up with. And they're in the accounting business. And those numbers are undaudited. And they don't post those numbers on their website.

-The PR, which I did see, also made no sense to me.

"Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., a national Professional Employment Organization (``PEO') and Staffing Firm has made an equity investment and agreed to purchase stock from certain stockholders which, when completed later this month, will result in Tri-State owning approximately 15% of the Company. The purchase price paid by Tri-State to the Company was $.40 per share."

It says that certain stockholders are selling and yet that money isn't going to those stockholders, but instead being paid to the company. Makes no sense.

ACBT 14m shares out

https://www.otcstockinfo.com/repository/618310/618310_FR1.pdf

One thing that annoys me quite a bit is that in the interview the guy said they would be fully filing by Sept '06. They are not. Came public July '05 and still no financials. They're supposedly staffing CPA firms and doing all this accounting and yet can't get their own financials done? A legitimate reverse merger files with the SEC from the quarter they come public. At the very least, they could/should be posting quarterly reports on their own website. There are none.

07/26/06 interview link:

http://www.mn1.com/members/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=173

-07:45 interview starts
-15:00 guy makes it sound like for sure they'll be reporting by Sept '06 (end of Sept at the latest)
-lawsuit also mentioned shortly therafter
-20:30 says came public july/august '05, price was $1 then
-21:50 he says they're currenty at $55m run rate and by end of year will be $85m run rate(later press releases show the $55m figure was a lie, and the $85m was way too optimistic)
-26:15 interviewer says the company's website needs some work and the guy responds with "we're brand new". not true.

And even now--5 months later--website still gives almost no information on financials, shares out, debt, anything. it's not that tough to update a website. it takes 10min, not a year and a half. Their entire "investor relations" section of the website is to link to yahoo:

http://www.aabilities.com/investor.htm

I'm always very leery of companies that don't store their own press releases at their own site. I mean, think about that. Would you do that if you were running a company? You wouldn't keep your own press releases on your own site?

If you're nefarious, however, everyone knows that press releases expire after a while on yahoo. So any old false statements will conveniently expire.

Lot's of press releases, lots of supposed acquisitions, lots of different claims of profitability. . . . . but no financials in almost 1 1/2 years. Lots of excuses, though.

Here's the first link again, as it looks like the ihub ad cut off the end of it:

https://www.otcstockinfo.com/repository/618310/618310_FR1.pdf

CHID - Some good news? (sort of, but not really?)

As I mentioned previously, I searched all three company names mentioned in the change-of-business press release, and could find nothing on any of them.

But then I had the thought that the holding company might be the last name of the owner, as is sometimes the case with a lot of these Chinese companies.

So I searched google with three keywords in the same search: Guoxi wood carving

And it turns out that there is a chinese entrepreneur by that name who does appear to be into the businesses mentioned by chid. Awhile back forbes listed him as one of the top 100 business guys in china:

============

24. Zhang Guoxi

Age: 48.

Birthplace: Yujiang, Jiangxi Province.

Education: Left school at 18.

Main company: Jiangxi Guoxi Industrial Group.

Main industry: Wood carving.

Wealth: $120 million, based on the group's 1999 net assets.

In 1979 Zhang learned his trade in the wood-carving business, setting up the first private enterprise in Jiangxi Province. Since then he has diversified into real estate and the manufacture of automobile parts. He is reported to have donated $2 million of his private wealth to charity. Zhang is a delegate to the National People's Congress and has a star named after him.

http://www.forbes.com/global/2000/1127/0324150a_print.html

========

If nothing else, it's at least interesting. But here's my take, both positive and negative.

First the negative, because the company deserves to be treated with a huge amount of suspicion -- they've earned it.

The negative take would be that the whole thing is a scam and they worded the press release carefully, hoping that people would infer a connection to this Zhang Guoxi guy, even though the company never said it. In other words, maybe they were hoping the press release would boost the stock price (if so, it failed miserably). This would also explain the unwillingness to disclose the company websites -- because they wouldn't want shareholders writing to these companies for confirmation, at which point Zhang Guoxi would tell everyone CHID is making this stuff up and he is not swapping companies with them.

The positive take (which is still negative because it would show management is trying to manipulate the price) would be that CHID really does have a deal with this guy, he really is a bigwig with a great business that's growing, and CHID mngmt purposely made the press release sound bogus so that the price would be driven down and they could buy on the cheap. CHID mngmt and Zhang Guoxi could be the ones buying all the shares that are being sold today. They buy all the low-priced shares they can until the merger is completed, at which point they do a full-blown pr blitz about the new legitimate company, and of course the share price goes back up (probably double or triples in very short order). If they do it right, they could personally make tens of millions in very short period of time, and claim it was all just because of language translation confusion.

The third possibility is that the PR was innocently misworded and innocently poorly written. Personally, I don't think this possibility should be given any credence because CHID has never had trouble naming names and bragging about things before. If they have a deal with a bigwig, they know how to write about it.

They are being coy about the specifics on purpose. I don't see how one can come to any other conclusion. No mention of the selling shareholder, no websites, no mention of number of employees of the new company -- no info at all.

The question is, are they being coy because there is no deal and they were trying to manipulate the price higher, . . . . . or are they being coy because there is a good deal and they are trying to manipulate the price lower (so they can buy). Either way, it seems to me that mngmt is trying to enrich themselves at the expense of shareholders.

Here's the link to the search results for: guoxi wood carving

http://www.google.com/search?q=guoxi+wood+carving

And here are the results for "Zhang Guoxi"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Zhang+Guoxi%22&btnG=Search

CHID, another flaky thing in the interview transcript. This is a huge red flag to me:

"Where can I get more information about Jiangxi Xi Chang? Is there a company website?

Yes, it has one. It will be available to shareholders once the transaction closes."

Yeah, like they have to keep the website a big secret. Sounds to me like they just haven't gotten around to putting up a phony website.

Existing shareholders don't even get to see the website of the company they are buying until the transaction closes?

Great transparency and disclosure

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.