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.
WOOOOHOOO
I CAUGHT THAT BOTTOM... Well...close enough anyway...
Boom!
$$$$@ $0.0110
Lol...
Yeah... 150 MILLION shares (triple the ten day volume average) is just small trades taking SFOR down.
It's all good.
I love that the traders here create such massive opportunities.
I'm a buyer.
Insert "gonna double my gains from yesterday and today" smiley face here
Lol
Nope! Nope! And NOPE.
There are traders at EVERY LEVEL AND IN EVERY RANGE.
If SFOR went to $1.00 per share, "beer money" traders would be just as prevalent and guess what...you want them to be.
Take me, for example. If you call $168,330 "beer money" then so be it.
I've owned SFOR since $0.0009.
While maintaining a share count range between 5 and 23 million shares, I've traded SFOR upwards of 50 times since March. I've announced purchases and sells real time here in Ihub.
It's TRADERS who create liquidity.
"The long and strong" crowd does NOT create liquidity in SFOR or any other stock or index.
To point a FACT:
There are two types of traders out there:
1.) a trader who adds liquidity
2.) a trader who removes liquidity.
Look it up... Seriously... Go to google and see for yourself.
If it weren't for your supposed "beer traders" and instead there were just "longs only adding, never selling" then the liquidity here would be numbingly scarce.
FUN FACT TIME:
Did you know that ALMOST ALL ONLINE BROKERAGES charge a fee if the trader purposefully or inadvertently places a marketable trade that removes liquidity?
Did you know that almost all online brokerages offer rebates, free trades, OR EVEN PAY traders to place marketable trades that add liquidity?
Online brokerages at almost every level of trader, ... (level of trader is almost entirely based on:
1.) trading frequency
2.) account balance)... charge flat rates for each trade. Included in these flat rates are "subsidized costs that help offset the rebate, free trade, or payments to traders who place a marketable trade which adds liquidity.
Here is what investopedia has to say about adding/ removing liquidity:
_______________________________
"Liquidity Rebates
Most exchanges have adopted a “maker-taker model” for subsidizing the provision of stock liquidity. In this model, investors and traders who put in limit orders typically receive a small rebate from the exchange upon execution of their orders because they are regarded as having contributed to liquidity in the stock, i.e. they are liquidity “makers.”
Conversely, those who put in market orders are regarded as “takers” of liquidity and are charged a modest fee by the exchange for their orders. While the rebates are typically fractions of a cent per share, they can add up to significant amounts over the millions of shares traded daily by high-frequency traders. Many HFT firms employ trading strategies specifically designed to capture as much of the liquidity rebates as possible."
_______________________________
Read more: You'd Better Know Your High-Frequency Trading Terminology | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/042414/youd-better-know-your-highfrequency-trading-terminology.asp#ixzz4L6NjBPey
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
Here, in a oversimplified way, is an example:
Trader A (me) enters a marketable order that's intended to add liquidity. SFOR right now is trading at a B/A of $0.0113/$0.0115. I enter a sell order for 1,000,000 shares at $0.0114.
I have entered a marketable order that ADDS LIQUIDITY. My trading account is credited for the trade. In other words, I did not pay a trade commission, and I am actually paid to make that trade.
Trader B (not me) sees the same B/A. Trader B has the exact same amount of shares to sell. Trader B enters a limit order for the million shares but wants the most for their trade so a order at $0.0116 is entered. Because the trade is above the current Bid and ask it is a trade that removes liquidity. That trade, if executed, will me considered a marketable order that removes liquidity and a full commission will be charged to your account.
Many traders, depending on their brokerage and trading account level, are keenly aware of the perils of trading marketable orders that removes liquidity because if they add liquidity, their trade may be free, offered a rebate, or actually be a paid trade. If professional traders are looking to maximize profitability, they avoid placing marketable orders that removes liquidity because extra fees and flat commissions take away from the profit line.
So... LCJR, while I understand it's often convenient and is always easier to "scapegoat" a trader and call them "beer money" traders (no better way to discredit someone than to call them degenerate names) there are facts that you and others overlook when you blame "beer money" traders...traders like me.
Traders like me increase liquidity, increase daily volume, and help draw attention to stocks like SFOR which is mutually beneficial to traders like me and the "long and strong", "pry these shares from my cold dead hands" SFOR folk.
Insert a "happy Friday, where's my beer that I bought with my beer money trading profits" smiley face here.
You can use the same website and get SFOR's GuardedID stats.
http://www.shouldiremoveit.com/GuardedID-5754-program.aspx
SFOR?
Over a penny?
Wow!
If only someone saw this coming...
Oh... Wait...
Insert (a wink and a) smiley face here
You are correct
I messed up.
Mid to late November
I apologize for the distortion
Insert a "too many afternoon calendars to read a calendar" smiley face here
SFOR MOST CERTAINLY does not lack a solid business plan.
Is SFOR's history fraught with miscues that, in my opinion, truly hurt early investors?
YES!
I wasn't here for that.
I came on board when SFOR was about to announce a MSFT lawsuit win.
I came on board with SFOR after a letter to shareholders revealed a business plan.
I have been on board, both long and a frequent trader, with SFOR since their Q's started showing improvements.
SFOR has turned a corner.
That said, SFOR is at a price where they're appearing overbought BASED SOLELY on financials. (To point a fact, they're overbought since the $0.0050's based solely on their MRQ).
What isn't priced into the SFOR stock are a few certainties:
1.) SFOR will release the Q3 numbers in about 30 days. Those numbers will show DRAMATIC revenue increases.
2.) SFOR will announce new partnerships with the 10Q or ahead of the Q3 report.
What isn't priced in to the current share price is:
1.) Potential cash windfalls from 3 separate lawsuits.
In my opinion, Mr. Kay needs to strike while the iron is hot. Any smart businessman would strike while the iron is hot.
Feel free to take ownership of the first red day that comes where the stock drops and say "I told you".
I know that I can raise my hand when asked "who here has been long and or actively trading this stock since $0.000X Prices?
Who here has capitalized on 700% gains since March?
Who here has said "yup...SFOR really did make some calls that kept them alive but skewered investors BUT it appears those days, for now, are behind them"
Who here has said "SFOR really is the 1% stock of the 9671 OTC stocks that can actually make bullish traders and long term investors money"
I'm in the group who's raising their hands saying "me!"
On a side note... SFOR never hid R/S's and never hid dilutive agreements from shareholders. Any shareholder who sat through 4 reverse splits and dilutive, material agreements only have themselves to blame AND had those same investors bought this year when the stock was between $0.0001 and $0.0008they'd be more than be made whole again with 1000% gains.
Insert a "blame yourself" smiley face here
Hello RR,
Okay, I have attached etrade's current margin application.
Look near the bottom of page 7.
You'll see in black and white that any securities held in any etrade margin account can be loaned out, (hypothecate/re-hypoethecate) and there is only one fix.
An L.E.R.
It's important for you to know that many associates at etrade, Td Ameritrade, etc, are not licensed brokers. They are customer service reps/ associates and simply are not required to have their brokers license to work there and answer phones.
Now...
I have got to point out... You said two etrade reps looked it up online or had never heard of it right?
Next time, ask to speak to an etrade registered broker.
In my original post I included a few brokerage links:
Here are two of the several defining links I provided:
This IS FINRA's RULE on borrowing shares: (you may want to pass this on to the two people who you spoke with at etrade so they can know WTF they're talking about)
http://www.finra.org/industry/regulation/rulefilings/2013/p322520
THIS IS A DIRECT LINK TO THE ETRADE APPLICATION.
Page 7 specifically covers margin accounts and at the bottom you will see that they ARE SPECIFIC:
MARGIN ACCOUNT SECURITIES ARE OWNED BY ETRADE. ETRADE LOAN OR BASICALLY DO ANYTHING THEY WANT WITH YOUR SHARES.
https://content.etrade.com/etrade/estation/pdf/Brokerage_account_kit.pdf
Okay... As stated previously, EACH BROKERAGE may call a Loan Exempt Restriction anything they want...
Then, all they have to do is say they've never heard of such a thing...all the while they know you're talking about an L.E.R. You see, it is in ALL ONLINE BROKERAGES best interest (because they make money loaning out margin account shares) to keep you from rescinding their right to do so.
If you are a cash account:
1.) your shares cannot be loaned (hypothecate/re-hypothecate)
FINRA further goes on with
FINRA RULES 4314, 4330, and 4340.
Bottom line;
The etrade folks you've talked with either simply don't know what they're talking about;
Or;
They do know, and have company policy to keep you from placing a loan exemption on your margin account.
It is the law, by the way...
No matter what they call it at any brokerage, if requested, they have to exempt your account from loaning shares out, even if it means rescinding your margin ability.
Here is FINRA RULE 4330 on your brokerage...ANY brokerage "
• • • Supplementary Material:---------------
.01 Definitions. For purposes of this Rule, the definitions contained in SEA Rule 15c3-3 shall apply.
.02 Authorization to Lend Customers’ Margin Securities. For purposes of paragraph (a) of this Rule, members may use a single customer account agreement/margin agreement/loan consent signed by a customer as written authorization to permit the lending of a customer’s margin eligible securities in lieu of obtaining a separate written authorization; provided such customer account agreement/margin agreement/loan consent includes clear and prominent disclosure that the firm may lend either to itself or others any securities held by the customer in its margin account.
.03 Notification to FINRA. FINRA, upon receipt of a member’s written notification pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(C) of this Rule, may request such additional information as it may deem necessary to evaluate compliance with SEA Rule 15c3-3, Section 15(e) of the Exchange Act and other applicable FINRA rules or federal securities laws or rules. Examples of additional information include, but are not limited to:"
So .. If you read it carefully, you'll see THAT ANY MEMBER AGREEMENT MARGIN AGREEMENT CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF INDIVIDUAL OR SEPARATE AGREEMENTS...
And that is precisely where they bury YOUR rights to refuse this agreement.
If you do enough research you'll see there is ENORMOUS money to be made by both brokerages, and clearing houses...and there is ZERO RISK FOR THEM because they give you a margin account and they:
1.) collect fees for margin trading
2.) hypothecate your shares and charge borrowers to do so
3.) charge interest to you to loan you money to buy shares on margin
4.) issue a margin call before you cost them money
5.) and if you lose big time, they sell every equity they can to meet margin requirements AND IF YOU LOSE MORE THAN YOUR ACCOUNT IS WORTH???
They BILL YOU FOR THE BALANCE AND CHARGE INTEREST ON THAT!
Neat huh?
I hope all of this helps.
Insert a "if you have more questions, let me know" smiley face here
Yeah dude..
When the MSFT settlement news it, this stock went from lows of $0.0001 to a high of $0.0042.
Basically, a 4100% gain.
Sure... It crashed back to $0.0007 afterwards but that's besides the point.
Now, Penny, to be absolutely clear with you:
1.) I'm currently long SFOR, and besides being a "has been" pro, I have great reason to be long.
You know the bullish argument, so I won't bore you.
2.) like you, I've read UTTERLY OUTLANDISH SETTLEMENT forecasts here...and like you, I've read unheard settlement timelines here.
3.) like you, I've read as bullish investors here, in my opinion, grasp at straws to link SFOR to virtually ANYTHING that has even the slightest (or greatest) touch in Dual Band or Out of Band security and make claims that "they're next in line for lawsuits because they're infringing on SFOR.
What would curb this?
what would curb these wild, untethered to reality forecasts?
Some press from SFOR themselves.
Shareholders here, and abroad openly claim they're willing to go "all in" because they're, in my opinion, believing SFOR ihubbers...they certainly can't say they're going all in because SFOR management is keeping them appraised with 8k's and Press Releases. Their bet, their all in bet, is no good in my opinion because it's not based on current facts...rather it's based on regurgitated 9 month old news and at best it's based on a lackluster 10Q that while the best one in recent history, still showed cash burn that exceeded to the order of $600,000.00 SFOR revenues and showed declining cash reserves.
I say all this Penny because I want you to know that my head isn't buried in Long and strong BS.
With all that said...don't forget that SFOR went from $0.0001 to $0.0042 on the MSFT and other news.
Here we sit in the $0.0040's. Imagine for a moment of those same returns occurred again IF OR WHEN SFOR announces another settlement.
Now imagine those returns IF OR WHEN SFOR announces new OEM partnerships and record revenues.
So, Penny, while you or others sit there and put your dim SFOR views to words, just know that:
1.) new partnerships can be announced any day.
2.) settlements can happen and when it happened with MSFT, several of us made a lot of money.
3.) commercials and new retail shelf space can be announced any day.
4.) revenue increases could be exponential...
5.) Mr. Kay has said, repeatedly that he's looking, aspiring, to build a company that has enormous buyout value.
6.) Mr. Kay used substantial MSFT settlement proceeds to eliminate toxic debt.
7.) Mr. Kay has repeatedly assured investors no Reverse Split and no more toxic debt are planned.
I would never tell anyone to go all in. I cringe when I read that an SFOR trader has one stock...SFOR, and has 100% of his/her cash in SFOR OR HAS TO wait for next payday to get more cash to wait three days for the funds to clear to buy more (yes... I cringe...it's called overexposed)
I laugh out loud when I read "my shares are locked up with GTC orders"
All of that...so I'm not going to advise you to buy or sell, I'm just going to say, I've bought. I've bought because I know a good stock when I see one and I love entry level value plays. SFOR is both.
Insert a "no bs" smiley face here
Lol...
This stock is a perfect example of what happens in stinky pinky land when there is no steerage.
Last Tuesday, this thing rallied to $0.0049 and it's been downhill nearly every day and can close as low as $0.0040 today.
"When there is no steerage"...
What I mean is that while all you have to do is look around Ihub and the "you can have my shares when you pry them from my cold, dead hand" clan are the only ones trying to boost share prices.
The 10Q was the last time the full range of traders heard from SFOR.
There have been zero 8k's, zero press releases, no commercial, and no Staples news from SFOR.
When there is ABSOLUTELY NO news out of a OTC stock it's very very easy for volume to thin out and very easy for manipulation to occur in concerted efforts to take the share price down.
Don't ever forget that as great as SFOR may be, it's listed on the OTC. It's not listed on the Nasdaq, or the NYSE. SFOR is listed on the OTC, which is the modern day equivalent of the Wild Wild West of markets. The natural direction of 99% of the 9,680 stocks listed on this exchange is down. The natural direction of these stocks is down because 99% of the stocks here are dilution based Ponzi-esq, stock schemes. It's easy for SFOR to be seen as "just another stock to short" in a land where 99% of those short bets pay off big.
I don't want pump and dump.. But here are a few things SFOR can talk about in a press release:
1.) have retail sales improved? Tell shareholders.
2.) where is our SFOR commercial? This whole "quality check" delay doesn't hold water...not for this long.
Tell shareholders where we are.
3.) where is the Staples deal?
4.) have revenues improved? If so? Is it a material event? If so? Where is the press release or the 8k?
5.) where is SFOR with partnership deals, OEM, and software deals?
Any number of these things can keep short bias and pressure at bay.
I see SFOR at over a penny and soon...it's currently trending in the wrong direction which makes me wrong and I don't appreciate that very much.
Insert a "frustrated" smiley face here
Yeah...
That's what's happening...
"DILUTION!"
Stock price climbing over MONTHS!
That always spells "dilution" (NOT! Don't be ridiculous!)
Stock price climbing over MONTHS!
That always screams "pump and dump" (NOT! Don't be ridiculous!)
When a stock is being diluted through convertible notes/warrants or share offerings the stock price FALLS regularly with very few flat days, or green days.
There are currently 9,678 securities traded on the OTC. Subtract the 1% that are currently attempting to be genuine investment grade equities and you'll see 9,581 chart examples of what "toxic dilution" does to a stock and its corresponding chart.
To point a fact:
Look at SFOR's chart from March 2015, to March 2016 and YOU'LL HAVE A PERFECT, TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE of what toxic, death spiral financing looks like. You'll see clearly what dilution really looks like.
Once you're done perusing 9581 charts on the OTC, go ahead and move on up to NDAQ dilutive offerings and NYSE dilutive offerings. Yup! Big NDAQ, and NYSE players can dilute the crap out of their shareholders too and there are 10's of thousands of examples of what EXACTLY a stock's chart, affected by toxic financing (dilution) looks like.
Now be a true champ and overlay SFOR's March 2016-Present chart over its own Mar 2015-Feb 2016 chart or any other diluted chart and you'll see a STARK CONTRAST.
SFOR is not diluting. SFOR is not engaging in toxic financing. SFOR has turned a corner...and they rounded that corner in March 2016.
All you have to do is look at the chart, count the shares A/S in April/May/June and compare them to today's SFOR share count.
Ridiculous claims of dilution, toxic financing and death spirals SHOULD BE MET WITH ONE RESPONSE, ONE RESPONSE ONLY:
"REFER TO SFOR MARCH 2016-PRESENT CHART"
To be clear:
Has SFOR really, and I mean really hurt investors in the past? Yes! I believe without reservation that 4 historical reverse splits and countless definitive agreements with death spiral, toxic financiers have wrecked investors.
SFOR has afforded those hurt and spurned investors opportunities to make it right. Even a dubious but qualified investor can read the latest 2 10Q's and see that the weather has changed and the sun is out. A qualified investor would have seen that while yes, SFOR has hurt portfolio balances in the past, there is an opportunity to fully recoup losses.
Instead, what we get is screams of dilution or toxic financing by unqualified investors who won't admit that they're uniquely unqualified to even have a trading account let alone opine over past losses, carry an axe to grind, and not take advantage of SFOR's new opportunity.
Insert "that's my Friday rant, I'm done trading for the week" smiley face here.
Yeah...
That's what's happening...
"DILUTION!"
Stock price climbing over MONTHS!
That always spells "dilution" (NOT! Don't be ridiculous!)
Stock price climbing over MONTHS!
That always screams "pump and dump" (NOT! Don't be ridiculous!)
When a stock is being diluted through convertible notes/warrants or share offerings the stock price FALLS regularly with very few flat days, or green days.
There are currently 9,678 securities traded on the OTC. Subtract the 1% that are currently attempting to be genuine investment grade equities and you'll see 9,581 chart examples of what "toxic dilution" does to a stock and its corresponding chart.
To point a fact:
Look at SFOR's chart from March 2015, to March 2016 and YOU'LL HAVE A PERFECT, TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE of what toxic, death spiral financing looks like. You'll see clearly what dilution really looks like.
Once you're done perusing 9581 charts on the OTC, go ahead and move on up to NDAQ dilutive offerings and NYSE dilutive offerings. Yup! Big NDAQ, and NYSE players can dilute the crap out of their shareholders too and there are 10's of thousands of examples of what EXACTLY a stock's chart, affected by toxic financing (dilution) looks like.
Now be a true champ and overlay SFOR's March 2016-Present chart over its own Mar 2015-Feb 2016 chart or any other diluted chart and you'll see a STARK CONTRAST.
SFOR is not diluting. SFOR is not engaging in toxic financing. SFOR has turned a corner...and they rounded that corner in March 2016.
All you have to do is look at the chart, count the shares A/S in April/May/June and compare them to today's SFOR share count.
Ridiculous claims of dilution, toxic financing and death spirals should be met with one response, one response only:
"Refer to SFOR March 2016-Present chart"
To be clear:
Has SFOR really, and I mean really hurt investors in the past? Yes! I believe without reservation that 4 historical reverse splits and countless definitive agreements with death spiral, toxic financiers have wrecked investors.
SFOR has afforded those hurt and spurned investors opportunities to make it right. Even a dubious but qualified investor can read the latest 2 10Q's and see that the weather has changed and the sun is out. A qualified investor would have seen that while yes, SFOR has hurt portfolio balances in the past, there is an opportunity to fully recoup losses.
Instead, what we get is screams of dilution or toxic financing by unqualified investors who won't admit that SFOR they're uniquely unqualified to even have a trading account let alone opine over past losses, carry an axe to grind, and not take advantage of SFOR's new opportunity.
Insert "that's my Friday rant, I'm done trading for the week" smiley face here
I'm surprised:
I'm surprised there aren't more posts here reporting back injuries when SFOR ihubbers grasp at bullish/bearish straws here.
AAPL, GOOG, INTEL, AMZN, EVERY BANK, EVERY ONLINE PIZZA SHOP...
THEY'RE ALL INFRINGING?!?
(Yeah riiiiiiiiiiight)
SFOR IS NOT! I say again...THEY ARE NOT the only companies who have developed their own OOB tech.
Ever heard "several ways to skin a cat"?
Yeah... That phrase has spanned generations and last as long as it has because guess what? There are in fact, many ways to skin a cat.
SFOR has a patent on a type of OOB and there are more than one.
Yesterday on this board it seems most people were like "ohhhh I wonder if AAPL will mention OOB...and when AAPL covered security guess what happened to SFOR?
N O T H I N G !
The sleuths here on this board are failing to accept that far smarter, and far more experienced traders have already looked for what we call "pin action" when other tech companies announce OOB and what action it has on SFOR and those smarter, more experienced pro's have found zero link between them and SFOR.
SFOR has a few things going for them:
1.) pending litigation (again, the professional ihubbers here seem to think each pending lawsuit here is worth $30-$40 million but the share price pretty much slams that door shut on them)
2.) sales: I believe Q3 (probably released mid to late Novemember 2016) will show increased sales and revenue.
3.) I wide open door for relevant, accurate, and timely press releases.
4.) a really good looking chart.
There are just as many drawbacks as there are pros though with SFOR:
1.) outcomes of lawsuits are NOT a given
2.) no company should subsist solely on lawsuits. They need sales and revenue to prove that their parents have value.
3.) Mr. Kay claims to not want to appear as a PnD company BUT there's a difference between PnD and releasing material information to shareholders in a timely fashion.
4.) SFOR, despite the wishes of many, is NOT a Nasdaq or NYSE company. Their chart can reverse in a big way within a single session (see drop from $0.0056 to $0.0017 in a single session)
FINRA rule 4560 has all short reporting rules which include OTC/OTCBB/pinks like SFOR.
Rule 4560 covers ANY firm, brokerage, company and requires reporting of any short interest every 2 weeks (bi-weekly).
Most firms do a "after the 15th and after the 1st" to stay in a bi-weekly calendar.
For example, this month, the reporting dates are September 12th and September 26th for any firm, brokerage, or company to release their short interest in SFOR.
These dates and future dates are held under the BB/OTC column on all "master calendars" which are available online from several sources BUT I suggest any trader use only FINRA master calendars to help ensure accuracy.
Just FYI, the master calendar has short interest release dates for all major exchanges just in case you're trading any big board stocks as well as SFOR.
Daily short volume and reported "short interest " are not the same thing.
Hope this clears up any questions.
Insert smiley face here
To the traders out there:
SFOR keeps hitting a wall at $0.0046.
Several sessions have proven that the Bulls can't (near term) break above $0.0045 and hit the $0.0046 milestone.
If SFOR can't do it very soon, as in this session, then you'll see both the bid and the ask drop and likely get the same action we saw yesterday where it stuck at $0.0044/.0045 ceiling and when the Bulls couldn't break through, the Bears came in and dropped the daily gains to 0% and we actually went red for a bit @$0.0039.
The good news is that support at $0.0038 held at the close and SFOR jumped back to that resistance line to attempt a third breakthrough...
Unfortunately it hasn't been able to break through...
Traders who nabbed $0.0030's last week should be taking the 23% gains and selling the $0.0043/$0.0044 line.
Core positions should be held onto, I'm just talking about selling your over core position.
Insert another profitable trade smiley face here
Q3 ends September 30th.
The company then has up to 45 days to either file the 10Q or file a 10QNT.
If they file an NT, they'll have an additional 5 calendar days to file the 10Q.
So, based on those dates and schedules, you can expect a 10Q before November 15th or before November 20th if they file an NT.
Insert smiley face here
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
NO SHORTS ON THE OTC???
SINCE WHEN?
DID THAT JUST HAPPEN THIS EVENING?
LIKE A FEW MINUTES AGO?
LISTEN UP!
As a series 7 trader, I'm here to tell you, if there is a Market, there is a derivative market.
OF COURSE OTC, OTCBB stocks can be shorted...you can short SFOR, you can buy SFOR calls...you can sell puts or sell calls (writing contracts)
The key is your margin account balance.
You have to have very deep pockets to short penny stocks.
Many online brokerages WILL allow OTC stocks to be shorted but they require you to maintain minimum balances which are quite high and vary from brokerage to brokerage.
Shorting an OTC, or OTCBB stock can be done but it's ULTRAHAZARDOUS because many OTC stocks are thinly traded and can become illiquid.
This problem can make getting out of a bad trade nearly impossible.
(One fix...is this:
Say you're shorting SFOR...and it's climbing...it's freaking killing you.
You're an L3 trader. You communicate with other L3 traders. L3 traders are MM's. They not only accept and process orders, but they, and they alone can also input, directly, via the DAT, their own trades.
So they start a sell off. They also start a vicious rumor...suddenly, SFOR drops intraday from $0.0056 all the way to $0.0017. Viola! You COVER that bad short position and guess what happens when you cover (covering is essentially buying the shares) ...the share price rises to say...$0.0034 or so... A-La SFOR...
Hmmmmm doesn't this story sound a little familiar? Almost like something like this recently happened to SFOR.
There are many hazards to shorting a penny stock... Liquidity is one, and frankly, a spike like what we saw (and many of us benefited from) with SFOR to $0.0056 can destroy a short. Seriously!
Like this:
Imagine one day you've got $100,000.00 in your account dedicated towards trading SFOR. THIS IS NOT YOUR ENTIRE ACCOUNT BALANCE!
It is simply the portion of your account you've dedicated towards any SFOR position
(Seriously...who in their right mind dedicates 100% of an account to ONE HAIL MARY STOCK?...am I right, or am I right ???)
In order to short SFOR, you have to have (I've seen the brokerage fees range from $0.99 PER SHARE SHORT, all the way up to $12.99 per share short) a margin account and a balance THAT meets your brokerages minimum short fee balance...
Example:
Let's average the two prices...$7.00 PER SHARE SHORT!
Not per contract (contracts consist of increments of 100 shares)
You want to short 10,000 shares.
Your minimum balance to short SFOR would be $70,000.00.
Now you have to ADD the cost of each contract...
BOOM! You can see how a short OTC position can quickly get expensive.
You went short with a strike of $0.0020.
You wake up one day, and SFOR is trading in the $0.0040's and $0.0050's.
Guess what happens?
YOU ARE GETTING MARGIN CALLS !
YOU ARE BEING TOLD THAT IF YOU DONT DEPOSIT, (what could be millions in losses) your position will be liquidated and you'll be on the hook FOR QUITE POSSIBLY MORE MONEY THAN YOU HAVE IN YOUR ENTIRE ACCOUNT....
(This is where the term "unlimited losses" really hits home.)
Meaning you now have to "throw the baby out with the bath water" and sell good positions to cover this bad messed up trade...
So?
What do you do?
You coordinate with other L3's and MM's.
You start a rumor...
There's a flash crash
You cover
You thank god you're doing this illegal crap on the OTC with SFOR, because you know if you did this to an NDAQ stock or NYSE stock, you'd be indicted within a month.
So, dear SFOR'ers, yes! You can short OTC/OTCBB stocks.
You can even keep on shorting SFOR if you want...
But just remember this:
Once bitten, twice shy.
The next time SFOR rallies, it's going to take a lot more than a L3 generated rumor, and MM initiated sells to get a flash crash like what SFOR saw recently. Many traders won't be fooled again.
Insert educated smiley face here
No need to go back further.
I didn't own Strikeforce before then...
Wanna know why?
Because it seemed like every time you turned around in 2015 they had a "post R/S" ticker symbol...we're ready at any moment to have convertibles convert and dilute the shareholders.
It was all in black and white in their 2014/2015 filings.
Any REAL DD includes scanning AND UNDERSTANDING quarterly and annual filings along with 8k's.
SFOR investors who never bothered to read the filings and opted instead for their fill of DD elsewhere probably got caught up in at least three Reverse Splits and literally billions of shares in dilution.
The good news?
I'm here, now. Been here for a few months.
Wanna know why I'm here, trading and investing in SFOR?
I'm here because the R/S's, while painful to those who sat numbly through them, are over. Those nasty toxic notes? They're gone.
SFOR has $1.5 million (MRQ) in the bank. Q3 will show a dramatic revenue increase. Hopefully SG&A will have stalled. And hopefully, their balance sheet will show reduced LTD.
That's why I'm here.
Insert smiley face here
Haaaaaa
SFOR? They've got 5 billion shares A/S. Of those 5 BILLION shares AUTHORIZED, they've only used 2.3 billion.
"A buyout could come AT ANY TIME"
"Don't miss the boat"
"Avoid future regret"
A SHARE OFFERING COULD COME AT ANY TIME TOO!
(*note to haters* I don't really believe a share offering is on the table right now, but I'm pretty sure my point is clear = everyone is claiming "good news is coming" while bad news may be coming as well.)
I swear!
"So many who know so little swear they know so many things!"
"It is better not to know so much, than to know so many things that ain’t so."
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."
Bad things can happen just as easily as good things and they're more likely in penny, stinky pinky land than anywhere else.
SFOR, in their MRQ showed a 52% increase in revenue when compared to the same quarter last year.That sounds great right?
Well, that's just a fraction of the story.
SFOR, in that same quarter, saw the cost of revenue climb compared to the same last year, and they saw their cost of operations climb compared to the same quarter last year.
SFOR saw executive compensation rise compared to the same quarter last year.
SFOR saw SG&A COSTS MORE THAN DOUBLE when compared to the same quarter last year.
The same holds true for several items when compared QoQ. While revenue rose, so did other comparisons.
SFOR also has $1.667 million in the bank right?
That's awesome right?
Well, hold on a second...at the end of Q1 this year they had over $2.144 million in the bank.
WHERE EXACTLY DID nearly $500,000.00 GO!
They had $120,000.00 in revenue this quarter and burned through EVERY PENNY OF REVENUE PLUS$500,000.00?
So:
SFOR is currently operating at a loss and burning through cash.
At this rate, they'll be out of cash or close to it by this year UNLESS they dramatically increase sales AND revenue WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY keeping the cost of revenue low AND the cost of operations low. You can't have both of those climb in tandem with revenue or no matter how much revenue increases QoQ, or YoY, you'll see cash drop, and operating losses continue.
There is NO METRIC out there when trying to find the true value of a stock that currently supports the current share price, let alone these wild SFOR predictions of $0.05, $0.10, or $1.00.
SFOR's revenues would have to SKYROCKET (this would be an 8k reportable event as it's material to shareholders) before SFOR could be WORTH a legitimate $0.05 and there is no foreseeable event that would bring SFOR's valuation to $1.00 other than a bonafide "pump and dump".
Claims of $30-$40 million dollars per settlement, per each of the three current lawsuits. One prediction called that number low and predicts $100 million per each lawsuit.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Those predictions are baseless and have zero merit. They are nothing more than the accumulated frothy hype here on the SFOR board.
NO ONE, AT THIS POINT CAN ACCURATELY PREDICT THE OUTCOME. EVERYONE CAN ONLY GUESS.
"Those who have knowledge, don't predict(guess), those who predict (guess), don't have knowledge"
NOW? Anyone out still scratching their head wondering why SFOR ain't zooming "to copper or silver or green" land?
Anyone out there still wondering why there is pressure on SFOR stock on nearly a daily basis in between press releases?
Anyone out there still scratching their head wondering why SFOR stock can't keep gains after a press release?
(QoQ = quarter over quarter...in other words I'm comparing a current quarter to the last reported quarter)
(MRQ = Most Recent Quarter. This is always a reference to the last quarter that was reported. It is never the quarter that you're actually in. SFOR is in Q3. Their MRQ would be Q2)
(YoY = Year over Year. This abbreviation refers to the same quarter this year compared to the exact same quarter from on year prior. Q2 saw a 52% increase in revenue YoY: you're comparing 2016 Q2 to 2015 Q2)
Insert I'm not sure I belong here smiley face here
Does anyone else think it's weird that SFOR is trading lower?
I mean first the bid was $0.0042. Then the bid was $0.0041. Now the bid is at $0.0040.
I guess I just don't understand. I mean...I hear things like "10 million share SFOR bid support"
I've done my DD and read EVERY SINGLE SFOR DD post (that's all that DD is right? Just read the stickies and repeated DD posts on SFOR?)
I guess after all my DD...after all the claims of Bid support and how "thin it is for SFOR all the way to $0.00.64", I just guess I thought it would only "go higher from here".
I wonder if anyone has ever been sued for acting like a investment advisor...even claiming to manage others accounts and having been a professional...
Hmmmm
Anywhoo...
Good luck to SFOR today.
Insert dumbstruck smiley face here
SAY WHAT?!
You mean to tell me! I mean YOU MEAN TO TELL ME, that someone trading a stinky pinky stock like SFOR claimed "BIG NEWS MONDAY PRE-MARKET" and it didn't happen?
Ohhhh the humanity.
If shenanigans like this continue, before you know it, you won't be able to invest your life savings into SFOR based on the claims made by relatively an anonymous SFOR message board contributors.
Insert sarcastic smiley face here
YOU CANNOT LOCK UP SFOR SHARES WITH GTC ORDERS!
IT IS A RETAIL TRADERS MYTH!
Two ways to make sure your shares cannot be borrowed:
1.) Cash account only, margin trading not enabled.
This is a type of account that cannot be borrowed from, period!
According to the SEC in 2000, 2008, and 2013, and FINRA's latest ruling on the matter in 2013 it is criminally illegal for brokerages to borrow from a cash account.
2.) you have a margin account? Okay, call your brokerage and request an L.E.R.
This is a "Loan Exempt Restriction".
This nulls their ability to short your shares.
They may give you the run-a-round at first but they have to give it to you.
You see, when you signed up, you were probably given several pages of legalese and industry jargon. In your excitement to become a trader, you willingly signed everything...because they told you "you have to sign this".
Here is T.D. Ameritrade's:
https://laserapp.orcasnet.com/pdfs/%7B1C654661-3869-413F-A2A7-9DD93186CCBE%7D.pdf
Here is etrade's: (page 7 especially) where they explain that margin account equities are owned by Etrade...fine print stuff)
https://content.etrade.com/etrade/estation/pdf/Brokerage_account_kit.pdf
I'm not going to hyperlink every known brokerage... Just google "xyzbrokerage loan pledge agreement " or "xyzbrokerage full application" and you'll find it...probably under margin agreement. It will be a signature page.
So when they slipped you a "Loan or Pledge" agreement...they probably just glossed over this lil fella and signed it.
Well, by signing it, you gave them permission to borrow your shares.
So, a L.E.R. Revokes that authorization.
Here:
Www.finra.org/industry/regulation/rulefilings/2013/p322520
Now THIS IS STRAIGHT FROM FINRA!
Any other website OR PERSON telling you otherwise is JUST WRONG!
You're welcome
Insert smiley face here
You're missing the point...
Here:
Copy and save the following and then paste into a Google search bar to read the whole article:
"According to recent data from eMarketer, Walmart is the second largest U.S. online retailer, with $12.5 billion in sales in the last year (the figure is $13.5 billion globally)"
Okay... So Walmart BRICK AND MORTAR STORES aren't receiving shipments of Guarded ID...
But THROUGH THE SECOND LARGEST ONLINE MARKET, a person can stumble across Guarded ID.
I get it...you're railing against the folks here who are misrepresenting the Walmart Association. I'm on your side as far as that goes.
That said, I'm on the other side of the fence than you where you make a distinction that it ISNT WALMARTS PRODUCT!
Walmart brick and mortar AND Walmart.Com SELLS OVER TEN MILLION PRODUCTS THAT AREN'T THEIRS! WALMART CLEARLY EXPLAINS THIS.
BUT THE FACT IS THAT WALMART IS THE SECOND LARGEST ONLINE MARKETPLACE...
Now, I gotta ask;
If you were considering buying SFOR or if you were long SFOR, HOW IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU LOOK AT IT AS A BAD THING? How is it bad THAT BILLIONS OF PEOPLE ON THE PLANET HAVE ACCESS TO INTERNET, and some, just some of them may stumble across SFOR's product at Walmart.com?
Is it bad that they're indirect sellers? Or would it be worse if you went to Walmart.com and couldn't find SFOR'S product?
FACT: YOU CAN BUY GUARDED ID THROUGH THE TWO LARGEST ONLINE RETAILERS:
#1. Amazon.com
#2. Walmart.com
GOOGLE the part in quotes or follow this link to the article. It's from Fortune.com covering an analysts recent opinion regarding one of Walmarts most recent quarters.
http://fortune.com/2016/05/20/the-silver-lining-in-walmarts-slowing-e-commerce-growth/
Insert smiley face here and get over it already
Lower lows... Lower highs on the intraday.
Yes, she'll see red
No matter to me, I sold the $0.0043/0.0044's for an average 12.7% profit... Not bad for a Thursday morning.
Insert "flipper" face here
(It's a smiley face... Retail says "dirty mean ol flippers)
Wall Street? We call ourselves traders.
Here's what I know:
3 days ago SFOR released a really great 10Q.
I had written that I'd be shocked if they released a 10Q without an NT..
AND THEY DID IT!
They broke a super long streak of being late with their filings AND they released a 10Q without an NT and that 10Q showed a great cash position, and higher revenues. That 10Q showed their share structure hadn't changed. That 10Q showed their debt picture hadn't worsened.
I wrote it then, and I'll say it again now:
That was a damned fine 10Q.
That being said, the company is trading like it's worth around $7,000,000.00 and it's actually only worth $1,000,000.00.
It's easy to see how today's $0.0035's can quickly go back to $0.0008
Insert smiley face here
Remind me...how is selling for a profit being gutless or being a moron?
My bad...my decades as a successful trader have clearly been a waste.
This whole time, I thought the idea was to buy a stock and then sell it when it's made you money.
Apparently, I'm wrong. SFOR investors have it all figured out. Apparently you're supposed to buy SFOR and then hold it no matter what.
Apparently you're supposed to watch your SFOR position make you money, that you can spend on stuff, and then watch those profits disappear until you don't have money to spend on stuff.
Sheesh... This whole time I've had it wrong.
Insert profitable smiley face here
If you buy SFOR here at $0.0032 you'll find out by tomorrow that you overpaid.
"Ohhhhh SFOR is that one in ten thousand OTC company"
No! They're not. When they continually file NT's, they are that one in ten thousand that is just like every other 9,999 OTC companies.
$0.0032 is a price tag that's too high.
$0.0032 is like me gluing a Ferrari sticker onto a Volkswagen.
Insert smiley face here
Sell now SFOR traders.
0.0035 was your HOD.
Sell now (I just sold 2 million) and buy back after SFOR files their NT.
After they file their NT this stock will be cut in half before they file their 10Q.
SFOR will drop after they file their 10Q.
It will show reduced cash but higher revenue from sales...the cost of sales will have climbed though.
Once the SFOR 10Q is out in the third week of August SFOR stock will be priced right and ready to buy ahead of nonsense press releases.
Insert smiley face here
I don't disagree that it's a strong event play...
Since you and I agree on that point, you'd agree there are good events and bad ones right?
A NT filing next week is a BAD thing.
It'll be their umpteenth (seriously, I looked as far back as I cared to and saw more CONSECUTIVE NT 10Q's then you can shake a stick at.
I've said it before...
When it comes to small, non accelerated filers, the markets can shrug off NT 10K's because they're heavily audited and take a lot more time and money to generate.
But a 10Q is not an audited document. 10Q's basically help investors keep up to date with company events in between the 10K's. That's why when a company files a NT for their Q it's an enormous red flag. 10Q's aren't audited, they take far less time and far less money to generate and so a company and their "house" must be terribly managed if they have to file an NT ahead of their Q and a company has to be terribly mis-managed to file Q after Q after Q after Q after Q after Q after Q of NT's and in between all those Q's they file NT 10k's every single year.
Q's and K's aren't surprises you know? Publicly traded companies all know their due dates.
SFOR can't claim they don't have the money this time around SO IF THEY FILE an NT ahead of their Q how bad will that appear?
Look...
I would be absolutely thrilled if SFOR files their 10Q on time!
Man ! That'd be soooo freaking hot...
But it's basically the 11th hour and they haven't filed yet, so I think it'd be absurd to expect them to not file yet another NT.
I hope that big positives follow an NT...I just think it's more likely they file an NT before any of the more positive catalysts are announced late August and through the balance of the year.
Insert smiley face here.
An EOD RUSH TO GET IN?
I swear, the chart I'm looking at says SFOR.
Are there two SFOR's?
I see a HOD of $0.0036. Which means SFOR wasn't able to breach yesterday's high. SFOR was shut down ahead of that milestone today.
I see a low here today that's lower than every session this week where a low was halted from falling further on Tuesday because of a press release.
So... I'm no chartist(actually I am) but pretty sure it's called lower highs and lower lows.
What it boils down to for me is this:
Traders this week were willing to take a chance that the press release would have bigger legs than it did. Those same traders, myself included simply don't want to be holding a bag full of shares when SFOR files their umpteenth consecutive NT early next week.
This week had some great trades in SFOR, but selling today and yesterday is very simple...they're not profits if you don't keep them.
As for an EOD Rush to get in before the close goes? I really have never seen the point in making crap up to rationalize a long bias or holding very tradable shares into the weekend.
Insert smiley face here
I don't think it'll drop back to trips because of panic, rather it'll drop back to trips because it never should have gotten to $0.0056 to begin with.
At $0.0056 SFOR had a market cap of $12,900,000.00.
Just FYI...their most recent quarter showed they earned EIGHTYSIX THOUSAND DOLLARS!
Quick math time:
$12.9 million divided by $86 thousand equals???
It equals 150!!!
SFOR WAS TRADING AT 150 times their revenue!!!!
At $0.0031 SFOR has a market cap just over $7 million and is trading at a whopping 83 X revenue!
That's like AAPL trading at $8100.00 per share!
I like AAPL. I like SFOR... But I'm not going to pay $8100 for a share of AAPL and I'm not going to pay $0.0031 for a share of SFOR.
SFOR is going back to the trips because it shouldn't have left the trips to begin with.
Don't even get me started on their SOON TO BE LATE 10Q either!
Sheesh!
If you think the close at $0.0031 was some fluke...some old guy panicked and sold at $0.0031, I've got news for you.
If you think $0.0031 is a value, wait until SFOR files their umpteenth in a row NT10Q.
If you think $0.0031 is a value, just wait til that NT comes out. You'll be looking at SFOR at $0.0015 and drooling...
Then they'll release their 10Q on the 5th day at the 11th hour and you'll be looking at SFOR in the trips...which is right where a company that can't get their crap together belongs.
Nope.
$0.0037 is the SFOR ceiling today.
Just like $0.0038 was the ceiling yesterday.
You're seeing lower highs.
Ahead of the NT filing you'll see continuing lower highs.
When SFOR files their NT, the stock will crash much lower.
I've been selling the $0.0035's all morning and from the looks of it, I was lucky to get $0.0035 because there were no buyers at $0.0036.
As I'm typing this, I see I've had to adjust my sell order to $0.0034 and I'll be lucky to get that...most likely my last 2 million shares will go at a $0.0033 or $0.0034 price.
Insert smiley face here
No...
If you were paying attention, I sold sub $0.0010 position in the $0.0040's and $0.0050's.
So I blew your 200% profit out of the water
I sold. I sold my $0.0022's yesterday. And I sold my $0.0026's today.
I booked 40% profit on my $0.0022's and I booked 20% profit on my $0.0026's.
Exactly how much regret are you suggesting I should be feeling?
Insert idiotic grin here
Hey?
Where is SFOR's resident chart guy?
Ohhhhh if only it were as simple as putting a 20 day MA on a chart and comparing its moves to the RSI.
We would all be technicians if it were that simple.
My opinion on SFOR?
Well, we know there is a historical precedence where the stock is sold off ahead of the 10Q.
$0.0038 is today's hi.
It's the highest the stock will be ahead of their 10Q. $0.0031 is today's low. SFOR will fall by half of today's low which puts SFOR at near $0.0015 before the 10Q.
It'll fall back into the trip 0's after the 10Q.
Speculative.
Not investment worthy.
Not true
First, anyone with half an education in Regulation FD should know that the SEC strictly prohibits Selective Disclosure.
Basically, selective disclosure is where insiders select who gets MATERIAL information and through which transmission type and ignores the process wherein all investors get the same material information at the same time.
In other words, if Mr. Kay were relaying information material to the shareholders, investors and presumably the stock price via "selective disclosure" then he'd be subject to restrictions from various regulatory bodies (SEC, FINRA, FASB, NASD, etc.
While its discouraged for a CEO to use an alias on a message board, they can do it. Mr. Kay, in emails and in posts here has said, to a dubious crowd, "I am Mr. Kay. Thefacts1 and I are one in the same". He has effectively reduced his alias to nothing more than a nickname no better or worse than Big Papa.
*REGULATION FAIR DISCLOSURE*
(RFD)
Mr. Kay in email responses and in posts here DID NOT RELEASE any material information.
He:
1.) reiterated SFOR's stated position on a reverse split. SFOR has stated in prior press releases and interviews that SFOR has no plans for an R/S. REITERATING WHAT IS ALREADY PUBLIC INFORMATION violates no part of RFD.
2.) reiterated previously disclosed aspects of SFOR most recent quarter (MRQ) financials.
3.) rebutted a rumor.
Those items do not violate RFD. So good luck with the sec witch hunt.
The SEC started RFD in 2000. It stayed virtually the same for over a decade. With the emerging popularity of social media outlets, the SEC adopted new acceptable outlets about 3 and half years ago.
Basically, it says a CEO can use social media as long as it's investors know that they'll use social media and their associated websites (associated company websites) as well as Press Releases and 8K's to release MATERIAL information.
The key here is "material information".
Mr. Kay, to my knowledge, did not release material information.
Make no mistake, I discourage the use of Ihub, by CEO's, especially when they use an alias. It can create far more problems than it prevents. While his historical use of Ihub may have helped assuage concerned investors, it also created a hostile environment of doubt and raised credibility concerns with regards to selective disclosure.
I routinely am in contact with CEO's of companies am invested in. As an activist investor, it's my role to keep communication channels open, free of clutter, and respectful on questions I can ask, or that they can answer.
Several SFOR investors have taken the time to cultivate an open channel with Mr. Kay via telephone, or email and I applaud their efforts.
While I applaud their efforts and their willingness to share, they should know that unless EXPRESSLY STATED in each correspondence, Mr. Kay may not be giving explicit permission to share.
It's not to say "don't share because this is insider stuff" but rather perhaps Mr. Kay is aware he's not always got the best grammar. Perhaps he doesn't want personal, non business topics accidentally shared. Mr. Kay DOES NOT have to be sharing privileged, insider information just because he asks a correspondence not to be shared. Get it?
To point a fact, one correspondence from MONTHS AGO, purportedly from Mr. Kay said in the text that he did not wish for his correspondences to be repeated. To point a second fact, in many emails from Mr. Kay, there is an explicit warning at the bottom to NOT share and that the email is intended solely for the recipient. It's a pretty standard disclosure these days.
At the end of the day, the burden to know what is material, and what isn't material, rests on his shoulders. To that point, I've seen nothing to suggest he's violated RFD in any way.
*LIBEL, SLANDER, & THE SEC*
Any person suggesting that they've contacted the SEC with allegations of wrongdoing on Mr. Kay's behalf should be aware of the following:
1.) message boards are notorious for slander, libel, and defamation of a CEO's character. It's so rampant that there are few and far between any examples of a company suing a message board participant. It has happened though. A CEO has sought, and brought suits against particularly malevolent posters.
2.) If you've sent documents to the SEC and accused Mr. Kay of any wrongdoing, that is a matter all unto itself where Mr. Kay would have every right to sue for slander, libel, or defamation of character if any damages occurred from your accusation.
3.) if you've sent documents to the SEC and IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM DEFAMED, SLANDERED, or were LIBELOUS towards Mr. Kay I would lose some sleep if I were you.
I don't know Mr. Kay, but I know last weeks carnage wiped about $9 million dollars off SFOR's market cap. At $0.0056 the market cap was roughly $12,900,000.00. The intraday low after the bear raid was roughly $4,000,000.00.
If you think for a second that Mr. Kay won't vigorously defend himself and SFOR against libel, slander, or defamation of character then I'd suggest you have no idea what it's like to lose $9,000,000.00 in one afternoon after a maliciously false attack. If the SEC contacts him, it won't be about the screenshot of the email. The SEC would know immediately he'd done nothing wrong as he didn't violate RFD. If they contact him, it'll be because someone was dumb enough to attach other, unfounded, libelous accusations of fraud and the SEC doesn't care for people who defame, or slander or commit libel against anyone...especially CEO's.
Insert smiley face here.
Yes!
MSFT could have!
YES!
MSFT maybe could have WON! We will NEVER EVER KNOW THE OUTCOME OF A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO THAT YOU'VE CREATED BECAUSE...in a nutshell...IT NEVER CAME TO PASS AND DID NOT HAPPEN!
MSFT didn't win. They didn't "obliterate" SFOR. They settled. They said "let's just pay them".
Do you even LISTEN TO YOURSELF?
MSFT paid out!
"Oh...if MSFT woulda taken them to court, if MSFT woulda, or coulda done this or that or this or that" then SFOR wouldn't have a dime!
Sheesh dude!
Get a GRIP!
MSFT DID PAY...
Did they pay the 100's of millions that some here thought?
NOPE!
Read my posts on the settlement amount. You'll see that my estimations were spot on and the actual settlement amount was well within my estimations. You'll also see that my estimations were posted, several times, well ahead of the press release and well ahead of Q1 numbers.
You are literally basing your speculation ON CRAP THAT DIDNT HAPPEN?
That's not forward looking speculation buddy... That's "I hate SFOR because they're the reason a suck as a trader because I lost big time" rhetoric.
Insert smiley face here