Survive. Thrive.
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.
It would be foolish to not discount those factors, given that, he has been a non factor up to this point. The very fact that they are using FONU to do this suggests that it will continue to be much of the same.
That question would be quite pertinent if FONU actually had the cash to pay for it...
As it is, I suspect that it will be a non issue.
Effingham County IDA must be thrilled to be the pawn in a OTC microcap asset game.
It is beyond amusing at this point.
When I passed by the Old River Road exit coming back from a weekend getaway late Sunday night, I could not help but think of the MDNT story.
It is amusing that the Effingham County IDA has continued to hope and pray that the money magically comes from somewhere. Maybe the answer lies in the fact that while the port area is growing fairly fast, it really isn't as if property is in that high of demand that far out from Savannah yet. It very well could be if growth continues but, there is a reason that Medient was able to get their foot in the door in the first place and keep it there far longer than it has made sense to stay.
The amazing part of it all is that a significant amount of people continue to pay $42 a month for what, imo, is a completely worthless service.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
In this situation though, it appears that the clock skillfully maneuvers to be wrong on a consistent basis. Perhaps one day it will slip up and accidentally be right.
Making the call? No, just stating the obvious.
Investment bankers would not touch this anyway, no matter how big the RS. Toxic financing can and does happen at all price levels, it is the reason for most reverse splits. Toxic debt is piled on, the stock is converted and sold all the way down. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Perhaps an angel investor will swoop in and provide a large amount of capital. Barring that unlikely possibility, there are no viable ways of raising capital. There is no solution.
Don't get distracted by the ownership of common shares by management, it is almost meaningless. Toxic debt, issuance of new shares, preferred share conversions, all matter so much more.
How will a RS turn MDNT into a real company? The same people responsible for its destruction from $.20 a couple of years ago (ex Manu), are still involved and running it. So, a rs that brings it back to $.10 is supposed to make it all good?
I'm not here to re debate all of these issues. It isn't as if there really is a debate to be had. What has occurred with MDNT has been obvious for a long time. I just cannot believe it when I see someone telling people that they should beg Finra for RS approval. Thus, I found it difficult to keep my mouth shut.
Good luck.
One grey market stock worse than MDNT did it recently, I was quite surprised.
Somehow, IMJN slipped through and Finra approved it.
If FONU's shareholders believe that the pending RS will affect them positively, they are in for quite a surprise.
Regurgitating boring old pump one liners will not wake ICTY from the dead. But, if you bought 200 million shares on the open tomorrow...
That might work.
The only way that trading liquidity matters is for toxic financing. But, toxic financiers have no interest in grey market securities anyway. Jake has falsely represented that a rs would result in the resumption of quotation. Unfortunately, that assumption is completely false and could not be more misleading.
Beg for a RS on a no liquidity grey market security? That is akin to begging to have a sentence amended from life in prison to the guillotine.
Former head of risk at MS involved too. I hope that more specifics come out, impressive feat.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-22/morgan-stanley-names-heaney-rooney-to-lead-fixed-income-unit.html
With Only $200K Left, Canarsie Hedge Fund Unwinds
Formed by the former head of risk at Morgan Stanley, the fund lost nearly all of its $60 million in less than a month.
Well, that was fast. The Wall Street Journal reports that a hedge fund run by a former head of risk for Morgan Stanley and a 28-year old trader from Galleon Fund Management lost all but $200,000 of its $60 million assets in three weeks. Yes, less than a month.
In the annals of hedge fund flameouts, this has to be a record.
According to the Journal, Canarsie Capital imploded in less than a month but the reasons are unclear. In a letter to investors - one of whom included Richard Axelrod of Moore Capital Management - Canarsie fund manager Kenneth deRegt wrote expressing, “sorrow and deep regret for engaging in a series of transactions over the last several weeks that have resulted in the loss of all but two hundred thousand dollars.”
According to the letter, Owen Li, the former trader at Galleon, has stepped down and deRegt will oversee the unwinding of the Canarsie fund.
Later in the letter, the former Morgan Stanley head of risk wrote, “I acted overzealously.”
One gem from the WSJ article includes a warning from deRegt’s former employer: “In March, Morgan Stanley, Carnarsie’s sole prime broker, executing and financing the fund’s trades, told the fund it was uncomfortable with its risk practices, people close to the situation say. Canarsie at the time hired an independent consultant to look into Morgan Stanley’s concerns, one person familiar with the firm said.”
http://www.tradersmagazine.com/news/buyside/with-only-200k-left-canarsie-hedge-fund-unwinds-113380-1.html
Manager 'truly sorry' for blowing up hedge fund
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102356275
I suspect that it is actually a case of fraud, but, maybe he did blow it out via a series of failed high risk option trades.
Yeah, although, anything can always go up in the short term even if it probably going to be basically worthless in the end. I just thought it was strange to use the $17 number given that everything has changed.
My understanding is weak? Perhaps you should read and understand the terms of the $300 million loan.
Surely you realize how ridiculous a post like that is given what transpired at FXCM last week.
Yes, I have gone through a significant amount of pain in the past, no denying that.
Some people like to gamble, but, I've always only loved to play the game and do it well. So, blowing up twice was especially painful, even though, both were a relatively small $ amounts.
While it is their fault, they assumed that stop losses would work. However, they missed the fact that market liquidity can suddenly dry up. In that regards, I do feel for those that were caught in the mess. It is one thing to lose all of your money in a learning experience. It is another thing entirely to suddenly owe a large amount.
So, I feel no schadenfreude. While my painful times were years ago, the present good, the future extremely bright, scars will remain forever.
I screwed up on that number and corrected, sorry.
Sorry, not corrected well enough lol. 146,666 off of an initial short at the 1.20 EUR/CHF peg on 20,000 leveraged at 50:1.
Theoretically 293,333 at the depth of the turmoil but, it leveled back out at about parity when liquidity returned after touching .80 chf/eur.
The exact numbers don't really matter yeah, gruesome indeed.
I think that I've made more technical mistakes in this series of posts than I have in a long time. I'll shut up now lol.
Oh well, even Christine Lagarde of the IMF was displeased and shocked by the move.
Citi's head of European Fx sales got the boot the day after, had to have something to do with it given that Citi was hit for 150 mil.
I just feel bad for the people that opened fx accounts because of the ads and are now owing brokers a significant amount of money. One broker forgave negative balances but I doubt that many others will.
At least in the OTC they get the long period of believing that it will all work out ok when the short squeeze occurs lol.
It must be brutal to go from $20,000 in an account to potentially owing $180,000. 2000 pips at 50:1 leverage is no joke. I feel bad for the families that could easily be torn apart by it all. That part is sad to me.
It could have been me 5-10 years ago...
I'm sure that some did although we may not know who all did until later, if at all. This paragraph tells all really.
Similarly, a forex options trader at a large brokerage who trades on the CME floor in Chicago said his firm stopped trading options in the Swiss franc a few weeks ago because overall volumes were increasing, leading the firm to think something was imminent. CME volume in Swiss franc futures in December was 1.15 million contracts, up 38 percent from November and 64 percent greater than December 2013.
Somewhat yes, although, Nite's nightmare was self inflicted. In the forex market, the most liquid market in the world, everyone felt safe. Then, suddenly, there was no market and no way to close heavily leveraged positions. Amazing how much money was lost in a few seconds.
Sort of sad that retail can even trade fx with leverage up to 50x in the US, even higher other places. Ironic that FXCM led the fight to keep the CFTC from imposing a 10x leverage limit back in 2010.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/17/this-is-just-too-lovely-about-fxcm-just-too-lovely-for-words/
But, even the masters of the universe aren't always wiser. This fund was crushed spectacularly although, it wasn't the only one to feel the pain.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-17/swiss-franc-trade-is-said-to-wipe-out-everest-s-main-fund.html
While a few small forex brokers were completely wiped out, almost every one of them had losses with a fair number of clients having negative balances.
http://news.yahoo.com/broker-alpari-uk-declares-insolvency-swiss-franc-losses-113604328.html
I
Actually, Leucadia bailed them out with a $300m loan. It wasn't a sweetheart deal though, vulture financing at its finest.
The surprise SNB move turned a muppet facilitator into the ultimate muppet.
They are blowing, that is for sure lol.
He should have been held accountable years ago, it has been wash rinse repeat for years. The PRs sound like they come out of a template, apparently, it is too hard for Shaun to imagine a new pr style. But, why would he I suppose, this one works ok. Even if, it is simple and ridiculous.
Unfortunately, Shaun only knows how to distribute EPAZ shares...
I'm mean that literally, not just in technical terms.
Fascinating. SEC Charges Canadian Man With Conducting Fraudulent Trading Scheme
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2015-4
Washington D.C., Jan. 13, 2015 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a man living in Ontario, Canada, with orchestrating a lucrative market manipulation scheme that relied on “layering” in which a trader places orders solely to trick others into buying or selling U.S. publicly traded stocks at artificially inflated or depressed prices.
In a complaint filed in federal court in Newark, N.J., the SEC alleges that since at least January 2013, Aleksandr Milrud recruited online traders chiefly based in China and Korea and shared in the profits the traders made from manipulative trading in U.S. securities markets. Milrud provided the traders with access to trading accounts and technology and instructed them on how to avoid regulatory scrutiny while engaging in layering strategies. The SEC’s complaint also alleges that to distance himself from certain transactions, Milrud wired funds to an offshore bank account and had the money delivered to him in a suitcase filled with cash.
In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey today announced criminal charges against Milrud.
“Layering is a deceptive practice to trick others into buying or selling a stock at artificially inflated or depressed prices,” said Daniel M. Hawke, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Market Abuse Unit. “No matter where they are located, we continue to identify and investigate those whose trading practices threaten to undermine the fair operation of the U.S. securities markets.”
According to the SEC’s complaint, Milrud inserted numerous middlemen into his scheme in an effort to evade detection. He had his traders use multiple computers, Internet protocol (IP) addresses, and user names. Traders were provided at least two accounts, one to do what Milrud called “the dirty work” of layering and one to execute what he termed “clean” trades at prices affected by the dirty work of the first account. Milrud instructed the traders to conduct layering on a wide variety of stocks while limiting the number of trades and the price changes, hoping to minimize attention to the manipulative trading.
“Milrud’s elaborate efforts to disguise this manipulative trading scheme were ultimately unsuccessful,” said Joseph G. Sansone, Co-Deputy Chief of the SEC’s Market Abuse Unit. “His scheme was uncovered and he must now face the consequences of his actions.”
The SEC’s complaint charges Milrud with violating and aiding and abetting violations of anti-fraud provisions of federal securities laws and the SEC’s antifraud rule, and with liability for the conduct of the traders under his management. The SEC is seeking a final judgment ordering Milrud to return his allegedly ill-gotten gains with interest plus penalties and permanently barring him from future violations.
The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, is being conducted by Simona Suh, Barry P. O’Connell, A. Kristina Littman, and Lynn H. O’Connor of the Market Abuse Unit and by Elzbieta Wraga of the New York Regional Office. The case is being supervised by Mr. Hawke, Mr. Sansone, and Steven D. Buchholz of the Market Abuse Unit. The SEC’s litigation will be led by Nancy A. Brown, Ms. Suh, and Mr. O’Connell. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Newark Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
Complaint
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2015/comp-pr2015-4.pdf
Hope that you remembered all of your passwords lol.
I really need to just have a password wallet or something, sick of changing passwords for days after doing something like that. I always forget what they were.
I'm sure that this has been suggested and that you have tried it but, if not, wipe your cookies in Chrome as well.
Edit: I see that CBM essentially suggested that...
What diversity? The business from the beginning has been simple, you can see in the historical chart along with historical press releases.
ICTY always provides a certain level of entertainment, even when it is dead
What do I need to see?
If you think that this is about a ego sword fight, you are mistaken. I have no ego, I do not care about all of that nor, do I feel like you or I need to prove anything. I only disputed what you passed off as factual because it needed to be corrected.
The only trades filled were sell orders... you never got buys at .00005 . Proof in my hands.
Anybody can get their sells orders filled at lower than .0001 if the institution is buying higher than what the ask is at from other institutions. We do that and take the small loss instead of losing a huge order from a huge client.... It's all in customer service.
In general terms yes, I suppose that I was confirming what you were saying. I never disputed that the real market is only 4 decimal places out due to quotation limitations. Technically though, there were inconsistencies that needed to be addressed.
Initially I was just pointing out that you can potentially lose everything if you buy .0001 due to what will likely occur if a rs happens. Thus, your position value can fall dramatically from where it is now at .0001.
As to whether any retail gets filled at the 5th or 6th decimal place, I have traded over a thousand OTC tickers over the years, but, have only been filled at the 5th decimal place twice. Both occurred via pure luck on limit orders placed at .0001, not planned.
For me, ICTY is just a dead lousy pos. If you believe in the future so much and want a rs, plenty of .0001s are for sale. Have fun buying them all.
I would be happy with $.123456!
Pre reverse split that is, I do not live in the fantasy world where that pps post reverse split is amazing.
Consider this a free educational link
http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p124501.pdf
You can see by that date that trades that far out have been allowed, the reporting just changed with the new data feed.
That does not mean that real markets effectively trade at more than 4 decimal places. I am not suggesting that. Just saying that trades can be reported that far out.
For more reading, thoroughly perusing this links should helpful as well.
An excerpt:
Q101.9: How many decimal places should a member use when reporting the price on trade reports?
A101.9: Members should report as many decimal places as the FINRA Facility permits, as specified by the applicable technical specifications. Thus, for example, if a member executes a trade at 10.123456 and the FINRA Facility permits entries up to six decimal places, then the member should report 10.123456.
So you are going to guarantee that if a person buys at .0001 now, they will absolutely lose nothing if ICTY does a reverse split?
Of course I know how the quotation and trading mechanism works. Even on that, you are actually mistaken, trades can occur 6 decimal places out, however, quotes are limited to 4. That has always been the case but the trade reporting changed late last year when Finra changed their trade data feed, thus, you can now see the 5th and 6th decimal place trades.
The effective market remain remain at 4 decimal places though due to quotation requirements.
It might be helpful to do some very basic math.
1-1000 reverse split makes .0001 now, .10.
.01 post split means .00001 now. With ICTY, I doubt that it would even hold .01 very long.
That is hilarious, on so many levels.
For the existing equity holders, it means that prices can then go much lower than the .0001 pre split price.