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.
OldeFrothingslosh - "an SEC that would uphold the laws"
Exactly what we'd all like to see!
Easy
Downsideup ... "Instead of full transparency"
Unfortunately, you are 100% correct in your comments.
The following site provides a scenario of what startup companies face day in and day out, just a glimpse of what is especially prevalent in junior mining stocks and small biotech startups. I believe Scott Keevil knows what he is up against, and has the expert contacts, advice and "goods in the ground" to make Sarrissa a huge success despite the unlevel playing field. Thus, my previous post. Shareholders will be handsomely rewarded in the long run. We are only at the beginning. Only time will tell.
Easy
An excerpt from DeepCapture:
http://www.deepcapture.com/naked-short-selling-redefining-systemic-risk/
"Naked Short Selling - Redefining Systemic Risk"
Dr. Jim DeCosta says:
May 27, 2009 at 12:25 pm
istandup,
In regards to your question: “What happens if a long investor unknowingly sells his/her long shares which are only “security entitlements” BEFORE the FTD is cured?”
Assume that an NSCC participating clearing firm has 10 million Acme shares in its NSCC participant “shares account”. Let’s also assume that it sends out monthly statements “implying” that it is “holding long” 30 million shares of Acme for its clients. It is thus “naked short” 20 million shares.
If the phone rings and a client wants to sell his Acme purchases by default he will be determined to be one of the lucky ones that did get delivery of that which he purchased. That’s the beauty of “anonymous pooling” to cover up frauds. If there were a “run on the bank” scenario in which the purchasers of all 30 million Acme shares at that broker wanted to sell their shares simultaneously it still wouldn’t matter.
Since 90% of people hold their shares in “street name” because it’s so “handy” that broker could always borrow some from across the street and repay the borrowing later. The “fraternity brothers” at the DTCC take very good care of each other. I’ll post a blurb from book #9 in a second re: the tricky nature of “security entitlements”.
Reply
Dr. Jim DeCosta says:
May 27, 2009 at 12:30 pm
istandup, see if this from book #9 helps with the concept of “security entitlements”. It’s the first 11 points of 54.
KEY CONCEPTS IN REGARDS TO ABUSIVE NAKED SHORT SELLING (ANSS) FRAUDS
Dr. Jim DeCosta
1) The fraud known as abusive naked short selling (ANSS) went into high gear back when the DTC (Depository Trust Corporation) “volunteered” to act as the surrogate “legal owner” of all shares held in “street name” ostensibly to enhance the efficiency of the clearance and settlement process. Their nominee “Cede and Co.” became the “legal owner” or “owner of record” of all shares held in “street name” as referenced on the corporate transfer agent’s books.
2) This effectively blindfolded a corporation’s transfer agent from performing his “anti-counterfeiting policeman” role as “Cede and Co.” owned pretty much everything in sight and the TA was left with no visibility of the shenanigans going on behind the scenes at the secrecy-obsessed DTCC and their DTC and NSCC subdivisions.
3) Since the purchasers of shares were no longer the “legal owner” of that which they purchased they became relegated to being the mere “beneficial owners” of the securities purchased. “Cede and Co.” would “legally own” the shares for the benefit of (FBO) its “participating” clearing firm that in turn “owned” them FBO their client the investor. A “fiduciary” relationship was thus created between this surrogate “legal owner” and the “beneficial owner” that purchased the shares. Unfortunately for investors mere “beneficial owners” do not have the visibility of the behind the scenes actions at the NSCC like the “legal owners” enjoy. These “blindfolded” investors are forced to place their TRUST in the DTC to “act in good faith” and represent the interests of the purchasers of these shares while acting as a fiduciary in this surrogate “legal owner” capacity. History has now clearly shown us that neither the DTCC nor the DTC nor the NSCC nor many of their abusive “participating” market makers and clearing firms were up to this “acting in good faith” concept. The ability to re-route literally trillions of dollars of previously blindfolded investors’ money with very little risk of detection or meaningful penalties was just too tempting to pass up on.
4) The “beneficial owner” of securities was deemed by law to be what is referred to as a “security entitlement holder” as opposed to the “legal owner” of that which he purchased. What the investing public that hold their shares in “street name” often fail to comprehend is the tricky nature of legal “entitlements”.
5) The authors of UCC Article-8 wanted to send a “reminder” to the DTC “participants” and their nominee “Cede and Co.” that just because they were acting as the surrogate “legal owner” of all shares held in “street name” for efficiency purposes only they were never to LEVERAGE this form of public trust over the investors that they have the congressional mandate to protect. After all, it was the “security entitlement holders” that bought and paid for the shares (that may or may not have ever been delivered). As it turns out mere “security entitlement holders” have absolutely no clue as to whether or not that which they purchased ever did get delivered. The test begins; will abusive DTC participants try to LEVER the “legal owner” role and their superior view of the clearance and settlement system that the regulators and investing public entrusted them with?
6) UCC Article 8 made it clear that it was the investor clients of the various clearing firms making up the NSCC subdivision of the DTCC that were entitled “to exercise all of the rights and property interest that comprise the securities that they purchased” and not the NSCC participating clearing firms. The DTC promised that they would never think of LEVERAGING the fact that they were technically the “legal owner” of that which others purchased. Well, history seems to indicate otherwise as the “legal owner” of these securities ended up doing pretty much anything they wanted to with their “possession”.
7) UCC-8 clearly spelled out the various roles of the “legal owners” of securities versus those of the “security entitlement holders”. If the “entitlement holders” wanted to attain the “legal ownership” of that which they purchased all they had to do was to file an “entitlement order” demanding the delivery of the paper-certificated version of ownership (a share certificate) with their name inscribed on it. As the investors in corporations undergoing abusive naked short selling attacks will readily attest the DTCC often refuses to honor these “entitlement orders” in a timely fashion because to do so would often involve the NSCC management buying-in the delivery failures of their abusive bosses/participants. This process would drive share prices up and counter the share price depressant effect of “security entitlements” which those with massive preexisting naked short positions rely upon. The absolute refusal to execute buy-ins in order to service an “entitlement order” by the surrogate “legal owner” of shares obviously would be bordering on a criminal act. An unconflicted surrogate “legal owner” acting in a fiduciary capacity would obviously not facilitate the counterfeiting (via the NSCC’s SBP) of that which it has the mandate to “safeguard” and act as the “legal owner” of.
UCC Article-8-501 mandated that the clearing firms of investors that didn’t get delivery of the securities they purchased by “settlement date” (T+3) must nevertheless credit the investor’s account with “security entitlements”/IOUs/”long positions”/”phantom shares” representing the yet (if ever) to be delivered shares. Make a mental note as to the naïveté of this default assumption that ALL delivery failures on Wall Street involve securities that are about to arrive any second due to an unforeseeable but “legitimate” delay.
9) UCC Article -8 also mandated that the clearing firms holding these “security entitlements” treat their clients/”entitlement holders” as being entitled to exercise ALL of the rights and property interest that comprise the security even though they never got delivered and even though that which was sold may have never existed in the first place. OOPS!
10) Note the insanity here IF those shares sold whose delivery was theoretically “delayed” weren’t “delayed” at all but never existed in the first place and are not about to “arrive any second”. If that were to happen it’s too late because the purchaser of these “nonexistent” shares i.e. their “entitlement holder” already got permission to sell them as if they did arrive due to the wording used in 8-501.
11) Faulty presumptions about the imminence of delivery now allowed “counterfeit” shares to enter the system. The door was now wide open for securities fraudsters to take advantage of this “default assumption” regarding an imminent delivery and establish massive naked short positions by simply refusing to deliver the (nonexistent) securities they previously sold and thereby literally drown U.S. corporations with share price depressing “security entitlements” while claiming to be “injecting” much needed “liquidity”.
HA-proxy act as an effective share count?
The Transfer agent's cooperation with management by informing us of the number of actual shares that show up to vote (and maybe other information, such as proxies sent out) should inform management of the "TRUE" situation, and allow a strategy to defeat the crooks if there is a NSS. Lawsuits are much too expensive, especially for small development stage companies. In actuality, there is little management can do other than issue dividends (unlikely), have successful spinoffs that rise in value, or create such a value in the stock (develop a profitable mining enterprise) that clearing firms would issue margin call coverage on their MMs, and make it much too expensive for the MMs to maintain a short. This is about the only thing that would bring on a "short squeeze". IMO
FINRA and NSCC are quite toothless to force buy-ins, and except for the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme, the SEC has largely completely failed to recognize or act responsibly on any market wrongdoings, including even admitting to NSS, IMO. Except in very extreme cases of blatant NSS, such as where Overstock dot com brought suit and won a small out of court settlement ($5 million or so, as I recall) which was not for NSS, but libel and tortuous interference. It has become clear over the years that MMs and hedge funds have successfully lobbied their need to protect "proprietary trading methodologies" in making a market. While occasional short squeezes occur, it is because a company is so successful in it's financials that it becomes unprofitable for MMs to maintain a short position. As the theory for the motive for NSS practices goes, largely on development stage companies, it is to put them out of business, such that MMs never have to settle for the nonexistent shares for which they have already received $$$ from shares sold.
Easy
norel-Simply call your Brokers
Thanks!!! , but my wife solved my problem by showing me where she had "filed" the packets that had recently arrived in the mail, and missed my attention. lol
Your advice, though should be heeded by any shareholders who were not so lucky with finding their "missing" packets.
Just:
Simply call your Brokers and ask them to give you your Control Numbers for all of your accounts. When they give the Control numbers to you, go to Proxyvote.com and insert the control number for your account and vote as your desire.
Do this for each of your accounts and your votes will be counted for in this proxy vote.
Is your wife... short ?
Very funny, actually she's a beautiful TALL blonde ... however, the percentage of Daily Shorts for SRSR as reported by FINRA (actually FTDs-failure to delivers) seems unusually high, especially on such low volume days as we have been seeing ... but I can assure you it's not my wife that's short!
Something going on when MMs don't have shares in their inventory to cover sales, and yet don't even bother to locate shares. Not normal market making, or maybe it is. The percentage of FTDs seem unusually high, and yet, these all seem to melt away in monthly OTC short reports, which is why I suspect wash trades may be in use for sleight of hand manipulation to cover short positions amongst MMs on many penny stocks. This avoids the 13 day rule where an MM who fails to deliver within 13 days is barred from trading in that security. If MMs just swap shares every so often in wash trades they can short a stock indefinitely and it will not show up on the Monthly Short Sale Transaction Files, also provided by FINRA to the OTC. This seems prevalent even when the percentage of Daily Shorts (FTDs) is unusually high in a particular penny stock, such as SRSR. I believe MMs have been doing this for years and getting away with it, unless a company can "deliver the goods", which then may initiate a short squeeze, IMO. More properly a naked short squeeze (NSS) would result if they are forced to cover after shorting a stock far beyond the authorized number of outstanding shares.
ADF Regulation SHO
Pursuant to a Securities and Exchange Commission request, FINRA has agreed to make reported short sale trade data publicly available. FINRA will make two types of files available: (1) Daily Short Sale Volume Files and (2) Monthly Short Sale Transaction Files.
The Daily Short Sale Volume Files provide aggregated volume by security on all short sale trades executed and reported to a FINRA reporting facility during normal market hours. The Monthly Short Sale Transaction Files provide detailed trade activity of all short sale trades reported to a consolidated tape.
Easy Here Y'All-Kick Me! Kick Me! Kick Me!
Disregard ALL negative posts by me regarding my difficulties with receiving proxy info and packets! My lovely wife, (bless her kindly) had placed all my packets in "my box" with all my other Fidelity and TDA correspondence/statements sometime last week!
Yes, I received packets from both my TDA and Fidelity ROTH accounts, my Fidelity IRA Account and my 3 TDA Cash accounts (2 are actually my kids)!
So any married shareholders here may want to check with their spouses and make sure mail wasn't "properly" filed away and just placed out of sight! lol
Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
I'll be voting after all - GLTA
Much Relieved
Easy
Thanks iamadog-I'll Give the Mail 'til Tuesday
as I'm in the boonies of Colorado (Western Slope).
Appreciate your quick reply.
If you'd seen my post 107809, you understand why I'm not too thrilled at dealing with my broker unless absolutely necessary.
Easy
Norel-Are shareholders getting packets in the mail?
Sorry for not following the board more closely.
I have shares in 4 different TDA Cash accounts.
See post 107809 and 107835.
I was told Broadridge would mail me packets.
I also have shares in two Fidelity accounts for which I have not received packets.
I have a lot of shares I would like to vote, but haven't received packets or emails?
Are other shareholders having this problem?
When exactly is the deadline for the proxy vote?
Easy
OldeFrothingslosh - "Actually I think it's 5%"
Quite correct:
The law in this regard is 5%, although 10% applies in some cases to more traditional securities (not pink sheets) under section 16. A lot of pink sheet corporations, like Sarissa, are EXEMPTED from the registration requirements under Sections 13(d) and 13(g) require a person who is the beneficial owner of more than five percent of certain equity securities13 to disclose information relating to such beneficial ownership. Sections 13(d) and 13(g) require a person who is the beneficial owner of more than five percent of certain equity securities13 to disclose information relating to such beneficial ownership.
One can get as many different answers as there are lawyers asked. It's actually kind of a joke in the case of the "Sarissas" of the world with presumably more fake shares circulating than real ones. Is it 5% of the number of legitimate shares "outstanding" or is it 5% of the number of "security entitlements" (real plus fake shares) being referenced on our monthly brokerage statements?
Reports by persons acquiring more than five per centum of certain classes of securities
B. Sections 13(d) and 13(g) and Rule 13d-3
Sections 13(d) and 13(g) require a person who is the beneficial owner of more than
five percent of certain equity securities13 to disclose information relating to such beneficial
ownership. While these statutory sections do not define the term “beneficial owner,” the
Commission has adopted rules that determine the circumstances under which a person is or may be deemed to be a beneficial owner. In order to provide objective standards for
determining when a person is or may be deemed to be a beneficial owner subject to Section 13(d), the Commission adopted Exchange Act Rule 13d-3.14 Application of the standards within Rule 13d-3 allows for case-by-case determinations as to whether a person is or becomes a beneficial owner, including a person who uses a security-based swap.
If beneficial ownership, as determined in accordance with Rule 13d-3, exceeds the
designated thresholds, beneficial owners are required to provide specified disclosures. The disclosures are intended to be required of persons who have the potential to influence or gain control of the issuer.
E. Application of the Section 16 Beneficial Ownership Regulatory Provisions
to Holdings and Transactions in Security-Based Swaps
As described above, solely for purposes of determining who is subject to Section 16
as a ten percent holder, Rule 16a-1(a)(1) uses the beneficial ownership tests applied under
Section 13(d) and its implementing rules, including Rules 13d-3(a), 13d-3(b), and Rule 13d- 3(d)(1). As a result, for example, a person who has the right to acquire securities that would cause the person to own more than ten percent of a class of equity securities through a security-based swap that confers a right to receive equity at settlement or otherwise would be subject to Section 16 as a ten percent holder under Rule 16a-1(a)(1). Once a person is subject to Section 16, in order to determine what securities are subject to Section 16(a)
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2011/34-64628.pdf
Easy
So, why is this JV Taking So Long?
from a deleted post (I believe it was grovertdog who said this):
Naw, if this was a resource play it certainly wouldn't take over a decade to monetize.
The Best of Times are coming !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How many posts did you discuss FINRA in the past week or two?
Surely your accounting forensics can see something is going on when I state daily FTDs seem unusually high, and yet, these all seem to melt away in monthly OTC short reports, which is why I suspect wash trades may be in use for sleight of hand manipulation to cover short positions amongst MMs.
ADF Regulation SHO
Pursuant to a Securities and Exchange Commission request, FINRA has agreed to make reported short sale trade data publicly available. FINRA will make two types of files available: (1) Daily Short Sale Volume Files and (2) Monthly Short Sale Transaction Files.
The Daily Short Sale Volume Files provide aggregated volume by security on all short sale trades executed and reported to a FINRA reporting facility during normal market hours. The Monthly Short Sale Transaction Files provide detailed trade activity of all short sale trades reported to a consolidated tape.
Of course, in an earlier post you stated you only look at OTC monthly short sales reports put out by FINRA, so daily short reports by the same organization apparently are of no importance? I'm just reminding you both reports are a result of FINRA reporting. How can you look at one and not the other?
Additional Confirmation-All Shareholders Will Receive the "Directors Circular":
Whatever information is available to Capital Transfer Agency will be sent to Broadridge. There should be little concern by anyone holding only shares in "street name", compared to those who hold certificates and are officially temed "shareholders of record".
The following response sounds infinitely more professional than the response I received from TD Ameritrade, IMO.
Easy
see below (sensitive information removed - bolding mine):
Subject: RE: Director's Circular [[#xxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx#]]
From: Secure_Email@Fidelity.com
To: xxxx xxxxxxxxxx
Date: 9/12/2011 12:42 PM
Message: Dear Mr. xxxxxxxxxx :
Thank you for contacting Fidelity. I am happy to assist you.
Broadridge is Fidelity's proxy vendor. This means that as soon as Capital Transfer
Agency sends the proxy materials to Broadridge, Broadridge will then forward
them to all Fidelity holders of this stock. So you should receive the information
towards the end of this month. These materials will include everything you need to
vote your shares. The share holder's meeting is on October 18th.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, Mr. xxxxxxxxxx ,
please let us know. Thank you for investing with Fidelity. We appreciate your
business.
Sincerely,
William Van Wagenen
Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Member NYSE, SIPC
Houston, We Are a GO! Hello,
Norel, AlanC, Stochastics Rule
and anyone else concerned (or not at all concerned) about the "runaround response" I received from my broker, TDA:
It appears it was just that. A "canned" response by an employee that knew little of what he was talking about, and picked out a " DON'T BOTHER ME" response from "the list" he was provided from. Those who responded with "not to worry" are 1000% (sic) correct!
What happens is Broadridge will be given your information from your
broker. In turn Broadridge will mail out the proxy package including the
circular to you. In that package you will find your proxy, there will be
directions with how you can vote your shares on that.
If you have any further questions regarding this, please feel free to
contact our office.
Sincerely,
Danielle Cavalcante
Operations Department
Capital Transfer Agency Inc.
1101-105 Adelaide St.W.
Toronto, ON M5H 1P9
T: 416.350.5007
F: 416.350.5008
www.capitaltransferagency.com
Apologies if I created any unnecessary concerns.
All is in order. Be sure to vote your shares as you see is of most long-term benefit.
This company will continue to be on track to benefit all shareholders, IMO.
Easy
Contact Merle?
Actually, I just contacted Capital Transfer Agency directly requesting how to resolve the situation with the following request:
Will I be receiving the "Directors Circular" Materials, if not how can I obtain proxy forms and related material? A prompt reply is appreciated.
Houston - We May Have a Problem!
I certainly hope not...
Apparently, OTC equities are not considered "listed securities", at least by TD Ameritrade !
Bolding in the follow response is mine...
I am happy to assist you. In order to discuss how to receive a copy of a document distributed by a security traded OTC such as SRSR I would suggest contacting the investor relations for the company. Contact information is not provided for SRSR on the TD Ameritrade Web site however an Internet search may be helpful.
Also, when an account holds listed securities, you should receive corporate communications such as proxies at the address on file or electronically.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further concerns, please feel free to respond to this e-mail and we will gladly assist you.
Thank you for choosing TD Ameritrade!
Norel - Will Do & GLTA!!! eom
Thanks Norel!
I've emailed all my brokerages and differing accounts requesting the following (thanks to the info you posted on the board here):
Sarissa"s Transfer Agent, Capital Transfer Agency,Inc. is issuing a Director's Circular. How may I obtain the Information Packet refered to as the "Directors Circular" , forms and information such as Proxy Statement, annual report, meeting location, new business and financial developments plus other pertinent information? This information packet will be sent out by Capital Transfer Agency,Inc. on Sept.15,2011 to a company called Broadridge. I would like to vote my shares.
Norel - Define Shareholder of Record, Please
I appreciate your post.
Excuse me if this has already been covered.
All my shares (a considerable number) are in several brokerage accounts.
Do I need to do something "extra" to receive my information packet and be allowed to vote, or will my brokerage firms take it upon themselves to vote my shares unless I direct them otherwise?
Easy
What is the difference between a shareholder of record and a beneficial owner of shares held in street name?
Shareholder of Record. If your shares are registered directly in your name with the Company’s transfer agent, Computershare Investor Services, LLC (“Computershare”), you are considered the shareholder of record with respect to those shares, and the Notice was sent directly to you by the Company. If you request printed copies of the proxy materials by mail, you will receive a proxy card.
Beneficial Owner of Shares Held in Street Name. If your shares are held in an account at a brokerage firm, bank, broker-dealer, or other similar organization, then you are the beneficial owner of shares held in “street name,” and the Notice was forwarded to you by that organization. The organization holding your account is considered the shareholder of record for purposes of voting at the Annual Meeting. As a beneficial owner, you have the right to direct that organization on how to vote the shares held in your account. If you request printed copies of the proxy materials by mail, you will receive a vote instruction form.
~CS~ "I think you overlooked my question, Easy"
Really? Overlooked? You have implied something I have never even touched upon! You must not have bothered to notice when I stated, "Surely you are confusing me with someone else..."
Stating a question with a false premise which has every appearance of being misleading is not something I am readily inclined to answer.
by CS - Why then, do you think we will not have a funded JV on the 20th.?
Can you see anything wrong with that picture?????
Yes, Your Analysis! lol
Invested in the Mountain...
and that's what Counts!
Easy
CS - "Let's not get sidetracked by FTDs
and other ancillary distractions" ....
Groupie? lol You certainly have an amusing sense of humor.
So you find it much more convenient to hurl insults rather than look at the facts? Let's stick to what I was discussing instead of trying to change the discussion to topics I have never mentioned or discussed on this board. Surely you are confusing me with someone else when you say:
Why then, do you think we will not have a funded JV on the 20th.? How long do you think JJ's next extension will be? Do you think JJ knows 2012 is a "leap year" when he determines the next "day countdown"?
ADF Regulation SHO
Pursuant to a Securities and Exchange Commission request, FINRA has agreed to make reported short sale trade data publicly available. FINRA will make two types of files available: (1) Daily Short Sale Volume Files and (2) Monthly Short Sale Transaction Files.
The Daily Short Sale Volume Files provide aggregated volume by security on all short sale trades executed and reported to a FINRA reporting facility during normal market hours. The Monthly Short Sale Transaction Files provide detailed trade activity of all short sale trades reported to a consolidated tape.
CS - Your Wit Is Amazing!
...or should I say "Amusing"...
I'm, sure you noticed that with such low volume MMs still had a 53% FTD rate today, as on most days. Just normal market making for all the stocks you follow, I suppose.
Calm before the storm?
As you'll recall from what I said in my post #38417:
With 'lil Sister, according to FINRA site, the total number of shares traded for month of June was 13,092,228. Daily FTDs for the month totaled 5,921,172, or 45.2% of all trades. Total shares turned over for the month represented 6.5% of the approximately 200MM (I'll stand corrected and use MM here) shares authorized/outstanding. Not much liquidity, IMO, as many have pointed out (do a daily turnover of all shares and you get an average 0.3% daily turnover rate.) Despite appearances, I believe the stock is tightly held, and too low a liquidity to lend itself to flipping, although quite a few bailed on the recent news.
With MDMN on the FINRA site there were a total of 74,641,367 shares traded in June, which represents 10.5% of the approximately 710MM (again corrected) shares issued, or about 0.5% daily turnover. Liquidity better than with CDCH, not just as percentage, but also sheer volume. Surprisingly, the daily FTDs averaged about the same percentage for both. MDMN averaged 47.9% with a total of 35,763,968 FTDs for the month.
Don't know exactly what that means, but it seems like there was little effort to locate or secure shares to enact daily trades by MMs ... more than simple "making a market" by MMs, IMO. I could be wrong, but there are not a lot of companies with that high a percentage of FTDs over an extended period of time, as far as I know. Previous months showed similar high percentages of daily FTDs. These all seem to melt away in monthly OTC short reports, which is why I suspect wash trades may be in use for sleight of hand manipulation to cover short positions amongst MMs. Just a theory, no way to prove it until after value of a deal is shown, and maybe not even then. Perhaps we will see a change in the daily FTD pattern after JV announcement and LOI gets signed and released.
As for your contentious statement that I am "casually throwing out terms like "proves up vast resources" when you have absolutely NOTHING backing you up (other than optimistic extrapolation of Les-speak hearsay", you might want to check your facts 1st.
Here are some resources that should more directly help your fact checking:
Gordon Breccia drill holes mapping (50 meter spacing)
www.medinah-minerals.com/reports/Howe/gifs/01fig4-1.gif
ACA Howe's report after the first 7 holes were drilled in 1999.
http://www.medinah-minerals.com/reports/Howe/HoweMariasLipangueReport.html
ACA Howe's report after holes 8 - 12 were drilled in late 1999 and early 2000.
http://www.medinah-minerals.com/reports/Howe/howeJune19,2000report.html
ACA Howe's Report after holes 13 - 18 were drilled in late 2000.
http://www.medinah-minerals.com/reports/Howe/howeFeb12,2001report.html
Gordon House's P.Geo resource estimates (see page 38 Table A):
http://www.medinah-minerals.com/reports/docs/decosta%20-%20valuation%20of%20mdmn%2018feb08.doc
Also referred to in the 9/23/2009 company Q&A:
http://www.medinah-minerals.com/Q_A_092309.html
Yup! &-I'm Happy to Have Lots of Shares!
Thankful for all the DIPs that keep showing up. lol
Invested in the Mountain
and that's what Counts!
Easy
I really like this stock. Buy on DIPs,
Buy on DIPs, Buy on Dips!
Invested in the Mountain…
And that’s what counts!
Easy
DC - Yes, Funding Will Happen!
So, why is this JV Taking So Long?
from a deleted post:
Naw, if this was a resource play it certainly wouldn't take over a decade to monetize.
Someday we will look back fondly on today’s period of relative calm as the “good old days,” at least compared to what’s coming. The time to get positioned is now, well ahead of the crowd.
Medinah COULD do what "real" companies do
and FULLY REPORT within SEC requirements, but no, they don't seem to mind the taint of the "Yield" attached to their OTC ticker. Wonder why?
Audit fees are expected to increase approximately 38% during the first year of compliance with section 404, according to a survey of public companies by Financial Executives International (FEI) in January 2004.
The survey also reveals that total costs of first-year compliance with section 404 could exceed $4.6 million for each of the largest U.S. companies (companies with over $5 billion in revenues). Medium-sized and smaller companies will also incur significant additional costs to comply with section 404, the survey finding an average projected cost of almost $2 million. Interestingly, the projected costs are higher than originally anticipated based on an FEI survey conducted the previous year.
This projected increase is consistent with PricewaterhouseCoopers’ June 2003 survey of 136 U.S.-based multinational corporations, which revealed that the number of senior executives describing SOA compliance as costly had nearly doubled since its enactment, from 32%
to 60%.
I realize we have the mother of all world class mineral deposits and that the company's market cap will be soon measured in terms of tens, if not hundreds, of BILLIONS US$ soon, but it would be nice to have the "little things" better understood.
~~CS~~
CS - "Drop Dead" or "Toxic"
There you go again, playing your semantics game. When you say,
" You do understand it has been over 7 months since the first drop dead date and we still have no money."
CS-Didn't You Once Say $10M Would Be Significant?
Obviously $74 Million for a JV (and many milestone payments during the next 3 years to develop and prove up resources) is significant. You still dismiss this JV as being nothing more than a long shot. The official announcement will come prior to September 16-21, IMO.
You are an intelligent and prolific poster. As an accountant, why would a 0.007 dividend/share be paid when a share buyback would deliver much more value to shareholders? You once said you would NEVER buy this stock under any circumstances, yet recently you stated you actually are now a shareholder. Gambling bug on a longshot? I suppose your position is less than the cost of a roundtrip fare to Las Vegas, and at least as much as a night out from the Hamptons to Atlantic City (joke - incase you don't catch my sarcastic wit). Apparently you took my advice in a much earlier post where I stated, "Enough said for anyone with enough intelligence, patience and perseverance to turn a few investment dollars into a nice nest egg ... but in case you don't get it ... read on.
As Doug Casey said in a recent article titled Save, Invest, Speculate, Trade, or Gamble?, "But resource stocks impress me as a first-class speculative opportunity. A good speculation, you’ll recall, is one that offers – in your subjective opinion – not only a very high chance of success but a significant multiple on capital. Resource stocks, and the juniors in particular, definitely fit the bill."
"The Gordon pipe with its $1.35 billion in “Measured resources” outlined to date based upon mid January of 2008 metals prices..." is sure to have been looked at by our JV partners over the couple of years it has taken to put this JV together. For any newbies who have a hard time understanding this, read all of Dr. Jim DeCosta's Valuation Consideration here:
http://www.medinah-minerals.com/projects.html
It's also well worth looking up Casey's article and reading it in it's entirety. He summarizes by saying, "Someday we will look back fondly on today’s period of relative calm as the “good old days,” at least compared to what’s coming. The time to get positioned is now, well ahead of the crowd."
MDMN certainly offers a very high chance of success, in my subjective opinion, of course, and definitely fits the bill for a significant multiple return on capital.
Invested in the Mountain…
And that’s what counts!
Easy
1st Time Post Here-But In Since Late 2007
Greetings to all in a TRULY AWESOME investment ...
Many Thanks to all for the GREAT DD over the years.
You know who you are...
Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!
and...
Greetings Mariner - "Lobsters Are Already In The Pot"
If You're In-You're in
I'd say we have a few things in common in Three of our major plays right now!
The lobsters are already in the pot, and the fire has just been turned on and the cover slammed down. They're as good as cooked.
lol
Patience!
Easy
Jeff-Now Why Would You Say Something Like That??!!!
This is a very thinly traded stock lately. Only 946,565 traded today. In fact, MMs don't even bother to locate shares before making trades anymore as shown on the FINRA site for daily FTDs. 72% of all trades (680,198) today were FTDs. Everyone knows these aren't really "airshares" or naked shorts, just normal market making. lol
As Mariner78 once said "Lobsters Are Already In The Pot"
The lobsters are already in the pot, and the fire has just been turned on and the cover slammed down. They're as good as cooked.
lol
That about says it all...
If You're In, You're In!
Invested in the Mountain
Easy
Naked Short Selling VS FTDs
For those denying the daily FTDs reveal a possibility of a Naked Short in MDMN I attach a link (there are many) to a lengthy expose of the problem.
http://www.buyins.net/articles/christian.pdf
"It is not these temporary failures to deliver that cause the
concern; rather it is the prolonged failures to deliver caused by
manipulative naked short selling.
80
The prolonged failures to
deliver resulting from naked short selling can reach such high
levels that the total amount of failures to deliver in a stock may
be greater than its total available public float of the security.81 " p1045
To be clear, I don't say a naked short is present in MDMN, just that the daily FTDs appear somewhat suspicious in that an inventory does not appear to be kept by the MMs engaged in making a market here. My understanding is that shorting used as a strategy to control price in a market is illegal, whereas with legitimate market making, the occasional occurance of an inadvertent short is permissible.
Easy
CS - Indeed It is Amusing
... that your posts while more than polite, cherry pick phrases, yet fail to capture the essence of what is being said. Do you truly not understand the difference between an FTD and a short position, or even an abusive naked short position? Not to be too critical, but your style looses the flow of comprehension when you debate every long shareholder posting on this board, line by line, IMO. If you were actually responding to what I have said, you might have noted the following information that is factually correct in my posts:
First, the OTC site is not the only site where information can be found. I thought the stats from June's FINRA site equally interesting as the OTC's reported monthly short position that is so frequently quoted here on iHub. Granted, FTDs are a little harder to decipher, FWIW.
With 'lil Sister, according to FINRA site, the total number of shares traded for month of June was 13,092,228. Daily FTDs for the month totaled 5,921,172, or 45.2% of all trades. Total shares turned over for the month represented 6.5% of the approximately 200MM (I'll stand corrected and use MM here) shares authorized/outstanding. Not much liquidity, IMO, as many have pointed out (do a daily turnover of all shares and you get an average 0.3% daily turnover rate.) Despite appearances, I believe the stock is tightly held, and too low a liquidity to lend itself to flipping, although quite a few bailed on the recent news.
With MDMN on the FINRA site there were a total of 74,641,367 shares traded in June, which represents 10.5% of the approximately 710MM (again corrected) shares issued, or about 0.5% daily turnover. Liquidity better than with CDCH, not just as percentage, but also sheer volume. Surprisingly, the daily FTDs averaged about the same percentage for both. MDMN averaged 47.9% with a total of 35,763,968 FTDs for the month.
Don't know exactly what that means, but it seems like there was little effort to locate or secure shares to enact daily trades by MMs ... more than simple "making a market" by MMs, IMO. I could be wrong, but there are not a lot of companies with that high a percentage of FTDs over an extended period of time, as far as I know. Previous months showed similar high percentages of daily FTDs. These all seem to melt away in monthly OTC short reports, which is why I suspect wash trades may be in use for sleight of hand manipulation to cover short positions amongst MMs. Just a theory, no way to prove it until after value of a deal is shown, and maybe not even then. Perhaps we will see a change in the daily FTD pattern after JV announcement and LOI gets signed and released.
As for your contentious statement that I am "casually throwing out terms like "proves up vast resources" when you have absolutely NOTHING backing you up (other than optimistic extrapolation of Les-speak hearsay", you might want to check your facts 1st.
Here are some resources that should more directly help your fact checking:
Gordon Breccia drill holes mapping (50 meter spacing)
http://www.medinah-minerals.com/reports/Howe/gifs/01fig4-1.gif
ACA Howe's report after the first 7 holes were drilled in 1999.
http://www.medinah-minerals.com/reports/Howe/HoweMariasLipangueReport.html
ACA Howe's report after holes 8 - 12 were drilled in late 1999 and early 2000.
http://www.medinah-minerals.com/reports/Howe/howeJune19,2000report.html
ACA Howe's Report after holes 13 - 18 were drilled in late 2000.
http://www.medinah-minerals.com/reports/Howe/howeFeb12,2001report.html
Gordon House's P.Geo resource estimates (see page 38 Table A):
http://www.medinah-minerals.com/reports/docs/decosta%20-%20valuation%20of%20mdmn%2018feb08.doc
Also referred to in the 9/23/2009 company Q&A:
http://www.medinah-minerals.com/Q_A_092309.html
... And CS, your statement, "First of all, your confusing me by misusing the term "M" also shows a lack of factual information. I'll readily agree you are confused, though, if you insist. lol
However, feigning confusion as you blatantly misrepresent and traduce a shareholder for being long is beneath you. As you are an accountant, you already know when dealing with currency "M" stands for million. Do you state "my salary is $100K", or do you say "my salary is $100M"? Obviously we all like to say $100M, ... but really, M for a thousand, and MM for a million is metric, and used for industrial measures, not currency... and yes, your assumption that I meant $10 million is correct. Did you really mean a tranche of $10M (thousand) was a reasonable threshold? Really, CS, to use your words - "No question about it. In this particular case I'd say "absurd" is more apt."
Invested in the Mountain…
And that’s what counts!
Easy
CS-Trying To Be Ironic? Absolutely Not!
It 's amusing that anyone should think a pinkie would come close to meeting Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. There have been severals posts that say longs only post rumors how great this company is going to do in order to drive the price up and flip shares.
I have posted a number of times showing that the percentage of daily FTPs on the FINRA site indicate that there is possibly an unusual number of wash trades amongst the MMs in that they don't have shares in inventory to cover trades being made, and aren't overly concerned in locating shares before engaging in a trade. Is this just the usual practice in making a market? Or is there a strategy by MMs using doubt, fear and instability of the share price in order to artificially manipulate share price? Such a practice of using wash trades in making a market would avoid the 13 day rule that would prevent MMs from all trades in the equity for which they haven't covered. See my previous posts for the exact numbers of daily FTDs which approach 50% of all trades on average, as posted on FINRA's site for MDMN and 'lil sister.
Some posters would have you believe longs are only interested in drawing new investors into this stock to unload their stock. Some would even like to see a "drop dead" date by which longs would just move along to another stock. The trouble with this assumption is that longs, for the most part, keep accumulating positions with the belief and understanding that the JV is getting done. Despite the frustration of delays, longs such as myself, intend to be here a very long time as each successive drilling result proves up the vast resources present in the Alto de Lipangue Limitada project in Chile. My time frame isn't days or months. This property, once drilling starts in earnest after a JV, will become more and more valuable over the years. $10 M in cash for the 1st tranche can get a lot done, and I dare say we'll see that. In fact, you said in an earlier post about initial funding, "say, less than ten million, that should be a reasonable threshold." My expectation is $100s M in ensuing years as drilling results meet specific milestones. To think otherwise is absurd, IMO. I look forward to many years of dividends, or at the very least, a very substantial buy-out by a Major once resources and reserves are mapped out by drilling. I don't see any need to be posting opinions here daily. Why some have a passionate interest in posting daily their "wisdom of the day" remarks is quite ridiculous. Either buy this stock or sell this stock and move on. Tickets are now on sale for the show. We'll see what happens after details of the JV are announced. If you're In, You're In.
Invested in the Mountain…
And that’s what counts!
Easy
DIPS! If You're In, You're In... ACCUMULATE! eom
Thank You for the recent DIPS!
JUNE Trading Stats-FWIW
With CDCH, according to FINRA site, the total number of shares traded for month of June was 13,092,228. Daily FTDs for the month totaled 5,921,172, or 45.2% of all trades. Total shares turned over for the month represented 6.5% of the approximately 200M shares authorized/outstanding. Not much liquidity, IMO, (do a daily turnover of all shares and you get 0.3% daily turnover rate.) These shares are being tightly held, except for a few shares shaken loose over the past week. Do the daily FTDs represent wash trades among MMs trying to avoid the 13 day rule?
easymillion
JUNE trading Stats - FWIW
With MDMN there were a total of 74,641,367 shares traded in June, which represents 10.5% of the approximately 710M shares issued, or about 0.5% daily turnover. Liquidity better than with CDCH, not just as percentage, but also sheer volume. Surprisingly, the daily FTDs averaged about the same percentage as CDCH at 47.9% with a total of 35,763,968 FTDs for the month. Don't know exactly what that means, but it seems like there was little effort to locate or secure shares to enact daily trades ... more than simple "making a market" by MMs, IMO. These could represent mostly wash trades between MMs, IMO, to keep from hitting the 13 day rule. I could be wrong, but there are not a lot of companies with that high a percentage of FTDs over an extended period of time, as far as I know. Perhaps things will change after JV announcement and LOI gets signed and released.
easymillion
TQW - Hoping all is well
Frank, you've truly been The Quiet One on all the boards where you post ... rarely ...
sorry to see you go. The longs I know have Quietly been ACCUMULATING all along, sitting back, and watching POSITIVE things unfold. For the most part I (make that WE) don't see the need to post daily, or frequently, in order to AFFIRM that I (make that WE) know what I (WE) own!
Thanks for taking care to post one last time.
Wishing YOU WELL 1000%!
Easy
DIPS! Know What You Own. ACCUMULATE! eom
Getinin-"Could someone please explain this to me?"
Sure! It is apposite and plausible that the higher than usual activity of those posters traducing the company and it's officers at every turn have seen this coming for some time.
True, just a wag, but 13 days have past since June 6 when FTDs were at 52% of trading volume as reported on the FINRA site (11,542,373 traded and 6,011,707 were FTDs). Also, June 3, FTDs were nearly 48% of volume (5,511,797 FTDs of 11,594,112 shares traded). Are wash trades amongst MMs responsible? This "pattern has been repeated time and time again for months. Clearly, MMs playing musical chairs in an attempt to avoid the 13 day rule ... and the music is about to stop, IMO.
If You're in, You're in!
Invested in the Mountain…
And that’s what counts!
Easymillion
Let's See - Who Forgot To Post Today?
Oh, how silly ... it was me!
DIPS! Buy'm while you can ...
Anyone catch yesterday's RegSho's number for FTDs?
Out of 9,948,566 shares traded only 4,692,981 were FTDs.
That's below 50% ... a very good day indeed! Only 47% of all shares traded weren't located or borrowed before being "sold". How'd they do that?
KNOW WHAT YOU OWN!
If You're in .. You're IN.
easymillion
Don'tcha just luuuuuuuuuuv seeing these DIPS?
Yes Rich! ... Because I KNOW WHAT I OWN!
Easy