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.
As you may be aware, this rule does not apply to Pink Sheet or Bulletin Board companies. For some reason the SEC's Internet URL, which you quoted, is not clear on this point.
Why the P M. Mark Leh ?
Because I hit the wrong button. Sorry.
for kee riced sake it's not the MM s at all. It's retail clients of humungous power and wealth entering the orders.
Wow. Do any of these humongoids have names?
Don't the companies supply the material anyhow ?
Only to shareholders. And I guess the companies aren't too swift; when they get a request for a thousand annual reports, it never occurs to them ask why? And it never bothers them that they have to supply all those extra proxy voting cards?
I'm happy Frizzell is involved with this. Without him all the brains would be on the side of those mean brokers.
Shorty knows all that cra*. The kind of stocks he whacks have buyers who don't want those mail-outs. You have a choice that you sign with your broker if you want the stuff or not. You also forget that the brokers own the game and work with the shorters.
Boy, these short-sellers and brokers are sharp. Now why is it exactly that you bought the stock of one of these junk companies with uninformed shareholders instead of a sharp outfit like Knight?
This is too complex for you Mark .
You're right. I'm a simple guy. If I knew a game were rigged, I'd bet with the guy pulling the strings--in this case, according to you, the brokers and hedge funds. But a complex, clever guy like yourself likes betting with the chumps. I guess I'll never be smart enough to figure out how you do it that way and make money.
Shorty counterfeits electronic credits that NOBOBY but Shorty keeps track of.
No kidding? And Shorty sends out those cute mailers with prospectuses, and Shorty prints up imitation annual reports, and Shorty counterfeits not only the shares but also those voting cards? I tell you, I have not been giving those naked short-sellers enough credit. I thought they just sat around and minted money. Now that you've explained how the process works, I have a newfound respect for them. I'm starting to think they actually deserve the trillions they've made.
To Raging Bull:...Who are you, anyway? I have received information from a number of sources who claim that you are actually owned by a group of investors who have profited from this scandal.
I wonder if those "sources" bothered to look at the home page with the many references to Lycos, Inc.
Who actually owns Nevada Minerals?
Ed Dhonau
OT:
It is my belief that there is a strong political component to "justice". Take CMKX. Let's imagine the absolute worst that you can about Mr. Casavant. Let's suppose that all those Fifth Amendment invocations hide really bad things. Let's say that he issued himself stock wantonly, never kept any books, and never pursued any operations for the business. How much jail time do you think he'd get? A year? Wouldn't you be amazed if he got three years?
By contrast, let's look at Sam Waksal. What did he do wrong at Imclone? One case of insider trading. And all the while he built a strong company and saved thousands of people's lives. So the judge, jury, prosecution, and media weighed the good with the bad, and what did they give him? Seven years.
The difference between Mr. Waksal and Mr. Casavant is that Mr. Waksal was a big public figure who became the poster child for corporate excess at a time when people had lost a lot of money and were looking for scapegoats. Mr. Casavant is a nobody who may well have done much, much worse, but no one cares. So, if he's guilty of anything, he'll get off comparatively easy.
Returning to our original topic, my belief is that the brokers now realize how much anger is directed at them. Not only that, but when they have ineptly tried to play tough (a la Worldcom and Perelman) they have gotten REALLY nailed. So now their counsel does a quick assessment: a) I can advocate playing hardball, and, if it doesn't work, risk getting sued by my rich client (a la Morgan Stanley in Perelman), or b) I can advocate paying up and putting this behind them. Not surprisingly we are in the paying-up era--big-time.
This is a whole other matter from whether there was any real culpability on the banks' part with Enron.
what are your opinions as to the Citigroup payout to the Enron shareholders?
After their Worldcom debacle I think they'll pay anything. Sandy Weill is out of day-to-day operations; Prince just wants to put all this crap behind him.
OT:
Both articles state their involvements w/ Enron...just read'em
Uhhh, thanks, but I would immodestly suggest that I know more about the situation than the reporters.
Bill Lerach is doing a hell of a job mau-mauing the flak-catchers here. And I guess I should be grateful because I'm a California resident and the chief plaintiff is the CA Board of Regents. But the whole legal basis of these claims seems to me quite a stretch.
1) Did the banks have some kind of requirement to divulge what amounted to an Enron put embedded in the partnerships? I doubt it. And anyway no one could have foreseen that the put would sink the company.
2) Everybody is always trying to move debt off balance sheets. That's why CFO's get paid so much. There are a gazillion techniques used to do this. Look at Starbuck's, which basically scours its balance sheets by having all TI's worked into leases. They will pay much higher than market rent just to keep the debt off their books. It just so happens that Enron went bankrupt, so with 20/20 hindsight their particular technique looks bad.
3) Arther Andersen signed off on the stuff. If you get a major accounting firm to sign off, doesn't that eliminate your liability? Mind you, I don't think Andersen should have signed off, given the existence of what amounted to a put which didn't shift the risk, but they did.
4) On a more fundamental level, finance seems to me like the only business where a provider of an instrument which someone else uses for illegal purposes is liable. I note that no one is suing Radio Shack for providing radar detectors.
Obviously my comments would apply to the current Gen Re situation as well as the Enron bankers.
Please note that I was short Enron in size and made a lot of money. Thus, there is no love lost between myself and the company, nor are there any sour grapes. But at some point I think the law ought to be consistent and that investors ought to take some responsibility for investment decisions. No one, and I mean NO ONE, understood Enron's financial statements, but they blindly bought anyways. It was greed, pure and simple. And at least some investors--the supposedly sophisticated institutions--deserve the loss. But, hey, it's fashionable and easy to hate brokers these days, so why not extort money from them?
OT: Since you seem quite adamant on this, I am curious: what exactly DID Morgan do wrong with Enron? Or for that matter, Citigroup?
I am fairly familiar with this situation since I was short Enron in size, but you seem to know more, so I am looking to be enlightened.
Incidentally my view is that the JP Morgan deal is more a response to the Perelman decision than to Enron, but I am always interested in learning more. Thanks in advance.
ask again when we are able to file 144's...I'll bet you a dime, USCA won't allow registration after a year.
I am hardly an expert on 144 sales, but I have two comments. First, to my knowledge you can't sell 144 stock in year two unless the issuer is current in their SEC filings. This, of course, is a problem for USCA.
On the other hand, although I'm unsure about this, I don't think that an issuer can refuse to have a legend removed ad infinitum. I suspect that the burden is on the shareholder, and no one would be willing to invest the money in lawyers to force USCA's hand. But my guess is that theoretically at some point USCA would have to get/accept an opinion letter and instruct the transfer agent to remove the legend or provide a damn good reason why they can't. Does anyone know of any case law on this subject (especially in Nevada)?
There are always stories of brokers who will let you short against 144 stock, but I suspect that these aren't the most savory fellows in the world, and they are no doubt far removed from the long talons of the SEC. Plus, shorting USCA these days is a pretty dicey proposition. Despite the fantasies of the NSS crowd, USCA is buy-in torture.
What are you willing to wager?
I am willing to wager $100 or less if there is someone on the board who is known to me and will vouch for you. I am also willing to wager any amount over $10,000. I will handle all escrow fees for this larger amount.
The terms of the wager are that I will give you two to one odds that the registration will get revoked as long as CMKX does not file any Form 4's, Q's, or K's before Judge Murray's decision. If they do, then the bet is a draw. If not, then a suspension or no action is a win for you; a revocation is a win for me.
For really significant amounts I would suggest that we structure this as a private put contract. I could live with a .0001 strike on a Jan. 1, 2006 expiration at an option price of .005 with a minimum of 100,000 contracts.
Did Ms. Hakala mix up several concepts here?
Yes.
This is not the meaning of "issued" among financial professionals. Maybe there's some weird way that transfer agents use the term, but it sure would be inconsistent with everyone else in the financial world, including the thousands of companies who file their Q's and K's with the SEC, using a different definition.
In fact, this recounting of the exchange is bizarre enough that I am curious whether it matches your recollection. You were there, right?
How can you be so sure of revocation? Do you care to make a friendly wager?
I can't speak for SEC_10, but I would like to make a wager.
Gump, like others I can't tell if you are serious about these posts or just trying to jerk everyone's chain.
In the unlikely event that you are serious, let me take a whack at your post.
The mix of physical certs and electronic credits now in vogue allows more credits to be in play than are backed by physical certs. What part of that can't you get ?? Until physical certs are completely eliminated Shorty will thrive .. because NOBODY audits the totals. The cert totals and the electronic totals should be equal.
1) They are equal. It doesn't make any difference if the stock is not shorted, located shorted, or naked shorted. If the stock is shorted (located or naked), a given broker will have the correct NET amount of shares at DTCC, and internally on its books will have certain plus numbers and minus numbers which net out to the correct total.
2a) There is nothing about the mix of physical and electronic credits which allow more credits than are backed by physical certs. Long before there were electronic credits there was shorting.
2b) Either you are aggravated by shorting in general or you do not understand the very subtle distinction between shorting naked and shorting with a locate. In both cases the stock is borrowed after the short sale, and in both cases the delivery may fail if the borrow goes away or never materializes in the first place. There is a higher likelihood of fails with naked shorting; that's all.
3) You wrote, "Until physical certs are completely eliminated Shorty will thrive." I don't see how the elimination of physical certificates will stop short-sellers from thriving. At this point in time virtually all shorts are against electronic entries.
LOL!!! Some internal 3yr Law student @ Ameritrade could draft that memo. But in a Court of law it doesn't hold water.
This is not going to a court of law. It's going to an arbitration panel. Different standards.
What if I was a real estate broker...And I bought a house from you, let's say after you deposited my check...your bank tells you that after 30 days we'll have to wait for the check to clear....ok no problem which it does. Great! you can go withdraw the funds from a transaction that was proper under all guidelines. Unfortunately, the bank turns around and tells you "it's our internal policy not to release funds because we don't know for sure,,but we could have a hunch that the seller overpaid you and we aren't releasing the funds"
To take your example, if you buy a house it is done through an escrow agreement. If it turns out that there is substantial question about whether your check is good (certified or not, normal clearing time or not), then the escrow will not close. It is not a question of whether anyone overpaid; it's a question of good funds. Likewise, in the case of GVRP it's a question of "good stock".
I hope that the stock is "good", as I'm sure you do. I like profits as much as you do. But in this case it is not a certainty that the stock is "good". And, thus, Ameritrade doesn't want to be on the hook.
WHAT LEGAL GROUNDS does Ameritrade have to freeze your funds! They may not have any obligation to allow sells or buys in said security,,,but what legal grounds do Ameritrade have to hold your funds!!!
While I am not a client of Ameritrade, I am assuming that their paperwork mirrors that of other brokerage firms. If so, they have broad discretion as regards your account. If you hire an attorney here, my hunch is that you will simply be out your attorney's fees. I can't imagine an arbitration panel not siding with Ameritrade on this one.
Ultimately Ameritrade is a discount broker. They don't care what you do as long as they make their $10-20 per trade. They surely do not want to see themselves on the hook for a lot of money in order to make twenty bucks. My suggestion is that, if this attitude bothers you, then you should get an account with Goldman Sachs. Goldman takes a different attitude with client accounts and charges accordingly.
There would be no reason for anyone to contact me, since I am now flat the stock. While I would like to keep my profits and not have the trades reversed, the reality is that this was just a speculation based upon the excellent work of SSP and Jim Bishop. Thus, in my opinion they are the only two who really DESERVE any money here.
Of course, I also believe that the insiders or management deserve to have something bad happen to them.
Losing your shirt is the interpretation. I think they are saying that they must cover and can apply for help to do so
Not exactly. There is no way of telling whether the affected market maker is long or short. But presumably something came to the attention of the SEC (either by the market maker seeking guidance or in a NASD audit).
If the market maker is short, obviously they could potentially be in a world of hurt (and I agree with your hunch that this is the likely situation). But, if they're long, they could still face a net capital "crisis" even without any real-world exposure. Also, if they're long, they may have the same question that you do as to how many shares ought to be counted in their account.
Market makers employ substantial leverage. And the capitalization levels of most firms is shockingly low.
So, they are not looking for "help in covering". They are just looking for the NASD not to shut them down and liquidate immediately--which is standard operating procedure when a firm drops below minimum capital requirements.
I am not that knowledgeable about Canadian laws. However, are you sure that this cannot be circumvented by setting up a wholly owned U.S. corporation and then having that corporation open an account in the U.S.?
This is a SUB penny stock trading at .0001 cents for most of the time what do you expect.
There has always been a great risk associated with this stock.
Fair enough. But, if that's the case, then why are so many people writing to Judge Murray, pleading that there would be some great injustice done by revocation? Per your comment, the speculator took a great risk; if it works out, congratulations--they deserve it. If it doesn't work out, then, hey, they took a big risk, no biggie. To pretend that a wild gamble is a serious investment seems hypocritical.
If anyone really wanted to "nail" the mythical "Shorty", he'd have the good sense to choose a low-float stock with which to do it. And yes, one with honest management.
Actually the best plan is to take a scam, keep the paid touts, and then install new, competent, honest management. The shorts continue to be distracted by the touts while the management actually starts quietly making profits. I've seen it happen only once. I was short, and it wasn't pretty.
To add insult to injury, the new management owned 70% of the company, filed a registration to sell ALL their shares (thereby sucking in more shorts), and then didn't sell a share for a year. All in all, quite a piece of work.
SEC's reponse yesterday seemed very insulting to Maheu..that really surprised me and was uncalled for...
From the document:
"The division does not doubt that Mr. Maheu has only good intentions in the matter..."
I have never seen a director of a company under threat of revocation be singled out for his good intentions. Usually the SEC's approach is that they are all a bunch of crooks. This singling out is at least unusual, and perhaps unprecedented. Perhaps you can recall another case of it in the last couple of decades.
It was almost as if the SEC knew that Mr. Maheu is not covered by Directors and Officers Insurance and wanted to put out a notice to the plaintiff's bar: this is a good guy. Unfortunately Mr. Maheu's profound ignorance of the company's operations may subject him to liability for gross negligence despite his good intentions.
n fact the SEC should have never approved the Form 15 in the first place as it is their responsibility to investigate all requests such as this and approve or reject them accordingly.
The SEC does not approve or review Form 15's.
So you are saying that this company had an invalid reporting status for the past two years but you only just recently discovered this?
Yes. There are 15,000 publicly traded companies in the U.S. The SEC has neither the mandate nor the budget to review all their filings. However, I am sure that like most bureaucracies it would like to expand its empire. If you feel strongly that companies like CMKX should be shut down immediately, and you support the massive funding increases necessary, I am sure that the SEC would welcome your letter-writing campaign.
Neither your enforcement division nor the broker/dealers association raised any questions for more than two years
It is not a broker's job to raise or answer any questions about Pink Sheet stock unless it files a 15c-211. Rather conspicuously no broker did, despite the massive amount of money that any of them could have made by doing so. None of them filed a 15c-211 because none of them wanted to vouch for the company. Curiously this red flag has never been cited on ProBoards, although hundreds of unfounded CMKX rumors have been meticulously parsed there.
You are now asking for a revocation of the stock for the company's failure to file but that the same time, you failed to enforce your own rules
Actually the SEC did follow its own rules. SEC procedures are that the Commission is basically a librarian for filings. Only later, if it becomes obvious that something is gravely wrong, does the librarian become a cop. Thus, the system of filing is basically an honor system. It's not hard to fool an honor system. Per the Post Hearing Brief: CMKX "reverse merged into a shell company with registered stock in November 2002, an attractive vehicle for fraudulent stock manipulator schemes." In other words, it avoided SEC registration review when it started. "The company then completely stopped filing periodic reports, and instead filed a series of misleading Forms 12b-25 and a fraudulent Form 15." "CMKM Diamonds has tried for more than two years to evade...all regulatory review." However, "if at some point in the future [after revocation] CMKM Diamonds obtains audited financial statements and is prepared to make complete and accurate disclosures of its operations in accordance with the federal securities law, it will be entitled to file a Form 10 and seek to register its stock...just like any other reporting company... The Division of Corporation Finance would then have an opportunity to review the Form 10 before it becomes effective, and issue any appropriate comments. This is the correct, time tested means by which corporations register stock..."
Unlike Form 15's, 10-K's, 10-Q's, etc., the SEC does actually review Form 10's when they are submitted. So, if this ever happens, you can take comfort that the SEC is doing the job which you have mistakenly thought they were doing with Form 15's.
Actually, Investorman, I think that the post you quoted may have been written by Mr. Casavant himself. The screen name is CMKX Millionaire. I can't imagine who else that could be but Mr. Casavant.
Fair enough.
Thank you for pointing out the further etymology of the term.
You must not come around this thread often. The topic I thought you were discussing is the #1 topic of discussion here. In fact, it is the topic on which the CMKX Owners Group is placing its faith in CMKX's very existence. The Owners have hired an attorney for the Administrative Law proceedings whose exclusive area of interest is the naked short position. Apparently the thesis is that the inability of CMKX to file its 10-Q's and K's arises because of a massive naked short position.
To my knowledge you are the first person to bring up the IMF in relation to CMKX.
Good points.
Not sure where you get 'naked shorting' from anything i have ever said
The only time I have ever heard the term "economic terrorists" was its use by the Mark Faulk/Dave Patch crowd in reference to naked short-sellers. Also, your post began by saying "Amen" to another poster for whom naked short-shortselling is a major issue: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6454667.
I guess you have some other "economic terrorists" in mind, but it's not clear who.
economic terrorists have cost far mor lives and dollars indirectly than any act of war.
Since you guys seem so sure there's all this naked shorting going on in the markets, how do you explain DCAI/MDKI? These are real companies on normal hedge funds' radar, not like Pink Sheet silliness. DCAI/MDKI is an absolute sure thing which is in a field where hedge funds already have extensive operations and which pays off in three weeks. How come funds aren't doing it in droves? (hint: the real answer is because there are SHO and CNS buy-ins up the wazoozie)
Also, since there isn't much naked shorting going on here, maybe you can explain to me why that's a good thing in this case. How are shareholder interests served by this? If naked shorting were allowed, this would be a win-win-win for MDKI shareholders, DCAI shareholders, and arbs. (I'm not recommending blanket relaxation of shorting and delivery rules, but it is short-sighted to pretend that in the case of real companies in legit markets--the stuff we should be MOST concerned about--there would not be a real benefit for everyone with naked shorting, just as there is with writing options. Market regulation ought to be primarily to benefit investors, not speculators, and market techniques/instruments ought to be available to let those investors reduce risk while increasing returns.)
Pink Sheets president puts out scathing letter re: counterfeit shares.
I have seen both Mr. Coulson's public letter and the private one he circulated within the industry. There was nothing scathing about either, nor was there any mention of counterfeit shares. In fact, the letters were carefully agnostic about whether naked short selling even exists outside of legitimate market-making activity.
I happen to disagree with Mr. Coulson about whether collecting and posting short interest for Pink Sheets stocks is a good idea. While I think more disclosure is better in 99% of cases, in this one the anti-naked-shorselling proponents are so constitutionally averse to truth that in my opinion new facts will simply be warped to the pre-existing agenda. I plan on including zen's characterization of his letter as an example of this phenomenon. Thank you for bringing the post to our attention.
"Though its securities are publicly traded, AMNI has failed to comply with its obligations to make periodic filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Accordingly, the nature and extent of information usually available to the public regarding companies whose securities are publicly traded are not available regarding AMNI. Any person reading this press release is advised that this release should be considered in light of all facts and circumstances regarding the business and financial condition and prospects of AMNI, and no inference is made in this release contains all such information."
If I understand this properly, it is saying that the company is not making any data about the company public. Any person reading the press release should consider the release in light of the data they do not have. And even then there's some missing data.
Joseph Heller should write a sequel.
I must not have been clear. All stocks which trade on the Pinks can be traded via telephone. Most stocks which trade on the Pinks can be traded via Pink Link. I wasn't sure, but I suspected that PRRM is telephone-only.
Did you send the details and a copy of your [PRRM] fill order in a complaint to NASD and the SEC? If not, I recommend you do so.
Pink Sheet stocks trade via Pink Link or telephone. When a trade is done via Pink Link, it is reported to ACT automatically. This system is pretty reliable. However, if the trade is done via telephone, the reporting to ACT is a separate step. When things get busy, this step is often overlooked, especially because the trades also have to be recorded manually in a log just to keep straight the firm's overall position vs. its couterparties--a far more important procedure.
I don't know anything about PRRM, but I don't think (I could be wrong on this) that it even trades on Pink Link at all.
In any event, the SEC and NASD would have no interest in a telephoned Pink Sheet trade not making it to the tape. It happens every day. Of course, a NASDAQ trade not making it to the tape during regular market hours would be a whole other matter.
That's one of the virtues of trading on a higher exchange--everything works a lot more professionally.
the only thing worthwhile that frizzy could do, from his involvement, is to tell us the share numbers from the OBO/NOBO list
This would certainly be helpful. However, I HAVE learned things from his posts and exhibits which I had not seen previously, so I wouldn't call it the "only" thing.
this would shut the naysayers up, once and for all, regarding NSS
It wouldn't shut me up. My first reaction would be that there was a convertible debenture which no one knew about. My second reaction would be that there was unregistered stock which no one knew about. My third reaction would be that Mr. Casavant had simply exceeded the authorized. Well down on the list would be that there were unhedged short sales of a .0001 stock.
He just won't do that, for some reason
The reason he won't do it is that people start with assumptions and then gather data to prove their point. People shouldn't do it that way, but they do. I just did it in my response to your "shut the naysayers up" comment. My knee-jerk response was to look for data which fits my preconceived assumptions and only way down the list to consider that there might be a naked short position.
This problem of ignoring data is even more critical with stock selection. Even though I KNOW that I could improve my investment returns by reaching an "I was wrong" conclusion sooner, my instinctual response to new data is to make it fit my position. I have to force myself and my colleagues to give fair hearing to contrary points of view. Even with procedures in place to "guarantee" that we stay open-minded, the reality is that we don't, and we take a long time to accept data which contradicts our prejudices.
I happen to think that Mr. Frizzell is off his rocker as regards a naked short position. However, until I start doing a better job of shedding my preconceived opinions, I am reluctant to criticize Mr. Frizzell for doing the same.
Good post. I agree.
I think it should be required that any company for which an electronic quotation is displayed on the pink sheets trading platform should at a minimum have open TA records, and make at least semi-annual financial statements available on a company website.
The semi-annual part might be a little weird. My understanding is that foreign issuers on the NAZ, AMEX, and NYSE are required to file only annually (20-F's) and have no website requirement. It would be strange to have a more stringent requirement on the Pinks than on the higher exchanges. Or perhaps you're suggesting tightening the rules on those exchanges too?
I can't believe anyone would advocate a company offering shares to the public without revealing financial information and continuing to do so on a regular basis.
They do file regularly. But they regard Sarbanes-Oxley as a bizarre burden, the likes of which exist no place else in the world.
If you don't like the rules in the US, then go elsewhere. It's really that simple.
The implication here is that the U.S. primacy in global financial markets is a perpetual stranglehold and that everyone else will always just have to dance to our drumbeat. In actuality there are a number of trade areas, especially Europe, which would love to make inroads into one more business where the U.S. has traditionally been number one.
If you were running a company which was number one in its field, and its largest foreign customer, a distinguished company, decided that there was something wrong with your product, would your response be, "Screw them"? I think a better response would be to see if there was something inherently wrong with the company's product. To extend the analogy to the current situation, rather than saying that Electrolux has to delist totally in the U.S., the better response might be to inquire whether, gee, maybe they have a point.
Incidentally Electrolux used to be listed on the NYSE. They delisted to the Pinks because of Sarbanes-Oxley.
There should be no pink / gray markets!!!! If a company cant file and have the nessesary goods to be in the public eye, Stay private, and screw theirselves!!!!
Uhhh, do you think only institutions or the super-wealthy should be allowed to buy stock in the world's largest and most profitable appliance manufacturer? That's what you're suggesting.
There are foreign companies out there like Electrolux, which has a long history of disclosure but thinks that Sarbanes-Oxley is ridiculous. Electrolux is listed on the Pink Sheets. Were they not, only investors with access to the Stockholm exchange would be able to invest.
Chris, though I am skeptical of CMKX, I agree with your post. Thanks for making the point.
I have always thought that what Mr. Frizzell is doing is worthwhile. I remember when he first took on the job, and there was a lot of skepticism among CMKX owners, that I thought this was a heck of a gamble and potentially costly to either Mr. Frizzell or Mr. Martin. With 20/20 hindsight this has turned into a fine business for Mr. Frizzell, but I certainly could not have foretold it. I also admire how forthright he was at the beginning about his inexperience in this field of the law.
When I say that what he is doing is worthwhile, I don't happen to think that he will have any effect at all on the outcome. What I meant is that prior to his appearance CMKX's approach was to provide no clear information but to shroud everything in innuendo. He has brought a welcome forthrightness to the situation. One could cavil about whether he has posted EVERYTHING he should have, but without him I am quite certain that NOTHING would have been posted about what's going on.
If I had had a multi-thousand dollar investment in CMKX, I would have invested $25 in Mr. Frizzell also.
I don't understand your post. I was suggesting that Mr. Casavant's taking the Fifth on all questions about his corporate actions casts some doubt as to whether he accurately issued shares. I would also suggest, since the stock is facing revocation for not filing, that there are two likely explanations for not having filed a single Form 4 during eight months of "preparation": 1) he has no clue how many shares he issued/sold or 2) his disclosing his sales in Form 4's would expose him to legal liability for, as an example, exceeding the authorized shares.
How exactly does Martha Stewart figure into this?
(Incidentally I happen to think that the outstanding share count is PROBABLY 703 billion, since the transfer agent doesn't dispute this number. But this is obviously not like GE, where all reasonable people would agree that the outstanding is 10.6 billion. I don't understand people's certitude on this issue--or the corollary that Mr. Frizzell's count PROVES something, even if the methodology were flawless. The count strikes me as nothing more than an interesting data point in a murky but intriguing story.)
If your partner's son-in-law is a market maker, and he asserts, as Gump does, that frequently a market maker acts as an intermediary and takes a proprietary position in a gray market stock, please post the name of the company he works for.
There is a general tendency in discussions on these boards to take something which happens occasionally and pretend that it occurs frequently and has a significant effect on the market. Market-making in a gray market stock is a perfect example of this. It is not supposed to be done at all. It most likely is done from time to time; sometimes it's an accident, and other times I'm sure a trader "forgets" that one of his stocks is unsolicited and "mistakenly" takes a proprietary position, which just happens to increase his P&L.
To suggest that this is standard practice or that it explains a long-term pattern of trades in a stock is like suggesting that eclipses have a significant effect on reducing skin cancer.
I don't understand something.
Let's suppose that Mr. Frizzell comes up with a trillion shares. Why is this necessarily a naked short rather than an issuance over the authorized by a man who pleads the Fifth to every question about his past actions?