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.
This I understand. But nobody responds.
Obviously, I hope you are right. But I have been around awhile and when you can't reach someone in a business, it is not a good sign. It's not like Linda is some multi-million dollar mogul. Only to reasons to hide. Don't give a $hit or don't know $hit.
Nobody likes Citadel. They hide behind performing a necessary function in the markets, while stealing everyone blind they possibly can.
I don't know why you would gamble? I profited on the DBMM P&D before revocation and sold for a profit on the most recent pump. I have no gamble here. Sitting on free shares. If it goes to zero I lose nothing. Obviously, better if it goes to 50 cents but doesn't look like to much effort is being put into that...
This made my day!!! Hilarious! Great stuff. DBMM making a list and checking it twice lol. I will tell you what. Post a number Linda will pick up when a call is made. Hell post a number where anyone of the "7" who supposedly work for DBMM will pick up. I will call them and put myself on that list if they want. If its a super duper secret decoder number you can PM it. See I have tried every available number, address, and email. Only response I ever got was out of Reggie with Digital Clarity. So super sleuth Linda, is not only AWOL in the company updates, is also AWOL regarding everything else. Maybe she's with Kramer since nobody here can find either of them lol!!!
Well this is obviously true in the investment world. But I don't know any public company that has large position investors, not on the books.
I am not infallible, but I don't see any documentation supporting any LTI concerns after the 2017 or timeframe. I see the company stating the existence in forward-looking statements. Just nothing official and verifiable..
So I can't be of any help here. Funny nobody has responded to the question.
If that's the requirement does Kramer get one too for owning all the NSS?
Ok if you say so.
Hope your right or going to have to change it to DBMM 3.0 in a few more months...
How the hell did you get a DBMM tinfoil hat? They have a merch store now? I want one!!!
Only thing HAM is good for is a sandwich. If Clay doesn't know anything, I doubt bacon has any better insights. I don't know either of them, but social media is full of clairvoyants. Linda isn't going to take a call from a no name social media "short killer." Same as Reggie goes on world famous, 6k viewership AVIDtrader and talks about DC but doesn't say squat about DBMM.
I actual was at least expecting them to say something of value, but I guess if you don't have something good to say, better to say nothing. Unfortunately, when the SEC kicks the can so does DBMM. I am starting to think, if they actually do have some sort of strategy here, it is reliant on a favorable review board decision. The management seems to be in a holding pattern until this decision is final.
Well, no news is better than bad news, I guess. See you all in June!
Actually, that is a standard practice. Large investors don't like unfinished business that could negatively affect their large investment. No matter how insignificant it may seem.
Obviously, by the response by micro investors, they share this same risk mitigating technique. Otherwise, talking about it would have ceased by now.
Now that is depicting this institution accurately.
What court case is this?
Or are we talking about the administrative proceedings being conducted now? Because that is not a court.
"This case differs because the ALJ screwed up."
This is a professional legal evaluation?
The reasons cited are, in fact, the reason the ALJ rejected the DOE recommendation. If a company chooses to fight, the DOE copy and paste recommendation is the same case after the case. The law judge reviews the same information from prior cases, sees concurrent results, and copy/paste the ALJ response to the decision.
For whatever reason, this ALJ reviewed the DBMM circumstances and sided with them.
Just because something has been done prior does not mean it was done correctly. I really don't have a strong opinion either way about this decision. DBMM didn't follow some rules. That is fact. They have an excuse to as why. Is it a good excuse? My opinion doesn't matter. Obviously, the ALJ thought it was.
Here is the fee structure for the SEC as well.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-15
Hahaha! My friend, there is nothing to let go of. You are right in stating they can change or dispatch the case if they ever get to that point.
The board will not affirm the ALJ decision. They will either let it stand as written, ammend it, or reject the case entirely.
Regardless of any of that. Until it happens, ALJ initial decision is the only decision on record.
An important point, just as in technical analysis, we take historical instances into account within many indicators to determine a probable outcome. Historically, the SEC has sided with most ALJ initial decisions in the review process. So, based on those facts, it seems unlikely they will not side with the ALJ here.
I think what is semantically implied here is that the review board has the final decision. The standing decision of record is that of the ALJ.
So until the game of kick the can stops, ALJ decision is the only actionable decision on record.
Words matter.
Fines are levied to make retail investors feel like something is being done. SEC gets money for every sale. The bulk of these fees is charged to brokers. SEC tries to spin it off as insignificant, which it is if you look at the way they propose. But consider the number of transactions daily, then convert that to annually. It's a little larger. SEC has no desire to bite the hand feeding it.
There is no right or wrong it is clearly stated in the rules. Now it doesn't say anything in the rules about having to like them...
I don't think many are worried. Certainly nobody with decades of trading experience. These SEC can kicks are a regular occurrence. The only apprehension I could see would also come from the same long-time traders. The review decision is not the problem. It is undecided business that is problematic, and that is not personal to DBMM. If Tesla had something not set in stone, these same investors would be apprehensive. It is part of risk management.
That said, it is a mute point as well. Those same investors would not come here until volume comes in. No matter how promising the forward-looking statements appear to be.
I am sorry, but you need to review the rules. If you go further up, it explains what the ALJ's role is and that their purpose is to review the DOE's findings and recommendations. Then, allow the company to present any evidence that they have. This would have also already been presented to the DOE prior to issuing a recommendation, in theory. Once the ALJ deliberates over this and requests any additional information, an initial decision is rendered. This is the final decision if there is no review requested. But in the interim, this decision is the decision on record unless the review board revises it. Really, it is a very simple process that we use in almost all litigation and mediation. In both instances, someone has to make a decision. Once that decision is made, it is binding unless there is an appeal. Now, as I have said before, the SEC is not a court of law. These proceedings have more in common with corporate internal proceedings or mediation hearings. The mediator, assigned adjudicator, or arbitrator, whatever you will call them, make the decision between the parties. If this does not settle the matter, it will proceed to a court of law.
The last actionable decision is that of the ALJ. The DOE has zero ability to levy decisions, only a recommendation. This is not disputable.
Just FYI. The review process has zip to do with the current initial decision, which was the last official decision made until the review is over.
This is why I said a can kick is unimportant. SEC has a long history of this. My guess is that during the next appropriations budget request, they will be crying the reason they can't have reasonable due process and protect investors is because they need more money...
I believe you give the SEC too much credit. They have so much bigger fish to fry right now, I highly doubt they know there is a DBMM. Only reason for the can kick is the magnitude of anything DBMM related is the equivalent of a Nat on a Water Buffalo's a$$.
Citadel is approaching 3% to 5% away from a margin call right now. The government is going to do everything in it's power to prevent a Lehman type collapse again. They know a bailout is not on the table this time.
I am sure they will force other giants to chip in and ease the collapse but ultimately everyone holding a naked short when the music stops is going to be looking at very few chairs.
I agree with a lot you say, as you know. Because I am a fundamental trader. Obviously, you can't be a strict fundamentalist in the OTC. A lot of wing and a prayer company's here.
I can't defend DBMM fundamentally because there is none. I can factual say something has changed here to allow for this 2.0 everyone is speaking. Which honestly is a good description, considering 1.0 was $hit.
I in no way adopt the theory that all the successes fighting the SEC is a valid reason to assume DBMM will be a profitable business. I will, however, say that it does pose a significant opportunity should management want to start a business where DBMM 1.0 was.
As far as the decision, it is somewhat semantical, but how the rule reads, the ALJ decision is a binding decision unless challenged and overthrown. Only one part of that has occurred. It has been challenged. Until the commission renders a decision, the initial decision is the acting decision.
As for further court battles, that would be highly speculative, although your opinion is certainly possible.
SEC is there to police brokers, just like EPA is there to police business in regards to environment.
They both receive funding from fines, fees, and federal taxes. If nobody did anything wrong, exactly how would they be funded. So, the system purposely makes it more lucrative to pay a fine than uphold the rules.
You can bet there is no help coming from your government...
Yes, that would be a problem if someone assumed that. They are part of the same system. DOE is not above or below. They are completely different from the ALJ. ALJ is strictly there to check the DOE recommendation for accuracy and decide accordingly.
DOE role is to recommend a course of action in the event of a rule violation.
ALJ is tasked with deciding if this recommendation should be followed, ammended, or dismissed and filling a decision.
Commission can step in on its own or if a review is petitioned. Otherwise, the ALJ decision is binding.
This decision is in review because the DOE felt the ALJ should have followed the DOE recommendation and petitioned the Commission for a review.
The ONLY decision on record is dismissal. Upon completion of the review, the Commission may side with the ALJ decision, ammend the ALJ decision, dismiss the ALJ decision, or stay its own decision.
The Commssion is not finalizing anything but the review process right now. Commission decision will be the final decision. ALJ is an administrative law judge. They were created to provide oversight in administrative proceedings before Federal Government agencies and are a check and balance for these agencies.
Only 2 things happen now. Answer on review and its completion to final decision or motion to extend.
This is the final decision from the commission but not a final decision on the matter unless DBMM does not contest the decision.
This is the process. Not debatable and linked below.
https://www.sec.gov/rulesprac072003
The returns only mean that they can not be argued as a current reason for lack of transparency. But yes, the length of time here is a big deal. If DBMM was a threat to investors, then the time involved here is unacceptable. There is also a provision within the rules that SEC has to prove that DBMM is a greater threat to future investors, so therefore, it can sacrifice existing investors thru revocation to save any future harm.
This is now difficult to prove. Obviously, SEC can do what it wants, but once this sees a higher authority, it would likely be dismissed, same as ALJ did. A lot of conjecture since SEC has the control, but time will tell.
Please read the comment again. You are simply restarting exactly what I said. SEC gives the ALJ its authority. For all purposes, ALJ is the SEC unless the commission decides to review a decision or a review is requested by an affected party. I also stated the possible outcomes per the rules and what the commission may decide. Review your link, and you will find this to be accurate.
I fail to see how any of this will negatively affect DBMM in the near term. Even if commission decision is revocation, DBMM will likely file a case with the upper courts. This will result in a stay until the case can be heard. So again, everything continues, business as normal until a final decision is made in the highest court.
I find it interesting that the bulk of investors believe the SEC is here to protect them. The SEC and FINRA are here to police broker/dealers and public companies. They receive revenue from fines and fees for doing this. To be clear, when I say police, I mean, they decide exactly how much any one organization is allowed to steal from investors before paying a fine. SEC wants negative sentiment in the markets. Negative equals selling, and SEC gets paid for every sale in the market.
Oh, I did leave out the commission can also stay orders. As I have pointed out before, it is possible for the SEC to side with the DOE and then stay the order they created. If it is determined, it would irreparably harm investors.
Not trying to be argumentative. It is just the process or facts.
I am sorry to disagree. The ALJ order is an SEC order. ALJ works for the SEC. The dismissal is the last SEC order in this case. Now, a review request was submitted, but until the review process is complete, this order stands. You can verify this is the rules section.
In addition, the commission can accept the initial decision, ammend it, revoke it, or order the entire process to be repeated. If DBMM is not satisfied with anything, the commission decides, DBMM can appeal the decision.
Just to be clear. That order was finalized and is the final and only standing order for this case. Now what you mean to say is it has been challenged through the process of commission review. What we are waiting for is the commissions decision on the review of standing order.
In normal markets, once the selling stops, the buying starts. In OTC, lot of manipulation so bottom is difficult to call. It will stop when a catalyst emerges or when enough believe it's a good time to add to the position. Obviously, this has not occurred as of yet.
That is kind of funny. You know I have traded for a long time. I have my own ideas here but all that aside. When I was having issues winning in a ticker I truly thought was a good trade, I learn that sometimes if I adjusted the chart from 1hr to 1day, all of the sudden everything looked much better. If you go back 6mo on the DBMM chart, it's not hard to see we have spend far more time well above this price, than at or below it. Doesn't mean in another 6mo might not look so rosy, but for now I think can probably rest easy until at least next week.
Unless, of course, you bet the rent money on this move. Then you might want to start $hitting the bed...
Well, there is also the naked short that is legal and was the actual use case for this activity.
MM can use this loophole to make a market while they locate shares. It was never designed to be a forever thing. Only to make markets in illiquid markets.