is...retired
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.
With 12B shares in the OS, all of which were worthless ($.0002 on Jan 1, 2021), you can expect profit taking for many months. Sellers will take their 1000%+ profit, and they should. Market cap on Jan 1: $2.4M
Market cap now: $85M...
MM's have nothing to do with it. It is just sellers with a set limit trying to take profit. It's the smart thing to do. It's what every trader should do when they're up 1000%...
The point is that no brokerages in the US will PERMIT shorting penny stocks. ASK YOUR BROKER!! ETRADE says it in black and white right on their web page.
Some people would rather argue when they are wrong instead of doing the very easy thing of checking the facts themselves. SMH
Yes, MM's do short penny stocks, I never said they don't. But it's not naked shorting. MM's MUST either have the shares, or know they will have them by close of day every day. Any short that is not closed the same day goes into the short report and is reported twice monthly. It is MM's on that list, not us.
Note that, if you put your HPIL shares up for sale at, say, $1, you may think you have 'locked' them. Nothing could be further from the truth. All MM's have to do is borrow them (short them) to get shares to fill an order, and then REPLACE them later the same day. You would never know. The only way to prevent mm's from using your shares is to not have them up for sale.
NOBO lists have nothing to do with shorting. None of us would show up on that list, because you aren't a beneficial owner if your stock is with a brokerage.
My assumption is that the list is to find out about any shareholders that are NOT with brokerages and that are from the old management. For instance, if a company loaned the old company money, and converted it to shares, that could be discovered, because those shares would not be in a brokerage.
They are probably trying to find any 'missing' shares from old management.
How anyone could connect a list of names to naked shorting is beyond me.
Call your brokerage, and ask them if you can short penny stocks. The answer will be no. If you look hard enough, you will find it on your broker's home page. Not easy to find, but it's easy to call them.
I found Etrade's rules which DO say they won't take short sales on penny stocks. But more importantly, it doesn't make financial sense.
Penny stocks rise and fall constantly. Putting up thousands of dollars in the hopes of making 10's of dollars simply makes no sense.
Just buy the fricking stock and sell it when it rises instead of risking your whole portfolio by gambling that it will drop.
Let's say you wanted to short 1,000,000 shares of HPIL. You would have to put up $2.50 per share as margin. That would cost you $2,500,000 JUST for the margin. And if the stock goes up, you are screwed because now you have to buy it at the higher price. So, you lost money.
Now, at $.01 per share, and betting it would drop 10%, you could make, at most, 1,000,000 X .009 = $9000. Again, you put up 2.5 MILLION in margin to make, at best, $9000.
Not that your brokerage would permit it, but you can see why a brokerage would not get involved with that.
Use that 2.5M to buy the stock. You could buy 250 million shares. Let it go up one click, to .011 and make $250K...If it drops, just hold it until it DOES go up. Nothing lost unless sold at a loss.
Gamestop is not a penny stock. It's a $200 NYSE stock. That's like comparing an airplane to a wheelbarrow.
Naked shorting does occur in big board stocks, but not in penny stocks which can't be shorted. MM's 'could' naked short, but the penalty would be far higher if caught than they could make in doing so. The OTC is automated, so there is an audit trail for every trade. The SEC could easily track down such activities. In big boards, it isn't as automated, so there are brokers that 'could' cheat the system. That is who the SEC is after.
NO, you can't. Anyone who trades US stocks must follow the same rules as US residents. If that was not the case, foreign investors could have a huge advantage over US investors.
There are no 'illegal' naked shorts either. OTC is an au6omatec market, meaning no persons are involved in the trades. You couldn't keep up with 10,000 penny stocks trading trillions of shares a day with people in tin hats.
And, the trades are recorded - naked shorting would stand out immediately, because there is an audit trail for every single trade in the otc. Not ONE trade is illegal, because if it were, the MM's would stand to lose millions of dollars in fines for a few dollars in illicit profit.
Get a grip. This is not the old days. Computers do the trading here, and everything is recorded, including SOURCE and DESTINATION of every trade. You CAN'T cheat that system, and anyone that insists it can be cheated is simply not aware of the rules, or wants to puff themselves up by talking about something that is not possible these days. Unfortunately, newbs believe that bs and then repeat it ad nauseam as if THEY actually knew anything about it.
Look...you can't short penny stocks to start with. So, that is not happening. All this guessing ignores the fact that no broker will permit it. Don't believe me? Try shorting, say, 100 shares of any penny stock. You can't.
The SOS - Secretary of State - where HPIL is homed, (Wyoming) will always display the correct AS. It cannot be changed unless HPIL changes its articles of incorporation. So if you read the AOI, you will see exactly what the AS is.
I did. Common Shares
60,000,000,000
There is no naked shorting on the otc. It is an automated market (no people decisions), and there is a full audit trail for every trade. Naked shorting would stand out like a sore thumb, since they certainly have software checks in place to ensure all trades are legal. An MM wouldn't want to be fined millions while trying to 'sneak' a couple dollars on a penny stock. Jesus!
They have not said that. But it doesn't natter, energy is lost in every process, you can't put all the energy lost in driving the vehicle back in the battery. It is simply not possible.
If you're so sure there are batteries that recharge themselves with no additional energy input, YOU GO FIND IT AND POST IT. That is BS.
What does that have to do with anything? They aren't selling cars with no power source.
They are called laws, because they are true. Theories and hypotheses can be disproven, but laws are laws, that can be depended upon to put rockets safely in space, etc.
A simple way to look at the problem is that, as water always flows downhill, (except when it's pushed uphill) energy always degrades. It NEVER increases on its own. Everything runs down, even nuclear material.
Batteries go dead. To use a dead battery, you have to recharge it. We have not been told what that energy source is, so we don't have enough information to determine feasibility.
What is impossible is violating the laws of physics. If you really think a car can be powered by a battery and no other fuel source, you simply don't get that SOMETHING has to charge the battery, and NOTHING has been said about what that energy source is.
It makes no sense to argue with me, I'm simply pointing out that what we've been told doesn't represent something that is possible.
A car with no driver is obviously doable. A car with no energy source is not. Batteries are not energy sources, they are energy storage devices.
Yes, my partner's Rav-4 has that, but it still has to burn gas. We are talking about a vehicle who's ONLY energy source is a battery, and how it supposedly can recharge itself. That' ain't gonna happen. They have not told us the primary energy source, but what they've said so far is impossible.
Your point?
Maybe it's based on cold fusion. I hadn't thought of that! Yeah, that'll do it.
I know what nano-diamond batteries are - they are powered by the radiation from nuclear power plants. THAT is a primary energy source, which is why it is used to run reactors. I indicated that *could* be feasible.
Management said it would be 'recharging while running'. NDB's aren't ever recharged - they take thousands of years to run down. None of us will be alive when the first NDB runs down.
The carbon used in a nuclear reactor becomes irradiated. That carbon material is squeezed into diamond. Now you have man-made diamond that radiates energy. You harness that energy into a battery, while preventing radiation from escaping from said battery.
It is still theoretical. There is not one working example to be seen. It certainly isn't ready to power cars - but it would be good in cell phones, which now get thrown away because the batteries are not replaceable.
Not possible. All the energy that is lost in conversion cannot be recovered. Both batteries will run down because there is NO ENERGY SOURCE.
You can't use a battery to run a generator to charge a battery - or if you try it, it won't last long, because energy lost in conversion cannot be replaced.
Cars use gasoline to run generators, to charge batteries. You're trying to describe a car using a battery to charge batteries. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that there is nothing replacing the lost energy, so it will all run down.
You still have not identified the primary energy source. WHAT powers these 'generators'? There isn't enough energy in ambient air to power much more than a phone.
At some point, someone has to explain where the energy comes from to recharge the battery.
No, you don't reverse merge a private company into a holding company. In other words, it would not be NSAV if they DID RM into an existing shell. NSAV is not a shell company. There are lots of shells for sale, and all SBC would need to do is the mechanics of finding one and applying for the RM. I've been through these on the OTC.
I do know physics, and electronics. I was in that business for decades. You can't 'make' energy, period. You can only convert it from one form to another-and in the process, some energy is always lost. A battery run car has to have a primary source of energy. Batteries are not primary energy sources - so WHAT charges the battery, and WHAT kind of primary energy source does it use? Until these questions are answered, the concept of a self charging battery, sufficient to run a car, without a primary source of energy is a pipe dream.
Graphene has been in the news for a decade. I've not seen that it can do much except power things like cell phones.
The nuclear battery is truly an energy source, but it has not yet been made commercially, and it doesn't match what management said about recharging while running.
I'm working on mind control to add energy to water. I can already melt ice by concentrating on it. I will soon be able to use the power of my mind to boil water.
The point is that this is NOT a gas/diesel situation. There is NO other fuel other than what is installed in the car. If the battery is running the car, the motors will get hot. You can test that right now - put your hand on an ev's motor. Tesla, whatever. That heat is energy, and it is lost. The car went from point A to point B, and lost energy in the process. Where, exactly would ADDITIONAL energy come from to replace it? If there is some sort of charging system, what runs THAT? You can't use the kinetic energy of the vehicle itself to charge enough to replace the energy lost in driving the vehicle. Any charging system won't be 100% efficient either, so there are losses there too.
The company has not given us enough information to understand what their 'drive train' can do, but I can assure you that you can't replace lost energy unless you have an additional energy source to do it.
No, not even close. Energy is lost by running a car on a battery. The loss is measured in heat given off. ALL OF IT. The lost energy is lost to the air, not to some 'rechargeable form'. There is nothting to 'capture'. I've been in this since the 60's...have heard about many things that didn't happen, and almost NONE of the claims like this one - it simply isn't possible unless there an an energy source in place that can replace not only the energy to run the vehicle, but the energy lost in the process. You can't replace more than you started with.
Actually, I'm not wrong. They are still pink stop, and will be so until they aren't. That could take months.
Any claim that energy can be expended and then replaced without a valid primary energy source (wind, solar) to supply the additional energy is false. In every conversion of energy from one form to another heat is given off. That is wasted energy. There is no way to 'recreate' the lost energy through some kind of 'capture' system. It is already lost.
The 'nuclear' battery may be another thing - but it is only theoretical at this point. I think it may prove possible, but there are many promising technologies that never become common. And the nuclear battery doesn't appear to be what management is talking about. He said 'while it is running'.
Running a car with battery, and expecting to recharge the battery without providing an energy source of some kind simply will never happen. The nuclear battery IS an energy source, so that's why it can work, if it can be made feasible.
You can't violate the laws of physics. They are laws for a reason.
Not really a new company. New management, yes, but the financial reporting is still required for missing years FOR THAT COMPANY. Even if it says 'nothing in, nothing out', it is required. Another company I was in had that exact problem. It took them 6 months to get 'current' during which time the share price dropped out of sight. We don't have 6 months.
Any public company, in order to current in filing, can't be missing any quarters. They are sequential, each building on the last. They don't get a 'bye' on filings.
They haven't filed for 5 years. ALL filings from ALL of those years must be completed and accepted by Sep 21 to remain tradeable. That's 5 years X 4 filings per year = 20 quarters behind.
The stock was not shorted. You can't short penny stocks.
The short report has absolutely nothing to do with public trading.
Go learn what it means...it just shows the MM activity.
September 21 is the day things change. No more pink stop. MM's will be prevented from executing trades for such stocks.
From the SEC:
Companies that are designated as “Pink No Information” or otherwise fail to provide current information as required by the Rule will no longer be eligible for public quoting, subject to certain limited exceptions (for example, certain quotations submitted on an “unsolicited” basis). If these companies do not take proactive steps to make disclosure available before the September 2021 compliance date, they will move to the Expert or Grey market.
No one is shorting NSAV. No one can. Give that shorting bs up...you only show your ignorance.
They can use my name too, if they want to pay me $100K per month, like these new directors. There is a disconnect between these 'salaries' and the fact that NSAV is not making enough money to pay them. It is not the only disconnect either. All these press releases about a dumb conference shows squandering cash for press releases that have absolutely no bearing on the business. While they are boasting about a conference, they are not saying a thing about how the business is doing. How IS it doing? Have any of these deals produced ANY income yet? I doubt it, but we'll know when the quarter is filed.
There is no pro or con for a private company to reverse merge into a holding company.
Holding companies don't make anything, they get a cut of the profit.
Reverse mergers are for private companies to go public without having an IPO. Generally, it is a clean, available public shell company, which is basically simply existing.
Here is more on shell companies.
Shell companies for sale
NSAV is NOT a shell company, it is a holding company with interest (partial ownership) of other companies. The goal is for the held companies to make profit, after which NSAV would take a cut of that profit.
The ONLY income NSAV will see is if those companies become profitable. Meanwhile, it is hemorrhaging cash for trivial press releases like talking at a stupid private conference and changes in the articles of incorporation, etc. None of that is good for a press release, it is ok for Twitter, but that is no expense. PR's cost money.