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.
Thank you for your reply.
I just can't come up with a better explanation for the strange behavior that has occured other than Spooz was afraid of a buyout.
JMO
Please understand the basis of my hypothesis being raised:
Why Buy The Milk When You Can Buy The Cow!
Q. How much is Spooz valued at?
Q. How much is the contract worth?
If the value of Spooz is less than the value of the contract, then if you are the customer, buy the company.
Thus the strange behavior by all parties involved.
Thank you for your valued time and consideration with this hypothesis. I welcome comments.
JMO
Part 2: Why Buy The Milk When You Can Buy The Cow?
Part 1: Post # 60278.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33725278
Capital 141 would need to be able to stand on its own two feet after a buyout.
Fears of a buyout may also explain the rather strange behavior by Capital 141 in its rather hasty offer to convert common to preferred shares. By Capital providing the offer of a conversion, it would reduce outstanding common shares and boost a relatively weak balance sheet. Also, it may induce a higher common stock price, after the conversion. Then Capital, would be able to issue additional common shares to supplement income if it was unable to acquire customers and revenue. The threat of a potential buyout would cause Capital to make good on timely payments to Spooz as the new owners may not be so understanding and cooperative in delayed payments, which in turn may subject Capital 141 to problems including a takeover by default of debt obligation. Worse, a buyout of Spooz, may threaten the existence of Capital 141, causing it to collapse. By throwing off the brains and manpower of Spooz, Paul would probably be presently more concerned over the survivability of Capital, which he also has a vested interest.
Kaitrade may actually act as a poison pill, as the brain power is gone. Perhaps the best test of the hypothesis of a fear of a potential buyout is to have a better understanding of Kaitrade being a poison pill. The “who, what, when, where, how and why” needs to be better understood. Any and all information, including date of origination, and perhaps more importantly date of the lease signed for the present building, would be a good start in testing the hypothesis of the fear of a potential buyout and the ramifications that would entail.
Catani, for once I may actually agree with you, but only to the point that there are no employees left in Spooz. My belief that there are no employees left in Spooz is for an entirely different reason and that is Spooz took a poison pill to create Kaitrade, in an attempt to make a buyout unpalatable.
The hypothesis that Spooz was fearful of a buyout caused the strange set of events by Spooz, Capital 141 and Kaitrade.
Again, thank you for your valued time and consideration with this hypothesis. I welcome comments.
JMO
Why Buy The Milk When You Can Buy The Cow?
The alleged contractual agreement, to which we are not privy to, may have non-disclosure information inserted into the contract by the customer. Obviously, it is in the customer’s best interest to prevent their customer from knowing who the subcontracted third party is; otherwise, their customer could have contacted us directly. Thus, (speculating here) a non-disclosure clause was inserted by the customer, into the contractual agreement that was inked between Spooz and our customer. The innocent looking and overlooked language of non-disclosure has come back to perhaps haunt Spooz ever since. In the short run, it may be causing unfounded fears, to which cannot be answered, but in the long run revealed. The problems created of course first in foremost is the lack of pertinent, quality information regarding the business activity being released to the shareholders, and second a potential scenario that may develop making Spooz an attractive company to buy and the buyer will be our customer!
A non-disclosure statement inserted into the contract may in fact better explain why the first PR posted on September 23 was removed. Remember, the legal department became involved requesting the PR be removed and the reason being "too many phone calls" were received? Since the PR had to be removed, the stock price has subsequently dropped ever since. This is bad for the management of Spooz, because just like us, their value has dropped significantly which in turn affects the balance sheet and thus an ability to secure additional line of financing for expanded operations. Since the Spooz balance sheet is not pretty, an upstart Kaitrade can open for business and acquire the additional financing requirements based on invoicing better than an overburdened Spooz. This also allows for the staff of Kaitrade to demonstrate an ability to service the Spooz product for after market customizations, leaving them with the autonomy they desired without being gobbled up by the next owner. A potential buyout scenario may better explain why any reference to Spooz was removed from individuals resume, so that a clean break is established without proprietary information leaving during the middle of a buyout.
Now I would like to put forth a hypothesis: In previous calculations of potential revenues, we focused solely on our revenue from sales of product(s) based on the original PR of up to 1200 seats. However, after thinking about the revenue calculations again based on new information in the last PR that has our attention, it may be cheaper in the long run for the customer to just buy Spooz. Based on a low share price of $0.0002, at 5B shares, that's only 1M! Even at a premium of $0.0004, it still would be cheaper for the customer to buy us out over the long run. So, the question has to be raised, at what point does Spooz become unattractive to a potential buyout based on share price? I'm just throwing a number out there, (using Birdito's previous number for starters) of $0.005 x 5B = $25M... Would that throw off a potential buyout?
Spooz is a small company, with a large number of shares, and a comparatively small number of shareholders. I would wager that those who have posted on the board collectively own a large majority of the company stock, and have been conducting the majority of the trades on this stock. We may be hurting ourselves by throwing off our extra crumbs lately at the ridiculous price of $0.0002, while keeping our cookies. Unless the share price goes up, we may lose our cookies and the entire cookie jar through a buyout. The individual, per transaction volume needs to decrease with a higher ask price, which would mirror a higher priced stock.
Unfortunately, the longs are being hampered by mm, short, pessimists and a lack of transparency. In the short term, without concrete information with respect to the contract, or positive revenue flow confirming a contract, the share price will remain. Even if the magical PR appears which would sufficiently confirm a contractual relationship to both the optimists and pessimists, new individual investors may not take the time to research the product or Spooz due to the complexity of the product being offered. They will only be concerned with the pps, charts, and/or any potential revenue that will generate potential dividends.
As the product demonstrates success, Spooz runs a risk of a buyout due to a ridiculously low share price. It would be in everyone's best interest to see a higher share price in the short and long run, with the exception being the shorts... If someone is more versed in the differences between Pink and OTC stock buyout scenarios, please advice accordingly with respect to proper notification in advance to the shareholders of record.
Thank you for your valued time and consideration with this hypothesis. I welcome comments.
JMO
I've seen it happen. Try: $0.00001 (during mid-day trading). Believe it or not, I then tried to gobble that up too! My broker said "no dice." Found out that E-Trade would do it. 45 days later, the stock hit a mid day trade high of $0.0006.
Buy $100 dollar play at $0.00001 = 10M shares
Sell 10M shares at $0.0006 = $6k. Not bad.
G20 Document puts things into perspective
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081115-1.html
We could potentially see large movements in the Forex market as the undiclosed details of the plan are implemented.
MC, I agree with what you are saying about validating the information.
However, we may never see an official PR based on who the customer is.
Today's PR release may be as close to getting a PR as we will ever get
at least anytime soon. Note, tomorrow is the FIX conference and the
customer will have some bravado going into it after just landing B of A.
Without any new PR's, then we are back to 3Q and 4Q as you so eloquently
pointed out before in a prior posting.
Question: What should the CFO do in order to comply with the legal contract
with the other company, while at the same time complying with FASB
and GAAP?
Refer to prior posts made by:
Alliecorp
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=32547173
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=32564852
And
Longhornbill: Indicating the financial reporting requirements
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33625637
It may be possible that any concrete proof will be in the numbers as the
contractual agreement may have non-disclosure language attached. I would
start to expect rather strong numbers though as B of A owns Merrill Lynch.
That would mean an increase in the previously discussed estimations of
seats would it not?
I believe the answer is Yes.
See Demo, Part 1. Under "Other Data Feeds." I just finished watching it again. Suggestion: Get the popcorn!
http://www.spooztoolz.com/demo/SpoozToolzDemo/SpoozToolzDemo.html
Kaitrade: 4.2 RTD Configuration file
http://www.kaitrade.com/SpoozToolz/STAdminGuide/RTDConfigurationfile.html#Topic31
As a side note, Bloomberg uses FIX protocol, (from older document) http://www.bloombergtradebook.com/nmsforwebsite.pdf
I hope our Cinderella shows up tomorrow.
http://www.jandj.com/fpl2008/
Success...seems to be largely a matter of hanging on after others have let go.
-William Feather
Everyone could use some
wishful thinking or positive inspirational thinking:
On September 23, 2008, the date of the "announcement" the Options Symbology Symposium occurred in NY. http://events.sifma.org/2008/289/event.aspx?id=5850
November 23, 2008 falls on a Sunday.
http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/monthly.html
The announcement indicated "on or before."
On November 19 and 20, 2008, The 5th Annual FPL Americas Electronic Trading Conference will occur: http://www.jandj.com/fpl2008/
2008 FPL Americas Electronic Trading Conference, located: New York Marriott Marquis Times Square, NY.
This is the FIX Protocol, Industry-Driven Messaging Standard
Firm Type
Broker Dealers, Exchanges/ECNs/ATS, Dark Liquidity Pools, Clearing Firms, Investment Management Firms, Hedge Funds, Pension Funds, Mutual Funds, Vendors, Consulting Firms, Trading Solutions, Solution Providers, OMS/EMS Vendors, Network Providers, Prime Broker, Custodians
Would be nice to see an announcement correspond to the conference on November 19 and 20.
The Secret
http://thesecret.tv/
Only my opinion. I'm only a shareholder. Not compensated in any form. Invest at your own risk.
I would be happy with improvement
Two announcements we should be looking for:
1. 3Q
2. "The anticipated announcement."
Does anyone have any speculation as to when the 3Q results will be announced and what may be in the document?
Oh, and as a side note, the credit swap market is now estimated to be at $32 trillion USD, down from $55 trillion from the election.
WSJ, November 15, 2008, B6:
"Regulatory Troika Heads Off Swap Turf War"
To Aid of CDS Clearinghouse(s) by Year's End, the Fed, SEC and CFTC agree to Cooperate.
By Doug Cameron and Jacob Bunge
Three U.S. regulators sought Friday to head off a brewing turf war centered on the credit default swap market, though doubts remain about whether industry solutions to clear trades centrally will be up and running by years’ end.
The Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are reviewing rival applications to establish a clearing house for credit-default swaps. The three regulatory agencies understanding to cooperate and have one or more credit default swap clearing platforms operations before year's end.
More than $32 trillion of these insurance like contracts are outstanding in this over the counter derivatives market is viewed by lawmakers as a potential source of systemic financial risk.
At a futures industry conference in Chicago in the past week, executives from across the sector suggested that industry efforts to establish a credit default swaps clearinghouse were more complex than first thought and might take longer than expected.
But exchange operators IntercontinentalExchange Inc. and CME Group Inc., which are working on clearinghouses, say their platforms will be ready in time.
The New York Fed has taken the lead in trying to improve transparency and processing of credit default swap trades. The CFTC and the SEC have also laid claim to overseeing the market.
The memo of understanding reiterated efforts to improve oversight and transparency but stopped short of giving any single agency control. State-chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve, derivatives clearing organizations or a clearing agency were identified as potential vehicles for the clearing houses, mirroring industry efforts to meet the Fed driven goal.
Atlanta based ICE effectively has the support of the largest swap dealers for its planned clearinghouse, which is expected to be in the form of a bank that is regulated by the Fed. The platform is aiming to start clearing trades next month.
CME Group has applied to the CFTC to establish a credit default swap clearing and trading platform in partnership with Citadel Investment Group. New York Stock Exchange parent NYSE Euronext, meanwhile, is seeking an exemption from the SEC to provide CDS clearing solution in the U.S. by January and will launch a European version next month.
While ICE is keeping CDS clearing separate from its existing futures products, CME plans to incorporate the swaps into its existing clearinghouse. The "co-mingling" approach has drawn fire from existing CME customers, despite the company's insistence that safeguards will be in place to separate the products and their risk.
Walter Lukken, acting chairman of the CFTC, said this past week that he expects one or two CDS clearing services will be approved "in weeks." He said the agencies would work to synchronize their approvals so that none of the rival proposals receives an unfair advantage.
The pictures appear to be essentially
the same pictures that were in the gallery before.
Slide 45 appears to be altered. Notice the hammer?
I wonder what was cut out of the photo?
2008 - Disclosure of Compensation:
Spooz, Inc. (OTCPK: SPZI) 40,000,000 by a third party by for marketing and hiring of third party firms.
http://www.microcappulse.com/footerpage.php?footer=disclaimer
This note appears half way down the page.
Q. Is this old information?
Q. Anyone have additional information about who this "third party" is?
Thank you.
Market segmentation.
Right now the strategy appears to be focused on institutional traders and full service houses; Bloomberg, IB, Ameritrade.
Retail, meaning: single end users license agreements (EULA) would mean an entirely different marketing strategy and product mix.
Examine Microsoft's start: They did not market single EULA's, instead, their firt contract for DOS was with IBM's PC. IBM, believed hardware was going to be more important than software, and thus chose to outsource their software to MS. The rest was history. Eventually, single EULA's were sold.
Please disregard if you have seen
this before:
http://www.tssupport.com/casestudy/casestudy.spoozinc.pdf
Yes, I haven't been posting on
this board for very long, but I have been following the stock on the sidelines for some time. My research has taken me into the caverns of the iternet. The most important thing I've learned while researching is to copy the information for later retention as the information will sometimes mysteriously disappear and/or I won't have access to it later. I believe everyone and no one at the same time, so I try to do my own research.
My guess: There is a conference toward the end of the month in Chicago, which would correspond to the 60 day announcement. I'm not looking for any information prior to that.
Reply:
Thanks a lot for bringing on the DD but I miss your point.
Q. You imply that Spooztools would be the ideal program to work with concerning this issue?
A. Please review the Symbology effort requirements and the Spooz software. If there are any shortcomings with the Spooz software, I'm not aware of any.
If I'm wrong, kindly correct me. Notice the testing program requirements on option trading, etc?
Q. Correct me if I'm wrong but the deal already fell through so there is no "hopeful" stuff with SMCC anymore right?
A. Correct. As of right now, there is no ongoing contractual relationship between Spooz and SFB/SMCC, which would be a revenue generating event for Spooz.
Q. I'm not sure if I get your point as we all know that Spooz or SMCC backed out of the deal.
A. The information provided attempted to detail the progression of the symbology effort and that SFB/SMCC initiated the contact with Spooz as SFB/SMCC wanted the Spooz software. Presently, SFB/SMCC currently provides terminal and data information to Bloomberg. The rumored deal between Bloomberg and Spooz was brought up by SFB/SMCC in my conversation. Repeat, I did not bring up the rumored Bloomberg/Spooz deal; SFB/SMCC brought up Bloomberg/Spooz deal. The Bloomberg deal will enable Spooz to sell terminals to Bloomberg, while SFB/SMCC will continue to provide the data feed to Bloomberg. Why would Bloomberg be interested in something other than the SFB/SMCC terminal? Please refer to the article showing the survey taken by market participants, that only 2 % were contemplating the SFB/SMCC terminal software for the Symbology effort. The final implementation date for the symbology effort is 2010, however market participants are free to adopt to the new standard before the final implementation date and are deciding right now which program to go with.
Research on Symbology Initiative:
First, please refer to SEC document: SEC Release No. 34-56037, whereby SFB Market Systems was responsible for proposing the symbology initiative. SFB Market Systems http://www.sfbms.com/ is the primary data provider with their primary product, Symbolmaster https://www.symbolmaster.com/, and is a privately owned entity with an investment made by Track Data, TRAC http://www.trackdata.com/ http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/545373/track_data_announces_investment_in_sfb_market_systems/index.html
I have since contacted SFB Market Systems https://www.symbolmaster.com/?page=contact to get their take on the press release which shows Spooz having a relationship with SFB. http://www.spooz.com/press_details.aspx?ContentID=128
I'm now paraphrasing what was said in the conversation with the owner: Essentially, SFB initiated the contact with Spooz as SFB was interested in the Spooz Tools interface. While SFB does have an interface, the Spooz product was appealing. She indicated that the people at Spooz were very nice, but ultimately Spooz decided to back out of the agreement as Spooz was viewing the matter more on a marketing issue/advantage to be linked with SFB. I then asked about the article written shown below indicating the adoption rates and how the symbology effort was going. The response was that while SFB does have an interface and is the leading provider of information services their terminal was admittedly lacking. She then said, "I understand that Bloomberg is interested in the Spooz software program?" I indicated that this seems to be the present rumor. She then indicated that "You know Bloomberg is one of our present customers..." However, she wasn't concerned as SFB would still provide the information, but not act as a terminal provider. As far as the press release linking Spooz with SMCC, she wasn't sure why Spooz hasn't provided a clarification to the shareholders as she gets phone calls all the time from Spooz shareholders. (I guess we shareholders are becoming a rabid bunch?)
http://www.securitiesindustry.com/news/22831-1.html
Now, please bear in mind, that while there are a few terminal providers that are participating in the validation effort, Spooz is not one of them as shown in the above article. (Notice the projected adoption rate of the SFB/SMCC program of 2 %?) Financial institutions are presently deciding which terminal software to go with and are free to choose any terminal software so long as it meets the requirements of the symbology efforts undertaken http://www.optionsclearing.com/initiatives/symbology/implementation_plan.jsp http://www.optionsclearing.com/initiatives/symbology/osi_testing.jsp. To my knowledge, the Spooz software product meets and/or exceeds the proposed initiative changes, and I would be happy to be corrected otherwise if the present plain vanilla program being offered doesn't meet the changes. If the Spooz software doesn’t meet the proposed symbology changes, please point out the deficiencies.
As the symbology implementation effort unfolds, the $200 million plus US market, and worldwide market is fair game. It is important to watch the developments with the industry as the symbology effort unfolds:
http://www.fif.com/news/fifnews.php
http://www.fif.com/symbology_wg/
http://events.sifma.org/2008/289/event.aspx?id=5850 (Notice the date of this symposium?)
To be fair, the greatest setback for Spooz undoubtedly was the setback of the final implementation date of the symbology effort. The reason cited for the setback date was the market participants concerned over the transition costs to the new symbology mandate. The final implementation date has been moved from July 31, 2009 to 2010. What is important to Spooz, is that participants are free to select and implement a software terminal program that meets the Symbology effort at anytime. That would be now.
FAQ: http://www.optionsclearing.com/initiatives/symbology/faq.pdf
Market Differentiation regarding Spooz and Kaitrade:
It has been over 15 years since my last marketing class while obtaining my B.S.B.A. After all these years, I only remember only two things:
First, the incredibly hot girl I met in my marketing class who was sadly obsessed with her body being disproportioned at 38,22,34. She talked about wanting cosmetic surgery all the time to correct her freak of nature hot body. I tried really hard, day and night to make her feel better. Had I not been so distracted, and perpetually wore out, I would have probably received a higher grade in that marketing class.
The second thing I remember was my marketing professor, who would teeter at the edge of the stage wearing thick gold chains and sunglasses, while screaming at the top of his lungs about market differentiation, and market segmentation, while defending his actions he took while at Coca Cola. He was the genius that convinced the CEO of Coke to introduce, “New Coke” and then “Classic Coke” when “New Coke” turned into a marketing failure. My class always secretly surmised that he couldn’t find another real job in the private sector after this colossal marketing blunder. The reality of course, is that the present Coca-Cola formula has changed over time from the original, but the label remains relatively the same in the US.
The two lessons learned in this marketing failure: 1. If you are intending on changing your product, do so subtly in such a way as to prevent consumer backlash. As a result of the Coca-Cola failure, the food industry will very quietly and very subtly change the secret ingredient mix, slowly over time to meet ever changing consumer preferences. 2. Market segmentation is extremely important, as with the example with Coca-Cola, as the brand and product are marketed differently in each geographical region around the world and the secret ingredient mix is altered to each region to meet cultural demands.
Example: Car manufacturer selling vehicle “X.”
Vehicle X is available in three styles:
1. Stripped down version. No power windows, locks etc.
2. Some upgrades, Power windows, locks, upgraded stereo etc.
3. Luxury version, which includes all of the #2 product version, plus leather, more horsepower, satellite, gps, dvd, etc.
The reality is that creating more versions of the same product cost money from the standpoint of R&D, and associated production and marketing costs. If a business plan incorrectly misses a perceived marketing and/or economic trend, the consequences can be disastrous, as seen with present fiasco in Detroit. However, back when the economy was performing well, no shareholders were complaining about Foose customizing vehicles after market and losing out on these revenues. The reason is that the more a product is customized, the more expense and risk is incurred.
At this point Spooz has one product with no other versions available. One size does not fit all. Due to limited revenues, low cash, and a lock up in the short term lending market (remember the credit crunch?) Spooz found itself in a difficult position trying to meet the customer’s demand of a customized product for a very important order.
You can either view this development as the glass being half empty or half full. My viewpoint is that the glass is more than half full. This shows an early maturity in the product life cycle. The benefits of a Spooz/Kaitrade relationship are mutually exclusive, just as the Ford Mustang and Foose are mutually exclusive. Each benefit the other through their independent and cohesive business objectives. THE most important aspect for shareholders of Spooz with respect to the Spooz/Kaitrade and Spooz/Bloomberg relationships is the branding issue. While revenues are extremely important in meeting the break event point, plus profit, THE most important issue may actually be a matter of the “Z” TM, and the Spooz name being prominently displayed in conjunction with the various business partner relationships media, which establishes the Spooz brand and product, which will then enable Spooz to do what we longs always anticipated it would do, which is increased market share and increased revenues, through market differentiation and segmentation. Go Spooz!
.
Opinion: Big nooz with launch of credit swap market this week.
With transparency developing and market makers deleveraging their positions, there may be a short term surge in the US dollar as trades are settled out. Between the launch of the credit swap market and the derivative market as described in message 59818, this is going to be a very very interesting week.
Perhaps this is what was meant by "something very very large looming in the coming days?"
Anyone want to guess on the volatility of the equity market this week?
From WSJ Saturday, 11/01/08, pg B2
New Data Will Report Credit Swaps Tied to Bonds
Starting in the coming week, the public will get a glimpse into a slice of the credit-default swap market that hasn't been visible to most investors that trade these insurance like contracts.
The Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. said it will publish weekly data showing the volume of outstanding credit-default swaps tied to many individual bonds and loans. Starting Tuesday, it will release information on its Web site ( http://www.dtcc.com/ ) for 1,000 debt issuers- such as companies and countries-that swaps have been written on.
The move is part of a broad effort by large banks and other market participants to increase transparency and reduce risk in the credit-default-swap market. A lack of information about swap volumes on individual bonds has contributed to investor worries about this market in recent weeks.
On Friday, industry players released a letter to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, pledging to do more to reduce volumes of outstanding swaps and to start clearing trades through a central clearinghouse by November or December.
Credit-default swaps are contracts that trade directly between firms and provide protection against bond and loan defaults. As of June 30, such swaps had been written on $55 trillion worth of debt, and until recently that number had been growing exponentially, causing concern among regulators that some players in the market couldn't fully gauge their risk exposures. Unlike stocks and bonds, there isn't a fixed supply of swaps outstanding, and dealers continually create new contracts with each other or with their customers such as hedge funds.
In a statement Friday, the New York Fed said firms have been instructed to reduce outstanding trades by "tearing up," or canceling, contracts that effectively offset each other. In the year to date, these tear-ups eliminated over $24 trillion in trades, with around $17 trillion occurring in the first half.
Wall Street players also agreed on new targets to log credit-default-swap trades more swiftly and to broaden that effort across the derivatives asset class.
The DTCC's statistics already have helped dispel some fears surrounding credit-default swaps, such as the ability of financial institutions and hedge funds to make swap payouts tied to defaulted Lehman Brothers bonds. Estimates of the value of contracts on the failed investment bank ran as high as $400 billion. The DTCC's number showed that the volumes outstanding were closer to $70 billion and the amount that ultimately changed hands to settle the contracts was a fraction of that.
Yes, Thank you.
I incorrectly cited the wrong individual for introducing the 41 page document into the discussion. Are you also following the pending legislative and market changes regarding derivatives as well? Yesterday, IntercontinentalExchange indicated that it intended to acquire Clearing Corp, with dealers supporing the move including: Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse Group, Goldman Sachs Group and J.P. Morgan Chase. Also, CME Group intends to lanch a swaps clearing house and trading platform that could begin operations as soon as next week. (Source: WSJ 10/31/08, pg C2, "ICE to Buy Clearing Corp. As Big Banks Support Plan").
I believe these pending changes would be good noooz. Your thoughts?
In response to short sales:
Please see the attached link:
http://www.pinksheets.com/pink/quote/quote.jsp?symbol=spzi
Personally, I would like better information available in pinky land in a more timely fasion. After reading the 41 page document provided by Boca Bobby, I wasn't certain if it applied to the pinkies.
Here is a site dedicated to the short sale which will make interesting reading as well.
http://www.buyins.net/tools/symbol_stats.php?sym=SPZI
http://www.buyins.net/tools/alerts.php
Personally, I'm pleased about the "naked short" actions being undertaken by the SEC, and believe the "uptick rule" should be reconsidered as well. At this point I believe the short function serves a purpose, much like a shark that feeds on sick and diseased fish. I personally have never shorted, because the thought makes me think of eating rotten, stinky and diseaed fish.
All that said, I'm not terribly convinced that the short, or naked short was terribly responsible for the performance of this particular stock. I patiently watched this stock for a long time and jumped in when it hit the bottom, and I'm now long on this stock since the last week of July. I've since sold less than 0.01 and immediately thought better of it, by buying it back.
I consider myself optimist and love to poke fun at the pessimists. Cheers.
Please write the Bashers for Dummies! Guidebook!
Too funny. Best bashing post of bashers I've seen in awhile. May I have your permission to place the basher of bashers guide on another IHUB stock I'm following. TIA.
Jim Cramer's speculation: Governments buying Futures?
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/video/cramermarketupdates/10444638.html?cm_ven=YAHOOV&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
Now that would be big..
Are you referring to a RM
through SIVC? Not sure where I picked up on it in the past, but decided to pick up a lotto play on SIVC as well.
I've seen what you are talking about
before in the past and just thought it was me. I wondered if it wasn't the trading desk and not the mm. Of course, it hasn't stopped me from gobbling up some more. Yum!
Are you referring to the ask?
I'm guessing that is the case. Keep in mind that when it was in sub-penny land, small lotto ticket plays are made under $100, which allows the small lotto play investor thousands of shares of stocks. Now that the reverse split occured with 1000 to 1, you are going to see very small bids for some time to come. I liked the previous complaint posts about bringing the company to the attention of some type of regulatory body or enforcement agency. However, I recognize the stock pick for what it was, a lotto play when the stock is under $100. I was lucky to have placed only a small lotto play. Sometimes the lotto play pays off, and sometimes you throw the ticket in the trash. Obviously, the company is going to have to do some serious pr repair damage control if it hopes to get the pps back up, which I guess will only further the devious behavior.
Perhaps someday the pps will be back above my break even, and when that day occurs, I will be selling my single digit stocks too. In the meantime, the bid/ask spread is going to be all over the place, scaring any potential investor away.
Spooz Haiku
Allow me to snooze
While waiting on Bloomberg news
All quiet go Spooz!
I use Zecco
http://hello.zecco.com/landing/search/search2/?campaign=googlead
Able to trade sub penny without a problem.
Unlimited free trades until the end of the month. Starting in November, Zecco will revert to the standard policy of the first 10 trades are free, all additional trades are $4.50 each.
Zecco offered unlimited free trades during October due to their system not having the capacity to handle the high volume days experienced on certain days in September. Zecco claims to have added system capacity going forward.
Zecco does shut down around midnight Eastern Standard Time for maintenance for about an hour.
Yeah, I see that the stock is at least trading again, which is good news. However, my broker still is not showing the corrected information. I may not be alone on this problem, and if so then it would mean that people that may be interested in this stock are presently locked out of trading it still. Notice that the company chose to trade on the 5th largest US trading day by percentage terms to begin trading again. Made them look really good. Microcapmarkets.com shows the stock had the largest increase by percentage terms of 119,900.01% for the day for OTC. Of course it isn't real as the r/s was the cause. For the holders of MTCH after the split the closing price certainly has to be dissapointing as those who bought shares prior to the split may have seen their real value decline. Oh well, I purchased this one as a lotto play, with a gamble on the outcome of the general elections thinking that domestic spending would increase on infrastructure. At least at a minimum, better monitoring of our nations bridges than the present testing methodology which is a visual sight inspection accompanied by a 5lb hammer. Nice.
Have a good day.
My broker is showing the pps as $10.20 as well, along with the incorrect symbol and number of shares still. I wonder where the $10.20 is comming from? Oh well, there is always next week.
I'm sure any question or response will raise
posters ire at this point. After all, right now everyone needs a giant dose of fiber, malox and prozac.
This question was posed after dilution stopped, which I believe was around mid-August. If I remember correctly, an uplisting can occur if the requirements are met, which one of them being that an uplisting cannot occur any sooner than 120 days after the last day of dillution.
The bottom line is in fact the bottom line, which is affecting stocks across the board and thus the blood bath going on out there. All of this argument over a risky pinky is ridiculous.
If considering a stock, consider this tool:
http://www.nasdaq.com/services/riskMetrics.stm
Thanks for the advice
In response to the last response posted, I tried calling too only to get the same answer(s). Right now the same amount of shares are still shown with stock symbol: MTTGXZ, no gain. Check out the current bid/ask on this stock. HUGE spread. I'm wondering if the TA will have to step in and insist on a new price point other than the current $1.50. Perhaps its just as well the stock isn't trading right now with the bloodbath going on out there.
Please advise what the TA says
so we all don't bombard the TA with phone calls. We had that happen on the other stock..
Like that thinking
Hey I put a shout out there earlier and if anyone knew the answer to please put a shout out...
Is the Preferred Cumulative or Noncumulative?
Questions Regarding Offer:
Before I make a decision on this matter, I would want additional clarification first. Please see the legal definition of preferred stock here:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preffered+stock
#1. Is this a Cumulative or Noncumulative offer of preferred stock?
#2. If this is a non-cumulative stock offer, then I would like to have a written statement as to the extinguish rate in the event of insufficient earnings.
#3. After reading the PR and conversion information, there is no mention as to the % profit paid for owner of preferred stock, before common stock is paid. Remember common stock depends heavily on P/E (for a real stock that is).
If anyone happens to know the answers to the above, kindly step in and advise accordingly.
Thank you for your valued time.
If anyone happens to know
141 Capital, XXIS has a new website launched as well. Nice.
http://www.141capital.com/
Stock offer:
http://www.141capital.com/pdfs/Offer_to_Exchange_Common_Stock_10-09-08.pdf
Thursday, 09 October 2008 08:31
CHICAGO, Oct. 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- 141 Capital, Inc., (Pink Sheets) is pleased to announce that the Company's Board of Directors has approved a preferred stock exchange for its shareholders to convert common stock in the Company for shares of preferred stock. For every 1,000 shares of the Company's common stock turned into the Company's transfer agent during the term of the exchange offer, shareholders will receive one share of preferred stock valued at $1.00 per share.
Shareholders must turn in a minimum of one million shares of the Company's common stock to qualify and take part in the exchange offer. The deadline for accepting the exchange offer and delivery of physical certificates to the Company's transfer agent Manhattan Stock Transfer, is the close of business on November 7, 2008. No conversion of the Preferred Stock to Common Stock can occur until after a holding period of three months from the date of the new certificate. Thereafter, shareholders may convert their Preferred Stock into Common Stock.
Yep,
I hadn't watched in awhile either. So, after posting the link I watched it again.. Funny how Bloomberg was mentioned in the video. ; )