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.
Yep, that is true. A reverse split done for the right reason (uplisting) can be great for the stock, but those are pretty rare.
This is incorrect. A split, whether forward or reverse, adjusts the price per share, but does not affect anyone's percentage ownership.
"If they had did a R/S the price would be adjusted to the amount of shares reduced which also reduces shareholder's % of ownership"
I don't mind people shouting, as long as they don't shout unfounded BS like AIMH being a potential weed play.
having a real estate and than of course supply $XXXX XXXX than marketing XXXX XXXX XXXX and sales.
Hump Day seven days a week?
Revenue is already established from other fascists of the company.
Call the 800# and speak your peace.
I will... and I'll "hold my piece" at the same time.
Well in Dec the loser was indited, by guess who, Brenda and she won.
Looks like someone had a little too much caffeine today.
I just did an internet search for this link, and, wha la, I found it using google
The string of 200-share trades near the close was some sort of program. Other than that, the average trade size was oddly small all day, but that's not the way I would manipulate a stock if that were my goal.
One what?
"One big happy family"? Maybe.
One combined legal entity? No f'ing way, legally or practically.
Yes, with all due respect, you are. You need to understand what daily "short volume" means, and why it is not the same as "short interest." See my posts here on 1/22.
"As far as S/M selling IMSC shares into rallies I don't think there is much reward for them to engage in such behavior. I think it has more to do with DMRJ looking to get paid for the loan be converting into rallies."
Of course. I hadn't seen the original post to which you replied (the wonders of the Ignore button) but is just plain silly, to put it charitably, to say that a competitor would see anything to gain by trading IMSC stock with the intention of blunting rallies.
In hine sight I feel it was a good decision.
But can XXXX be it´s own subsidiary ???
You already know this, even though others don't. If my brokerage firm uses an outside market maker like NITE to sell 135 shares of TEVE for me as part of a larger sell order, that trade will be marked "short" - because my 135 shares will not be sent over from my brokerage firm to the market maker until AFTER THE TRADE PRINTS. Sometimes not until the end of the trading day, in fact.
So simple.
She is not at liberty to say that the CEO is an idiot.
Good call.
Wow, forever is right. I think you may be the longevity king on this board. I'm not going to try to guess a top, but it looks like pulling your .35 offer was a good move.
That might work, legally, if they do it correctly, but it's pretty damn goofy. No way would any legitimate investor want to invest in that whole basket of crappy companies.
The company is out of existence and this is a zombie ticker. There will be no news.
Nice activity today.
Atypical, but certainly BS. More of the old razzle dazzle.
Alas, it is not legal. A shareholder of one entity did not agree to have his interest in HIS company diluted among the shareholders of the other entities, or to (in effect) have his entity assume a share of the expenses or liabilities of the other entities. They would have to actually form a holding company and do some sort of share exchange.
Stay close as I will will some more of my wad if they stay so loose.
Ice cream, Salomon and Smoked baby claims?
Do these guys get a refrigerator?
Wow...
This is FINRA's example of why daily "short volume" is not "short interest." Which part of it do you not understand?
Investor A is long 100 shares and wants to sell. They enter the order through their broker that is routed to a market maker. That market maker will go out and sell the stock into the market before they have bought the stock from you/your broker to close out their account. They do not take possession first as there is no guarantee they can sell the order into the market. By this Notice, the actual sale INTO the market is a short sale because the market maker sold the stock into the market BEFORE they had purchased the stock from you.
FINRA's own explanation of what the "daily short volume" means has been posted many, many times on IHub. Perhaps some have never seen it. Here is one example:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57101068
That's a great point that bears reminding. Those who wonder why the stock price is where it is today, compared to a couple of years ago, should refocus and compare market cap. You listed the o/s at various dates, but a similar list of the fully diluted at various dates would also be instructive.
I know you don't buy into the fact that there is ever any type of market maker manipulation in the OTC markets either.
I have never said that.
Are they buying and selling to themselves? Is that what you guys are saying?
I don't go for that hypothetical acquirer selling theory, personally, but I'll agree that there's nothing preventing someone from hitting someone else's bid at the close.
Meanwhile, DMRJ is converting preferred into common and selling those new shares into the market. I'd be surprised if they're wash trading the stock lower, because that is blatantly illegal.
I wouldn't say "all the time," and again, I haven't looked at their agreement lately. But generally speaking, whenever a financing source is providing new funds as of a given day and getting new shares for doing so, they don't mind having the closing stock price on that day be a couple of cents lower so they can get a few additional shares.
My overall point is, DMRJ controls this company. What percentage of IMSC does DMRJ own, on an as-converted basis? So to look for other "culprits" for any aspect of the stock's trading is to ignore the elephant in the room, in my view.
That's not to say that other theories aren't possible - a random short-seller playing around here or there, or even a potential acquirer trying to buy up shares as the other poster suggested. But we should focus primarily on the obvious.
There's no way to prove or disprove it today, but it's theoretically possible -- and a much better theory than that old, tired "evil shorting market makers trying to hold down the price" routine.
They could not have known at those times that the stock would later be selling for .80ish. I haven't read their agreement lately, but they are providing financing as needed wherever the stock price is at the time.
that has always been the case here as far as I can remember
Not really. It's just that those of us who recognize that IMSC's stock price is obviously driven primarily by neither retail selling nor "market maker manipulation" have grown weary of posting that here repeatedly.
But you're right, it does defy logic.
Right, until the SEC suspends trading and revokes this zombie shell, which could happen at any time.
And an equal amount of selling on the other side of those trades, of course.
delete
Now, don't you go talkin' crazy, KS. Don't you think .0045 would be a more reasonable target?