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.
That's the point of investing. If it was a guaranteed return than everyone would be doing it. I hand you 10K, and you promise to give me back 100K... who wouldn't jump on that deal? As far as I can tell, MD hasn't fled with my money. He may have spent it unwisely, but I don't even know that for sure yet.
As I posted earlier today, the SEC unfortunately did not reinstate the uptick rule, they merely implemented a short circuit. The 2 members that voted against it cited the lack of a full reinstatement as part of their reasoning for rejecting it. They thought the short circuit would be ineffective, as it only effects 1.3% of the market/day.
I also continue to buy and hold long. I have not seen anything to dissuade me yet. I recognize it as a high risk investment, but I also see the potential upside. Losing 10K sucks, but I think it is worth the chance of making 10x that.
Parts are delivered and working on install now...CAM
If you're referring to the circuit breaker rule, it isn't a law, just a regulation. The threat from Congress was that if the SEC didn't do something, then they would. The circuit breaker rule is not a full re-implementation of the uptick rule, and will probably have minimal effect.
You're thinking of naked shorts. It is true, we haven't had any FTD issues since the end of July. However, there is a huge short interest in CPRK.
This spreadsheet is compiled from http://regsho.finra.org/regsho-Index.html under the ORF section.
Did they happen to say when it goes into effect?
FINRA is a securities regulatory organization that provides SEC sanctioned oversight. I will take their word over that of an anonymous forum poster any day.
It sure is, but we were all discussing short sales, not NSS. Even though NSS is (and was at the time) illegal, it was still rampant until last summer. Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it can't happen (ex: murder is illegal, but people still get murdered).
I will trust FINRA's website.
http://regsho.finra.org/regsho-Index.html under the ORF heading.
Over the past 2 days, 83.65% and 66.66% of the volume has been short sales. It is not illegal to sell short in this security, as was verified by CO1, but not all brokers allow it.
You won't hear me complaining about that. I'd rather aim low (expect limited), and get current. It'll be a pleasant surprise.
I seem to remember reading "Limited Information", but can't say from whom (and don't have search capability to verify). If I may be a bit tautologous, any upgrade is an upgrade.
That obviously was not the PR that CAM wanted to put out. It was a let down, considering we already knew everything it contained. There was nothing there but forward looking statements... nothing that could drive the price up, or give anyone hope.
However, the PR also let us know that the lines of communication are back open. Something has had to have changed, and we have no idea what it is yet. It can't hurt to think that this something is positive. What I do know:
1. I can buy online at E-trade again.
2. Pink Sheet stop sign should be removed shortly.
3. CAM intends to put out another shareholder note soon.
That's what makes it mythical :)
I'm no cryptozoologist, but I would love to ride the mythical short squeeze on this one.
I grabbed a small amount (275K) at .002. It was supposed to be more, but not all the funds cleared :(
Thank you, much appreciated.
https://fs.ogm.utah.gov/FILES/MINERALS/PERMITS/001
Can anyone help me decipher the State of Utah directory structure?
It looks like 001 means Beaver County. I don't know what the E, M, or S prefixes mean. So far I've found WUCC documents in M0010067, and S0010078. Does anyone know of other directories that might have WUCC files? I thought that the final 4-digits might reference mining sites, but now I'm not so sure. I found Hidden Treasure and O.K in M0010067, and O.K. in S0010078.
BTW, I find it hilarious that we can find an image of Kita's signature for receipt of the violation notice, but not whether or not the mill is back up and running.
https://fs.ogm.utah.gov/FILES/MINERALS/PERMITS/001/M0010067/2010/Incoming/0003.pdf
Excerpts of conversation between Ron Wunderlich (CPRK), and Ed Ginouves (BLM).
Yes I do, but he phrased it a bit more colorfully. I can't blame him for that--it sounds more personal. He may not be able to directly say the purpose of the new shares yet, so telling us that they are restricted could be a hint (consciously or not).
There is no ambiguity in CM's statement. He is saying that it is not possible.
FFF or CO1,
What is your reasoning for this? I'd love to see that price, but there is nothing as of yet that has convinced me it will happen.
Thanks,
Guy whose SN has absolutely nothing to do with Snoop Dogg
You fail to grasp the concept of a reverse merger. A RM is done to take a private company public, not the other way around.
It opened at 0.0050 with 6,000 shares, and dropped to 0.0027 with 6,700 shares. If I had to guess, the MMs are trying to throw off the candlestick charters by creating bearish patterns.
Nice work. Thank you very much.
I'm actually a bit excited about the Sheriff Sale, because it gives us a hard date to expect something by. Sure, the company still might not talk, but the Sheriff and bank seem more than willing to communicate.
I don't think we've had enough buys (yet) at .0037 to force it up.
Wow, that L2 looks like every other MM wants to let it rise. Have you noticed, after NITE clears at their current level, do they just bump it up by .0001?
I have to disagree with you. Unlike a lot of the other pinks, CPRK is not a scam. It is a real company, and has potential. Whether it can live up to its potential or not is the question. I think we'll find out sooner, rather than later. GLTA
I read it as two separate steps. One, to become Pinksheet compliant required 30 days, and a negligible amount of money. Two, to become fully reporting (I assumed this was synonymous with audited finances) required more time, and $200K.
He said 30 days to become Pinksheet compliant, and $200K to become fully reporting... but still, I don't know why it hasn't been done.
I really, really, really (add a couple thousand more in there) want to believe this statement, but can you back it up with anything? If you can't state your source, can you at least give us an anecdote about how you came by this information?
I would hope so, but it really does depend on the terms of the loan. If they're lending us $100M for 6 months, then we're definitely looking for LTF--we couldn't pay it back that quick. If they're lending us $100M for 3 years, then we may still look for LTF to get a better rate. Who knows, the whole bridge loan could just be an audition for LTF. They'll hit us with a higher rate until we can prove ourselves, and then extend LTF. This is all just speculation.
We might not even be paying for the new CEO, if the company offering the bridge loan is installing him/her/it. It seems more likely to me that we would be getting a CFO and a stringent approval process for expenditures.
A bridge loan should put to rest fears about further dilution (pending verification of said loan). If this is true, I wonder if they are still pursuing LTF, or if they are just aiming to become CFP. Knowing the terms of the loan could help answer that question for us.
That is a recent event. The brokers were not blocking buys last summer.
I don't mean any disrespect when I say this, but if I was one of your clients I would be a bit upset. Observing, and reporting is fine. Even interacting to ask pertinent questions, or solidify rumors is fine, but I can see your posts scaring away potential investors. That is not the way to help your clients get their money back.
I agree with you completely. Even if the source is named, it doesn't mean that the source actually said it, or is correct. Most of the cheerleaders will believe it is gospel, and the bashers will decry it as fallacy.
I am inclined to believe richwaters, because of the way he has framed it, his attention to detail, his inclusion of positives and negatives, and his posting history. Besides, this is my investment, my money is already in it, and I want it to succeed. Thinking it will fail will only cause me undo stress. I'll deal with it if and when it fails. As always, this is just my opinion, form your own.