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.
Michael/CCME - I don't necessarily see it that CCME "fooled" DTT as much as I see it that DTT did a slipshod job. Starr seems to have based its entire CCME investment of DTT's (sloppy) work and as a result have sued DTT.....
Agreed - he fits right in with the CNBC crowd......
Don't think so - just one of the many articles out there written by people who are either poorly informed or create their own "news" to suit their personal/paid agendas....
You are correct all the way around.........
Hmmmmm....I can't seem to find any mention from Deloitte on the hidden bank accounts and loans you reference in your post. I must have missed it somewhere.....
It is common knowlege that Loeb has been involved with CME's SEC filing requirements for a while now. Most recently, Mitchell Nussbaum's name appeared on the NT-10K which was filed on 3/22. Mitchell is a Loeb attorney.....my point is that it's not like Dipstick had to do a lot to "track down" the law firm. He was able to get confirmation that they are still involved which is, of course, a good thing. Taking nothing away from his ambition, IMO tracking down the forensic audit firm would be impossible for the reasons you suggest.
There are no links so you can assume they are opinions. Joe also said that CCME wouldn't bother to file an appeal; now that they have, it's "window dressing". Fact is, he doesn't know any more about the situation than any of the rest of us do......he may be right, he may be wrong, but there's nothing there that you can "take to the bank". LOL
Chat Room - Since some of us can't participate due to our work environments, is there any plan to post highlights of the discussion....sort of a meeting "minutes" post? I would hate to think that most discussion takes place in the "room" and all of that information never finds its way to the Board. Thanks......
I think this is a must read before jumping to the conclusion that CCME trades on the pinks next week. Theory is that the appeal/hearing process (assuming of course that they file) would cause a delisting delay that would take them through April options expiration (4/15) and could last weeks or months. Credit for digging this up goes to "j1stocks" on YMB.....
https://listingcenter.nasdaqomx.com/Show_Doc.aspx?File=FAQsHearings.html
Skier - "For me, none of the companies in the CGS index on this board, except CCCL meet my criteria."
Are there others, not currently in the Board index, that do meet your criteria? We will be getting ready to do the quarterly revison to the index in a week or two so the timing of this discussion is good.....thanks.
I'm sure he's never heard of you either.......
At some point I would expect it to trade higher than it opens due to the short position. Aren't there a bunch of options related positions that will need to be covered too? Forced buy-ins by brokers etc.? After all that is done, it will probably trade lower than it opens........
Andrew - do not engage this guy. He is a turd in the punchbowl of life.......
That's nothing new - you should review the company's old press releases. They all say the same thing........
Ten Amigos - when is the next point in time that the list gets revised? Is there a possibility that we can't even get to ten "Amigos" next time around?? Ughhhhh.......
Gary/CCME - why not? What's your theory on how this goes trading-wise? Does it follow the "RINO" path? TIA.....Chuck
This may be a dumb question (after all, I am known for them) but does "suspension" = delist?? Seems they have the rest of the week to appeal the suspension. If they do not appeal or they do and Nas rejects the appeal, is it then a quick delist on 4/12 or will there be yet another period of time that goes by before actual delisting?? I don't want to get caught up in the semantics - merely want to know on what day I should be glued to my computer to bail........
RINO did not trade on the Nasdaq between the time it was halted (11/17/10) and the time it was delisted (12/8/10) to answer a question someone else asked before. The day it opened on the pinks it closed at roughly half its halt price. Two trading days later it closed at roughly 2/3 of its halt price and stayed there for a couple of days.
I have no idea what the short interest was in RINO and I do not mean to imply that you can apply the above "RINO algorithm" to CCME trading activity when it does reopen, but given the short position in CCME, maybe we get lucky and are able to bail in the $6-$9 range not too long after it reopens......
That may be true for margin, but the shorts will continue to pay interest on borrowed shares based on the halt price of $11.88.
I just confirmed with Fidelity that this is correct........
I don't think it is restricted to Ameritrade. My Fidelity account says zero. I sent them an email at 4PM EDT and will let people know when I hear back.........
From the point of view of the brokerages, it had better be fixed. There are a ton of shares being borrowed and the loans are dependent on the previous day's closing price. Thus, the income to the brokerages (and those who lent shares) would be clobbered if .0001 is where it closes today.....
Ha, maybe a big short found out that CME submitted a compliance plan, the plan was accepted and the stock will now be halted for another 2 months or so. As a result of the thought of having to pay 50% annual interest for another 60 days, the short wet his pants but was somehow able to manipulate the trade pps down to .0001.
I think I've pretty much seen it all now...
And we all thought the p/e was attractive before?? LOL
I'm guessing that it is Deloitte being concerned that they will be named in future litigation and they forced the amended 8K. It may be their way of publicizing their side of the story in a pre-emptive way (and backing away from responsibility for what has happened??).
Deloitte also knows that, as part of the amended filing, they need to sign off that the info CME has provided in the amendment is accurate - futher guessing that CME had no choice but to put out the amendment if they want DTT's future cooperation with the new auditor and any forensic work that needs to be done. DTT has agreed to this in both filings.....
Well you will know soon enough: no plan = no NASDAQ listing, unless they can get an extension on the 3/31 due date. If not, this thing will trade on the pinks next week........
I think we get the compliance plan (on time) but the real question for me is, if we do get the plan, does NASDAQ approve it........
Someone my age actually likes to be called "young man"....LOL
If it's halted another 3 months (which I think is unlikely) then it becomes a very expensive trade for the shorts. Let's say someone shorted 10,000 shares at $15/share on 01/01/2011 for a borrow of $150,000. Let's also say that the annual borrow rate was 50% and the shares were borrowed for 6 months. That would be an interest expense of $37,500 or almost 4 bucks a share. They may still make money but it won't be nearly as lucrative as originally hoped for......btw, these are hypothetical numbers here as the borrow rate may be higher or lower, I don't know what the pps was on 01/01/2011, etc.
Given a long halt, their brokers may also initiate forced buy-ins when trading resumes and who knows what the cover price will be. This is especially true if CME gets through a forensic audit resulting ultimately in the filing of a clean 10K. The plot thickens....and, of course, the entire discussion could become moot depending on what happens over the next 24-36 hours.
Exactly - shocking isn't it??
Sherm - I like your style. A couple more paragraphs here and you could submit this to Seeking Alpha. As you readily admit, there is no factual data in your post and, thus, it would meet Seeking Alpha's criteria for "quantity of factual data required for publication" of a typical Seeking Alpha blog or article.
Apologies in advance to board members here who have been known to write for SA who typically DO present arguments worth reading.....
Makes you wonder if it's not the other way around - since most of these items are related to proving cash and cash flow analysis, did Deloitte know early on that these issues existed and was that information passed on (leaked) to MW or somebody in reasonable proximity to MW? This info then served as the basis for the hit piece(s).
I'm not accusing anyone of anything, merely saying who knows what the actual sequence of events were. I still can't understand why these issues weren't made public until 3/11 when the stock was halted.......and I mean, really, you can't tell me that Jacky, Dorothy, et al, weren't aware of these issues a long time ago, at least you can't tell me with a straight face.
Additionally, someone has yet to prove Ping Luo's DD was incorrect - if she relied on her own efforts and not on info that she got from the company that she merely pasted into her report - as far as I'm concerned it is still accurate. In a sense, she did her own mini forensics.......would love to hear her comments at this point and ask if she still stands by her work. Betting her answer would be "yes".
I'm concerned that if NASDAQ is learning about it now that it may prejudice the reading of the compliance plan, whereas if they knew about it before they asked for the plan, maybe that wouldn't be the case.....assuming CME could even come up with a plan that could combat the mountain of allegations presented today and prevent delisting.
NASDAQ - would the specific issues raised by DTT that were documented in today's amended 8K filing have already been known to the NASDAQ through previous non-public DTT communications or would today's filing have been new news to NASDAQ? Comments?
Haha - "what a ridiculous notion".....sound familiar clown-boy??
A - good post and I would support the sticky addition
-C
On the other hand, maybe the CEO has seen the light and now has a better understanding of the effect his initial, un-cooperative attitude has had on the situation. IMO, we will have a much better idea by the end of the week since the NASDAQ compliance plan is due on or before Thursday. Meeting the deadline would be a positive sign.
I'm also hoping that the attorneys at Loeb help with the drafting of the plan and are providing advice on what NASDAQ would expect to see in the way of content, all in an effort to increase the probability that the plan is accepted. Baby steps......
Andrew - no apology necessary; see my PM.........
RRU2 - agreed but only if this "information" is expressed in a constructive way (which I have not seen yet) as opposed to via personal attacks. My other point was that Andrew is just as guilty....so if there are points to be made by either or both sides, then make them....in English.
Frankly, I think both you guys are "legal peckers" and, since the majority of these recent posts are considerably off-topic, it is my hope that the moderator will determine that they should be deleted.
It could be worse, you could be short and paying interest through the nose right now.....and have no more idea where the stock is headed than longs do.