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.
Well not just OTC and not just review applications. They are a non-profit working for the SEC, policing broker dealers.
Unfortunately, both FINRA and SEC are compromised. The system is setup so that the brokers fund these organizations. SEC receives a small fee for every dollar sold in the market. Nothing for anything bought. This why they don't care about naked shorting. A sell is money in the coffer, synthetic or not.
Mostly, markets react poorly to unknown factors. They react very poorly to soon to be determined unknown factors. If it's kicked, nobody will like it, but life will go on till the next date.
In addition, there are still a percentage that fear other possible conclusions from the commission. This would ease their concerns temporarily as well.
Not if approved today. Just stating facts.
On a more positive note. I was discussing this privately with other board members. I wonder if DBMM strategically filed the application to time uplist approval after the 6th decision. Whether a can kick or final acceptance of the initial decision, it will likely be a positive share price response. Could have anticipated a possible push to get the price under the .01 mark.
I that as a viable strategy.
You know I wondered about this as well. Obviously, lots of conjecture possible on any ticker in the OTC. It is just a different set of rules.
Kind of like walking around any less than desirable neighborhood. Sure there are streets with manicured lawns, but your chances of being robbed are still higher than other neighborhoods.
I looked at this a bit and my first instinct is same as yours. Why the hell not just leak any little BS? Elon does it all the time! Seems almost irresponsible not to do it here.
Then I started thinking, maybe there is a method to the madness here. Certainly, surprise catalysts have value. But I believe I see an abundance of caution as a possible cause. DBMM climbed a lot of mountains to get here. But they are not to the summit yet. Any attempt to produce news that could be seen as a manipulation attempt could have negative results in the position DBMM is in. Throwing stones at the SEC prior to march 6th could be unwise as well. Definitely an advocate view point, and I do stand to profit considerably if DBMM succeeds lol.
I think the price action can actually be attributed to algorithmic market making. The programs pick the path of least resistance and are designed to breakdown until hitting resistance then bounce off that mark. With much of this float locked up and volume down, not surprising to see downward pressure.
Of course, just one opinion.
Well, that is factual. We are assuming that DBMM followed through with the application.
I can only hinge on the fact that management has been following through lately, and while I would like to see more communications, it is not abnormal for this organization to limit the number of updates.
That said, we are in the OTC. It's the home of the crap shoot.
At this point, I am willing to put a little faith in the management. They have accomplished far more than I ever thought they would.
The only reference I have ever found and it is not in front of me at the moment. I read in the self-regulating entity paperwork that OTCM had some latitude on the rules.
I would assume by the actual rule that if the approval occurred on the date it was trading under .01, the 30 day would reset and start over from there. But I agree, it is very vague. Almost purposely so.
Part b is the sticker.
3) Bid Price of $0.01. Have a primary class of securities with proprietary priced quotations published by a Market Maker in OTC Link ATS with a closing bid price of at least $0.01 a) on each of the 30 consecutive calendar days immediately preceding the Company’s application for OTCQB and b) as of the date OTC Markets Group approves its application to join OTCQB.
Well said. It covers much of the going on here and the likely sentiment of many in various OTC investments. This is now and always has been a den of snakes. Not a place for the faint of heart.
SEC and FINRA only get a cut if something sells, not if we buy and hold. They are beholden to the brokers. There is no help coming from them. Sure, a sacrificial lamb here and there, but you're never going to see true results out of SHO or any other rule. Just read the FINRA response to AMC, ridiculous.
Best wishes for all here regardless of your DBMM position!
I would agree with this. Most are waiting for uplist and the 6th decision. Those that aren't, have already profited and holding free shares or have the position size they wanted and exit point established long ago.
Investors were there for the squeeze, not the fight. I get why they are suing. But short term investors know fruition is far away in a suit of this type. GNS was doing good with just threatening action that would force share counting. DBMM could follow this path and hopefully do shortly.
These catalyst traders don't care if there is or is not shorting, naked or otherwise. They care about the hype over the possibility. That catalyst has it's own rocket ship. Fuel is everywhere right now. Someone just needs to light the match. A multiyear long lawsuit is like throwing a wet blanket on everything.
Maybe DBMM management is watching and learning. Hopefully so. Second runner is not always a lesser position.
I never doubted this.
Yes, uplist is very important to catalyst and volume. Rest would be icing on the cake.
I agree with this. Admittedly, my position on what DBMM should be doing regarding effort to combat bad actors is completely my perspective.
It has recently been proven that the SEC and FINRA are not going to hold broker dealers' feet to the fire as SHO was requiring. Just look at AMC.
From a positive catalyst point of view, I feel DBMM would get more traction from vocal alignment with other tickers such as GNS, etc. Obviously, it's an opinion as nobody knows what DBMM is doing until another update.
I am not saying all the negativity isn't excessive at times. I am saying no OTC company has ever successfully litigated an end to it.
So why waste resources there? Why make that your "tough" statement in an update?
It is better to update an alignment with the several other OTC companies taking the fight to the likes of Kramer and Alpine.
I know a few of the members take the negativity personal. Even believing the difference of opinion to be lies to manipulate, some are. Still, it is a horrible waste of resources if they are doing more than talking mean.
Same could be said for over estimation...
Honestly, who cares about this? Nobody needs to wait for DBMM to see what could be done about negative comments on the company. Just do so simple research. Look for case studies. See how many suits or charges have been brought against individuals or groups of individuals promoting a negative opinion on a publicly traded corporation. Then, narrow it to OTC corporations.
You then have the number you are looking for, and the threat that the company statement quoted poses to them.
Don't think you'll get hurt. Should see highs again soon. Important buys are at close.
Harley is correct. Everything in this comment may or may not be applicable. The one thing that is applicable is part b of the OTCM rules regarding uplist. If DBMM closes below .01 anytime before or on the same day as approval of uplist, it could be denied. That is per OTCM.
With as much manipulation in the OTCM, I take nothing to chance. Just saying anyone having capital should use it wisely to keep the price above .01 until uplist is approved.
I agree. From a trading perspective, this price has a significant chance of bouncing. If someone was playing the uplist, finalization of dismissal catalyst, great spot to load.
The only concern I found was the part b requirement within the rules.
I don't see fraud here. Confusing lack of urgency, maybe. I won't pretend to know what management is doing. That is the purpose of periodic operational updates. If DBMM says they talked with OTC about QB uplist, I believe them. I don't see why a simple public announcement of application submitted would not be appropriate. Maybe there is a valid reason, only they know until an announcement is made. I made my profit here long ago, so everything now is icing, no hurry, really.
You're correct. Volume is low. It gives every impression of a locked up float, lack of interest, or manipulation. Or a combination of all.
The part (a) requirement of .1 would be satisfied even if they just submitted the application today. DBMM never gave a date for the submission of the application. Only that they confirmed with OTC they met the qualifications.
Part (b) is of concern. The day OTC appoves the application DBMM must be above .1 as well. So if they close below .1 even one day, and that happens to be the day they approve. A dip below the threshold could be bad for the uplist.
Regardless of what anyone believes the DBMM management should or should not be doing, trending below .01 is not good for uplist.
3) Bid Price of $0.01. Have a primary class of securities with proprietary priced quotations published by a Market Maker in OTC Link ATS with a closing bid price of at least $0.01 a) on each of the 30 consecutive calendar days immediately preceding the Company’s application for OTCQB and b) as of the date OTC Markets Group approves its application to join OTCQB.
Agreed. I don't doubt there is action within the company, especially Digital Clarity. I realize they are a tiny company with limited time and resources. It just takes very little to get on one of these shorting calls or draft a letter to one of those attacking naked shorting, saying we think it happened here.
Well, accurate quote from SEC rules. Old news and only part of the story, though. What color are we going to use for the rule on commission review of the initial decision? That is what we are waiting on right now.
Doing the same. Looking as if we can check back after 6th of March.
Take care!
Lol. Actual definition or only board certified?
As with every legitimate argument here, this could be a possibility. 1 million is still a significant sum to many.
Apparently, only thesis is within the vocabulary of DBMM hopefuls
Likewise. Thank you for your wods and input.
I agree with this statement as well.
This is a key fact for my position in DBMM. While full of speculation, there has been no definitive evidence provided. Just hearsay and conjecture. Still, facts are there has to be a reason. One worthy of the cost and years of wait. I don't buy the current, "Linda and Reggie love us so much" thesis...
Excellent forward looking statement. I believe it will appear in the next 10k...
I have to agree. This is the mantra for most of the OTCM. Until DBMM does something to springboard off of the recent successes, it will drift lower. The announcement of an uplist will give it some oxygen but will be right back here without some tangible growth.
This is what should be sticky on the board for bullish DBMM shareholders. The same goes for Humble's post.
I would challenge bears to post facts in rebuttal.
Very good for new DBMM hopefuls.
Please research the definition of thesis. It is extremely poor word usage.
As for Kramer, fraud, both legal and moral, has not been contested by myself. The fact that SEC allows for fines and settlement is on them, not the thousands of perpetrators.
I'm not sure if everyone is aware, but the purpose of a sticky is for relaying valuable information to new board members.
FYI
Interesting. Irrelevant to the original post, though...
It's good to see the same chromacolor, grade school arithmetic, and every ticker, but DBMM repetitive post is alive and well.
I don't think even the bearish here debate whether the Kramers of the world are criminals. But how they get involved is not. It is perfectly acceptable by the SEC regulations. It's what they do after that is criminal.
Maybe less time devoted to irrelevant, repetitiveness, and more effort to force legislative change to close these loopholes. This would help insure Kramer and the destruction they have caused to many, such as DBMM, doesn't continue.
I can see the confusion. This type of lending doesn't fall under your quoted idea of predative lending.
"The practice of a lender deceptively convincing borrowers to agree to unfair and abusive loan terms, or systematically violating those terms in ways that make it difficult for the borrower to defend against".
The financier is doing the same thing you did as a shareholder. They agreed to take shares as collateral for any funds received. Only reason this is done, is because of the discount. If the financier were to sell the shares at that moment, the value would be greater than the funding. Has noting to do with the companies value. Has to do with the value of your shares.
Obviously, the toxic part comes in the fine print. This is different from predatory lending. Most these financings are done with the knowledge going in, they will not keep the agreements regarding sale of the shares. These loan sharks know that the company will likely not be able to defend itself against any contract breach and bankruptcy will follow.
Well, that's the truth. But I think the correct misinformation has been a huge fail...
True enough. One thing all of us shareholders have in common is that we will either win or lose together. Facts are we are having a solid win right now.
You are here, aren't you? I fail to see the difference...