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.
Future, there is none better than Janice Shell. If there is dirt, she'll find it. And if she's on a board, woe is be for the stock as it is likely a scam. She has a nose for that. Of course, on the pink sheets, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a scam in the making, so, ya know.
You say that like it's a bad thing. LOLOLOLO
I have to agree with Sunny. You own up to your trade, good or bad. No one twisted any arms for you to place the trade to buy in. It doesn't do any one any good to continue to complain. Nor is it advisable that anyone champion the company's graces, as if there are any.
Bottom line, it's a pink. Very risky, very likely you will lose some if not all of what you invest. Given that, invest only what you can afford to lose.
Not my particular cup of tea but that's just me.
By the looks of it, dwindling or non-existent volume, the damage is done and the market has appropriately priced this issue. So much bad press and legal procedures have probably scared away even the boldest of pink sheet warriors.
Forward looking disclaimers are a license to steal in the absence of audited financial statements. With that one statement I pretty much have describe the MO of 99% of all the companies that trade on the pinks.
So avoid them like the plague.
He's gotta be connected to the schemes in some way because it would have dawned on normal folks by now. He's clearly not a lunatic so I have to say he is on the payroll somehow. He has front run several of Lumb's plays even setting up boards well before publicly available notices about a new Lumb issue hit the wire.
Janice, what's the deal with this Rocketman dude. Where there's a scam, he sure to be championing its graces.
What is up with that?
OMG what a bunch of hooey! As if!!!!
surf, you're done. Sorry, but this will end up in the dustbin of failed Pump and Dump promotions like thousands of others. This is no different and in fact share all of the hallmarks of so many regulatory basket cases.
Learn how to trade in you won't have to troll around for this junk.
30K banked with this news. Another 30 when puts I sold expire worthless Jan 19, 2013. Stock just needs to stay above 90.00.
No problem.
surf, I'm going to bet not. It's now a slow motion train wreck that will ultimately wipe everyone out with revocation not long after.
If I've seen it once, I've seen it a thousand times. History is not kind to SEC violators.
Mark this post.
Don't post here much. Hated the stock from day one and nufie was a hardcore believer at first. Eventually, she saw the light and became a relentless advocate against the jerks that run these pump and dumps.
Nufced, you were a good one and I send my heart out to your family and friends. Nothing for UC, sorry. MAybe you can tell the big man up there to...no never mind.
God bless Shelly and her family.
Sad news.
Bwhahahaha. subpennies and still overvalued!
If they don't issue a PR a lot like this, well, they're just not trying hard enough.
Press Release
Source: Fortress Financial Group, Inc.
On 8:00 am EST, Tuesday December 1, 2009
Companies:Fortress Financial G
NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwire - 12/01/09) - Fortress Financial Group, Inc. (Pinksheets:FFGO - News) confirmed in an announcement dated November 23, 2009 that it was in advanced discussions, which if successful, will result in the disposal of its entire remaining interests in its two Gold Properties, those being the "Bouse" and "South Copperstone" Gold Properties; or the possibility of the outright acquisition of your Company by a third party.
In that same announcement, Stockholders were cautioned that the value placed on their Company's interests in these two Gold Properties was very material and that stockholders should only rely upon the facts and valuations that are published by your Company's Management; particularly in respect of the impact upon the value per share of your Company's Common Stock.
Company Management is now giving a price per share guideline of our Common Stock based upon:
-- The unprecedented number of requests for information regarding the
possible valuation of the Company's interests in these two Gold Properties;
and
-- The Record Highs being set in the price of Gold, thereby making your
company worth considerably more than what was originally discussed with
interested parties; and
-- The enormous trading volumes and pricing volatility in the Company's
shares of Common Stock in the past ten days; and
-- Management's view as to the minimum acceptable price for its Gold
Properties.
Fortress Management is now prepared to state that a successful sale of the Company's interests in the two Gold Properties, after the settlement of outstanding Loan Notes due by the Company in the amount of US$5 million, would not be an amount of less than US$0.003 (three tenths of a cent) per share for our stock. This calculation is predicated upon the current number of outstanding shares of our stock. Your Company successfully repurchased and cancelled approximately 50% of its outstanding shares in and during 2009, resulting in this greatly reduced number of outstanding shares of Common Stock, as well as the significantly increased value of these shares of our Common Stock.
Fortress shares of Common Stock closed at a price of US$0.0002 (two hundredths of a cent) per share on Monday, November 30, 2009. The pricing guideline of US$0.003 per share provided by Management clearly reflects the effect of today's Gold price (the Gold price having traded at a new All Time Record High this morning, at US$1,199.20/oz) upon your Company's assets and that our shares of Common Stock are clearly extremely undervalued at this time.
Our team of Mining and Business Professionals have deliberated at length, and have decided that we are able to state the following: "We are not prepared, under any circumstances, to entertain, nor to discuss any Offer for your Company's interests in these two Gold Properties for an amount of less than the above-mentioned price per share of your Company's Common Stock. We have made this quite clear to all interested parties, and we expect that a satisfactory resolution is attainable, in short order."
Your management wishes to stress "That is not to say that we believe that your Company's interests in these two Gold Properties are not worth more than the above-mentioned price per share of Common Stock. We are very aware of the historical valuations and the Geological Reports that are publicly available in respect of these two Gold Properties; and which were prepared at substantially lower Gold prices than Gold's current trading price of nearly US$1,200/oz." While we certainly would like to realize our true asset value in regard to these two properties, and while we are eager to sign the contracts of sale in regards thereto, we will not sell these assets for anything less than their real-time present value.
Fortress' Management is obliged to inform our valued stockholders that the Company's interests in these two Gold Properties are not worth an amount of US$700 million, a valuation which certain of our stockholders appear to embrace at this time. Such off-the-cuff valuations for our share of these two Gold Properties, while pleasant to think about, is not based in reality.
We are not in a position to provide any further details at this point in time due to the sensitivity of ongoing negotiations, and we wish to ensure that your Company's Management achieves the best possible price for its stockholders in respect of its sale of the Company's interests in these two Gold Properties, or in the alternative, in the sale of the company in its' entirety. OF COURSE, ANY SALE WILL BE SUBJECT TO SUCCESSFUL CLOSING, AND NO ASSURANCE CAN BE GIVEN THAT THE GOLD PROPERTIES WILL BE SOLD AT THIS, OR ANY OTHER, PRICE PER SHARE.
Fortress Financial's Management states for the record: "The proceeds received by your Company upon a successful sale of its interests in the two Gold Properties, or of the Company itself, will not be retained by your Company but paid to our stockholders as a Single Liquidation Dividend. This is however, subject to the nature of the deal consummated by your Company in respect of the sale of these two Gold Properties."
Since our significant stockholder partners in these holdings have indicated a strong interest in participating in a sale of "Bouse" and "South Copperstone" Gold Properties, we do not expect or anticipate that the final negotiations to this sale will be a long protracted event.
In regards to questions about the possibility of a full bid to purchase your Company, Management can only say that this does remain a possibility, but we legally cannot comment any further at this juncture, due to ongoing negotiations.
We urge our stockholders to remain vigilant, while we finalize the examination of the opportunities laid out before us. Rest assured that we intend to exact a fitting price for our holdings.
This release contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and such forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. "Forward-looking statements" describe future expectations, plans, results, or strategies and are generally preceded by words such as "may," "future," "plan" or "planned," "will" or "should," "expected," "anticipates," "draft," "eventually," "projected" or "guidelines." You are cautioned that such statements are subject to a multitude of risks and uncertainties that could cause future circumstances, events, or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements, including the risks that actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including the risk that the Company may not be able to sell its interests in its Gold Properties for an acceptable price or any price, the risk that the price of gold may decline, and other risks identified in filings made by such company with the SEC.
Valuation schmaluation! Want mining claims? Go to ebay where they abound.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_nkw=mining+claims&_nkwusc=miming+claims&_rdc=1
Mines for sale! On Ebay! Cheap. Invest in a company that says it has mining claims? Not with found money!!!!!!
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_nkw=mining+claims&_nkwusc=miming+claims&_rdc=1
Email bomb for this crap. Wasted effort. LOI that will amount to Jack Squat!
Overvalued at any price above 5.00.
hey puppy! Did you see the mining claims available for sale? On EBAY no less! Which begs the question, why in the hell could they ever be for sale for a quarter of a billion dollars? well they wouldn't of course and that's why the vanishing act with all previous associates with this and the other FFGO spawn.
Please post this link on FFGO. Should stir up some interesting conversation.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_nkw=mining+claims&_nkwusc=miming+claims&_rdc=1
Yeah, but the dilution effect has certainly changed the amount of buying pressure required to move this bloated pig up. It's only get worse as all the unexpired lockups expire.
capice?
Short this...it's the only way to trade it. Worked four different times for me with average buy to cover net gain of 6200. 25K plus to me so far.
Natural, book mark this for future reference. watch for the Form 4 filings...there will be plenty.
IMO
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/fb/insider-trades
Rarely does it ever get this obvious that one should avoid a stock like the plague. So at least FB has that going for it.
Now isn't that special...Facebook Director Thiel Gets More Flexibility For Selling Shares
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-14/facebook-director-thiel-gets-more-flexibility-for-selling-shares
The lockup on shares held by investors begins to expire on Aug. 16. The move by Thiel doesn’t necessarily suggest that he’s bearish on the company’s prospects or that he’ll sell immediately, said Michael Pachter, an analyst at Wedbush Securities Inc.
Glad I shorted this junk.
Dean Heller involve in a mining scam??? You guys will love this. All over Las Vegas local TV.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/aug/05/line-attack-did-dean-heller-let-diamond-scam-happe/
The got the scam part right.
This short in particular already took profit Friday. Sold short to open @28.62 covered @ 22 and change.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=77856974
Pressing the short side now makes no sense at least not until all the lockup shares make it into the float over the next few weeks. But look out next earnings...I'll be back!
cpner, there you are. I didn't have an opportunity to respond to your post whereby you seem to not understand that a call option at 30 provides me upside protection to anything above 30. My at risk is capped at 1.38 per 1000 shares of stock and 1000 notional of 10 contracts (Call strike 30 - 28.62 short underlying). So, I am only at risk 1,380.00 no matter how high FB goes. You do understand how a long call works don't you? Apparently not.
By the way, the trade is already profitable. No matter what happens with earning, I am only ever at risk 1380.00. But I expect to exit the trade nicely profitable.
Hey cpner49er. Just placed this trade...Sold 1000 shares of FB short at 28.62 and bought 10 contracts of the July 30 call at .90 using a married call trade. Net credit to me of 27,720.00. I flatten my position on Friday, expiration date of the July 30 call.
Can you compute my net at risk on this short play. Hint: You need to know that anyone who shorts stock never does so without hedging for upside.
Earnings are going to suck! I would short this turd absolutely! See you at 22.00.
Very nice indeed.
Yup, pretty much looks like any interest in this stock is relegated to a handful, 4 to 6 tops. Man that's simply not enough even for a thinly traded lighter than air drop box company.
Dude!!!!!! That's maybe 1100.00 in volume. Are you kidding me?
That's squat!
Haha! What a POS! Nice stock picking! Where's all the BS they promised would be next week two months ago?
LOLOLOL
You got NUTHIN with this pile of shite companies to include that worthless revoked trash FFGO that no one can find a living breathing body who will stand up and speak on its behalf.
Looks like someone opted for 100 shares of this junk over a bag of Pepe's Pork Rinds.
Their Loss.
Pretty scary thought, eastunder. Dilution pollution on the horizon has not yet been discounted into the price. And when their earnings releases to come bear out the fact that their valuation is excessive relative to earnings, meager as they are likely to be, this stock will take a pounding. While I don't see this stock going to sub penny range, I do see it having extreme difficulties holding a bid above the 5 dollar level making it technically a penny stock insofar as the SEC definition of a penny stock is as follows:
In the past, penny stocks were stocks that traded for less than a dollar per share. The SEC, however, modified the definition to include all shares trading below $5.
I came up with 4.06 and 5.81 for AAPL and GOOG, respectively a few days back.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75821804
Okay so with a PE of 109 @ today's close, if we want to compare Apples to Googles, this is what I come up with...
With AAPl's P/E of 13 times, FB would be valued at 4.06 a share.
With GOOG's P/E of 18.61 times, FB would be valued at 5.81 a shares.
Long way down from here.
Just too much FB stock outstanding? Wait until the lockup periods expire, you aint seen nuthin yet...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/story/2012-05-25/facebook-insider-lockup-period/55208546/1
: What will happen when Facebook insiders are able to sell their shares without the "lock-up"? Why don't other investors have such restrictions?
So much downside still remaining it is hard to call a bottom here. Lawsuits, expiring lockup, plain old dilution, going to get a whole lot uglier before any reasonable basis can be formed to design an entry. Not many will be up to the task.
Why Facebook took a Faceplant...
Facebook's (FB -10.99%) much-hyped initial public offering started out with lots of hope, but it ended with a thud. The stock barely closed above the offering price of $38 a share -- and only after the underwriters reportedly bought up enough stock to keep it in the plus column.
Why? There were four reasons.
1. Facebook was already semi-public
The IPO "pop" had occurred much earlier. When Google (GOOG +2.28%) went public in 2004, there wasn't a highly developed market for shares of private companies. Now, exchanges like SecondMarket and SharesPost allowed insiders to cash out and institutional investors to buy in before Facebook went public.
These markets had driven up Facebook's price 13-fold in four years of private trading, Bloomberg reported, and that took the wind out of the IPO's sails.
2. Facebook insiders got greedy
With all the brouhaha about the offering, Facebook could boost the offering price to its peak and sell 25% more shares than were originally planned.
The beneficiaries were primarily Facebook employees and venture capitalists and other early investors. The insiders were able to squeeze every last drop of value out of the IPO, and investors who bought on Friday were left with a dried-out lemon.
3. General Motors spoiled the party
The automaker couldn't have picked a worse time to announce that it wasn't going to continue advertising on Facebook -- timing so bad they might as well have been short Facebook stock. (Just kidding, folks, because it didn't happen.)
By publicly turning its back on Facebook just days before the offering, GM (GM +1.70%) exposed Facebook's biggest vulnerability: It doesn't have a killer revenue source like Google did in paid search, but instead has an "evolving" business model. Translation: We still don't know how we're going to make enough money to justify our stock price.
4. Individual investors didn't bite
Despite lots of media hype, retail investors took a "been there, done that" attitude, and reportedly didn't buy in heavily. An Associated Press-CNBC poll showed two-thirds of active retail investors thought the IPO would be overvalued when it went public, and many of those surveyed said Facebook was a fad. So, they sat on their hands.
And who can blame them? Investors learned some hard lessons from the dot.com bust, housing crash, and financial crisis, and one of them was that corporate insiders, investors, and big Wall Street banks don't run offerings so John and Jane Q. Public can get rich. They're entirely for the benefit of the investors and executives.
The Facebook IPO succeeded admirably at that, but not at much else. That's why it turned out to be, by its own lofty standards, a dud.
Okay so with a PE of 109 @ today's close, if we want to compare Apples to Googles, this is what I come up with...
With AAPl's P/E of 13 times, FB would be valued at 4.06 a share.
With GOOG's P/E of 18.61 times, FB would be valued at 5.81 a shares.
Long way down from here.
I''ll bet all if not substantially all of those so called corporations are lumb shells. Any of you DDer want to prove me right?
My one post.
Lather, rinse, repeat...ad nauseam.
Three key words: I'm so sure!
The history of these clowns should put the kibosh on any notion of wanting to hitch your wagon to their star.
I'm going to bet not. That's the smart money bet.