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.
Right. And the evil naked shorting market makers monitor the subpenny boards and pay bashers $1.00 per post (unless they've gotten a cost-of-living increase recently).
There's a lot of this on IHub but it always amazes me. This guy is a recidivist.
XXXX has a lot of dirt in its' past and present and no doubt in its' future too.
"Last I checked"? With whom? You are being played. The short conspiracy story is virtually always nonsense. If you research the margin requirements for shorting a subpenny stock, you'll see why it makes no financial sense even if borrows are available.
Short sellers on a subpenny stock? Are you serious?
http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=AVNE&id=115412
There are a couple of typos, so my guess is that an amendment will be filed to correct them.
Yeah, I know, the whole thing is weird. The funniest thing to me is all the bitcoin knockoffs that have sprung up. Google "dogecoin" if you want a laugh - it's like the penny stock equivalent of a blue-chip bitcoin.
It doesn't have to be complex. My son is mining bitcoins on two little shoebox-sized units at home. They create something like a tenth of a bitcoin per day, at no cost except for a small increase in my electric bill.
Yes, it will.
How's that for a prediction?!
https://www.otciq.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=115412
Yep. I expect that they'll finally get the September 30 report filed soon, too.
He has none.
AVNE has woken up the past two days. It doesn't look like much -- you kinda have to know the stock as well as I do to think anything unusual is happening -- but I think something is finally imminent. They delayed their quarterly report that was supposed to come out 11/14, maybe because of some issue about how to report some kind of business deal or acquisition that may or may not have already occurred? I don't know, and now that I've typed that it looks pretty weak. What I DO know is that I know and trust management and the outstanding is only 23,527,581, the float is only 2,538,081, and I know where about 1.6 million of the float is held, so this thing is really thin. If they announce that they're branching out from biofuels into something related to marijuana as was first speculated last August, there won't be enough shares to go around.
Sounds more like the Weird Wolf of the Wild West to me.
You are absolutely right, slojab!
Pretty funny. What that website is saying is that the domain name "telvue.com" is worth $2,100. That is the estimated TOTAL value, not a per-share price.
By way of comparison, "amazon.com is worth $ 2,383,570,980.00."
"ebay.com is worth $ 908,026,560.00"
Also according to that site, telvue.com is the 679,481th most visited website in the world. Impressive!!
I believe there was no tax consequence for either the shareholder or the corporation
Wrong.
Any disposition of a capital asset is a taxable event. You can't just cancel shares - if the transaction is not done at fair market value (i.e., a legitimate buyback) it's probably a taxable gift, but I'm a lawyer, not an accountant.
Interesting little (and I do mean little) flurry of activity today. I wonder whether some of the speculative money that has gone into marijuana stocks over the past week has finally found AVNE. Look back on this board for the source of the rumors.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92125566
The company's quarterly report has been pending since November. Hmmm, I wonder whether the delay in filing is due to some question regarding how to account for an acquisition or some other sort of transaction....? I guess we will find out soon enough.
Unlike the unlawful "dividend refusal," this at least would be theoretically possible. But watch out for the tax hit....
I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with owning a majority of the shares -- it would violate state corporate law. I have enough work to do for paying clients, so why don't YOU research it and come back to us with the cite?
Some of the theories being floated around this board have no basis in law or accounting, not to mention simple common sense. As has been posted here numerous times (with citations), all shares of a class of stock must be treated the same, so a shareholder cannot simply "exclude himself" from a dividend. And if shares are canceled, there is a tax consequence to the former owner. I'm not a CPA so I will leave it to you guys to research how that would work, but suffice it to say that it ain't happening.
I sometimes agree with you -- certainly somewhat more often than others here do -- but that is really unnecessary. How does comparing the thing to a Dustbuster, obviously from a purely visual standpoint, "marginalize the technology"? It DOES look like a Dustbuster. So what? Is that just your "gripe du jour"?
Hey KT, likewise! I think "big sales" of one kind or another is what IMSC is going to need in order to get out of its own way. Everything else doesn't mean much right now, in my view.
Ah, ok, CSTI is a special case. I think they are just plain incompetent, or their systems suck. Most of the times I've had to complain about an order not being displayed, it has been when the trade was routed to CSTI. They also take forever to confirm cancellations.
Another thing that I just thought of is that in a fast-moving stock at the open, orders often get held for a few critical minutes. I'll concede that there's something fishy about that, but it's not what we've been discussing with IMSC.
If you are the best bid or offer, and it's not an all-or-none order, and if the order size meets the minimum necessary to be publicly displayed, there is no excuse for it not to be displayed, and you should complain to your brokerage and/or get a new one.
OK, fine. I will tell you that I've both traded through and done legal and compliance work for MMs, and I've dealt with hedge funds and had them as clients as well, so I'm not naive as to who is doing what, but you can believe what you wish.
Sigh. One more time: large market makers are basically computer systems. Look elsewhere for the alleged manipulators. Since NITE should have no logical reason to care whether IMSC closes at .82 or .87 on a given day, figure out who might.
Yes, it happens on occasion - and a quick call to the broker's trading desk gets it displayed, 100% of the time. If that MM is asleep at the switch or having a system problem, the order can be rerouted to another MM.
OK, Robin, point taken. Despite direct access, Level II, etc., there is still no real transparency with regard to WHO is behind the trading -- but it isn't NITE, ETRF, CDEL or any other MM that is allegedly manipulating IMSC. They are basically computers that process orders from traders, including the 800 pound gorilla in the room, DMRJ. Anyone who blames stock movements on MMs in this day and age simply does not understand the limited role of MMs and how things really work in a liquid stock.
But sure, there are a lot of smaller MMs that trade for their own account, and some have been formed specifically for an individual or two to trade through.
Daily MM's move the bid ask around to induce buys and sells.
Again, I would stress that in a liquid stock, virtually all of that activity will be traders, not the MMs themselves whose computers simply reflect the traders' orders.
There are always pricing inefficiencies in the OTC market but I would say that in general, a stock's price will gravitate toward its true current "value" based on supply and demand. For whatever reason (probably DMRJ supply in the low 1.00s and investor fatigue and disappointment due to lower than expected revenues), lately there has been sufficient supply and low enough demand to keep the price under 1.00. So I'm not sure that a higher price is "merited" right now. I agree that over the medium to long term, a higher stock price is likely, but we will need to see sales eventually.
Omigod, where do I begin? Let's start with some obvious ones and I'll leave the rest of the education to anyone who has more time to post.
1. For the past 10-plus years, virtually every individual in the world has had the ability to have his or her stock orders directly reflected in the publicly displayed bid and offer. The intervention of market makers is rarely necessary in liquid issues, other than to automatically represent orders coming from customers of brokerage firms, and if you can buy on the bid and sell on the offer OTC MMs can't rely on making the spread. That change led to many MMs ceasing to trade for their own accounts in most OTC stocks several years ago.
2. The move to trading in decimals (and even fractions of a penny) has eliminated wide spreads in liquid issues, so if MMs had to make their money from spreads they'd all go out of business.
3. Everything is computerized now. No human being at NITE is sitting there wondering whether to manipulate IMSC's closing price by a penny or two.
Sure, that's fine. Just to clarify, though, my point is that if a financier is advancing cash to a company on a given day, and receiving a certain number of shares based on the closing price, it can be a simple matter to close the stock down a few cents to get a few more shares.
There are other types of market players who might want a stock to close lower, for margin or balance sheet purposes, and actually take action to make it so. But MMs should generally be at the bottom of the list of suspects, right below most message board posters.
Well put - yeah, that is the argument. I get it. But I'm guessing it is probably DMRJ trying to squeeze a little more out of each conversion (this sort of thing absolutely can and does happen routinely), or something similar that is equally irrelevant to the company's business and prospects of success over the long term.
As far as the lack of benevolence is concerned... I think each of us should assume that every other market player is an antagonist, and that the only way we will succeed with a stock investment is if the company succeeds long-term.
Again, slo, indulge me because this isn't a pump, but another in a series of bizarrely ignorant posts about how the market works. This guy tried to rebut my statement that real live traders, not market makers, are behind a stock's trading by citing a law review article from 1968.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=95577848
Yes, really. What is the date of the paper you cited?
Don't you think it would be wise for anyone who is trading OTC issues to have some idea of how the OTC market works in the 21st century?
To quote buff, "Frankly, I'm tired of explaining things to everyone." Suffice it to say that when a trader enters an order that meets the minimum size requirement, it is directly displayed on the bid or offer where it can be met directly by another trader on the other side of the trade. Very seldom do market makers get involved and trade for the spread in a liquid issue, although that was certainly the case in 1968 (and through most of the '90s). Sheesh.
I have not said that IMSC stock has never been manipulated, or maybe just "played with" by traders. I will reiterate that there is no evidence whatsoever that market makers are involved for their own accounts -- market makers generally (and particularly in the Pinks) simply represent orders from traders (and when I say "traders" that includes DMRJ).
I've owned IMSC on and off since it jumped from .03 to .11 - I'll let you look up when that was. I'll just say that having traded directly through market makers since before online brokerages existed, and having represented hedge funds and professional traders in my work, I will go with my own understanding of "how things work" over a lot of the unsupported theories that infest this board.
But the biggest question is, who cares whether the stock closes a couple of cents higher or lower on a given day? Is the concern that the company's business is so fragile that it matters to potential customers whether the stock is .82 or .85? I think that's just silly. And why should an investor with a medium-to-long-term horizon care about little fluctuations like that?
At that point the BSers who work in tandem with MM's will be assigned to other prey
In the interest of logic and balance, I feel obliged to reiterate that there is no evidence whatsoever of any such conspiracy, or of "market maker manipulation" of IMSC at all, but whoever on this board wants to believe in this myth is welcome to his opinion.
PTOG pretty good bang for the buck:
Currently Global Oasis Group, LLC is being compensated five thousand dollars from E-Relations Group (a non-affiliated third party) for PTOG advertising and promotional services