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.
Your posts ARE "APPRECIATED"!!!
Most are CON-vinced --- so just post as PRO-vinced and don't try to change everyone's mind and/or justify your positions.
Mebbe just post --- and let 'the chips' ride without further comment(s) RE-gardless as to what others say.
You have been "RIGHT" MUCH MORE THAN YOU HAVE BEEN "WRONG" (and I can't "member" or RE-"member" when you have been "WRONG"!)!!!
ALL --- especially as you're trying to "help" us/US!
Thanks Tom --- but I would like his 'ration-all':
"RSI reset and ready to rumble,...".
"MACD reset and ready to rumble,...".
What tells him that they: "RE-"set""?!
What tells him that they are: "READY TO RUMBLE"?!
What underlies these statements?:
"RSI reset and ready to rumble, MACD reset and ready to rumble,...".
"As for "silly price predictions"":
Keep them coming....
You said that:
"Consider that NITE traded $14M in volume today over all. So if they were able to use that money (like banks do) and just get 1% on their money for it they will profit a half a million dollars just by making you wait 3 days to trade."
Please clarify your 'math'.
09/30 + 45 = 11/14.
Also see post #23489.
"[H]ow could anyone have been duped?"
I RE-member that PRE-split we were ASS-ured that there would be NO RE-"verse" split!
Also see post #23483:
"...Mgmt has no concience toward investors. And investors have no confidence...".
That's why it's called: CON-science! And it is CON-fidence and CONNED-fidence!!
Merle has taken a lot of 'flack' over the years --- but he has performed a very use-full function to keep the volume of inquiries off of Scott's back so that Scott can focus on "the plan".
Whether or not we like all of the RE-plies, the sigh-lences, and so forth --- Merle should be favourably RE-cognized for this.
What about those who 'beat a horse dead'?!
Didn't you mean?!: "ORE-SOME!"!
I'm not sure if your question was answered satisfactorily, but if you use this link you can see each post by author's name --- and you can go back as far as you want:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=8822
You may have to "Log In" to IHUB for ease of use.
Another person to "pay" attention to --- even if you're too broke to "pay" any 'one' --- is "dmbao". (And there are others --- trial and error.)
Yes you do! FINISH THAT SEN-TENCE!!!
Did you ever think that they BOTH may NOT "like" it --- and then DE-lay the "news" be-the-cause of it???!!!
Quote: "Almost no way to be wrong on that one. Scott has a few days to do or die."
Quote: "If you asked me a month ago I would have guessed he would fail. Since Scott is aware of his past fails...."
RE-gardless, Scott hasn't "failed"! He is attempting to move the company forward --- through situations which can be beyond his handling (as others have noted).
IF they don't "work out" --- this is NOT "failure"!
"Failure" would be giving up!
Hey 'Karl43'-LOCK:
You sort of made a 'general' statement --- which you have now "clarified". That's fine.
How-ever: In your EN-'sample', the new corporation still cannot have the "same"/"identical" name --- RE-gardless of owner-ship. There MUST be some "variation" --- arms length, and all of that!
And BOTH must be appropriately RE-gistered! And BOTH must keep separate 'financial' RE-cords!
Not quite: There are State and related 'statutes' against naming companies too similar/the same as others to A-"void" CON-"fusion"!
Please tell me where --- post #23126 shows NOOOOO analysis!
Although I agree with some of the 'generalities' which you posted --- I was specifically noting that you attributed 'negativities' to what 'turbo34' had posted in #120753, whereas he was stating THE OBVIOUS "TRUTHS" --- BASED UPON "DD"!
Some DE-sire to OVER-'look' THE OBVIOUS!
I agree in "principle" with what you say --- but in the case of the (so-called) 'audit' (and what 'turbo34' had posted in #120753, and then 'Suebarth's' RE-ply in post #120757) 'Suebarth's' comments PRE-suppose 'negativities' v. THE OBVIOUS "TRUTHS" which 'turbo34' has raised!
How about posting your analysis?!
Positive "junk" also hurts others! When NOT "true"!!
Negative 'junk' does NOT hurt others --- when "TRUE"!!!
It "H E L P S"!!!
Ask any CPA to show you the auditor's "sign"-off!
It took about 3 months --- just look at a chart for the period (o4/2009 - 07/2009).
Even IF "THE ALL MIGHTY (ONE) BREAKS FORTH" ('Elohim Perazim') --- too many may be counting their "chickens" before they hatch, only to find out that the "egg" CON-tained a: "turkey"!
I say this be-the-cause there is a "LOT" going on in this 'world' --- IN-"CLUE"-DING OVER THE NEXT THREE MONTHS --- and there may be some "terrible surprises", which do NOT PRO-duce the "prizes" that have then be-come EX-pected!
Things HAVE BEEN "CHANGED"!!! And ARE BEING "CHANGED"!!!
The double-talk and triple-talk has now become quadruple-talk!
In ALL "fair"-ness --- some of you should pick up a 'basic accounting' text, and "learn" what 'cash accounting' vs. 'accrual accounting' is.
Let's say that a company reports "earnings" of 100,000.00 --- and it is on the 'cash basis' --- then its "earnings" = "cash" collected, NO 'accounts receivable', but some or ALL of THAT "cash" is also spent for telephone, wages, travel, and so forth. So the "cash balance" can still be up or down at the end of any particular "reporting period".
Now if the company is on the 'accrual basis', the 100,000.00 "earnings" may ALL be 'accounts receivable': that is, NONE, or possibly ONLY a small portion is "collected" by the end of the "reporting period". Yet, the SAME "operating and administrative costs" are still incurred (some "paid" and some yet to be "paid" at the end of the "reporting period"). So the "cash" balance may ACTUALLY go down (for this time frame).
The above is simplified --- but do NOT CON-"fuse" "income" and "cash" under either method. And "SEE" why (as minimums) financial RE-"porting" IN-"CLUE"-DES: "Balance Sheets", "Income Statements", and "Statements of Cash Flow(s)".
Possibly this will help you folks who need this under-standing.
How about?!: "GOLD SOURCE"!!
Other-"wise": Go back to post #120510 and the chain of posts from there.
Try to "SEE" the "TOTAL PICTURE" --- via several posters on this board!
TRY!!!
At this stage what you say --- IS ALL DOUBLE-'TALK'!
No! NOW IT'S ALL "TRIPLE"-'TALK'!!!
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 16 --- SIX-TEEN --- months ago I sent the following EEEEE-mail (pertinent parts):
From: Jerry ...
Sent: Thu 3/24/11 7:53 AM
To: dfs.hannoverhouse@sbcglobal.net
FYI: I am a stockholder.
Since the TDGI financial audit is way overdue (based on various suggested/promised dates in the past) --- I suggest that it be released ASAP even if the auditor's opinion has to be qualified in one or more areas.
It appears to be more detrimental to having delayed and re-delayed these audited financial statements (regardless of startovers, or whatever,) than to get them out and keep publishing in the future (even with any qualified opinion(s) that may be necessary until time and facts don't need it (them) anymore).
....
-------------------------------------------------------
I sent the following EEEEE-mail over 1 year --- OVER TWELVE MONTHS --- ago (pertinent parts):
From: Jerry ...
Sent: Mon 7/18/11 9:04 AM
To: D. Frederick Shefte (dfs.hannoverhouse@sbcglobal.net)
My suggestion at this time is to fire the auditing firm and get a new one with the stipulation that it has THREE MONTHS to get the financials audited!
-------------------------------------------------------
And "SEE" my post #119485!
-------------------------------------------------------
The other 'pinks' don't PRO-mise "audited financials" --- as a "step" to UP-"listing" --- and then DE-lay and POST-pone "DEAD"-lines! Time and time again! And post so-called 'audited'/RE-'viewed' statements --- WHICH SHOULD HAVE A CLEAR-CUT "AUDITOR'S OPINION" (one 'way', or the 'other')! But which do NOT!!!
And it is up to the (so-called) IN-vestors of those other 'pinks' to do what they want with those other stocks.
What are your "sources"?!
I am NOT a 'tax EX-pert', 'law-yer', 'CPA' or 'PA', 'financial planner', and/or any other kind or UN-kind of EX-pert --- BUT!!!:
Filing tax RE-turns on the 'cash basis' does NOT make them wrong --- even if the books and financial RE-porting are done on the 'accrual basis'. (There are "work-sheet techniques" which go from one to the other.)
There can be SUB-stantial BENE-"fits" to paying taxes on the 'cash basis' rather than the 'accrual basis' --- and this should be a PRO-per 'management' decision to make, notwithstanding any auditors and their PRE-ferences.
The auditors may ADD-vise based on their massaging of the numbers --- but the DE-cision should NOT be theirs!
And the auditors' written, certified 'opinion' should attest to the numbers and the 'financial picture' of the company.
Without these things the company cannot be "grown" be-the-cause the PRO-PER ACCOUNTABILITY MUST BE DOCUMENTED, IN-"CLUE"-DING NON-balance sheet 'transactions!
I think that you're "fantasizing" --- A-"gain"!
No! I think that you're "imagining" AND "imaging" in a 'BIG WAY' --- such that you're NOT JUST "fanta-sizing": BUT YOU'RE REALLY "ELE-PHANT-A-SIZING"!!!
And this just might be the necessary PRE-"nude" --- er, I mean PRE-"lude" to SRSR "gaping" --- er, I mean "gapping" to "TEN CENTS" (AT LEAST)!!!
Now!: Did I get your "drift"???!!!
Have you ever "chewed on" --- $100BILLION?! And in "ORE"! (Or is it "AWE"!?)
What did it "taste" like?
I couldn't RE-ply earlier since I'm verrrrry limited on the number of posts avail-able to me.
I "figured" that you (and others) under-stood what I had posted, but there may have been others who do not since I have noticed that such bid/ask questions come up FREE-quently, and on other boards too.
Also in this specific case --- be-sides other reasons as noted by others (IN-"CLUE"-DING hitting the "1" in-the-stead of the "2", ".014" vs ".024") --- it could have been a 'market' order that got "down"-played (literally). (I generally do NOT agree with placing 'market' orders for such reasons, especially on 'pinks'.)
Any info on why HHSE is NOT "trading"?!
This keeps coming up PRE-market:
At the end of each trading session, and after, many/most bid/asks drop off and/or are cancelled.
It can take a few minutes after each trading session opens for bid/asks to get into play (even though many are submitted a little before the session begins, others are submitted after).
Such 'wide spreads' simply RE-flect the status(es) at various points in time --- nothing to worry about here (UN-less there is some "imminent news").
And then, throughout the trading session(s), 'people' are submitting and cancelling orders "dynamically". (Or is it "DIE"-namically.)
Please clarify your post --- tia.
I don't think that can buy 'pinks'.