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.
OT: Anyone know how to get in touch with Socal_Helix?
Lets hope his very important news includes very positive numbers. I think a calculator may be a bit more difficult for him than a spellchecker though.
Agreed bull. The SEC rules and regulations would be considered "laws". The jurisdiction and interpretaion of those laws are by the judge.
The SEC is NOT the law. They have rules and regulations in place that are designed, to an extent, to prevent laws from being broken. They are subject...or should be subjected to the same "laws" as your or me or Rufus...or the guy down the street. If the "law" is broken...the JUDGE will be the one that determines that based on his/her interpretation of the information each side presents.
I agree with you 100%. There is way too much corruption in higer places. But still, one must afford a person the right of innocence until proven guilty. I do not believe in the "lets do a deal in exchange for a lesser guilty plea" when it comes to fraud in the market place. If Rufus is guilty and warrants jail time, I'm all for it. On the flip side, if the SEC investigators violated the law in any manner in their pursuit of Rufus, then I hope they are given the opportunity to reflect on their wrong doings in the cell right along with him.
I think the admissions are such as any other company does in a situation such as this....obscure and undetailed. We will hopefully see the true numbers sooner than later. Alexander appears to be moving quickly to get the filings corrected to reflect accurate numbers. We may see this was a total scam, and we may see this as Rufus' inability to "go with the flow" so to speak with his unorthodox methods and obstinacy. Until the judge/SEC is "happy" with the numbers, we will all have to wait and see how "inaccurate" they currently are.
Do you really think the SEC will admit some of their own are scum? It's quite obvious they are not 100% honest in all respects of the law. I really doubt they will do any more than cover up their below board activities. And this is NOT in respect to this company only by any means.
If you don't wish to talk about it, why mention it in the first place. That you did mention it implies you want to discuss it...or perhaps you simply want people to ask so you can tell them no. I think you have a good point about not listening to you...consider it done.
survivor, all you have to do is show your disclaimer....you know...like this:
I spoke to XXX with PAIVIS corp. and asked a series of questions. Following is a list of the questions I asked, and the answers XXX gave to those questions. If the peeps here can't figure that out, they don't need to be putting money in anything other than their piggy banks.
I acquired some info earlier today about the VXBX divs, and I inquired about the restricted and roundup shares as well for the JPHC/PAIV/PAVC folks.
The VXBX div shares people received were issued under SEC rule 144. If ya don't know what that means, check out the following link.
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/rule144.htm
As far as the roundup shares go...I was told that the company has NOT issued the roundup shares yet. Reason given is the brokers have not given the TA the required information to verify, so the shares can be issued. I mentioned that several people had informed me that they did indeed receive roundup shares in their broker accounts...and some even sold those shares and were then informed they were in a short position. Also was brought up that the "roundup" shares are showing a different cusip # compared to the company cusip#. I was told that ALL PAVC SHARES will have the same cusip #. IF your account with your broker shows a different cusip, it is incorrect. Again, the company HAS NOT issued roundup shares, so what your broker shows...I would consider that to be in error.
The restricted shares....the company is fully aware of the situation, and they ARE working on the problem. Couldn't get any more than that. Hopefully we hear something sooner than later.
Hunter, I did get the correct info on the vxbx div shares. Sorry I didn't post it earlier....busy with so many things. Here is the latest and greatest on the VXBX DIVIDEND shares.
They are issued under SEC rule 144. For those that aren't aware of the 144 rule parameters, they are as follows:
What Are the Conditions of Rule 144?
If you want to sell your restricted or control securities to the public, you can follow the conditions set forth in Rule 144. The rule is not the exclusive means for selling restricted or control securities, but provides a "safe harbor" exemption to sellers. The rule's five conditions are summarized below:
Holding Period. Before you may sell restricted securities in the marketplace, you must hold them for at least one year. The one-year period holding period begins when the securities were bought and fully paid for. The holding period only applies to restricted securities. Because securities acquired in the public market are not restricted, there is no holding period for an affiliate who purchases securities of the issuer in the marketplace. But an affiliate's resale is subject to the other conditions of the rule.
Additional securities purchased from the issuer do not affect the holding period of previously purchased securities of the same class. If you purchased restricted securities from another non-affiliate, you can tack on that non-affiliate's holding period to your holding period. For gifts made by an affiliate, the holding period begins when the affiliate acquired the securities and not on the date of the gift. In the case of a stock option, such as one an employee receives, the holding period always begins as of the date the option is exercised and not the date it is granted.
Adequate Current Information. There must be adequate current information about the issuer of the securities before the sale can be made. This generally means the issuer has complied with the periodic reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Trading Volume Formula. After the one-year holding period, the number of shares you may sell during any three-month period can't exceed the greater of 1% of the outstanding shares of the same class being sold, or if the class is listed on a stock exchange or quoted on Nasdaq, the greater of 1% or the average reported weekly trading volume during the four weeks preceding the filing a notice of the sale on Form 144. Over-the-counter stocks, including those quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board and the Pink Sheets, can only be sold using the 1% measurement.
Ordinary Brokerage Transactions. The sales must be handled in all respects as routine trading transactions, and brokers may not receive more than a normal commission. Neither the seller nor the broker can solicit orders to buy the securities.
Filing Notice With the SEC. At the time you place your order, you must file a notice with the SEC on Form 144 if the sale involves more than 500 shares or the aggregate dollar amount is greater than $10,000 in any three-month period. The sale must take place within three months of filing the Form and, if the securities have not been sold, you must file an amended notice.
And I suppose you are a fully literate con man?
serfy, has your broker explained to you the status of your shares? I've seen posts by some others that received their roundup shares and sold...then were shown to be short in their accounts. I don't have roundup shares, but I'm trying to gather info on what the brokers are doing in relation to any JPHC/PAIV/PAVC shares. TIA
Cindy, you might want to read it again...I didn't infer the hippo was a she. I have not only viewed the pictures, I've eaten at the restaurant many times. I suppose a person could form an opinion based soley on a visual aspect of something they have no knowledge of, or are not familiar with. I've been fortunate enough to travel extensively and sample a wide variety of native/local dishes myself. I have to say, visual acuity many times deceives the palate.
Cindy, I have no need to insult you. Your earlier post referenced your opinion of the food. My comment referenced your siggy. Possibly you could do some research on what a bird might eat. Undoubtedly a touch of humor by some are not welcome here.
Posted by: cindyyoohoo
In reply to: None Date:10/29/2006 11:47:15 AM
Post #of 118167
What gross looking food!
Chirp! Chirp!
I AM THAT LITTLE BIRD ON THE HIPPO'S BACK!!!!!!!!!!
Doniboy, obviously they don't serve good tex-mex on a hippo. Throw in some maggots and other larvae, a few different variets of blood sucking bugs, and I'm sure she would drool at the menu. To be honest, the place does have extremely good food. Not the BEST tex-mex around, but certainly very high on the list. One would not be disappointed in the quality.
I say if the brokers are involved in manipulation, they should suffer the consequences. This company alleges the brokers are doing wrong, and obviously they feel they can prove it. We shall soon see if they have that proof.
interesting read for those of you who use these brokers.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/061027/20061027005521.html?.v=1
go check this out http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/150580569?ltl=1161980527
crimson, i have been in the stock world for many, many years. I do agree with what your saying, my point is the lack of communication the company offers when they do communicate. My wish is as you said...fluff or not...put it out there for the shareholders to see and make a decision based on reasonable facts.
I see a major problem here. A failure to communicate to the shareholders is creating quite a bit of dissention. I'm wondering if they are intentionally pushing to drop the pps to acquire cheap shares. This company SHOULD be moving upward on the potential alone. With the PR's put out recently, the volume should be well above this because of the typical momo play in the pinks...speculation drives these stocks at this level, and I can't believe people are willing to take a loss on THIS company, and hold on to others with MUCH less going for them. Something is certainly out of the norm here.
serfy...unfortunately his world of beginning investing was far different than ours. A simpler time for sure, but agreed...his advice is good at any level.
you just answered your own questions. Of course a company isn't going to state they are laying off people to prop up the pps, but the end result is cut costs, improve the bottom line, which improves the pps. Makes the company look good. BB stocks are a different story....This will probably be the only thing I agree with you on. A lot of BB companies do just as you've stated.
take a look at the company layoffs...the corporate early retirement offers...the removal of pension plans. What do you think these companies are doing? They are reducing costs to hold up the bottom line...the share price.
serfy, I would agree with most of that 100%. MY feeling in the corporate world is the more one moves up, the less they become involved with the backbone of the company. "Bean counters" do not keep a company in business. I am very, very familiar with Mr. Buffet and his methodologies. One of my favorite quotes is from him in fact. "The wealth of the impatient soon becomes the wealth of the patient" But you must admit, Mr. Buffet is in a differnet investing league than we. Of course his ideals and methods apply to us all, but as you well know, his name alone opens doors we will probably never see. So to that effect, I believe a conversation with upper management may well prove worthwhile at times. When I become 1/10th as wealthy as Mr. Buffett, I may well use his methods more in line as he does.
I have to disagree to a point. I would say most CEO's do concern themselves with the share price. If you've been in corporate america for any length of time you would know many companies will lay off employees, reduce/eliminate positions...products...services....a variety of things to shore up the pps. Their primary responsibility is to grow the business, and secondary is support that pps to appease the shareholder. It's unfortunate people lose their livelyhood to protect the share price, but it is a fact it's done on a regular basis.
interesting, I thought the CEO's job was to grow the company and ensure a profit for the shareholders. I've spoken to several CEO's of companies over the years and the majority of them I invested in proved to be a rather nice and profitable investment. But perhaps your only referencing pink/otcbb companies....With that, I would agree a margin of caution is due to a much greater extent.
yes it does, and I would have expected it. The judge's responsibility is to protect the consumer at any reasonable cost. A precautionary measure that is in the best interests of the shareholders and the consumer in general. Now we wait to see the outcome of the alleged offenses.
as I said...ALLEGES....look it up. It is there OPINION...their INTERPRETATION possibly.... that rufus is in the wrong. The SEC isn't right all the time....no one is. In that sense, IF the judge rules in favor of the SEC, then it will be deemed PROOF. IF the judge rules in favor of Rufus, then they will remain as alleged offenses, and be deemed unfounded. Until then, they are considered an ALLEGED offense.
MY line of thinking is that one is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. The SEC ALLEGES....THEIR OPINION, that rufus and company did wrong. I suppose we will find out soon enough. IF rufus is guilty, then I would expect, and want him to suffer the consequences. IF the SEC personnel that pushed this to court are guilty of mis-representation, and if they utilised their "position" to circumvent the law and knowingly did this for reasons outside the realm of ethical procedure, I would expect them as well to suffer the appropriate consequences. As for my "implication" of anything...I implied nothing. I simply posted an interesting article to read for those interested in current stock market news. My sarcasm is directed at the SEC for many reasons outside the CSHD arena as I have many holdings in the market that are directly affected by the SEC actions and procedures, hence my posting of the article. You have no concept of what my "DD" is, or what it involves, and to what depth I pursue information.
a nice read about our wonderful SEC
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aXgW0d3iRVYw&refer=home
would this be considered a loss by the SEC? Or a dismissed lawsuit? http://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/34-50480.htm
survivor, I'm not upset in the least. I am simply pointing out what I personally know first hand as being true. I have personally spoken with the TA, with TDA, and have verified with both sides what has been requested, and what has been sent. I can't speak to Scottrade or to the other two brokers, as I don't know who they are. I can only take the word of donnelly on them being non-compliant. He has proven to me that TDA has failed repeatedly to supply him with the requested information, as well as TDA themselves verifying they have not complied. You suggest filing complaints....I have 22 seperate complaints on record with the SEC since May 19, 2006. Each involving TDA for failure to supply requested information that is rightly due me or the Transfer Agent. I have been called by the SEC on 4 seperate occasions to answer questions. They in turn refused to answer all but one question of mine. The only question I received an answer to was "Is there an investigation involving TDA and the restricted shares from JPHC/PAIV/PAVC" Their response was " We are fully aware of the issue and are currently investigating the concerns presented to us. We will not comment on an ongoing investigation." Now, as for the company, I agree with you on that 100%. I feel the company should step forward and speak to this. I certainly feel there is "something" amiss here. The company being completely removed from this and completely transparent tells me they either don't care, or they are somehow involved with a back room agenda. Who knows. Other companies are stepping up and challenging the brokers and mm's...why not our company? I for one will keep compiling information..sifting and sifting...sooner or later it will all surface.
survivor, it is not EVERY broker. It has been established that a few brokers, namely TDAMERITRADE, SCOTTRADE, and according to the TA, two others have been a problem. I can verify that TDA has not complied as they sent me a letter to verify what they sent to the TA. In that letter, they clearly showed what was sent. In my request to them, which mirrored the request of the TA...the information sent was not equal to the information requested. How simple does it have to be. The TA requested 6 seperate pieces of information. TDA sent 4 of them. Now they tell me they resent ALL of the information to the TA as of 10-18-2006. I have said this before, and will say it again. The TA has been consistant with his requests, I have a copy of the fax request he sent TDA. I verified with TDA the information requestd by the TA in the fax. I have a copy of the information TDA sent to the TA. THEY DO NOT MATCH. Doesn't get any clearer than that.
MRDALE,was this your div shares from the split last year?
I received the letter from TDA today they promised me. And just as I expected, they did NOT supply the info to the TA as was requested. Here is what I requested from them:
legal name
address
SS#
stock record position as of:
5-11-2006
5-23-2006
8-03-2006
they sent me the following:
legal name
address
SS#
stock record position as of:
5-23-2006
They went on to say the TA had an "unusual" request that should have been satisfied by the totals for 5-23-2006 date. He asked for the totals as of 5-11-2006, and later for totals as of 08-03-2006. TDA states in this letter they overnighted to the TA his "unusual" request for all 3 dates on 10-18-2006.
Now, I'm not a broker, but asking for the totals at the time of the MERGER seems reasonable. Also, asking for the totals post R/S seems reasonable. My thinking is a person MAY have purchased or sold shares between those dates. Imagine that...a shareholder buying more or selling off some of his/her holdings. The reason the TA wants these totals by date, is to see who will get shares. Earliest dates first. If there are hundreds of millions of "air shares" out there, who do ya think will get shares first? Who will be held accountable for those "air shares" once the TA finally is able to sift through all the records and verify which brokers are compliant and which brokers hold "air shares" on their books? Seems to me the brokers are still at play here.
would be one helll of a play wouldn't it? and how would they get caught if they are all offshore....not much of a chance the brokers are gonna find these people....ever.
yes it is...but it sure can be fun....and quite profitable.