While I am not one of the "This stock sucks!" crowd, you can count on at least one naysayer being around no matter what.

But let's clarify something: Just because a stock might enjoy a temporary increase in SP, if it's not fundamentally based, that doesn't qualify to what the majority of the longs espouse, that being a viable business.

I have never, and would never on any stock, state there is no possibility of SP appreciating.

But I've witnessed all too often the cheering of "Where are they now!, ROTF" if/when a stock might have a mini-run, only for SP to fall right back to where it was--or lower.

Thank you for those reliable sources. I am confident that all will be greatly comforted by "some brokers"

Of course not--Why do you think I stated to GotX that "It depends who it is" regarding his "one phone call" that would supposedly confirm all?
---
How is Due Diligence Conducted?

The parties conducting due diligence generally create a checklist of needed information. Management of the target company prepares some of the information. Financial statements, business plans and other documents are reviewed. In addition, interviews and site visits are conducted. Finally, thorough research is conducted with external sources -- including customers, suppliers, industry experts, trade organizations, market research firms, and others.
http://www.astutediligence.com/Diligence_Basics.htm#how

Add to the above banks/financial institutions, title companies, Gov't. agencies, etc

Thank you for confirming the truth about possession of third party info.
If I were a shareholder or prospective shareholder these revelations would certainly be an eye opener.

None of it is from independent unbiased third parties.
Try to stay on subject please.

Really?--And after supposed months of putting out tons of DD --none of it found it's way to the iBox?
As Jack said in "As Good as It Gets"-- "Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here"

What didn't you understand?--It depends on who it is.

I would be "surprised" if an individual, particularly a long, would withhold supposed verification of company claims, which would only bolster the confidence of existing shareholders, while it would be a reason for others to buy in.
IMO, that simply doesn't make sense.

I will let others come to their own conclusion from your non-answer.

Depends on who it is.

Anyone can make a statement--what 3rd parties?

Regardless of the exact terminology/label put on it, the point is that (to the best of my knowledge) NO ONE has been able to get independent verification of company stated material facts.
But since it was stated that they had had discussions with 3rd parties I thought it VERY relevant, and something that investors here would be interested in hearing about-- particularly since (according to "investor words") that is the basis of due diligence:
"The process of investigation, performed by investors, into the details of a potential investment, such as an examination of operations and management and the verification of material facts"
http://www.investorwords.com/1596/due_diligence.html

"Verification of material facts" can come from only one source: independent, unbiased third parties.

did you say "third party"?

- crooner stated in an earlier post that he/she has spoken with 3rd parties, perhaps he/she can help?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=31176233

It's unfortunate that you're having difficulty understanding the points which I outlined in that post, albeit they are steeped in sarcasm.
I am however happy to condense and clarify: IMO this stock is little more than a promotional vehicle created and utilized for trading and the selling of shares.
Is that clear enough?

Your suggestion of "Hateraid" implys I have (any) emotion attached to this security, I assure you I have none.

And while big board securities have their own unique set of problems, IMO it is gravely erroneous to compare that segment of the market with pinks/OTC which by design are for trading, NOT investing.

I am confused by claims of HCPC being a "startup company"---after how many years?
I do however agree with your statement that "they haven't even done anything", and IMO they never will.

implement: to give practical effect to and ensure of actual fulfillment by concrete measures.

I see no evidence of ANY plan being implemented in a timely fashion, much less "full steam ahead".

I see no evidence of any buyback conducted, nor of any announcement by HCPC regarding such other than "plans to" dating back to October of last year, and since that time MULTIPLE BILLIONS OF SHARES HAVE BEEN ADDED and actually they go out of their way to state on the website that "at this time NO shares have been repurchased"

I would however agree that they may be operating on "a whole nother level", but IMO that level is in Bizzarro World

And I am NOT "amazed" in watching, but rather nauseated, as IMO more and more layers are added to shield accountability.

ANOTHER related merge/spinoff/sub/company announced?

This once-in-a-lifetime opportunity just gets better and better with each passing day--week--month--year.

It reminds me of the sleight-of-hand-short-con where the mark trys to guess what shell a pea is under.
But in HCPC's case the marks try to speculate what shell their fortune is under.
Is it HCPC?---Is it RELM?---Is it ICCC?---Is it Cremel?---Is it First Access Partners?---Is it Access Channel?---Is it Versalign?---If not one of these, don't worry, there will be more.

And today's related news is for what?---To raise even more capital!--and for software that is more than 12 years old that magically predicts "market conditions" 24 months in advance?
That is F'ing hilarious!
How has that software worked out in the past 12 years?

There are so many shells/smoke screens that even Einstein wouldn't have been able to trace accountability and money flow.

But no worries---just more to speculate about---more days and weeks and months to stretch out the BS before the truth comes crashing down---as it has before.

Can't wait for Q3---or was that Q4?---perhaps 2009 when the FAP sofware is "ready"?
Ah---who cares when you have such a blockbuster opportunity right at your fingertips.
Patience, right?

I know I'm in no hurry, I will be right here for as long as it takes--particularly with the stellar mgmt. team and the tiny share structure.

A diamond in the rough.
Once in a lifetime.
One for the IRA and grandkids.
A wealth builder for generations to come.
Just keep buying---mgmt. appreciates it.

now THAT is funny! eom.

The Corporate Securities Division is responsible for the investigation of publicly traded corporations that desire to be involved in gaming in the State of Nevada.

The Division is further responsible for the on-going review and monitoring of such companies after licensure, as well as monitoring all gaming activity conducted by Nevada’s licensees outside the State.

In short, Nevada requires approvals and licenses for transactions which affect the ownership and/or control of any gaming operation in the State and for any individual who could exert any similar influence.
-----------------

Hmmm---I wonder if there would be "complications" for entities which may have individual(s) involved on any corporate level who have regulatory "history"?---particularly if those prior "difficulties" were for manipulation
http://gaming.nv.gov/

(dbl edit) I mean no disrespect, but perhaps you are confused as to what is verifiable/factual and what is speculation.

Because in the same breath you state, "No, it's not speculation", but then proceed with: "If", "which I believe it is", "HCPC has not pr this", "the way I see it", "it says to me"---and on and on.

I'm sorry lookingforhelp, but ALL of that is speculation, and while we may wish and hope that those items will transpire---as you yourself stated "they have not pr this"

(edit) And again, with all the subs, holding companies, etc in the mix, without an 8K to fully explian how it might all break down, it will remain speculation

And now for people to suggest that all will be revealed in Q3?, IMO only one thing will happen as more time passes, as it has over the past year---more shares.
And THAT, historically, IS factual and verifiable.

Good luck to you.

From where did you get this information please?, And if it isn't verifiable and factual, that's one heck of a wide eyed speculation.
(got to go---see you later)

What does that even mean?

Is it possible that the structure was made complicated and confusing with intent?
And without a definitive 8K explaining all the "fine details" of who/what/when/where, etc. there is little hope of ever finding out what it all means to the common shareholder.

So you've spoken with third parties that have verified material facts stated by the company?

That would be quite a confidence booster for many here.
Can you please give some examples?

"I have posted many times that the financial sector is in shambles at this time making what HCPC is trying to do difficult. So it's no big revelation"

So, essentially this and every other post you've directed at me confirms exactly what my post was addressing.

So what's the problem?

(edit) IMO the company discloses that the road ahead is difficult in just about everything they publish.

While they may not use those exact words, why do you think there's such great apprehension on the part of shareholders/prospective shareholders?

When AS need to be increased from 250M to 16B in less than a year, do you think that's done because things are great?
And when all funding has been from the sale of those shares, and SP is in the cellar, is that an indication of smooth sailing?
-----------

I wasn't "attacking longs", only giving my opinion of how much of that analysis appears to be at odds with known details (as above).
Perhaps I missed your "third party" references for verification of material facts---I certainly would be interested--could you please provide some examples?
And the post you are responding to was meant as a broad commentary regarding some posters analysis, NOT the posters themselves.
Although I cited a few of your statements it was only to provide examples of said analysis in an attempt to make my point.

I don't totally discount the possibility for positive movement in SP, just that it IMO it won't be for fundamental reasons.

Good luck to you.

It appears I need to submit a retraction (of sorts), an apology and make an embarrassing admission of hypocrisy (of sorts).

After further review, many of the posts authored by the "core group" that I believed to be irresponsibly promoting an "irrational exuberance" were actually more balanced then previously thought.
Perhaps some of the verbiage could have been chosen more carefully in some cases as there is a HUGE difference between "anticipate/expect/hope" and "will".

And given that I so stress objectivity in analysis/evaluation of due diligence, my hypocrisy (of sorts) stems from the occasional lack thereof in my criticism of some posts.

I would however still take umbrage to repeated promotion of "wild" SP valuations, particularly when specific target dates are attached.

Conclusion: We can agree to disagree on many points (Including the one on my head)

I would be glad to, particularly since there is soooo much to choose from--- but it will be later in the day as I have to take care of some things away from this stupid monitor.

(edit) SO???---Then you don't believe it's irresponsible and deceptive to twist the company's statements into meaning something other than what was intended?
Do you think THAT is "shareholder" friendly?
Isn't that an invitation to bagholder limbo?

The only way it would be "so" is if the analysis (pro or con) were objective.

(edit) If thats NOW the rationale, why were so many stating "the preferred shareholders deserve to get profits first" earlier in the day and yesterday?

And to directly address your question of "why would they do it"---disclosure/transparency---as they have done with so many other issues
But what happens is that the (pumping) speculators start morphing whats clearly stated into something more shareholder friendly---then the onus is not on the company but rather "mysterious" sources.

What does that have to do with the question of what they are promoting being valid or not?

And the items you bring up are related to insider transactions, and actually confirms that this may be nothing more than a scheme to enrich insiders while the common shareholder foots the bill.
(As is clearly stated by the company themselves with their statement of "expects to provide funding for its limited liability companies through equity at the holding company level"), of which i made mention of in an earlier post:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=31109407

Could they be anymore forthcoming with their ongoing disclaimers?

This information has been prepared by company management from information maintained by the company management and may not comply in all respects with generally accepted accounting principles.

or

Our numbers are only valid in Bizarro World?

If you, or anyone, believe that someone "put up $700M" with anything other than "virtual" $ you are in for a rude awakening.
And since the supposed closings and funding are contingent on other events, essentially nothing has happened other than "we expect to"
Q1 & Q2???--how can you call those unaudited numbers that begin with a disclaimer anything other than share selling vehicles?

IMO this company has not, and in all probability will never be anything other than a promotional vehicle.

Thats not to say that $$ can't be made, just not for fundamental reasons.

BTW--what has to be one of the more humurous disclosures that the group of companies make is:
"expects to provide funding for its limited liability companies through equity at the holding company level* and short-term debt at the subsidiary level."

comprendo?
*That would mean plenty more shares of HCPC

I am curious as to where a person might find independent third party confirmation of much of the "DD" that is promoted on this board, and even of much of the info which is noted on the company's website?

Just as an example, the number of SHs listed on their website states 1920 [and there very well may be], and pinksheets lists 1970. But the info on pinksheets is provided by the company (as is the share info), and since the TA is silent, how are numbers such as these verified?---as verification of material facts is the basis of due diligence.

Certainly RELM or Cremel can't be used as independent sources of ANY info, as we already know, but is confirmed by the June 12 RELM PR which states that transaction was not at arms length.

Some may believe that the common SH's and officers are somehow beneficial, while others (including myself) believe there are inherent conflicts of interest and as a result very vague lines of accountability.

Further, the so-called financials are limited in scope, unaudited and are not SEC documents, and since the promissory notes in particular (and their use as assets) play such a major role in the "credibility" of company statements and the promotion of such, and because the numbers being thrown around are IMO fantastical, and there is SEC documented history of related parties false and misleading financial statements, improper consolidation of multiple companies, etc--I find the above troublesome to say the least.
(and the above difficulties were as a result of SEC filings, which are now lacking)

And when we hear of abuses by some other companies of promissory notes and debentures such as:
"orchestrated a securities offering fraud that has raised at least $5.7 million, through the sale of debentures and promissory notes, the defendants told investors that their money would be used to purchase or develop real estate"
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2008/lr20628.htm
and then add in prior problems--independent third party verifications become that much more important.

I believe the truth is that for an extended period these financials were being promoted as a reason to hold and/or load up, and as the date got closer people backed off on that hype.
I also believe that if a comprehensive chronological analysis were done it would indicate a clear historical pattern of that same MO.
And I also am very confident that that pattern will repeat itself going forward.
Simply put, it's the way of the pinks.
AND we all know there is documented evidence of associated individuals promoting a related stock in a similar manner, particularly with dangling BIG BS numbers.

Now it's wait for the 3rd qtr? But wasn't THIS supposed to be what everyone was waiting for?--And before this what was it?--And after the 3rd Q does nothing what will it be?

Anyone notice the dangling carrot pattern?

Is it Wednesday yet? Why hasn't this hit my modest $5 target? And after all the extraordinary, extensive "DD" thats been done?
Geez, what a disappointment.
But I think I will hold and add until September of 2010---that should do it.

A dime? Why so low? I'm holding for at least $5

10 cents would mean a market cap of "only" $1 BILLION.

For my money this incredible, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity should be worth at least $50 BILLION

I mean, just look at all the awesome "DD" that people have uncovered.
A dime is a drop in the bucket.

To the moon baby!

Are you kidding?--look at this action!--who isn't!, LOL!

Doesn't get better than this!

TOMORROW'S THE BIG DAY!--

But if we've been "building up" to tomorrow being a big day, and it's "buy on rumor, sell on news"--why hasn't it reflected in SP?

And if it falls flat tomorrow, will there be that much more selling?

Under "About Relm" (on that company's website) it shows an organizational chart with the 3 properties that are discussed here "related" to HCPC.
http://www.relmholdingsinc.com/id1.html

I hardly think it's a stretch that the "average person" looking at that chart (given the way it's presented) gets the impression that those properties are part of RELM.
And actually I would go further and state that IMO that chart was designed (with intent) to do just that.

But of course, THEY ARE NOT, only "expected" to be.

Further, under "property aquisition summary" IMO the "bait" is enhanced by throwing around huge multi $M figures.
http://www.relmholdingsinc.com/id2.html
And is repeated by HCPC through the link they provide on their website to ICCC
http://independentcapitalcreditcorp.com/id2.html

The next part of my analysis requires common sense, which I will make the generous, hopeful assumption most people trading possess--keeping in mind that all the speculation with HCPC is because of the commonalities with the "involved" companies, so it's difficult to dismiss the below because the argument for HCPC is for the same reasons.

Since RELM is "formerly" MERL, and since HCPC and other related companies share the same office, and since Ed Johnson's name still pops up on some level (besides his wife's direct participation), and since for more than 2 years huge $figures have been promoted (PR's , etc) with HCPC which without a doubt has aided in the selling of shares (which in those 2 years have increased by some 5000%)---isn't this a pattern of events/doing business that is almost a photo copy of the SEC litigation for fraud, misprepresentation, and of inflating the value of assets brought against Ed Johnson and Merl (now RELM)?
How can anyone with a shread of common sense and objectivity not consider the above as an overwhelming possibility/probability?

Yet another week passes, then month, then year with NOTHING other than "expects" transpiring along with the eternal spin of "events" and it all coming together "next week".

And what's very interesting is that when the back of the biggest promoters of HCPC is against the wall with facts, the reason for investment in HCPC switches from the fundamentals to "it's a lotto play like any other pinkie".
So which is it?
Can't keep waffling between the 2 just to rationalize involvement.
And if it is a lotto play---why continue to promote all the BS $#'s other than for nefarious reasons?