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.
yes it is unfortunate gltu
neither do I, I was being sarcastic about penny stocks in general.
Hey heres a fact , it is trading at .0045, its a pos, its a penny stock
lol quick save yourself! have a nice day
hes not thanking you today and as far as rs on the way, sheesh who here didn't know that, anyway have a nice day
you posted it as if it were a fact
worse imo. I think most know what they are dealing with on the otc, but that was a lie that had a direct effect on a friend of mine who dumped shares that he could have sold for more today.
did you post false info on embr yesterday that there was a 1000-1 reverse split?
OAS director bought 50k at 12 avg. I missed it this am in the low 12s and didn't want to chase it :(
Thanks
strange for sure
1028
Doesn't make much sense to me either
This from the daily list today, looks like a 1% stock divy
http://otce.finra.org/DailyList
Summary
Date Event Type Eff/Ex Date Symbol Issue Name Market
11/21/2014 Stock Dividend Special 12/1/2014 ASDS Ascendant Solutions, Inc. Common Stock Other OTC
Details
Previous Value Current Value
Symbol ASDS ASDS
Issue Name Ascendant Solutions, Inc. Common Stock Ascendant Solutions, Inc. Common Stock
Class
Financial Status Indicator
Market Category Other OTC Other OTC
Current Value
Daily List Date 11/21/2014 00:00:00
Event Type Stock Dividend Special
Effective/Execution (Eff/Ex) Date 12/1/2014
Subject to Corporate Action
Offering Type No Restrictions
Forward Split Ratio
Reverse Split Ratio
Dividend Type Stock Dividend
Percentage 1
Cash Amount 0
Declaration Date 12/10/2014
Record Date 12/3/2014
Payment Date 12/10/2014
Payment Method
Qualified Dividend Code Unknown
Daily List Comment
agreed, sheesh
MAXD .0975 x .102 2x1
re TD, it does seem that some of the better gainers, have been call ins or ones I can't buy due to some restriction, Really annoying
Capital Change=shs decreased by 1 for 20000 split. Ex-date=07/02/2014.
CURRENT LIABILITIES
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
$
49,956
$
39,293
Customer deposits
3,540
9,540
Note payable – REIT
2,000,000
Judgments payable
2,300,948
2,300,948
Derivative liability
$
1,997,440
$
464,993
Debt issuance costs
(143,179)
(9,031)
Convertible debentures payable, net
157,033
73,738
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES
$
6,365,738
$
2,879,482
STOCKHOLDERS' (DEFICIT)
Common stock ($.01 par value, unlimited shares authorized; 29,843 and approximately 14,252 common shares issued and outstanding at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively).
298
143
Preferred stock, Series A Redeemable Cumulative ($5.00 par value, 5,000,000 shares authorized; 271,998 issued and outstanding)
1,359,990
1,359,990
Preferred stock, Series A Redeemable - to be issued
3,510
3,510
Preferred stock, Series C Redeemable, Cumulative ($5.00 par value, 500,000 shares authorized, 500,000 shares issued and outstanding)
2,500,000
2,500,000
Preferred stock, Series C Redeemable, reserves
(2,500,000)
(2,500,000)
Preferred stock, Series D Convertible ($5.00 par value,500,000 shares authorized, 100,000 shares issued and outstanding)
500,000
500,000
Preferred stock, Series E Redeemable Cumulative ($200.00 par value, 25,000 shares authorized, -0- shares issued and outstanding)
Preferred stock, Series F Cumulative Redeemable ($100.00 par value, 500,000 shares authorized, 80,000 and -0- shares issued and outstanding as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 respectively)
8,000,000
-
Preferred stock, Series G Convertible ($1.00 par value, 1,000,000 shares authorized, 1,000,000 and -0- shares issued and outstanding as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013. respectively)
1,000,000
Subscriptions receivable
(43,642,694)
(43,642,694)
Options (1,283 and -0- issued and outstanding at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively)
4,500,950
4,500,950
Warrants (issued with preferred stock and debt)
1,567,255
1,546,372
Deferred equity offering costs
(7,508,010)
(7,508,010)
Additional paid in capital
51,086,807
49,879,489
Retained (deficit)
(23,134,335)
(9,380,409)
TOTAL STOCKHOLDERS' (DEFICIT)
$
(6,266,229)
$
(2,740,659)
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' (DEFICIT)
$
99,509
$
138,823
stockmister
I bought a few last week. at 06, I'm showing 1 mill on the ask sheesh
FWIW worth here's an article from reuters yesterday http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKCN0I201Y20141013?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
"Omair said that prices should stop falling at around $76 to $77 a barrel, citing production costs in places such as the United States, where a shale oil boom has unexpectedly reversed dwindling output and pushed production to its highest level since the 1980s.
SFY hit 6.96 this am. I bought a small position, hope i want them
I added a few AXAS at 3.60
noticing the same here, This was at 8 i think yesterday. fwiw http://money.cnn.com/data/fear-and-greed/?iid=hp_ln
damm that sukks
From a post on SI
WSJ - worth reading. Emphasizes the uncertainties. Avoids both the "science is settled" and the "it's all a hoax" camps.
Climate Science Is Not Settled We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy, writes leading scientist Steven E. Koonin
By
Steven E. Koonin
Sept. 19, 2014 12:19 p.m. ET
The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Mitch Dobrowner
The idea that "Climate science is settled" runs through today's popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.
My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don't know, about climate. I have come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.
The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.
Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, "How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?" Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.
But—here's the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.
Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.
A second challenge to "knowing" future climate is today's poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate's heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.
A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate's response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature.
Scientists measure the sea level of the Ross Sea in Antarctica. National Geographic/Getty Images
But feedbacks are uncertain. They depend on the details of processes such as evaporation and the flow of radiation through clouds. They cannot be determined confidently from the basic laws of physics and chemistry, so they must be verified by precise, detailed observations that are, in many cases, not yet available.
Beyond these observational challenges are those posed by the complex computer models used to project future climate. These massive programs attempt to describe the dynamics and interactions of the various components of the Earth system—the atmosphere, the oceans, the land, the ice and the biosphere of living things. While some parts of the models rely on well-tested physical laws, other parts involve technically informed estimation. Computer modeling of complex systems is as much an art as a science.
For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.) But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box's average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted ("tuned," in the jargon of modelers) to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records.
We often hear that there is a "scientific consensus" about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. Since 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has periodically surveyed the state of climate science. Each successive report from that endeavor, with contributions from thousands of scientists around the world, has come to be seen as the definitive assessment of climate science at the time of its issue.
There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. Pictured, an estuary in Patgonia. Gallery Stock
For the latest IPCC report (September 2013), its Working Group I, which focuses on physical science, uses an ensemble of some 55 different models. Although most of these models are tuned to reproduce the gross features of the Earth's climate, the marked differences in their details and projections reflect all of the limitations that I have described. For example:
• The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time. Such mismatches are also present in many other basic climate factors, including rainfall, which is fundamental to the atmosphere's energy balance. As a result, the models give widely varying descriptions of the climate's inner workings. Since they disagree so markedly, no more than one of them can be right.
• Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.
Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling.
• The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high.
• The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that "hot spot" has not been confidently observed, casting doubt on our understanding of the crucial feedback of water vapor on temperature.
• Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.
• A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.
These and many other open questions are in fact described in the IPCC research reports, although a detailed and knowledgeable reading is sometimes required to discern them. They are not "minor" issues to be "cleaned up" by further research. Rather, they are deficiencies that erode confidence in the computer projections. Work to resolve these shortcomings in climate models should be among the top priorities for climate research.
Yet a public official reading only the IPCC's "Summary for Policy Makers" would gain little sense of the extent or implications of these deficiencies. These are fundamental challenges to our understanding of human impacts on the climate, and they should not be dismissed with the mantra that "climate science is settled."
While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem.
We can and should take steps to make climate projections more useful over time. An international commitment to a sustained global climate observation system would generate an ever-lengthening record of more precise observations. And increasingly powerful computers can allow a better understanding of the uncertainties in our models, finer model grids and more sophisticated descriptions of the processes that occur within them. The science is urgent, since we could be caught flat-footed if our understanding does not improve more rapidly than the climate itself changes.
A transparent rigor would also be a welcome development, especially given the momentous political and policy decisions at stake. That could be supported by regular, independent, "red team" reviews to stress-test and challenge the projections by focusing on their deficiencies and uncertainties; that would certainly be the best practice of the scientific method. But because the natural climate changes over decades, it will take many years to get the data needed to confidently isolate and quantify the effects of human influences.
Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is "settled" (or is a "hoax") demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences.
Society's choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.
But climate strategies beyond such "no regrets" efforts carry costs, risks and questions of effectiveness, so nonscientific factors inevitably enter the decision. These include our tolerance for risk and the priorities that we assign to economic development, poverty reduction, environmental quality, and intergenerational and geographical equity.
Individuals and countries can legitimately disagree about these matters, so the discussion should not be about "believing" or "denying" the science. Despite the statements of numerous scientific societies, the scientific community cannot claim any special expertise in addressing issues related to humanity's deepest goals and values. The political and diplomatic spheres are best suited to debating and resolving such questions, and misrepresenting the current state of climate science does nothing to advance that effort.
Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.
Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.
will do
I think it popped up quickly on low volume and showed large % gain for the day which was probably a little deceiving due to the spread and that it had closed down on a small trade the day before.
thanks, i'm good, hope all is well with you. i've been here, just quietly looking around for the next spea. what a rocket ride!
Some are here, although many r/s to do so http://investorshub.advfn.com/Superstar-Uplisters-13018/
i like beer
yikes
anytime :)
amen!
hmmm, it even notes it at the bottom of the page
wow SNFCA 5.39 nice catch KIK