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.
Don't be "DUMB-FOUNDED"!
THAT 'could' be --- "PAIN"-FULL!!!
Have a "nice" one....
P.S. I think that we're ALL being "taught" some-"thing" a-bout "PAY"-shunts!
I appreciate your giving us/US your in-"sights" via your IN-perience --- be-the-cause it's obvious that many write from EX-perience.
However, I also appreciate what some PRO-vide as analyses, etc.
How about giving me those "20" in my "PM" box? Thanks.
10 years is NOT "reason"-able!
Has it been for-'gott'-en that they were supposed to be "shooting fish in a barrel"?!
Even "3" --- "THREE" --- years is NOT "reason"-able, now!
Re: http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=TYTN&id=80859
On page 11 it shows compensation to Mark Leonard, but nothing on any deferral or non-payment of it. It also notes "Exhibit B" as "Executive Employment & Compensation Agreement" --- which I cannot find.
In answet to your first question: I put it in.
In answer to your second question: Yes!
If you want more info, please give me your email via 'Private Mail' if you can. I don't have that capability, and I would PRE-fer to NOT post my email ID on the message board.
Thanks.
I just sent the following email:
From: Jerry Jerry ....
Sent: Fri 5/11/12 3:12 PM
To: fred@hannoverhouse.com
QCH02 Y19 SH6012
"The Thirty-Fourth Yôvm/'Day' of The Count of he'ômer"
Hello again --- Fred:
The financials at http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=HHSE&id=81166 show: "The file is damaged and could not be repaired".
So it has to be RE-"loaded" (?!).
Thanks,
Stockholder Jerry
Some "All Or None" ("AON") info which may or may not help you:
I usually do NOT use "AON" (on Pinks) since I have noticed that they are often "ignored". I have used some "AON" trades in the past --- some have EX-ecuted, but as I noted, most of the time I felt that they were "ignored" (when many other trades all around them time-wise and price-wise got EX-cuted but they did not).
Usually, I have entered orders early enough in the trading session that if they are EX-ecuted piece-meal, they should have enough come through by the end of the session to absorb the 'commi-ssions'. (And, ALL EX-ecutions for THAT trade in THAT trading session should ONLY be charged ONE 'commi-ssion' amount in TOTAL! NOT a full 'commi-ssion' for each EX-ecution! IF some of the trade is carried over into the next trading session, then the 'commi-ssion' charge RE-starts.)
However, this has NOT all-ways occurred, and some times I have had ONLY a small number of shares EX-ecute (even early enough) with no more following --- hence a large 'commi-ssion' in RE-lation to the number of shares bought. When that has occurred, I have called the broker/manager for adjustment since the "Market Maker" should be making the market and they should "know" such things --- and, accordingly, LET THEM BUY FOR THEIR OWN ACCOUNT(S)/POCKETS and "make the market"! That's their "JOB"!!! (Even IF it's ALL "auto-mated"!!!) Most times, I have either had the trade RE-versed or the 'commi-ssion' given back (which helps). (I am in NOOOOO 'way' a BIG "trader"! I use an on-line broker.)
So, generally, I stay a-way from "AON" --- but the info which others have posted on this SUB-ject can/should be "factored in".
I do use "AON" when I notice or feel that, on a particular stock, the volume will not be there and that I would PRO-bably ONLY get a small, partial EX-ecution --- and I want to avoid any hassles later.
I am not SUB-scribed to 'Facebook' --- but since your post says that: "Full Q1 Financials for Hannover House posted today on the OTC Markets and Newswire" there should be some "link" or some way to get to it, NO?! Yes!?
Thank you for your posts!
Yes!: We have a CON-"blem"! NOT a PRO-"blem"!
And THE CON-"blem" is this: Since every "thing" has "cause"
and "effect" --- NO "THING" E-VOLVES! Not even the DIS-cussion on 'price' v. 'value'! Which should be a PRO-cussion!
Even the [E-]VOLV-O didn't "evolve"!
And we may need some of the items that you list in order to both "under-stand" and "over-stand" this company --- besides many others.
You "see"?!: It's NOT a question of being on some "weed" or "drug" --- but in using pure "logic" which goes to the very "see-man-tics" and "see-wo-man-tics" (which MOST do NOT "see"!)! (And all-so throwing in a little "humour" which may not be AP-"preciated".)
And "TRUTH" IS STRANGER THAN THE "FICTIONS" --- even if ALL others neither "see" nor "under-stand" (nor "over-stand")!
Are "price" and "value" the same thing(s)? THAT is an "ether"-real question. More to the point is that they are so inter-twined their 'lives' cannot be separated.
As far as SRSR's stock "price" --- don't we really have several? We may 'choose' the 'closing price' for RE-"cording" purposes, but different people will offer different "prices" through-out each trading session, and some may even offer different "prices" from what they offered earlier WITH-IN the same trading session! (And then there are all-so different trading sessions over time(s).)
And then, as to "value": there are all-so several --- both to each individual (taking into account [some of] the items that you list, and other items [possibly]), and all-so 'eco-no-mic factors' not listed (all-so possibly).
Does one "value" the "stock" based upon 'the market' for the "stock" (the "stock price(s)") --- or does one "value" the "stock" based upon THE BILLIONS IN "POTENTIAL VALUE(S)", all-so factoring in EX-traction costs and so "forth"? (And in the case of this "stock" --- and so 'fifth'!)
Or does one "value" the "stock" in-be-tween the two EX-tremes while trying to EX-trapolate a (so-called) 'money' "stream"?! (Many of us/US have had an EX-"stream" with the (so-called) 'money' IN-"vested" in SRSR --- yet still looking to the "POTENTIAL VALUE(S)" to be REAL-"eyes"-ed in the "stock price(s)" at some point(s) in "the future"; EARNEST-LY WANTING THAT "future" to be --- NOOOWWWWW!!!)
And then other 'personal situations' will, of course, all-so be factored in-to these equations ... of "price" vs. "value".
Have a "nice" one....
The (less than) 2 cents (U.S. 'current see') is "the value" that 'the market' puts on 'the stock' (via "price") --- RE-gard-less as to what 'value' is ('perceived' to be) in "the ground"!
Be-the-cause:
UN-til that "in-the-ground" 'value' can be REAL-"eyes"-ed/"seen" by EX-"tracting" it FROM "the ground" --- "MINED" --- THAT 'value' is meaning-less! (Even if there is some 'perceived value' which is part of future 'plans'.)
Why?!: Be-the-cause: It will take MORE IN-"vestment" to get "the EX-"traction" PRO-cess "working". And UN-til any EX-"traction" PRO-cess is working, "the ground value" is zero be-the-cause it is NOT being REAL-"eyes"-ed! (Even if there is some 'perceived value' which is part of future 'plans'.)
IF there is no "knowledge" of any "in-the-ground value" --- in other words, if there is no "knowledge" that "the ground" even possesses any "minerals"/"REEs" --- then there isn't even "the supposition" as to "value".
Now, suppose some living "beings" who "breathe" (for 'granted',
but NOT REALLY "valued"/NOT "priced") come along and notice that there can be/is some POSSIBLE "value in the ground" --- what IS THE "value"?!
There is NOOOOO REAL "VALUE" UN-TIL THERE IS "MINING" --- and a
'market' for "the mined item(s)"! UN-TIL "the mined items" can be (even supposedly) "sold"!
ALL ELSE IS CON-JECTURE!
Okay!?: Put a "value" on "the air that you breathe"! Can you?! Or is THAT REALLY "ether"-eal!?
IS "THE AIR THAT WE BREATHE" --- "PRICE"-LESS?! Or is it REALLY "PRICE"-MORE!? Can we REALLY "VALUE" it?! Or is its "VALUE" to us/US some "thing" that CANNOT be "PRICED"!? Such that VALUING "rocks on or in the ground" is NOT the same as VALUING "the air that we breathe"!
Have a "nice" one....
If you haven't looked at the "ONLINE CATALOG", you may want to do so:
http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/Tytan/Tytan/
As you click on the larger middle arrow, it turns the page --- and "sounds" like a turning page.
As you click on the upper smaller arrows, they take you to the back of the catalog (or the front) --- also "sounding" like a turning page.
Kinda "classy"! ("IMNSHO"!!!)
(I got to the "ONLINE CATALOG" from the "ADVISORY BORED"
--- (just having a "little" humour, even if it's
verrrrry "little" --- okay "mads"?!)
http://tytancorp.com/cm/INVESTORS/ADVISORY%20BOARD.html
although there are other ways to get there.)
I know that your statement was 'tongue in cheek' 'dreadlockcowboy' --- but just for "the record" (and I think that the following information generally has been posted by others previously,) I sent the following email to Fred:
From: Jerry....
Sent: 'Thu 4/12/12' 2:07 PM
To: dfs.hannoverhouse@sbcglobal.net
QCH01 Y20 SH6012
Hello Fred:
I know that you and EP are aware that some people froth back-and-forth with info on HHSE.
As a suggestion, if you are no longer a licensed 'Attorney' (in CA or anywhere), then the HHSE Attorney's letter as posted on the OTC web site should probably use "former" (or as appropriate) as it describes you on page 6, (ii) (a).
Have a nice one,
Stockholder Jerry
-----------------------------------------------
Fred replied as follows:
From: Fred Shefte (fred@hannoverhouse.com)
Sent: 'Fri 4/13/12' 10:43 AM
To: Jerry....
I am licensed. I am not eligible to practice because I have not kept up my continuing education requirements.
Fred Shefte
Hannover House
1428 Chester
Springdale, AR 72764
479-751-4500 Office
479-871-8713 Mobile
Thank you for your "perspective"!
That's why they're called "ache-ers"!
It takes a LOT of "muscle" to "work" them!!
Fred's 'Attorney' background can be very valuable in his present functions --- with decisions and approaches being made on broader bases.
And Eduardo's 'CPA' background (in 'Mexico') can also be very valuable in his present functions, and it was correct to not overlook them --- to include them.
I do not have PM capabilities to reply that way.
But, yes --- that is better, especially with "Hypothetical HHSE Fair Valuation Summary".
Again: I appreciate your PRE-senting the info this way. It shows that you are looking at the TOTAL "VALUE" of "THE DATA" by relating the parts.
(This is also for 'Nikooooo')
My earlier post re: 'NOT EPS of .071' was simply to have you be "technically correct" --- since, obviously, "EPS" is NOT "stock valuation" as you had analyzed HHSE.
I also recognize that "zeal" and "haste" can give results which were not intentional.
And 'others' could 'run with the EPS of .071' --- which I think that at least one person did --- and it would then perpetuate some wrong ideas.
Even at the bottom of the post to which I am RE-plying herewith, you say: "HHSE Price Per Share ~ $0.071". You should PRO-bably add the words "should be" so that it should/could read as: "HHSE Price Per Share should be ~ $0.071".
I appreciate what you (both) are doing, and the valuation analysis is VERY appropriate.
The EPS is .00294 based on the EN-'sample' that you use --- NOT .071!
10.7 times EPS is .031458!
.071 is 24.15 prox. times EPS!
You show these numbers also using post #102206 --- but then you do some interpolations and say: "HHSE Earning Per Share ~ $.071".
That's why its called: "DIE"-LOOTING!!!
Do you "know" ANY "thing" --- that the rest of us/US don't???!!!
The "link" to the 'HHSE' financials comes from a "Headlines" post on Yahoo financial http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=HHSE.PK&ql=1 and it shows: "•TARGET DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. FinancialsEDGAR Online Financials(Thu 1:04PM EDT)".
This says TDGI but links to
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=hhse.pk --- which is data back on 2002, etc.
So if it isn't on the PINKS OTC web site, I don't know how to get to it, and the 'erroneous' data is just old.
(I have used up all of my posts right now.)
This is OLD 'HHSE'.
The new financial data should be under "TDGI" --- but since that no longer is used, we cannot get to it.
I don't know if PINKS OTC shows the new data....
Do you have a margin account?
If you have a margin account --- that's PRO-bably why (DE-pending on your 'balances', etc.).
If you don't have a margin account --- then you cannot (and I've tried various combinations to enter orders on PRE-'existing' TYTN, TYTN#, and TYTND).
(I do use a different 'broker' than you.)
You can buy under the TYTND. Then you can sell these.
But you cannot sell previously bought shares until they have been changed to the TYTND symbol --- which can occur before 04/24.
That's be-the-cause of ALL of the stock-holders --- they've been "hair-ried"! ('Ha(i)rried' --- 'Harried')
My understanding is that the TDGI chart data is NOT carried over to the new symbol (HHSE).
When a new symbol occurs, it starts from zero --- so that if we're interested, we have to keep the old data as well as the new.
Thank you for your IN-puts!
It is possible to do some audit work for succeeding years even when a prior year may not be completed --- as is the case with TDGI/HHSE:
1. Receivables and payables can be 'confirmed'/tested.
2. Inventories can be tested and transactionslly verified.
3. Other accounts can be tested and valued.
The main problem here is when prior balances/amounts (can) affect subsequent balances/amounts, even though they don't affect the subsequent year's transactions/operations per se.
Where TDGI/HHSE have been affected with lacking proper prior year(s) carry-forward balances/amounts --- and assuming that such data will not be forth-coming (as it appears) --- then it behooves (possibly) accepting a "qualified opinion" on the audit as to those specific items, or even "no opinion", just to finally get "audited statements" published.
And such "audited statements" would have the most proper "guess-timates" as to those non-obtained numbers. The "guess-timates" being based on "purchase price" of the company, for EN-"sample".
Then, over time --- possibly two to three years --- the 'original' (but non-obtained) numbers become non-relevant and
actually work themselves into history such that at some point the auditors can then "certify" as to the "financial statements" with UN-"qualified opinions" since the company will have "proven" itself via its ON-"going" functions.
EP & Co. could be taking this approach --- as also acceptable to the audit firm.
AIMNSHO!!!
People often post comments as to the 'bid' and 'ask' after the markets close and/or before they open not taking into account the following:
1. Any "trade offers" which have been entered to automatically
EX-pire at the end of "trading time" will AUTO-MATICALLY
DIS-"appear" at the end of the session.
2. Before a "trading time/session" begins, there may be wide
spreads be-tween the 'bids' and 'asks' --- but just before
the session starts, or at its start, "trading offers" come
in which fill those spreads/gaps.
And then. not having taken into account these scenarios, comments
are posted which have drawn CON-clusions based on the situations at hand.
Yes!: Words matter! And being "free" to state them --- in different and possibly UN-"usual" and NON-"usual" forms --- also matters! Notwithstanding any 'Fickle Finger of Fate'!
So "ONE" person "killed" a rally --- or was perceived to have done so! (By the perception of 'ONE'?! By the perceptions of 'some'!?)
Let it also be, then, "ONE" hundred! "ONE" thousand!! ....
Do we "value" --- "price" --- "speaking freely" as "allow"-able ONLY if we are benefitted 'financially'?! THE EN-"viron"-meant for "speaking freely" was established via some VERY HIGH "PRICES"/"VALUES"!: via "LIVES"!!
Tom is "right" to post his thoughts and analyses --- whether or not they are correct! And whether or not they are perceived by others to be so or not.
Are many of us "frustrated" at "the share price/value" of SRSR?! Of course!! But we should NOT allow such "frustration(s)" to guide our RE-'actions' to someone else's words. {IMNSHO)
We should separate our "frustrations" from our RE-actions to other's words.
So please keep posting, Tom --- I for "ONE" appreciate it/them! And from what I can RE-"member", you've been "right" MANY MORE times than you've been "wrong"!
---------------------------------
P.S. A REAL "diamond-in-the-rough" is a "lump of coal"!
("See" post # 115744 and many others.)
For any IN-trin-sick "value" to be noticed, there must be
(enough) people with enough RE-"sources" available to apply
to "the rocks" in order for "the rocks" to have the (ADDED-
)"value" added/applied/glued/... to them.
In other "words", other 'people' must ALSO "see" the
"value(s)" --- for if 'they' don't, then no amount
of "logic"/'logic' will create higher "values"
and, hence, higher "prices" (either for "the stock" or
for "the rocks"/"pebbles"/"marbles"/...).
And "reality" may not --- PRO-bably will not --- be
perceived correctly, any-way.
For EN-"sample": For "rock collectors", as with "coin
collectors" and others, if a person tries to sell a "rock"
or "coin", the "seller" may ask for a "price" ('price1')
but the "buyer" may only offer a lower "price" ('price2').
But when the "seller" becomes the "buyer", the buy "price"
could easily be even lower than the above 'price2'
('price3') --- while when the above "buyer" becomes a
"seller", the sales "price" could be the highest ('price4').
Until there are "transactions", there is NOOOOO "price" ---
ONLY "offers" in a (possibly) DIE-namic EN-vironment ---
and, hence, NOOOOO "VALUE(S)"!
And, of course, all of this is COM-pounded and CON-pounded
by a multitude of other "factors"/'factors' (such as 'cost
elements'). And IF the "buyer(s)" are middle-"persons",
the spreads be-tween 'buy' and 'sell' "prices"/"values"
change from what they might be at RE-'tail'.
---------------------------------
P.P.S. Please "see" post # 115750.
IF you were "...going to buy an extra 5 million shares...
but [Tom's VERY] "helpful" post about revisiting .017
stopped [you] in [your] tracks" --- THAT'S "LIFE"!!!
(C'est la vie!!!) THAT was YOUR "CHOICE"!!!
Are YOU so easily --- eeeee-silly --- IN-"FLU"-ENCED?!
Certainly!: I've been IN-"FLU"-ENCED by what others
write on these message boards --- be-the-cause I look at
them for "ideas". But in "the end" --- YOU "know", "the
barrel that you get shot in" be-cause YOU're "the fish"
--- IT IS STILL MYYYYY "CHOICE"!!!
And MYYYYY RE-"SPONSIBILITY"!!!
As I have "seen" it --- you possibly could have bought
the "...extra 5 million shares..." at ".017".
Did YOU???!!!
So, to (try to) put a "guilt trip" on someone for posting
his/her info is NOT "the thing" to "do"! (Don't let "the
frustrations" get to you.)
---------------------------------
P.P.P.S. Please "see" post # ??? --- DE-leted???
It is VERY possible that "No-1" 'wants my posts'!
(Para-'phrased' here.)
You may be TOTALLY "CORRECT"! But: ...
Question: Do YOU "know" EVERY 'ONE' --- to TRULY
"know" whether or not "No-1" --- NOOOOO
'ONE' --- 'wants my posts'!!!???
Mebbe there is --- just "ONE"!
---------------------------------
"PEACE" --- folks! But we can ONLY have TRUE "PEACE" --- VIA "THE TRUTH"!
Along with the EN-"viron"-meant to state THE "TRUTH"!
{AIMNSHO)
Did you say: 'Epic proportions'?!
Or: "Eric PRO-PORTIONS"!?
SHHHHH!!!
What are you trying to do?!
Give them swelled heads --- or something!?
We must keep them "humble"!!!
I'm having some daffi-culty under-standing your post:
1. Did you really mean 'capitol markets'?! ---
You "know": as in 'lobbyists', 'purchasing
political favours', 'corruption in high places',
and so forth?! ... And so 'fifth'.
2. Or did you mean "capital markets" where "greedy
IN-vestors" = "spec-U-laters" (it's just a "time
perspective", whether 24 hours or 24 years,)
look to "the free flow" of so-called 'money' for
'financing' in order to make "gains"/'gains' ---
in this 'system' of "bigger fool gambling"!!!???
3. And then as the 'language' ACTUALLY "talks" to
us/US --- 'GREAT' to/from 'GREATEST' = a 'dei'ty
(which IN-vokes 'Satan' --- since THIS is his
'world' as THE 'GOD'/'God' and 'Ruler'/'Prince'!).
4. When item 3 it BOTH "under-stood" and "over-stood",
so much more makes "sense"!
Does this post help YOU to get YOUR 'mind' right!?
No! NO!!
You got it 'A'-back-wards!!!:
"PRICE" = "VALUE"!!!
I know that I've seen it several times --- but you're right to RE-peat it.
Mebbe you should RE-post it every week or two AUTO-MATIC-ALLY.
Very clever, Steve.
And so was the "Title Wave" of a few posts back (IN-ADD-VERT-ANT
"error", or not!)!
More important to keep the 'ideas' flowing!
That does the board "the PRO-per favour"!
Quote: "Mineral properties are things that have value...".
ONLY be-the-cause it is EX-pected that there will be the abilities and the capabilities to EX-"tract" the ('IN-trinsic')
value(s)!
Other-'wise': There is NO "VALUE", and, hence --- NO "PRICE"!!!
And there is NOOOOO 'IN-trinsic' value, either!
And, so to arbitrarily and auto-matically assume that there is IN-'trinsic' value "is flagrantly untrue"!
"If you're selling a used car..." it's ONLY "WORTH"/"VALUE" is what you can get for it --- EVEN IF YOU 'THINK' THAT YOU SHOULD GET MORE!!!
And a lot becomes the seller's 'problem' in the 'negotiation' --- especially IF the seller wants to sell!
Quotes:
---------------------------------------------------
"It will require substantial investment to bring any exploration project along from "a discovery" to "a producing mine"..."
"The fact that a large investment will be required to make that happen... which is true of every property not being mined already... does absolutely nothing to alter the intrinsic value of "a discovery"... much less "a world class discovery"."
---------------------------------------------------
The 'intrinsic value' --- IF the 'large investment' CANNOT be obtained --- IS "ZERO"!!!
And it is FOR-EVER "ZERO"!!! (As long as the 'large investment' CANNOT be obtained!)
And whether or not it is CON-sidered to be "world class"
is 'academic'!
And it is ludicrous to posture any kind of "value" when the large, SUB-stantial IN-vestment CANNOT be obtained!
In your 'chicken and the egg' EGG-sample, you are mixing 'apples and oranges':
"EGGS" have "VALUE" when they can be "sold" or "used"!
"CHICKENS" ALSO have "VALUE" when they can be "sold"
or "used"!
And the "selling" or "using" is what makes for the "VALUE"!
P.S. Which came first?! The "chicken" or the "egg"?!
As to "audited" vs. NON-"audited" financial statements and manage-meant's 'guesses':
By 'guesses', some may PRE-suppose 'lies'.
However, in "the normal routine" of PRE-paring financial statements, "the numbers" come from "the RE-cordings" in the "books of account(s)".
For their to be 'lies'/'guesses' in these PRE-parations, then manage-meant would have to OVERTLY "LIE"!!!
"AUDITED" financials take these PRE-parations and perform "tests"
upon them for their "REASON"-ABLE-NESS, also giving a so-called independent party's "opinion" as to their "state-meant(s)".
Without "audited" financials, many do question "the veracity" of the "state"-meants --- rightly or wrongly.
My "suggestion" with TDGI is to accept the "state"-meants for their "REASON"-ABLE-NESS based upon many factors that have been posted on this board --- UN-less someone can show/prove actual DIS-"honesty" on the part of the "manage-meant players".
Yes!: We have been DIS-appointed by not having had "audited" financials (which have been 'PRO-mised' more than once) --- but it appears that there were PRE-dealings with, and assurances to, the current manage-meant which were reneged on and left them "high-and-dry".
So what do they do?!: They keep moving the company forward and, at some point the "audited" financials will be done based upon "provable history and her-story" by an "independent firm" which can accept publishing its "opinion" with "the numbers" then at hand --- whereas, as of now, there may not be (quite) enough of such "provable history and her-story" for the "independent firm" to render and publish its "opinion".