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.
Opinion fo Lowriderbill
Non-Retail Short Covering Complete…
CMKX Shareholders,
I hope everyone has had a chance to digest all of the discussion about the trading suspension today. Many have stated they’re encouraged by the suspension while others are obviously not. I am of the opinion that today’s events were planned to coincide with the completion of the non-retail short covering and that we are at the end of the game. Some of you may agree while others may not and that’s just fine by me. I’m putting my best foot forward in my interpretation/speculation as to what has happened. These are only my opinions so please treat them as such. Let’s get to the meat and potatoes!
As I explained back in December I believe there has been a non-retail short covering taking place between the DTC and it’s member lenders for the Stock Borrow Program. Please read the following link for all the background information.
http://cmkxdiamond.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1102455563
I speculated that when this was complete we would have one failure to deliver for each retail share owned (less the legitimate O/S). I also speculated that there was a low O/S and virtually non-existent float (the float is the certificate holders). For the sake of time we will not argue this point. Many wise folks have already covered it both pro and con.
In the original theory I stated that the covering was forced by the SEC. I still believe they have been involved since late last summer when Roger Glenn brilliantly executed the dividends to expose and prove the NSS position. At that time I also discussed that there were two ways out of this for Shorty, a massive short squeeze or a tender offer. I believe one of these will happen when the suspension is lifted and we will never see CMKX unfairly traded again.
I have discussed many times in many posts that the key is to force Shorty to cover. He still has an open contract with you to deliver “real” shares. If he can’t deliver, then he must buy back the NSS from us and delete the position from his books. However, we needed a catalyst such as a filing, cash dividend, or merger to make this happen. Well, I believe we received that catalyst in the form of our filings which were paper submitted to the SEC, otherwise we would have seen them on Edgar. Obviously this is speculation on my part but just think for a minute. The SEC doesn’t want the cat out of the bag as to how bad they’ve screwed up so they ask CMKX to paper file and keep things out of the public eye. By imposing a temporary suspension, the SEC is given the necessary time to get things in order for the final outcome.
I honestly believe that today’s suspension was forced by CMKX. Many people have questioned exactly what RG accomplished during his tenure and I say everything behind the scenes. He took two years worth of information, had it audited, proved the NSS position beyond a reasonable doubt, familiarized himself with CMKX’s entire business, and made sure CMKX was squeaky clean before anything was filed. I believe all paperwork is complete and has been for some time with the exception of the 10K, which I believe, was completed just recently. RG fulfilled his obligations and then everything was handed off to the muscle to make sure it was enforced, thus Iron Bob Maheu. As a side note, don’t be surprised if RG ends up leading our SOX Board of Advisors.
In all honesty I think the SEC is taking a close look at our financials but this suspension is mostly window dressing. The financials were independently audited and should pass with flying colors. I’m sure the SEC has already taken a good look at CMKX due to its affiliation with USCA. They are so closely tied that one really has to be looked at with the other. This suspension was a way of immediately stopping any market being made and any further shorting of CMKX. You might then ask why the SEC let it go on for so long after the dividend operation? Well, a market still needed to be made so that the DTC could run its non-retail covering through the market to straighten out its books. This had to happen if they were as complicit in this whole thing as we think they were. Obviously it gave all of us an incredible buying opportunity even though it compounded the problem for Shorty. Remember, you want to bend the system and force it to live up to its obligations, not break it. Everything has to be orderly and appear legitimate.
This brings us to the resolution to this whole situation. For me it comes down to the two options stated above, a short squeeze or a tender offer. If we resume trading again on March 17th, then you can expect to see a healthy retail short squeeze due to the information in our filing and the pressure exerted by the SEC. Our numbers will speak volumes and we will be trading according to our fair value. If we don’t resume trading on March 17th, then I would expect to see a tender offer for all of our shares and CMKX would completely go away. After the suspension today, I am leaning toward this option. I believe the SEC may never want the public to see a filing from CMKX to confirm all of our suspicions. I also think Shorty will want to take the cheaper way out because a short squeeze of this magnitude could be devastating to him. I stated from day one that we will probably never know what went on behind closed doors. That’s just fine by me as long as I am given a fair price for my shares.
Once all of this is complete we will move forward as a company. I believe CIM will be the entity that all our JV’s are rolled up into and then we will IPO. It will be a clean slate we’re working with to gain the most benefit from core sample results and continued operations. We will sample then mine our diamonds, gold, and other stuffium – the whole reason we bought into this in the first place. I also think there will be some way for our late arrivals to take part in CIM. There may not be another dividend, but possibly a discount on the IPO. Some may complain and say this isn’t fair. Sorry, but it’s a reward for those who have been here for the longest. Besides, you will still be nicely compensated for your CMKX shares!
Well folks, I thank you for tuning in this evening. Your opinions are welcome and I look forward to constructive conversation. Also, I plan on seeing you all in two weeks, I will be the tall young man standing next to the pot of gold drinking a Guinness on St. Patrick’s Day. Have a great weekend…
lowriderbill
http://cmkxdiamond.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1109921794
Non-Retail Short Covering Complete…
CMKX Shareholders,
I hope everyone has had a chance to digest all of the discussion about the trading suspension today. Many have stated they’re encouraged by the suspension while others are obviously not. I am of the opinion that today’s events were planned to coincide with the completion of the non-retail short covering and that we are at the end of the game. Some of you may agree while others may not and that’s just fine by me. I’m putting my best foot forward in my interpretation/speculation as to what has happened. These are only my opinions so please treat them as such. Let’s get to the meat and potatoes!
As I explained back in December I believe there has been a non-retail short covering taking place between the DTC and it’s member lenders for the Stock Borrow Program. Please read the following link for all the background information.
http://cmkxdiamond.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1102455563
I speculated that when this was complete we would have one failure to deliver for each retail share owned (less the legitimate O/S). I also speculated that there was a low O/S and virtually non-existent float (the float is the certificate holders). For the sake of time we will not argue this point. Many wise folks have already covered it both pro and con.
In the original theory I stated that the covering was forced by the SEC. I still believe they have been involved since late last summer when Roger Glenn brilliantly executed the dividends to expose and prove the NSS position. At that time I also discussed that there were two ways out of this for Shorty, a massive short squeeze or a tender offer. I believe one of these will happen when the suspension is lifted and we will never see CMKX unfairly traded again.
I have discussed many times in many posts that the key is to force Shorty to cover. He still has an open contract with you to deliver “real” shares. If he can’t deliver, then he must buy back the NSS from us and delete the position from his books. However, we needed a catalyst such as a filing, cash dividend, or merger to make this happen. Well, I believe we received that catalyst in the form of our filings which were paper submitted to the SEC, otherwise we would have seen them on Edgar. Obviously this is speculation on my part but just think for a minute. The SEC doesn’t want the cat out of the bag as to how bad they’ve screwed up so they ask CMKX to paper file and keep things out of the public eye. By imposing a temporary suspension, the SEC is given the necessary time to get things in order for the final outcome.
I honestly believe that today’s suspension was forced by CMKX. Many people have questioned exactly what RG accomplished during his tenure and I say everything behind the scenes. He took two years worth of information, had it audited, proved the NSS position beyond a reasonable doubt, familiarized himself with CMKX’s entire business, and made sure CMKX was squeaky clean before anything was filed. I believe all paperwork is complete and has been for some time with the exception of the 10K, which I believe, was completed just recently. RG fulfilled his obligations and then everything was handed off to the muscle to make sure it was enforced, thus Iron Bob Maheu. As a side note, don’t be surprised if RG ends up leading our SOX Board of Advisors.
In all honesty I think the SEC is taking a close look at our financials but this suspension is mostly window dressing. The financials were independently audited and should pass with flying colors. I’m sure the SEC has already taken a good look at CMKX due to its affiliation with USCA. They are so closely tied that one really has to be looked at with the other. This suspension was a way of immediately stopping any market being made and any further shorting of CMKX. You might then ask why the SEC let it go on for so long after the dividend operation? Well, a market still needed to be made so that the DTC could run its non-retail covering through the market to straighten out its books. This had to happen if they were as complicit in this whole thing as we think they were. Obviously it gave all of us an incredible buying opportunity even though it compounded the problem for Shorty. Remember, you want to bend the system and force it to live up to its obligations, not break it. Everything has to be orderly and appear legitimate.
This brings us to the resolution to this whole situation. For me it comes down to the two options stated above, a short squeeze or a tender offer. If we resume trading again on March 17th, then you can expect to see a healthy retail short squeeze due to the information in our filing and the pressure exerted by the SEC. Our numbers will speak volumes and we will be trading according to our fair value. If we don’t resume trading on March 17th, then I would expect to see a tender offer for all of our shares and CMKX would completely go away. After the suspension today, I am leaning toward this option. I believe the SEC may never want the public to see a filing from CMKX to confirm all of our suspicions. I also think Shorty will want to take the cheaper way out because a short squeeze of this magnitude could be devastating to him. I stated from day one that we will probably never know what went on behind closed doors. That’s just fine by me as long as I am given a fair price for my shares.
Once all of this is complete we will move forward as a company. I believe CIM will be the entity that all our JV’s are rolled up into and then we will IPO. It will be a clean slate we’re working with to gain the most benefit from core sample results and continued operations. We will sample then mine our diamonds, gold, and other stuffium – the whole reason we bought into this in the first place. I also think there will be some way for our late arrivals to take part in CIM. There may not be another dividend, but possibly a discount on the IPO. Some may complain and say this isn’t fair. Sorry, but it’s a reward for those who have been here for the longest. Besides, you will still be nicely compensated for your CMKX shares!
Well folks, I thank you for tuning in this evening. Your opinions are welcome and I look forward to constructive conversation. Also, I plan on seeing you all in two weeks, I will be the tall young man standing next to the pot of gold drinking a Guinness on St. Patrick’s Day. Have a great weekend…
lowriderbill
http://cmkxdiamond.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1109921794
I sure hope your right Zen ...
.. the rats 'ave been exposed and now must be trapped. I's beyond me how our financial system can tolerate such vermin.
While CMKX is halted, keep informed on FALC via Shore Gold.
... which has just set a new all time high today.
http://stockhouse.ca/bullboards/forum.asp?symbol=SGF&table=list&all=0&t=0&time=3%2F3...
Shore Gold's smoking ...
http://stockhouse.ca/bullboards/forum.asp?symbol=SGF&table=list&all=0&t=0&time=3%2F3...
Shore Gold Inc. announces year end results
Stock Symbol: SGF: TSX
SASKATOON, SK, March 1 /CNW/ - Shore Gold Inc. ("Shore"), reports the audited results of Shore's operations for the year ended December 31, 2004 have been filed and may be viewed at www.sedar.com. A summary of key financial and operating results follows:
Highlights
- Bulk sample targeted extraction of 25,000 tonnes exceeded
- 22,500 tonnes of kimberlite processed through to concentrate
- Diamond count of 2,738 carats reported from 19,738 tonnes processed
- Gold properties rolled into Wescan and taken public
- Working capital of $27.6M
Exploration
By year-end, Shore had successfully extracted in excess of the targeted 25,000 tonnes from the Star kimberlite bulk sample program. Although diamond counts for all extracted tonnes were not available by year-end, 22,500 tonnes of kimberlite had been processed on site and concentrates sent for final diamond recovery. As at December 31, 2004, diamond counts from a total of 19,738 tonnes of kimberlite were available resulting in the recovery of 2,738 carats.
Spinout of gold properties
Shore completed the spinout of its existing gold property assets to its wholly owned subsidiary Wescan Goldfields Inc. Subsequent to the spinout, Wescan received listing approval from the TSX Venture Exchange and commenced trading on October 15, 2004.
Financing
The Company successfully marketed two private placements during the year resulting in gross proceeds exceeding $38.5M. Proceeds from these private placements will be used for further work on the Star Kimberlite and for general working capital purposes. The Company also received in excess of $8.5M from the exercise of warrants and options during the year for total gross
proceeds from equity placements exceeding $44.2M. As at December 31, 2004, the
Company had working capital of more than $27.6M and total assets exceeding $63M.
Year End Results
As at December 31, 2004, Shore's cash balance was $28.7M. Shore recorded a loss of $1.5M ($0.03 per share), which compares with a loss of $1.2M ($0.03 per share) for the year ended December 31, 2003. Operating expenses increased to $2.0 compared to $1.3 for the year ended December 31, 2003.
Selected financial highlights include (as at December 31):
<<
2004 2003
---- ----
Current Assets $29.6M $5.4M
Capital and Other Assets $33.9M $15.1M
Current Liabilities $2.0M $1.8M
Share Capital - Common Shares $69.3M $24.8M
Common Share Purchase Warrants $23.7M $6.7M
Contributed Surplus $0.8M $0.0M
Deficit $8.7M $6.1M
2004 2003
---- ----
Operating Expenses $2.0M $1.3M
Other Items $0.3M $0.0M
Loss for the Period Before Income Taxes $1.5M $1.2M
Net Loss for the Period $1.5M $1.2M
Loss Per Share $0.03 $0.03
2004 2003
---- ----
Cash Flows From Operating Activities $(1.7M) $(1.2M)
Cash Flows From Investing Activities $(18.0M) $(9.6M)
Cash Flows From Financing Activities $44.0M $9.6M
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash $24.3M $(1.2M)
Cash - Beginning of Period $4.4M $5.6M
Cash - End of Period $28.7M $4.4M
>>
For further information: Kenneth E. MacNeill, President & C.E.O. or
Harvey Bay, Chief Financial Officer at (306) 664-2202
ROB-TV Highlights on Shore Gold SGF ...
1-WILL BE Canadas next diamond mine
2-the big players CANNOT LET this small canadian company have this all by themselves
3-people misunderstood valuations and sold the stock off
4-will be volitile but $10.00 should not be far off asc people start to understand it
5-Should change name as quick as possible
6-Came in with a high valuation
7- Controls 100 percent where as almost every mine in the world is PARTLY CONTROLED by the majors
8-thinks it will be a fight between RTZ and BHP
9-sooner own SGF at this level then any other canadian company
10- currently at phase 3
GreenArrowUp
http://stockhouse.ca/bullboards/forum.asp?symbol=SGF&table=list&t=0&StartDir=&StartT...
Stay toooned to 60 Minutes tonight gump ...
....... the Iron Man may preempt the Oscars.
unless .. unless .. gasp .. gasp ... unless they like the Iron Man
Orion's analyst, George Albino, put out his Research Note today. Its as bullish as it gets. Its too long, but here's some sample comments:
Star Value
• The much anticipated average value per carat has arrived. The Star Diamond value per carat is $110/ct, with an average modeled value of $135/ct – this is higher than our expectations of $105/ct.
• The average ‘modeled’ value of $135/ct is the midpoint of the
estimated range of $110/ct-$162/ct. This is based on a statistical model that estimates the average value of diamonds to be recovered from the mine based on proportion of large stones.
• With the diamond values in hand, a pre-feasibility study is next. The study will aim to determine the economic parameters of the project, along with further exploration and environmental baseline studies.
• At $135/ct, our NAV estimate increases by 79%. Using the $135/ct value as our new base mode increases our NAV value for the Star Diamond Mine (at 10% discount) to C$689 million from C$385 million. As a result of the increased NAV, we are adjusting our target price as well. We are increasing our target to C$11.00 from C$6.55.
• We reiterate our Overweight (Speculative) recommendation.
Summary and Investment Outlook
Shore Gold released the diamond parcel value for the Star kimberlite on Wednesday, February 23. We had expected this to be a defining moment for the Star project – if the diamond value had come in materially below the $100/ct mark we believe the potential returns on the project might not have justified Shore going to the next stage of evaluation for this large, but low-grade, diamond deposit. In the event, the estimated value exceeded our expectations. The company reported that the value of the 3,050 carat parcel was $110/carat, based on the average of four valuations provided by different groups. The groups included WWW International (which acts as the government diamond valuator for the NWT), R. Steinmetz and Sons (affiliated with Shore Gold shareholder Magma Diamonds), and the diamond marketing groups of global mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. The four groups produced a consistent picture. As is common in the diamond world, the groups responsible for the valuations are not keen to be associated with a specific value. However, we do understand that all four estimates were very close, with the difference between the high and low estimates within 6%.
The modeled value is key. Even with a 3,000 carat parcel it is likely that large diamonds are underrepresented in the diamonds sent in for appraisal. As a result Shore, in common with other companies evaluating diamond projects (e.g. Tahera, De Beers) uses modeled values. The models are empirical, and intended to more accurately reflect the value of stones recovered during commercial scale mining. The modeled values were provided by WWW. This group, in addition to its role as government valuator, has extensive experience in evaluation of diamonds and diamond projects. Undoubtedly Rio Tinto and BHP have the capability of making similar estimates, but these were not within the scope of their involvement with Shore.
The $135/carat is the best estimate for revenue for Star. The range of modeled values was from $110/ct to as much as $162/ct. Even with 3,000 carats recovered there were only 33 stones greater than 5 carats. The company intends (as we discuss below) to increase the scope of the bulk-sampling program to obtain more large diamonds to better tie down the values of the stones.
An additional 10,000 tonnes will be mined. Shore would ideally like to see a recovered parcel of 6,000 carats to obtain better representation of large stones, and to reduce the “error bars” around the modeled value.
What Does All This Mean for Shore?
In our view, these data strongly support the idea of an economic diamond deposit at Star. In our view, the grade/diamond value combination suggests that a profitable mine can be developed at Star. By our estimate (using cost forecasts detailed in our February 9, 2005, initiation report) the project has the potential to provide an after-tax IRR in excess of 30%.
What Is It Worth?
Wednesday’s data was a huge step forward in assessing Star. We previously published tables that gave indicated IRRs and project NPVs at different diamond prices (as well as sensitivities to the US$/C$ rate and diamond grade). We have now inserted the modeled $135/ct value into our model and the results are as shown below (see Exhibit 1 and 2).
We remind readers that, by our estimates, Canadian diamond producer Aber is trading at essentially its 0% NAV. In our view this represents the maximum potential upside for Shore – the 10% discounted NAV we employ for our target is a reasonable reflection (in our view) of what De Beers paid during its hostile bid for Winspear Resources in 2000.
Exhibit 1. Orion Target Price (previous, using $105/ct)
Star NPV (10%) - 15cpht, $105/ct ($MM) $385.0
FD Working Capital ($MM) $53.6
TOTAL ($MM) $438.6
Shares FD (MM) 81.7
NAV/sh ($C) $6.55
Source: Orion Securities
Exhibit 2. Orion Target Price (current, using $135/ct)
Star NPV (10%) - 15cpht, $135/ct ($MM) $690.0
FD Working Capital ($MM) $53.6
TOTAL ($MM) $743.6
Shares FD (MM) 81.7
NAV/sh ($C) $11.00
Source: Orion Securities
Summary and Conclusions
With these data we are more confident that a diamond mining industry will emerge in Saskatchewan. Shore Gold has been a “discovery in slow motion” – the available data have pointed to the likelihood of a mine since we first saw the project three years ago. It has taken the company three years – working at a pace that put many other projects to shame – to reach this point. With an aggressive project through the third quarter (and possibly beyond) Shore will have an immensely better understanding of the project by year-end.
We continue to rate Shore Gold an Overweight (Speculative), but we haveraised our target price to C$11.00 (see our note of February 23) to reflect the better-than-expected diamond values.
De Beers, Partners Speeding up Canada Mine Venture
(February 24, '05, 7:53 Albert Robinson)
De Beers Canada Inc has approved its share of the 2005 budget for an Advanced Exploration and Evaluation Plan aimed at speeding up a decision regarding pre-feasibility in 2008 for its Fort a la Corne Joint Venture.
The De Beers share of the project is 42.25 percent, and the overall budget of up to $25.6 million for the 2005 program is the largest annual commitment to date.
"The increased level of expenditure agreed to by our joint venture partners, Kensington Resources and Cameco Corporation, will allow us to assess a larger portion of the Fort a la Corne kimberlite field than in previous years," said Richard Molyneux, President and CEO of De Beers Canada Inc. "This will compress the exploration timeline and provide targets for subsequent evaluation work."
Speeding up the Fort a la Corne project, which is located 50 kilometers northeast of Prince Albert in Saskatchewan, is part of De Beers' strategy of fast tracking exploration projects in an attempt to meet the increasing demand worldwide for diamonds.
In the first stage of the program, the partners will emphasize geological drilling and micro-diamond analysis to determine the internal geology and grades of the targeted kimberlites.
If the results are encouraging, then delineation drilling and mini-bulk sampling of selected units will be carried out to confirm the macro-diamond potential. The joint venture partners have not yet decided on the kimberlite selection for the 2005 program.
Other work will include geotechnical and hydro-geological drilling, preliminary environmental data collection and ongoing stakeholder consultation.
http://www.idexonline.com/start.asp
From today's Shore Gold news release …
The modeled value is determined using statistical methods to estimate the average value of diamonds that will be recovered from a future mine on the Star Kimberlite based on the valuation of the 3,050 carat parcel at current diamond prices. The difference between the sample value and the modeled value results from under sampling of the top end (plus 5 carat) of the diamond size frequency distribution by the current bulk sample. The average modeled value of US$135 lies between a “minimum” of US$110 and a “high” of US$162. WWW believe it is unlikely that the average price will be lower than US$110 per carat based on current prices and that the “high” modeled value of US$162 is reasonable considering the potential value of the larger diamonds in the Star Kimberlite.
I have read this over and over. My opinion is that they almost ignore the 5+ carat stones to arrive at the $110 minimum, and include all 5+ carat stones to arrive at the $162 value. The "modeled" value is in between the 2 extremes. This approach is strange, as it would be comparable to throwing away the most valuable stones. It is a conservative approach to valuation, and it still moves us closer towards an operating mine. I would be worried if they did the opposite, and included all 5+ carat stones, and eliminated all stones under 1/2 carat, to skew the value up towards $200 per carat. You must realize that the 5+ carat stones bring the value of the 3,000 carat total up from $110 to $162, a $52 per carat, or 47% ($52/$110) increase in value.
It has been discussed often that the 5+ carat stones in Shore kimberlite will make a significant difference in advancing development towards an operating mine.
http://stockhouse.ca/bullboards/viewmessage.asp?no=9205635&t=0&all=0&TableID=0
The Shore thing ...
Just caught up on the bullboard.
Wow, I feel like I've been on a roller coaster.
Disappointed that the valuations weren't as high as I had expected ($181/ct), but at least they were over $125/ct (which definitely = a mine). I guess the percentage of gemstones weren't as high as some of us had expected (right Cosmicac?).
CDD, thanks for reminding me what my stock price estimates were with your repost. I added the calculated stock price estimates for $110/carat and $135/carat to the original table:
Valuation ....................... SGF Stock Share Price
$100/c .......................................... $3.45
$110/c .......................................... $4.42
$125/c .......................................... $5.84
$135/c .......................................... $6.77
$150/c .......................................... $8.22
Hopefully we'll start to see the big institutional money come in and start to approach the $6.77 price estimate.
Shorething
PS: Current price = $4.90 (volume = 4.13M shares)
http://stockhouse.ca/bullboards/viewmessage.asp?no=9205552&t=0&all=0&TableID=0
Shore traded at $5.05 after this good news ... another all time high.
Shore Gold "hold"
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:47:35 AM ET
Canaccord Capital
NEW YORK, February 22 (newratings.com) - Analysts at Canaccord Capital maintain their "hold" rating on Shore Gold Incorporated (ticker: SGF).
In a research note published this morning, the analysts mention that the company is currently completing an underground bulk sample from the Star Kimberlite site in the Fort a la Corne region. The site is expected to contain 110 million tonnes of mineable resources, with a mine life of 20 years at a throughput of 15,000 tpd, the analysts say. An economic evaluation study on the site is likely to commence in 1Q05, Canaccord Capital adds.
http://www.newratings.com/analyst_news/article_703603.html
wonderpup's the same old basher who harassed the longs on other BBs and who went by the moniker of nicotinepoison. He'll deny it again ... he always has.
Did you get your recent $0.0001 fills yet Zen?
Did you get your recent $0.001 fills yet Zen?
Research Capital report highlights...
Shore owns 100% of a very large, diamond-bearing kimberlite in central Saskatchewan, which hosts more than 250 million tonnes of material (the Star Kimberlite). Results of a 25,000-tonne bulk sample have yielded large, high-quality diamonds with an indicated average value that we estimate lies between US$100 - US$150/ct.
Indicated average diamond values released by explorers on adjacent intrusions range from US$133/carat to US$179/carat, additional confirmation of the high-quality nature of diamond-bearing intrusions within the Fort a la Corne kimberlite field.
The Star Kimberlite may be amenable to a large scale, open-pit mining operation, using mining equipment to realize economies-of-scale. Infrastructure is excellent, and labour is readily available. We estimate a 45,000 tpd mine may be constructed for C$550 million, potentially starting late in 2009.
The challenge facing Shore is proving resource/reserves to 43-101 standards. Extensive additional drilling and sampling will be required, ultimately taking up to two years to complete, and costing in the order of C$40 million. A significant risk to the project is whether or not the bulk sample taken is indicative of the entire intrusion. A more reliable estimate will be required for feasibility assessment.
We think Shore represents a good investment opportunity with an acceptable risk/reward ratio. Our target price of C$6.36 is based on the indicated discounted cash flow potential of the Star Kimberlite. We are initiating coverage with a BUY recommendation. The Potential for a World-Class Diamond Mine
my sorry ..
thought you were talking about GEMM
DVD ... Wrong!
GENM is not GEMM ..
Lifting the Lid-New short-selling rule slow to make impact
Thu Feb 10, 2005 03:39 PM ET
By Michael Flaherty
NEW YORK, Feb 10 (Reuters) - A new government measure aimed at cracking down on an abusive stock trading practice has been slow to deliver results for some companies, frustrating executives and shareholders who are calling for stricter enforcement.
The measure, known as the "Threshold Securities" list, identifies companies with a significant amount of shares that were sold short, but never delivered to the buyer.
In theory, by appearing on the threshold list, a company's trading volume is expected to stabilize and its share price is expected to improve, as brokers are now under tighter rules to buy up undelivered shares within a certain period of time.
While several threshold stocks have seen improvement since appearing on the list early last month, others have not, prompting some to question the measure's strength.
"The rules behind the list just aren't strict enough. There has to be more bite," said Kenneth Eade, chief executive of movie company Soleil Film Inc. (SFLM.PK: Quote, Profile, Research) , which has appeared on the list. "We ended up with some kind of compromise with the securities industry instead."
The threshold list is part of a broader effort by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, known as Regulation SHO, to refine the rules that govern short-selling and thwart those who abuse the practice.
Short-sellers borrow shares and sell them hoping to return them later at a lower price and pocket the difference.
The adoption of Regulation SHO comes amid complaints, particularly from small companies, that manipulative short-sellers have taken their toll on the market.
"The question is, what enforcement is happening? If the list is just a list, then that's just counter-productive," said Herbert Becker, chief executive of Hee Corp. (HCCF.PK: Quote, Profile, Research) , a diabetic research company.
Becker said his company's shares have stabilized and climbed since appearing on the Threshold list. But that's not the case with other companies.
Since appearing as threshold securities, shares of Northfield Laboratories Inc. (NFLD.O: Quote, Profile, Research) , mortgage lender NovaStar Financial Inc. (NFI.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and holding company WHX Corp. (WHX.N: Quote, Profile, Research) have fallen, trading in choppy volume.
The main target of the threshold list are "naked" short-sellers, who short a stock they haven't borrowed. That results in what's called a "fail to deliver" after the trade's settlement date.
In that scenario, the broker who executes the sale never receives the borrowed shares. These unsettled trades are often overlooked by brokerage houses. But the impact can be big to a small company, as "naked" shorting can dilute a stock and send shares tumbling.
The "Threshold List" identifies stocks with aggregate "fails to deliver" of at least 10,000 shares for five consecutive days, or "fails" that constitute 0.5 percent or more of the company's outstanding stock.
If a "fail" in a threshold security remains open for 13 consecutive settlement days, the broker responsible for the transaction must purchase the shares, according to Regulation SHO.
Critics of "naked" shorting are angry that the SEC's new rule applies only to trades from Jan. 3 onward.
"Eliminate the grandfathering of existing undelivered stock sales. Enforce the buy-in provisions on ALL naked short positions, not just the latest violations," said a full page advertisement in the Washington Post on Tuesday.
The ad was sponsored by a self-proclaimed grass roots organization called the National Coalition Against Naked Shorting.
"With all due respect, Regulation SHO is a step. But the threshold list is, more than anything, an attempt to shame Wall Street. There needs to be more than shame. We need to see enforcement," said Robert O'Brien, a 44-year-old retired entrepreneur who helped start the coalition.
Regarding threshold stocks that are past the 13-day requirement with little evidence of buy-ins, SEC spokesman John Heine said the agency was "monitoring the situation and gathering relevant data."
David Lott, president of Limelight Media Group Inc. (LMMG.OB: Quote, Profile, Research) , said he has seen better volume and a move up in his penny stock since appearing on the list. But as someone who says he was burned by stock manipulators before, he worries about them coming back.
"I think we're seeing a sincere effort by the SEC to address the problem," Lott said. "But without hard penalties, you may see these short-sellers come back and do it all over again."
brokerdown, do you have a link to the broadcast?
TV broadcast on our neighbor Shore Gold
This is the 2-1/2 min archived segment of the ROB-TV broadcast from this a.m. that another poster referred to this morning. Makes for a good listen, good summary of Shore's current affairs (valuation pending, abundance of big diamonds, pink & yellow stones, % white goods, all boding well for favourable US$/carat) and he mentions that Westwind's Cdn partner has been stepping up to buy 1.4 mio shares Feb 01-04 (i.e. not incl today's action) for their American clients and that the volume / activity has been impressive: "somebody's gotten wind of this (Shore) in the US ... obviously the story is getting around ... Westwind partners buying is driving this ..."!!! Good coverage and complements well what they said on 26 Nov 04. See Link below, second item, 8:35 AM ET:
http://www.robtv.com/shows/past_archive.tv?day=mon
NASDAQ NM Threshold Securities Listed
But Hundreds 'Missing In Action'
(financialwire.net via COMTEX) -- February 4, 2005 (FinancialWire) Majesco Holdings (MJES), Napster (NAPS), Northfield Laboratories (NFLD) and Netflix.com (NFLX) are among some 67 NASDAQ National Market companies identified on a recent NASDAQ "Threshold Security List" mandated by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation SHO.
The list, at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/aspx/regsho.aspx , purportedly lists all those companies, for which over a period of five consecutive settlement days, there are aggregate "fails to deliver" at a registered clearing agency of 10,000 shares or more, and the levels of fails is equal to at least 1/2 of 1% of the issuer's total shares outstanding. The site has recently begun listing additional securities under separate spreadsheets, further confusing the true numbers.
The list, which is the latest in the ever-widening Stockgate scandal, has created some controversy, with hundreds of stock symbols disappearing since the initial posting in mid-January, 2005, and with many detractors claiming the list is barely the tip of the iceberg, missing hundreds of companies that have been subjected to alleged naked short selling, as well as not consistent with a paper, "Strategic Delivery Failures in U.S. Equity Markets" published under the aegis of the SEC.
The referenced working paper by University of New Mexico Professor Leslie Boni was initiated while the author was visiting financial economist at the SEC.
She termed the "failures to deliver," which litigants have called "counterfeiting," as being "pervasive."
The professor said that a whopping 42% of listed stocks at the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ and AMEX, and 47% of unlisted stocks in the OTCBB and Pink Sheets had persistent fails of 5 days or more with 4% being above the SEC's threshold limits for failures.
The economist pointed to a study conducted by Evans, Geczy, Musto, and Reed in 2003 that provided evidence that while the SRO's have buy-in requirements, such buy-ins almost never occur. She noted that an audit of one market maker showed that all or a portion of shares in 69,063 transactions during 1998-1999 were "fails to deliver."
"The market maker was bought-in on only 86 of these positions," she stated.
Yet NASDAQ (NDAQ) was recently listing only 123 companies on the NASDAQ, OTCBB and Pink Sheets, which together comprise the overwhelming bulk of public companies traded in the U.S. The list changes to some degree each day.
The original list had identified 520 securities, including the stocks of 57 recent PIPE issuers, according to The PIPES Report, in an article headlined "SHO What?." That list had 379 traded on the NASDAQ, Bulletin Board and Pink Sheet markets, 68 on the AMEX and 73 traded on the NYSE.
The report quoted Merrill Lynch (MER) global equity trading specialist Mary Ann Bartels of suggesting "increased volatility" and "extended rallies" in small and mid cap stocks could result, Rhodes Analytics highlighted 33 NYSE and 63 NASDAQ "dangerous shorts" which analyst Bill Rhodes believed are "vulnerable to squeezes which could last through the middle of February, when the initial phase of Reg SHO-mandated buy-ins of threshold stocks are expected to peak?"
But a funny thing happened. The 379 NASDAQ threshold stocks included only 24 bulletin board stocks, along with 56 NASDAQ-traded stocks and a whopping 254 Pink Sheet quoted stocks, which the Dow Jones (DJ) Newswires was quoted as saying happened to be "every fully-reporting company traded on the Pink Sheets."
Professor Boni's report showed that "during three random market days inlate 2003 and early 2004 that almost 60% of the stocks on the Bulletin Board and Pink Sheets had persistent settlement failures," according to The PIPES Report. "Among the 1,790 OTCBB and Pink Sheet stocks with failures, the average level of delivery failures equaled 1.56% of outstanding shares ' almost three times the level that would trigger threshold status under Regulation SHO."
In a December 13 conference call, Richard Bernstein, Bear Stearns' (NYSE BSC) senior managing director of operations, told the firm's brokers that almost 800 OTCBB and Pink Sheet securities would exceed threshold levels.
Although every single reporting Pink Sheet stock was listed, the list included less than 1% of the 3,200 Bulletin Board companies. And several de-registered companies with no trading activity were also inexplicably included.
I don't really think the list is complete," Jeffrey Meyerson, vice president at Crown Financial was quoted as saying. "I don't think they got everything done in time for the deadline."
For an explanation, an SEC spokesperson told The PIPES Report to check with NASDAQ, and NASDAQ pushed off queries to the NASD, who just didn't respond."
An even bigger surprise than the lack of suspect companies on the list, however, was the sudden disappearance of 270 stocks in one day, including all but one on the Pink Sheets and all but nine now on the OTCBB, which, according to The PIPES Report, suggests "that a settlement crisis several years in the making, affecting the most under-regulated and least compliant sector of the public equity markets, had been resolved in less than a week without executing a single mandatory buy-in."
General Electric's (GE) NBC Dateline, which is purportedly preparing a major expose of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp., and the alleged almost $1 billion in "borrowed" ' some say counterfeited" ' certificates that have reportedly been lent out above the legal issued shares by hundreds of companies, and the Christian, Smith, Wukoson and Jewell, and OQuinn, Laminack and Pirtle legal challenges being filed for dozens of such companies, is also reportedly looking into the threshold securities that can only be described as "missing in action."
In an appearance now archived on StreetSignals (http://www.streetsignals.com), Christian/O'Quinn legal expert C. Austin (Bud) Burrell, said that the firms have filed some 15 actions, including key formative lawsuits for Sedona Corp. (SDNA), NanoPierce Technologies (NPCT), Datascension Inc. (DSEN), Eagle Tech Communications (EATC) and Hyperdynamics (HYPD).
Burrell said the lawsuits allege a vast conspiracy to manipulate all stocks, and "provide substantive proof of manipulation." He said that the suits allege 7,500 companies have been bankrupted since November, 2000, by illegal naked shortselling and conspiratorial manipulations, resulting in a loss of $17 trillion in market cap, "greater than all the losses in the 1929 market crash."
He said that shares are electronically counterfeited by the stock borrow program which the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp., owned by the New York Stock Exchange and the NASD, acquired in its purchase of National Stock Clearance, and then misused its "stock borrow program" to create, through its "nominal ownership provisions," a no-limit "and illegal" hypothecation system that results in revenues of almost $1 billion annually.
He said naked short sales were outlawed by Sections 5 and 6 of the 33 Securities Act, due to their contribution to the '29 Wall Street Crash, which was followed by ten years of depression.
Burrell told the StreetSignals audience that the DTC "nominally owns $22 trillion in stocks and bonds." He said it even lends out certificates acquired via ERISA and retirement accounts that are "not eligible" for such lending, and is a violation of Federal Reserve margin rules.
He said the failures of oversight by the SEC and the Congress in this matter are massive, and continue to contribute to overseas money laundering, organized crime, and financing of terrorism.
The threshold list as present constituted is both "unexplained and unexplainable," added Burrell. He alleged that "the SEC instructed the NASD to remove Pink Sheet stocks from the list," and criticized them for their lack of transparency or explanation.
For up-to-the-minute news, features and links click on http://www.financialwire.net
FinancialWire is an independent, proprietary news service of Investrend Information, a division of Investrend Communications, Inc. It is not a press release service and receives no compensation for its news or opinions. Other divisions of Investrend, however, provide shareholder empowerment platforms such as forums, independent research and webcasting. For more information or to receive the FirstAlert daily summary of news, commentary, research reports, webcasts, events and conference calls, click on http://www.investrend.com/contact.asp
Listen to StreetSignals" (Investrend "ON-THE-AIR") "live" Saturdays from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Business TalkRadio Network stations coast-to-coast, or right now on the web at http://www.StreetSignals.com
The FinancialWire NewsFeed is now available in multiple formats to your site or desktop, free. Click on: http://www.investrend.com/XmlFeeds?level=268
http://www.financialwire.net
(C) 2005 financialwire.net, Inc. All rights reserved.
© 1997-2004 MarketWatch.com, Inc.
http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=25751453&brk=1
Caution ...
Abitibi-Consolidated sues Stockhouse posters
2005-02-02 15:19 ET - Street Wire
by Stockwatch Business Reporter
Senior pulp and paper company Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. has joined the handful of companies that have sued for defamation in on-line bulletin boards. The company and one of its mill managers, Derrick Lindgren, are suing two John Does for alleged defamatory posts on Stockhouse discussion forums. The company says the John Does, pretending to be Mr. Lindgren in some posts and Abitibi president John Weaver in others, implied that Abitibi's mill in Kenora, Ont., is improperly run.
The DLindgren posts
Abitibi, in its 20-page claim, says the first of the John Does (referred to as John Doe No. 1) logged into Stockhouse on Nov. 26, 2004, and created a profile purportedly belonging to Derrick Lindgren, manager of the company's Kenora paper mill.
The profile for the first account, which used the alias DLindgren, read, "I am a junior investor but really I am more worried about my job lately as I have been running the mill I have been managing into the ground and maybe John Weaver will get upset and fire me."
One week after creating the profile, Abitibi says John Doe put the DLindgren account to use. On Dec. 1, 2004, DLindgren allegedly wrote: "I know now that it was a big mistake to hire the frenchman Jean D as production manager ... I believed in him so much but he is useless." Montreal-based Abitibi says the defamed "Jean D" is Jean Descoteaux, production manager at the Kenora mill.
After berating Mr. Descoteaux, the poster alluded to some sort of sexually inappropriate conduct at the mill. "Maybe it doesn't matter anyway because the investigator [sic] into Carolyn sex charges will put me and others in jail anyway," the anonymous poster stated, using his DLindgren alias. (The company's claim does not specify what sort of "sex charges" John Doe was referring to.)
The poster, still masquerading as Mr. Lindgren, then put together the "10 top reasons why thor should fire me" in a Dec. 12, 2004, post. (Abitibi says "thor" refers to Thor Thorsteinson, the senior vice-president of North American operations.) The list read:
"10 I looked funny at the christmas party
"9 I hired nell harvy as paper mill superintendent
"8 douglas is my good friend
"7 I do not know what budget means
"6 everybody hates me here and I hate everybody
"5 jean will sink me here as a witness for carolyn
"4 brian will sink me here as a witness for carolyn
"3 lori will sink me here as a witness for carolyn
"2a production sucks
"2b quality sucks
"2c production sucks
"and the number one top reason why thor should fire me ...
"1 lisa is fat and looked funny at the christmas party."
Abitibi says "lisa" in the post is Mr. Lindgren's wife, and the others identified in the post are all management level employees at the Kenora mill.
The PaperGod posts
The second half of Abitibi's claim deals with posts allegedly made by John Doe No. 2, masquerading as company president Mr. Weaver. Abitibi says John Doe No. 2 adopted the alias PaperGod, which he explained in a Dec. 23, 2004, post. "Paper God is the name I have been given by my collegues [sic]. It is fitting. I am John Weaver," said John Doe No. 2.
Using his PaperGod alias, John Doe No. 2 also proceeded to defame Mr. Lindgren.
He did this by posting a purported resignation letter written by Mr. Lindgren to Mr. Weaver. (Contrary to what the on-line detractor would have people believe, Mr. Lindgren has not resigned and remains the manager of the mill.) In the letter John Doe No. 2 says Mr. Lindgren did a very poor job of running the mill.
"I am very sorry I let you down and that the Kenora operation is running so poorly," wrote John Doe No. 2. "The poor operation of the mill is a direct result of my top management team and I but in no way should be blamed on the superintendent and lower level," continued the concocted letter.
The letter also mentions other possible employee troubles. "John I am sending this resignation letter (e-mail) from my hotmail account as I cannot trust the network at the mill as it is managed by men not loyal to me," stated the letter.
Abitibi, in conclusion to its claim, asks for a court order restraining the John Does from any additional postings, plus damages and costs.
Stockhouse forums
Stockhouse has removed the posts identified in Abitibi's suit, as it normally does in cases such as this. The courts have, in the past, looked down upon libellous material found in on-line postings.
In a case decided on Jan. 29, 2004, Justice C.A. Kent awarded oil and gas producer Vaquero Energy Ltd. and its president, Robert Waldner, $75,000 in damages over defamatory Stockhouse posts.
In another prior case, Justice G. Peter Fraser ordered Stockhouse and another Internet forum, Raging Bull, to temporarily remove offending posts about Vancouver-based clipclop.com Enterprises Inc.
More recently, Vancouver-based junior miner Farallon Resources Ltd. filed a libel suit for posts relating to the company's Campo Morado property in Mexico. That case has yet to be decided.
The Kenora mill
Abitibi recently identified the Kenora mill, along with three other higher-cost operations, as part of the company's plan to achieve $175-million in "cost, productivity and sales mix improvements."
In 2001 the company cut part of the mill's capacity and laid off 147 workers. At the time Mr. Weaver said the mill was "high-cost, excess newsprint capacity."
More recently, Abitibi has been heavily affected by the rising Canadian dollar. The company recently posted a $36-million year-end loss, which included an estimated $188-million effect caused by the dollar's rise.
The company closed today at $6.96, down from a 52-week high of $10.37.
Maybe not Jim … looks like the Bollinger Bands are becoming asymptotic to the Ordinate.
Zen, you perform far better as a LONG.
Pleeeeeze change back ... I'm on the $0.0001 bid.
Shore hits $4
Yippeeeeee !!!
http://www.groundhog.org/prediction/
I don't read 'em Zen.
There is a large positive article on the front page of the Nothern Miner on Shore.
Shore Gold is likely to set a new high today.
The Real Deal
No agenda, no talking points, just facts.
By Thomas Catino
Chief Architect, Columnist
January 2005
Regulation SHO: The Promising Debut to Combat the Abuses of Short Selling
The Securities and Exchange Commission is aware of investor concerns about naked short selling and has now instituted Regulation SHO. This was implemented on January 3, 2005 and investors are still waiting to see if it has any impact. The main goal of this new regulation is to require short sellers in all equity securities to locate securities to borrow before selling, and would also impose strict delivery requirements on securities where many sellers have failed to deliver the securities.
To understand the new regulation, one needs to get a grip on what short selling is. Short selling is defined as the selling of a security that the seller does not own and in which the seller will be able to buy the stock at a lower amount than the price they sold short. A major category of short selling that this regulation helps to prevent is naked short selling. This occurs when someone sells a stock short without borrowing the necessary securities to make a delivery, thus resulting in a failure to deliver the securities to the rightful owner. Now, take a look at a clear and concise breakdown of the regulation.
Breakdown of the new SEC regulation
Overview of Rule 203: Rule requiring broker-dealers in all equity securities, to “locate” securities available for borrowing before making a short sale, and imposes additional delivery requirements on broker-dealers for securities in which there is a substantial amount of failures to deliver.
1) Locate Requirement
Regulation SHO restricts broker-dealers from selling short in any security unless the broker-dealer has borrowed the security or has knowledge of the security being delivered on the date delivery is due.
2) Short Sales in Threshold Securities
Regulation SHO requires broker-dealers of a registered clearing agency to swiftly move and take action on all failures to deliver after thirteen consecutive settlement days. In order for a company to be eligible as a threshold security, the security must be registered under Section 12 or required to file reports under Section 15 of the Exchange Act.
3) Long Sales
Regulation SHO requires that broker-dealers engaging in the sale of a security cannot use borrowed securities to complete the transaction and must make the delivery when the securities are due.
Overview of Rule 200: This rule defines ownership of securities for short sale purposes. For example, brokerages must mark sell orders in securities as either “long,” “short,” or “short exempt.” Overall, this will make it much easier for brokerages and outside authorities to make clear a short seller’s net short position.
Threshold Securities
The new and revised rules implemented by the Securities and Exchange Commission under Regulation SHO are supposed to prevent illegal shorting of securities. To highlight the securities that have been hampered by shorting and have failed to meet certain requirements, a threshold security list has been established to further prevent this from happening. A threshold security is one in which at least 10,000 shares have not been delivered for the security for five consecutive settlement days and the failure to deliver the security relates to more than 0.5% of the company’s shares. On January 10, self regulatory organization started to release the first threshold list before the opening of trading. Therefore, from now on companies on the list that have met the threshold security requirements for five consecutive trading days, must have their short positions cleared below the requirements before thirteen days after being on the list. Some of these companies include; DiCut Inc. (OTC: DCUT), eCOST.com (NASDAQ: ECST), Geopharma Inc. (NASDAQ: GORX), Isonics (NASDAQ SC: ISON), PacificNet Inc (NASDAQ: PACT), Taser Intl. (NASDAQ: TASR), Taylor Devices (NASDAQ SC: TAYD) and Travelzoo Inc. (NASDAQ: TZOO).
http://www.antandsons.com/therealdeal/
Regulation SHO: The Promising Debut to Combat the Abuses of Short Selling
The Securities and Exchange Commission is aware of investor concerns about naked short selling and has now instituted Regulation SHO. This was implemented on January 3, 2005 and investors are still waiting to see if it has any impact. The main goal of this new regulation is to require short sellers in all equity securities to locate securities to borrow before selling, and would also impose strict delivery requirements on securities where many sellers have failed to deliver the securities.
To understand the new regulation, one needs to get a grip on what short selling is. Short selling is defined as the selling of a security that the seller does not own and in which the seller will be able to buy the stock at a lower amount than the price they sold short. A major category of short selling that this regulation helps to prevent is naked short selling. This occurs when someone sells a stock short without borrowing the necessary securities to make a delivery, thus resulting in a failure to deliver the securities to the rightful owner. Now, take a look at a clear and concise breakdown of the regulation.
Breakdown of the new SEC regulation
Overview of Rule 203: Rule requiring broker-dealers in all equity securities, to “locate” securities available for borrowing before making a short sale, and imposes additional delivery requirements on broker-dealers for securities in which there is a substantial amount of failures to deliver.
1) Locate Requirement
Regulation SHO restricts broker-dealers from selling short in any security unless the broker-dealer has borrowed the security or has knowledge of the security being delivered on the date delivery is due.
2) Short Sales in Threshold Securities
Regulation SHO requires broker-dealers of a registered clearing agency to swiftly move and take action on all failures to deliver after thirteen consecutive settlement days. In order for a company to be eligible as a threshold security, the security must be registered under Section 12 or required to file reports under Section 15 of the Exchange Act.
3) Long Sales
Regulation SHO requires that broker-dealers engaging in the sale of a security cannot use borrowed securities to complete the transaction and must make the delivery when the securities are due.
Overview of Rule 200: This rule defines ownership of securities for short sale purposes. For example, brokerages must mark sell orders in securities as either “long,” “short,” or “short exempt.” Overall, this will make it much easier for brokerages and outside authorities to make clear a short seller’s net short position.
Threshold Securities
The new and revised rules implemented by the Securities and Exchange Commission under Regulation SHO are supposed to prevent illegal shorting of securities. To highlight the securities that have been hampered by shorting and have failed to meet certain requirements, a threshold security list has been established to further prevent this from happening. A threshold security is one in which at least 10,000 shares have not been delivered for the security for five consecutive settlement days and the failure to deliver the security relates to more than 0.5% of the company’s shares. On January 10, self regulatory organization started to release the first threshold list before the opening of trading. Therefore, from now on companies on the list that have met the threshold security requirements for five consecutive trading days, must have their short positions cleared below the requirements before thirteen days after being on the list. Some of these companies include; DiCut Inc. (OTC: DCUT), eCOST.com (NASDAQ: ECST), Geopharma Inc. (NASDAQ: GORX), Isonics (NASDAQ SC: ISON), PacificNet Inc (NASDAQ: PACT), Taser Intl. (NASDAQ: TASR), Taylor Devices (NASDAQ SC: TAYD) and Travelzoo Inc. (NASDAQ: TZOO).
http://www.antandsons.com/therealdeal/
Wall Street caught printing Counterfeit Shares.
February 1, 2005
David Patch
That’s right folks! Wall Street has once again been defrauding the investing public and this time they were caught printing counterfeit shares. Almost as bad, those chummy boys and girls in our Washington DC Regulatory Office apparently could care less about it. Fraud pays their salaries and it pays for new office space that may or may not provide a window seat to the Capital Building. More directly, we pay these fees, as we are the ones financing their schemes through our losses.
In June 2004 when the SEC released their short selling reform package, Regulation SHO they did so requiring all market centers to publish daily the list of securities that had abusive levels of settlement failures. They dubbed this list the “threshold list”. The lists are now public disclosure effective January 7, 2005
While the first official published lists did not come out until January 7 the lists were available if you knew who to call or where to look. The NYSE started their publication on December 3, 2004 and the NASD had their publication, dubbed Rule 11830 stocks, published for several months going back into October. Both lists are strikingly similar to the present published “threshold lists” even though we are several months later. There has been little by way of urgency or regulatory enforcement to clean up the fails and remove the abused from the list.
So how is this counterfeiting you say?
When Wall Street executes a sell order from a house account or for a preferred Hedge Fund for example, whereby there are no shares available in these accounts or available to borrow, they are selling counterfeit shares. The regulators may disagree with the terminology but when you sell something you do not own and receive cash for it by replacing the “real” with a “fake” that to most logical people is counterfeiting. Wall Street has been putting electronic “fake shares” into our accounts for decades telling us each time in our account statements that they are real. Wall Street makes these claims even though a “real share” in the electronic vault at the Depository Trust does not support the shares seen in our account. The publication of the threshold list validates that fact. The fails represented by the list are shares that are showing up in investor accounts.
And how and why is it happening?
Wall Street makes its money from trade volumes and commissions. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan addresses the need for market liquidity, liquidity created by Hedge Funds and their wealthy clients. Chairman Donaldson asks “how much fraud are you willing to accept for liquidity” as he questions the integrity of the unregulated Hedge Fund Industry? In the end, regulators accept enough fraudulent liquidity to get several hundred companies listed today with hundreds more suspiciously missing from the published lists. It happens because the trades identified on these lists funnel money into the wealthy that in turn funnel money right down Pennsylvania Ave and Independence Ave. in Washington DC.
Consider this. While present market conditions do not constitute a Bull market, we are far from a Bear market. Investments are coming back into the markets creating more buyers than sellers. Under these market conditions Wall Street has several hundred companies identified on the various threshold lists with settlement abuses represented by uncontrolled sellers. How? Many of these companies have been on the list for months as Wall Street has, and continues to, allow the sellers of counterfeit shares ample opportunity to cover at a profit. Why? This list, only now being published, is a snap shot of what is transpiring under a market of cautious buyers. Lists the regulators have watched grow over the past decade at the detriment to investors and business growth. What then do you think was transpiring when the market when Bearish and massive selling was taking place?
If the SEC were forced to re-create a “Threshold List” dating back to the late 90’s would the list be several hundred or would the list be far greater with tech stocks dominating the list? One can only speculate on an answer but the list certainly shows a pattern of Wall Street abusing troubled companies and troubled industries.
On the list today is the Airline Sector including Delta Airlines, United Airlines, US Air, and Midway Airlines. Is it coincidence that all these companies are tremendously oversold when the sector is financially straining? Wouldn’t we all like to go out and sell shares of these firms as they publish possibilities of bankruptcy? Unfortunately the law requires that we be able to locate and deliver a share and not sell at will taking advantage of a situation in a “Bear Raid”. These companies listed have had Wall Street rape them while they were down and out. Wall Street continues to steal their business and our investments as they sell to any preferred customer who wants to join in the “Raid”. Laws say we cannot all be sellers just because we want to be. Wall Street obviously violates those laws.
Also on the list is Martha Stewart Living. Let’s go beat up on Martha Stewarts Company and Shareholders because she got into personal legal trouble. How are the two related to company earnings, it doesn’t matter? Put Martha in jail, create a selling frenzy of illegal counterfeit shares, and drive investors out making a nice profit in the process. If the profits are not good enough, wait out the remaining investors as Wall Street ignores their obligations for settlement. The SEC is allowing the seller to cover the fails at their pace and at their manipulated price. The economics of supply and demand do not play a role in the SEC’s mentality.
Finally you have the new tech phenoms like Google. Google is on the list as investors are willing to pay ungodly prices for that stock. Short sellers know it can’t last forever so they have already started selling short shares they cannot deliver. Maybe you have one of those shares that you paid $200/share for as you tied up your capital. Wall Street credited you with a $200.00 share but the seller doesn’t have any. He/She doesn’t plan on getting one until it is at least down to $150.00/share so hang on for the wild ride Wall Street will put you through to draw you out at a loss. Wall Street has no intention of going after the failed trade, the SEC isn’t going to force delivery, we need liquidity at any cost. What we really need is counterfeiting in our markets to make our preferred customers happy. Your $200 share will be a tax write off to you in some distant future. The game is rigged that way. The very fact that we have a published threshold list tells you that.
There has to be winners and losers and without the wealthy stealing from the poor where would our nation be?
Wall Street has been forced to go public with their counterfeiting scheme but it was so neatly wrapped we almost missed the devil inside the dress. The same devil that keeps re-surfacing - Wall Street greed. The significance of the threshold list is simple. Wall Street now admits that they have been selling shares illegally and by the duration of time we see companies listed they have NO INTENTION of doing anything about it. It is about the Money.
Wall Street has been caught printing counterfeit shares and the SEC is in on the game. This is my opinion anyway and I challenge any member of the SEC with integrity to refute the facts presented. By the very existence of a “threshold list” that will be hard to do. There should be no need for a list as it is securities law (Section 17A of the Securities Act of 1934) that requires trades to settle in a timely manner. The SEC needs to explain to us all how the natural balance of supply and demand is taking place protecting our investment in any one of these threshold companies when counterfeit shares have overrun the supply side of the equation. How can we be protected when abused fails have lasted for upwards of 4 months or longer?
For more on this issue please visit the Host site at www.investigatethesec.com .
Did you try both email addresses?
CMKM Diamonds Inc.
Diamonds Hotline:
Monday - Friday: 7:00am - 1:00pm PST
Toll free in U.S./Canada: 877-752-3755
Andrew Hill
Phone: 306-752-3755
Email: cmkxir@casavantmining.com
General Email: info@casavantmining.com </B>
Website Issues: info@blacksheepdesigngroup.com
Quite a guy, that Anthony N. DeMint.
Does Robert Maheu operate like him?
http://sec.edgar-online.com/2002/03/27/0001077048-02-000030/Section10.asp
easymoney, has your scenario really changed since you first proposed it at the Vegas party?
At that time you used the term "this year" ... now we're in Anno Domini 2005 you've changed that to "soon".
Did I miss something important?
MisterEC, you ask …
” ..If the price of the stock is .0001, why would they not cover the short position?..”
Read this link … it’s quite long, but it will explain the reason to you very clearly. Here’s the crucial bit:
“These market manipulators soon learn that they can't cover because the second they take their finger off of the selling trigger, the stock gaps upward and they haven't even started to buy back shares yet. Since they can't cover without driving the PPS up violently they soon learn that all they can do is to continue leaning on the stock in an attempt to suffocate the company to death by constantly knocking out any bids that are posted.”</B>
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s72303/decosta122203.htm