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.
Except for the fact that there was a seller on the other side of every one of those buys, of course.
I don't know who the seller was, but I have a pretty good idea that he/they were making a mistake....
What in the world does that mean?
I used to have a subscription to the Pink Sheets, circa 1994-95. Then I got a Bloomberg terminal and didn't need the hard copy anymore. What does the history of the Pink Sheets have to do with EIPC?
Also, many of us remember EIPC when they were on the OTCBB. They were not born to be Pink.
Agreed re: algae biz, but diversification is a good thing. If people are willing to pay for what AVNE has, they should take it.
IMO, the most intriguing thing about AVNE is its share structure and ridiculously small float. Check the numbers on OTC markets and then subtract 1-1/2 million shares that are either locked up or in friendly hands. Next comes the algae growing technology, which was developed and honed by some smart guys and seems to be broadly applicable to... um, let's just say "other areas."
As you'll recall, this was in their filings a couple of months ago:
"On June 20, 2013 the Company entered a confidential "letter of Intent" to acquire certain
business, assets and intellectual properties of a California medical research group. The
group focuses their efforts on certain published properties and patented medical
extraction processes. The Company intends to expand the licensing opportunities of the
acquired assets."
But I don't think it's accurate to say that "AVNE is MedScience Laboratories." They have an LOI, so we should see news eventually explaining the relationship.
It's a request for information on who made a trade, usually used when insider trading is suspected. You won't see a blue sheet request for a $2.00 tape paint. FINRA has bigger things to worry about than a silly tape painter.
slojab, with your question...
:) Apparently v/r stands for "very respectfully," which fits in with that exaggerated tone of formality and politeness that its user is fond of.
I'll bet they're SAVVY!
Does anyone know what "v/r" means?
"Obviously the only thing to do is wait and see what the outcome is!"
That is a very wise idea!! Are you sure you're not a lawyer?
And by all means, thanks, JT, for all that DD... whatever the heck it stands for in this case!
Wow, I'm only a corporate and securities lawyer, but here I always thought that "DD" stood for "due diligence," which in turn suggests a review and analysis of "facts." Having reviewed all of the relevant SEC filings made by this public company, I don't see anything that remotely suggests "liquidating a shell," whether in that redacted document or elsewhere. So you guys must be taking "DD" to a whole new level, or maybe it even stands for something entirely different?! Like "dirty diapers" or maybe "doubling down"... and who doesn't love gambling! Kudos to all of you!!
So you're saying Grandpa lied about the price on his Form 4, and the company lied in their filing?
"Also on May 24, 2013, the Company granted 34,000 shares of common stock to another director for prior services. These shares are fully vested and are not subject to a restricted stock agreement."
"Who has their Grandpa purchase shares ON THE OPEN MARKET LOL
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=9323696 "
Take another look at the purchase price for Boreta Vaso's 34,000 shares. Zero? Obviously not an open market purchase. The stock didn't trade 34,000 shares on 5/24, either.
So we have seen a price rise and everyone wants to sit around and sing cum by ah.
BGMO is grasping at straws even though the inevitable is happening. Shares are worthless. HH slammed to the ground.
I find it unbelievable, and shameful, that it took this long.
Let's see which characteristics might make CYIO a "solid" company.
Profitable and growing? Nope.
Sharp CEO? Nope.
Honest CEO? Nope.
Demonstrated demand for product? Nope.
I give up.
Why??!
More from Apostrophe's R Us. He giveth them and he taketh them away.
What's that guys name that own's paradise?
Hmmmmmm I wonder why all the intrest in XXXX all of the sudden???
IMHO maybe someone may know something????
de-WHAT?
at the current pace I might have to invest in cryogenics so they can thaw me out, defribulate me, and wheel me up to a computer to see the $2/share with my own frosty eyes
You can say that again!
maybe it was a margin account gone bad and they had to liquidate the shares to get some cash
Good point. I had intended to mention that and forgot. Certainly possible.
I suppose that's possible, Ted. Personally, I don't think there are THAT many people who are watching this stock that closely and are ready to pounce, on either side of the trade. I'm going to take a guess that all the trades with the 66s were the same guy on the "buy" side, like Hank does with his 8s, and there were several successively lower bids for 750,000 shares at a pop as the price was dropping. And I'd be surprised if there were more than 1-2 big sellers (and maybe only one) or 4-5 big buyers, but there's no way to know this for sure without a source inside at a market maker.
Agreed. EIPC is a fairly sleepy stock most days, so I don't think anyone who thinks enough of the company to have a large position would have intentionally driven it below support in the mid-.005s just to try to make a fraction of a penny on a couple million shares. That's not to say that one can't take out an "outlier" bid in the expectation that it will trigger a drop to the next range -- I've done it occasionally with other stocks and smaller numbers of shares, with mixed results. It just doesn't look to me that this would have been a high-probability gambit yesterday.
BTW, the rules changed some years ago to eliminate the double-reporting of volume (by market makers on both sides of the same trade) that used to be routine on the OTCBB and Pinks.
Yep, to claim manipulation (by market makers or anyone else) is to ignore the most likely explanation. Some people sold -- and of course that means others bought, in equal amounts. Market makers don't want to maintain an inventory of a subpenny stock. They started and ended the day flat, or close to it.
The big seller(s) sold a few million shares. Even 5 million shares (if so much came from the "dumper(s)") of a stock at .006 would be a total of only $30,000 worth of stock. A close look at EIPC's filings will suggest some possible candidates. In any event, it need not be seen as anything more than one holder wanting or needing to use those funds for something else in the short term.
As for watching closely... I was watching the trading from 9:30 until 1:45 yesterday and bought a ton of stock through three different market makers. I don't really care who sold them to me, but clearly he/they had a different opinion or time horizon than mine.
Yep! Steady nibbling and not much supply on the offer, so this thing may pop whenever they announce whatever it is they're working on.
For various reasons, IMSC management doesn't want to know all the details of DMRJ's (or anyone else's) selling. They also wouldn't want to pump the stock if they know that someone is selling into it. Most of all, I don't think they're stressing about the day-to-day stock price fluctuations -- they have more than enough to do on the business side, and the stock price will eventually take care of itself.
Let's see, starts with a D... ends with a J....
Section 11.2 is part of the "Term and Termination" section of that specific agreement, which itself covers specific subject matter (it is a "GOLF CENTER SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT"). That provision certainly doesn't have anything to do with a merger, or any other transaction with anyone other than the parties to that agreement.
Maybe there's something else going on here and I'm watching the stock with interest, but I haven't seen any evidence of it yet based on what's in the public filings.
The base looked pretty solid today.
By whom? IHub's primitive Trades algorithm? Trades are not officially designated as "buys" or "sells" by market makers or anyone else.
Besides, someone sold to you - so that trade was equally a buy and a sell, if you're keeping score.
the boat and the train into a post
And you know how jarring it will be when the boat and the train crash into the post.
I guess that's a variation of one of my all-time favorite idiotic statements, "bashers never bash a bad stock."
As long as there is a way to destroy TelVue and put it's employees out of work then that's a good thing
We've been through this before on this board, many times. Please explain why the supposed naked shorting of the company's stock would have any effect whatsoever on the company's operations, given that it is supposed to be so immensely profitable. How can short selling "destroy" a company if it doesn't need to rely on selling stock for its working capital? Rhetorical question: They're not paying their employees with stock, are they?
A lot of verbiage, none of which has anything to do with TEVE.
There is no doubt NITE is/was involved in the naked shorting of TEVE
Actually, there's plenty of doubt -- as in, no evidence whatsoever, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Sure, there has been plenty of naked short selling, period, in large-cap stocks and some microcaps. As a market maker, NITE has processed orders from short-sellers and has sometimes had traders who've sold short for its/their own account(s). But there is no sign of any short selling, past or present, in TEVE beyond the utterly unsubstantiated statements of a few of you guys.
Do you seriously believe that one of the largest, most powerful hedge funds in the world ever bothered with a tiny company that had a penny stock? I thought the TEVE naked short theory revolved around NITE and other evil market makers.
What does SAC have to do with TEVE?
AVNE has uploaded reports and financials to OTC Markets and has gone from a stop sign to "current information." "Subsequent events" comment in filing suggests that a very interesting acquisition or merger is in the works:
"On June 20, 2013 the Company entered a confidential "letter of Intent" to acquire certain
business, assets and intellectual properties of a Califomia medical research group. The
group focuses their efforts on certain published properties and patented medical
extraction processes. The Company intends to expand the licensing opportunities of the
acquired assets."
Stock has had a good run over the past month but I'm still a buyer on any weakness in the teens.
This appears to be why AVNE has jumped lately. I'm not sure whether this new LOI has anything to do with USFF, but it does not sound like it does.
"On June 20, 2013 the Company entered a confidential "letter of Intent" to acquire certain
business, assets and intellectual properties of a California medical research group. The
group focuses their efforts on certain published properties and patented medical
extraction processes. The Company intends to expand the licensing opportunities of the
acquired assets."