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.
Story time: Another brokerage also showed .0001 bid
I had a phone chat about an hour ago with a fellow WCVC shareholder/researcher, who told me that he heard from another person today who said that their non-Schwab/non-ETrade brokerage account also showed the .0001 bid.
Yes, I'm purposely omitting this other brokerage firm name because this is 2nd-hand information, but if it's true, then either the Schwab "glitch" is quite a catchy bug, or some external source 'out there' [a real market-maker??] made this bid available for at least these two firms -- Schwab and unnamed-other -- to pick up, display AND credit shares with real-market value.
As an aside, this phone-buddy also said that his E-Trade account was actually showing a system error rather than normal status of his account (that has WCVC in it). That might explain why E-Trade wasn't showing the .0001 bid.
Whenever a market maker is prepared to sell or buy stocks of a specific company, he or she offers a quoted price, i.e. bid and asks for a quote for that particular stock.
If the currently showing quoted price through Schwab is NOT a glitch (despite what they say), then it must have come from a market-maker who is "prepared to sell or buy" this stock.
Two Ways to Confirm Information. Before quoting an issuer’s security, a broker-dealer must confirm that certain information about an issuer and its securities is current and publicly available. The Amendment provides a broker-dealer with two ways to satisfy this obligation: 1) independently obtaining such information from issuers (or their agents) and reviewing it for material accuracy and reliability or 2) relying on a publicly available determination by a qualified IDQS.
At this point, we all know who the "agent" could be.
The next issue to discuss is the problem of WCVC's current condition of being revoked because it was waaaay delinquent in reporting.
This resource doesn't mention the term "revoked," but I think WCVC falls into the "Catch-all" category:
Catch-all and Delinquent Reporting Issuers. An issuer that is not subject to any of the above or similar disclosure and reporting requirements is considered a “catch-all issuer.” The amended Rule also treats reporting issuers that are delinquent in their filing obligations and therefore without current public information as catch-all issuers only for purposes of initiating or resuming a quoted market in such issuers’ securities.
We see from here the anticipation of, and permission for, a delinquent stock to 'resume' being quoted. (I still wish they had explicitly addressed "revoked" stocks. If only there was an expert out there who could clarify whether WCVC officially fits into this category.)
The key metrics for qualifying are these:
The Amendment expands the information and clarifies the financial information required to be provided by catch-all issuers pursuant to Rule 15c2-11(b). Current information includes the identity of company officers and large shareholders, job titles for company insiders, the names of all of an issuer’s predecessors during the past five years, the issuer’s principal place of business, the state of incorporation or registration of each of the issuer’s predecessors (if any) during the past five years, and the ticker symbol (if assigned) during the past five years. In addition, the Amendment clarifies that a catch-all issuer’s financials will be considered current and therefore able to be quoted by a broker-dealer if 1) the date of its most recent balance sheet is not more than 16 months before the publication or submission of the broker-dealer’s quotation and 2) its profit-and-loss and retained earnings statements are for the 12 months preceding the date of the balance sheet.
First, the items before the text I have put in bold are a piece-of-cake. That's all cut-and-paste.
Second, the text in bold holds the primary key we are concerned about.
I'd like to see clarification from an expert on this, that the time-frames do NOT refer to the last PUBLISHED balance sheet and profit-and-loss and retained earnings statements, for obviously WCVC has been dark far longer than the larger of the two time frames (16 months). [Such a timeout would doom any company from returning to trading if it has gone dark for longer than that.]
If, however, these time-frames ONLY refer to what the (potential) market-maker obtains privately from the issuer or its agent within the last 16 months (see above), then it's not a problem IF the issuer has privately kept up or caught up with his paperwork. ONLY needing 16 months of info is less than what is required by the OTC Market's alternative reporting standard of the last 2 years of financials plus any quarterlies.
[This also makes me wonder if WCVC will come back to life via Edgar rather than the OTC Markets alternate reporting standard; but I suspect WCVC has the info needed for both.]
I had to Google that phrase since I haven't seen the movie (Wall Street) and wasn't familiar with the quote. Not to be persnickety (who me?), but the spelling is: "Blue Horseshoe loves Anacott Steel"
Is there a public repository for FINRA filings like Edgar (or the OTC Markets filings)? I haven't been able to find one (don't know where to look). Or would they show up on Edgar?
Thanks for combining your lurking with midnight looking, as you were the first to spot the change.
If it is a glitch or otherwise not real, and I die after this post, at least I can die having imagined that someone went to a lot of trouble to prank Joe Botts. 😃 (I'll then have my ashes thrown into the ocean off Cape May NJ.)
Two Ways to Confirm Information. Before quoting an issuer’s security, a broker-dealer must confirm that certain information about an issuer and its securities is current and publicly available. The Amendment provides a broker-dealer with two ways to satisfy this obligation: 1) independently obtaining such information from issuers (or their agents) and reviewing it for material accuracy and reliability or 2) relying on a publicly available determination by a qualified IDQS.
The first market-maker has to verify that a company's financials are in order. Then virtually all other market-makers are allowed to 'piggy-back' off of the validation made by the first market maker so that they too can make a market for the security without having to do all of the same validation work.
Note point 1) above, how a market maker can do that without the company's financial information being public (yet).
Also note, the amendment that allows for this has been adopted by the SEC.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC or Commission) recently adopted amendments (the Amendment) to Rule 15c2-11 (the Rule) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act).
Well, well, well .... isn't that curious! My Schwab account shows the same. It still doesn't show a ticker symbol, and lists the company name as: WEST COAST VENTURES GXXXREGISTRATION REVOKED BY THE SEC EFF: 03/11/22
There were actually THREE Kalaka Mexican Kitchen posts today, all featuring products. The latest is a video that says "Reels" (dated Oct 24) which may be from their Instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/kalakamexicankitchen/reels/
but everything on the Instagram pages seems to be date-free. (Most of the pictures correspond to still-pix on Facebook pages.)
The Illegal Burger post is a throw-away (no products, only 'a table to read your phone at while on a date'), but I'll check later to see if they add more updates.
Both restaurants have Instagram pages with still photos that look pretty good (mostly), and short videos ("Reels") that look like that were taken from a cell phone.
Sadly, I have found no other updates.
I suspect that the Takiza Taco & Tequila Bar will not open in 2023 -- if ever -- based on the backwards update to the website to take off the "2023" date (plus all of the pictures). However, I don't have any eyes-on-the-ground sources. (see www.takiza.com)
The Kalaka gift-card picture is of a large group (looks like 13 people) sitting at a table that holds 14.
This is arguably a better picture than the one posted the other day that disappeared, that was only of an empty table of about the same size. (Am I the only one who saw it?)
Full tables send a better message than empty ones, even if the picture is obviously staged for advertising purposes.
Hm ... That one new Kalaka Mexican Kitchen post for today has been deleted.
It was only a head-on picture of a long table that looked like it would seat maybe 10 on a side, but still ... that's the first time I've seen a post deleted.
The last record I remember seeing was that NIxon doesn't own any common shares, but only owned preferred shares that gave him super-majority voting rights far outstripping the A/S. But since Nixon didn't file for more than a year, and doubled his O/S after he stopped filing, there's no way to know if he know owns common shares.
Re Hamilton owning shares -- a couple of Attorney Letters she submitted to the OTC on behalf of other companies said she did NOT own/was not being paid in shares.
I don't know if that only means that was true for those cases, or whether it has to be true as a rule that those submitting Attorney Letters cannot have the conflict of interest (vouching for the state of a company she holds shares in).
If Hamilton is NOT going to submit paperwork herself that represents a neutral, objective view of the company's financials, then who's to say she doesn't or won't hold shares?
If she is being paid in shares, then GO BRENDA !!. Make your shares worth something!! None of us other shareholders will mind.
Yeah, those are all exactly the kinds of questions that inquiring minds want to know!
Other questions are: * would there be an immediate value to relisting that did NOT involve maxing out the A/S? * is there another way for Nixon to obtain funding for expansion that would NOT have an immediately dilutive effect on the existing outstanding shares?
Brenda Hamilton is also an anti-fraud lawyer. Given her heavy criticism of other forms of dilutive trading that, while legal, were VERY harmful in the long run to regular shareholders and the companies themselves, if she is advising him on how to return to trading, is there a 'high road' that she could advise him to take?
I had to do that with my kitchen range and tea pot recently. It's a handy trick to know. (Actually I had to throw the breaker for the range and wait a full minute.)
The history shows that it was not revoked ("revoked" doesn't show up in search), but underwent a voluntary termination of securities (15-12G filed 2010-07-10).
They filed an NT 10-K inability to file in 2008-06-26.
There was an 8-K filed 2016-08-09, and then a series of filings in 2021 that ended with a withdrawal (RW) as the last one.
It started using the alternative reporting method, using Attorney Letters to validate filings on 07/29/2013 to validate an annual report and a quarterly filed 07/25/2013 and 07/26/2013, respectively.
So, again, it wasn't revoked, but self-terminated. It stopped trading for a while under Edgar and then came back on the OTC.
Sorry, but the company is not dead. It has operating restaurants. Whether the owner (Nixon) will bring the stock back to trading is a separate (though not unrelated) matter.
Nixon also re-hired an expert in securities law, and in bringing companies public, to be his agent for Nixon Restaurant Group (NRG), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of West Coast Ventures Group Corp. [Brenda Hamilton]
Slightly more than a year after her first term of hire, NRG reverse-merged with WCVC to go public.
It's true that no one without insider knowledge can prove this means Nixon will go public again, but the notion isn't entirely unrealistic.
Without doing any research of my own on percentages, I think your estimates are correct.
But WCVC does have a few things going for it (as myself and T53 and have posted about) that suggest that there's a reason to believe it might come back (notice the heavy use of hedge words here).
Speaking only for myself, I do not believe this company has passed the point of no return, and the return of Brenda Hamilton seems to confirm that.
Brenda Hamilton herself said a few revoked stocks do return to trading. (Whether they have a long happy life after their resurrection is a different matter.)
I think T53 knows of a couple of revoked stocks that returned to trading.
I was asking about other stocks that WorkinGreen has firsthand eye-witness knowledge of, where the constant debbie-downer thing really was a tactic that preceded some stock's actual return to trading after being revoked.
What would you say is the end-goal of the tactic, if it is a tactic and not just sincere frustration of a shareholder who believes he's been ripped off (since most revoked stocks do not return to trading)?
Re menus, my second biggest gripe is I must need new glasses in order to read them (=slight correction here).
Both websites do have "Menu" tabs on their main pages, so there's no requirement to see menu items through the order system.
But, those menus do not have a robust linking of pictures to menu items, particularly for Kalaka Mexican Kitchen (which has all of one picture on the "Starters" page). The Illegal Burger menu pages have more pictures, but not nearly enough, and the pictures aren't all linked directly to menu items by name.
[Also, the "order" pages don't have a lot of pictures either.]
Perhaps Facebook doesn't allow it, but those very nice Facebook food and drink pictures should link right to menu pages (maybe in a new tab, so that the user isn't directed away from Facebook automatically).
Yeah, just now me and another guy were chatting privately that Nixon didn't HAVE to make Hamilton his agent. He could have hired her privately do to whatever she is doing for him, and no one would have been the wiser. But making him her agent meant he had to declare that in his FL state public filing.
Do you agree that was a deliberate choice to send a public message?
Speaking of their menus, here's my big gripe (and a few smaller ones).
Nixon is having his 'Facebook guy' take these GREAT-looking pictures of some of their food, but none of the pictures are directly associated with their actual menus. You can't click on them and be taken to a menu and order it.
In fact, except for one page in the Kalaka menu subpages, which has a single picture at the bottom of it, none of their items have pictures so that you are visually enticed to order them.
Another sub-gripe (probably due to a business decision) is that you have to enter "order" mode before you can even see menu listings. There's no 'walk up and just look at it' menu, like at McD's or any other big-name chain that at least shows you their main menu items (on screen at the counter) before you order.
I don't see any enticement on their website to browse the menu by sight to say, "Oooo... that looks yummy. Let's go out for dinner and order that!" They are wasting a huge opportunity to sell the appeal of their products. Just reading a text menu -- and being forced to read it through the on-line "order" forms -- would never entice me to try the fare of any restaurant I haven't been to.
C'mon Nixon, don't be so half-assed at promoting your products!
If you want to franchise, prove to your potential restaurant customers that your food is worth checking out, so that franchises sell themselves. How much can a few more pictures that are linked to your actual menu items possibly cost that you won't make up in actual sales?
Oh, and fix your Illegal Burger website's main page, purging all of its stale content, at least in "WHAT'S NEW", "PRESS", and "SHOP".
There is NOTHING new in "WHAT'S NEW". Your "PRESS" content is dePRESSing. And what you are offering in "SHOP" ... seriously? Chop that shop stuff right out.
Nenektogel/Nenektogel4D - probably dangerous, or at least insidious.
Because pre-Nixon WCVC was a gaming company of questionable success [after all, it did fail], there's some attraction to the idea that Nixon has astutely moved West Coast Ventures Group Corp back into gaming, and purposely into Nenektogel via the westcoastventuresgroupcorp.com website, to ride some sort of wave.
Nixon may have given up that URL, or lost control of it, but at the moment, I don't think directly associating Nixon with Nenektogel is a good idea.
If you do a Google search on Nenektogel and Nenektogel4D (separately), a lot of URLs pop up that look like Nenektogel4D has taken control of them just like they have with w[cvc].com. The URL names, on their face, have nothing to with on-line casino gambling.
The lack of up-front disclosure using URLs this way makes this whole outfit look like a racket. This makes it clear to me that Nixon and WCVC do not own this type of gaming, but rather it exists on its own, and is spreading itself by surreptitious means (though probably gaining legitimate control over abandoned URLs).
Now, I'm not saying they are criminal, but the way it is promoted makes it look like the most innocent and 'fun' way to throw away your money, and that 'everyone is doing it.'
but this is pure [I'm coining a new word] advertaganda here (advertising propaganda).
Even more alarming to me is that almost NOTHING bad is said about it, almost as though Google search results have been scrubbed clean of critical content (although I have found a very small number of sites that give it low marks for scaminess, but I don't know if they are any more than auto-bots themselves).
Maybe the best we can infer from this is that Nixon is changing the company name away from West Coast Ventures Group Corp (and besides, it ain't west coast anymore), to hone in on what is obviously his product space, restaurants (and hopefully a connection to now Barcardi-owned Ilegal Mezcal via a deal with the "Illegal Brands" trademark).
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
