is trying to make some money
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.
The September 5 sales were me: I never did quite make the 10 million shares needed to get the wife a diamond straight off the whatever.
Not sure whether the first link below will work, but if not try the second link and search for NV Business ID NV19971112309, then click on the link you get back. (You also could search for "Superior Oil..." or the officers, or whatever.)
Direct link: http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=U1XRn1T5ExC1prRZv4jOPQ%253d%253d&nt7=0
Search link: http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/
You'd have to ask her or the other parties to the settlement.
Not sure about this: "Gayla's lawsuit went nowhere, 'twas a glimmer of hope." She dismissed her own suit, so it is entirely possible that she reached an out-of-court settlement with the defendants (i.e., the suit might have gone somewhere for her).
News flash: I probably should have respected the doji (or whatever) in the spring of 2014...
Anyone willing to post an L2 screenshot?
Thanks is advance
Been away for a few months: anyone willing to post a screenshot of L2?
TIA
Let's be clear: you can lost it all!
Or as Risk might say, we have been mined...
I almost sold just now, but I figure I'll give it until mid-December. I'm down 90%, so the little cash that I'd get back is not worth the possible but unlikely upside of the company's coming out of this tailspin.
Odds seem long, but at least I'll have tax write-offs or offsets. (Yeah!)
Does the sale of diamonds equal a SNEY sale (i.e., profit goes to SNEY)?
Or is SNEY simply acting as a middleman to sell for third parties (i.e., a fee or portion of profit goes to SNEY, with some of the profit going to the owner of the diamonds)?
Metaphorically, speaking "tons of diamonds" sounds great.
When you break out the calculator, a carat is 1/5 of a gram (200 milligrams). With 453.592 grams in a pound and 2,000 pounds in a ton, we've got our work cut out for us: 5 ct/g x 453.592 g/lb x 2,000 lb/tn = 4,535,920 carats in a ton.
Sound do-able, right?
What's next on substance here, an annual report in May?
Nice summary in general and excellent phrase ("working through the churn of optimization") in particular!
What does this mean: "I do know that various SEC attorneys have been engaged. We shall see. Things could get very interesting."?
Well said:
Are the to-be-signed contracts for non-mining businesses, like housing or power?
Found 'em: 5,000-1 then 500-1, per the 10Q dated 01/31/2014:
Anyone remember what sequence of reverse splits CGFI pulled?
Try telling your broker that it was a scam, that the corporation had dissolved in 2008 and yet continued to trade, and that the SEC delisted it in 2013. I'll be surprised if that does not work.
There's no there there.
FYI, the white pages say that that phone number is for Third Millennium Business Systems now.
Hope you're right, but...
Ironically, the low price of oil could help here: the creditors might simply give up...
Bummer all around
Last I checked, the entity known as "Matrixx Resource Holdings, Inc." was non-existent as a Delaware corporation because its corporate status had lapsed in 2008, so your shares are meaningless/worthless in my opinion/estimation.
To get an actual and up-to-date answer, you would need to contact a Delaware lawyer for the question of what value/rights if any a "shareholder" has in a lapsed corporation, and you would need to confirm with the Delaware Secretary of State the current status of the entity. Assuming it were still void, it might nonetheless be theoretically possible to revive the entity's corporate status (that's a question for your Delaware lawyer), and maybe the "officers" here intended to do so if they struck oil, but my opinion is that shares here are worthless and have been since 2008.
All that said, my information dates back to 2012, so I could not tell you what's going on currently.
OK: glad to hear it
Are you serious about the party? That sounds like a serious waste of company money, so I hope you're joking. Or that he's paying for it himself.
(Perhaps because I have nine-point-something million shares, I am just jealous.)
So, what's next, if all goes to plan?
I assume we're hoping for more and bigger diamond parcels....
On the gold front, are we waiting for gold numbers or gold-mining licenses?
On the non-mining fronts, what's next?
At least with respect to the parcels, the PRs seem more believable now; next SEC report is the annual, in the spring... where will we be then?
To paraphrase Harry Hotspur, so could I, so could any man, but will they?
Sounds like the "little engine that couldn't quite" is still plugging along...
Without the benefit of any actual research, I agree that the safe harbor statement about forward-looking statements should not protect someone who 100% knew (at the time of the statement) that the predicted future would not materialize. Proving that would be tricky, but not impossible. I don't care enough at the moment to research the legal issue, but I suspect that the cases would bear out the legal principle.
My only point is that the tendency to make grand forward-looking statements (i.e., statements about the future) are protected to a large degree by the safe-harbor statement that accompanies those statements. Statements in an SEC report about the past, by contrast, leave less room for misleading. For that reason, your theory about the 40 million shares and the change in revenue and the like may be possible, but it strikes me as unlikely.
There's a difference between being untrue (especially for guess about what will happen in the future) and fraudulent explanations of what happened in the past. Also, as you are fond of saying, an SEC report is more serious than a PR. In both types of publication, the safe-harbor statement about future events likely protects many rosy predictions, or it at least makes it more difficult to prove fraud.
Your theory is interesting, and I saw your post about it.
Right: it seems to be moving in the right direction; not as fast as I'd like, but slow and steady wins the longrun.
At least writing doesn't seem to be a problem, assuming he's paid by the word.
I agree with this part: "it's abysmal"
Don't get me wrong: 5x dilution bums me out, but 3.0 billion is not 6x dilution; it's 5x dilution. Under your math, going from 500 million shares to 500 million shares (i.e., no change whatsoever) would be 1x dilution.
In essence, you're counting the principal/starting point in the rate of growth. Going from 500 million to 3.0 billion is a 500% increase, not a 600% increase.
Each share is worth 1/6 as much as before, all else being equal, so you could say that, but you chose to use percentages. The correct percentage is 500%, not 600%.
I don't like the dilution, and you certainly have a point that dilution (especially massive dilution) is bad, but you really are math-challenged.
10Q today, right? After hours, I suppose...