The float does not need to change in a P&D scheme. Often, individuals behind the scheme own shares that are in the public float. There is no dilution.

There is also a huge difference between paying to promote your product, and paying to promote your stock. In the latter case, the only reason to do it is to sell stock, to enrich the individuals behind the stock promotion. Except for individuals who catch the promo early and are smart enough to sell early before the promo ends, investors who buy in later are left holding the bag.

What happened today, I have seen happen hundreds and hundreds of times with stocks on the pink sheets and OTCBB...40-80% collapses within 1-3 days. It happens because the stock was artificially supported and manipulated in the first place. Once the promotion is over, there is nothing to support the stock price, and the stock falls very quickly. The only remaining buyers are covering shorts, underwater longs trying to average down, and traders trying to buy for a quick bounce/scalp. After the initial collapse, there are numerous deadcat bounces, but over weeks/months the stock falls to penny or subpenny levels.

How you found out anything more on ONOV? I haven't been able to find any direct fine print evidence of a paid promo, but there's lots of indirect evidence. For example, there are multiple twitter accounts that have been constantly pumping ONVO multiple times on a daily basis. These twitter accounts include @topstockgirl, @stockinvestfeed, @PrinceKiuk, and some others. The ONLY stock they mention is ONOV, and they've been doing it repeatedly on a daily basis for at least the past month.

I know its predecessor FINW underwent some paid promotions.

While I haven't found any specific "fine print" evidence of a paid promo on this stock, there is evidence everywhere else that a paid promotion is going on.

First, there are multiple twitter accounts that have been constantly pumping ONVO multiple times on a daily basis. These twitter accounts include @topstockgirl, @stockinvestfeed, @PrinceKiuk, and some others. The ONLY stock they mention is ONOV, and they've been doing it repeatedly on a daily basis for at least the past month. Only paid promoters relentlessly tweet on a single stock daily for such an extended period, and do so in a coordinated fashion among multiple accounts. Twitter pumping is one way that pumpers can get around SEC regulations regarding disclosures of paid promotions.

There have also been newsletter mentions in newsletters known for some paid promos (such as Blue Horseshoe), but there have been no specific financial disclosures.

Finally, ONOV did undergo some known paid promotions in 2015, and its predecessor, FINW, also went through paid promotions, making it highly likely that this is another paid promo in disguise.

Yeah I don't think any patent is possible. There's nothing unique or game-changing about the product.

More on Jean Ekobo.

The registered agent for his company French Ambiance, LLC, is Akem Consulting Group.

The registered agent for Akem was Paul Poetter, who is now deceased but was involved in the pump & dump scam CSHD and involved in SEC litigation.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=123992940

A LOT of red flags here.

1. Why do the supposed CFO Mark Johnson, the supposed VP of sales Europe Daniel Billon-Lanfray, and the supposed VP of manufacturing Scott Yenglin not list Bionovelus on their LinkedIn profiles? None of these individuals are shown anywhere else on the site anywhere (like in pictures on the blog).

2. How does a company with no revenues and practically no cash suddenly jump to over a $50 million market cap? This is a bigger marketcap than many legit reporting NASDAQ companies that have actual revenues.

3. Why does a public reporting company sport a "donate" button on its website? Don't public companies raise funds through stock offerings?

4. If this company has actual product to sell, where is it getting the money to manufacture and market the product if it has practically no cash to speak of?

5. How does the CEO, a chef with no science background, suddenly become an expert at preventing coffee rust?

6. This company's previous attempts at "revolutionary eco-friendly products" failed miserably; in fact there was never any evidence of success. So why is this one suddenly different?

7. How can the company claim its product is unique when the active chemical has been widely available for a long time and already been known to help prevent coffee rust?

8. How can the company claim ecofriendly and safe when the active ingredient has demonstrated toxicity to humans?

9. The chart is completely parabolic going from 10 cents to 70 cents in under 2 weeks, on no substantial news. That is not normal stock behavior (and don't tell me "well this stock is special"...it's not).

10. Why does the company have the exact same address and suite as Oculus Solar Design?

11. Why is the company's address a corporate college?

You're not understanding it correctly. Marcus Lemonis offered enough money to pay off most (not all) of the senior creditors and buy the assets; it was a private sale and he got all of the company's assets.

Common stockholders are always last in line to receive anything, if there is anything left. There is nothing left in this case (even the senior creditors didn't get all their money back). It's already a done deal and approved by the court. The common stock now just represents an empty worthless shell with no intrinsic value. The common stock might trade for a while (like SHRPQ did), but it will be nothing more than worthless paper. At some point down the road, whether weeks or months, the common stock will be canceled just like SHRPQ.

Detearing, the problem is that American, General Growth, and Pilgrims Pride all had something left over for common shareholders. This is NOT the case with CRMBQ. Even the senior creditors aren't getting all their money back, so why would the commons get anything?

The sale is already approved by the court. The court documents are very clear on this one. Common shareholders get nothing. This case is nothing like the other cases you list. This case is more similar to stocks like KVPHQ (K-V pharmaceuticals) or SHRPQ (Sharper Image). Both were private buyouts where common shareholders got nothing, and common stock was eventually canceled in both instances. What's funny is both of these Q stocks also had temporary big runups (just like CRMBQ) where people mistakenly believed they would somehow be a part of the recovery.

The commons stand nowhere. The commons are now just an empty shell. This is clear from court documents, from Marcus Lemonis's recent tweets, and from the most recent WSJ article. I don't understand why people are so confused about this.

This is now worthless paper, and people are bidding up worthless paper. It's just a game of musical chairs, with everyone seeing who can sell to the greater fool.

I'm curious why anyone should follow the advice of someone who has admittedly only been in the markets for a few months, even if it's only advice regarding this particular stock.

"TraderGash" is actually offering sound advice for everyone who is long this stock. There comes a point where, no matter how much you "believe" in a company, you need to cut losses if the stock is not doing what you think it's supposed to be doing. All smart traders and investors know when to cut losses.

The market is always right. People who invest or trade on "belief", with no plan of action if things do not turn out the way they want, are the people that are not successful in the market.

Man, you are too funny.

First, you talk about "hiding in the shadows." Last time I checked, I'm not anonymous and not hiding my real name, and never have hidden who I am. Yet here you are posting under an anonymous alias. So who is really "hiding in the shadows?" You're not "exposing" anything other than your own lack of knowledge.

Second, profit.ly is NOT a site where I "recruit other short sellers." I don't recruit anyone. It's just a site where traders can post there verified trades and learn from other traders and their strategies, and traders can comment on people's walls just like Facebook. That's it.

Third, the reason I don't have a following on this board is because I rarely post on ihub. Based on my past experience, ihub is full of pumpers and scammers. I occasionally read it for amusement just to see how much people are hyping up a particular stock. I will post occasionally, but not very often. The most useful ihub posters I've found are Janice Shell and a few others on the "Frauds" message board where they expose scams and pump and dumps.

I actually have quite a following in real life, both in my exercise/nutrition business/career and on Twitter/markets. And your comment from "Lorenzo" was directed towards Michael Goode, not me. Again, only thing you are exposing is your own lack of knowledge.

If you think the number of followers someone has is important, then perhaps you should pay attention to Timothy Sykes, an "evil" short seller like me who shorts similar stocks, who has a huge following, thousands of times larger than mine.

Fourth, I have NEVER put out false information on any stock to try to drive the price down. If you think that I have, then I challenge you to provide me with one example.

Fifth, stock trading is a zero sum game because stocks don't go up to infinity. Doesn't matter whether you like to go long or short...someone has to lose for you to benefit. If you bought PLPL at 2, and it goes to 3 and you sold it at 3, guess what happened to the guy who bought it from you at 3? He lost. So don't kid yourself into thinking that being long is somehow more "moral" than being short. Someone still has to lose for you to gain. Last time I checked, the stock market is purely a voluntary activity, and everyone takes responsibility for the risk of potentially losing money when they get involved.

Thanks for proving to me that you are new to this game (it was pretty obvious to me already), if your first trade wasn't until mid December. You will learn the hard way. The market is going to humble you, just like it did to me a long time ago when I started out and got cocky when I had my first few big months. I guarantee it.

I don't really care what "guy" you think you are. I've been around this game much, much longer than you, and it's clear to me that the market (not me) is going to teach you some hard lessons in the future.

All my real trades, including my realized gains and losses, are verified on profit.ly.

http://profit.ly/user/YngvaiMalmsteve

I'll leave it at that.

I won't get killed shorting these stocks any more than I do shorting any other stocks. It's what stop losses are for. I don't hold anything short longer than a day or two...lots of my shorts are just day trades. The longest shorts I hold are up to 3 weeks but that is only for IPO lockup expirations. A good chunk of my 20K month came from shorting these marijuana stocks, including FSPM. Certainly not what I would call "getting killed."

Note that I'm not bragging about my performance. The only reason I even brought it up because here's a guy who was talking about his 50K month and then telling me that I shouldn't be talking to him based on that. If someone is going to beat his chest like that, when he has no track record of consistency, then I'm going to respond.

The bottom line is that chasers don't make consistent money in the stock market. I used to be a chaser, and made money for a period of time, and even got cocky about it, then suddenly market conditions changed and I started losing money. I learned that chasing is not a way to make money over the long run in the market.

"Quasi, wannabe trader." You mean like you who brags about 50K in one month, yet doesn't actually have an established track record beyond that? A guy who is basically confusing luck and skill?

Hmmm...having trouble seeing how I'm a "wannabe" trader when in fact I AM ACTUALLY DOING IT PROFESSIONALLY FOR INCOME, and you are not.

Like I said man...I'd like to see you REPEAT YOUR 50K MONTH ON A REGULAR BASIS. You have NO TRACK RECORD. I've been repeating 20K months for MONTHS AND MONTHS...in a variety of market conditions. Unlike you who have basically gotten into a hyped up sector at just the right time and suddenly think you know what you're doing.

You see, success in the stock market is about consistency...not about a flash in the pan good month. Come talk to me in a year or two...we'll see if you're still even in the market. Your 50K month will be short-lived. My "nickel and dime" trades are what make up success over the long run. I'll take consistent 20K months year after year, over a 50K month followed by inconsistency after that.

Looks like you can't even do math. 20K per month is 240K per year, not 50-60K per year.

Gotta love guys like you who have one good month and suddenly think you're all that. The market will humble you...trust me on that one.

Oh...and my 20K month is after commissions. All my profit.ly trades are after commissions.

"Lowest of low"? LMAO. Exactly how? Because I make a bet that a stock goes down rather than up? Since when is making a bet on a stock's direction suddenly a moral issue? Man you crack me up.

CANN didn't start at 50 cents a month ago like this stock did. CANN's increase from where it started a month ago ultimately was around 700% when it reached its peak. FSPM has already got up 1200%+ from where it was a month ago. And you think this is going to where CANN is? You're talking ANOTHER 200% increase from its current levels, and a 4300% increase from where it started. I would really like you to give me examples of stocks that made such large increases in such short periods of time, and actually sustained those increases.

Is it impossible? No. But is it probable? No. In fact, highly improbable. I will say that the overly rosy price projections that people are tossing around on this board are quite amusing.

Just like the people buying internet stocks in the late 90's, your 50K month is not based on trading skill...it is based on luck and being in the right place (a hyped up, irrationaly exuberant, heavily shorted sector) at the right time. And those people that were buying internet stocks in the late 90's that kept buying them and chasing them eventually got screwed when market conditions changed.

I would like to see you repeat that 50K month throughout the year. I bet you can't. I, on the other hand, repeatedly make 20-30K per month EVERY MONTH, and have been doing that for a long time in a variety of market conditions. I have a 70% winning trade rate on top of that. You repeat your success for a long time in a variety of market conditions, with a 70% winning trade rate, like I have, and then maybe I'll listen to you.

You have clearly chased this stock. You got lucky on PLPL; you got rewarded because you happened to buy into a short squeeze at just the right time. I think you may not be so lucky on this stock. This stock is way technically overbought on many different levels, and has already risen 1200% in a month. Could it go higher? Yes. But the probability of it going higher is very low, compared to the probability of the bottom falling out on it. You see, with OTC stocks, when the buyers dry up, and suddenly everyone wants to sell...nobody can. It's like everyone trying to get out of a narrow door at the same time. Some people got a taste of it in PLPL when it dropped from the high 2's to the low 2's...it went almost straight down, with people trying to sell not being able to get filled as the stock continued to drop. People also got a taste of it when MDBX dropped from the 90's down to the 50's, or when GRNH dropped from the 1's back down to the .50's, or when FNMA/FMCC dropped from the 5's to the 2's, or when GNIN dropped from the 3's to the 1's, or...you get my point. I could give you many, many more examples of tanking OTC stocks that people got trapped in and couldn't sell.

And I think your assessment of the valuation of this stock is overly rosy, to put it mildly. Look at every marijuana stock and there is someone like you making the same claim about the valuation of their favorite marijuana stock. I've seen this same story time and time again with every hyped up sector or stock that comes along...there is someone like you saying, "No, this stock is different!"...when it almost never is. Reality is very rarely ever as rosy as people make it out to be, and when reality sets in, it's usually not pretty.

It seems to me that you do not have a very clear concept of risk and reward (which is why you bought this stock where you bought it). The risk of buying at these levels dramatically outweighs the reward. If you're going to buy this, at least wait for a big pullback. If the valuation is as good as you think it is, you could've made way more money for less risk.

I've always wondered who the people are that chase and buy stocks that have already run over 1000% in a month. Now I have my answer.

It's not just company misrepresentations that have gotten some of these stocks halted. It's also manipulative trading techniques such as wash sales. And manipulative trading almost always occurs with these pumps.

Also, not sure why you think there will be another double from here when the stock has already more than doubled. The higher this goes, the more dangerous it becomes to be long.

You didn't answer my question. Who cares who is trading the stock? He is posting important facts that anyone thinking about buying this stock should know. Do you have a problem with that? If so, why?

Bomb is posting important facts about this stock. Do you have an issue with someone posting important facts about this stock?

If you made money on those stocks, then you traded them, you didn't invest in them. Know the difference. Anyone who bought those stocks as investments lost large amounts of money.

That means you're a trader, not an investor.

Note I said smart INVESTORS don't buy pump and dumps. Yeah, sure, you can make money buying pump & dumps as long as you trade them and don't hang around too long.

Smart investors don't buy pump and dumps.

The shares are getting canceled. This filing indicates how they will have convertible notes and rights to the new shares. If you notice they only have a little over 600 common shares, which is hardly anything.

Just saw them do their thing again, coming in with the 100K bid at 0.32, only to see it vanish. Don't have access to my Level 2 right now, was it ETRF again?

As I type this, just saw a 50K bid at 0.3299 but looks like that got taken out

Also notice how each day they dip & rip it in the morning? They'll let it drop and suck in shorts, only to bid it back up and squeeze them out.

These things need to be reported to the SEC. The lack of disclosures, and the inconsistencies between the filings and the newsletters that you point out, are clearly illegal. The fact that the promoters are also the insiders is sketchy too.

Even the price action itself is sketchy....big fake bids that come in to support or drive the price up. Like the big fake bid that came in near the end of the day to push the price back up to .30, and the bid quickly disappeared. I would not be surprised if there are some wash sales going on too.

If anything would be grounds for a trading halt, that would be it. The lack of disclosure here is clearly illegal, especially given that the company insiders and promoters are one and the same. This is clearly nothing more than an insider enrichment scheme.

I know there's been 3 promoters pumping this:

BullinAdvantage
Bluehorseshoestocks
CRWESelect

Seems fragile though. Dropped nearly 50% in less than an hour a few days ago only to bounce back. Spread is terrible at times; would not be surprised to see another 50% rapid haircut in coming days. In fact, if you look at its history of similar runs it has retraced nearly all of its gains within a couple days.

So where's this big squeeze you were predicting? I thought it was "on autopilot to $45". Seems more like on autopilot to under $35.

You do realize that most shorts who were expecting a massive drop on expiration have likely already covered by now, don't you?

Why do you think lockup expirations typically take some time to bounce back? It's because not all the selling is done on the day of expiration. These stocks typically languish around for a while, and sometimes even drift lower. There is even scientific research done on lockup expirations that shows this.

There was selling, although not nearly as much as people anticipated. But there's been obvious selling over the past number of days (it's not like everyone sells on the lockup expiration day) too which is why the stock has not squeezed past 40 as you thought it would. This is again typical behavior of lockup expirations...they often do not bounce right back...they'll languish around for a while after the lockup expiration.

Of course, whether this goes up or down from now on, I don't care. I covered my short on the lockup expiration day with a nice profit, and I'm done with this stock now. I won't touch it short or long; the edge on it is gone now.

Huh? Where would you get that idea? I was short because one of my trading strategies is shorting bloated IPO lockup expirations. That's why I gave you so many examples of past ones...all were ones that I shorted. I had been watching SCTY for a short long before any Seeking Alpha or Copperfield report. I always begin my lockup expiration shorts 3 weeks out frome expiration (although start my planning and entry strategies before then...I had SCTY on my watchlist a month before I started my short entry).



I made a killing shorting this. I'm curious what your definition of "crushed" is.



You do realize that the GS financing news in May was not new news, right? That loan had been set up a long time ago. Even the GS analysts were scratching their heads as to why people got all excited about it in May...it was just a restatement of old news.



There was not a massive drop, but there has still been sufficient selling to prevent any squeeze. And if you recall correctly, I had predicted that this would end up in the mid to low 30's at lockup expiration when it was still trading in the high 40's, so my prediction was right on.

June expiration. No, I haven't studied the option chain. I'm out all of my SCTY positions on June 11th. I always exit my positions the day of lockup expiration. Whatever happens to SCTY after that, I don't care.

Of course they don't have to sell. But it is HIGHLY PROBABLE that they will sell some. That is my point. I deal in probabilities, not possibilities. I have a 100% winning trade rate when shorting IPO lockup expirations that meet the following criteria:

1. Unprofitable or P/E of 100+
2. Insiders up 50%+ from IPO price
3. Float at least doubles upon lockup expiration

I've been short from 50, and have slowly added as lockup expiration comes closer. I also have 37.5 puts and 40 puts.

Again, we're talking about probabilities here. Given the circumstances it is highly probable that there will be some selling. And even if there isn't, there is the perception that there will be (which is why all of these expirations drift lower heading into expiration).

Yes, FB went higher, but you keep missing the point. FB is not a good comparison to SCTY. It did not have the massive increase in float that SCTY will, and insiders were not up sufficiently to encourage profit taking. All the stocks I mentioned before are much more similar comparisons, and all of them dropped at lockup expy.

Facebook IPO holders weren't up 500%+ on their initial investment.

Remember this analysis I made here:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=88340478

comparing SCTY to similar low float IPO's where insiders were up huge on an unprofitable company, and a massive lockup expiration was coming.

SCTY is acting in the exact same manner as all of these other stocks I mentioned. I even made this statement:

"It is very likely this stock fades below $40 before the expiration even hits, and falls further into the mid to even low $30's upon lockup expiration."

My prediction is coming true nearly to a T. And if I recall correctly you seemed to imply that SCTY would somehow be different from all those other lockup expirations. It's not.

Actually if he was smart he would take some off the table after such a parabolic run, which was partly fueled due to a short squeeze and low float. This means the run is not sustainable. Plus, if you're 500%+ up on your initial investment you certainly are smart to take some off the table, as no one can predict the future.

There is no Apple deal. That is a fabrication to pump the stock price.

I'd be a rich man if I had a dollar for every time I heard a pump n dump was "in a deal" or in merger talks with a big company.

It's called wash sales. That's how APS fools you into thinking there's more interest in the stock then there really is. It's also how they help keep it supported while they keep slowly liquidating their positions.