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.
With all due respect, that is a very poor excuse and quite frankly, you as a shareholder deserve much more from your management team.
Industry Guide 7 does not define resources but it does define reserves.
http://web.cim.org/standards/documents/Block474_Doc32.pdf
NI 43-101 defers to CIM
http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/documents/en/Securities-Category4/rule_20051007_43-101_sd-mineral-projects.pdf
http://web.cim.org/UserFiles/File/CIM_DEFINITON_STANDARDS_Nov_2010.pdf
CIM defines a reserve as:
Their use of the word "reserves" is troubling.
I don't even know where to begin. I guess this is why mining scams rake in so much money.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=89183154
I couldn't agree more.
In which publication does it specifically prohibit the use of visual observation to classify resources?
Could you please provide a link? I'm sure it will cut down on my questions in the future.
TIA
I figured as much, just wanted your expert opinion.
I don't suppose this matters to the shareholders who are enthralled with the latest update and the prospect of what some MDMN faithful are calling "billions in high grade copper".
1MB,
Latest from MDMN. What concerns me about this one is the following quote from their shareholder update.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=89155229
Here is a google search which lists some of those.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Dr.+Decosta+SEC&gbv=2&oq=Dr.+Decosta+SEC&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3...241.3331.0.4860.15.14.0.0.0.0.350.2394.2-9j1.10.0...0.0...1ac.1.15.heirloom-hp.k7Zk5rYOT2w
Lets be clear before we begin debating NSS, he is clearly talking about "micro-cap companies" (read: pinks, OTC, etc.) and not listed companies on major exchanges.
As per iHub TOU:
Given that I was once fleeced by the pink sheet dream, I can provide a bit of insight.
What the insiders and frontloaders NEVER reveal to the rubes/marks/morons is that not reporting to the SEC is a huge red flag, probably the largest of them all. Some people will raise the issue but they are immediately drowned out by NSS conspiracy theories, wild screeds about NITE and the evil games MMs play, the threat of being labeled a basher, the "no one bashes a bad stock" mantra, SEC and hedge fund collaboration...need I go on?
Once the mark accepts that there are "much more intelligent people" on the iHub board that have been doing this for years, they cling to the dream of untold wealth, the mythical short squeeze, the billions of gold in the ground, whales who will come in and buy, hedge funds going bankrupt...need I go on?
The mark then internalizes all the above reasons for staying in the stock and begins to spout them on the board. The job of the insider is done; they leave it to the marks to do their dirty work while they concentrate on selling as much as possible. Each rise in SP is obvious proof of the mark's decision and is greeted with more pumping to induce others to buy. Each drop in price is greeted as a "time to average down". I believe that deep down inside, the marks begin to understand that they are being scammed but their desire to fit in and not get thrown out of the club suppresses their gut feelings.
As the price begins to decline, some (like myself) begin to listen to the "evil bashers" and do their own research . As you can imagine, a little digging is all it takes to confirm the "gut feeling". Others prefer to stay in the club and continue supressing what they know is the truth. Those who choose to be vocal about the fraud, scams and outright theft in the pink sheet market are quickly excommunicated from the club and called all sorts of names. Rest assured, there are many more people who either stay in and continue to strive for te elusive "multi-bagger" or lose it all and give up. I would venture to say that very few stick around after admitting they were scammed. It is tough to admit when you are wrong and even tougher to take the abuse from those who used to call you a friend. I stick around because I think I would be doing people a disservice if I didn't. The average person who stumbles into the pink sheet cesspool deserves the right to know what they are getting into. I refuse to sit idly by and watch others get scammed in the same way I did.
I write all this from personal experience. The moment I started questioning MDMN, I was banned from every forum (excluding iHub) that discussed the stock. Bottom line, the questions I was asking were correct and over a year later, I was proven right. That unassailable fact is completely lost on the MDMN pumpers, supporters and insiders. I'm a basher...if that means I help people not get scammed by obvious fraud, then I wear that label like a badge of honor.
Finally, the oft used excuse of "don't buy into a pink sheet stock if you can't take/appreciate the risk/reward" sickens me. We know pink sheets are ultra-high risk but that does not allow those involved/invested in them to slough off the fraud as "risk". Outright fraud and theft is not risk, it is crime that should not be allowed to occur. Insiders who lie to pump up their stock should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as should those who enable them. I am sick of hearing how operating in an area filled with fraud is simple "risk" and if you can't take it, then you shouldn't play. I suppose by that logic, we should all become drug dealers but hey, if you can't appreciate the risk, maybe being a drug dealer isn't for you.
PINK SHEET fraud is wrong - the SEC should shut down the entire market. Give companies 6 months to either file the required paperwork or the SEC suspends trading in your stock until you can. F*** the "shoestring" budgets and "poor broke management teams just trying to get a fledgling business off the ground"; enough is enough and it is high time the SEC acted!
/rant off
The gentleman who posts these long, incredibly boring screeds engages in sophistry of the worst kind.
Thanks for once again confirming that lots of technical mumbo-jumbo coupled with various references to securities regulation do not make a company legitimate.
24 years and counting for this long con. Sure has been fun to follow.
As an aside, another one of their purported deals on an ancillary property just fell through. As you said, none of what anyone says can be verified because MDMN thumbs their noses at securities regulation and prefers to keep everyone in the dark about what is really going on.
FYI, I discussed the subject of Dr. DeCosta with iHub admin awhile ago. Because he has a paper posted on the "official" MDMN website which is often referenced, he and his comments are fair game. I would liken his status as a subject of discussion to Les, JJ or Greg Chapin.
Credit Bald Eagle with this compilation of epic failure on the part of MDMN.
"Medinah is now in a position to provide clear and decisive title opinions to major investors with whom Juan José Quijano is negotiating. We are moving steadily ahead in these negotiations and as soon as we are able and free from any confidentiality restraints, Management will report developments on the joint venturing of the project properties. " 6/2005
"Please allow me to assure you that we are all working to the best of our abilities to conclude a meaningful Joint Venture Agreement with a group of the major parties interested in our properties. Each day the demands placed upon major resource companies adds value and negotiating power to our position. We will reach our goals" 12/2006
"During this negotiation period, Company Management progressed through a list of terms and conditions requisite to finalizing a Joint Venture/Purchase Agreement with major partners on the Company’s Alto de Lipangue project. Several issues required Company Management’s input to bring the contracts to a final stage. Mandates were placed that Medinah Minerals (Chile) acquire outstanding claims, not currently held but associated with the Alto de Lipange holdings, and clear all final encumbrances. Each of these matters was completed to the satisfaction of the Joint Venture partners. Management is still bound by Non-Disclosure Agreements that are in place applicable to these negotiations and therefore Management cannot divulge any new information. However, we are now at the stage where unless something unforeseen occurs among the parties, there will be no further changes made and no untoward time delays in completing an Agreement and releasing the details publicly." 12/2007
"There remain several entities that we continue to meet with, each offering different opportunities for Medinah, but we are concentrating in closing and finalizing with the group we feel would be most advantageous to us in the immediate future and in the longer-term development. This has been a long and arduous series of negotiations, but we are well represented to complete a Joint Venture participation agreement very rapidly." 7/2008
"Since the first week of October, the weather has steadily improved and the roads appear to have survived the winter in relatively good repair. Our Company President/CEO, Juan José Quijano, continues every effort and means to finalize a Joint Venture Agreement for the Alto de Lipangue property. Señor Quijano will soon provide an updated progress report on immediate past and forthcoming activities." 11/2009
"But, in summation, we were finally able, through multiple meetings with a Major group, to secure a “signed and acceptable offer sheet” outlining their entire proposal to Medinah Minerals, Inc. Their actions and performance in accordance with their offer will be detailed as we move through the overall staged process with the clear understanding that we are under Non- Disclosure mandates. We feel we have real value potential, but until we have the check and “it clears” we will continue to exhaust every effort to secure contingency offers." 3/2010
To illustrate absurdity.
Their financials equate to a bunch of numbers on an excel spreadsheet that not a single competent person verifies. People can chose to believe them but given the gagged transfer agent and past history, I don't think the company is interested in becoming more transparent with any of their dealings.
We've had the discussion concerning the 15c2-11. You are correct, it is a form filled out my MM's to quote a security. MDMN continues to file "COMPANY INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Rule 15c2-11(a)(5)." I believe the reason they do this is because paragraph (5) states: "The following information, which shall be reasonably current in relation to the day the quotation is submitted and which the broker or dealer shall make reasonably available upon request to any person expressing an interest in a proposed transaction in the security with such broker or dealer:" It then goes on to list a myriad of items which I won't post but I have provided the link.
I think the "make reasonably available" statement is what they are keying in on. MDMN think this provides them some legitimacy but since there is no need to verify any of the information they submit because they are a non-filer, the long form they file really isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
http://www.huntlawgrp.com/sec-law/finra-form-15c2-11-filings
http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=MDMN&id=101077
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.15c2-11
Latest from Leslie Price. Question 6 addresses your concerns.
I failrly certain I did via the website contact.
But just to be sure, I will send them the suggestion again today.
Shareholders seemed to have some luck when they sent the strongly worded letter to management during the waning days of the Ulander/Amarant deal. If they plan on sending more communiques to the BOD, maybe this suggestion could be included as well.
MDMN has been trying to close a deal for 24 years and have thus far has failed in every way. I think MDMN owes it to the shareholders to have a transparent share structure and audited financials. Some of you have been hanging on for decades; I think you deserve something for your dedication regardless of a revenue stream. Although apparently the dilution revenue stream hasn't dried up.
But since MDMN isn't willing to incur the expense of filing some simple forms and auditing their financials I'll give them a suggestion. MDMN won't owe me a dime for this one so rest assured, I won't send them the bill.
Ungag the TA. A no-cost action that provides some limited transparency.
Surely the company should at least do this.
Lets start with audited financials.
http://www.thebusinessowner.com/business-guidance/accounting/2009/07/should-you-pay-for-audited-financial-statements
I don't think the shareholders want to hear the answer to your question. It can't be a money issue given the jetsetting and dilution that has occurred for years. I'd like to hear MDMN's response to your question in their next Q&A.
The going excuse seems to be that all these behind the scenes wheelings and dealings by Les, JJ and who knows who else are so complicated that the average shareholder can't begin to figure them out. I never thought insulting shareholder intelligence was a good strategy but apparently some folks invested in this play seem to think it is.
1MB, this post is a bit lengthy. Could you please comment on the references this poster makes to 10b5-1 plans, rule 144 and the debt conversions by insiders? Thanks.
I'm going to assume he meant 1999 instead of 1989. But if he did mean 1989, we are going to have to shift from "14 years of failed deals" to "24 years of failed deals". With that being said, a shareholder on the other forum did state that he had been in MDMN for 18.5 years so 1989 may be correct.
24 years of failed deals and people still think this is a good investment? Yowza.
This is attributed to Leslie Price.
LOL point taken.
LOL, good points.
Les and JJ weren't that old when this whole saga started but 18 years later, I can see why you wouldn't want to put your faith in their abilities.
Claro sounds like a great choice though.
I wonder how much they pay the guy to transpose numbers from a non-reporting company into a "format"? Why can't Les and JJ just do this themselves? Last I checked, MS Excel was fairly easy to use and you can do all kinds of whiz-bang and neato things with it.
Thanks. I suppose 30% is the going rate to explore a property in Chile.
If you correctly assume that the initial $1 million is spent, wouldn't it be fair to assume that they are looking for new sources of funding? Have you and other shareholders approached the company and asked to become partners in the deal? I think that would be a win-win for the company; new revenue and new partners interested in proving up the property. It would also give you more of a say in the project then simply owning shares of MDMN. Might be an avenue worth pursuing. I'd be interested to know what the response from the company was to new "venture capitalists" wanting to get in on the ground floor.
I think that it would be of great interest to shareholders how the contract for the 30% FCI was written. Given that private entities are financing this operation, I think it is safe to assume that they are going to want to be paid back before anyone else along with interest and profits. After all, they took all the risk right? So what happens if after all the bills are paid and they either break even or never hit their profit target as specified in the contract? Does MDMN still receive the 30% FCI? I can't imagine that any "venture capitalist" would agree to having an entity get 30% of the proceeds who put up 0% of the risk before they (the venture capitalist) is fully paid back with profit and interest.
It would make no sense to me if I wrote a check for $1,000,000 and then when profits started rolling in, MDMN got 30% of them before I was even paid back. If I was writing the checks, I'd want my $1,000,000 back with profit and interest before MDMN got 1 dime.
I'm obviously speculating here because no one (except for the financiers) are privy to the contract, but wouldn't this type of agreement, albeit it simplistic, make perfect sense? Put yourself in the venture capitalists shoes...
Final question: MDMN has zero risk in this project. So why were they given a 30% FCI? What do the venture capitalists have to gain by giving away 30%? They are in it to make money and this certainly doesn't seem like a very good deal for them.
I am assuming because that is all I or anyone can do with MDMN. They do not file any paperwork with the SEC which presents a problem for investors and for people in the mining industry who may be interested in their story.
MDMN should open their books, pay an accountant to audit them and release the findings good, bad or ugly. Doing this would give the shareholders a place to start and would at least shed some light on the share structure. Remember, the TA is gagged and refers all questions concerning the issuance of shares to MDMN. Ungagging the TA would be a huge step in the right direction. So why doesn't MDMN do that? As far as I know, it costs $0 to make a phone call and tell the TA to release the share structure to interested parties.
How about paying a "qualified person" and a reputable drilling company to conduct a legitimate study of part of the property? Good grief, how much money was spent jetsetting from Canada to Chile to New York to Sweden on the Amarant deal? How much money are those dinners costing MDMN shareholders in Santiago as Les and JJ wine and dine the prospective suitors for "Partner C" negotiations? How about taking that money and paying for a drill program? How about getting the "ore stockpile" properly assayed and shipped to the nearest mill? What is so difficult about these suggestions? Why is is it so incredibly hard for MDMN management to complete these basic tasks? I don't think I'm asking for anything out of the ordinary.
I got one more for them after they ungag the TA; every time they want to issue shares for something, put it to a shareholder vote. Shareholders have been sticking with this company for decades, isn't it time they had a voice?
MDMN has no revenue in spite of the apparent "mountain" of ore they have stockpiled. Shareholders have been trying to get management to ship it to Enami or some other mill but as of today, various challenges have prevented MDMN from accomplishing this task. Rumor is that the mountain road is being worked on with heavy equipment and that "blasting" is occuring.
I assume that the miners/workers stockpiling this ore, working on the road and continueing to the drive the adit into the side of the mountain are not working for free. I also have to assume that JJ, Les and the rest of the crew are not shelling out money from their own pockets to travel to various places aroud the globe to negotiate deals. But if they are, I assume they are keeping careful expense reports and will be expecting the company to reimburse them if/when MDMN begins to turn a profit.
So as MDMN continues to pile up expenses with no revenues, it appears that issuing shares is how they are paying for said expenses. If there is another way I'm not addressing, please enlighten me. I know many fledgling companies dilute to raise capital for ongoing operations but MDMN has been doing this for 16 years and coming up empty. When will the shareholders stand up and say enough is enough?
It only closed down 2.65% today on 1.7 million shares traded.
Right now, shareholders are waiting for an LOI or MOU from the most recent meetings in Chile and I believe JJ is flying to Europe for more meetings.
Flying from Santiago to Paris and booking 3 weeks out is $2115.60; first or business class is $9329.70.
http://www.delta.com/booking/findFlights.do#top
At the closing price today, assuming JJ is flying to Paris (who knows where he is actually going to, I just picked a big city), his economy ticket cost 64,110 shares. If he wants to fly first or business class, it cost 282,719 shares.
MDMN traded 1,724,622 shares today or just over 6 first class tickets. Just some perspective on dilution.
I believe they mentioned in a shareholder update awhile back that they were actively looking for a CEO. I wonder what happened to the search.
JJ certainly hasn't been a poster child for negotiating deals. Up until this point, he seems to pick the worst of breed and the purported deals all seem to fall through. Will this new LOI/MOU hunt finally yield a deal that MDMN will consummate? Stay tuned...but I wouldn't hold my breath.
The admittance of gross incompetence was pretty hilarious. I'm sure they will blame it on the nuances of Chilean mining law and an onnerous tax code but you can't help but laugh. I understand taxes can be mind-numbing and complex but did they ever think to higher a reputable CPA or tax attorney to help them when they offered to take over the taxes? What was JJ thinking letting Les and Gordon (a couple of Canadians) handle Chilean his taxes?
I thought the whole interpol thing was a bit of a stretch. I've sent them an email and I'll report back with the answer to my question.
Here is something for you to chew on. Latest comments from Les Price in the form of a Q&A between him and a presumed shareholder. He likes to write in all caps which doesn't allow spellcheck to function properly so you will have to excuse the misspellings and grammar mistakes.
A comment Les had made earlier:
"IN MY OPINION THE COMOPANY NEEDS A WORKING CEO TO ALLIEVATE THE MANY TASKS OF GREG AND TO ASSIST IN SUCH MATTERS AS THE MARKT REPONSES ETC ON A PROFESSIONAL BASIS."
Question: I know you said you were just musing, but it is an interesting answer. Hope you don't regret saying it.
Answer: NO I WAS SERIOUS WITH THE LDM CHILE COMING ON SIDE WITH CASH FLOW REVENUES, THE GROTH OF MEDINAH IN OTHER PROPERTIES, THE ADDITIONIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE CHORES WITH THE 15 C 12 11 AND THE REORTING OF EVENTS TO SHAREHOLDERS THE WORK LOAD THAT GREG IS CARRING IS EXTENSIVE.
Juan José Quijano Fernández - President/CEO and Board Chairman
Gregory A. Chapin - Secretary/Treasurer
Kyle R. Kirkland - Director
Michael Thomas - Advisor to the Board of Directors
Question: You are saying that it would be best if Medinah Minerals Inc, had it's own CEO. If that were true, would that mean that JJ would voluntarily divest himself of his office as President/CEO/ and Board Chairman and Medinah Minerals N.A. would have our own CEO?
Answer: JUAN WOULD BE PLEASED TO LEAVE THE CEO RESPONABILITY SO HE COULD BE FREER TO NEGOTIATE DEASL ETC RATHER THAN BE INVOLVED IN ADMINISTRATION
Question: This is a personal opinion question. Do you think it would be in Medinah Minerals NA best interest if JJ were not part in any way of our corporate structure? In other words, in my opinion, as I said, I think it is a conflict of interest for JJ to try and represent his company which is privately owned and them try to represent the thousands of shareholders of Medinah Minerals Inc. Our needs as shareholders differ somewhat from those who constitue Medinah Chile.
Answer: THIS IS NOT PRACDTICAL AS YOU MUST REMBER JUAN AND HIS FAMILY OWN HALF OF THE ALTO THRO MEDINAH CHILE, AND QLUITE FRANDLY, WITHOUT HIM THERE WOULD BE NO MEDINAH SURVISING. JUST THINK OF THE TASK OF ADMINISTRATING THE TITLES TO 1508 CCLAIMS. HE PAYS THE TAXES EVERY YEAR. ONE YEAR GORDON AND I GOT THE BRIGHT IDEA WE COULD DO THAT AND SET ABOUT. AT THE END OF OUR MEDDLING WE ALMOST LOST SERERAL KEY CLAIMS, CMIXED UP THE TAXES ON OTHERS AND AT THE END OF THE DAY WENT BACK TO JUNA AN SAID WE MESSED UP CAN YOU COME BACK AND FIX IT FOR US. SINCE THEN I DON’T HAVE TO WORRY AS EVERYTHING IS TAKEN CARE OF PROPERLY. NONE OF THE SHAREHOLDERS HAVE ANY IDEAA OF WHAT A TASK THAT IS AS AN EXAMPLE, MEDINAH GOLD HAS A SMALL 6 CLALIM GROUP IN CHILE AND THE MONTHLY ADMINISTRATION FEE TO KEEK THAT UP IS $2300 AS WELL AS THE TAX BILL IN EXCESS OF ///////$6000.
Question: Why was it necessary to form a private company (Medinah Chile and Medinah NA)?
Answer: ALL SHAREHOLDERS OF A CDOMPPANY OWNING PROERTIES IN CHILE MUST GO THRO AN INTERPOL EXAMINATION FOR ANY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. COULD LYOU IMAGINE THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO INVESTIGATE 6000 MEDINAH SHAREHOLDERS, LET ALONE THE PROBLELM IF SOME OF THEM HAD CRIMINAL RECORDS. THEREFORE COMPANIES SET UP SUBS LIKE MEDINAH CHILE TO OPERATE AND IN OUR CASE LARRY REGIS AND MYSELF WENT THEO THE INTERPOL EXAMINATION AND WERE CLEARED TO DO BUSINESS IN CHILE. RECENTLY GREG CHAPIN ALSO GOT CLEARED.
Question: Since we (Medinah Minerals, Inc) owns 51% of Medinah Chile, why is it that when Greg goes to Chile during the time of recent negotiations with prospective partners, he only comes as a guest of Medinah Chile? Does his position as Sec/Trea of Medinah NA not give him any standing in negotiations since actually we own 51% of Medinah Chile?
Answer: NO OBVIOUY NOTHING IS DONE WITHOUT HIS APPROVALS AND THAT IS COVERED IN DIRECTORS RESOLUTION OF MEDNAH. BUT HE HAS NO SIGNATORY AUTHORITY.
Question: Who are the board members of Medinah Chile?
Answer: JUNA JOSE AND MYSELF
Question: Are any of JJ family members on the board of Medinah Chile?
Answer: No answer.
Those comments were paraphrases of comments from what is affectionately known as the "MDMN treehouse" board or alternate forum.
Mr. Les Price has told several people that heavy equipment is working on an access road to or through MDMN's property. There is also rumors of "blasting" and of course the obligatory continuation of ore stockpiling.
It took Noah 400 years to build his ark but he turned out to be right. Maybe it will take 400 years to stockpile all the ore but in the end MDMN will be right. Of course people lived longer back then so I don't know if it matters much. When it is my time to go, I want to be cremated and have my ashes scattered on the ore stockpile because I'm fairly positive in 40 to 50 years, it won't have moved.
Mike,
In spite of what others may say about me, I don't have an agenda at all. I follow MDMN because it is an interesting story and I enjoy doing my own research. Call it hobby. I don't put money in pink sheet stocks no matter how compelling the story is or how much they are hyped.
I don't know if the property holds any value. All I have to go on is what little exploration the company has done. None of that exploration has been done by a professional geologist or someone who would qualify as a "qualified person". None of the information they have presented in their shareholder communications has been verified by a third party nor has it been presented in a professional manner. I know of no sample "chain of custody" nor do I know if the samples were taken in a systematic manner because the company has never released this information. At this point, the burden of proof rest squarely on the shoulders of MDMN. To ask shareholders or potential investors to believe what the company has presented in terms of sampling/exploration is absurd given that they have failed to perform either of these two tasks in ways the mining industry would consider acceptable or legitimate.
As far as I am concerned, JJ is a liability to the company but since he isn't going anywhere, MDMN is stuck with him come what may.
I've done enough research any feel very comfortable in my conclusions concerning MDMN. I suppose I could be wrong and if I am, so be it. I don't begrudge anyone their millions if MDMN hits it big and I'm on the sidelines - an event like that will only serve to refine my DD skills. But I have received enough information from reputable sources to be confident. If you chose to remain in MDMN, that is your choice and as you say, nothing on any board will dissuade you from that decision.
As always, civilized banter is much better than the alternative. Hey, even us "animals" can discuss a stock in a rational manner.
JP1101
I contacted an individual who did walk the property and meet with JJ around 5 years ago. He was not a "qualified person", just an investor like most people here. I trust this person (no it isn't JR Lopehandia) and have no reason to believe that what they were telling me was a lie. Based on their findings from the property and from the meeting with JJ, they sold the entire balance of their shares after the initial Partner A pump. I unloaded my entire position. I reentered two more times (chalk those up to greed) and exited after the AGM in Vegas when the price spiked above .17 I continued to do research and did not like what I found which is why I exited after the AGM. In hindsight, I should never have reentered because everything that the individual told me was 100% correct but like I said, I was greedy.
I don't expect you to believe a word of what I write. This is a message board and people lie all the time. I have brokerage records to prove that I sold everything and own no shares. You can take my words and do with them what you will but suffice it to say, history has thus far proven me the wiser one for selling and not holding. The choice is yours.
Hopefully once they get through the pink sheet corpses they will start crushing the live ones. Sure the dead ones can be hyjacked but the live ones are where the public is losing money everyday.
I'd be interested to know what the criteria was for suspension of trading. Some of these garbage pink sheet stocks trade a lot volume each day. Is it possible that the SEC would suspend a pink sheet stock that has decent trading volume simply because they don't file any paperwork? If they are suspending non-filing pinks regardless of volume and who aren't under investigation, then they may be in the beginning stages of shutting down the whole pink sheet fraud sewer.