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.
Can you explain how BTDG has an interets in Real Hip-Hop, direct or indirect ? The filings made by Real Hip-Hop do not show this, and BTDG filings also indicate at best they have $10,000 worth of shares related to Real Hip Hop.
Still accumuation time for Hecla. I do believe they should slowly start increasing their dividend, and do a silver company acquisition. This stock I think wil be a real winner in upcoming years.
Yes but ploy backfired as anyone with any experience in speculating in mining stcks would instantly lose confidence in this stock and in particular this CFO. For me seeing those press releases certainly raised more questions about the CFO. what I find amazing was the rapid defense of the silly references to the NI43-101 reports.Second,for amount of money company needed, why put out press releases that would drive away any serious money ?
Unless CFO was not in control and just following instructions and advice by the convertible debt crowd.
The mill already has a first and second lien against it,not counting the existing judgement against the company,so no value there in a liquidation scenario.
The press releases early in 2013 and the NI43-101 references as you well point out were a result of inexperience on the part of the CFO who thought for some bizarre reason he could ignore the rules and attract serious investment. Actually this dates back to 2011 and 2012,the company clearly didnt follow SEC Guide 7.
The incompetence is shown by the press releases and website which released forecasts absent key information.
However what has been curious for me watching this board and stock for the last year, is how many people posting actually believed the company would be in production last summerOrlast spring fought hard against even discussing the idea of a second reverse.
Even major mining companies are down the last year 35 to 55%, juniors down 80%+, Vancouver companies facing de-listing right left and center. Why did CFO believe non-sensical referencesto NI43-101 would deliver reuslts especially in such a tough environment ?
I would have thought to protect himself or reduce potential SEC problems CFO would de-register. They have already missed their 10q filing as far as I can see,so the convertible debt holders will be out of luck soon anyway. What is there to sue for ? I am curious - do you know any examples where convertible debt holders have thrown money at a lawsuit for a company with no assets ?
Interesting question position of conevrtible debt holders if company ceases to be SEC reporting- does this mean instead of 6 months hold they have 12 month hold ? BUt doesnt this mean that company would need to be "current" in their Pink Sheet filings ?
One of reasons I figrued de-registraton next is CFO doesnt need scrutiny by SEC engineering office in particular.
I wouldnt go so far as to say that any company that takes on convertible debt is a fraud - many companies because of difficulties in placing stock this is a last choice to try to survive. As fars as CGFI it would seem when details of the new lawsuit are disclosed a better judgement can be made.
I still believe cryptic as the basic cause of the lawsuit and company's involvement is unclear.
I dont disagree this coudl be a length process, bur clearly company will need funds for legal fees which add another layer of costs.
The 10q not filed by the 21st, guess question is will they nowde-register the company ?
The filing made by company is very interesting, kind of cryptic wording. If I understand correctly both the officers and company are being sued related to some funding provided- and the liens on the mill on behalf of officers specifically being questioned.
I cant imagine how compay can afford to stay a reporting company in these circumstances for much loger.
any word on second lawsuit details from anyone ?
If the company collapsing in litigation certainly its only asset will be up for grabs amongst the different lien holders, so the company most likely wont own the mill. The company doesn own the miningproperties. There is a global lock and no bid, so who would put money into company in order to follow course of action you appear to recommend-i.e. putting in more money to invest in the mines CGFI had some sort of option on ?
The properties CGFI listed will take a best a few million dllars in drilling even to determine if they should be taken to the next level, let alone costs to do a deal with owners. Why would anyone in their right mind put up millions via CGFI as opposed to starting fresh with a new shell ?
IMHO therefore it deoesnt seem to be any future with CGFI absent a new management team using situation to re-negotiate with everyone, and settle with DTC etc, even then maybe too far gone.
can you please explain how the market cap could increase ?
-no bid
-no trading recently
-a global lock by DTC
-no permit for mill, and lawsuit challenging it seems the liens the officers put on mill
-no funds to complete mining deals which may have all expired by now
-apparently with no bid and no volume one would think the conveertible financing has or is drying up
am i missing something ?
I agree best indicator will be volume and news. I am just am wondering after effort to bring filings up to datewhen they might start. The fact that CEO has specific IR background tells me that he will use that experience to get some movement in the stock. Definitely I think in 2014 we will see some movement in this stock.
I agree it will take a lot higher prices before Silver Valley stocks will jump again. In Vancouver there are more and more juniors getting de-listed. There are lot less Silver Valley stocks now compared to 1999 let alone 1968. Looking at charts 2002-2008 was quite a ride for many of the silver valley stocks.Maybe another year or three when metals heat up again.
I agree with Ryan's contacts and experience SHSH should do something as long as he remains involved.
Ryan been around a while with some ventue working some not, but overall he has experience to do something with Shoshone.
Prior management kept company alive but didnt seem to have strategy to finance and market company, but I think deserve credit for keeping company alive.
Just a sleeper right now, but I cant imagine Ryan got involved for no reason !
When will CEO start promoting the stock ?
Hecla has everything going for it, but perhaps the real gain will be in 2015 or even 2016- and yes I think $7 to $10 per share is a good target.
Growing production, added leverage through exploration potential. This is a very conservative company ,so we will see results only slowly on exploration as they confirm potential.
Silver down but all the long term factors that have driven it up the last 10 years are still there.
I like PAAS too, but Hecla has I think more leverage off this price- and being on NYSE can reach American retail market better when more investors jump on precious metals bandwagon.
Only negatives are- I believe company needs to be more aggressive in three areas (a)raise dividend steadily even if in small amounts (b) they need a Silver acquisition to build market cap to capture more institutional interest (c)re-consider investor relations to build demand better.
You are glad you hold shares of this ? Do you still feel there is some potential ? I note no ask today on price as well as no bid. If i recall it takes 2 market makers to post a bid or ask for price to show up- does this mean because of global lock market makers stopping to take orders on the stock ?
Anyw word on the second lawsuit ? The 10k disclosure a bit cryptic as it isnt clear why company was served.
It is even unclear what the transaction was.BTG seems a bit confused itself. Was it 2,000 shares of RHN or 2,000,000 ? Clearly from the S1 BTDG does not own 10% of RHN.
Per BTDG :
B2 Digital will issue in the name of the Real Hip-Hop Network one
amount of 500,000,000 shares of common restricted stock
in B2 Digital.
SSM Media Ventures will issue in the name of B2 Digital one (1) Certificate in the amount of
2,000,000 shares of common stock in the "Real Hip-Hop Network"
A Share Exchange Agreement (SEA) with SSM Media Ventures. Inc. for 10% of the common stock in "Real Hip-Hop
Network" (RHN) in a SEA for 10% of the common stock in B2 Digital (restricted under Rule 144) has been signed by the President of RHN
Resolution. Under the terms of this SEA B2 Digital will issue 500 million shares of common stock restricted under Rule 144 in B2 Digital.
In exchange for 2,000 shares of common stock in RHN a private held Corporation, a subsidiary of SSM Media Ventures, Inc. a Delaware
Board of Directors accepts a “Share Exchange Agreement with SSM Media (RHN)”. Under the terms of this agreement B2 Digital would
exchange 10%of the ownership in B2 Digital for 10%of the ownership in SSM Media Ventures. Under the terms of this agreement B2 Digital
would issue 500 million shares of B2 Digital restricted Common Stock under Rule 144 for 2,000 share of common stock in RHN a private held
Corporation, a subsidiary of SSM Media Ventures, Inc. a Delaware Corporation. Share Exchange Agreement can be found on.
----I presume this is waht you are referring to. It doesnt state that they are getting 10% of SSM but some shares of RHN.Note these are not even being registered in the S1.
The s-1 shows a share price of $5, so looks like $10,000 value. RHN had 29 million shares outstanding before s-1.
Furthermore looking at RHN financial statements there appears no reference to an investment in BTDG from share issuance.
So I am a bit confused what exactkly is the situation and how BTDG will benefit, though I admit it looks like BTDG may make $10,000.
There is nothing to show definitively that BTDG owns anything of Real Hip Hop. As far as SSM media (a) nothing on BTDG financial statements shows , as they state is "GAAP", that BTDG owns anything of SSM media (b) the filings made by BTDG implies this is the case but it is completely illogical to assume such a merger will happen when it would cost much more to bring BTDG audits up to date and take at least a year if not two, than to just file a new S-1.
There is nothing in Real Hip-Hop filing that I can see that refers to BTDG having 10% ownership interest, or any sort of merger agreement. plus why would they merge when with the s-1 when effective Real Hip Hop would have tradeable shares ?
if BTDG has 10% ownership please show this board where this shows up and provide some sort of rational explanation why on a SEC filing Real Hip Hop doesnt disclose this material issue.
Real Hip Hop filed S-1 that does not show that supposed 10% interest. If you read closely BTDG financial statements it doesnt show there either.
There is nothing that confirms BTDG has a 10% interest.
Over 20% dividend yield, will be pumping oil for another 15 to 20 years, and at a good price on 52 week basis.So we get paid while waiting for any spikes in energy prices. Not a bad gamble
what does this have to do with BTDG ?
Where does Real Hip-Hop filing show BTDG involvement ? I took a quick glance and didnt seel BTDG as a selling shareholder nor over 5% owner,nor any merger agreement.
I didnt know company stated they were in production, which filing are you referring to ? Did you call the company yet ? With your experience it would be interesting what they would say.
You have lots of experience and definite opinions. Why not call the company and let them know your advice.
According to filings officers and directors not really making much and nor have many shares, so it seems they probably would welcome productive advice no ?
You have lots of experience and definite opinions. Why not call the company and let them know your advice.
According to filings officers and directors not really making much and nor have many shares, so it seems they probably would welcome productive advice no ?
Who would take the job ? How would they be compensated ? None of officers or directors seem to be paid much. Just a speculative. sub penny stock
a few comments
- the company has a negative net worth in any bankruptcy scenario, with secured creditors and outstanding judgements : no way I can see shareholders getting a dime.
- the presence of gold and silver doesnt mean it will ever be mined. look a Montanore deposit in Montana, over 150 million ounces of silver and over 1 billion pounds of copper. Yet it has been over 25 years first Noranda and now Mines Management trying to get permits.
- As far as CGFI concerned like many junior speculative companies they used "paper" , options etc, on deals betting they could raiser money to complete. However they marketed themselves unreasonably as a pre production play to novice investors, and overly-hyped themselves to such a degree no serious investor would invest the sums of money they needed. This is why I have questioned from the beginning whether CFO knew what he was doing.
-Then question of SEC due to all the factors already discussed on this board about their press releases, 8k or 10k filings. If this company put in front of SEC engineering office, results will shut it down quickly from being a reporting company.
Hence my question why in face of all this were many investors holding onto production forecasts that had no rational support, or felt unimportant the company disregards SEC Guide 7 and overly-hypes its "NI43101 compliant" reports ( on properties they dont even own).
It is one thing to gample on a sub penny stock for fun, quite another on a company which has been so misleading about portraying themselves as a near term production play. Think I am wrong ? Then why did some posters post recurring forecasts of production at the end of last summer ?
This appears at first glance a typical Chinese reverse merger play- they get listed but dont get the necessary talent in IR and financial reporting. The change in accountants I View as a positive sign, and I suspect we will see over the next 6 months improved performance as they seek to monetize the listing.
New to this board, seems like a good contrarian time to start accuulating this stock.
One thing a quick glance at financials cuaght my attention- the large prepayments for invetory. Can anyone explain why this figure so large.Is thisindirectoy providing financing for vendor ?
The other thing that strikes me is company seems to not have good advising person for strategic financing in sync with strategic investor relations. A company with this sort of revenue in a growing market should be doing better in term of volume and price.
Cant imagine a better and more solid silevr play. Pays reasonable dividend. Silver at $20 .Either economic situation gets worse, inflation kicks in, and metals go backup. Or economies get better and demand for silver as industrial metal gradually pushes prcie up.
Might take a year or two,but this stock IMO will be back over $20 again
Dont know about mining prospects of this company, but insiders seem to be positioning themselves through direct investments in stock at these prices.
Thanks on New Jersey Mining. I just figured on New Jersey since new people putting their own money it might be good for a pop sometime this year. I am just a speculator. My biggest holdings are HL ,PAAS, rest just sheer speculation.
What are your thoughts about Chester Mining ?
Since you know Silver Valley what is your opinion of New Jersey Mining and Chester Mining ?
All I know as a shareholder whatever his faults or strengths the stock went up during his tenure , they did get an operation into production at a profit in Mexico, did ship concentrate from the Sunshine - and after he left company fell apart. Kimberly also made money on, it went up while he was involved too.
I think your main point though is quite valid for a speculative stock like this, not a production play of course ! I admit I never know if people dont like someone or a stock why they dont just sell. Any stock trading under $.05 is just plain gambling.
Due diligence a bit off. De Motte is only a Director of Silverfields not Chairman. Kimberly doesnt exist anymore but he was one of founders- it went from $.05 to over $2 and was if I recall around $.30 when he left.
Sterling a crazy story but fact remains when he became CEO it had $.20 stock price, day he left $2.20. Looking at SEC filings he started with 340 acres of land,no production, no resources, and no employees. By time he left- over 70,000 acres, three operations in production, over 300 employees, and over 275 million ounces of silver resources.After he left company gradually fell apart.Regardless of silly people like Moriarty or Sterling's other board members,kind of hard to argue with that record.Silverminers.com had several articles on that period.Heard the other day the former Sterling operation in Mexico still producing at a profit.
Castle Creek International you mention is not the Castle Creek he was director of. Looking at BTDG filings seems they formed a company with a similar name to mask fact they never completed deal with the other Castle Creek.
Looking at SAGD SEC filings they seem to outline the risks for anyone to read.
Thanks for the DD, doesnt some other company own Kimberly mine now ?
Thanks for posting, weaker silevr gets the better Hecla looks for the future. $3.12 is a steal in my opinion, time to pick up more shares.Growing production,conservatie management, exploration potential, silver price lower thyan it was a eyar ago.
Most investors like to buy high and sell low. So good time to accumulate and wait to sell in a year or two.
It is of course great to not be worried, and I also have no worries about BTDG since I wrote off in my mind years ago.Just out of curiosity,and to be objective, I asked if there was any reason, yes any reason even 1, why anything about this company indicated there was any potential for shareholders ? No one seems to offer any objective reason based on past or current circumstances.
It seems unfair to promote this stock to unsuspecting people without the slightest objective reason why it might be a good speculation, and in fact the level of disclosure is so poor and faulty it is amazing anyone would promote this stock.
Imagine a conversation about this stock :
How is management ?
Management claims diploma mill degrees, and has never generated any profits or sales or firm deals for 3 years.
How is capital structure
Hundreds of millions of shares issued for businesses that either dont exist or had no assets or sales, no bid price for stock so even those with faith unwilling to make an offer for shares.
How are financial statements ?
Completely not in accordance with GAAP, misleading or incomplete disclosure, and show clearly company completely dormant.
Does company have value as shell ?
None- it would cost more just to try to get audited ( if it an be) than to do a new compay from scratch.
Why would this stock go up ?
No one even the 2 promoters of the stock is able to give a single objective reason.
I guess one can say CEOhas kept the stock listed on otcmarkets which is an achievement.
Hah,no I am not a marlet maker nor do I represent one. Just because I question urban legends doesnt mean anything more than as a speculator I try to learn as much as I can.
Here is why changing the CUSIP number works ( restircted stock being issued doesnt effect this). Back in the 60's during the gog-go years physical certificates were still widely used to settle trades. as volume grew this system became very unwieldy and subject to many abuses. So the CEDE/DTC system emerged.
Say a company has 1 million free trading shares, those are in the CEDE inventory. If broker A buys 100,000 shares, and broker B sells 100,000 shares, they both have credit/debit to their accounts via CEDE. No matter what trading activity occurs, the CEDE balance is supposed to balance aganst the CEDE certificates held ,i.e. 1 million shares, which is on the books of the transfer agent of the company.However if the company for example chanegs its name ad requires a new CUSIP number, CEDE has to return "certificates" ( may be book entry which is anotehr matter) to the transfer agent in exchange for the certificates under the new CUSIP number.
The market maker often goes through a clearing agent, or the broker places traade with market maker if they are not market maker themselves, and ultimately through a clearing agent. When Reg SHO/fail to deliver reporting started one of reasons was some market makers did either through error or possibly speculation sell more shares than they brought in. Since the market makers have 3 days to settle all trades, and if I recall they can file for an extension of an additional 7 days, theoretically they could naked short sell during that period. Why wouldnt they ? (a) reduces their net working capital which reduces their ability to trade (b) they take a risk they would have to cover- and frankly most market makers simply not in the business of speculating in stocks, but insetad capturing teh spread and commissions. (c) FNRA the last few years especially since scandals involving purchases/sales on Frankfurt exchange, watches these things much closer and can fine market makers for abuses.
A bigger reason I have hard time believing maked short selling of sub $.05 stocks is CEDE/DTC f they allow an imbalance to occur, where one broker is owed 1.5 million shares for shares he bought but CEDE only has 1.0 million share son hand, CEDE has a liability.You will notice a few years ago CEDE started issuing more DTC chills on stocks- I cant prove it but my impression is one of reasons was to clear out stocks that had potential for abuses whatever the rules were.
I will take a glance at stock you mentioned, but issuing restricted stock normally is done for many reasons- a typical one is to incerase authorized shares so people can fall under the 10% or 5% thresholds ,so they either can sell shares ( as a non control person), or if SEC reporting fall under limits to report their trades.
The example you give is interesting- if a restricted stock dividend made that doesnt effect the cusip number, a cash dividend i know causes havoc if there was a short ( as the cash dividend must be paid on shares that presumably dont exist). Why stock would go up when a restricted stock dividend was declared I dont know the circumstances- coudl be (a) holder of stock about to do a promotion and wanted to sell shares but (b) wanted to keep same ownership so waited until dividend received.
Was that company a reporting company ? Out of interest what made you think the stock was naked shorted ?