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.
OOOOOK
Sometimes I think that some people here shouldn't be speculating.
Low float means that there are only a few shares in public hands that can be traded. The lower the float, the greater effect of (any) earnings will be on earnings per share. This is a two-edged sword as when there are less shares to trade, the stocks tend to be more volatile - both up and down. Generally though, the lower the float the better (IMHO) since if there is any demand for the stock, the resultant move can be large.
Caveats: 1) significant earnings with a pink sheet stock are rare; 2) pink sheets are notorious for diluting the share base by selling more shares into the market at any time to raise cash; 3) the actual "float" is frequently hard to verify - even if you call the company or the transfer agent; and 4) no, it doesn't necessarily mean that the stock will go up
I agree with the 2 cent max. Was hoping for more but trying to be realistic with 1.3M shares,
Looks like there may be some life here. New clinical study started 12/14. Nice to NOT see a flat line stock price after so much time.
HDSS: I asked that question a few days ago on why there was a post at $1 (thinking that it was a misquote or someone trading without knowing what was going on). Someone on this board looked up the trading and responded that only a few 100 shares traded there and immediately went back toward the lows of the day (I don't have the data). So I assume it was a market maker taking advantage of an uninformed buyer (my opinion) . I am personally disregarding that piece of the chart for my chart analysis work.
Deaf: This is my opinion only (and I'll probably get laughed it for posting it): I expect SSPTD to open between .0065-.007, then pull back to .005-.0054 before resuming the charge higher. I won't be surprised to see a quote somewhere over .02 tomorrow (.05 Wednesday).
Looking for a "final target" in the .15 range (my gut feel) but short covering may drive it higher.
We are in uncharted waters here so anything is possible. Again, these are my opinions and they are what I am basing my personal trading strategy on. If you trade these prices and they don't work for you, don't blame me.
If anyone is going to criticize, go ahead. I won't be responding.
Position: 995,000 at .0019
4 billion (4,000,000,000) divided by 100 = 40 million (40,000,000) !!!
The math errors on this board are just unbelievable!!!!
Apparently, Cassandra has never heard of trading in "when issued" shares or else he wouldn't post:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO, trading of the stock prior to full implementation of the R/S with the issuance of post R/S shares to all pre R/S holders may also be a violation of SEC and possibly criminal law. IMO it is fraud.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Press Release of a R/S stock from May this year. Several interesting things highlighted in bold (authorized shares not changed, convertibles adjusted for reverse stock split):
GoldSpring, Inc. Announces Shareholder Approval of 1:200 Reverse Stock Split
VIRGINIA CITY, Nev., May 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- GoldSpring, Inc. ("GoldSpring" or the "Company")(OTC Bulletin Board: GSPG) announced today that it has received stockholder approval to effect a one-for-two hundred reverse stock split of its common stock, whereby each block of two hundred shares of common stock registered in the name of each stockholder on the applicable record date of the reverse stock split will be converted into one share of the Company's common stock. The reverse stock split was approved by the Company's stockholders pursuant to a written consent in lieu of a special meeting of the stockholders ("Written Consent") solicited under a Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A ("Proxy Statement"), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on March 24, 2010. Over 91% of the written consents received were voted in favor of the reverse stock split, with less than 8% of the written consents cast against.
... (non-relevant paragraphs removed)....
The reverse stock split will reduce the number of issued shares of the Company's common stock but will not affect the number of authorized shares. Upon the effective date of the reverse stock split, every two hundred shares of issued and outstanding common stock will automatically be combined into one issued and outstanding share of common stock. Any fractional shares resulting from the reverse stock split will be rounded up to the next nearest whole share. The reverse stock split would not affect any stockholder's percentage ownership interests in the Company or proportionate voting power, except to the extent that interests in fractional shares would be rounded up to the nearest whole share. Outstanding stock incentive awards and other convertible securities will also be adjusted to give effect to the reverse stock split and the shares available for future grants will be proportionately reduced. Corporate Stock Transfer, the Company's stock transfer agent, will provide instructions to stockholders relating to the issuance of book-entry evidence of ownership giving effect to the reverse stock split and to the issuance of new stock certificates. Shares held as part of the DTC System will be automatically adjusted on the same basis. As of March 1, 2010, the record date for the Written Consent, the Company had 3,741,616,736 shares of common stock outstanding. After giving effect to the reverse stock split, the Company expects to have approximately 18,708,084 shares outstanding.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/goldspring-inc-announces-shareholder-approval-of-1200-reverse-stock-split-93096584.html
No one said that the preferred shares split. What is being said is that the conversion rate of the preferred changes when the underlying common into which it can convert changes.
If the conversion rate of the convertible preferreds is NOT linked to the underlying common shares, this would be counter to every other company's procedure in doing splits (and what happens to option strike prices when the underlying stock splits).
Could you please provide a link to support your position?
Either they change the conversion rate (from 1000: to 10:1) and leave the # of preferreds the same at 2,500,000
OR
they reduce the # of preferreds to 25,000 and leave the conversion rate at (1000:1).
Either way, they convert into 25,000,000 new shares.
I've posted this info several times. The preferreds are convertible and would be subject to the same R/S rules on the common. Therefore, the 2,500,000 total preferred shares (which would have converted to 2,500,000,000 shares of the old CUSIP number) will now convert to 25,000,000 of the new shares. That's still a lot but doesn't explain the 400M share volume Friday.
My opinion remains that the preferreds aren't the reason for the current situation. I do believe that numerous brokerage houses have screwed up (not E-trade by the way) and that a large number of shares have been mistakenly sold. I also believe that there is professional shorting going on but can't prove that.
Brick and Cassandra have not addressed in their discussion that the preferreds would need their conversion ratio changed too, and I believe it to be far more realistic than their scenario.
Always entertaining to read a post from someone who doesn't have a clue what is going on and posts a brilliant comment.
FYI, they did a R/S.
They were before the reverse split. However, since this is a convertible preferred, the conversion ratio should now be 10 common shares for one preferred. This would follow standard practice for splits or reverse splits for all companies (same with option price adjustments following a split).
My opinion is that his convertible preferreds would have a changed conversion ratio associated with the reverse split of the common. Therefore, his 1,250,000 preferred shares would now be convertible into 12,500,000 common (not 1.25B)
Stervc: Thanks for your response. I agree that there could be some behind the scenes activity that may have happened. My personal opinion is that it was either people selling shares they shouldn't (and their broker let them) or professional shorters trying to drive the price down. Agree with all the short info you posted.
Still personally don't think it involved the preferreds at all - but as you mentioned, "who knows".
As far as price projections, if there is a 100x price change here, that could indicate something around .15/share sometime during the week. If shorters have to seriously cover, look out above.
(BTW, I'm of the opinion that some of the shorters probably didn't know they were shorting. However, they will still have to pay the piper. If there are bashers Monday, I would expect them to be the professionals, not the inadvertent shorters. The brokerage shorters will be at the mercy of the margin department which will take action immediately when the position threatens their total account equity - likely will buy to cover at the market for those poor souls.)
GL to all
It may be because your sell price is "too far" from the current price. I have run into that before.
But E-trade has a "call in to sell" restriction currently on SSPTD.
Stervc: You said: 'instead ”shorted” against those converted preferred shares. I think the CEO is expecting for those culprits to get margin calls'.
According to the annual disclosure, all the preferred shares are held by the two officers of SSPTD - 1,250,000 shares each. They wouldn't be selling the converted preferred shares.
From the annual disclosure:
Brian P. Barrett, President and CEO
Business address: 19420 Golf Vista Plaza #330, Leesburg, VA 20176
Employment history / Board Memberships & other affiliations: Brian Barrett is a founder and key
player in the development of GuestMetrics and was a founding Partner in WorldTek, LLC with
responsibility for all sales, marketing and recruiting efforts.
Compensation by the issuer: Salary is $250,000 annually
Number, Class & Percentage of Outstanding Shares of the Issuers Securities Beneficially Owned:
Person Named above owns 0 shares of common stock and 1,250,000 Preferred Series A.
Same share posting for Tammy, the other officer.
Re the ATT preferred stock - if it wasn't convertible into common, no big deal. If it was, I believe they would have to change the ratio (just like a warrant in the old days). In the case of SPPDT, they have to change the ratio of the preferreds when they did the reverse split (IMHO).
Thank you. That is just as I suspected. A couple of "misinformed" trades at the open, which really screwed up the graph.
Thanks.
I will diasagree again. While the company does not "own" the shares, the preferreds will all convert into the current schedule. If ALL shares are going to have a reverse split, the preferreds will also be affected. No ifs, ands, or buts.
To do otherwise would be a major scam.
It is my understanding (and belief) that when the corporate share ownership is changed, it affects all derivatives of the basic shares (think options here when there's a split). This argument may not cover bonds, which are company liabilities - but that's not a consideration here.
If the preferred owners are converting at the old rate and selling them now, they are in the same boat as all the other brokerage sellers who sold the old shares.
I disagree. The preferred shares MUST be convert now into new shares at the same rate as the split. When the preferreds were issued, they were convertible into old CUSIP shares. With the reverse split, they MUST change the ratio to convert into new shares.
Otherwise, this would be a scam every issuer would use. :>)
I thought the same as BRICK at first, until I realized that the preferred conversion could only apply to the old shares. So instead of 2,500,000 preferreds that could be converted into 1000x old shares (= 2,500,000,000 old shares), they would now have to convert into just 10x the new shares (= 25,000,000 new shares). That's still a lot of shares but wouldn't explain the 400M volume Friday. Just my humble opinion.
I've been looking at that chart too and I think (IMHO) it may have been either a mis-posted price or someone who didn't understand what was going on and bought at an unreasonable price (maybe a market order with an unscrupulous market maker - nah, that wouldn't happen).
Can anyone get the trades for that day? Looks like 11/18.
Dan: Read the last 400 posts here and you will have a clue.
Gorilla's last post is the most interesting post (of many) on this crazy situation.
So what are the likely scenarios from here? Please take a shot at would could, and couldn't, happen in the Monday-Wednesday timeframe. Is $1 a share on 500 million short out of a float of 170M conceivable? How about a trading halt? And where can I buy those liquor pouches? (I need one now!)
For the record, long 995K shares at .0019
When in doubt, sell half your postion. You'll be half right and half wrong, but happier than if you hold 'til zero.
Well, here's yet another possibility. Because there are limited restrictions on short selling, the former owner could be shorting "against the box".
Let's say the restricted shares become unrestricted some time soon. He could sell currently tradeable shares with a plan to deliver his currently restricted shares after they become unrestricted. He would be capitalizing on today's "high prices", knowing what adding 2 billion shares will do to the float when they become unrestricted.
Again, this is speculation on my part. But it a possibility that shouldn't be discounted and is NOT in conflict with the latest statement from the company about the number of shares that are in the float.
I am suspicious that the former owner is selling what were "restricted shares". There "may" have been a clause that says that shares become "unrestricted" on a change of ownership.
If that is true (and I'm speculating here), then the new owners screwed up in not knowing that fact before or during their buyout.
Interesting that the response by the company included the line "there has been no dilution by current management of the Company". Almost seems that the sentence has been very carefully worded.
I won't be surprised if the above is correct. The previous owner had over 2 Billion shares. If he sold those at an average of .0015, he would pocket about $3 million dollars, which is much more than current worth of the company. The dilution would remain on all current shareholders.
Just trying to make sense of what's going on. I'm long 300K shares.
Are they selling shares - or driving the price down to BUY a lot of shares on the cheap?
If the latter, I would expect a major announcement / stock promotion in the coming days.