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.
I think you are still fooling yourself to some extent.
An old friend who sometimes visits this board (for entertainment purposes) wanted to point out another is the long list of absurdities associated with that PR.
Who are those guys pretending to represent the tribes of Canada?
Wrong again.
It can't.
Come on, you are too smart to buy into that fallacy.
I think you are fooling yourself if you believe that you can sell your shares whenever you want to.
Don't you suspect who that 'one man' is?
I'm afraid I can't follow your logic.
The writing is on the wall and as the potential consequences become more evident the prudent are doing their best to back away from the target.
Some have disappeared completely, some have become will o' wisps rarely raising their heads before hiding again and some try their best to rewrite history to divorce themselves from the game.
It will be very interesting to see which strategies are successful and which ones fail.
The shares aren't Newton shares, they are RCCH shares and he certainly knows what those are worth.
He obviously has enough faith in himself to think he can carry off this charade. LOL
I don't think so.
Castell,
Consider other alternatives that have nothing to do with a 'run' or anything to do with the RCCH share price.
As the end game nears and there is regulatory writing on the wall from DTC activity and SEC actions, it becomes clearer to some that they may be carrying a certain level of liability for their previous contributions. It might therefore seem prudent to include a few 'disclaimer like' bits of advice in the record.
I'm not saying this is the case, I am merely suggesting that all things are not necessarily what they seem to be.
regards,
frog
Hardly.
All what share?
Missing the point again? Is that a coincidence or a pattern?
Interesting example of selective logic.
You argue that even though there is a (allegedly) huge supply of RCCH shares, a very small demand (as forced by the lack of participating brokers) causes excessive fluctuations in the share price.
I wonder why you don't consider the FACT that the vast majority of those 10 billion shares reside in accounts at the non-participating brokers, thereby severely restricting the virtual float and increasing the volatility proportionally.
If you want to apply logic to an argument, you must do it across the board, not in a selective manner that supports your preconceived conclusion.
Absolutely correct.
Did you?
I think you misunderstand the concept of settling.
That is interesting.
I know you aren't going to use a statement like that to try to make a point about proper English grammar.
My apologies, I now understand your position. You have stated more than once that 'sole subsidiary' means the same as 'sole' owner'. Since most of us know that a subsidiary and an owner are two distinct and separate entities it stands to reason that there is room for confusion on this point. Obviously in normal usage the terms are not interchangeable. However, given your obvious intimate familiarity with RCCH and the the known fact that all of the recent acquisitions are merely inventions of the owner it is an arguable premise that the 'owner' and the 'subsidiary' are the exact same entity. Making your argument, if not correct, at least understandable. LOL
Wrong again. Are you taking language lessons from Newton?
Adjust them again.
It isn't about the number of subsidiaries that exist.
I love all the various and sundry gimmicks that are used by different folks to build their belief structures on. This is a good one not normally trotted out.
No need to bother.
Can't help but notice that you haven't provided one.
Full credit for effort but I'm afraid there is no points for substance.
I argued that no one would be stupid enough to 'short' a stock at .0001 because there would always be the risk of covering and since the price could go no lower there would be zero profit although there would be huge risks. No profit, huge risk equals a stupid move.
You counter with the strawman argument that if the shorters forced a bankruptcy that would negate the stock and free the shorters from covering.
Please explain how the manipulation of a stock price could induce bankruptcy?
Bankruptcy results from an entity not being able to meet its liabilities with the assets it has available. Those a purely business related factors that have nothing to do with the stock price. Unless a company is relying on the sale of shares to fund its operations and has a significant amount of debt, bankruptcy is not on the table.
Are you suggesting that RCCH has no assets?
Are you suggesting that RCCH is reliant on the sale of its shares to meet its obligations?
Or are you grasping at straws to try to support the naked short fantasy?
You didn't read my post.
Naked shorters have absolutely no interest in a .0001 stock for the simple reason that there is no margin for profit.
OK.
That was a very nice try at sounding reasonable but it lacked any foundation for what you tried to build.
While you cited certain published statements in each case your interpretations were based on nothing but your own internal belief structure and were completely unsupported by facts.
He doesn't have apologists or enablers, he has multiple aliases.
He's not hiding, he is right here among us. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out who he is. LOL
That is exactly how real companies deal with false statements about them.
Unfortunately the prosecution of a defamation suite requires that the company prove the claims made by those people are false. RCCH does not have that option since all claims made regarding scams and crooked management cannot be proven false due to the fact that they are 'provably' true.
For those of you unfamiliar with the 'accumulation' metric who might think that a positive accumulation is a good thing, let me explain.
Accumulation is a measure of whether there is buying pressure or selling pressure on a stock based on the difference between the number of shares sold and the number of shares bought during a particular interval. If there are more shares bought by investors from MMs than there are shares sold by investors, then there is a positive accumulation. Inversely if there are more shares being sold by investors to MMs than there are shares being bought then the accumulation indicator is negative. In the normal behavior of 'normal' stock the accumulation indicator will move in cycles based on the performance of the company and the interest of investors and can be used as a gauge of potential performance.
Unfortunately there are conditions that can affect the accumulation measurement in ways that completely destroy its viability. RCCH is one of those examples. If a stock price declines to the point that there is no bid then regardless of investor sentiment there can be no selling of shares by disgruntled shareholders to the MMs. So even though they might wish to sell, they cannot. If the only possible transaction available to shareholders is a buy shares from the MMs then regardless of how little buying occurs, there will be a positive accumulation number. In fact it will approach infinity based on there being zero shares in the denominator of the equation.
As your elementary school math teacher explained to you years ago it is impossible to divide by zero because the answer is nonsensical. That is what is occurring here. Whenever there is no bid the accumulation index skyrockets. Only those who are trying to sell you something (RCCH shares) will try to convince you that such behavior is positive.
Of course you would. What people want to believe will always trump facts and common sense.