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.
They didn't.
To start with a .0001 trade is a 'sell', so nobody 'bought' shares to affect the pps.
Secondly (for those who still don't understand the market) the MM's list their bid and ask prices on Level 2 and ALSO list the number of shares they are willing to buy or sell at those prices.
If the MM has a 'bid' of .0001 and only has a 5000 share limit available at that price, and if the intended purchase is higher than that number the sale will be split between a number of different MMs. The individual transactions can and often are, listed separately.
Additionally those transactions are not always reported at the time of the trade and the report can lag the sale by quite a while. These little transactions occur all the time and provide a huge amount of fodder for the conspiracy theorists, but they have no real meaning to the rational.
There are no financials there will never be any financials, what color is the sky in your world?
Here on earth it only requires a couple of iterations before the boy crying 'wolf' loses his credibility. Here , when RCCH has cried 'wolf' dozens of times it goes beyond lack of trust in the promise and enters the realm of certainty that whatever is promised is guaranteed not to occur.
If Gene says there will be financials then you can take it to the bank that there will not be financials.
You are incorrect.
Long before Gabriel came to DNAG he had a large stake in Biofrontera. Both he and his wife were owners of Biofrontera a long time before the link you have provided.
THe motive is obvious to those who can see the forest and not just focused on a single tree.
The EPA report is a non-issue.
Every system put in the ground since 1980 has met EPA requirements.
The EPA testing and certification program is a best intentioned process that turned out to have no value or application.
All systems are tested and inspected at the local level (county or municipality) and by law all inspection and test criteria have to meet or exceed EPA requirements.
Due to this 'built in' approval process, the EPA testing and certification process has become redundant and unnecessary. For this reason no legitimate wastewater company bothers to obtain the certification.
That IWS did make the effort to obtain the certification is therefore not a positive result, but in fact, points to a questionable motive.
It's called a Global Lock!
Get your cart and horse in the correct order.
You need to be more observant.
Look for the patterns.
Name one company that was the beneficiary of a naked short squeeze. Just one.
I don't want to hear about VW as that was a normal and legal short position not a naked short squeeze.
There has never been a naked short squeeze because there is no such a condition. What amazes me is the gullibility of people who will willingly submit to such a nonsensical scenario. They truly believe that such things occur all the time even though there is not one single instance of a naked short squeeze ever occurring.
Last post of the day, I cannot respond to anything more until tomorrow.
Good day.
Nonsense
Gabriel was an owner of Biofrontera long before he came to DNAPrint, and probably still is.
The entire Biofrontera episode was part of the elaborate scam that Gabriel and Frudakis cooked up together.
That they haven't updated the web site to include Gabriel's "PUBLISHED" resignation from DNAG says more about the quality of Biofrontera than it does about the viability of DNAG.
I'm changing nothing.
You can't even do that.
Castell you really need to try to understand how the market works.
fixedops,
Please understand that I appreciate your position and I am well aware of the limitations imposed by the TOU, however there are built in inconsistencies in those TOU that we would like some guidance on.
Those terms of use were written with the best of intentions and are perfectly amenable to normal stocks. However, and I'm sure you can appreciate the dilemmas that arise, when the stock in question does not obtain revenues or conduct business in a normal fashion.
Under normal circumstances there are no reasons to discuss the various factions of posters, just as the TOU require such topics are off limits. But when the stock in question uses the boards and friendly posters on those boards, (hypothetically of course) to influence other readers, because the sole reason for existence of the company is the extraction of revenues from those investors via the printing and selling of billions of shares, how is that NOT a viable topic of discussion?
The interplay of the various factions and the influence that is derived from that interplay IS the business of the company.
So according to the facts as demonstrated in this post there are 50% more sells than there are buys.
Isn't that pretty much the exact opposite of 'buying pressure'?
Given that there are more people exiting than there are entering, why is there any motivation to increase the bid?
The bid being the ultimate measure of the value of a stock, you can't sell at the 'ask' as everyone knows. All the BS about where the ask is going being nothing but misleading nonsense. Only the bid has any relevance to those wishing to exchange their shares for cash.
If there are more shares being sold at the bid than are being bought at the ask then two things are inevitable. The bid will not increase and if the sales continue to exceed the demand for shares then the bid will go away once the inventories reach their limits.
Unless (and until) the buys exceed the sells this stock is going nowhere.
That is what cellar boxed means.
A stock driven to the bottom so that the profit to the MMs( via the spread) from any buy sell transaction is a minimum of 100%.
A no bid stock is not cellar boxed by definition, although a lot of people misunderstand the usage of the term.
Ideally a stock is bought from investors at the lowest allowable incremental bid (.0001) and then sold at the next increment (.0002) allowing a 100% profit to the MMs.
An 'ask' of .0001 with 'no bid' provides no opportunity for the MMs to make any profit, hence it is not considered 'cellar boxed'.
Please don't mislead.
The bid is not at .0002 it is at .0001, that is all you can sell for at this time.
Anyone telling you different is pulling your chain.
In this market ALL transactions occur between investors and MMs. There are NO investor to investor trades.
You buy from the MMs at the 'ASK' (currently .0002)
You sell to the MMs at the 'BID' (currently .0001)
Those are your only options.
People witnessing trades occurring at .0002 must realize that those are investors buying shares FROM THE MMs at the 'ASK'. They are NOT investors selling their shares.
Believe me, no one likes this current situation better than the MMs they would love for the volume to increase by orders of magnitude here. Their bid and ask under these conditions provides them a 100% profit for every transaction. Since they make all their money from the spread, this is the best set of conditions they can ever get.
If you want to sell and your broker will let you, you can currently get out at .0001. If you want more, you are going to have to take your chances. Given the history of the stock so far, a 'no bid' future seems a little more likely than anything else.
Good Luck.
No they haven't.
Just more misdirection from the gallery.
'BID' means what the MMs will pay. It's not rocket science.
Anyone claiming that they sold at higher than the bid is selling something else. LOL
You understand the bid is only .0001 right?
Everybody does understand it. Only you seem confused.
They don't say what you make them out to say.
There is no DD that shows that Warren Buffett did not give Newton a billion dollars to buy a ten percent share of RCCH. What is your point?
There is no DD that shows that any transaction took place in which RCCH acquired IWS. If you review the financial filings from before and after the imaginary acquisition, you will see that not a single penny changed hands. (Yes there were actual filings occurring in those days).
IWS by the time that they got in bed with RCCH was an empty shell with zero assets. Claude brought it to Newton and they both took it for a spin. The connection was nothing more than an understanding and a mutual enrichment scheme between the two men. No contract, nothing enforceable. When Claude and Newton parted ways there was no 'ownership' to negotiate. IWS belongs lock stock and barrel to Claude Smith. On the bright side, it isn't worth anything anyway.
So regardless of your 'belief', you can find no link to support that RCCH 'owns' IWS. $25 dollar filings before and after the 'split' prove nothing. Not that RCCH ever owned IWS, nor that there is any connection remaining.
That is a nonsensical interpretation.
The email stated that he had just received a congratulatory call from the exchange and the deal was done. Doesn't get more clearly stated than that.
As for the uplist application to the TSX, the process is carved in stone. The first step in the uplist process is the publication of the transaction by the qualified shell in the required forum outlining the entire transaction, financials and everything. No uplist can be accomplished without that first step. There was NEVER a qualifying transaction published regarding RCCH IWS or anything associated with Gene Newton. Proof positive there was no application to the TSX.
I remember them as well as you do. Do your own DD.
Calling a liar and a thief a 'liar' and a 'thief' is not slander. Never has been never will be.
This is an important point for both sides of the aisle both pro and con.
If both sides agree that the web site updates are designed to coincide with specific conditions relevant to the trading activity of the stock in order to influence that activity then what are the ramifications of those actions?
They are clearly blatant attempts to manipulate the trading of the company's stock and are therefore illegal practices, is this actionable behavior? Are there class action litigation opportunities here?
That is quite an admission.
We do know the restrictions........ none.
The entire case brought by the SEC is about the opinions provided by Gendarme's lawyer to the TA resulting in there being no restrictions on the sale of the shares. If Gene had imposed restrictions on the TA, the opinion of the Gendarme lawyer would have no influence.
We do know the deal was toxic.
Selling 2.1 Billion shares into the market at a discount (fact) is the definition of death spiral toxicity. Doing it in a manner that circumvents the 5% reporting requirements is not only toxic it is collusive.
I an surprised that there still seems to be a consensus that Gene alone is responsible for all of the trevails here.
There have been numerous voices that have pitched competing interpretations of the facts, the SEC complaint being the best example.
As the plot has unwound (as predicted by one side of the debate) the other viewpoint has gotten more and more ridiculous.
We have been told over and over that the global lock put in place by the DTCC was not a global lock but was some 'punishment' assigned to specific brokers. No matter how many times explained, the response was the same.
Now that the reality is setting in, why is the ire directed specifically at Gene. He didn't spout such nonsense, he just played games on the website.
How many people here were directed to move their accounts (some at significant cost) to 'good' brokers 'not affected' by the lock?
Who is accepting responsibility for those untruths?
The number is not in dispute, although your estimate of the discount has been refuted by the SEC.
Common sense.
It's 'thin' because most of the billions of available shares are in accounts of brokers who will not trade them. Doesn't anyone understand what is going on.
You yourself are an example of the difficulty of trading this stock and the huge obstacles involved. How many people, besides yourself of course, are willing to pay $75 for the privilege of trading such a sketchy investment and then paying almost $40 bucks a trade? Not to mention being limited to a small fraction of the potential buyers or sellers when you wish to trade?
The touted 'volatility' is just a symptom of the recent market restrictions. If only a small fraction of the investors in a stock and the shares of that stock even have access to the market then it doesn't take much to make it quiver a little bit.
Seriously?
Comes the dawn.....LOL
Both Zecco and Option Express have refused to accept RCCH shares.
Your understanding is wrong.