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.
Why don't you email your suggestion to the company --- and let us know what the response is?!
Have a nice --- "one"!
LOL!!!
Who would put up some 250,000.00 to 'short'
--- NAKED SHORT --- pinkies???!!!
MM 'shorting' is not at issue here.
Of course DIE-lution IS "a solution"!
It may not be popular with the share-holders ---
BUT IT IS "A SOLUTION"!!!
Isn't it?!
Have a nice --- "one"!
This is NOT a --- "Dog and Pony show" move!
I am NOT an 'attorney' --- BUT:
1. Cheaper to get a "dismissal" up front.
2. If the opposing party has no 'jurisdiction' ---
"standing" --- to proceed, why give it to him/her?!
3. So!: It's NOT a question of arguing "the merits"
at this point --- it's a question of "proceedure"!
The issue raised is valid --- whether the stock
is up or not!:
Was "insider info" being non-appropriately divulged!?
And, if so: The company should also look into it!
When THAT occurs --- YOU'LL BE DE-"LIVERED"!!!
("SAVED"???!!!)
(RE-"DEEMED"!!!???)
e = m * c squared ???!!!
(The 'Theory of Relativity'!!!???)
I didn't know that weeks have more than one --- 'Tuesday'!!!???
"Revenues" and "Cash" are NOT the same thing!
Increasing "Sales"/"Revenues" is normally called "growth"
--- but it all goes to "Receivables" and is NOT "cash"
until "collected"!
Sometimes it is more "profitable" to stop or slow "Sales"
until (a large portion of) the "Receivables" are collected.
On top of that, "Gross Profit" and "Net Profit" must be
factored in in truly looking at "growth".
Have a nice --- "one"!
'now invest'!:
'Ravttheman' is effectively saying that
IF "YOU" call that "PROMPT(LY)" --- the
stock could rise significantly!
SOOOOO: CALL IT "PROMPT" --- it might
go to .10!!!
Do it NOOOOOWWW!!!
Have a nice --- "one"!!!
How about simply tell it like it is?!:
"Deployable Waste-to-Energy Unit"
or similar.
AFTER "...the final testing of the DGU is completed" can 'we' THEN "...put the cart before the horse..."!!!???
Have a nice --- "one"!
For CRQE/EWRL this is NOT "naked shorting" --- rather MM's
trading to 'make a market'.
As I've posted before, to "naked short" OTC stocks REQUIRES
LARGE COLLATERAL!
I think that if you "look at" the past --- there were many factors that surfaced and created "difficulties", draining time energy, and resources.
And these "difficulties" were sir-"mounted"!!! NOOOOO bankruptcy, in spite of PRE-"dictions"!
NOW!: IF they don't get "the right permits" --- the gendarmes will shut down that lemon-'aide' stand! They would lose before thay got "out-of-the-gate"! (Haven't you "seen" on the Inter-Net where little children are shut down on their front side-walks due to not having some 'city permit'??!!)
'Mickey': You and others want "poifection" --- and, as I've noted in the past, Eric is a "Market-Tear" and he's often going to make us "cry".
Yes!: Of course it would be "nice" if the SP was at least 2.00 per share --- but RE-"lax" --- SAVE "THE UL-SIRS"!!!
Have a nice --- "one"!!!
Edit:
P.S. How can they make anyone any "money" --- IT'S ALL 'FIAT'!!! (And I'm not talking about cars!)
What does: "...floates the shares..." --- mean?!
Then who "wrote" and "posted" # 27211 (to which I replied) ???!!!
IF you have asked your broker --- why don't you lay out the question(s) and answer(s) on the board?
However --- you show the WRONG question!:
1. As you noted in a subsequent post, one must have
a "margin account" for the "trade".
2. The "cost" will be certain 'standard commissions'.
3. BUT MAKE SURE THAT THE BROKER TELLS YOU HOW MUCH
"COLLATERAL" YOU MUST PUT UP IN ADDITION TO ANY-
THING ELSE IN ORDER TO MAKE THE TRADE.
(THAT'S "THE REAL QUESTION"!)
4. And/Or re-"search" through the SEC Rules and Regs
and "see" what you come up with.
Have a nice --- "one"!
P.S. I remember years ago when I was in public accounting
that it was brought to our attention that someone had asked
his 'accountant' how long he had to hold a stock in order
to gat capital/long-term gains".
Yhe 'answer' that he got was "six months" ["the minimum"
back then].
The person sold the stock ON the sixth month end --- and
at tax time he could onlt take it as a "short-term" trade.
The "answer" should have been: "Six months plus one day"
or "At least six months".
Specificity is "the key"!
Whaddaya mean?!: "One step at a time".
How can I "leap tall buildings with a single bound" if I'm
allowed ONLY "one step at a time"?!
EACH "LEAP" IS AT LEAST "A THOUSAND STEPS"!
I guess that I have to leave my "red cape" in the closet
--- again.
Yeppp!!!
REAL RANK "PAGAN" --- "BLASPHEMIES"!!!
When you say: "Cost to short is irrelevant" --- if you mean the "collateral" needed in order to "short"/"naked short" penny stocks --- then it is very relevant!
"Naked shorting" of penny stocks requires about 250,000.00 of "collateral" being tied up to make (possibly) 300.00 to 500.00 --- and no "sane" person is going to do that!
I'm not referring to MM trades, and related.
You're over-simplifying the 'attorneys play-ground'!
Even that's based on 'law'-"suits" --- win / lose!
In "basic accounting":
"Cash" and "Profit" are NOT the same thing(s)!
(In "accrual companies" --- which is what most are.)
IF you would like I will post some "accounting
entries" that book "Revenue" --- but NOOOOO "Cash".
Have a nice --- "one"!
Legal action against the auditing firm would be a bad decision
due to the cost, time for resolution, and then (even if a
favorable decision/agreement is reached) collecting/trying to
collect it.
That firm probably has many other complaints against it.
Better to just move forward and report it to the State's
Accountancy Board as well as the National one --- asking for their takes on the matter.
Have a nice --- "one"!!!
Step back and "look at" what Eric has done --- and
has been doing --- over the years, OFTEN WITH VERY
DISAPPOINTING "SET BACKS".
The falling through of the originally thought-to-be
valid 'audits' had to have "churned his guts"!!!
It was ALL SOOOOO "CLOSE"!
And in all of this, he keeps over-coming the obstacles,
moving through frustrations, positioning HHSE (along
with Fred) so that Tom could step into a very important
position, keep us "informed" via well-written, clarifying
Blogs (which "speckulater" keeps posting), and so forth.
This is not even close to doing "justice" to/for Eric
--- AND HIS "TALENTS"!!!
TAKE PURE-"SPECTIVE"!!!
Eric: Don't get an --- ulcer!!!
Have a nice --- "one"!!!
When does 'one' de-cide that "OTC PS companies" are NOT
"a gamble"?
After all: Weren't "AAPL, GE, MSFT and similar...investments"
"OTC PS companies" at some points in their 'lives'?!
Is it when they move out of the "OTC PS" realm?
P.S. They're STILL "gambles" --- even IF 'one' perceives
that "the risk" has dissipated (some-what)!
Those things are your 'personal perspective'!
BUT they don't answer the question as to:
WHEN is it "gambling" v. "investing"!?
Is there a "time frame" difference?
Buying AAPL --- regardless as to which account one may
put it in --- is "gambling" AND an "investment"!
And the same with HHSE!
HHSE may be looked at as more of a "gamble" than AAPL
--- and that may or may not be true --- BUT THEY ARE BOTH
"GAMBLES" AND "INVESTMENTS"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have a nice --- "one"!!!
When "...everyone seems fearful..." ---
ISN'T THAT "THE TIME" TO --- "BUYYYYY"!!!???
There is NOOOOO "differ-ence" between 'gambling' and
'investing'!
It's ALL "time-frames"!!!
Question!:
IF there is a 'difference' ---
WHEN does 'gambling' become 'investing'???!!!
1. One week!?
2. One month!?
3. Six months!?
4. One year!?
5. WHENNNNN???!!!
Have a nice --- "one"!!!
Please clarify this:
HOW is Eric 'shorting'???!!!
Same answer as in post #26115 --- including:
Have a nice --- "one"!
I understood points 1 and 2 to be the situation where you had your shares --- that they were NOT in the "street name"; and THAT is what I responded to.
I am well-aware of what you noted as to the broker holding the shares for you.
Did we miss-"read" each other?!
Have a nice --- "one"!
Your points 1 and 2 are not valid --- be-the-cause:
Within "the "system", the counting agency "knows" who are "the
registered shareholders" --- and can track them via its response
form(s).
I'm looking forward to your inputs.
Not true!
What you mean by 'traders' --- they still need to know
company info to "trade", whether short- or long-term.
I'm not making up any 'definitions' --- just suggesting to
"read" what the words "REAL"LY and "TRUE"LY say.
You're AB-SOOOOO-LUTE-LY correct!
The debate is "silly" --- be-the-cause:
What you say applies to BOTH "traders" AND "investors":
1. "Investors" buy/sell based on price action!
2. "Traders" using a short period of time to determine
"price"/"value".
NOOOOO "DIFFER-ENCE"!!!
Regardless as to 'mind sets'.
Hey 'BB':
What does the last phrase (REALLY) mean?!
And is that "short-term" or "long-term"??
(And for 'takeses' purposes?)
(Hehe! Hehe!! Hehe!!!)
If you have 'gains' --- that may be true. But that --- and 20-20 hind-sight --- don't change the REAL meanings of the words.
While you're in 'the heat of the battle', to "trade"/"invest" short-term or long-term can be a rough decision --- and to take "profits" now, rather than wait for an UN-certain 'future' can be "wise".
(Realizing that "long-term" for 'takeses' is OVER one year. So, again, 'long-term' for an "investor"/"trader" may be three months, six months, ..., but for 'takeses purposes' it's over one year.)
If your 'style' is to "trade"/"invest" over 24 - 72 hours --- rather than over 6+ months --- (or vice versa,) you're still BOTH a "trader"/"investor" under BOTH (and ALL other) scenarios. (Are you not!?)
There's a lot of double-talk that goes around as to what the words 'investor' and 'trader' mean --- but they are really both the same:
If I buy/sell over say 6 months, am I a 'trader' or an 'invester'?
If I buy/sell over 24 to 72 hours, am I a 'trader' or an 'invester'?
In both en-"samples" I'm BOTH --- "time frames" don't REALLY make a difference, do they!!??
(Never mind 'politically correct' uses of the terminology. Usually what's 'politically correct' is ACTUALLY "WRONG"!)
Someone who (foolishly) put in a "market order".
NEVER use "market orders" in the "pinks"!