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.
Absolutely - he had spunk, and heart (no pun intended)and was someone who decided what he wanted and the created it. He was an inspiration and will be missed. The news would have put me off of my trading too.
My guess: a very, very large container of helium. You don't actually spray it, you just hold it.
Jim, unless things have changed, and they might have, there is always a delay in the report, usually one month. For example, you'll get the short interest report for April in May. And I agree, it would be better to have a report without a lag.
The report is for short interest "as of" a certain date; on such and such a date, there was X number of shares short.
There is always a lag in the report, so you can never find out what the short interest is right now.
You are correct, they will not be reporting short interest earlier than July for any stock.
All? Beats me. I can only tell you about the deals I've either seen up close or personally been involved in. I've seen BB deals that were straight up...but only a handful. I've never seen a pinkie that I would buy.
I understand. Surely you realize that your post contains all the things you are objecting to about other people that post messages here, right?
See, I already know that it doesn't matter how many times someone tells you they have no "secret agenda" or "ulterior motive", you've already made up your mind. I answered your question, and you still "doubt" and "wonder". Touts do that.
Pinkies (and their related microcosmic caps) exist for only two reasons:
1. the company can't get listed on the OTCBB or the NASDAQ (not the hardest thing to do)
2. the company has no intention of getting listed
There are lots of real, actual reasons for 1. and 2. Many of those reasons are either unethical or criminal or both.
Let me put it to you this way: if someone...anyone...on a message board could "scare" you into selling this stock (for whatever reason), then your criteria for owning the stock are probably very distorted.
Or maybe this: if I point out to you that your "investment" in this company is akin to playing against a professional con artist in a crap game in the back room of some bar you've never been to before, you have the right to call it "distort[ing]" your view...but that has nothing to do with the fact that your view was distorted in the first place.
Also, it would help your case if you could refrain from generalities and exaggerations.
Could someone enlighten me?
Certainly, at least for me. It's entertaining.
All of this is extremely entertaining, at least for those of us who have a lot of experience in the stock market. I don't mean to imply that you don't...I just mean that watching people tout a useless POS penny stock and then suggest that everyone who sees the scam (and it's not hard to see if you know how these things work) is mentally unstable is extremely entertaining.
Yes, I know Janis and most of the other people you call "bashers". Janis and I, and lots of others, were around the boards before the term "basher" was coined, before IHub existed and before RB existed, and probably before anyone who actually owns this stock knew how to place an order to buy it. We have watched dozens and dozens of laughable companies selling laughable stocks come and go.
Some years back there was a really funny one, I don't even recall the name of it but it was a Y2K software/kitty litter deal. YES! Y2K software and kitty litter, represented by (if memory serves) a felon with a very nasty history, whose posts on SI are still remembered with fondness as the most psychotic ever written. So far, that is...
Now before your fingers get cramps with some sort of lame personal attack on me (or my alias, which is what you would call a joke), make sure you have your facts straight, OK? Nobody pays me to post here and I can assure you that I am not mentally unstable. As a matter of fact, in addition to being able to see a crap penny stock scam, I can recognize paid touts quite quickly.
LOL! Thanks for the chuckle.
The first thing that caught my attention was "Prime Wire"...which I have never heard of. I did a quick search and still couldn't find any press release company with that name.
You're right, it looks illegal for sure.
Although charts on microscopic caps such as this one are notoriously hard to read, this one is a classic short signal. It's going down, not up.
Nonsense.
What's a walla retro-active reverse split?
It appears that they don't know that brokerages short millions of shares of stock every day.
Speaking of not understanding, I just chanced upon a new twist to my absolute favorite stock scam of all time. Unfortunately I don't remember what it was called, but guess what!
The idea is ALIVE!
http://www.timetravelfund.com/
Here's another good one...
http://www.steelcitysfinest.com/hondaaccordad.htm
Sorry, I guess I'm new and I have no idea what you are talking about.
Could you explain, maybe with some examples?
I don't recall ever making a post about naked shorting, but I will now.
I find it very, very difficult to believe that anyone would be dumb enough to short this stock naked, even if they knew how to do it.
correct
Not to mention violating my cousin's intergalactic trademark...
Last I heard, a dealer had to have an inventory, or he would be shorting.
You don't suppose he's reading the share price as 2000.0, do you?
I hope not.
Yah. And frankly, it looks like the supply has been transferred to the demand, eh? <G>
Actually that's not totally accurate. There are two sides to every trade, one buyer and one seller. So to describe it as "more selling than buying" is not precise.
A better way to say it would be "When sellers are willing to sell at the bid and buyers are unwilling to buy at the bid, the price goes down. When buyers are willing to buy at the ask and sellers are unwilling to sell at the ask, the price goes up."
Wow. That made me laugh out loud.
Generally, the price goes down because the sellers are done selling and the buyers are done buying at the higher price. Supply has outstripped demand.
By the way, "oem" stands for "original equipment manufacturer", and is used to describe the manufacturer of parts (automobile, aircraft, etc.) that were manufactured by their company and then marketed by another different company.
What you are probably wanting to put at the end of your messages is "eom", or "end of message".
price the same I see.
No, I think I read the quote correctly..
Then multiply 34.5 times 40 billion...
Actually, I disagree. It appears to me that there is a veritible plethora of zeros available (potentially).
I edited it, thanks for the side check.
...Debeers places a value of 40 to 80 billion on their 58,000 acres. If we assume CMKM owns 2 million acres divided by 58,000 acres, the result is 34.5 rounded. Then multiply 34.5 times 40 billion and the result...1.38 trillion dollars. Coincidence? The industry and the market is willing to bestow the lower end of Debeers estimate on their acreage to CMKM.
I want to make sure I got this math right.
The assertion here is that DeBeers owns 58,000 acres of land that is worth 40 to 80 billion dollars US per acre. I divide the real estate owned by the largest diamond mining company in the world (in business for around 150 years if memory serves, and which happens to have started mining in Canada's Northwest Territories in 2000 after a lengthy and expensive analysis of where they might find diamonds in Canada) by 2,000,000, the number of acres owned by CMKM. (I can't confirm the real estate holdings, but I'll go with your number.) Then I multiply by 40 billion dollars, meaning that CMKM's real estate is about the same value per acre as DeBeers, and I get 1.38 trillion dollars US.
Did I get that right?
I have a confusion.
It looks to me like you didn't factor DeBeers actual mines, buildings, equipment and other real estate improvements into your equation. I think you should. DeBeers owns several buildings and LOTS of other stuff. They have several thousand employees all over the world, and those people have to go to a building to go to work, right? And the miners, they have to go to an actual mine, with picks and shovels and those miner hats with the lights on them and who knows what all.
Not to mention those big trucks and company cars and stuff, which is not factored in here because that stuff is probably not worth much compared to the 40 billion per acre.
Let's say we give all that extra real estate stuff (meaning it is attached permanently to the ground in some way) a value of $100,000,000. Just thinking out loud here.
Then we multiply that by 40 billion, and we see that your estimate of CMKM's value is quite conservative.
The value should be closer to $4,000,000,000,000,000,000
4 quintillion dollars, U.S.
Divide the number of potential shares of CMKM that could be traded in the next month or two...
(50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
...into that number and you get somewhere near .00004 per share (four hundred thousandths) that the industry and market is willing to bestow upon each share as it were so to speak, which means these shares should go up from where they are now assuming I got your math right.
Correct me if I'm wrong here on the calcs.
does this really happen?
Never in the real world. Often in someone's fantasy.
How MMs conduct business is not difficult to learn. The entire industry is highly regulated. Being a MM costs money, and you've got to have a license even before you start paying to make a market in a stock.
And, while we're on the subject, MMs short stocks all the time. Every day. It's a normal part of the routine.
best laugh all day, thanks~~~
ever seen this?
Section 17 -- Fraudulent Interstate Transactions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Use of interstate commerce for purpose of fraud or deceit
It shall be unlawful for any person in the offer or sale of any securities or any security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [15 USCS § 78c note]) by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly--
to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, or
to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or
to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.
Use of interstate commerce for purpose of offering for sale
It shall be unlawful for any person, by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by the use of the mails, to publish, give publicity to, or circulate any notice, circular, advertisement, newspaper, article, letter, investment service, or communication which, though not purporting to offer a security for sale, describes such security for a consideration received or to be received, directly or indirectly, from an issuer, underwriter, or dealer, without fully disclosing the receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and the amount thereof.
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/33Act/sec17.html
I was kidding. It looks to me like this stock is being crossed in a major way.
Rats. I guess the cheap shares are all gone now.
I'm curious as to why all the trades are going off at the ask, and the ask doesn't change and the bid doesn't go up.
Maybe I need to watch more closely.
Would you mind posting the link to any site that will give the trading volume today?
Thanks
LOL! She's older than she looks.