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.
You got it HhH. Matt's "business" model is to get clicks by allowing touts to sit around jacking each other off and to convince the advertisers that the circle jerk represents a valuable market.
IHUB: Where cults can thrive unimpeded by dissent and where scruples can be bought. Cheap.
Wow, Matt even tolerates setting up a board for the solicitation of investment in unregistered securities.
It and you are reported to the SEC, Matt. Now that you are on notice you can't claim the passive publisher defense.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=4315
Gee, Matt, why isn't this offensive personal attack removed? But consistency never was your strong point, was it?
Posted by: Mariner*
In reply to: Sec 10 who wrote msg# 73786 Date:10/7/2005 6:08:12 PM
Post #of 73795
Apparently "YOU" don't get it suckwad. It's not about anyone but "YOU" and until you get that point screwed into your furry brain you will have multiple problems here up to and including your ass getting fried.
Come clean and "BEG" for forgiveness and "Maybe" you will be allowed to stay....Maybe....
But I wouldn't push the maybe, baby...
Well, matt, if the last admonishment is any indication, then you are just playing games:
you don't get it do you?
Message:
Hector-tell me how you short a ten cent stock, and what the margin requirements are to do that.
Be specific. Or maybe you are simply making crap up.
Because, moneymade, you are the token stock pimping scammer that Matt chose to jail to maintain some aura of fairness.
When did your IDWS contract run out? BTW, you got scammed on your fee for that one.
Maybe the sauce will do it, dig. But I doubt it. Matt's vested interest is maintaining a bias toward the pump and dump pros. He seems to consider it a jailing offense to reveal that the CEO of a public company had multiple felony charges resulting in fifteen years probation.
Who would have thunk it. Particularly when said CEO is actively pimping his company's stock on the IDWS board.
Good move, matt. Suck up to the criminal 17-b felon running this scam.]
Idiot. But that is your business model, right?
I called the guy a crook, because he is a crook Matt. I PM'd you the information rather than post it.
Gray market, billy, remember? There is a retail seller for every buyer.
Indeed, billy. Looks like a lot of the stucks want out badly.
Tavy-you do understand the root of the various sheis comments, don't you?
Reawwy, chrissie? Then why aren't they renewing claims.
You've been revoked, BTW. And with no SHO, there is no naked short.
Please, humblepie, that is one of the oldest and stalest message board myths in the books.
Why did the company lie about the battcave acquisition, humble? And the 500,000 ad's? Why is the TA gagged, humble?
Gump-trust me. You would cross the street to avoid Willy the Scum.
Because, gump, it's the only song for which there exists any evidence or logical underpinning.
Your theory of a multi agency conspiracy to conceal a "naked short" in a sub-penny scam is ludicrous on its face.
Nonsense, AlanC. Like all of your purported "naked short" plays, this is a rapidly diluting scam with management determined to hide all relevant information from investors.
The battcave "acquisition" for example has been conclusively proven to have been a lie, as has the claim of "500,000 ads".
Tos'd for cheap Sunday morning grubbing!!
Well, tavy, perhaps because there is no way to "hide" the mythical NSS. All transactions show up on the TA records that Pedro posted from exhibit 14 of the SEC revocation hearing.
If a company has a significant short-naked or covered-then the TA records will reflect more outstanding shares than the authorized shares. The TA records didn't reflect that.
Not to mention that the mechanics and economics of establishing a "naked short" on a sub-sub-penny stock with no MM's makes the entire concept laughable. The only way to believe in a naked short in this stock is to simply discard all reference to reason, logic, and market mechanics.
Thanks, TSX. Always good to learn something!!
LOL, TSX. By unserveyed I assume that even the basic geophysical work wasn't done.
Right, jimmy. You picked the two accounts out of the underperforming dogs that did well.
Real-I'm not sure I completely understand your question, but the criteria for making the SHO list is fails of one half of one percent of the OS.
It's a very low bar, and CMKX doesn't reach it.
Nonsense, jimmy. Those particular annuities have vastly underperformed the market for years. There is no way you are getting your stated yields, particularly after the criminal 2.5% "management" fees they sock you with.
Did you ever e-mail pink sheets, nufced? Any response?
Really, jimmy? How much do you stand to lose in CMKX?
Pretty close, Nufced. But I handle it much better:)
Because, jimmy, as an insider he is required to make a filing if he acquires or disposes of a single share. To assume that he is invested is to conclude that he is violating SEC rules.
Is that what you are claiming?
Jimmy-Maheu filed that he owns zero shares in the company. That indicates to me that he has zero faith in its viability.
What do you think?
Jimmy-I still say it doesn't exist in any meaningful way. The data clearly show that virtually all fails on exchange stocks are due to options MM hedging, or people clinging to antiquated trading with certificates.
No, jimmy, frizzy has not proved a huge naked short. Let me tell you why:
His logic is faulty in extrapolating his biased sample to the universe of accounts-many of which probably hold zero shares at this point-. It is a statistically invalid argument on his part, and is not acceptable as "evidence".
CMKX is not on the SHO list, blowing Frizzy out of the water immediately.
Frizzy understands nothing about markets. Prior to the suspension CMKX traded as a one legged pink, with no registered MM's trading for their own account. To posit as Frizzy has that there is a huge naked short is to assert that retail traders somehow were able to find brokers who allowed them to short the stock without a locate and continue to fail to deliver. That is an assumption so absurd as to be laughable.
To believe in a naked short one must assume that:
MM's illegally took trading positions in CMKX and held them open as fails without their compliance officers taking note of it.
Broker dealers for thousands of accounts tolerated fails in those accounts.
The NSCC conspired to cover up evidence of these fails in order to avoid reporting CMKX as a SHO threshold security.
The SEC and dozens or hundreds of broker dealers were complicit in this cover up.
I frankly don't think that scenario is likely, do you?
Fung-Frizzy's logic is like using the IQ's of the twenty advanced honors students in a thousand person high school, and "extrapolating" that data to the remaining 980 students.
Maybe my caffine fix hasn't kicked in yet, nufced. I have no idea what your question means, and consequently cannot answer it.
Tavy-he is certainly providing stale numbers. The most obvious error he is making, however, is extrapolating from a group of motivated stockholders to the population of accounts. It is an absurd assumption on its face, and when coupled with the failure of CMKX to be on the SHO list makes him look like the opportunistic clown he is.
SHO is working, Christopher Robin, as you would understand if you bothered to check the data. Fails to deliver as a percentage of market volume have declined by 50% since it was implemented, and the dollar volume of fails on any given day has gone to $2 billion from $3 billion. OTC stocks that make the SHO list are generally zero volume shells, with none of the vocal naked short companies like Valinoti's JAGH showing up. No duh.
SHO reliably indicates stocks with threshold fails, although it is actually biased toward over-inclusion on OTC stocks because they are generally diluting rapidly and SHO is using a stale OS for the threshold calculation.
Have you read Sho, Chrissie? It doesn't force closeouts in threshold stocks, it simply prevents future short sales by the failing seller's account. Closeouts are, of still available as they always were by request of the contra to the seller. Under those procedures the NSCC will enter the market, buy the shares for delivery, and charge the seller.
In most cases that doesn't happen, because most fails are at the broker dealer level and result from options MM hedging, and not at the retail account level where fails are so rare as to be virtually non-existent. From a broker dealers perspective they could give a skit less, as long as the contra is adequately capitalized.
CMKX isn't on the SHO list, Christopher Robin. It never has been, and anyone claiming a massive naked short in a one legged pink stock that never closed above .001 has a major misunderstanding of how the market works.
And you've already been revoked.
It's a guy thing, janice. Like the hemi cuda I had back in the 70's. Wouldn't stop or corner, but damn it could run in a straight line.
Nonsense, billy. You do understand that a share can trade more than once, don't you?
Do the math, billy. The volume represents one seventh of one percent of the OS. That is to say, it's illiquid.
Fung-when do you want your ham sandwich and ripple?
Humble-is this your and patrick's first attempt to run a pump and dump? There are a lot of things you need to learn.
And what statute would make that statement illegal, humble pie?