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.
Let me try to help you understand this one more time.
Unless you worked at the SEC in the department that suspends stocks, you are just guessing what processes they go through to suspend a stock.
The fact is that Congress made laws that allows SEC to make their own rules and regulations allowing the SEC to suspend any stock for almost any reason and they do not have to justify their decision or answer to anyone for their actions.
And why does no one sue them for these sometimes unjustified decisions?
Because it would be futile as the judge would say, sorry, you need to go to Congress and get them to create new laws that protect public companies from this arbitrary practice.
There is no due process of law in the practice of suspending stocks.
Since when did "Concerns" become "for cause". For cause sounds like language used when terminating an employee. You make it sound like a cause of action in a lawsuit. "Concerns" are far less weighty than "probable cause." There is no law suit and as an example of proving that the SEC does not typically suspend for fraud is seen in the fact that only a tiny percentage of non reporting suspensions result in actual filing of lawsuits by the SEC. Just look and you will see most of the lawsuits are against individuals and brokerage firms and very few against suspended companies.
The strange thing is that many of the lawsuits against OTC companies for fraud do not involve first or later suspending the stock. Can you explain that one?
Are you saying the SEC let off the hook all those thousands of companies involved in fraud, which is "proven" to be fraud by your logic because they were suspended?
"Questions" or Concerns are exactly that, only questions or concerns, NOT FACTS that can be litigated. Although getting those concerns or questions answered may or may not result in legal actions, they could just as likely resolve the matter amicably. And that may be why there are so few legal actions taken against stock companies that have been suspended. Even lawsuits against those involved in suspended stocks is rather rare.
These are the actual reasons the SEC gives for suspending stocks on their own web site and i see plenty of things that do not necessarily involve fraud:
A lack of current, accurate, or adequate information about the company, for example, when a company is not current in its filings of periodic reports;
Questions about the accuracy of publicly available information, including in company press releases and reports, about the company’s current operational status, financial condition, or business transactions;
Questions about trading in the stock, including trading by insiders, potential market manipulation, and the ability to clear and settle transactions in the stock.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/first-bitcoin-capital-corp-completes-183500643.html
I wish i could bet against your prediction which 99.99% is unlikely to come to pass.
What securities fraud? The one you imagine?
No one here nor any investigative reporter, not even the ambulance chasing "investigators" have come up with anything.
If you can point to something factual and not innuendo, please show us the evidence so we can see it too.
Don't tell me the SEC only suspends non reporting companies for fraud because that has been proven false.
BITCF's defying post suspended Grey tradition has you now believing in miracles?
That is in no way competition for BITCF. So called JesusCoin will almost certainly be a failure unlike BITCF which has a genuine business model with many projects moving forward. BBQ coin was a joke and didn't go far. Doge coin may have started like a joke but since it doesn't offend anyone it has become very successful.
BITCF remains top trades Grey8est stock
Symbol Price % Chg $ Volume Share Vol Trades
BITCF 0.93 +14.81 404,717 424,238 240
PRELF 0.7314 +530.52 104,987 141,703 118
GTGDF 1.6599 -21.64 209,772 121,010 112
CNYYP 25.00 +0.81 7,631,246 306,161 102
Check it out, BITCF already demonstrated in what they call their two main wallets what they promised from their last news release regarding 18.18 TESLA and 19.19 FUEL and there are already 8 and 9 confirmations on the blockchain verifying this: http://omnichest.info/lookupadd.aspx?address=1FwADyEvdvaLNxjN1v3q6tNJCgHEBuABrS
If anyone bothers to read the language in 12(K) the basis for the suspension provided by the SEC there is no reference in their to fraud and many technical reasons for suspensions. Also their suspension order says nothing about where the information they were "concerned" about came from. It could have been from some third party posting anywhere on the Internet.
When BITCF found a spurious assertion on the Internet where someone was claiming they owned 500k bitcoins they promptly denounced that claim.
If you look up the laws cited in the letter to the lawyers, you will see that was well researched and if you look up the return address it is a major law firm in Canada, the same one listed on Otc Markets as their new lawyers. It's probably safe to assume a lawyer prepared that letter and likely the same one that called the SEC to find out why the hell they suspended trading.
BITCF has already proven to be an extraordinary Grey so I would not count on what is common for post suspended greys. I noticed a grey that was not suspended trade $120,000,000 Thursday so the potential for attractive Grey's is also extraordinary.
If the suspension was only to slow down the overall mania for crypto stocks by striking the clear leader, then this is not your typical suspension. 99% of history's past suspensions were for companies that would have failed regardless of suspension and suspension just expedited those failures.
BITCF as the #1 GREY8 stock has so much going on it is difficult to keep track of it all.
Why not just admit that no post suspended Grey has performed as well as BITCF and it is indeed in a class of its own?
Asserting jurisdiction over crypto securities originating or trading in the US markets is not making up new laws just applying old laws to new technology.
The SEC can not legally regulate crypto coins that are not securities.
And they can not regulate the trading on foreign exchanges of crypto shares or crypto coins.
A few things to keep in mind.
Symbol Price % Chg $ Volume Share Vol Trades
BITCF 0.81 +37.29 1,364,163 1,555,797 612
CNYYP 24.80 0.00 23,585,456 949,540 91
GGIFF 1.0872 +11.62 102,115 94,287 70
PSBBP 24.90 +0.32 6,987,589 281,514 57
BITCF is one of a kind post suspension Grey Market stock. Compare the number of 612 trades to the next highest of only 91 on Friday and every day since trading resumed.
Realistically its trading behavior can only be compared to those major companies trading Grey that have never been suspended even though BITCF does not trade on any major foreign exchange like those major foreign exchange listed companies also trading there in the Greys.
In fact, BITCF trades more actively than most US listed stocks and its trading behavior is very similar to patterns seen in NASDAQ listed stocks.
Market makers do not need to have $2.50 per share on deposit to short BITCF in the Grey market as part of their rights as market makers allows them to short in order to make an orderly market.
If you say, oh no they can't make a market in Grey stocks, the fact is that they are only prohibited from publishing their quotes.
If anyone knows of such a rule that would prohibit them from making an unquoted market please give us a link to see.
The hundreds of Grey stocks that FINRA shows bimonthly short interest for is fairly good evidence that markets are being made in the Greys.
While this may not be a reliable source it indicates that daily short interest occurs: http://www.shortvolume.com/
I can find no evidence that BITCF has been promoted and the interest seems to be from what the this company is building and their early accomplishments.
The grass roots interest in BITCF makes it appear to me that the markets are determining that it is the real deal and not a pretender to the leadership.
Volume in Grey (not Greg) Stock Market is exploding with $279,333,779 today.
"They" are the countless people that were saying before FINRA started publishing OTC short interest that it was impossible to short Pink Stocks.
Here is plenty of proof that it is possible to short Grey Stocks and don't say that is only because they trade on foreign stock exchanges because short sales outside the USA do not show up in the USA markets nor does that foreign trading volume show up in the USA:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/KDKGF/short-sales
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ALHAP/short-sales
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/MGMB/short-sales
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/GTGDF/short-sales
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/GSWTF/short-sales
That's what they said about the Pink Sheets, "Can't be shorted" until FINRA started publishing short reports. Go take a look at the short data on the Grey markets and you will find thousands of them that FINRA is showing regular short data for and look at the possible volume in Greg stock and that is just their volume in the USA grey markek.
BITCF most active by trades again today:
BITCF 0.59 +156.52 470,234 1,227,682 357
CNYYP 24.80 0.00 121,911,318 4,929,100 181
KDKGF 0.3713 +16.03 159,460 518,238 120
Several hundred repeated opinions insisting that it doesn't matter what 12(K) states although 12(K) doesn't once use the word fraud, "just believe what we say over the actual language of 12(k) as we know more than the SEC states in 12(k) and in fact, we are like their voices, so what we say goes."
Also, the predicted success of BITCF in the Grey Market did not suggest that it would be based only on the first day of trading after suspension. The prediction was that it would become the most successful period and that prediction is fast coming true. Just name me one Grey post suspension that has done this well in terms of number of trades and popularity.
The first days of trading were so obviously manipulated downward by short sellers and it could have been old shorts being covered by new ones with real covering finally starting today.
Also the first days had the problem of DTC not resuming services making it harder for the pent up demand to join the party.
The name change was last year it even says 2016. As predicted BITCF is most successful stock to fall into the Grey Market post suspension as well as having the far greatest number of trades today standing at 248 thus far but it seems had to come back down to earth after Moon rest, before heading to Mars. Couldn't resist writing that.
Symbol Price % Chg $ Volume Share Vol Trades
BITCF 0.45 +95.65 322,308 926,292 248
$XOM coin is not the giant oil conglomerate. The deadline to convert to XOM is one day after the TeslaCoil dividend is to be paid, so to insure that you get the dividend must be after the ex-dividend or payment date to be safe.
I just tried their dividends@ email and its seems to have gone through as no error message so maybe works again?
As proof that markets are made in grey stocks there are thousands trading there that show biweekly changes in short interest so how else could there be short interest if market makers are not making a market or if it is impossible to short these stocks? FINRA only shows short interest for trades made within the USA and not what happens on foreign exchanges or their clearing systems outside the USA.
The same rules apply to making markets in grey stocks whether or not they were suspended or trading on foreign markets. I think some get confused between market makers publishing quotes and making a market. It is far more difficult to make a market in a market where you can not enter quotes into a quotation system, but it is not impossible. Also executing trades is not considered quoting a stock.
Here is one of those thousands of examples of stocks that have continuously changing short interest:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ALHA/short-sales
Short interest rose to 1,820,402 on settlement date of Aug 31 an increase of 333%
08/31/2017 First Bitcoin Capital Corp. Co BITCF Other OTC 1,820,402 419,816 1,400,586 333.62 3,956,864
http://otce.finra.org/ESI
Sounds like Jamie Diamond fears cryptocurrencies will replace his big bad bank but he even admitted Bitcoin might go to $100,000 per coin before the bottom falls out.
https://tavogi.com/sites/aF8LOmORJY2WLYUx0650DA8E4gqJc3Jecm6pTU5IbKPRe5h4EuMNDPdyRFDtf6AqBwmCRa3FqGmQxnVB7Qtz7LiOs63WeGOSucWPzjeDbVyF0IPkWi2RTUcy2YDCObAc9x8Qm9a/topics/71
No need to go through buying and selling other coins as you can offer TESLA on one of the TESLA exchanges directly for USD and it cost $1.59 to sell $790 worth, or $0.159 to sell $79 worth. Just open an account to see. I've never see a better trading platform for commodities or stocks than C-cex.com where it trades for dollars, Bitcoin, Litecoin and Dogecoin.
Back to section 12(k). Can you please point me to where it says that the only reason for suspending is either delinquency or fraud? Since you can not point to anything in section 12(k) mentioning fraud I assume that was only your assumption.
Sounds as real as the ambulance chasers advertisements. Can you please provide the case number to this imaginary lawsuit. I've never seen so much attention by ambulance chasers for a company lacking substance so at least their chase indicates BITCF has real assets to go after. It is very expensive and time consuming to start and litigate till judgment a class action, and they usually take these cases on consignment, so must be a lot to go after with this much attention from so many class action legal specialists.
This was not a Winick spin off. If you have something to prove it which I challenge you to provide real evidence and not the stuff you've so far provided, as Gran Pacaramia is not in the 50 8ks Winick filed or in the SEC lawsuit against him.
While I do not have access to those logs, but do we really know who run those logs or is that guess work? Sounds like guess work to me. I did call one of the past 6 transfers agents, Integral when I first read your expose' and asked if any of those names you listed appeared in their records. At first they said they don't give out that kind of information but after referencing your good work, they obliged and confirmed that none of those names showed anywhere in their records as owners or past officers or directors (with exception of that prime minister with the initials AA) and they confirmed they had complete records including transfer journals.
Now there is the possibility that there could be nominee names but I wouldn't know what to ask for in that regard.
Maybe call the new transfer agent and see if you get the same answer.
I really doubt those questionable people had any involvement and also none of the disclosure reports filed to date by BITCF indicate any such involvement.
It sounds like defamation to claim that Rubin was ""involved" in the past with these colorful characters and even if he crossed paths with them that would not necessarily mean that he was "involved."
If you research that "expose" you will find that none of the outlaws mentioned in there ever were officers, directors or shareholders of BITCF with the exception of the former prime minister of Tajikistan.
Winick created like 50 shells and sold them to many crooks as well as innocent business men and women. After Central Asian became controlling shareholder things changed with BITCF and the officers and directors involved after getting into the Cryptocurrency business appear to be clean and some over qualified in cryptography and the math behind it.
Winick did not create BITCF as one of those 50 nor did he ever have anything to do with BITCF from my extensive research.
There are always exceptions to each rule, for example $CANN emerged from the Grey market after suspension and is doing quite well now.
While the Grey market isn't the ideal place to trade, BITCF as predicted is the most actively traded stock in that underground market.
BITCF 0.415 -28.45 404,475 838,001 332
That is 332 trades already at 2:17 PM
http://www.otcmarkets.com/market-activity/current-otc-market
What rule requires there be volume in the dividend paid?
Did you read the White Paper?
While this is more like a cash than a stock dividend, companies can pay subsidiary shares that have zero volume so I don't get your concern.
The TESLACOILCOIN should have a more active market once in the hands of the loyal shareholders and when I just looked at the link you provided it has already started increasing.
Have you seen this link where TeslaCoil is #51? https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/views/market-cap-by-total-supply/
TESLA can be paired against many coins on COINQX and OMNIDEX as well as
DOGE, LTC, BTC and USD on https://c-cex.com/?p=tesla-usd
And while tesla and XOM coin mostly trade in BTC, BTC is very easy to convert to USD. https://c-cex.com/?p=xom-usd
If you kept track of their press releases and match them to the wallets they list it seems pretty clear BITCF is indeed the owner of those 3 OmniWallets they listed at the end of those releases.
A few years ago they announced they would make a coin called otccoin and got the domain otccoin.com and that is the first asset they issued in their first Omni wallet as property #40 then later in the same wallet you can see the issuance of TESLA as property 50.
Later they put out releases about creating tokens to disrupt the loyalties industry then you can see those 100 tokens using the airline industry codes being created in the second and third wallets they identified.
They also announced 3 ICOs and those all appear in these wallets.
So I'd say that is very conclusive they own and control those 3 wallets with more than 100 unique assets.
The ABC wallet is not as easy to decipher because there is only one transaction there. However there are a few things that make ABC believable and those are that the time stamp on the transfer of 200,000,000 ABC immediately preceded their announcement of that acquisition and if you look at the Etherum block explorer it identifies a web site and that web site identifies some of the assets in BITCF's first Omni Wallet. It also includes some KLC (which they announced the acquired in exchange for their Venezuela mining claims) and BIT which is on their own blockchain they developed and also announced which originally was to act as their crypto shares. They later swapped out BIT to BITCF the issuance of which you can see in their third wallet.
In regard to the prior post asking, "The value of ABC can be Bitcf claims as asset ? Doubtful!"
The company has not claimed this value on their balance sheet as they have a foot note that they list most assets at nominal cost. Obviously they are not listing the market value of ABC and since they own 95% would most likely consolidate and the underlying assets which apparently they book at nomninal cost would be the asset value.
If you look at their cost to issue Tesla on the blockchain it was only .0001 BTC and with BTC worth far less back then, their cost is practically zero.
BITCF lists their 3 main wallets towards the end of each press release.
You will find Tesla in the first wallet.
"List of most Omni protocol coins issued on the Bitcoin Blockchain and owned by the Company: http://omnichest.info/lookupadd.aspx?address=1FwADyEvdvaLNxjN1v3q6tNJCgHEBuABrS
"Second Omni wallet owned by CoinQX reflecting our airline mileage tokens issued: http://omnichest.info/lookupadd.aspx?address=1VuF26AgLyQ4tBoGzYTWRqtDG9zCB7QXe
"Third (managed) Omni wallet including assets owned and/or managed by COINQX: http://omnichest.info/lookupadd.aspx?address=1M18oycUdsXv4pKyLLiASREcRGzPu22MxK
I assume this wallet is where you can see the 200,000,000 Alphabit they claim to own as it is the only transfer on the ABC Ethereum blockchain explorer were you can see the amount they announced: https://etherscan.io/token/0x036407F23D5E1C1486F7488332CF54bf06E5F09F?a=0x8e7767f3523777f810d5ba3197a3bc10bf4b7f01
So then you agree that 12(k) suspensions can be for something other than fraud or a reporting issuer being delinquent? And you realize that BITCF's suspension was a 12(k) suspension and that section 12(k) makes no reference to fraud as a cause to suspend?
That's the wrong BIT, try this one:
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/first-bitcoin/
and here is the one for their crypto shares:
https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/first-bitcoin-capital/
Did you bother to read 12(k?) That is the actual section the SEC cited in their suspension. I see that it is mentioned in the latest news release this morning and so many on here keep hollering fraud but in the actual 12k there isn't any mention of fraud as a cause for 12k suspension. Maybe you and those should read what 12k really says instead of acting like you are all experts on the subject.
http://www.columbia.edu/~hcs14/SX12k.htm
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/BITCF/news?id=169299
SECTION 12(k) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
15 U.S.C. § 78l(k) (1988)
(k)(1) Trading suspensions. If in its opinion the public interest and the protection of investors so require, the Commission is authorized by order-
(A) summarily to suspend trading in any security (other than an exempted security) for a period not exceeding 10 business days, and
(B) summarily to suspend all trading on any national securities exchange or otherwise, in securities other than exempted securities, for a period not exceeding 90 calendar days. The action described in subparagraph (B) shall not take effect unless the Commission notifies the President of its decision and the President notifies the Commission that the President does not disapprove of such decision.
(2) Emergency orders.
(A) The Commission, in an emergency, may by order summarily take such action to alter, supplement, suspend, or impose requirements or restrictions with respect to any matter or action subject to regulation by the Commission or a self-regulatory organization under this title, as the Commission determines is necessary in the public interest and for the protection of investors-
(i) to maintain or restore fair and orderly securities markets (other than markets in exempted securities); or
(ii) to ensure prompt, accurate, and safe clearance and settlement of transactions in securities (other than exempted securities).
(B) An order of the Commission under this paragraph (2) shall continue in effect for the period specified by the Commission, and may be extended, except that in no event shall the Commission's action continue in effect for more than 10 business days, including extensions. In exercising its authority under this paragraph, the Commission shall not be required to comply with the provisions of section 553 of title 5, United States Code, or with the provisions of section 19(c) of this title.
(3) Termination of emergency actions by President. The President may direct that action taken by the Commission under paragraph (1)(B) or paragraph (2) of this subsection shall not continue in effect.
(4) Compliance with orders. No member of a national securities exchange, broker, or dealer shall make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce to effect any transaction in, or to induce the purchase or sale of, any security in contravention of an order of the Commission under this subsection unless such order has been stayed, modified, or set aside as provided in paragraph (5) of this subsection or has ceased to be effective upon direction of the President as provided in paragraph (3).
(5) Limitations on review of orders. An order of the Commission pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to review only as provided in section 25(a) of this title. Review shall be based on an examination of all the information before the Commission at the time such order was issued. The reviewing court shall not enter a stay, writ of mandamus, or similar relief unless the court finds, after notice and hearing before a panel of the court, that the Commission's action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
(6) Definition of emergency. For purposes of this subsection, the term 'emergency' means a major market disturbance characterized by or constituting-
(A) sudden and excessive fluctuations of securities prices generally, or a substantial threat thereof, that threaten fair and orderly markets, or
(B) a substantial disruption of the safe or efficient operation of the national system for clearance and settlement of securities, or a substantial threat thereof.
OTC Grey Market up 1000% in volume today: http://syndicate.pinksheets.com/market-activity/closing-otc-summary?tier=OO
There is no smoke and mirrors as BITCF has consistently disclosed that their COINQX is in Beta and that their numerous coins trade sporadically on low volume. They also downplayed the value of their more than 100 unique cryptocurrencies by recording in their financials at very low value compared to the market values added up like less than 1% so zero smoke and no mirrors.
I suspect that the TeslaCoilCoin dividend being distributed to their shareholders base will generate serious volume in that coin because there were days when thousands of trades occurred suggesting a widely held coin in the end.
Someone will come along and say, Oh but SEC thanked FINRA for their help so forget about a dividend. That is boilerplate language in SEC suspensions which means nothing about whether or not FINRA will cooperate with a dividend, and since the stock trades in the Grey Market BITCF could pay the dividend to beneficial owners and completely bypass FINRA. In the case of BITCF it was so blatantly boilerplate that the SEC left in the symbol of CIAU from their previous release as if it were BITCF's symbol.
It seems they are committed to paying this divided based on the White Paper they published on their web site today which indicates they sought a no action letter from the SEC before announcing the dividend. It actually more than indicates, it actually states they sought a no action letter from the SEC regarding paying a coin dividend. You'll have to read it to see for yourself.
BITCF almost finished refueling on the moon so hopefully Mars next stop. Couldn't resist that.
You still don't get my point about MTYFF and it is not comparing the two companies in any other way but the legalities of trading in the Grey Market. The rules of the Grey market have nothing to do with whether or not the stock is trading in foreign markets.
MTYFF does not have the sizzle that BITCF has -even if MTYFF currently has far more credibility.
The point that MTYFF trades in a foreign market brings up the point that BITCF is the world's first publicly traded company to allow trading of its crypto shares in foreign cryptocurrency markets.
The reason I brought up LSBV is that so many of those with your way of thinking are claiming that within a few years Grey stocks completely die which LSBV proves them wrong in spike of the legal actions against it, five years after suspension with CE on top of all that.
"That's because there's no real bid or ask. Greys trade all over the place."
You are right that it is not a good comparison to BITCF because BITCF, if it continues to grow and as its industry seems unstoppable, should far outshine in market support and the charts will certainly look more attractive.
Verbal quotes are just as real as published quotes,just harder to track and the actual trading will give you clues as to what markets -market makers are making although mixed in with the matching of retail unsolicited orders.
Once trading starts Friday, it will be very exciting for longs and shorts as observers watch in awe.
Not talking about the amount of chatter but the amount of money pouring into buying up BITCF even when skulls added. I don't care that OTCM is not a regulator, no stock I've ever seen slapped with that warning ever did as well as BITCF. If you know of one let us know too.
I didn't say that MTYFF was ever suspended, just that the same rules that allow market makers to make a verbal market in that stock will govern trading in BITCF in that less regulated, "Other OTC" Market.
While CIAU traded an additional 20,000 shares yesterday, it only took 2,000 shares buy to bring it up 37,000 percentage points.
Here is a Grey suspended in 2012 with the CE that refuses to die:
https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=charts&symbol=NO%5ELBSV
and one of the biggest grey gainers today;
http://syndicate.pinksheets.com/market-activity/closing-otc-summary?tier=OO
Ambulance Chasers Hit Brick Wall. Please show me where the word fraud is located in the SEC notice of suspension. When the SEC wants to claim fraud they are not shy to do so.
All Greys trade under the same SEC and FINRA rules and that is all I am saying, that markets can and are being made in Grey Market stocks.
Therefore, BITCF will trade under those same rules that other Grey stocks trade under so that in reality a solid market can emerge for BITCF assuming the supply and demand factors are there which its history strongly suggests.
Can you show me a suspended stock that had as much or more substance or excitement leading up to suspension than BITCF had? Let's compare those oranges to oranges.
Have you bothered to actually research BITCF? It seems very unlikely based on your comments.
Have you seen this letter to the ambulance chasers?
http://www.otcmarkets.com/ajax/showNewsReleaseDocumentById.pdf?id=27170
Have you noticed on the profile of BITCF on OTC Markets BITCF now has a major Canadian law firm representing them that is qualified to handle otcqx listings?
Brought it up because it is interesting that it went up 37,000 per cent on 2000 shares volume and to contrast it with BITCF which is the real deal and plenty of reason for market makers to continue to make a market unlike CIAO.
The point in bringing up those active greg stocks is to show that even in the grey market there can be active markets forming for stocks that have substance.
BITCF has more than those other greg stocks because not only does it have substance but excitement and will continue to attract a lot of interest having been an obvious leader in this sector.
I don't see them abandoning ship, do you?
I suspect they will continue to be the leading public player in this sector regardless of their Grey status.
no this volume
Dollar Volume
5,075,021
Share Volume
13,942,211
Trades
2,010
Advancers
150
Decliners
84
Most Active
$ Volume
Share Volume
Trades
Symbol Price % Chg $ Volume Share Vol Trades
See More »
MTYFF
38.00 0.96 1,658,510 43,645 152
SFHLF
18.53 0.16 463,250 25,000 6
A major difference is that CIAU was already basically a dead cat before it was suspended unlike BITCF having been one of the most active Pinks in the world and appearing to have nine lives. There were a lot of market makers making very active markets in BITCF unlike the wannabe CIAO.
Did you see this?
http://syndicate.pinksheets.com/market-activity/closing-otc-summary?tier=OO
I'm not saying that having broker call a market maker to get a quote is the best approach, just that it is possible and because you don't know how this works doesn't mean it doesn't work this way. Just try it and see.
Just because a market maker can't publish quotes doesn't mean it can't make a market. And there is plenty of reason to make a market i.e. making the spread betwee the bid and ask.
Did you see the dead cat bounce in CIAU today up 37,000%?
Another thing is that they can use the same system to route stock trades both in OTC Pink and Grey.
Here is an indication that markets are made in Grey stocks OTC:
http://syndicate.pinksheets.com/market-activity/closing-otc-summary?tier=OO
BITCF will most likely be the most active stock on this list Friday and continue to be as long as remaining Grey.
The reason it is hard to call a MM is that they usually will only take calls from Broker Dealers, but your stock broker's trading desk can call market makers for their verbal quotes and NITE CSTI and CDEL are the most likely ones that they will reach out to in the Grey Market.
Before the Pink Sheets became electronic (around 1990 when Cromwell took them over) it was almost identical to the grey markets so that you could only get verbal quotes from asking your stock brokerage firm to get you a verbal quote for pink sheet stocks.
There was no OTCQB or OTCQX back then and that's also around the time when the OTCBB came into being due to the proliferation of the Internet, etc. The Pinks likely would have gone out of business if the OTCBB did start making it so that only reporting companies could be quoted thereon.
Don't confuse a quote with a trade. The good thing is that most all OTC pink and grey market trades are now visible due to the OATS trade reporting requirements.
For non reporting companies like BITCF FINRA would only delete the symbol after a prolonged period without any trade, however, that would be unlikely in the next 10 years.
And it doesn't take a miracle to get entered into a quotation system again, just hard work and the track record of BITCF over the past year has been impressive in my book.
More precise history here: http://www.otcmarkets.com/about/otc-markets-history
I doubt anyone here bought and sold shares when the Pink Sheets was nothing but a physical publication that mostly just showed the names and contact information of the market makers in each stock and they didn't even have symbols back then, but rarely ever their actual prices, and why? Because by the time the publication got into the hands of the market makers and stock brokers, the prices had already changed. And believe it or not it was identical to the way the Grey Market works today, minus the sheets of paper mailed out every day.
A broker literally had to call the market maker and ask, hey what's your bid and offer and size on such and such a stock.
So it was 99% a verbal market.
The Pink Sheets then is what the grey market is today minus the sheets printed on pink paper.
It makes it a little harder to know which market maker to call after suspension, but most will call Nite or any of the other 19 market makers that were publishing quotes, and they CAN legally give their verbal quote and execute orders based on orders they get, but they just can't published those quotes.
It is an actual market and pay attention to why it is called the Grey MARKET because it is an actual market. Its more precise name given by FINRA and NASDAQ is "Other OTC Market" and in that regard they classify and lump together both the GREY and PINK markets as one market.
You will be able to see the volume, high, low, last trade everywhere you could see it before the suspension after the 7th and if you have level 2 you will be able to see each trade live, including price, size and time of trade. Market markets are still required to enter timely into the OATS system their trades. http://www.finra.org/industry/faq-oats-otc-faq
For those with level 2 they will most likely see a steady flow of trades from the moment the market opens to the moment its closes unlike the other suspended companies that had no real life before suspension and were mostly just pretending to be like BITCF.
Same kind of things said of the CE the first time "this will go to zero in days" then second CE "this will go to .05 tomorrow" but what happened, it went up both times after the first day of CE and the last time got the CE it kept going up till suspension. This is not a scam and the SEC only said they had concerns of the adequacy and/or accuracy of information available in the public domain. I've never ever seen a stock do so well after the CE added let alone a second adding of CE.
The thanking FINRA was likely boilerplate as they even left in the wrong symbol from their last suspension.
No one has been able to identify anything that the company has done that is in any way illegal.
We will get a better idea on the 8th, so just have to wait and see.