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.
Do you mind saying where you got that data from?
The authorized capital is not off by $10,000. 120,596 shares authorized * 3 value = $361,788 (as you said). Then you forgot to add in the product of 10,000,000 preferred * 0.001 value = $10,000. $361,788 + $10,000 = $371,788 total authorized capital (as correctly filed).
Schwab says: Your order cannot be accepted. This security EEGI is accepting closing transactions only. (DO911)
The twitter account you linked to has a bio that says:
While I agree that the misuse of the CPA designation if intentionally done is fraud, the possibility also exists that it may have been added erroneously by someone without the understanding that CPA is a professional designation earned solely by taking and passing the CPA exam and may only be suffixed to a name when earned.
I would not put this misunderstanding past the team given their previous errors that I have uncovered but not yet made public, one of which is similar to the CPA issue and includes DKMR's social media page saying that $DKMR is listed on the NYSE, when it's actually traded OTC. It may have been posted by someone without an understanding of the markets to know that there is a difference between NYSE and OTC (and may have been saying "NYSE" as an incorrect synonym/generic way of saying "stock market"), but it is entirely plausible that regulators/compliance may have issues with ridiculous mistakes like these (if left uncorrected) and assign $EEGI the caveat emptor status.
You are misunderstanding. I first had to correct him to show him that there was over 50 million shares on the bid, because he said there was only 160,000. He said there was 160,000 whose cumulative value was five hundred twelve dollars. You then came along and misunderstood what he said to mean five hundred thousand dollars. It's not what he said. I am correcting the both of you. You made a mistake in understanding his point, and he made a mistake in equating the level II at a different time from another user. I am in agreement with what you are saying about there having been over 50 million shares. When you say ".3", that means thirty cents. When he said ".03", that was a typo of his where he intended to say $0.003, not ".03" which is three cents. It is incorrect to say that "you won't see 512 dollars for over a half second". What he said did occur, just not at the time he was fighting with the other user over.
When he says "I see 160k @ .0032, 350k @ .0031 & 100k @ .03.", he is referring to 160,000 shares at $0.0032, 350,000 shares at $0.0031 and 100,000 shares at $0.0030 (he made a typo there and said $0.0300). When he said "160k @ .0032 is only $512, lol" he was saying 160,000 shares at $0.0032 which is $512.00, not $500,000+ (not half a million dollars, only five hundred twelve dollars).
ysung posted at 10:20 AM that the "huge bid is back" (see here). Screenshot #1 below is from 10:21 AM backs up this claim and shows 41,583,750 on the bid at $0.0032 which equates to $133,068 and was down from the 55,824,337 shares on the bid at $0.0033 ($184,220) at 9:36 AM as shown in screenshot #2. This is very different than the 160,000 at $0.0032 (for a total of $512) which is what you say you saw at 10:57 AM and are trying to equate to, which is more than 30 minutes after ysung's original post. In that 30+ minutes, the amount of shares on the bid/ask changed.
Screenshot #1:
Screenshot #2:
What you describe didn't occur and is illegal in the United States (it is called "layering"). Here is an excerpt from Reuters:
What we saw today was not "a big dip right before dollar land", the price dropping is because management originally said they wanted to upload $EEGI filings once $SDNI was "squared away" according to this tweet. Last night, $SDNI's tier was downgraded from Pink Current Information to Pink Limited Information. This means management messed up somewhere along the lines again, and went from having a clean slate to now having a yield sign. This is a step backwards for everyone. The price action indicates to me that investors seem wary of EEGI being able to perform when management has publicly stated that EEGI will only be given their full attention once SDNI is fixed. SDNI's downgrade is yet another deviation on the path to success for EEGI.
It's not a "theory", it's how the average business is conducted. I'm not talking about the Facebooks or Apples of the world. I am talking about everyday common businesses. Comparing Facebook to Eline Entertainment Group in terms of company structure is so far out there, that it does not even merit a response beyond what I have already stated.
When you are a business with a registered agent and someone asks you what your business address is, if your business is not a brick-and-mortar retail type of place that expects walk-in customers or on-site services, then the correct response is to provide them with the registered agent address. $EEGI does not have walk-in customers because they are not a seller of tangible goods or provider of on-site services in person. The only address that they should be displaying publicly is the registered agent address to prevent documents from being sent to multiple locations and mishandled. The registered agent will then forward on to the appropriate contact. Counter to the claim of it not being normal, it is normal.
There are no qualms with what you have stated regarding timeframes, however, on the registered agent point, I am taking the time to explain in an attempt to better inform you.
Having a registered agent is not only normal in the course of ordinary business, it can be required by the law. A registered agent can and should be used as your "office address" to receive certain mail, including legal documents, particularly when your goal is to spend your time on building the business and your expertise isn't compliance with state requirements/deadlines. Most registered agents help companies avoid non-compliance with regulations and deadlines, which prevents the company from having to pay unnecessary state penalty fees and helps to ensure the company's good standing with its state. Foreign entities (which means companies doing business in a state other than the one that they are formed in) are legally required to have a registered agent when the company does business in several states. The term "foreign entities" does not mean international companies. It is true, you will not see any management of any company at the registered agent company's address, but to immediately jump to the conclusion that this update is a red flag because a registered agent company is being used, shows a lack of understanding in corporate governance or error in judgment.
I'm just an investor in search of truth and wanting to not put money in harm's way (in response to your other deleted message). I believe that $EEGI's management has been very lax with their words and have not been giving investors an accurate account of what is occurring. The picture of the computer screen tweeted out that showed the e-mail received on June 17th from OTC Markets was reassuring at the time of release and offered some transparency often not seen in the Grey Market, but a consistent failure to meet numerous stated deadlines since then have given me cause for concern.
The table from my previous message is incomplete, so the average is actually lower because the screenshot does not include the completion of more recent days that also happen to have broken promises (I am working my way mostly backwards in time). Once it is complete it will be made available if $EEGI is not current before the completion of my work.
Thank you!
Thank you, do you mind telling me where on the OTC website it says that? I've been looking and I'm not seeing it. Appreciate your help.
I'm compiling a timeline of $EEGI statements along with any tweets related to the two sister companies made by Josh and Steve that directly impact or relate to $EEGI. I need information for June 8, 2021 on this table: does anyone know if SDNI was current on Wednesday, June 9, 2021 (as stated it would be current)?
Just so you are aware, $EEGI management misspoke and meant to say "getting access to OTCIQ within 30 days", not "going current within 30 days". See my second paragraph from the bottom here. It is unfair to blame shareholders for making estimates on dates based on what management originally had said. It is also inaccurate to call these individuals promoters when they were relying on information provided by $EEGI's management when you now know that management later had to revise and clarify what they said subsequently to these predictions.
To your point of the deadline, around the middle of this month is when most brokers have decided that you will no longer be able to purchase any symbol with Caveat Emptor status or ones with a stop sign. Although you may already know what I am telling you, I'd like to take a moment to explain for those that may not know that are reading this. If $EEGI does not become current by the date which your brokerage will no longer permit buying of stop sign tickers, $EEGI will be liquidation-only, meaning you can sell your position, but not open any new positions or add to your current position. However, because brokers are banning the purchase of tickers with a stop sign like $EEGI, you will have a difficult time selling your position if that's what you decide to do after the date when brokers implement their rules around the middle of this month. This is because the only buyers that will be permitted to purchase will be "qualified experts" including broker-dealers, institutions and accredited investors. Retail investors will not be allowed to buy, which means there will be far less activity in these symbols. Qualified Experts will never touch these securities as they are considered incredibly risky and toxic. Therefore your order to sell after the middle of the month deadline may never be executed and you may be left holding shares that will have essentially become worthless.
Technically $EEGI has until the deadline set by the SEC which is September 28, 2021 to become current or they will be moved onto the Expert Market. The risk shareholders have to make a decision on, is whether or not they want to hold during that period of what I am calling purgatory -- that is, the time between the date that your broker says you can no longer buy and the date which the SEC has set. Your last chance to safely exit without risk is by the date that your broker has set. If you choose to hold beyond the date that your broker has set, you are making the bet that $EEGI will become current between that date and September 28, 2021, before it gets moved to the Expert Market.
Let them move on. The impatient will wreck each of the bids on market depth when it comes time to sell at milestone numbers because they will want to unload millions of shares at once instead of incrementally in smaller tranches.
Having paid meticulous attention to keeping track of the timing of announcements, deadlines and delays (which has also allowed me to be the closest of all with my estimate that was one day off for OTCIQ access, in addition to correctly calling $0.0025), I can say that there have been only some very minor schedule changes along the way due to management's miscommunication and OTC delays. I fully expect that $EEGI will continue meeting all deadlines and exceed my own expectations in delivering shareholder value.
EDIT: Screenshot is not official material, it is material I have created. It is for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation of an offer to buy $EEGI. This information should not be relied upon for the purpose of investing in $EEGI or for any other purpose. The information provided in the screenshot is not and should not be considered a recommendation to purchase or sell $EEGI. I am not affiliated, associated, authorized, endorsed by, or in any way officially connected with OTC Markets Group Inc., or any of its subsidiaries or its affiliates.
It was originally a friendly bet for the company going current based on original statements made by management, but once they made revisions to those statements, I made a revision to the bet and said July 21 would be the date for access to OTCIQ, which ended up occurring July 22. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=164957109
I was off by 1 day for OTCIQ (my estimate, second paragraph from the bottom) (friendly bet)
If you have read the earliest of his posts you can see the reason he started doing them was to discredit individuals on this board who have said that those trades were only able to be done by market makers. They can in fact be placed by anybody, as long as your broker does not have its own rules barring you from placing a trade where the commission dollar value is larger than the actual trade amount. If you use a broker with commission-free trading, you can place as many of these trades as you want (within reason). If you are placing 300 or 400 trades per day, you may receive a secure message or letter from your commission-free broker warning you to limit your activity otherwise fees may start to be assessed or an account closure may occur.
I agree the company is moving in the direction of becoming current. The importance of laying out the facts about dates is so that the uninformed understand that the company will only be receiving access to OTCIQ in the next step along the timeline, not going current in the next step -- those who saw the original tweets and not the latest ones may be misled into believing that the company is going current in its next step based on what management said without realizing that the statements made by management in the original tweets have been revised and clarified since. My post gives uninformed "date watchers" an understanding of what has occurred so that money can be allocated with conviction.
Unfortunately, I don't believe you are correct in saying that $EEGI will become current next week. A tweet by @SteveASmithJr dated May 26, 2021 states "$EEGI [...] will become fully current in the next 30 days (source).
30 calendar days from May 26th, 2021 was June 25, 2021. If you exclude weekends and public holidays, 30 days from May 26th, 2021 was July 12, 2021. $EEGI was not current by June 25 or July 12. (calculation).
A tweet by @JoshEgelston1 dated June 3, 2021 states "Spoke to OTC today, we are on track and will be current within 30 days. As most know, it is a mad rush for filings and they are behind. But we are working to bring us current as soon as possible." (source).
30 calendar days from June 3, 2021 was July 3, 2021. If you exclude weekends and public holidays, 30 days from June 3rd, 2021 is July 19, 2021. $EEGI was not current by July 3, and I speculate will not be current by July 19 (this coming Monday). (calculation).
A tweet by @JoshEgelston1 dated June 18, 2021 states "...[OTC] keep saying one thing, then changing it. But we have filings ready to upload as soon as they approve the application." (source). The screenshot he attached from OTC Markets is dated Jun 17 and reads "...our current turnaround time is more like 8 weeks" and "once the application fee is submitted, the analyst will begin the review. We received your payment on May 11th, so that is when your review began." 8 weeks from May 11th brings you to July 6. As specified by @JoshEgelston1 in his tweet prior on June 11, he backtracks a bit and clarifies that he intended to say "this is when we get access to IQ to update filings", and NOT that the company will be current as he previously stated.
What is being anticipated is access to OTCIQ pending the review by the analyst, followed by uploading financials to OTCIQ and then going current.
If anyone says otherwise about the timeline, they are wrong and have not done their homework.
My "friendly bet" with JustWantToBeSecure had been based on the pre-revised statements made by @SteveASmithJr and @JoshEgelston1 in which they said the company would be going current within 30 days, but in fact intended to say the company would be granted access to OTCIQ within 30 days. Based on that, my July 21 prediction for going current has extended further back with July 21 being the date that I believe they should have access to OTCIQ by. As I am unaware of how long it takes on average from uploading financials to going current, I cannot estimate new date for being current.
EDIT: I believe the company will become current at some point. The intention with this post is to get timelines and facts straight.
His words: "I am not calling the company a scam. Just a bad investment."
So it is a bad investment if someone buys at .001 and sells at .01? Is that a fact? We see it's not a fact, so it must be his opinion, but I don't see him saying "I think", "I believe", "I feel", "my belief", "it seems", or anything that expresses what he said to be an opinion, he made a statement asserted as fact. While it may be a bad investment in the next 10 seconds after he tweets, because we know for a fact that it is going to tank, we don't know that the stock is going to do without his tweeting, it may be a bad investment, or it may not be such a bad investment. He is lazy with his words and does not handle constructive criticism well. That's a fact.
It is not illegal to post an opinion, but you cannot provide financial advice when you are not licensed to do so. In one tweet for an unrelated ticker, George A. Sharp says "[...] Again, I am not calling the company a scam. Just a bad investment." (source) His opinion about that ticker being a bad investment blurs the line between financial advice and an opinion. He is not licensed to provide financial advice, there is no record of him on BrokerCheck. While he may or may not be right, it is puzzling how the SEC chooses to ignore tweets by some individuals that have a clear correlation to the stock price tanking and instead goes after individuals like Michael Burry, Elon Musk or Mark Cuban. I suppose it's because George A. Sharp has proclaimed on his website that he has advised SEC attorneys that he gets the privilege of tweeting freely without having an inquiry from the SEC.
The other day he also tweeted wrong information saying "Please remember, when you make money on a scam, it means that somebody lost money on that same scam. Probably someone who could least afford it." Here is a scenario where his blanket statement which asserts that there is always a loser to every trade does not apply, and is in fact wrong (excuse the lazy MS Paint job):
Of course trader 2 could have sold on the decline and lost money, but in this scenario he didn't to prove a point. The trader made money. George Sharp is wrong with what he said.
It is because @GeorgeASharp tweeted a few times about $MWWC today. He also made a tweet about $MWWC on his newly created twitter account that he says "is a list of stocks that are either (a) a pump & dump scheme (b) run by or associated with bad actors (c) financially unsound (d) toxically funded and/or subject to massive dilution (e) likely to be massively R/S ed."
While George may have good intentions, he does get things wrong at times and does not handle constructive criticism well. For example, he just tweeted: "Please remember, when you make money on a scam, it means that somebody lost money on that same scam. Probably someone who could least afford it."
Here is a scenario where his blanket statement which asserts that there is always a loser to every trade does not apply, and is in fact wrong (excuse the lazy MS Paint job):
Of course trader 2 could have sold on the decline and lost money, but in this scenario he didn't. He made money. George Sharp is wrong with what he said.
EDIT: I also think it is a low-blow for George to post someone's LinkedIn to point out in a mocking way that the individual worked in the fast food industry as a cook or cashier, implying that they are therefore unqualified to run a company. I find it rather impressive that someone who worked as a cook or cashier is in charge of a company that is listed on OTC Markets. That is not something that anybody can easily do. There are plenty of people who have worked in fast food to make ends meet and ended up doing quite well for themselves.
There were two assertions and statements which you made, both of which are factually incorrect. Facts matter. Please no personal attacks here, thanks.
I do not need a reminder of what you just told me. His account has been private for a while, it takes two seconds to check using incognito or by signing out. It is better to check things before posting. Saying that "all the tweets are gone now" when in actuality they are not, is either making false statements or being ignorant.
Also saying "typical news sellers. I was expecting this drop after I saw news this morning. Kinda explains yesterday's hold back n today's unwillingness to stay above .02" is completely misguided. The news was good news as you are implying -- a share reduction is good news. The price dropped as a direct result of George Sharp's tweets. Look at the single tick chart and you can match up the timing.
The tweets are all there, he did not delete them. Maybe you need to sign in to see them, or maybe you were blocked by him.
People did not sell because of the news, people sold because of the tweets by George A. Sharp:
https://twitter.com/GeorgeASharp/status/1412823018611482624/photo/1
$MWWC is a pump and dump scheme. Yes, really. https://t.co/LNuUu7ikB2
— George Sharp - Advocate for truth in the OTC (@GeorgeASharp) July 7, 2021
This is the CEO of $MWWC. Yes, really. pic.twitter.com/surG3OsWlG
— George Sharp - Advocate for truth in the OTC (@GeorgeASharp) July 7, 2021
Adding $CNNA $LEAS and $MWWC to The Shit List
— George Sharp's Shit List (@SharpsShitList) July 7, 2021
First, I do not think we will see .0009 or below prior to news of OTCIQ access being granted. The current fluctuations of the share price and money flow in and out of $EEGI don't support the conclusion of $EEGI being in that price range with the information of news pending at hand.
Even with all of the sentiment on the board being against my opinion over the last couple of weeks, the call I made on June 8 regarding the price of $EEGI being $0.0025 held true and we briefly saw .0026 today with a significant amount of volume sub .0030 -- my estimation was into the .002s with a target of .0025 (+/- .0002 Margin of Error within +/-1 Std. Dev., (C.I. source)).
I said last week on the 17th that "I believe the stock is gravitating toward $0.0025" and that the "only way to stop the $0.002s from happening is by the news [of OTCIQ] coming...". However, if you look at June 17th on the chart below, you will notice an unusual outlier in the overall trend: the stock price jets up in the afternoon on that day. This begs the question(s): why and what took place? What made the breakout occur on that day? Was there news? No, there wasn't. Was there a tweet by any management or popular investor? No, there wasn't. Was there a new rumor? No, there wasn't. So what caused the breakout?
It is my belief that after I made a few posts pointing out the math to back the likelihood of this security seeing the 0.002s, that someone on this board saw what I said and didn't like it, so they set out in an attempt to discredit me. The timing is too much of a coincidence for it to be a random occurrence. It is much more likely that someone or a small group monitoring this board did not like what was being insinuated by myself. The flurry of activity took place at 2:20 PM ET. The posts that I made in which a lot of cheerleaders chose not to contend with were from 11:29 AM to 12:51 PM. In a little over an hour, a drastic shift in the security took place which I suspect was a direct result of someone taking issue with what I said and the math that backed me. The math continues to back me but does not account for delays by disruptions like the anomaly (or what I believe to be more accurately described as manipulation) seen in the afternoon of June 17.
Second, I still maintain the belief that we will see this .002s range (more specifically $0.0025 +/-0.0002 MOE) until OTCIQ acceptance news occurs, at which point I expect this to see a minimum of 100% gain in a day (from around $0.0025 to $0.005s). Higher than .005 is not unreasonable but hard to quantify in terms of probability and levels of certainty at this point. I think $0.002s falling out and becoming the ceiling has an insignificant chance of happening, but I have not done the math on that yet to back the idea that it is unlikely within a specified timeframe.
It does not look like this is happening...
I am familiar with how money is made by hedge funds because I used to work at one. This ticker has my attention because of the brand names being represented on its website. I am not interested in blind guess trading, I am interested in high probabilities that can be backed by quantitative analysis through the assistance of what math and model training on OTC datasets in machine learning tell me.
To your point, while most of the hedge funds are offshore on paper, they are very much physically located here in the United States -- most of the time in New York, Greenwich or Florida. It's just on paper they are listed as being in the Cayman Islands, BVI, St. Lucia, etc.
I do not share the belief that the price is being driven down by these hedge funds, nor do I believe that there are retail traders shorting this. My reason for this belief I provide here: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=164343307
While I have not confirmed it, it is more likely that the market makers, not the hedge funds, are taking on both sides of the position -- buy side and sell side, and are creating arbitrage opportunities for themselves. I think they're doing it on the way down now, and they're going to do it on the way right back up, shifting their approach from selling to buying.
I'd argue that it's really not out the window. You can't simply discount technical analysis when there are retail and institutional traders that are presently using technical analysis to trade. Every action by every person is reflected in the current market price for the stock. That is the price that the market is saying $EEGI is worth right now. The stock price is currently sitting at $0.0031, which means the stock is not worth $0.0032 and it's not worth $0.0030, it's not even worth my estimate of anything in the $0.002s, nor is it worth $0.01 -- it IS worth $0.0031 which is the current stock price. Perhaps in one or two seconds from now it'll be worth something different, but it's worth what the market says it is right now.
The reason for mentioning the stock price when you are talking about writing off technical analysis is because you need to understand that the traders who are using technical analysis very much expect this to touch $0.002s, and they have made their trading decisions (and every action or inaction is a decision made), based on what the chart's indicators are telling them. Of course it must be kept in mind that an announcement or "news" of being granted access to OTCIQ will in fact be reflected in the price of the stock as "news" gets out.
To restate again, I do expect to see the $0.002s if an announcement is not made by then, but I do think $EEGI is a good buy anywhere in these levels for another inevitable ride up to $0.01 if in fact this ticker becomes current.
Yes, and the only thing that will disturb the continual downturn and prevent $0.002s from happening is the announcement/news of being granted access to OTCIQ. Otherwise I am still sticking to my estimation from https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=164278725
"Down 66¢" means "66 cents" which is $0.66, that is not the same as $0.0066, which what you meant to say.
I still believe this stock is gravitating toward $0.0025 (currently at $0.0030), which means a greater gain will be needed with any sort of "news" coming out in order to get closer to break even for those holding. The only way to stop the $0.002s from happening is by the news coming before that takes place.
The 60%+ loss this month means around 150% gain is needed to recoup, and I'm pretty confident that today's expected "news" about being granted access to OTCIQ is not going to make this stock gain 150% today. A lot of people mistakenly believe that when they experience a certain percent loss, that they only need to have the same percent gain in order to make up for the loss. They don't realize that when you do the math, it doesn't work that way.
It does not look that way