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.
re:"... wait 3 days BS "
I think the 3 day settlement period rule is the same for any cash account regardless of broker.
With margin account you can day trade unlimited so long as you maintain a cash balance greater than $25,000.
If it dips below you are restricted to 1 day trade per 5 days. In a way this is worse than cash since at least with cash account you can keep going until cash reserve overheats. With the SEC rule for $25,000 if below, dollar amount doesn't matter, even if you trade 1 share of a $1 stock 3x in 3 days you are subject to loss of margin trading priviledges.
I visit a lot of these boards and anywhere a sotck goes down there are outspoken people vowing to complain to the SEC about everything. I have a feeling that some of the crazy rules us hapless retail traders must cope with are the result of past complaints. I think that the SEC would rather not be continually haranged by small investors so that I half expect anything they do as remedy to alleged "abuses" will just result in more restrictions on retial investors -making it harder for thm to trade at all. It is one way of making their problems, head-aches go away. All they really have to do is change the rules, raising the cash requirements so high that most of us small fry simply go away.
So, in general, I hope that people start to think twice before embarking on pestering the SEC and or FTC. Some of these rules are stupid but it is possible to cope with them. They could be worse, could get worse unless people get out of the habit of demanding a governemtn solution for everything.
BTW, if you want to trade options, the rule is that you must have $100,000 cash in your account. OK I think that's everything <g>
I was actually going to post about soigf. Guess I'll start a new header...
NaturalGas(Nymex) 9.395 0.029 0.31% 06:33:17
per barchart.com
459 shares woohoo!
oh.. i mean units... <g>
yes, doesn't show any trades (yet) on scott either.
hmm. maybe is halted pending big news <g>
probably not though, my ticker usually shows a *h on halted securities.
Just a mighty slow day so far i guess. If ever a stock could be seen "holding its breath ... this would seem to be it <g>
The McKinsey Quarterly reports:
"By 2010, 40 million households will earn more than 48,000 renminbi ($6,000) per year, equivalent to $24,000 in terms of purchasing power parity and enough to qualify a household as middle class by U.S. standards.
Meanwhile, the number of Chinese with at least $1 million in assets hit about 350,000 recently, and you can bet that number is increasing daily. (The number of millionaires in the U.S. is reported to be 9.3 million.) "
Most of them live around cities (e.g. Shanghai) and a whole lot of them are going to increasingly develope a taste for quality coffee.
Not to be a total pumper, I am annoyed at the recent downhill in pps and also would be critical of the $1m in "office expenses" and rather high compensation mgmt seems rushing to dole out to themselves. Consultant fees, well maybe, dealing in foreign countries in the bottom-up fashion would seem to require a certain amount of special know-how, finesse, languages skill, and would seem to benefit their preceived competitive advantage in this area.
Still, if it weren't for all the expenses, some questionable at this early stage, the bottom line would look a lot better right now.
Delays of shop opening due to weather is plausable. A lot of Chinese companies lost some revenue due to the unusual heavy snows. The holiday is over so that is also not a factor going forward...
re: "How did I not get filled at 0.33 yet shares just traded at 0.32.."
Theory is that it may have to do with minimum bid size (e.g. 5k). Possibly, because volume is low MM accounts are trading largely unattended, by computer program so it has to hit at size in order to trigger.
I asked a similar question a while back, I wondered why my order didn't show up on lvII (it was an in-between value) and another poster suggested that it wouldn't show up in order book unless it was equal to or greater than minimum bid sizes showing.
I don't have this problem on larger e.g. nas stocks. I can put in an order for 50 or 43 whatver shares and it always tends to show up and fill (if appropriate). I surmise because these are being more actively monitored and MM will exercise at his discretion.
OTC and pinks, sometimes (on really slow ones) you can be at bid and it will still sit there for hours -- unless it is at minimum bid size (here again - probably computer program).
-These remarks are just a theory from observation. Actually I looked around on web and it is really hard to find any detailed info on just what MM do, how they do it. Exactly how the system works... <?>
Actually it was another poster who brought up the sec rule change and I was speculating on how that could be a positive.
I don't think that just anybody can do it. I susupect that as such it would have to originate with the trustee. Unfortunately, the existing trustee would probably have to be sued to do that aspect of their job, added to the list of other things they appear to be derilect in, although they could not claim the excuse of costs considering the low cost aspect of a web posting.
Conversely they didn't seem to have any problem with what seem to be excess costs pxd et al were running up. For example, a million bucks for "plugging anf abandonment" charges. I mean how much could a few pipe caps and a pipe wrench cost, even if they had to be screwed on by scuba divers? Shallow drill rig rentals w/crew only ran about $100k/ day. I daresay they could have drilled a new well for the cost of that one "maintenance" item.
oh well. Comprehensive discovery could answer a lot of such questions, hopefully they plan on reviewing the bill for past charges as well as the subject of reserve estimates...
Agreed. Seems like jpm should be (should have been?) singled out first since there is no barrior to suing them (observer pointed out that there exists an undisputeable relationship between them and unitholders and hence, standing for unitholder plaintiffs) and they (jpm) are the one's obstructing unit holders interests in seeking to recover damages. The strategy should be to light a fire under jpm to get them out of the way first.
JPM is the glaring clog in the works right now. Hmm, now one might speculate that the new docket order could be the "janitor in a drum" needed to be applied to jpm?
I don't know. We'll have to see, but based on my limited understanding of the legal matters involved it seem that any efficiencies that may have been hoped for by grouping jpm with the other defendants are outweighed by the logic of treating jpm as a seperate adversary here.
At least it's educational, trying to figure out what's going on... <g>
Knowledge of the rule change could ultimately be helpful to mosh's efforts.
It looks like it should be easier for mosh plaintiffs to reach other unitholders and for for said unitholders to participate in voting decisions about suing jpm, getting a new trustee and so forth. I wonder if this is being fully looked into/utilized?
Costs are presumably a factor in unitholder communications as well as "beating the bushes" looking for lost unitholders, this eliminates cost, so maybe obtaining a per se technical quorum moves up as a greater possibility. This would be basically empowering to mosh unitholders if such a web site were put up, I would say.
ref: http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2007/34-55146fr.pdf
"[...]
SUMMARY: We are adopting amendments to the proxy rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that provide an alternative method for issuers and other persons to furnish proxy materials to shareholders by posting them on an Internet Web site and providing shareholders with notice of the availability of the proxy materials. Issuers must make copies of the proxy materials available to shareholders on request, at no charge to shareholders.
The amendments put into place processes that will provide shareholders with notice of, and access to, proxy materials while taking advantage of technological developments and the growth of the Internet and electronic communications. Issuers that rely on the amendments may be able to significantly lower the costs of their proxy solicitations that ultimately are borne by shareholders. The amendments also might reduce the costs of engaging in a proxy contest for soliciting persons other than the issuer. The amendments do not apply to business combination transactions. The amendments also do not affect the availability of any existing method of furnishing proxy materials.
DATES: Effective Date: March 30, 2007. Compliance Date: Persons may not send a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials to shareholders prior to July 1, 2007.
[...]"
fwiw I'm still around too, just don't feel like I have a whole lot to say constructively right now.
pretty much a bit afraid to say anything either way...
aw what the heck...
Have to admit, not as wildly optimistic as I was a while ago. Probably a lot of us are still smarting from the drop after the last ruling. The drop to .15 was unwarranted but it still shakes one up a bit. That level .12-.15 probably reflects a worse case scenerio of liquidation value based on cheaper o&g prices of the past.
IMO, based on the current high & rising o&g prices of the present, I still think the present pps approximates liquidation value based on current (rising) market. .30 -.35 pps (or ppu) range.
Still plan on holding my few thousand unit core position. I'm fighting a powerful hankering to sell that I usually get right before a stock takes off so that feeling could mean that we are actually about to experiance something positive.
On the surface, things don't look all that good to me.
We're stuck with a trustee that expressed an opinion that the big lawsuit doesn't have merit, which is obviously due to conflict of interest in favor of their being financially beholden albiet indirectly, to pxd and being named a defendant. otoh hand they still express a desire to step down as trustee (though I imagine a little "invisible" gesturing here - rubbing their fingers together under the table = if we can somehow make it "worth their while" ...).
The deal that would have compelled them to step down in exchange for getting off the hook while not, in effect, incurring financial liability for doing so, was not, as previously expected, endorsed by the court since it invoked a "Mary Carter" scenerio. This was initially seen by (presumably "new") investors as a negative and resulted in the temporary oversold tankage. Actually, avoiding Mary Carter saved the main suit from being derailed on that basis so we have recovered back to a present more-or-less neutral level.
One really simple solution would be proxy vote by unitholders to change the rules to allow a new trustee with less than $100m net worth. When the original rules were drafted it was probably thought that this high-brow requirement would insure the trust would not fall into the hands of flim-flam artists or an entity that would try to manipulate the millions under their control, since, the trustee being worth over a hundred million, such "small change" would be beneath them. This "protection" seems to have come back to bite unitholders in the @ss now since it apparently has been darn near impossible to find a new trustee that qualifies.
The interventors and known unit holders apparent only number about 40%, not enough for a 50% quorum to change the rules.
Are they still searching, looking? If all those units got truly lost, how can they be voted? Can't they be declared non-voting at this point or something, reducing the true "active float" such that a quorum can be delared? Not void them completely, they could turn back uo someday in somebody's closet. We don't want anybody to lose their inheritance, or temporarily misplaced investment assets, whatever the case with the missing certificates, but in the meantime, since they can't be voted, they shouldn't count, imo.
One of our main mosh ihub guys started implementing an idea for ihubbers to "register" their shares with him to try to supplement that number but, I don't know, we need to make up 7 million units.
I don't think we are going to scrape anything near that up, right? Like I mentioned, I have a few thou, probably will hold but I don't really want to totally declare and commit, plus don't want to sign up for full ihub service at this time.
Actually there are 100,000 ihub users, if each one bought 70 shares (about $25) we'd be there, but I suspect proportionally fewer are at this mosh board.
btw I (we of not full account status) can receive priv emails. just not send them -- so put me on the mailing list anyway if possible...
Although I'm feeling pretty neutral at this point pxd did throw off $30m-$70m pretty easily on the last (Kansas) lawsuit, so that's what I'm currently figuring as a more possible upside right now. Not so sure if things are actually going to make it to trial, and even if it does pxd probably has "plausible deniability" on many of the points. Still it seems like _something_ could be made to stick. That's still .50 to $1 / unit.
so, the motion for continuance postpones a hearing for summary judgement.. on what? the jpm must resign/$3m loan aspect?
This thing is like watching a chess game. One can know the pieces and even some moves but I have a feeling that complicated gambits are at play such that only the players have a sense of what the possible outcomes are down the road.
Like with chess masters not only can the rational behind individual moves be inscrutable but there is a long wait between them.
I think I'd rather be watching a golf game, or maybe a nice fishing show. <g>
Is the actual trust charter posted somewhere?
There has been some discussion about what is allowed or not e.g. trustee requirements, potencial meeting/quorum, etc. but I don't recall reading the actual bylaws (or whatever they would be called for a trust) anywhere...
You could be right. Chart internals looking better (bouyant).
Well, we do have the new (first of many) franchise opening in China coming up. That's bound to start stirring some more buying interest soon.
Isn't there a way that current unitholders can add their twig to the bundle so-to-speak in regard to joining with the current "official" plaintiffs?
Presumably there are quite a few "new" or newly found long-time unitholders, via various recent online discussions, etc.
There is some trading interest, but, many of us have decided to hold core positions longer term. These should count - our proxies could be added in imo.
My understanding is that if 51% can be reached, then a lot can be quickly resolved via unitholder meeting such as modifyng net-worth requirements to enable quickly swapping in a new technically competent, unencumbered trustee.
I suppose that adding in our units would mean not selling until the matter is closed but many are determined not to sell anyway (at least in regard to some core position).
So, hypothethically, how and who to contact? Also, could they keep and periodically release an "official" running tally of units so that people could gauge if we reached 51% yet?
I know you have this good idea of working just through ihub, private email, but, really, anyone here can post anything, so, a logical and dare I say, more reliable extension of the idea would be a direct channel to somewhere the units would actually be added in and counted? Would we want to contact Dagger-Spine Hedgehog, or a mosh lawyer?
If there was/is a way to join in the suit as additional plaintiffs, maybe post the channel of communication in the ibox?
sound familiar? <g>
"the next starbucks" :
http://www.angelnexus.com/o/web/3762
I think all that may be necessary is to send notice etc. through the various retail brokerage firms. For example Scottrade forwards to me all kinds of proxy vote etc. materials. The only thing is one may need to do is enable the receiving of such material in regard to one's trading account.
I would imagine that pretty much everyone here trades/invests via online account.
Along the same lines, I suppose that the various brokerages might also be able to furnish info as to how many units are held by clients in a general sense to a bone fide entity making the inquiry though I am not as sure aboiut this...
Probably the reason they have had trouble in the past is because many units were held as paper certificates. Online/brokerage route would seem to be much easier...
OK, Malone & Assoc. doesn't seem so bad. Perhaps I was a bit hasty in painting them with such a broad brush.
I checked through my email spam & "special super-duper otc/smallcap promo buy now!!!" collection and couldn't find anything from M&A. They don't even seem to have a big web presence apparently, apart from covering this stock.
I guess there is nothing wrong with a company outsourcing its PR. There are plenty of companies attempting to do PR in house but end up botching things up.
Hopefully, M&A will be worth the money for GWDC, so far they at least provide a place for info and if they can strike a proper balance in regard to releasing PR's - timing, content and so forth.
Sonic Hedgehog to the Rescue!
That's what I originally thought of when I saw the name.
Then I figured it was probably an assembly of last names like, "Merril-Lynch-Pierce-Fenner & Smith" or "Crosbey Stills A Nash & Young".
Cactus eh? Kind of reminds one of the rattlesnake motiff on "Don't tread on me" banners of the early American Revolution days.
I guess for cactus the banner would be "Don't sit on me" <g>
A penny stock hiring a spam pumper firm can be red flag, imo.
ITOH, I have also "decoded" a reference from a "teaser" ad in a for-pay newsletter a while back, but more recent than that coffee pacifica 8k, so, I count that as a positive that counteracts the previous negative connotation somewhat. Not to say that all spam promoted stocks are garbage, just most of them, most of the time imo. <g>
Checking over the spam lists can be a kind of a prudent initial screening process. but it has cleared that hurdle as gwdc now, imo.
In the meantime, the fundamental story seems very good for gwdc, improvement seems to be on track, so that is what is better to go on at this stage imo.
nice to see the board coming alive a little...
re: "I have been following the board for a while... why the huge drop?"
The outcome of the hearing was not what everyone was expecting:
A lot of people were expecting zillions of dollars, free cigars, open bar and jewelry for the ladies ...
What we got amounts to a postponement... i think.
At first it seemed bad, I awoke from my nap to see what you just saw. I imagine a lot of people sold the shares they had pinged the ask with yesterday.. reflex action.
Now it seems, maybe not so bad. I imagine there will be a lot of discussion now to sort it all out.
what i've read so far: basically all motions were denied. the judge cites lack of authority, heard something about matters being "too complicated" while on the other hand is also reported to have made noises friendly to mosh unitholders...
At first I imagined the pxd report handed to her before the weekend maybe was interleaved with $1000 bills or had some kind of note like "we know what you did last summer." <g>
which is, of course preposterous. but that was what i had previously imagined as the only kind of thing to produce a "doom" scenerio.
But, on further consideration, pxd's motion was denied too, so, like I say, this is starting to just seem more like a delay, possibly judiciously (not sure if pun intended) by the judge to try to insure a better outcome for mosh unitholders.
Mary Carter Agreement
Where some defendants settle with a plaintiff a term of which is a loan by the settling defendant to the plaintiff, to be repaid by any monies recovered from the remaining defendant(s).
In Mateo v United States, a 2006 decision of the US District Court for Middle Florida, Tampa Division, justice Kovachevich wrote:
"Mary Carter agreement is one in which a co-defendant secretly agrees with the plaintiff that, if that defendant will defend himself in court, his own maximum liability will be proportionately lessened by increasing the other co- defendants' liability.
"Secrecy is the key to this type of arrangement, as the trier of facts, if so informed, would likely vary the credence given to the testimony and conduct of the signing defendant as it relates to the non-signing defendants. Id.
"Additionally, by portraying a grim picture of the other defendants' misconduct or, sometimes, by admissions against himself and the other defendants, the cooperating co-defendant could lessen or dispose of his own liability via use of the secret Mary Carter agreement.
"Finally, it is the public policy of the State of Florida to promote settlement and early termination of litigation."
These types of agreements are problematic as on the one hand, they promote the settlement of litigation by eliminating a cause of action as against the settling defendant, but on the other hand they promote litigation by subsidizing it as against those defendants who are not part of the Mary Carter Agreement.
The term comes from the first case in which it was raised by a defendant: Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., (Florida Distrist Court of Appeal, 1967, cited at 202 So.2d 8).
As the Supreme Court if Illinois said in Reese v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, 1973, published at 55 Ill.2d 356, on point:
"(W)e contemplate those situations in which a concurrent tortfeasor, perhaps otherwise unable to obtain indemnity from his joint tortfeasor, may escape liability and judgment by loaning funds to a plaintiff. Thus framed, the question becomes whether our policy of denying contribution between joint tortfeasors outweighs the considerations favoring private settlement of lawsuits. We think it does not."
In Canada, in specific reference to a Mary Carter Agreement, the Ontario judge said in Bodnar v Home Insurance Co., 1987, published at 25 CPC 2d 152, and contrary to ther Florida court's comments in regards to secrecy above:
"Any secret agreement between two or more parties which may affect the outcome of the litigation should be revealed to the other counsel and the Court."
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/MaryCarterAgreement.aspx
ouch ..... .
let me rephrase that...
OUCH!
So, the judge is kicking it upstairs to a higher court?
good morning mr. CA$H (sing-song voice of schoolchildren) <g>
Not too much to say. Everything has pretty much been said so far. I almost posted yesterday that I was going to ping the ask @.35 , my previous .34 bids were getting stepped over (er. under) with small lots. that was kind of weird. well, seemed indicative that MM was/were testing to see if would go down, but, of course it didn't. In fact looks like started the ball rolling - in the sense that a ball can roll uphill in trading land... bounced a little. Nice that it settled >.36 = .365 ..
Pretty good day yesterday considering waiting for news. And also considering the carry trade unwind - major market meltdown. Nice thing about about penny stocks, they kind of live in a world all their own - not particulrly connected to the big stock market. Usually they have other issues like dilution - but not mosh, so.. so far so good.
zzz..hopefully the coffee will start to kick in soon... <g>
A bit more waiting in store for us again today, I imagine.
Sorry, what does HVAG do exactly?
I read the ibox, nice stuff on execs but can't seem to find anything on company itself.
High rpm windmills?
pxd vs. comparables
There has been some tea-leaf reading in regard to pxd's drop in share price /sell-off. The thing is, pretty much all the oils are selling off in addition to everything else. So it's hard to say how much the pending lawsuit is bearing on pxd's price since some of it could be swamped out by current market conditions.
On the other hand,
I randomly picked some "comparables", well, they are o&g, mostly gas, as much as they are somewhat known, I think similar business to pxd, and so forth and overlaid a 1 year price chart for each on top of pxd's.
Interestingly, sure enough, there does seem to be a "loss of bouyancy" in Dec. for pxd which i think is around when the lawsuit stuff started to come out. Its peers were broaching previous highs,or at least maintaining their trendlines, but pxd failed to do so and it does seem to be dipping harder now.
I also recall pxd being recommended on NBR a while back, so one would think that the previous positive WS sentiment would be helping it more. So, maybe there is some effect...
re: "WOWSA did this really hit .28"
Actually it was .2801
that lowball bid i mentioned i had in before was for .2800
drat. close but no cigar
not in the best of moods due to my portfolio otherwise getting slaughtered by some other buyandholds i decided to try to hang on to.
actually mosh not doing too bad considering the general market meltdown going on. the general market malaise is probably putting a bit of a damper on speculative enthusiasm generally.
probably will be bit of drift between now and next news. i guess that we could say the window of oppurtunity will stay open a bit more for those waiting to add or get in before it finally snaps shut with expected big news in the not too distant future.
it probably helps to have cash in hand when making a settlement offer. otherwise it's like "ok, let's settle, but i don't have the money right now.. maybe i can pay you next tuesday...or sometime" <g>
no need to go to any trouble. I thought maybe you knew off top of your head...
a lot of tea leaf reading going on around here while we wait for news. I was just thinking that preseumably unit price was higher at some time in the past and that the decline would further indicate bad performance on part of pxd et al. trying to imagine how the case would go if it goes to trail.
btw, I don't know how far back you have read the posts, but mosh appears to have a very good case. winning the suit would amount to a $16 distribution per unit. A settlement for a lesser amount is predicted but would still likely amount to many dollars per unit. Or so we all hope...
btw too bad about delphi... I hate to say but gm itself probably isn't too far behind. In the battle of wits between union and management, both sides appear to have laid down their arms..<g>
pesky huskies... <g>
re: "Will this make our case difficult (or impossible) to prove?"
I would say, no. If anything seems to be missing, I think that the court can compell pxd to cough up info. I imagine a lot of seismic is farmed out to third party so there are probably plenty of useful records available. Not to mention woodside.
"Or do we have enough material without JPM's help?"
It's my impression that JPM hasn't been much help anyway so no net change there, more or less.
"BTW, I have had these units from my days with Mesa Pete and never thought they would be worth anything again. In fact, I forgot about them until last fall when I spotted a posting about this lawsuit. Never read the 10-Qs."
If you papered your wall with them, might consider getting one of those hand steamer gizmo's. <g>
They're probably going to get a lot more valuable real soon now. Bonus to the cause is that since you are holding certs, they can't be shorted by MM.
Just curious, the charts I can access don't appear to go back before electronic trading was the norm. I don't mean to be (too)nosy, but what were they valued at back then? Presumably more than they are trading for now?
re: " b) Also a modification to the provision where the trustee is released from the settlement and performance only from the plaintiffs listed (not everyone). This was done as a response to PXD's complaint."
What do you suppose that means?
released? which trustee? new or old?
i particularly don't like the sound of the "not everyone" remark...
good or bad for us?
re:"...actually JP Morgan Chase... "
Oh. Yeah I forgot about that. I was going to suggest that whoever posted sounded like some absent minded old guy. I guess I could say that because I am getting to be an absent minded old guy as well. (it takes one to know one) <g>
yeah, I have fun running scenerios like that through my mind also.
but, we could still end up with a long tail down after the hearing for awhile.
i prefer to think more in terms of minima.
it seems very likely that mosh deserves and will very likely get _something_.
we know pxd can probably shell out 30 - 70 million without hardly blinking - pocket change for them, based on past settlement in kansas.
so that's, what .50 to $1 per unit.
we're pretty sure royalties are back on line so that would be at least around .30 added per unit as a value.
so, .30 + .50 = .80, so, .75 minimum val/unit at some point in not too distant future..
although i normally dislike holding stocks waiting for some "big event" that usually doesn't materialize, ot takes about ten times as long as expected, and is usually less than expected, but, at least for me, so far, it still seems worth making an exception here.
the anonymous id poster who in effect started the rumor about $400m offer actually had kind of a negative effect on my sentiment since there were a couple of material errors in his remarks, for example the bank is not chase, and mosh doesn't have any holdings in new mexico. so, pxd raising capital may or may not mean anything.
I don't know what's going to be harder. holding if it dips lower or actually it may be harder to hold if it goes up past .75 since beyond that level could start to consider overbought based on settlement amount being unknown even though some sort of award/settlement being likely...
the zillion dollars sure would be nice though...
must...hold...out...<g>
spike in spot pm prices probably had quite a few people distracted from mosh out buying gold equities today.
gold just spiked up to $903/oz from about $895
also silver just started making a similar vertical to $16.36 overnight here @about 2:20 est.
wonder what's up.
since oil has been tracking gold ( I don't have spot overseas pricing for) wonder if we'll see something tomorrow ( er later after open here monday)
since ng tracks oil this could be good for any o&g related stocks including mosh. (just to try to stay remotely on topic)
wonder if somethings going on (over night here) in larger market?
http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au24hr3day.html
oops just since i copied link -- gold now at 906
this is one amazingly strong looking vertical spike in progress so far...
maybe from pitchforks 'r' us (backwards 'r' ) <g>
if boiler room bowery boys are starting to appear, that could be a positive indicator... especially if accompanied by another (attempted) dump...
interesting style. repeating the same thing without even waiting for a reply.
you almost never see these kinds of posts on boards for truly cr*p stocks. Where were they to save us from gfci, splt etc etc?
of course everybody here alreay knows that the hearing is just to confirm what has already been pretty much decided...most of us have already held through previous dips - last dip was surprisely shallow...a pleasant surprise basically for holders.
maybe certain others were unpleasantly "surprised".
the only obvious purpose with the parrot-like repeating like that is to keep msg at top and try to ward off new buyers. nothing like a flood of new buyers to frustrate a dump attempt.
you know, the more they short trying to knock this down, the more in the hole they are going to get. they should just cover and get it over with. and/or somebody keeps shorting at what they thought was the top, but the top keeps moving up. so far, this isn't behaving like a proper p&d. tsk tsk
what's the matter with us... i guess we're just too dumb to panic sell when we're supposed to. <g>
i'm so dumb i even have another buy order ready i've been ever-so-slowly ratcheting up, to try to catch the next dip. drat, missed by a penny last time (bounced @.32 who-woulduh-thunkit) <g>
Just compared coffee prices
Uncommon Grounds to Starbucks
Most of Uncommon G.'s are $10 to $12 lb
SBX's $12 & up, and I mean like $35 lb up.
SBX's organic and whatnot menu selection produces a servor error when clicked on so either they don't have or ?
Basically prices for GWDC are competitive (cheaper) in comparable market.
So, _that's_ good...
i see no such thing. maybe you are looking at yesterdays chart.
though i agree that one is possible for the other reason you stated.
chart indicates leg up on increased volume = bullish. imo
otherwise, you got some splainin to do... <g>
So, maybe their product is overpriced? But then one needs to ask, compared to what? Starbucks? I think that I only paid about $8 for the 10oz bag of C.B. ...
Guess need to do some more dd.
The reason I was attracted to this stock is the fact that they have a 50% cost advantage over starbucks in China since they ostensibly do not have to pay the 50% import tariff like starbucks.
"Boutique" coffee shops typically charge by the cup so theoretically there is enough margim there to swamp out premium bean prices. But, as you indicated, they may not be too competitive with bags of regular store brands in the U.S.
On the other hand, if comparable to a premium brand like starbucks, that might not be too bad.
The organic thing may be a plus since people in China suffer with a lot of pollution. Those growing number of people becoming affluent enough to buy coffee at a franchise shop may just be willing to pay a bit for for at least something that isn't polluted. If their bean prices are cheaper than starbucks enough to undercut starbucks and still turn a profit, well, then we're in business.
The producer ownership thing- have a mixed mind about that. If they're so poor that they just sell their shares as soon as they get them, well, maybe that could be a source of pressure on the stock. Some of this selling could just be some people taking advantage of the general market downturn -getting the price down to cover or perhaps start quietly buying in a bit.
Most likely though, probably seeing dilution here due to some sort of equity finance scheme. Hopefully not too toxic. Hopefully mgnt not naive enough to fall for the usual convertible debiture scam... guess I need to read through the 10q etc to see how bad off they actually are.
I had hoped somebody had already done some dd of this nature on the board. I guess the board will be slow until news or more of an uptick in the pps.
So far still think that they have a shot at becoming something akin to a "starbucks of china", eventually.
I bought a bag of 'Jamaican Blue Mountain' at my local grocery but the bag says it is by Christopher Bean Co.
Is that an affiliate? The coffee flavor is very good, packs a nice caffeine punch as well... <g>