RCC Holdings Corp fka RCCH

[mcokpba]

Castell (Post 101721) – “it is interesting here, if there are Billions of shares out there why the scarceness of shares, 650,000 moved us to .0002, do I believe the 33Million available at 2 is real? No.

No more than that stubborn 150K shares that were there though all the millions bought, also it seems odd that brokers allow selling but make buying a pain, humm..seems they are attempting to funnel us in a certain direction, all this makes me very interested, I think we will see higher pps sooner rather than later. Oh and that .50 cent yesterday was really nice to see. Wonder what moved nite to .0002?”

Jimthorpe (Post 101726) - “Hype-I tried to buy 2 million shares the other day and fidelity isnt allowing buying,,Is there anyone out there that their broker is buying,,need another 10 million for sh--ts and giggles.”

Frogdreaming –“ Missing the point again? Is that a coincidence or a pattern?”

My Comment – I am sorry, I did use the word transaction when I should have used the term ‘placing a sell order’ or ‘placing a buy order’ instead. You are absolutely correct in your discussion of a COMPLETED TRANSACTION. In a completed transaction both buy and sell elements are present and only the participants themselves see the difference. Glad you brought up the supply and demand aspect. Castell and Jimthorpe seem to agree with the supply/demand point I was trying to make that the current supply demand balance of RCCH shares is skewed because of the heavily “severely (your word)” restrictions on placing buy orders.

Frogdreaming – “The increase in volatility is not restricted to one side of the transaction or the other, it is a result of the balance between the number of shares available and the number of transactions taking place.“

My comment – During one trading day, two buy/sell transactions involving 650,000 shares of (an allegedly 10 Billion outstanding shares) stock causing a 100% increase in price per share could indicate a skewed balance of shares available. Would you agree that volatile would be an appropriate adjective when describing the RCCH trading pattern this past week?

Frogdreaming (post 101787) – “Secondly we aren't seeing any real volume. An average of 5 million shares a day translates into a few hundred dollars a day and more importantly less than two tenths of one percent of the OS.
So where are they coming from? Who cares? It is less than pocket lint.”

My comment – So we ARE in agreement then! “more importantly less than two tenths of one percent of the OS” is causing an increase in volatility. I care. Less than pocket lint (balance of shares available and number of transactions taking place) caused a 100% rise in pps from .0001 to .0002. Hype doubled the value of his purchases over the past two weeks. My portfolio is one step closer to green. Going to get VERY interesting around here when the ‘case is closed.’

Mcokpba Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please expand on what selective logic lead you to the conclusion that Case CV-00053 is “case closed.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
trent777 (Post 101708) - “WRONG: Gendarme was not sold Billions of Deep Discounted RCCH shares. Gendarme acquired restricted shares and illegally and fraudulently sold Billions of RCCH shares onto the market. ILLEGALLY which is why they are now in deep doo doo with the SEC and RCCH is not.
FUD may work with newbies but not those that know better. GLTA Oh forgot your usual disclaimer jmo !!”

Frogdreaming – “I didn't say that case CV-00053 was closed. I said the conclusion that Gendarme bought 2.1 billion discounted shares was proven and that 'case was closed'. As I pointed out the bizarre contrivance of the faithful that Gendarme didn't buy those shares from RCCH, was not any part of case CV-00053, as evidenced by the complete lack of mention by either party in the court case.
Your attempt to continue to refer to them as the same thing say more about your level of understanding of the case than it does of the premise itself.”

My comment – I refer to the thread of my post of March 4 of this year for that discussion.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=60571578

Trent777 and I are of the same (wait for the court ruling) opinion so we do not believe that the issue has been “proven” as you say and the “case” is not closed. Case CV-00053 is also still open and not proven yet either.