Replies to post #98175 on Expo Holdings Inc. (EXPH)

[underdog150]

My sentiments exactly

ho hum

---------------
i've spoken with nite's compliance officer previously
in regards to exph .. another exph long's broker has
also filed complaints against them .. based on their
*BLOCKING* on exph's ask and not *filling* bids at ask

.. notice what happens .. when that info is posted ..
in the *short* term .. it results in *change* ;-)

NITE gets with the program

exph bid/ask .. 0003/4 .. 1x2 .. nite/nite etmm

Volume 6,164,969
10-Day Average Volume 7,278,112
90-Day Average Volume 12,917,051

edit>>> 2:50 PM

excellent 995k at bid <.0003> takes nite out on bid
etmm is now *showing* best on ask at .0003 with a size
of 2.681.000

bid/ask .. 0002/3 .. 3x1 <etmm ask> ;-)

exph Volume 7,159,969

size on bid at .0002 = 138.6M+

ho hum :0

[Santa Barbara Broker]

i've spoken with nite's compliance officer previously in regards to exph .. another exph long's broker has also filed complaints against them .. based on their *BLOCKING* on exph's ask and not *filling* bids at ask.

WHAT? Where is it written NITE is under some federal or state obligation to fill every EXPH share order that is posted at ask? Can anyone produce THAT exact legislation? The next time there is some idiotic scenario posted that equivocates the legal fee equivalent of burning piles of hundred dollar bills in the parking lot in reference to some imagined sleight against Expo Holdings, Inc., I'd like to see the LAW that prompts the accusation. I want to see the legal precedent and the penalties for not filling every single bid posted at ask. No...strike that. I'd like to see ONE example of where it was successfully prosecuted or even rectified following some half-azzed, half thought out "complaint"...especially one in reference to Expo Holdings. Just ONE. IMHO.