Replies to post #32194 on NewStream Energy Technologies Group Inc (NSGP)

[BigBake1]

No it's is not, NSS is a transaction based upon no actual shares involved in the transaction. When an MM is involved in completing a transaction between you and I there are actual shares involved in the transaction. The underwritten process is moving the ownership from me to you in the sale. The requirement is to mark the trade short due to not owning the security and not reasonably expecting deliver of the shares by settlement date as required by FINRA and the SEC.

FTDs would show potential counterfeit inventory, as any number of parties would not recieve delivery of said shares. This Fails to Deliver is what indicates potential settlement issues within a security. There in fact 4 parties involved in the clearing and settlement process and not one of them is going to eat a trade baseed on counterfiet inventory.

[BigBake1]

Now lets discuss actual documented factors that have major influence on PPS here. They clearly raised the AS here from 600 million to 975 million shares:

http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingPdf?FilingID=8692102

They clearly issue shares and some of those shares are in fact free trading on the open market, last filing provided shows out of the 975,000,000 shares authorized a total of 751,067,644 are in the OS. Of that 657,720,000 are in the current Float, one does not have to go far to see that within less than 4 months they were exceeding the previous AS of 600,000,000 with free trading shares. Never mind they reported the OS in December of 2011 as being 593,784,000 shares which shows clear dilution of over 64 million shares onto the market since December last year to the end of the September 30th Q.

http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingPdf?FilingID=8914310

So as we can see they issued 157,283,644 shares over the 9 month period of which 55,850,332 were sold into the market to pay for services of $2,747,912. Looking at the balance sheet provided, those services were for General Administration costs of $273,599, Consulting Fees of $2,129,625 and last the Interest Expense of $314,573. None of these were for actual “operational expenses”, these are in fact administrative expenses although the company claims them as operational expenses. Paying salaries is not operational, paying consultants is not operational, paying interest is not operational, these are administrative fees.

But interestingly enough the discussion of poor price performance of shares is never related to the discussion of the consistent dilution present. Even the company makes it abundantly clear that shareholders will suffer losses.

Due to shortage of operating funds and low liquidity, we have issued shares and warrants as compensation for services, including board and officer compensation as well as compensation for outside consultants and other services. This form of compensation has enabled us to obtain services that would not otherwise have been available to us but it has resulted in dilution to our shareholders. Unless we are able to obtain adequate financing in the immediate future, we may be forced to continue to obtain services through the issuance of shares and warrants,
resulting in additional dilution to shareholders and potentially adversely affecting any return on investment.

Hello! We lack funds and we dilute to pay the bills and shareholders are the payees of those bills. Instead of trying to construct a reason revolving around external parties with absolutely nothing to support such a conclusion, one should be looking at the documents provided to them for the answers. The company spells it out, they are diluting the crap out of shareholders and that is supported by the quarterly reports. The short Interest is a meaningless 85,022 shares as of December 14th, out of the 751 million shares in the OS that is not even a 10th of a percent involved here.

http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CCTC/short-sales

FTDs as of the last report on December 14th, 2012 show 0 shares in aggregate that have not been settled upon that last reporting date. So no share delivery issues within CCTC trading.

http://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/failsdata-archive.htm

So here we have a solid conclusion drawn on several documents provided to us, minimal to non-existent short position taken of 85,022 shares, 0 delivery issues in accordance with the latest SEC FTD report show that shorts, NSS and Abusive NSS are not a problem with CCTC. However we can clearly see that the company is actively dumping shares onto the market and has done so to the tune of greater than 10% of the OS reported on December of 2011, which then resulted in the necessity to raise the AS as they were to issue more shares than they were authorized to.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2012, the Company committed to issue more common shares than its authorized amount through the issuance of common stock with debt, stock for services and through the vesting of a stock option bonus to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer. If the shares had been issued, the Company would have exceeded its authorized common stock on January31, 2012. Therefore, all issuances after this date were accounted for as derivative liabilities through June 26, 2012 when the authorized common stock was increased to 975,000,000. The shares in excess of the authorized common stock were determined in chronological order based upon the date the obligation to issue the shares took place.

I really find it interesting that this is not the discussion as to how these people run a company and exceed their authorized shares while they are so busy paying themselves, but one is to believe the security price woes are directly attributed to a fabricated recipe of fiction related to a process that cannot be hidden here in the illiquid OTC marketplace.