posted
Portman, You do realize that a lot of us followed you, right on over to the SHC.Where did that get us!
For me to read on that "other"board, that you hoped this new adventure isn't a cult follower like the last one {not exact quote} was a low blow! IMO
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr. CATIAEngineer: Ok Port, fair enough. But, discussions regarding ANLT are indeed "on topic" for the CSHD thread IMO.
I wont go into an conspiracy theories as you have asked but i can assure you those theories are there, and im not alone in thinking of them. I will mention, however, that i also got a good laugh when reading that you didnt get into FHAL because of the log deal but it would appear you have become interested in ANLT for just that reason.
Oh well, around and around we go..........
Mr. C, You know I love ya , but I'm not sure I agree with ya about talking about ANLT on here. We can always check up on that thru other means. IMO. Just seeing the initials makes my blood pressure go up
Between M.A,TUT,D.P, J.G. and now M.P. {got all that LOL} My stomach can't take much more, which reminds me
"AS THE STOMACH TURNS" is still turning.
IP: Logged |
posted
By Jim Cramer RealMoney.com Columnist 3/22/2007 6:29 AM EDT
You may have seen some articles the past several days attacking me about an interview I gave recently where I discussed the kinds of manipulative trading practices that go on every day in the investing community. Let me say this: No one knows and respects the securities laws more than I do. (I didn't go to Harvard Law School for nothing!)
When I was a hedge fund trader in the 1990s, I played fair, and I did nothing that violated those laws. But others did not play fair, and that's why I started TheStreet.com and have been writing about these abuses for nearly a decade -- to explain to my readers how the markets really work. I wanted to give transparency to the market and tell people the good and the bad.
Some professional traders don't like it when I expose how their game is played, and some of the TheStreet.com's competitors don't like it when people are interested in what I have to say. But I am going to continue to write and talk about how the markets really work -- in my own sometimes hyperbolic and tongue-in-cheek style -- and call them as I see them. That's the least I owe you.
posted
Does ASI (American Safety Insurance Holdings Ltd)have anything to do with ANLT, besides that their ticker symbol is the same as the initials for Analytical Surveys Inc.?
I'm assuming this is the only reason they put ANLT's PR under ASI's news.
A friend started talking about ASI's involvement, so I had to dig deeper. I can't find a connection, but there's some interesting things there.
For 1, ASI lists their business model to be "a specialty insurance company that provides customized insurance products and solutions for businesses and industries underserved by the standard insurance market" This sounds like what CSHD lists theirs as.
And 2, the last insider buying of ASI (according to my friend's Scottrade acount) is listed as: The last buy occurred when ROBBIE WILLIAM ALEXANDER purchased 2,000 shares on 6/21/2006.
I know Mike has a brother, but I don't know his name.
I imagine all of this in coincidence, but it could sure fuel some conspiracy theories!
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by milliam: Does ASI (American Safety Insurance Holdings Ltd)have anything to do with ANLT, besides that their ticker symbol is the same as the initials for Analytical Surveys Inc.?
I'm assuming this is the only reason they put ANLT's PR under ASI's news.
A friend started talking about ASI's involvement, so I had to dig deeper. I can't find a connection, but there's some interesting things there.
For 1, ASI lists their business model to be "a specialty insurance company that provides customized insurance products and solutions for businesses and industries underserved by the standard insurance market" This sounds like what CSHD lists theirs as.
And 2, the last insider buying of ASI (according to my friend's Scottrade acount) is listed as: The last buy occurred when ROBBIE WILLIAM ALEXANDER purchased 2,000 shares on 6/21/2006.
I know Mike has a brother, but I don't know his name.
I imagine all of this in coincidence, but it could sure fuel some conspiracy theories!
posted
I put it over on Rufy's board and got nothing...no one said a word about it. Oh well...Maybe they already hashed that one out, or I just don't have enough karma .
IP: Logged |
You know I was just kidding around last night, right?
Milliam, I think it takes a lot , to get karma over there , I think you have to post around 90 times before "they" know who you are.Can't say I blame them,we are all careful with newbees.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ocqueoc: You who? Mr.C,
You know I was just kidding around last night, right?
Milliam, I think it takes a lot , to get karma over there , I think you have to post around 90 times before "they" know who you are.Can't say I blame them,we are all careful with newbees.
Yes, i know you were kidding. But, you might want to get used to seeing ANLT comments if the "Letter of Intent" becomes a true merger agreement. It pertains to us as far as the legal issues are concerned IMO.
IP: Logged |
posted
The CSHD web site has a couple of new buttons this morning, I think, for Directors and Executives. They were not there last time I looked on Wednesday. FWIW GLTA
posted
A bond may be non-rated becasue Moody's or Standard & Poor's may have withdrawn the rating...Usually that happens when small issuers which have not issued new secirities for a period of time neglect to send updated financial statement to the rating service.
posted
New2? I am not sure that I understand what you are asking... the way I understand the bonds to work? You have a $100 bond...you Pay $75 the bond matures on a certain date...the bond is then worth the $100...BUT if you do not with draw the bond it continues to gain interest...
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards!
IP: Logged |
Today at 7:57am, voodoonola wrote: Today at 7:53am, cfp wrote: What does it say when you search on "withdrawn"? Tell me that and I may be able to tell you. If the search was done TODAY its because the bond has matured.
The screenshot shows one from last year then one from this morning.
Once a bond has MATURED the principal is paid back to the owners of (any portion) the bonds and the bond is withdrawn from the system. Thats why todays search shows that it is done.
IP: Logged |
posted
New2...I assumed the bond matured today and the rating has been withdrawn due to this. The big question is..well, the big question is really if CSHD owned/or controlled this bond...anyway, the big question is, where does the money go? Does CSHD gain money from this, does CSHD lose this asset? Does everything stay the same and interest continues to pile up?
I'm just wondering if this bond maturing today warrants an 8k.
IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a very interesting letter I found when doing a search on CEDE & Co.
Letter to SEC: Elimination of Stock Certificates by Lori Livingston From: Lori Livingston Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:26 PMTo: chairmanoffice*sec.gov; marketreg*sec.govSubject: Elimination of Stock Certificates
To whom it may concern:
I am writing in regard to the recent press release from the Depository Trust Company (DTC) and other recent events and rules regarding DTC eligibility and Issuer rights in regard to DTC participation.
As someone who has been in the transfer agent business for 23 years, I am alarmed by recent developments and trends that all work toward a system of increasing positions on the books and records of corporations in the name of Cede & Co. (nominee name for DTC). As the transfer agent for approximately 300 issuers, I am increasingly contacted by these companies as they seek information regarding the stock ownership in their companies and the underlying trading of those shares in the market. Over the years as the amount of shares held at DTC has increased it has become more and more difficult to determine who owns the shares, who is trading them and if the trading is proper. This trend, and the resulting problems I will detail below, continues to increase because a minority of the total number of shareholders are reflected on the books and records of the corporation, most activity takes place behind the wall of ownership that is designated as Cede & Co. and neither the company nor the transfer agent has any access to the underlying information.
While the press release (which I have attached) heralds the movement toward increasing this trend of dematerialization as a triumph and great progress which will save investors millions of dollars, I see this trend from a different perspective and one which is not only alarming to me but to many of the companies that will be effected by these changes. I also disagree as to whether or not it will save shareholders millions of dollars or merely shift the costs through a different route and into different pockets. Additionally, I see this as continuing the trend of increasing costs to corporations, particularly smaller issuers already struggling with the ever increasing price of being a public company, and further decreased shareholder value based on the additional expense paid by the company.
Furthermore, DTC recently managed to put through a rule change (Release No. 34-50758A; File No.S7-24-04) that prohibits a transfer agent from representing any company who seeks to withdraw from the DTC system. This change effectively leaves companies with no voice or choice in the management of their stock and their ability to have any transparency as to what is actually taking place in the market in regard to their stock.
I receive calls from companies seeking information as they watch millions of shares trade in a single day, who watch their share price decrease in value and who have no access to information regarding who is behind the trading of these shares, or if in fact the trades are at all legitimate. As the system now operates, most companies have a large percentage of shares on their books registered to Cede & Co. This position usually represents a majority of the outstanding stock in any given company. Underlying this position is a system at DTC which is reflected in a Position Listing Reportand this report represents the brokers and clearing firms that hold positions in any given security on DTCs books and records for the beneficial owners (Non Objecting Beneficial Owners NOBOs and Objecting Beneficial Owners OBOs) or shareholders. The trades that take place on a daily basis move between these brokers and clearing firms electronically; however, the Issuer (nor their transfer agent) has any access to this data unless they order and pay for the lists. This is not only expensive for the company, but it also does not tell them anything about who actually owns the stock. For that information they must go to yet another party and that is ADP.
ADP is engaged by the brokers to keep track of the NOBOs and OBOs and to send the shareholders in Street Namereports and communications from the Issuer. Their other vital function is to serve as proxy tabulator for the shareholders who hold their shares in broker accounts. This is a critical function for the public company and one which they are required to perform by law. Given the importance of shareholder voting and communication one would assume that the same requirements placed on transfer agents as to accuracy and reporting would be placed on ADP and Cede & Co. as they usually hold or service the majority of the shares owned in any given company. I have found; however, that when presented with the tabulation reports from ADP the share totals they report sometimes exceed the total number of shares outstanding for the company. Let me restate this because it is a very important part of my concern about a system that is more and more headed in the direction of increased control by DTC. The shares presented by ADP, that are the shares voted by the brokers on behalf of the shareholders for whom they hold accounts, EXCEED when added to the shareholders of record the total number of shares outstanding. As the final judge and inspector of elections I would naturally inquire as to how the number of shares could be higher than the total shares that exist for a company and to my surprise I am told by ADP that they only vote what is reported by the brokers. It becomes the responsibility of the company, and further the transfer agent, to reconcile the numbers so that an annual meeting can be conducted that reflects numbers of share voted that makes any sense.
Where are these extra shares coming from? Why are there no controls on the number of shares held in the nominee name Cede & Co. vs. the ownership on the books and records of the brokers and why is the company not privy to any information unless it pays whatever fees it is told it must pay by the organizations that control the data? There have been a great deal of new regulatory levels of reporting put on companies (i.e. Sarbanes- Oxley Act compliance), but from where I am positioned in the marketplace that does not address what is a far greater problem for issuers shareholders and the integrity of the markets, and that is, who are their shareholders and how are their shares trading?
I will close at this point with a request to the SEC that in the rush to move to dematerialization someone look at the existing system and the inequities that exist in the market based on a companies complete ignorance and inability to know what is actually going on with the shares of their companies and the problems we face in the future as we move toward a system where the brokers, DTC and ADP have more information and control than the shareholders, the transfer agents and the issuers. In fact, as the system is evolving, DTC is de facto becoming the largest transfer agent in the industry even though it is an organization formed by and working for the interests of the brokerage community. If, ultimately, the S.E.C. is in place to protect investors then this issue can not be ignored because in the end when the market is completely under the control of the brokers and the organizations that represent them then the market can neither be transparent nor fair.
I thank you for your time in reading this communication.
Lori Livingston President & CEO Transfer Online, Inc. 317 SW Alder St., Second Fl Portland OR 97204
IP: Logged |
posted
If, ultimately, the S.E.C. is in place to protect investors then this issue can not be ignored because in the end when the market is completely under the control of the brokers and the organizations that represent them then the market can neither be transparent nor fair.
IMO? the market WAS under MORE control by the brokers etc. BEFORE the internet became what it is today...
in other words? we investors are more empowered today than we ever were due to the free exchange of ideas and information that we enjoy NOW than investors ever have been...
posted
Investment fraud from what are commonly known as "boiler rooms", is rife. These unregulated firms often exist only on paper as a front for flogging shares with the promise of extraordinarily high returns when in reality they may be nearly worthless.
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
, but![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
, I think you have to post around 90 times before "they" know who you are.Can't say I blame them,we are all careful with newbees.
...trading knowledge
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
