posted
Wallace, good to see you again. Somehow I knew we would. My bowl is empty right now, but "my cup runneth over". Did you shoot all those crows because they appeared happy?
IP: Logged |
posted
I have gone to the 10% profit rule just because I can't trade during the day. I caught myself missing a big gap, only to see it gone by the next day and falling.
I am dropping the 10% rule for this stock simple because the numbers say it will double and triple.
A good diamond pr would really be a homerun. I still think it will be a year before it reaches its stable value area.
posted
Those crows were all chomping on dead meat.
Up -
Haven't really looked at it except for a quick view of the release. Been busy helping a neighbor fix his roof and do some plumbing. Next project with him is the bath.
Frankly, on the surface it looks positive. Once I look at it a bit more carefully, I will let you know. Did someone above say you filled in for me? Just may be that I will get something out of 10,000,000 shs purchased at .0002.
quote:Originally posted by Wallace#1: Those crows were all chomping on dead meat.
Up -
Haven't really looked at it except for a quick view of the release. Been busy helping a neighbor fix his roof and do some plumbing. Next project with him is the bath.
Frankly, on the surface it looks positive. Once I look at it a bit more carefully, I will let you know. Did someone above say you filled in for me? Just may be that I will get something out of 10,000,000 shs purchased at .0002.
Dead meat??? MM's jumping off the skyscrapers there already?
posted
Some people do not believe that this dividend will force covering of the shorts because it is such a small amount but the dividend payout is in shares of UCAD not cash so the MM's will be forced to cover the shares.The MM's can't issue us shares of UCAD those will come from CMKM the MM's can't just mysteriously deposit UCAD shares in all the shorted accounts because there is a known number of shares to be issued.
IP: Logged |
posted
I think UCAD shares will go up in anticipation of UC wanting to buy more shares and possibly take contol of both. I'm new at this but it seems either way, both companies are going to start rising. I'm holding strong to .50. I have expenses.
IP: Logged |
posted
Trade Dog, I don't get your point. The value is the value and if they have to buy x amount of UCAD shares to cover, the end result is the same, much less than anyone expected.
IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a reasonably intelligent post on market valuation from another board
By: houstontex1110 18 Jul 2004, 10:29 PM EDT Msg. 45207 of 45237 Jump to msg. # CMKM'S MARKET VALUATION USING RELATIVITY
I repeatedly come across posts on working up the value of CMKKM. Define value? There may be 500 Billion dollars of diamonds in hundreds of kimberlites, but until you geologically prove your diamond reserves the market is unlikely to raise the pps to reflect that geo fact.
Folks, we are in competition with every other stock in the marketplace in drawing the investors' capital into our CMKM. This especially holds true with other natural resource stocks, and alternate diamond companies are in a sense our principal enemy. NO? If our CMKM's profile does not appear superior to company x, the investor will ignore CMKM. We claim CMKM is undervalued, and the following example supports that view:
One exploration company, the Otish Mountain Diamond Company(OOMDC:OTCBB), has already acquired the mining rights to 75,000 acres of mining claims - right in the heart of the new Otish Mountain diamond region. "And while the compapny"s shares may be selling for peanuts now, the first confirmation of diamonds on its property could easily send shares soaring to many times their current value."
Two weeks ago Otish Mountain was priced at .70 per share with 30million shares outstanding. This gives Otish a Market Cap of $21,000,000 CMKM's claims are reportedly 1.4 million acres; don't overlook they own options on another 1 million acres. Let's assume they eventually exercise a portion giving them 2 million acres. (For the time being ignore the UCAD 5% deal.) Divide 2million by 75,000 acres and that gives CMKM 26 times the land that Otish controls.
Therefore, CMKM ought to trade at 26 times Otish's Market Cap of 21 million resulting in $546,000,000. Wow is this coincidence with today's calculations? We calculated that CMKM and UCAD valued CMKM's minerals at $510,000,000. Folks, UC realizes what I am endeavoring to enlighten here. There is a real world out there which we must compete in and in our case the marketplace.
Notice that Otish has found NO diamonds nor conducted any drilling or aeromagnetic surveys.
Finally, if we assume CMKM OS is 50 billion with a market cap of$500,000,000 this results in a .01 share price. That is. relative to Otish we ought to fetch .01 in the competitive marketplace. Why $500 million? Because UC being an expert estimated our primary asset - mineral rights - to be fairly valued. Given Otish MKT CAP, this appears to be fairly priced.
I predict a slightly higher price due to this UCAD joint venture, CMKM's drilling, and magnetic survey. THE MMs have literally driven a .01 to.0001 and this SHORTLY will no longer be the case. If the OS is one half of my estimate then double .01 or whatever multiple applies.
In conclusion, the marketplace is the final judge of valuation and the process is mainly via a relative comparison of competitive diamond small cap stocks. Whatever you do, do NOT sell an undervalued stock. Make the MMs give us back our stolen valuation.
posted
There aren't a lot of UCAD shares on the market their volume Friday was only 500
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Trade Dog, I don't get your point. The value is the value and if they have to buy x amount of UCAD shares to cover, the end result is the same, much less than anyone expected.
posted
Trade Dog, That may be so but I don't see how that's relevant. If all of the shares you or I own are actually naked shorted shares, the UCAD dividend will show up in our account just like all of the "real" shareholders. Again, it's a miniscule price for any market maker that is short to pay.
IP: Logged |
posted
The first paragraph states they will issue those 7.5 mil shares to all shareholders of record on Aug 20, 2004. Going by what the TA leaked out as 400 bil shs (which I think just might be very close to the correct figure), it would mean each shareholder would get a miniscule number of shares of UCAD. That might be more costly than cash and it would represent a huge number of odd lot shares. It just might cost more to sell them than they are worth (assuming someone might want to do so). Normally, I would have expected that to be converted into cash and paid out in that manner. Still, I do not know where CMKX could get the cash.
There is no question that the record date is August 20, 2004. Only shareholders of record on or before that date would be entitled to any dividend. There was no mention of an x-dividend date. Further, the release states that "later will issue these shares". Whenever that "later" date is would be what is called the Payment Date, Distribution Date (or even the Effective Date). Who knows what "later" means to UC or the people at CMKX or UCAD?
I have not researched what might be the true value of UCAD or it's shares. I'm not sure, but didn't they have negative earnings and negative shareholders' equity?
I am also assuming that the deal between CMKX and UCAD is a done deal with nothing left to be determined or completed first.
Again, with no particulars, no one knows exactly which claims may be purchased, why those particular claims were selectedj, by whom they were selected or what is left.
The 1 yr. option for an add'l 10% doesn't mean much unless it is purchased by UCAD.
As to value of CMKX, I honestly feel it is too early to be trying to figure that out. Too many factors involved that are still unknown.
Someone did mention that the float might be about 200 bil if the issued and outstanding (I/O) is about 400 bil. I agree with that supposition. I do think that UC (and/or family insiders) have a controlling interest since they are very easily able to increase the authorized shares of CMKX at will.
I think someone stated that the authorized shares that are not issued would also participate in the dividend. That is incorrect. Only issued and outstanding shares participate in a dividend. I do not know how the Treasury shares (was over 20 bil) will be treated.
posted
I don't think there are, but let's say there's a forty billion OS. CMKX is only going to issue a dividend to 40 billion shareholders. If there are 500 billion naked shorted shares on top of the 40 billion "authorized" the brokerage houses are going to have to "find" 500 billion "dividends" from the MM's. If they can't produce the shares of UCAD to cover, they're in really "hot water". That's the way I see it. There aren't that many UCAD shares available, so their only choice is to buy back the naked short shares, causing the PPS to skyrocket.
IP: Logged |
posted
Noah, If you and the other naked short theorists are correct, the price should skyrocket between now and August 20th as they will have to liquidate an unprecedented short position.
IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe it can work that way the dividend shares aren't issued through a MM they are issued directly from CMKM so the MM can't cover with UCAD shares, the ony choice they have is to cover the shorts.
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Trade Dog, That may be so but I don't see how that's relevant. If all of the shares you or I own are actually naked shorted shares, the UCAD dividend will show up in our account just like all of the "real" shareholders. Again, it's a miniscule price for any market maker that is short to pay.
posted
It was good news. If nothing else it will give an accounting of the O/S. The real value of the dividend and/or the comapny cannot be accurately determined until then. Y'all are getting too excited. We need the O/S. Good night, it's been a fun day.
IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't see the naked short as theory, as I stated earlier, UC knows how many are authorized and how many are naked shorted. He would have had no reason to issue a dividend at this point, on a non-profit producing company, except to catch the MM's.
IP: Logged |
posted
Has anyone thought about the possibility of an MM filing bankruptcy? Or backing out like Schwab? Even on the Big Board, it was the shareholders that got socked when specialist firms (they act somewhat in the same capacity as a MM) were screwing around. Sure some had to pay fines, but that did not hurt them very much at all.
Will,
Depending upon what that "later" date is, it may not force that figure out very soon. Even then, they would not have to disclose the I/O numbers if they do not want to.
[This message has been edited by Wallace#1 (edited July 19, 2004).]
posted
Late night L2 lineup shows Nite and Jeff, the only 2 on the ask at .0004. Nobody at .0005. WIEN only at .0006 and TJAS is next at .01
IP: Logged |
posted
Wallace, in other places I have seen traders stating that the MM's are insured against such losses, but I don't know it for a fact.
IP: Logged |
posted
noah, I believe you are right that they have to carry some insurance but I have no idea how much or under what circumstances the insurance company would pay.
IP: Logged |
posted
I have also wondered about liability if the MM's tank, and would believe that the brokerage would be ultimately liable to us for value since they chose and purchased through the MM. Don't they have some responsibility to insure that our trades are "real".
IP: Logged |
posted
I think that Wallace is better equipped to answer that than me but I think that the brokerages have to sell from their inventory on hand or inventory that is readily available. That might be another feather in the naked short theorists cap as many brokerages went "certificate only" with CMKX long ago.
IP: Logged |
posted
I think UC knows how large the short is. Let's say it is 100 Billion, and you multiply that by the dividend amount, and divide that between 2 or three MM's it isn't more than 20 million each.
They can afford it pretty easily imo. Unless the short is astronomically huge and not spread out it shouldn't be an issue.
posted
IMO the mm's will want to cover this before the 20th maybe not till the 19th but before not because of cost on this stock but because of publicity...there are hundreds of lawsuits out there over naked shorting and nothing has changed in aug sometime dateline will air the stockgate story not because of cmkx but because they want bush out but it will shine a spotlight on the problem. if on the 21st we find that UC & insiders hold 50% or better of the probable 400 billion o/s and shareholders hold much more then 200 billion shares with the dateline story just airing it will make news and thus a probable change in the rules ending the mm's money train. this is more scary the them then and lose on cmkx but thats just IMO.
IP: Logged |
posted
Check this out - UCAD bought 80% of El Capitan Precious Metals COD mine with thier stock... ________________________________________ 1. COD Mine -- ECPN sold 80% of the COD Mine to U.S. Canadian Minerals Inc.( UCAD ) for 720,000 shares of UCAD stock. ECPN will operate the property and begin to process the tailings and dumps . The revenue will be split 50-50 among the parties. The permitting process has started and it is expected that production will begin around July 1, 2004.
..............
4. The Company has declared a 200% stock dividend. The dividend, which will have the same impact on the Company's stockholders as a 3-for-1 forward stock split, will be issued to stockholders of record on July 30, 2004. Holders of the Company's common stock as of that date will each receive an additional two shares of common stock for each share they own.
posted
NOAH / UPSIDE I think Wallace post od 00:16 is right. 1-Company has no Proven value 2-UCAD financials are very negative and have no money 3-MM are not insured for short. Thier market participation is based more on size of value assets maintained. 4-A dividend declared & not paid is a very negative shareholder marketing ploy. Basically at some point after 8/20 UCAD is going to take a 7.5m share certificate, run it thru a shredder and mail it to everyone. - - - NOAH This is why I maintain an open mind for the sell, this is the only way to lock in profit. I have the same threshold of STARGAZER 10%. When I have violated it in the past it has cost me. To me this is like playing baseball against a pitcher who walks a lot of batters, I think we have the bases loaded and I don't care if we get another walk,hit,double,triple, the BLHR is very remote and we will win anyway. VAN - - - BOOTY No (at least not on big boards,who knows about pinks)I would hold at least long enough to see post on your account. A previous poster pointed out it will be very small.
[This message has been edited by VNGNTN1 (edited July 19, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by VNGNTN1 (edited July 19, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by VNGNTN1 (edited July 19, 2004).]
posted
I look foward to what negitive issues Wallace will 'find' today...
It amazes me how someone can discuss a stock as much as Wallace does on these CMKX threads, insist that he wouldn't buy unless .0001, yet feels that it is a 'scam', yet will reap profits after bilking other investors (Yeah Slim, that isn't to shady of you . Now a dividend isn't something to hoot about (rolling my eyes...)
Only time will tell, and so far, IMHO Wallace has been COMPLETELY wrong about this stock, 100 percent of the time.
He managed to stay quiet yesterday but I see he is now comming out of his hole. This nit wit will be here when the stock is at .02 , still saying the same crap, meanwhile if you bought in at .0002, .02 would be a 100 bagger ,lol..
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
