quote:Originally posted by Upside: Brad, One question regarding your theory. CMKX, had a name change (from CMKM to CMKX) and new CUSIP number assigned to it in March of this year. I'm not an expert in these matters but that is supposed to expose any short position there is as new certificates with the new # have to be issued. Why didn't it expose the massive short position then or is this just a recent development?
Which theory is that Upside? I'm short on theories. You may be talking about a repost of something I picked up from another board.
posted
Sorry Brad, you're right. I thought your post from earlier (the one that starts out with you being on a plane all day) was actually your theory. My apologies again!
IP: Logged |
posted
oh dear, richness is back, this is a free country so the moderators should have kept him removed. Ever since he has been back just idiotic posts. I wish the member here would not respond and argue with richness because then you are just like him. Ignore works wonders. Did I have to read all the garbage about richness
I will not address richness again, but this tiem, if you dont like CMKX move on. Others, you support it when you give it attention.
apparently, some kids can only get negative attention sice they didint get th positive when growing up.
all they kknow is negative. so iwonder if i have to read thru so much trash jsut because richness is back on.
posted
Glad to see you back richness! You mention about someone wanting to see the property in Canada. This afternoon I was thinking the same thing. If I could afford it (and out of curiousity), I would hire that Co. that did the fly over for CMKM. That way you would see EXACTLY what we were promised by Melvin we could see pictures of. (of course we haven't seen squat). It would save alot of driving around the country side!! lol
IP: Logged |
posted
i think we all might be making a mistake thinking that the o/s will be announced aug 20th or even aug 30th...all the pr said was that stockholders of that date would get shares..there is no need to say anything about the o/s till whatever date they decide to place them in our accounts. they know the o/s right now so to split the shares up is not a problem. the post from zen says it has to be announced then..i don't see why. heck all they have to do is put then in our accounts, ya know they might be reading these soap opera boards and have bets going on the figureing and geniusus say they know the o/s because 15 shares times this divided by that times pie equals this....come to think of it that might be a fun way to do it..sure would give us something to talk about other then whos a moron & who isn't
IP: Logged |
posted
Money P-Daddy wrote: "Allright, John, I admit I still have less than you (2.5 million) . But my kids own about another 1.5 million, does that count, LOL. I feel good though about buying at 0.0004 today. It was a sale indeed! "
yes that qualifies My parents also own 800k shares, of that my dad has 600k, my Mom 200k... lol...
It's going to be a quiet night, not like last week,lol...
posted
What I cannot figure out is how they will determine who will get the dividend if there was a lot of naked short selling.
Here's the way I am looking at it:
Let's say, for example, there are 500 shares authorized. Out of that 500 shs, say 400 shs are issued and outstanding.
Now suppose UC owns 250 of the 400 issued and outstanding. That would leave 150 shs as a public float. Now, if there were an additional 50 shs naked shorted (not covered), wouldn't the DTC show a total of 200 shs in the public float?
If that is the case (200 shs pub. float, 50 of which are naked), the DTC will not know which are valid and which are naked.
Then, when the Transfer Agent contacts the DTC for a breakdown of all the holders of shares (bear in mind these would be "street name holders since the TA would already have the names of holders with physical certificates), the DTC would pass them a broken down total of 200 shs in the names of x-broker, y-broker and z-broker.
Would the naked shares be specifically identified...I don't think so, but maybe I am wrong. Any comments?
posted
I dont think Glenn is around. Several past Pr's have not mentioned him. Remember how he "took hold" after he was hired. That only lasted ... what 2 PR's. Kinda like how thier TA's last! LOL
IP: Logged |
posted
wallace...i dont think the dtc, the mm's or anyone other then UC & the lawyers know how many shares UC & insiders own. remember his wife, brother (whoever that other casivite is) all have had and probably added to shares. if UC is so sure there is naked shorting and really if it turns out true i believe its because of insiders buying while on pink sheets and not declaring what they own. also just a thought there were prs about retiring shares maybe he increased the a/s just to set up the naked shorting mm's i've always had the idea UC had a conman streak in him, jacking the a/s to the roof and then not authorizing them sure would set the mm's up. either way the ucad shares go to all o/s even insiders
IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting question Wallace. If you assume the naked short theory is correct, how would they know which ones were naked and which were real. Do brokerage houses have x amount of shares in inventory and anything over and above that amount would be naked shorts? Even if that was the case though, if they're all in street name, who would get the dividend and who wouldn't?
IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, c'mon TP! I would have thought that by this point the last thing being called into question would be the 1.4 million acres in mineral rights that WE currently own. Deosn't the fact that UCAD traded us 35.25 million dollars (as of todays PPS) for 5% of our mineral rights mean anything to you!?!
Bill, I am totally new to most of this and I'm trying to comprehend what the heck is going on.....When the company (CMKX) declares a dividend that is payable to all shareholders registered as of a certain date (in this case Aug 20th) wouldn't the shareholders legally be entitled to know exactly how many shares they are being rewarded with, even if the actual payout date is still unknown??? I have a difficult time imagining a company being allowed to announce such a thing without having some kind of accountability....
posted
if this whole thing plays out to there really is a huge naked short and mm's are running the pps to cover and UC has been playing them like a fiddle i'd first be shocked, second tip my hat to him and third put my boot where the sun don't shine because he could have used all that energy into finding the diamonds
IP: Logged |
Re your post immediately above, that is exactly my point. How would they know who was really entitled to the dividend?
Re your earlier post about the name chg and the CUSIP number, I don't think that would do a thing. Shs in street name would not need or require new certifs. Physical certifs in the old name would still be valid...only if they were turned back in for the changes would the new ones be reissued.
Correction: Shs in street name would be not require changes either.
[This message has been edited by Wallace#1 (edited July 23, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Wallace#1 (edited July 23, 2004).]
posted
according to the deal those shares are restricted for 1 yr and it never said when it was payable. if my boss says he is giving me a 10% bonus finders fee for a job and that i'll get paid when he does how do i know what that 10% is until i see the check unless he decides to tell me the total job cost. do i have a right to know even thought its a bonus and not a part of any binding agreement?...remember cmkx is not reporting and this is legal. these shares are a bonus and not a part of what we bought when buying into cmkx. unless they plan on becoming a reporting company i don't think they will just announce the o/s withouty all the rest of the info like the insiders shares and financial info
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wallace#1: What I cannot figure out Here's the way I am looking at it: Let's say. Now suppose I don't think so, but maybe I am wrong. Any comments?
HA HA HA Yep, So what your tring to say is CMKX, bad. I got you the first time. I can see why daytraders hate 'em,It's a daytraders nightmare.It will take time for CMKX to pay off.One thing they don't have...is time. But me, I got all the time in the world and at the same time make it a better place(the world).I'm a construction surveyor. The money is alot more steady then the penny market.HA HA HA,but not near as fun. Good luck everybody.
posted
they might not know who owns naked and who owns real shares...i don't think it would end up mattering because legally our brokers send out confirmations of our buying shares. this means they guarenty we own shares. whoever sold nakes shares would have shareholders, brokers, the sec and media all over them...can you imagine the lawyers coming out of the woodwork looking to sue?
IP: Logged |
posted
I've been following this thread with much interest for awhile now and wanted to finally contribute. I have an equation that may allow shareholders to roughly determine the O/S count once the share dividends are distributed. Please correct me if I'm wrong in my thinking. Equation:
X(Y)/Z = O/S count
X = Number of total shares held by you. (Exp. 1,000,000) Y = Number of total shares involved in the dividend. (Exp. 7,500,000 UCAD) Z = Number of total shares you received through dividend. (Exp. 25)
Because I don't know how stock dividends are paid if there is naked shorting, I can't offer another equation, so in my view, this is only good if there is no N.S. What do you think?
posted
i dont really buy this naked short theory i think the o/s is huge but these last to moves make you wonder because they are set up with 2 things...first ucad has almost no shares in the market as a whole, this deal almost doubles their shares,...second cim can not be bought to cover any naked shares if as of aug 31st there are naked shares in the market...why do this and with those types of shares if somebody wasn't real sure there were huge amounts of naked shares
IP: Logged |
posted
Wallace, To my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, when I buy shares through my broker (ameritrade) and they are held in street name, ameritrade has to register x amount of shares in my name in their books to prove that I'm the owner, then within a specific time period their share count is reported to the transfer agent. I'm assuming this is the case for each and every broker out there. If so, wouldn't there actually be a record of every legitimate shareholder out there? Granted it might be a nightmare to gather this information but theoretically at least it should be possible.
IP: Logged |
posted
thats true styx...i'm sort of hoping that one day i see ucad in my account without a pr about the o/s...can ya see this board that day?...be a very interesting posting day
IP: Logged |
posted
Acherontia, That's the formula we're all going to use if /when those shares show up in our accounts. By the way, your real name wouldn't happen to be Diego would it?
IP: Logged |
posted
Remember in my example, we were presupposing 50 naked shares. If the TA says there are only 150 shs out there (in public float), just who is going to come up with the 50 naked shs you and I bought? The TA? No! The Co? No! Your broker? How? They do not exist.
IP: Logged |
posted
Wallace, Ok, in your example there are 50 shares out there that don't exist right? But, of the 150 legitimate shares that do exist, is there no way to tie those 150 shares to the legitimate holders? You know what, never mind, I just figured it out. All 200 shares even the 50 naked will have someones name tied to them.
IP: Logged |
Now, we're getting into an area of which I am not 100% sure. My understanding, is that, unless someone in that public float demands (asks) for their physical certificate, it is merely an electronic entry on the DTC's records under the name of the broker (meaning street name). Even with a split, I believe what happens is that shs are credited to a broker's particular account with the DTC and then the broker credits the shareholder's account. It's possible, but I doubt if physical certifs are moved around. I am just not sure how these functions are accomplished and am basically guessing here.
posted
Grasshopper Member posted July 23, 2004 22:52 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow, c'mon TP! I would have thought that by this point the last thing being called into question would be the 1.4 million acres in mineral rights that WE currently own. Deosn't the fact that UCAD traded us 35.25 million dollars (as of todays PPS) for 5% of our mineral rights mean anything to you!?! _____________________________________ That 35.25 Million is only the value on paper, nothing more. UCAD has in thier bank account I think a total of $408.00 dollars.
IP: Logged |
quote:eu desejo a todos muitos sorte e sucesso. Eu amo meus povos do companheiro com todo meu coração e desculpo-me sincerely se qualquer offended por minha conversação mais adiantada com moedas de um centavo negociando e Wallace#1. O Deus Bless América
posted
That's good to know my formula could potentially work. I never saw anyone remark about it before, and wanted to check. You never know, maybe it could have been different in this case.
Upside: Sorry, but my real name isn't Diego. It must just be coincidence if you're connecting my username with someone. I'm a fan of The Silence of the Lambs and got the name from that.
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
My parents also own 800k shares, of that my dad has 600k, my Mom 200k... 
