posted
neither cmkx or CIM would come close to qualifing for AMEX they need a $3 pps & a 3 yr history of making money & neither come close.
Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't shareholders of UCAD supposed to get a F/S today?
From UCAD pr Oct 15th... The Company's earlier announced 3 for 1 forward split is expected to be effective October 25, 2004. All shareholders of record as of that date will participate in the split.
[This message has been edited by safeguard (edited October 26, 2004).]
Wall Street News Alert: Aggressive Traders Alert! October 26, 2004, Part 3 10/26/2004 7:29:56 AM
Weston, FLA., Oct 26, 2004 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- Wall Street News Alert`s "stocks to watch" this morning are: ART International Corp. ( ARIOF ), Broadcom Corporation ( BRCM ), Dell Inc. ( DELL ), Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ( WMT ) and CMKM Diamonds, Inc. ( CMKX ).
[This message has been edited by safeguard (edited October 26, 2004).]
posted
Here's the key to anything you read from "Wall Street News Alert":
This profile is not without bias, and is a paid release. WSCF has been compensated for dissemination of company information on behalf of one or more of the companies mentioned in this release.
They are about as reputable as the Green Baron. It's another paid pumping firm.
posted
U.S. Canadian Minerals Inc. 3-for-1 Forward Split and Symbol Change Effective Tuesday October 26, 1:43 pm ET
LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 26, 2004--U.S. Canadian Minerals Inc. (OTCBB: UCAD - News) announced today that the company's 3-for-1 forward split has been declared effective as of the open of the market tomorrow, Oct. 27, 2004. The company's new trading symbol is USCA. This restructuring of the company will allow for the pursuit of additional avenues of financing and future acquisitions. John Woodward, president of UCAD, exclaimed, "We are appreciative of everyone's efforts in making this forward split effective. The forward split of the company's securities should open exciting pathways for future growth and additional shareholder value."
Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements contained in this document which are not historical fact are forward-looking statements based upon management's current expectations that are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those set forth in or implied by forward-looking statements.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contact: U.S. Canadian Minerals Inc. Chris Hanneman, 303-220-8476
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: U.S. Canadian Minerals Inc.
posted
and they are up .60 today on volume of 43,000. wont see movement like that anymore at least not on the volume
Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe a silly question but are the UCAD FS shares restricted since the distribution shares are, the ones that came via CMKX?
Posts: 73 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was discussed days ago. The answer is yes, they are restricted. Confirmed through the PR person at UCAD.
quote:Originally posted by safeguard: Maybe a silly question but are the UCAD FS shares restricted since the distribution shares are, the ones that came via CMKX?
Posts: 4893 | From: Burbank IL USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, they're restricted. I e-mailed UCAD asking them that very question when they announced the split.
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Here's the key to anything you read from "Wall Street News Alert":
This profile is not without bias, and is a paid release. WSCF has been compensated for dissemination of company information on behalf of one or more of the companies mentioned in this release.
They are about as reputable as the Green Baron. It's another paid pumping firm.
Interesting Upside, do you have anything solid that would substantiate that on these particular companies? Shouldn't these companies be required to disclose this type of "advertising".
posted
Workaholic, The middle part of my post that you copied is pulled from the "alert" that they put out. I should have enclosed it in quotes or something. Also, the Green Baron, on their site, comes rite out and states that their parent company, Evergreen Marketing, is a holder of CMKX and they state they have been adding to their position since they began covering them. To me, that is paid pumping or pumping for your own self interest. At the very least, it's not impartial journalism.
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
glfpimp, We participate in the split but our new shares are restricted just like the originals.
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
125809996 AMEX CASAVANT INTERNATIONAL MINING EQUITY
this is what it says for my CIM dividend through etrade that really didn't answer my question bill. Most dividends from alot of companies have either unknown or nasdaq sc Ive never seen it with amex thats what I am asking why does it have amex I am not saying that I think it is a stock exchanged on the amex or that it qualifies I am asking for the reason they had to use the amex instead of nasdaq sc. I just dont understand. this is what I know being a newbee
otc is pink sheet stocks otcbb is over the counter bulletin board stocks
nasdaq sc is dividends nasdaq nm is stocks that are trading on the nasdaq stock exchange nyse are trading on that exchange and I thought amex only refered to stock that was contained on the AMEX exchange I know the number is a cusip but like I said before usualy I see dividends having a cusip and "nasdaq sc" and the company name. could it be that etrade just puts random things when they dont know? maybe thats why it said tender offer in front of it before and now it says equity with the amex. maybe they are just pulling random names out of their butts. I dont know thats why I am asking. obvious cmkx would not qualify again that wasnt the stock in question. if anyone actually knows please respond there has to be a logical answer not it does not qualify so there is no reason.
quote:Originally posted by bill1352: neither cmkx or CIM would come close to qualifing for AMEX they need a $3 pps & a 3 yr history of making money & neither come close.
posted
Gold hit a 7 year high today. I just saw the Ecuador mine video on cmxkpics com. Worth a look.Looked good to me. Posts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wallace or anyone please answer a question if you can. What is the reasoning in issuing restricted shares as a dividend? Correct me if I'm wrong but all of the costs involved in the issuance have already been borne by the companies correct? It will not have any affect on them if these shares eventually trade at .10 or $100.00 per share correct? If thats the case, why keep them restricted?
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Workaholic, The middle part of my post that you copied is pulled from the "alert" that they put out. I should have enclosed it in quotes or something. Also, the Green Baron, on their site, comes rite out and states that their parent company, Evergreen Marketing, is a holder of CMKX and they state they have been adding to their position since they began covering them. To me, that is paid pumping or pumping for your own self interest. At the very least, it's not impartial journalism.
Thanks Up, I did know that but for some reason I thought that this particular news "wire" company was someone else. There's way too many hidden agendas in all of this. Hard to keep track. Thanks for the reality check.
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Wallace or anyone please answer a question if you can. What is the reasoning in issuing restricted shares as a dividend? Correct me if I'm wrong but all of the costs involved in the issuance have already been borne by the companies correct? It will not have any affect on them if these shares eventually trade at .10 or $100.00 per share correct? If thats the case, why keep them restricted?
UP,
I am unsure as to the correct answer to your question. Maybe it has something to do with voting control, but I don't know if those restricted shares would have voting privileges. Second, as I recall, UCAD has a preferred stock that controls or could control anyway, so it should not make any difference.
As to how restricted shares are accounted for on the balance sheet and income statement, I do not know. Never had occasion to run across that problem.
Interesting subject....the rights, privileges, positives and negatives of restricted shares. Will have to look into it.
Sorry, I am not of much help. Is that why I don't get a commission? LOL
[This message has been edited by Wallace#1 (edited October 26, 2004).]
posted
my guess is that it would equate to dilution. by keeping them restricted the shares are not counted in the outstanding share count. these shares would have come out of the a/s that have not been issued. so if they where unrestricted that would increase the o/s which equates in dilution and lower pps
JMHO
quote:Originally posted by Wallace#1: UP,
I am unsure as to the correct answer to your question. Maybe it has something to do with voting control, but I don't know if those restricted shares would have voting privileges. Second, as I recall, UCAD has a preferred stock that controls or could control anyway, so it should not make any difference.
As to how restricted shares are accounted for on the balance sheet and income statement, I do not know. Never had occasion to run across that problem.
Interesting subject....the rights, privileges, positives and negatives of restricted shares. Will have to look into it.
Sorry, I am not of much help. Is that why I don't get a commission? LOL
[This message has been edited by Wallace#1 (edited October 26, 2004).]
Posts: 4801 | From: Prescott, ON, Canada | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry, I am not of much help. Is that why I don't get a commission? LOL
No commission until a sale goes through. Look at it this way though, a sale of 200.00 would equate to 1 million CMKX shares gross. Your cut if paid in shares would be 7% or 70,000 shares. 15 sales that size would put you over a million shares, well on your way to being a millionaire when this stock erupts!
posted
penny-trader, Assuming that's the reason, dilution, thereby lowering the pps, does that tell you anthing about the recent run-up in UCAD's pps?
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Upside: originally posted by Wallace #1: No commission until a sale goes through. Look at it this way though, a sale of 200.00 would equate to 1 million CMKX shares gross. Your cut if paid in shares would be 7% or 70,000 shares. 15 sales that size would put you over a million shares, well on your way to being a millionaire when this stock erupts!
Posts: 4893 | From: Burbank IL USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
This is getting interesting. Just a cursory check suggests that a company might be able to dictate the value of a restricted share of stock at the end of the restriction period. If that is the case, and I am checking further, it seems that UCAD could say each restricted share is worth .0001 as opposed to what the going market is per share. For example, I ran across this:
"The maximum amount payable (determined at the end of the applicable restriction period) in any one fiscal year to any one participant for Restricted Stock Units is the higher of $10,000,000 or 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock."
That was for a public utility named Southern Company.
I do not know if the UCAD restricted shares are or will be treated identically to so-called restricted shares of insiders.
posted
Since there's only us "bashers" here tonight, let me bounce something off you guys. Could it be that there is a very good reason that those shares were restricted? To be more specific, restricted so that we could not dilute the pps thereby putting a damper on the run up so that certain people wouldn't benefit greatly from an artificially inflated pps and a 3 for 1 forward split? Anyone see where I'm going with this?
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't know where he lives but maybe there's a race taking place near him? Get him a load of CMKX shirts, poker chips, and other handouts.
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok will, a question for you. Remember when we met Anthony AKA Topogigio at the races and I asked him to "throw us a bone"? Remember he told us about the CMKX Oliver Stone directed movie but in addition he kind of whispered "buy UCAD"?
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yea, he mentioned it traded 900K shares or something? soooooooooooo?
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Ok will, a question for you. Remember when we met Anthony AKA Topogigio at the races and I asked him to "throw us a bone"? Remember he told us about the CMKX Oliver Stone directed movie but in addition he kind of whispered "buy UCAD"?
Posts: 4893 | From: Burbank IL USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |