quote:Originally posted by boised: Wow texas sure is crowded.. I pictures long desert trails.. instead its row after row after row after row after row of tacky shops and mini-strip malls... and the traffic here in houston SUCKS! I miss boise Idaho
You think the traffic sucks? Just wait until you feel "The Summer Heat of Texas"!!! Put that in quotes because it sounds so much like a bad movie. LOL Really would be a good movie title, huh dwman?
Hotter than a 12 gage shotgun at a turkey shoot.
Posts: 1005 | From: Grapevine, TX 76051 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by boised: Wow texas sure is crowded.. I pictures long desert trails.. instead its row after row after row after row after row of tacky shops and mini-strip malls... and the traffic here in houston SUCKS! I miss boise Idaho
Tacky shops? Now that is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Posts: 1005 | From: Grapevine, TX 76051 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
HOTTER..than a Texas Preacher inside a Tent Revival at high noon on the fourth of July
Posts: 10729 | From: oregon | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
U S Canadian Minerals, Inc. Hires Compliance Offer
LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 8, 2005--U.S. Canadian Minerals, Inc. (Pink Sheet:USCA) today announced that they had hired Mr. William Roan as its full-time vice president in charge of regulatory compliance. Before becoming self employed as a licensed realtor in 2001, Mr. Roan was for almost fifteen years a Branch Administrative Manager for Prudential Securities in New York City. His duties there included internal audit and compliance.
"I am excited to join U.S. Canadian at this time to help it remain compliant with all the rules and regulations that bear upon it during this time of growth," said Mr. Roan.
"Mr. Roan's background makes him ideal as a compliance person for the company," said Rendal Williams, the company's CEO. "We welcome him to the U.S. Canadian family."
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.
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
A good many of the things you stated in your last post may be 100% correct. That is why I stated he could do anything with a new Pfd Stk (which he may not have been required to report). That, of course, leads to the next very serious question. If UC had no effective control (such as Pfd or a Spcl Common), then how in hell could he be doing all the things he has done without shareholder approval? Remember, he does seem to have a questionable past!
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
You must have been in Texas in the summer. Frying eggs on sidewalks is the absolute truth!
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
legal, re Roan above, there's something wrong in his CV too. One does not leave such a position as he had with Prudential to go into RE.
Prior to becoming a "realtor" (which has specific meanings), one must be a RE Salesperson. Once they get an acceptable track record, they can then apply to be a broker. They are generally required to past a broker's test. A sales person cannot be referred to as a realtor....only a broker can be called a "realtor".
Bet Trump's now famous words were used when he left Prudential.
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A question to prove my ignorance. Maheau filed a form 3 today. Since CMKX has to file everything from past years, if in fact Urban bought up the entire float as many are speculating, won't he also have to file a form 3 followed by form 4's for subsequent purchases?
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't know if this has been posted or not. I'm in a hurry and don't want to go back and read several pages. If it has been, please forgive the duplication.
This came from a competitive board.
member is offline
(Melvin) Oooooooooohhhhhh (RG) Is Melvin OK? (UC) Yeah . . . just OD'd on STUFFIUM
Gender: Posts: 239 Statistical analysis of NSS « Thread started on: Today at 2:29pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you haven’t read my posts in the past, let me state at the outset that I’m a confirmed long and purchased my first CMKX shares in November of 2002 at the mind-numbing price of $0.024 per share. The following analysis is simply a way to use some recently collected data to try and get a handle on the NSS issue. This post is a bit lengthy (for which I apologize), but there’s a lot to clarify when it comes to statistical analysis. And don’t forget that “figures lie and liars figure”, so take all of the following as just one opinion among many.
As many of us have, I’ve been following “hybrid’s” electronic shares thread with interest, but with an eye on something a bit different than his determination of the average holdings of those of us that post on 32. I’ve been more interested in the holdings of those that don’t post on 32 because I think they represent the bulk of our shareholders. I asked “hybrid” to send me his database (he graciously did so), but he hadn’t been tracking non-poster holdings, so yesterday and this morning I went through all 58 pages in his thread and captured data for both posters and non-posters. I also captured how many holdings came from new posters (specifically, those with only one post and those with between two and five posts) just to get a feel for what “J” and a few others felt were potentially bogus numbers. The only data I don’t have are the holdings that were privately PM’d to “hybrid”, so my number of holders and total holdings is a little lower than his, but the data correlates almost exactly.
Just to get the “bogus” number issue out of the way, I found that there were over 6 billion shares reported by posters with between two and five posts and over 3 billion from posters with only one post. In support of J’s concern, there were such items as 600 million shares claimed by “badduck”, and given the tone of his postings, that claim stretches belief a bit, I’d say. Nevertheless, I left that probable fiction in my database because it didn’t have any impact on non-poster reported holdings. There were a few non-poster claims that raised my eyebrows, but they were few and far between, and as you’ll see in the analysis that follows, I’ve used a blend of median values and arithmetic means (averages) to support my conclusions.
My data was extracted from your postings and it was noted whether each number of shares reported was for a poster or a relative, friend, co-worker, ex-wife (yes, they were a couple of those!), or other person who doesn’t post on 32. The data was sorted by poster/non-poster and then ranked from lowest to highest number of shares in each category. Entries were also highlighted if from a poster with only one post or from one with between two and five posts.
First, I threw out the lowest and highest five entries in each category since that has the effect of reducing the “bogus” factor noted by “J” and others. I then calculated the average holding of a poster and that of a non-poster. I also noted the median value for each category. Not surprisingly, my average value for a poster is higher than “hybrid’s” because his overall average number includes the lower average holdings of non-posters as well as posters. My average holding for a poster is 40.7 million and for a non-poster the average is 6.9 million. If I blend those two using the ratio of posters to non-posters (715 to 317 in my database), my overall average comes to 30.3 million which is very close to “hybrid’s” (32.6 million). This proves a close correlation between our databases despite my lack of PM'd data.
When I looked at the median values, it yielded a median holding of 20 million shares for posters and 4.3 million for non-posters. The median (the number in the exact middle of the data) is useful because it compensates for both very low and very high holdings that can skew the average calculation. But just to err on the side of caution, I decided to select a blended value which is higher than the median for further calculations. My view is that a blended value of 30 million shares for posters and 5 million shares for non-posters is pretty close to the truth (a 50% increase over the median value in both cases).
Next, I wanted to postulate the mix of holdings in the rest of the shareholder base of X thousands. But before I could do that, I had to estimate how big the shareholder base really is. The biggest number that I have seen calibrated was when UCAD issued one share per shareholder to account for rounding up fractional shares when their dividend was paid in September of last year. That amounted to 29,677 shares which defined our shareholder base at that time (even GB supports this number, so it must be right!). How many shareholders have we attracted since that time? Well, it's anybody's guess, but I have a hard time believing that we've added more than 15,000 new shareholders in the last five months. That'd be 50% growth of the shareholder base in five months. If that's true, then our shareholder base ought to be about 44,000 shareholders today. Now, hold your protests for the moment . . . I’ve made room for caveats a little later!
So, if we've had about 1,000 posters respond to “hybrid’s” thread and they hold a blended average of 30 million shares, how many more poster-like players are there among the remaining 43,000 shareholders? Again, it's only a guess, but I'd say that a 10 to 1 mix in favor of non-poster-like shareholders is conservative. If that's true, then there are about 4,000 holders of 30 million shares and 40,000 additional holders of 5 million shares. Roll those together and you get 44,000 shareholders holding 320 billion shares. As a quick calibration, if the average price of acquisition was $0.0002 per share, it means that posters have invested an average of $6,000 and non-posters an average of $1,000. Sure, there are major exceptions (I’m one of them, and, yes, on the high side), but remember, that’s an average and it looks about right to me.
Does all of the above pass the sniff test? I think it does because it says that if there are 779 billion shares in the O/S and Urban and the other insiders own a controlling interest (minimum of 398 billion shares or 51% of the O/S), then there are 779 (O/S) minus 398 (insiders) minus 320 (us) = 61 billion shares that are either in the treasury (issuable, not retired) or have been issued as part of JVs, etc.
My conclusion? If all of the above is true, then there is no significant NSS. So, what could change that conclusion? Well, any of several things: (1) Urban and friends may own more than 51% of the O/S; (2) there may be some whales who have already invested and hold tens of billions of shares that we're unaware of; (3) the blended holdings numbers may be too low; (4) the ratio of non-poster-like holders to poster-like holders may be less than 10 to 1; (5) there may be more than 44,000 shareholders; (6) our JV commitments may be larger than 61 billion shares; (6) and the list goes on . . .
So, have at it. Just remember that whatever you want to tweak still has to pass the sniff test when you're done. But have fun . . . tweak away . . . that's what we're here for.
Posts: 1005 | From: Grapevine, TX 76051 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wallace..Hey ,how ya'll doing. Worked down there in summer. One time it got so hot and HUMID we washed our clothes on the clothesline and thru them in the wash machine to dry.
Posts: 10729 | From: oregon | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
REFUSE to tell O/S, float, revenue sources:
This NSS is still such a funny theory. I mean after telling us about one of the worse O/S's of all times he forgets to tell us that its good becuase the float is so low and NSS has taken us down. The fact is you some fell in love with a non reporting company that gagged the TA and refused to tell the O/S and float for so long until the SEC forced them too. And now you want to come up with theories to hide the mess UC but you into. The fact remains that the SEC clearly stated it was investigating cmkx on how it sold shares not MM's.
Ric
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart. Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well if it was bait,it's already been taken.If it's not an issue,and it's not worth mentioning,still other avenues...
Thing is something big is going to have to happen,and it looks like something will to me.One way or the other,good or bad.
Posts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
about the time the divy's were paid i called ameritrade & got to the reorginazation div. i think it was called, about the divys. in our conversation he told me that huge blocks 100 million & bigger were traded quite often. that these trades never saw the volume totals. he didn't go into the who's & how's but if the o/s was 350 million in sept. of 2002 & grew to 7.2 billion by january 1st 2003 & not 1 word from the company about increasing the a/s or dumping that many shares you'd have to figure there is a back door open somewhere. now as we know that was the beginning of a dilution of records amounts. the own by date for the first divy was aug 20th 2004. in less then 20 months the o/s went from 7.2 billion to 779 billion as proven by the divy splits. remember the shares had to be issued & owned to get into the divys. thats 38.6 billion per month. the billions per trading day works out except it didn't start until late 2003 or early 2004 & not every trade was a buy. it couldn't have been UC because he had 40 billion according to his pr backed by Roger in july 2004. that back door sure had to be open wide & busy to dump that many shares in the amount of time between the last word on the o/s & the latest. & according to UC himself it wasn't him buying.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wallace#1: legal, re Roan above, there's something wrong in his CV too. One does not leave such a position as he had with Prudential to go into RE.
Prior to becoming a "realtor" (which has specific meanings), one must be a RE Salesperson. Once they get an acceptable track record, they can then apply to be a broker. They are generally required to past a broker's test. A sales person cannot be referred to as a realtor....only a broker can be called a "realtor".
Bet Trump's now famous words were used when he left Prudential.
REALTOR®: Broker, salesperson or appraiser (licensed and/or certified) who is associated with a Designated REALTOR® and who has fulfilled membership requirements in local, state and national Board of REALTORS®.
The Principal Broker is a "Designated Realtor".
If you check Roan's website you will find he was listing and selling multi=million dollare homes in the Vegas area. Probably to Mahue friends.
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
WOW...thats the missing key there legel!!! that fixes everything. who gives a rats behind what USCA does?? that means nothing to cmkx's pps, o/s, suspension, probably r/s, filing all those cmkx reports needed. i will say out of the 2 of them USCA is probably the least corrupt & as long as they aren't too deep in bed with cmkx may even 1 day get back to the OTCBB.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bill, those who do their DD on CMKX care what USCA does since that DD would reveal to you that CMKX has controlling interest in USCA. Sitting in one message board all day carping about what you do not understand, is not DD.
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
legel if you read the prs & got away from dreamland you'd know cmkx got shares from UCSA which they promtly gave to cmkx shareholders & that was 49%. this means cmkx shareholders control 49% not cmkx. you'd also know that USCA owns 30% of the claims in CA. cmkx doesn't even have controling interest in those claims as 2 other companies own 25% each & another 10% of cmkx's claims went to st george. i'd suggest the next time you type something you check your facts first
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
bill, if you stop your DD at PR's you only find out what the company wants everyone, including their opposition, to know. But it is apparent you haven't even studied all of the PR's.
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dustoff101: Wallace..Hey ,how ya'll doing. Worked down there in summer. One time it got so hot and HUMID we washed our clothes on the clothesline and thru them in the wash machine to dry.
I remember walking about 1 quarter of a mile in military fatigues. By the time I got to the end of that distance, my fatiques were white all over the place from the salt in my persperation.
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
"REALTOR®: Broker, salesperson or appraiser (licensed and/or certified) who is associated with a Designated REALTOR® and who has fulfilled membership requirements in local, state and national Board of REALTORS®.
The Principal Broker is a "Designated Realtor". *******************************
Legal, you missed my point completely. For Roan to legally be called a "Realtor" (of course, Nevada, being so loose with everything it may differ), that person MUST also have a broker's license. Yes, they can sell RE as a salesperson but they must still be a broker and have what is called a "Broker of Record" (aka Designated Broker in your dictionary)in charge. In most states (Nevada possibly being an exception), one cannot become a broker (and, therefore, cannot claim to be called a Realtor) without going through the salesperson status where they are neither a broker nor a Realtor. Much of this is easily misunderstood by people.
Although he was referred to as a Realtor, he may in fact by just a RE salesperson and they are basically self-employed under the direction of a Broker of Record. My point was that he seems to have digressed somewhat in the level of employment.
My sister was a Broker of Record (and Realtor), my sister-in-law was a Broker of Record (and Realtor), one nephew is a Broker of Record (and Realtor), another nephew is a Broker (Realtor/Salesperson), but not a Broker of Record and a cousin is just a salesperson (neither a Realtor, Broker nor a Broker of Record).
It is written! It is so!
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Tried to correct my spelling on "perspiration" above but was too late. Didn't want to give you the pleasure! LOL
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wallace1. I didn't miss your point. I have been a licensed salesperson, licensed broker, principal broker of my own firm and taught Licensing courses for five years including Real Estate Law and Board of Realtors Compliance Requirements. I was a "Realtor" at all levels, and served on the Ethics Committee of the local Board of Realtors for two years.
A salesperson must be liscensed and work for a licensed broker serving as their principal broker. Neither are required to be members of the National Board of Realtors. Being a "Realtor" simply means that you have agreed to comply with the high standards required of membership.
However, a saleperson or agent, working for a broker member (Designated Realtor) of the Board of Realtors, who has completed the requirements is a "Realtor", just the same as the broker. But they do not have to be a broker to be a Realtor.
"REALTOR®: Broker, salesperson or appraiser (licensed and/or certified) who is associated with a Designated REALTOR® and who has fulfilled membership requirements in local, state and national Board of REALTORS®."
This definition from the Board of Realtors website is very clear that a saleperson can be a Realtor if they are associated with a Designated Realtor (Broker).
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is your opinion now about Cmkx? What do you think is happening after the 16 with the shareholders?
Posts: 19 | From: Germany | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
By: PSALM119 09 Mar 2005, 07:09 AM EST Msg. 170445 of 170480 Jump to msg. # This post is as good as it gets.
By: holdnolonger 09 Mar 2005, 05:41 AM EST Msg. 833464 of 833487 Jump to msg. # Citigroup/Roger Glenn come aboard, Glenn evaluates CMKXs assets in Canada, Ecuador, and Nevada. Citigroup covers Knight Trading's end of NSS. Urban, CIA and Citigroup had to create a way to keep track of the NSS shares and match them with certificate CMKX shares. Roger Glenn finished valuation of the properties and the meeting in August 2004 in Canada took place to establish at what price citigroup will cover on the valuation of the TDEM and other properties. This is Y Urban stated .54. The other NSSr's probably want be so lucky. SGGM is created with 900 biilion AS, 200 billion restricted to CMKX along with 10 million cash. SGGM was a creation to give the true valuation of current properties that Roger Glenn did inventory on. The 200 billion shares CMKX recieved from SGGM was CMKX shares that Citigroup covered on current valuation of CMKX. This is the way the other NSSr's will cover and the money pooled once all NS shares are covered in SGGM. How huge is the NSS left, it could be the rest of SGGM AS which 700 billion left after Citigroup covered their 200 billion. SGGM will help CMKX and entities involved(CIA) follow and account for each share covered on current valuation of CMKX and where the NSS came from. Once settlements are made and majority of NSS is covered. Urban can then take the 800 to 900 billion covered shares from SGGM and take CMKX private and offer CMKX shareholders a nice tender offer of .54. All CMKX shares are retired and is now private. CMKX assets are simply placed into Urbans new company CIM. USCA will merge and CIM will have all majorty interest in GEMM, Nevada Minerals, SGGM, CMKX, and USCA. The way this worked out was fair because CMKX longs will get CIM shares through dividends and others that just owned CMKX will get the .54 tender off, longs getting both. Citigroup/Smith Barney will be the underwriters for CIM IPO and hold interest in CIM as well.
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now where did THIS rumor come from? I must have missed the PR....
-------------------- If I give you bad information, please feel free to sue me. I have nothing left anyway. Ed Posts: 1772 | From: Oxford, PA, USA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wallace...regarding your fatiques getting white with salt sweat your lucky some screw-ball texas Long Horn Bull didn't come after you a lick and a visit !!!!//'//???
Posts: 10729 | From: oregon | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ed19363: Now where did THIS rumor come from? I must have missed the PR....
"Fiction Writers" nothing more than "Fairy Tales" written by the faithful.
-------------------- Be Careful Of The Toes We Step On Today, They Could Be Attached To The Butt We Have To Kiss Tomorrow Posts: 4727 | From: Elk Grove ( Sacramento )CA USA | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uncle Legal, would you please sweeten my glass of Koolaid for me????
-------------------- If I give you bad information, please feel free to sue me. I have nothing left anyway. Ed Posts: 1772 | From: Oxford, PA, USA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A little old but interesting.... David Desmoreau (spelling)... owner.
I particularly like the paragraph that talked about over 1 million dollars for the past two years coming from sale of diamonds. They lost about 900 thousand dollars in 2004 but revenues came from almost 9 thousand carats sold.
Vancouver, May 28, 2004 - Diamond Fields International Ltd. (TSX: DFI) is pleased to announce the appointment of Jack F. McOuat, P.Eng. to its Board of Directors. Mr. McOuat has had a very distinguished career in mining over the past 50 years. He is a founding partner of the world renown mining consulting firm of Watts, Griffis and McOuat Limited and has been involved in the discovery and development of many major mineral deposits around the globe. Mr. McOuat has been on the Board of Directors of numerous distinguished mining companies including Cominco Ltd, Echo Bay Mines Ltd., and Euro-Nevada Mining Corp. In addition, he has a history with Diamond Fields having served as a director of DFI's predecessor company Diamond Fields Resources Inc., and played a key role in the sale of that company to Inco Ltd. in 1996.
Mr. Gregg Sedun, CEO of Diamond Fields stated "Having Jack McOuat join our Board of Directors will be a great addition to our Company. His extensive and varied experience in the mining industry worldwide as well as the relationships he has developed over a very successful 50 year history in the mining business will be a tremendous benefit and asset to Diamond Fields. We look forward to his contributions in helping build our Company."
Third Quarter Results Diamond Fields announced a net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2004 of US$641,973 or $0.01 per share, compared with a net loss of US$141,721 or $0.00 per share for the same period in 2003. Year-to-date the net loss is US$1,342,991 compared with a loss of US$977,787 for the same period of 2003.
All revenue for the nine month period ended March 31, 2004 resulted from the sale of diamonds held in inventory or recovered during operations. A total of 8,872 carats were sold at an average price of approximately $145.87 per carat generating revenue of $1,294,182, up from revenue of $1,252,932 on the sale of 8,934 carats for the same period in the 2003 fiscal period. Production, royalty and selling expenses associated with the sale of inventory totaled $881,218; whereas, these operating costs for the same period in fiscal 2003 were $966,167. The Company generated an operating margin of $412,964 for the nine month period ended March 31, 2004 compared with $286,765 for the same period in fiscal 2003.
During the nine month period ended March 31, 2004, operations, including exploration and development, together with general and administrative costs, were financed from cash on hand at the beginning of the period, from revenue generated by the sale of diamonds during the period and from a non-brokered financing.
Diamond Fields continued to create the conditions for long-term growth. The Company expanded diamond and nickel exploration activities, broadened the Company's scope to include additional mineral exploration and completed non-brokered private placements totaling C$8,100,000. Proceeds from the financing and cash flow generated by operations will allow the Company to expand its diamond and other mineral exploration activities
Overview of Activities In January 2004, Diamond Fields announced the results of the 2003 fieldwork conducted on its nickel project located on Ammassalik Island off the southeast coast of Greenland. Mapping and sampling extended the strike length of the most prospective horizon to over 40 kilometres in four structurally repeated zones. Fieldwork has recovered locally derived boulders with anomalous (0.2%-1%) nickel emanating from three of the four horizons. Diamond Fields' geologists are greatly encouraged by these results and plan to conduct an airborne Mag/EM geophysical survey as soon as weather permits.
On February 24, 2004, Diamond Fields appointed Mr. Kenneth E. Hecker to the positions of Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer). Mr. Hecker joined Diamond Fields to guide the process of exploring and developing the Company's international diamond and nickel projects, while seeking opportunities to acquire new economic mineral projects worldwide. On March 23, 2004 the Company acquired the Ogna Nickel-Copper project in southwestern Norway consisting of the Bjorndalsnipa (Ni, Cu) and Gulldragsvatn (Ni, Cu, Ti) properties. The properties are subject to a 1% net smelter royalty.
Outlook Diamond mining operations are scheduled to recommence on the Luderitz Concession by early June 2004. The term of the joint venture agreement is for an initial six-month period, with Diamond Fields having the sole option to renew the joint venture on the same terms for a further six-month period, subject to agreement on an acceptable mine plan.
With respect to the Ogna Nickel-Copper Project in Norway, the Company plans an exploration drilling program commencing in late May 2004, on promising geophysical targets in altered and mineralized intrusive rocks of the Rogaland intrusive massifs.
On April 16, 2004 the Company obtained two mineral reconnaissance licenses in Liberia, one of which is a diamond prospect, the other a gold prospect. Diamond Fields is planning sampling programs to attempt to define anomalous areas on both these concessions.
Diamond Fields International Ltd. is an internationally active exploration and mining company pursuing mineral opportunities worldwide. The Company's corporate strategy is to maximize cash flow from its Namibian marine diamond concessions and to systematically explore and develop its international mineral exploration projects. In addition, the Company continues to explore opportunities to acquire new economic mineral projects worldwide. Additional information is available on the Company's website at www.diamondfields.com.
DIAMOND FIELDS INTERNATIONAL LTD.
"Gregg J. Sedun"
Gregg J. Sedun, President and Chief Executive Officer
For further information contact: Investor Relations (1-888-682-2113) Website: www.diamondfields.com
All dollar values are stated in U.S. currency unless otherwise specified.
Forward-Looking Statements: Statements in this release that are forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties concerning the specific factors identified in Diamond Fields' period filings with Canadian Securities Regulators. Such forwardlooking information represents managements' best judgment based on information currently available. No forwardlooking statement can be guaranteed and actual future results may vary materially. Diamond Fields does not assume the obligation to update any forward-looking statement.
Posts: 1005 | From: Grapevine, TX 76051 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recently De Beers purchased themselves back private, for a stock purchase price of 17+ Billion USD.
De Beers had sales of $5.5 billion and earnings of $676 million in 2003. The company spends $180 million on advertising.
The United States represents half of the worldwide diamond market. Experts value the U.S. market at $30 billion to $35 billion.
ok these are bits pulled from old cmkx prs. as you can see the dates are from 2003. this info is about debeers the largest diamond company in the world with more claims & mines then anyone. so big that the cmkx cult believes much of cmkx progress is hidden so debeers won't come in and try to run them out. now LEGEL your trying to say that cmkx claims in canada are worth 17 times more then all of debeers put together??? the entire world's yearly business is worth $60 billion of which debeers has 1/2 & someone is going to pay .54 per share to cmkx shareholders??? 703 billion shares??? over $350 billion ???? for that you could buy debeers, & 5 or 6 major gold mining companies all of which had producing mines & income, serious income as in billions of dollars of income. right now, not in a few years. legel, i'm sure somewhere there is a white room with padded walls waiting for you.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
#1 Basher Recants. Attorney Alan Treffery who has been one of the most outspoken critics of CMKX chose, night before last, to recant his earlier bashing. Here is his post from today at Raging Bull
« CMKX Message list | Reply to msg. | Post new msg. « Older | Newer » By: very_tired1 09 Mar 2005, 04:12 PM EST Msg. 834351 of 834429 Jump to msg. # JUST TO CLEAR UP A COUPLE MATTERS...
I have been a strong critic of this stock for some time. I felt it was mismanaged and that it was a company full of potential that was being squandered on fast times and a wild lifestyleof the CEO. Although it is obvious that I did not know all the facts behind the scene, I was going on the known factors, including the lack of reporting, the failure of several big rumors to come true (indicating the presence of paid pumpers), huge volume (indicating tons of dumping), no news of any mineral finds, etc... In 99% of all cases, I would be correct to rag and who knows, in the end, I might have been right about this stock and things will not work out, only God knows the future.
However, for the third time, I have recently had a change of heart on this company. Why? There are several reasons, one of the most important ones is the presence of Robert Maheu. Unless that man resigns very soon, you can be 100% sure that he is not present merely to go down with a sinking ship connected to a penny stock that could be deemed as a scam. I have recently learned more about this man and he has an unreal reputation of a winner.. and that of a very connected man, nothing shy of it.
After all, CMKX even stated in their PR that they would not get reporting by the required 60 day time after filing the Form 15, so they might just get delisted. So, absent his prompt resignation, Maheu is going to have a damaged image due to CMKX unless something big is in the works.
Also consider the alleged presence of the Citigroup and other substantial supporters. What is their role? Certainly they are nor interested in this company merely to get some advertising space on a drag car.
Then there is R.Glenn. He is a well-respected and accomplished attorney in the corporate/securities field, as is his lawfirm. Would he have been here only to receive a big paycheck and do nothing else? I find that statement hard to believe on its face.
If these significant entities present mean nothing to the future of this company, then this is the most confusing stock I have ever encountered. If their presence is coordinated and with meaning, then this stock could be a monster.
Now, I have heard the hundreds of rumors from friends, fellow posters and what appear to be enemies alike. I have heard the position that this company is naked shorted in massive amounts. I never foreclosed on that idea, because I did not know either way, but I was cautious as I do know that many pump and dump companies do use the NSS theory as a tool to pump. However, a recent Charles Schwab article on Reg. SHO that only points to one NSS stock, CMKX, as an example, had me thinking the prompters of the short position might just be right. Coupled with the fact we have a stock that has only seen one significant price rise in the past 16 months (so no huge day trading activities would likely be here to pump up the volume) and yet, we have seen multiple times the OS traded, indicated again, a big short might be present. It leads one to contemplate as to why Urban chose this particular shell to work out of in the first place.
In any case, considering the presence of Maheu, CItigroup and Glenn, and the insights of some people I trust, I am of a different position that I was a couple weeks ago. Although always hopeful, I was in the position of totally losing hope. I no longer feel that way. I sold most of my shares over thhe past couple months, keeping about 1/3rd of them. I do not plan to sell anymore.
I am beginning to believe again that this stock is real. It is real in the sense of Maheu, Citigrop and Glenn, the sense of a large NSS and in the sense that we might have the goods up north. If we do, the chance of a cash deal appears to be possible. What kind of deal (e.g. dividend, tender offer, etc...) I am unaware. Was I discouraged by the OS? Yes. Was I surprised? Not really. However, the OS listed does not speak all volumes as to who is holding what. Could it be we have the majority of stock in the right hands? I surely hope so. If we have the right share distribution, and the right thing is done with it, very good things could really happen.
So, go ahead and take your pokes at me because I ragged on Urban as I did. I still stand by certain positions that all the money that came into the company was addressed with proper restraint and diligence. However, after viewing the totality of the circumstances, all of those factors involved and surrounding this stock, I do believe that there is more to CMKX than what meets the eye, an otherwise failing, and soon to be delisted sub-penny stock. I always said I would be the first to admit that I felt I was wrong in the past and I am doing so now. I pray to God that this is the right side of the coin to be on so we will all make a mint.
posted
This was found by texaswilly at ******** 32, this is some very interesting info :
Class, Turn to page 14 in your hymnals. While we are working real hard to find even a tiny bit of information that may make us more comfortable in our own take of this thrill ride, some people might enjoy knowing a little more about Iron Bob. Some of this has been mentioned in previous threads, so chunk this if it is all old news. There has been much discussion of late about Tender Offers so it may seem interesting to some.
Iron Bob is no stranger to Tender Offers . The records are pretty clear that once Howard Hughes became reclusive, Bob Maheu ran the business through phone calls from HH and an unending series of daily handwritten notes on legal pads given to Maheu. Copies of these handwritten notes are found in several of the Hughes biographies. This tells me that Maheu made all personal contacts and transacted all the significant business directed by Howard Hughes. Bob Maheu formed relationships with heads of state, politicians, ceo's and other significant people due to the expanse of the Howard Hughes empire. He was not a step n fetchit guy, but made hourly decisions effecting thousands of people and millions of dollars on his signature through a power of attorney granted him by Howard Hughes. Two tender offers handled by IBM are well documented in one of the Hughes biographies.
Source: Hughes, The Private Diaries Memos and Letters by Richard Hack (2001)
Tender Offer for ABC In 1968 following Bobby Kennedy's assassination, HH wanted to own the ABC television network so he could convince the upcoming presidential candidates that he had a news division that would help put a president in office. Then he (HH) could have a president in his pocket. IBM was directed to buy ABC. Hughes offer was for 43% of the stock at $74.25 a share. The current market price was $58.87 a share. The deal was $148 million and some change. Shareholders were given two weeks to accept his offer "take it or leave it". The company pleaded with stockholders not to fall for this offer because the real intrinsic value of the stock was more than the offer. The network filed suit in District Court in New York charging that the takeover violated FCC rules and federal antitrust laws. The FCC jumped in and said they were going to conduct hearings and directed HH not to use any of the stock to influence ABC until the hearings. Then the FCC said you (HH) will have to attend the hearings in person. This horrified HH. HH feared being seen in public and vowed to never do so again. The Justice Department then jumped in the fight and said they were looking into anti trust issues.
HH then told IBM to leak the word that he was going to transfer his stock to Texas millionaire James J. Ling (of Ling-Temco-Vought) if they did not want him as owner. Ling was known as the Carl Icahn of that era. Ultimately, HH won in court with the judge stating the stockholders might be harmed if prevented from executing their voting rights. ABC then took out full page ads in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal espousing the inadequacy of Hughes offer. On the day before the deadline a half million shares poured into Hughes' brokers. He had apparently won all battles and convinced the shareholders it was in their best interest to sell to him. Three days later the New York Stock Exchange halted all trading on ABC stock while they awaited Hughes final decision. (There is that old ugly word Halt again) Shortly thereafter, Hughes withdrew his offer and cancelled the deal. Most believe his fear of having to attend the FCC hearings was the main reason for backing out. IBM had done his job............
Tender offer for Air West HH & IBM in their own short play Maheu was working 16 hour days, running five casinos and four hotels in Las Vegas. His boss found a struggling airlines. Air West was a disaster of an airlines. Hughes directed IBM to buy it. HH wrote to IBM "The plan necessitates that the stock edge downward with the existing continuous bad news, and then that we come along with a spectacular offer to pay the stockholders in liquidation a price substantially above the market," HH wrote to Maheu. "Any rise in the market before our offer will adversely affect the plan." An offer was made at $22 a share or an offer of $90 million. The Air West board was livid. Within a month the stockholders had voted to accept HH's offer. The Air West board sought a competing offer from Northwest Airlines and informed the shareholders that the board was going to sell to someone else. HH assisted the shareholders by providing an attorney to file suit against the Air West Board. To assure victory, HH persuaded several of Air West's largest shareholders to unload 86,000 shares on the market and he would agree to cover any losses. The move had the predictable effect of causing the stock to drop even further. When Northwest heard about the stock dropping, they backed out of the deal. Air West was now under HH control. Mission accomplished IBM.
My apologies for a lengthy post. This is not an endorsement of Howard Hughes business tactics or ethics. But any reader of these forums who wonders if IBM has ventured into any wars like CMKX is now facing should know this is not unfamiliar territory for our Co Chairman of the Board. Full page ads, government agency involvement in tender offers, share dilution, mergers, IBM has been there and done that. I thank Urban for having the good judgment to bring IBM on Board. Win, Lose or Draw, Urban has done what he could do to give CMKX a fighting chance against the mms...
quote:Originally posted by bill1352: Recently De Beers purchased themselves back private, for a stock purchase price of 17+ Billion USD.
De Beers had sales of $5.5 billion and earnings of $676 million in 2003. The company spends $180 million on advertising.
The United States represents half of the worldwide diamond market. Experts value the U.S. market at $30 billion to $35 billion.
ok these are bits pulled from old cmkx prs. as you can see the dates are from 2003. this info is about debeers the largest diamond company in the world with more claims & mines then anyone. so big that the cmkx cult believes much of cmkx progress is hidden so debeers won't come in and try to run them out. now LEGEL your trying to say that cmkx claims in canada are worth 17 times more then all of debeers put together??? the entire world's yearly business is worth $60 billion of which debeers has 1/2 & someone is going to pay .54 per share to cmkx shareholders??? 703 billion shares??? over $350 billion ???? for that you could buy debeers, & 5 or 6 major gold mining companies all of which had producing mines & income, serious income as in billions of dollars of income. right now, not in a few years. legel, i'm sure somewhere there is a white room with padded walls waiting for you.
Bill you are trying to analyze this as a "valuation play". That will come later. This part is not. This is a "short squeeze" play in which Roger Glenn has trapped the NS and proven it through the dividend play. I certainly don't know if it 54 cents or .054 cents. But the MMs are going to have to cough up some cash to buy their way out of their past alleged illicit actions. All in my opinion.
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
