posted
"These convertible debentures are usually less attractive to growing companies because they accrue interest and require scheduled repayments unless and until they are converted."
Did you see any news about repaiments?
IP: Logged |
posted
I am still not sure what happened there. We should be able to tell by the way it trades the rest of the day....but if people aren't going to buy it makes it harder.
So what are the options.
1) Some group just dumped 500 Mil shares into the market at a loss.
-If this were true I think we would be seeing Bid at 1/ Ask at 2. 500 Mil is approximately 1/6th of all suspected Outstanding shares.
2) Some group just bought 500 Mil shares.
-I don't see this happening either. 500 Mil should have pushed bid up to 4 at least. Plus, RSI only rose from 40 to just above 50. Accumulation like that should pop it higher in my opinion. Unless...
3)The company has released shares into the market.
-This is my thought. I think they just needed a little cash to pay the bills and realeased 500 Mil bringing the O/S to around ...3.5 Bil?
Still not bad at all and doesn't really change anything for us other than it might get a little attention in our direction again.
Next 10-Q should be out in two-three weeks.
The Bigfoot
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
If you go to DDSI homepage and click on "news", this does not show up under the listings? but if you go to the bottom of the page there are 4 PR's for 2006. here is the link to the last one dated 3/8.
posted
even with a 3.5bln OS this thing will move if they announce a major contract - especially if it's a guaranteed govt. contract. Nothing better than doing business with the U.S. Govt. lol
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thomas Mick: Now if the bid and ask will just follow suit...
why this...as in why are they behind?
-------------------- "Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you." —Yoda
IP: Logged |
Jim, could you please explain what UHV signal means and what it indicates? Thanks
**** UHV, Unusual High Vlume, is coined by Will. I don't know how it happens. I think Will knows bette about it. I just know when the MMs decide to run it, there will be a UHV signal and the build-up of volume, the average time is about one week before the run. I hope Will will comment on this soon. Thanks to Will in advance.
IP: Logged |
posted
Without boring everyone with detail, UHV simply stands for Unusually High Volume on a given day usually with a decline in price. You won't find it in investapedia, or any other reference information, it is something I made up. After doing nothing but following volume & price variances for over a year I noticed a pattern. JimSC and I collaborated, and exchanged DD and T/A information through the month of Jan, and had some pretty good success with predicitng runners. Unfrotuantely, DDSI being at such a low PPS and having such tremendous volume makes it very difficult to predict. With stocks this low in PPS, active in volume, and large O/S, it is difficult to know whether it really fits the UHV model, or if there is dilution ocurring. When stocks are this active and this cheap, I am usually just holding just in case. If you got in at .0003 / .0004, you can't get hurt too bad. The only concern might be a R/S , and I don't see that in the ner future for DDSI.
-------------------- A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years.
IP: Logged |
posted
Me too. My avg. pps. was .0005. I sold at .0003 the other day (for a loss). And now I'm trying to buy back in at .0002. My hope is to buy at .0002 and sell at any point higher - thus making back my losses.
I do think the .0002 buy order will go through because I believe ddsi will dip to .0001 again before we see any kind of real movement upward.
-------------------- You can't afford to risk, what you can't afford to loose.
IP: Logged |
posted
0.0002 9900000 OTO 11:12:18 0.0002 9900000 OTO 11:12:10 0.0002 9900000 OTO 11:12:02 0.0002 9900000 OTO 11:11:56 0.0002 9900000 OTO 11:11:49 0.0002 9900000 OTO 11:11:41 0.0002 9900000 OTO 11:11:34 0.0002 9900000 OTO 11:11:26 0.0002 9900000 OTO 11:11:18 0.0002 9900000 OTO 11:11:09 0.0002 9900000 OTO 11:11:02 0.0002 9900000 OTO 11:10:55 0.0002 9900000 OTO 11:10:46 0.0002 9900000 OTO 11:10:39
quote:Originally posted by logical buyer: Just sent an e-mail to the company. I will let you know if I get a response. It was vivid detail on my concerns.
this was posted over at another site.. thought it was interesting..
response from rick with IR about questions concerning if paim is dumping..
ubj: Fwd: maybe a PRESS RELEASE telling - Date: 3/22/2006 8:26:23 AM Eastern Standard Time From: SKYWALKFILAS*aol.com To:ME
I wanted you to see pearls reply directly , so you would know-Rick
----------------- Forwarded Message:
Subj: RE: maybe a PRESS RELEASE telling - Date: 3/22/2006 7:28:51 AM Eastern Standard Time
******************************************************************************** NO.. Pearl Asian is not DUMPING ANY SHARES!
Solid Development Stage Companies Like Pearl Asian Mining Industries, Inc. (Symbol: PAIM) "Incubating" On The OTC: BB and Pink Sheets Are Extremely Fragile & Very Susceptible To Predatory Attacks of Crooked Market Makers.
Pearl Asian Mining Industries, Inc. (OTC Symbol: PAIM) is very sad about the news of being heavily shorted. It is the intent of the Company Pearl Asian to protect all its current shareholders from what is currently happening in its stock: PAIM. The company is doing its best to hold onto the position of being a very solid company as gold is its business. PAIM cannot be topple down by these predators who’s intent is to dilute, dissolve or take over Pearl Asian, that completely hurt the interests of ALL its common Investors and Shareholders as well!!
Pearl Asian Mining Industries, Inc. (PAIM) DID NOT & WILL NOT DUMP ANY OF ITS STOCKS INTO THE MARKET WHAT SO EVER!
PEARL ASIAN WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE STOCK GO UP EVEN JUST A $1.00 PER SHARE..
In order to educate the company’s INVESTORS and SHAREHOLDERS, we would like to pass along this information. Further studies obtained from the report of fellow company CMKX that was heavily naked shorted as well.
QUESTION: Has the SEC been aiding in the creation of counterfeit shares? Is the latest regulation released by the SEC in violation of the US Criminal code pertaining to counterfeiting? If naked shorting, and the settlement failures identified by the SEC as being associated naked shorting is abusive and manipulative, why does the SEC ignore this US Criminal code and allow the counterfeiting to continue?
ANSWER: These "counterfeit electronic book entries" are hosted by the DTCC. They are allowing for the clearing and settlement of trades involving nonexistent entities at the DTCC via the borrowing of "shares" in order to effect good delivery represents the "counterfeiting phase". This reality is borne out by witnessing the cover up frauds that need to be perpetrated in order to mask the fact that these entities are indeed counterfeit. Again the "intent to defraud" is quite obvious as you study the mechanisms of the "cover up" frauds being committed to hide the initial fraud.
We are convinced that the various State Securities regulators, if they understood the concept of naked short selling, would have had an absolute fit if they knew that the SEC was even considering allowing market makers to sell entities that don't exist and thereby dilute the equity ownership of investors in their states, or to fraudulently distribute counterfeit shares of public companies domiciled in their states.
This only illustrates how little people know about "naked short selling" and the role of the DTCC. Please do the investing public a favor. When reading through comments on Regulation SHO or discussing this matter with other regulators, please mentally
substitute the phrase, "the selling of nonexistent entities by participants of the DTCC to U.S. investors to whom they owe a fiduciary duty, in return for their cash" in the place of "naked short selling". Keep in mind that it is the SEMANTICS involved in the term "naked short selling" that somewhat legitimizes this heinous concept because legitimate "short selling" does indeed have its place in a healthy market. Our greatest concerns revolve around "naked short selling" and Rule 203, as well as Rule 201.
In regards to Rule 203(b):
1) In 1(i) we would ask that you strictly define what a "bona fide arrangement to borrow the security" entails. Does this refer to the affirmative determination rules? The current affirmative determination rules are riddled with loopholes. They
only require a broker/dealer to use its best knowledge and judgment to determine the availability of shares for loan and to notate it in writing. Where is the contract? The absence of the security on a non-audited "hard to borrow" list as proof of "borrowability" is a total joke.
2) In 1(ii) "Had reasonable grounds to believe that it could borrow the security" is unbelievably subjective. What are reasonable grounds, "easy to borrow lists"?
When writing these rules, we would suggest that you "PRETEND" that the naked short selling of micro cap securities represents perhaps the single biggest fraud
ever perpetrated on U.S. investors and the integrity of the market is at stake and that the people that have made literally billions of dollars committing this fraud are looking for any potential loophole that will allow them to carry on the commission of this
fraud ad infinitum. Plug all loopholes! Why would the SEC even consider allowing these crimes to continue?
3) In (2) we would suggest adding "or any affiliate, client or associate thereof" after the "purposes of the broker or dealer".
4) In regards to the last line of (2) "or is disproportionate to the usual market making patterns or practices of the b/d in that security", this invites a crooked market maker ("MM") that naked short sells into every order he sees to continue to do that because that IS his usual MM pattern.
5) In (3) (i) what keeps a crooked MM from just naked short selling through a different proprietary or non-proprietary account once he's caught? Please refer to the Sedona case modus operandi. These people usually work in collusion with many other
co-conspirators both on and offshore. A MM caught misbehaving can hand the naked short selling torch to a "buddy MM" for 90 days and return the favor should
the "buddy MM" get caught. The emphasis has to be on shutting down the abusive naked short selling of the
abusive BROKERAGE FIRMS, NOT JUST THE OFFENDING ACCOUNTS. IF YOU ACTUALLY PUNISH THE BROKERS, THESE CRIMES WILL BECOME LESS PERVASIVE.
6) In (3) (ii) (A) threatening to report the culprit to the NASD has no deterrent effect whatsoever. Investors are tired of watching perpetrators being fined $20,000 for stealing $5 million. Signing off on an AWC (Acceptance, waiver, consent) stating that, "I didn't do it and I won't do it again" just doesn't cut it anymore. That's how the SEC allowed the U.S. financial markets to get into this mess.
The NASD's naiveté-or complicity-in naked short selling matters is summarized in "endnote" #42 of the document we are commenting on wherein they state, "The Association (NASD) does not anticipate that a firm could properly take advantage of its market maker exemption to effectuate such speculative or investment short selling decision." Perish the thought, can you in your wildest dreams imagine an OTC market maker taking advantage of his and only his "right" to naked short sell into buy orders when "theoretically" acting as a bona fide market maker?
7) In 3 (ii) (B) withholding the proceeds of the crime for 90 days is like handing a bank robber the proceeds of the heist after a 90 day waiting period. This is a crime being committed. The motive is greed. The shares that were sold for real money don't exist, they never did. There was no intent to ever cover this naked short position. The "intent to defraud" is typically present right from the "get go" as there is usually not an imbalance of buy orders over sell orders at the higher trading levels of these "bear raid" victims. These victim companies are "targeted" because DTCC participants, in their infinite wisdom, feel that their market cap is a bit "rich" or that the prey is weak. These fraudsters are predatory. This intent is further demonstrated as the market makers don't reappear on the bid at lower levels to repurchase the shares they just sold, as a bona fide market maker would. Unethical market makers that sold millions of shares at $5 did not try to cover this naked short position at $4.80 like a "bona fide" market maker would have. Nor did they attempt to cover at $3.80 or $2.80 either. They're not even bidding at the current price level of 2-cents for that matter. The only
intent was and is the bankruptcy of the victim company. Naive micro cap investors have been getting their pockets picked systematically by Wall Street "professionals" for decades. FRAUDSTERS ARE SELLING ENTITIES THAT DON'T EXIST AND NAIVE INVESTORS ARE SPENDING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SCOOPING UP THESE PERCEIVED BARGAINS TRADING AT TINY PERCENTAGES OF BOOK
VALUE. (think of what is "PAIM" going through)...
8) A lot of investors have 10 or 15% of their portfolio in micro cap high flyers on the OTC: BB and Pink Sheets. They want to discover their own future "Nike" while it's trading at 10-cents. Why would U.S. taxpayers that happen to invest in these micro cap companies be afforded any less protection from market maker induced fraud than those that invest in Microsoft and General Motors? U.S. investors love to
gamble. It is these thinly traded securities that are the most easily manipulated by predatory MMs and their associates in Canada as well as in offshore hedge
funds. One would think that they would need MORE protection than the investors in Microsoft if anything. Solid development stage companies "incubating" on the OTC: BB and Pink Sheets are extremely fragile and very susceptible to predatory
attacks. Unethical market makers and their co-conspirators have come to the conclusion that billions of dollars can be made while shooting these "fish in a barrel". The sobering reality is that these companies are a lot like sandcastles and naked short selling predators are a lot like beach bullies and we all know that it's a thousand times easier to destroy a sandcastle or a young public corporation than it is
to build one.
9) We believe that the naked short selling problem is much more systemic than you at the SEC give it credit for. It is the collusion and complicity amongst MMs that needs to be addressed. Watch Level 2 trading and see how they operate as "packs" or "herds" in heavily naked short sold stocks. The mere act of sending these
naked short selling accounts to naked short selling "jail" for 90 days will just result in handing the naked short selling baton to a different account or to a buddy MM. The offshore hedge funds would obviously just set up numerous accounts at many different MMs and b/ds and rotate naked short selling orders through those accounts not currently in naked short selling jail. Perhaps severe penalties, criminal and civil,
should be administered to repeat offenders while any of their accounts are in "jail". The text of the explanation didn't address it, but we assume that these illegal naked short positions in excess of the Rule 11830 parameters will be bought in as the account goes off to 90-day jail. If not, why not? Why would the SEC not require the settlement of all securities transactions in U.S. markets?
10) We believe that a prospective investor contemplating the purchase of a micro cap security on the OTC: BB or Pink Sheets has the right to see what the outstanding failures to deliver and loans masking these "fails" total up to. These are collectively
referred to as "open positions". Let's not go back to the "caveat emptor" days. If there are 100 million legitimate shares issued in the stock he or she is contemplating buying, and 300 million "failures to deliver" or "loans made to cover a failed delivery"
within the system, the prospective investor has the right to know that his purchase of 1 million shares will NOT give him 1% of the voting power of the company, 1% of any dividends distributed, or 1% of any residual equity rights in the case of the dissolution
of the company. The SEC has the DUTY to make this crime-preventive information available to the prospective buyer. Otherwise, this investor will have walked into an ambush that the regulators were well aware of because on the day after his purchase there are 400 million shares that can be sold at any instant in time should bad news arrive on the doorstep. You at the SEC are very well aware of the ambush because you have visibility of these "fails" and "loans". Please give us a "heads up"! Just as the SEC and the public have the right to know of any additional shares being
registered by an issuer, the micro cap investors have the right to know how many "counterfeit electronic book entries" are on the books at the DTCC and clearing agencies. In other words, how many shares has the DTCC illegally "registered" unbeknownst to the corporation and its shareholders. If the problem centers around not knowing the modus
operandi of the perpetrators of the fraud, then we would love to help out in the education process. Before you attack this problem, please address the reasons for the inactivity in the past so that history doesn't repeat itself. The reality is that the DTCC and its 11,000 participants represent the single largest financial cartel-indeed by far the largest cartel-on earth. The political power and influence that this body wields is beyond description. Hopefully the SEC is not intimidated by being a "David" against this "Goliath". Especially when you at the SEC have regulatory authority over the battlefield.
MEMORANDUM TO FILE July 9,2004 JUL 1 2 2004 TO: File S7-23-03 FROM: Alexandra Albright Division of Market Regulation RE: Proposed Regulation SHO, on Short Sales; File No. S7-23-03 SIA Ad Hoc Committee on LocatesIFails and NSCC Meetings During the month of June, staff of the Division of Market Regulation engaged in telephonic meetings with the Securities
Industry Association ("SIA) Ad Hoc Committee on LocatesIFails and the National Securities Clearing Corporation ("NSCC"). The discussions in these meetings concerned "locate" and "fail to deliver" processing by broker-dealers and the operation of the Continuous Net Settlement system.
IP: Logged |
posted
DDSI has been on the naked short list many times. Contract news would bust the MM's and they would have to chase this stock up to cover.
IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
