|
Post by fastwalker on Mar 25, 2005 11:04:14 GMT -5
25,000,000/.0002 = 125,000,000 Float Huh? Where anywhere is the calculation of the float determined by taking the maximum revenue figure stated by Regulation SB and divide it by the ask? Where anywhere can you determine the float by taking ACTUAL revenue and divide it by the ask (or average of the bid/ask)? Further, in this erroneous formula (which again has no market /mathematic / algorithmic / sensible basis) he assumed automatically CMKX has $25,000,000 in annual revenue. For them to be a small business issuer, they have to have LESS than this, up to a maximum of $25,000,000. I'd bet a bottom dollar their revenue during the period of time in question AND/OR now is less than $25,000,000 annually. So applying his formula, does that mean the float is 100B?? 40B?? None of the post erases the o/s level at 703 billion shares, and that the SEC is serious as a heart attack about investigating and making a determination on CMKX. I understand if many are trying to gleen positives now. But they will come if CMKX emerges from this intact and with the old leadership ousted and Mr. Maheu in charge. Then we can talk about value and the float until we're blue in the face. For now, instead of many holding hopes on erroneous formulas about the float we should be focused on questioning the company on whether they are soon to sink via a SEC judge. Euthydemus made an EXCELLENT post yesterday concerning his contact with Pinksheets that we cannot ignore. We have to get through this. It will be very tough, but doable with the right leadership and counsel strategy. We have to not sink before we 'float'. Bo
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Mar 25, 2005 11:04:49 GMT -5
FROM MOTLEY FOOL
The Naked Truth on Illegal Shorting By Karl Thiel March 24, 2005
It's amazing how the word "naked" can liven up a discussion. Take naked short selling, for instance. The addition of this saucy little word turns the mundane act of borrowing and selling shares of stock in hopes of buying them back later at a lower price into a raging controversy fraught with conspiracy, secret identities, public recriminations, foreign intrigue, sports team owners, and now some of the top regulators in the land.
How can one word cause so much trouble? While legal short sellers must borrow the shares they sell, naked short sellers sell shares of stock they haven't borrowed, have no intention of borrowing, and that may not even exist. Not surprisingly, this activity is illegal and has been since the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. But for a number of reasons, regulators have overlooked it in the past.
In response to a rising tide of complaints, however, the SEC recently introduced Regulation SHO, which went into effect Jan. 3. The idea was to put a stop to, or at least help control, abusive short selling practices. Unfortunately, the result of the SEC's effort so far has arguably been to turn rampant abuse into a spectator sport by simply providing a list of stocks being most abused… and doing little else.
Intrigue in the sock drawer How bad is the problem? Listen to this story: On Feb. 3, a man named Robert Simpson filed a Schedule 13-D with the SEC describing his purchase of 1,158,209 shares of Global Links Corp. (OTCBB: GLKCE), "constituting 100 percent of the issued and outstanding common stock of the Issuer." As described in a story that ran on FinancialWire on March 4, Simpson stuck every single share of the company in his sock drawer -- and then watched as 60 million shares traded hands over the next two days.
In other words, every single outstanding share of the company somehow changed hands nearly 60 times in the course of two days, despite the fact that the company's entire float was located in Simpson's sock drawer. In fact, even as recently as last Friday, 930,872 shares of Global Links still traded hands. If Simpson's claim that he owns all shares is accurate, that is a staggering number of phantom shares being traded around by naked short sellers.
What we have here is a failure to settle This is just one extreme example of a phenomenon a number of companies have complained about. Patrick Byrne, CEO of Rule Breakers recommendation Overstock.com (Nasdaq: OSTK), for instance, has noted seeing four and five times his company's float rack up in trading volume over the course of a day. Overstock has been on the Nasdaq Threshold Security List for weeks, indicating a consistent pattern of, um, settlement failure.
What exactly are settlement failures? In a legitimate short sale, shares must be delivered within three days of the transaction. If they are not, this is called (excuse the tortured syntax) "fails to deliver." Failure to deliver -- that is, a settlement failure -- could be the result of a bureaucratic snafu or clerical oversight. But consistent failure in large volume would seem to indicate something more nefarious, or at the very least, a major bureaucratic breakdown in desperate need of repair. Failures on the scale experienced by some companies go beyond any innocent explanation.
The Threshold Security List, published daily by Nasdaq, the NYSE, AMEX, and Archipelago (AMEX: AX), is the most visible aspect of Reg SHO. To make the list, more than 10,000 shares in a company or more than 0.5% of a company's total outstanding shares must fail delivery for five consecutive days. When a stock appears on this list, it is like a red flag waving, stating "something is wrong here!" When a hedge fund is actively shorting a number of stocks that just happen to be on the Threshold Security List, it would seem to be good cause for an investigation. To the extent that Reg SHO brings these issues to the attention of companies, investors, and regulators, it's doing a good thing.
Making the list But many companies linger on the Threshold Security List, experiencing impossible trading volumes. Many are penny stocks like Global Links, but others include well-known names like Krispy Kreme Doughnuts (NYSE: KKD), Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (NYSE: MSO), and Delta Airlines (NYSE: DAL). The issue has finally caught the attention of some members of Congress. At a March 9 hearing of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) brought up the subject of Reg SHO's shortcomings with SEC Chairman William Donaldson.
"Nearly as I can tell from my constituents who feel victimized by this," said Bennett, "it's not working." Summarizing how abusive practices might continue under Reg SHO, Bennett said: "I'm told that the way it works is that one brokerage house sells short, has 13 days under your rule under which to acquire the shares, and in that 13-day period hands the whole transaction off to another brokerage house. They just keep moving it around and nobody ever has to settle."
I really wish I could have heard how Donaldson would have replied. He began a recitation of the elements of Reg SHO before Bennett quickly cut him off. In a hurry to get to a vote, Bennett moved on to a new subject and Donaldson never really got a chance to comment. Pity.
One of Bennett's constituents is, probably not coincidentally, Patrick Byrne, whose company is headquartered in Salt Lake City. Naked shorting has become something of a cause celebre for Byrne over the past few months, not least because his company has apparently been subject to extreme levels of it. Byrne became interested in the subject after the company's now-famous fourth-quarter earnings conference call, when a man calling himself "Bob O'Brien" (he won't reveal his true identity for fear that angry hedge
more...
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Mar 25, 2005 11:14:37 GMT -5
fund operatives will do him harm) described a pattern of manipulation of Overstock stock by naked shorts, and predicted the company would show up on the Threshold Security list. It did, the next day.
Cat and mouse All of this raises an important question: If Reg SHO can pinpoint companies being manipulated, what can it do to stop the abuse? What are the teeth behind the regulation?
Glad you asked. Under the new rules, if shares haven't been delivered for 13 days after the transaction, the broker must buy them back -- with money it presumably would collect from the client who shorted the stock in the first place. So a bad actor can break the law a little bit, but if he breaks it a lot, he has to cover the short -- which he was going to have to do anyway and, since he's been manipulating the price by illegal activity, can probably be done at a bargain price. Now that's showing the bad guys! Moreover, as Sen. Bennett noted, brokers working together could get around even this restriction by passing the transaction among each other, starting the 13-day clock over again.
While Reg SHO stipulates that a broker is supposed to locate shares prior to executing a short sale, there are certain exceptions to this rule. One is that if a stock appears on an "Easy to Borrow" list, this is considered "reasonable grounds" to assume the stock can be located for settlement, and the short sale may proceed without the broker contacting the source of the shares or specifically locating them. (A footnote in the SEC's discussion of the final rule [release number 34-50103] adds: "Of course, securities that are 'threshold securities' pursuant to Rule 203(c) should generally not be included on 'Easy to Borrow' lists." Geez, really? But sometimes it's OK for heavily manipulated stocks to be shorted further without locating shares?)
Another exemption is for "Bona-fide market making." Is it just me, or does the specification that bona fide market making is exempt -- versus sorta market making? --point to some possible wiggle room in interpretation? The SEC is quick to explain that, among other qualifications, "Bona-fide market making does not include transactions whereby a market maker enters into an arrangement with another broker-dealer or customer in an attempt to use the market maker's exception for the purpose of avoiding compliance with Rule 203(b)(1) by the other broker-dealer or customer." Thank goodness deliberately circumventing the rules is forbidden by the rules! That's kind of a tiny echo of Reg SHO itself, which is a set of rules about not breaking 71-year-old laws. I think history has shown us that the rules aren't terribly effective without enforcement.
Opportunity in slop But in fairness, there is a reason why securities regulations around short selling have been, and continue to be, rather lax and loosely enforced. Remember that the stock market is an old and still largely paper-based system. While naked shorting has been technically illegal for a long time, that doesn't mean that brokers have always been expected to have borrowed shares in hand before executing a short sale. The Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 stipulates a settlement period up to three business days -- meaning in essence that any short can be a naked short for up to three days without a broker being expected to do anything about it. Getting high volumes of transactions completed has always meant acting first and settling later, and a certain amount of slop in the process has always been tolerated.
And where there is slop, there is opportunity. Brokers make money lending out shares, and any stock you own is subject to being lent unless it is held in an IRA or cash account. In fact, the commission brokers make on loaning out shares changes depending on how high the demand is for a certain stock. So when a stock goes into naked short territory, where there is potentially more demand than there are shares in existence, brokers stand to make a lot of money by executing short sales… even if they can't get their hands on the borrowed shares right away. It's one of those gray areas that doesn't necessarily indicate intentional wrongdoing on the part of brokers (at least on a small scale), but that arguably has come to be viewed with an increasing nudge and wink over the years.
Now enter the wackier part of this enterprise. If the borrowed shares are coming from overseas, that's a pretty good excuse for them to take more than three days to show up, right? Turns out a number of companies have suddenly found themselves listed on foreign exchanges without their knowledge. O'Brien
more...
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Mar 25, 2005 11:15:32 GMT -5
raised this scam tactic in Overstock's fourth quarter 2004 conference call, but there is more to this than the opinion of one anonymous conspiracy theorist. A couple years ago, there were a number of biotech companies in just this situation, finding that their companies had been given German exchange listings without any request from management. And I'm sure that by the time I heard about this, the strategy had been around for a long while.
Parting thoughts Believe it or not, there are actually defenders of naked shorting. By going beyond the normal system of supply and demand, the argument goes, naked shorting acts as a sort of pressure valve to price in negative sentiment on a company when the regular channels are too inefficient.
Thus, the usually upstanding website Investopedia actually offers this defense of naked shorting:
Critics of the new rule argue that if naked-shorting had not taken place during the micro-cap crime wave of the 1990s, such stocks would have climbed even higher before they crashed. Thus, the SEC's action to ban naked-shorting eliminated the only market force against over-hyped, or even fraudulent, small-cap and micro-cap stocks.
That's quite an argument. No one would dare suggest that the government should directly intervene to control the price of securities, but why not let prices be distorted by profit-seekers circumventing the law? Viva la Kleptocracy!
Can naked shorting really be so widespread? I don't like conspiracy theories, and there are some pretty good arguments as to why this problem would be a lot more apparent to rank-and-file investors if it were really so rampant. I'll discuss that in part 2 of this column next week. Plus, I'll look at some more of the specifics of naked shorting and what they mean to investors in the next issue of the Rule Breakers newsletter.
Karl Thiel, a member of the Rule Breakers team, does not own any stocks, long or short, mentioned in this article. He wonders if it is legal to sell his neighbors' power tools as long as he's borrowed them first.
8-)baglady- Thanks for passing that along.
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Mar 25, 2005 11:17:49 GMT -5
Someone thinks this might happen. NSS settle with CMKX = tender offer = private = don't have to go the court. For settling the NSS is cancelled out on CIM, GEMM, USCA. CMKX then allows some of the MMs and make some of their money back on CIM IPO by letting them in on it for settling on CMKX. I don't believe the SEC will come out looking bad if it is played like this. CMKX shareholders get their money, CMKX either goes private or just doesn't show up for the public hearing and takes the fall so the SEC gets off the hook. scratch my back and i'll scratch yours. Then later CIM IPOs and some of the entities that settled up with the NSS on CMKX, Urban gives them a helping hand to recoup some of their losses. When something this HUGE is going on, it is better to negotiate and try and hit everyone’s interest than to try and destroy one another. Reply….. Anyone buying in to the message board chatter of quick settlements or tender offers in a few days or a couple of weeks might be setting themselves up for a disappointment. The SEC and MMs game right now is as much delay and bad press against the company as possible. Imo their game plan is to keep the price depressed and manipulate as many shareholders as they can into selling to lessen the blow. THEY KNOW THEY ARE EVENTUALLY GOING TO HAVE TO PAY. IT IS JUST A QUESTION OF HOW MUCH! It is of no benefit to the sec to revoke us because they cant cover if there is no trading. Imo if we hold our shares we WIN! It might take another month or two but I believe it will be well worth the wait!! Source / Hurt…...
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Mar 25, 2005 11:18:32 GMT -5
JOHN L. SMITH: SEC taking closer look at penny stock outfit CMKM Diamonds Is it the glitter of diamonds, or the dust of an elaborate con? In recent weeks I've tried to keep you up to date on the rising scandal at Las Vegas-based CMKM Diamonds Inc., the penny stock outfit with nearly a trillion shares flooding on the pink sheet market and a shareholder value so small you need a magnifying glass to read it. Now the Securities and Exchange Commission has ordered an administrative hearing into CMKM's inability or unwillingness to comply with standard reporting requirements. The SEC on March 3 announced it was temporarily suspending the trading of CMKM stock (its symbol is CMKX) through March 16 after suspicions were raised about the company's use of a highly persuasive public relations press release campaign of dubious accuracy. At a time CMKM was announcing ever more exciting developments with its Saskatchewan, Canada, diamond mining exploration, it was failing to comply with standard SEC filings. The company hired a former SEC attorney and added a credible Las Vegan to its corporate board, but that didn't keep government watchdogs from probing its finances. When I reported that dozens of CMKM accounts had been frozen at a local bank, and that millions of dollars had floated through those accounts, a crush of investors called to express their suspicion that not only were my facts flawed, but I probably was working as a paid agent of some mysterious competitor. No such luck. A March 16 SEC administrative order notes that CMKM hadn't filed an annual report since May 9, 2002. It hadn't filed a quarterly report since Nov. 18 of the same year. The SEC now has called for a public administrative hearing with the threat of suspension or revocation possible for CMKM. Following the fact-finding hearing, an administrative judge will have 120 days to determine CMKM's fate. The company, which lists Urban Casavant as its chief executive, has moved its offices to 5375 Procyon Street, Suite 101. Meanwhile, I still get calls and e-mail from suckers who claim CMKM is the victim of a grand conspiracy Reply…. JOHN L. SMITH: SEC taking closer look at penny stock outfit CMKM Diamonds SEC wants to know if NSS condition on CMKX Mining company can be made to quietly go away so that know one will know that NSS exists.
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Mar 25, 2005 11:19:33 GMT -5
cmkx.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6713&sid=128512e77ce322a0dc74a1cd97f63a69 Not by any means, do I believe what was posted to be true(yet, a misunderstanding is what it seems likely to be). I remember someone on this board (sterling’s) stating that they spoke with Ameritrade and how something about "bankruptcy" was mentioned. Another poster on this board wrote in a reply how this might be Ameritrade and the original poster came back with the explanation that they had said as a reference to the Market Maker. Does anyone remember this post? I am assuming the below post is a take off from that original post from the other day, yet the post below seems to refer to the info as coming from the 24th. Perhaps more than one person was told something about bankruptcy from Ameritrade. I would like to get to the bottom of this and send the info out to my group(most are very inexperienced stock holders). I am now going to call Ameritrade. Is anyone on the group listed below? I can't seem to be able to join that group. TIA.
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Mar 25, 2005 11:19:48 GMT -5
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 7:02 pm Siggy Gemologist Joined: 08 Jun 2004 Posts: 2144 Location: Bardonia, NY probably nothing to be concerned about... came from CHAPTER 11...........READ BELOW.........Sheik & Others, What's up? Just got this from person in my group who bought CMKX..............Siggy Good morning. I am currently on hold, I guess being transferred, at Ameritrade. Not sure what exactly I should be asking but I have already been told that I can not purchase any more shares of CMKX. Two minutes seems like forever when you are on hold.....tick, tick, tick....The reason they are no longer selling CMKX is because Ameritrade has received word that CMKX is restructuring under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. He informed me that I can sell as many shares as I would like to sell and could not explain why Ameritrade would facilitate a share sell but not a share purchase. He told me to contact the CMKX restructuring department for any further information. Can someone get to Andy and advise what's being said by Ameritrade. Siggy
|
|
|
Post by Bart on Mar 25, 2005 15:48:59 GMT -5
;D ;D
OK, I have a question about this and a few other post that relate to it. I have searched around on the other boards and can find no one talking about this. Not even a mention of it. Does anyone have a clue as to WHY?
Oh by the way. If you want a board that is as negative as you can get on CMKX. Just go to All Stocks.com. They all claim they have CMKX shares but trash the heck out of it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 7:02 pm
Siggy Gemologist
Joined: 08 Jun 2004 Posts: 2144 Location: Bardonia, NY
probably nothing to be concerned about... came from CHAPTER 11...........READ BELOW.........Sheik & Others, What's up? Just got this from person in my group who bought CMKX..............Siggy
Good morning. I am currently on hold, I guess being transferred, at Ameritrade. Not sure what exactly I should be asking but I have already been told that I can not purchase any more shares of CMKX. Two minutes seems like forever when you are on hold.....tick, tick, tick....The reason they are no longer selling CMKX is because Ameritrade has received word that CMKX is restructuring under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. He informed me that I can sell as many shares as I would like to sell and could not explain why Ameritrade would facilitate a share sell but not a share purchase. He told me to contact the CMKX restructuring department for any further information.
Can someone get to Andy and advise what's being said by Ameritrade. Siggy
;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Mar 25, 2005 20:49:37 GMT -5
Question: Please see this link: www.pinksheets.com/quote/print_filings.jsp?url=%2Fredirect.asp%3Ffilename%3D0001117768%252D03.... They filed this Form 15 on July 17, 2003 which terminated their registration under Section 12(g) and apparantly relieves them from their duties to report under Section 13 and 15 (d). Could this be the key piece of evidence which clears their name? ?? or Was this filing not appropriate at they still had reporting duties? I honestly don't know, but it sure seems like a key piece of evidence to me. Bo
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Mar 25, 2005 20:50:14 GMT -5
OT: Varok thrashes Janice Shell (Read 395 times) spaz God of Diamonds member is offline Posts: 2697 OT: Varok thrashes Janice Shell « Thread started on: Today at 2:18pm » <br> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's a bit slow today so I thought I'd post more of my usual crap. Please move thread if necessary. By: Varok 25 Mar 2005, 02:04 PM EST (This msg. is a reply to 867099 by Janiceshell.) Of course you don't have a position..I don't think anybody here or your other stomping ground (ihub) believes you do. As well, you can't justify your miserable existence by convincing folks you are a Good Samaritan.That is complete BS and hogwash.. You are a known basher that has been proven over and over again.. You are dishonest and deceitful manipulative old *&^%$ with an ulterior motive.. The MMS have taken all the stops by bringing cretins like yourself to this thread and for the last couple of weeks and now your presense with other known bashers can only ampify this course and your intent. Bashing a stock during the halt was for what now?? And now your disgusting presense on an off trading day and almost 24/7 is only going to reassure the inexperienced newbie that we as shareholders will prevail. As I have said,you are NO good and never have been a decent person..Your record is well known and I know you feel right at home in this swell of a sesspool..Your smell goes far back as 1999 and still lingers today.. There is NO way you could ever come around and redeem yourself,you are the worst of the worst
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Mar 25, 2005 20:50:55 GMT -5
America wants to know In light of all the attention, why does the SEC continue to cover-up fraud? by: The TEAM Senator Bob Bennett has opened the doorway for all to see the fraud existing in our markets from the “market side” of things. Sure, the SEC comes out every now and then and busts an Enron or a Worldcom and tells us they have gotten the big guns. But, that is not the whole truth. The biggest fraud in the market is made up of the brokers, market makers, hedge funds, the DTCC, other related organizations and, sorry to say, even the SEC itself. The fraud we are talking about is the selling of naked short shares to investors through brokers. Every party connected to this criminal act is guilty of fraud and they know it. Naked short shares are shares made out of cyber space (thin air) and put into a borrowing pool to be used in shorting a company’s stock. Shorting a stock is legal and is a way to bet on the downward movement of a stock’s share price. Legal shorting of a stock REQUIRES the short seller to find real stocks to borrow with the intent of buying those shares back later. ILLEGAL naked short selling uses these fake shares made in cyber space as the borrowed share to sell with no intent of ever buying it back. It’s like printing money that is fake and buying real merchandise with it. If you or I could make up and sell fake shares in UNLIMITED amounts, we could make as much money as we wanted every single day of our lives and the government would have our backs so we could never get into trouble. The SEC knows it exists and is a major problem, they enacted Regulation SHO this past January to supposedly (wink wink) take care of the problem. It doesn’t work and they knew it never would. So, why enact it in the first place? Here is what they did….. They tell those that have any knowledge of the problem, we hear you and agree there is a slight problem and we are addressing it. First we will take our sweet time and take two years to finally start taking action, it only involves billions of dollars annually. What’s the rush? Next, when they finally get the regulation written and put into effect, it does absolutely nothing! So, what’s the next step? They start shutting down companies on the smaller markets by calling them frauds. What have these companies done to commit fraud? Some of them, are frauds… thank you SEC for doing your job. What did the rest of them do, they took initiative and started to join forces to try and fight the fraud in the market that is bankrupting them. Some of these companies have life saving, innovative and or planet friendly alternatives to modern industrial products and practices. Some of them…… have what the really “Big Fish” want, they have minerals. Perhaps they have many billions of dollars worth of gold, uranium and diamonds that are the most economically stable resources to maintain and amass huge amounts of wealth. CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (stock symbol CMKX) is just one such company. CMKM Diamonds, Inc. has recently been suspended by the SEC for 10 days and then on the 10th day of the suspension, they were given an administrative action to appear before a judge. What is going on with this little Pink Sheet trading company that it is known by practically every person inside every US brokerage house, the market itself and has as many as 40,000 to 100,000 shareholders and their friends and family? Lets look into this one, just a little….
more...
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Mar 25, 2005 20:51:35 GMT -5
CMKX has been very quiet about what is going on inside their business, but they have brought in top notch legal advisors in one D. Roger Glenn of the famous Wall Street known firm of Edwards and Angell. Edwards and Angell’s client list reads like the who’s who of Corporate America. They represent companies such as Bank of America, Bear Stearns & Company, NBC and Wells Fargo just to name a few. D. Roger Glenn is a partner in this firm and yet he spent approximately nine months with this company traveling to Canada and Ecuador to see their holdings first hand. Why would such a noted attorney with such big clients take on a small Pink Sheet company that has not reported filings to the SEC since the summer of 2003? Now, CMXK has also acquired the services of Stoecklein Law Group along with the leadership of the famous Robert Maheu of the Nixon and Howard Hughes era. Mr. Maheu was called the alter-ego of Howard Hughes and helped Hughes buy Las Vegas and run the mob out of town. Mr. Maheu is still connected to political leaders, Senators and past Presidents as well as having worked with and for the FBI, CIA and many other organizations around the world. Why would this man come in to take on the leadership roll as Co-CEO of this company this late in his very successful life? In an area of Saskatchewan, Canada there is a little company called DeBeers. For those that do not know, DeBeers is a diamond mining company that controls the whole diamond market and industry with the wealth of the many mines they control around the world. They have been called the Mafioso of the diamond world, by some that have dealt with them. This is also where CMKX has part their mineral holdings. DeBeers, a private company, owns approximately 58,000 acres of mineral rights with very large (perhaps the largest in the world) kimberlitic bodies of earth containing commercially viable diamonds. CMKX surrounded these claims buy buying up over 1.4 million acres of mineral claims all the way around DeBeers claims. It seems DeBeers relied on old technology several years ago to locate their diamond fields and may have missed the largest fields around their claims. However, CMKM Diamonds, Inc. used the latest available technology and is rumored to have not only found diamonds, but uranium and many other minerals as well. In 2003, CMKM Diamonds, Inc filed a form with the SEC to take them to a non-reporting status. It is rumored they did this to escape making timely filings and having to reveal the true wealth they have found. But, some believe that they had (and still have) a much bigger goal to accomplish. What is that goal? You guessed it, they may have been pounded into the ground by the fraudulent act of naked short selling of the shares of their company. D. Roger Glenn and a Bob Maheu wouldn’t have taken on this company unless they were the real deal and had true wealth, it just wouldn’t make sense. The company hasn’t come out and officially announced that they have a naked short share problem, but we personally know of individuals holding around one billion shares of this company. At only $100-200 dollars per million shares and an estimated 40,000-100,000 shareholders, it is quite easy to see where there may be the rumored 1.5 trillion shares owned by shareholders both inside and outside the company. CMKX is only
more...
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Mar 25, 2005 20:53:04 GMT -5
authorized to issue 800 billion shares. The 1.5 trillion share amount may be further evidenced by the issuing of three stock dividends in joint venture companies since last summer. Dividend ratios indicate the possibility of 1.5 trillion shares in the market. Did the company issue this many shares? Not possible! Well, if there is 1.5 trillion shares in the market and it is only possible for the company to issue 800 billion, where did the other 700 billion shares come from? Thin air! It means that a majority of shares held by individual investors would be fake, counterfeit and are only “markers” in brokerage houses all over the world. Why is the SEC picking on this company instead of going after the ones that perpetuated this crime in the first place? Because, going after the company under the guise of “protecting the shareholders” appears to be the easiest way out of the two evils. Who inside the SEC is making these decisions and why? Who is being protected? Now, for the scary part… what happens if the naked short share scenario with CMKX is real? First, let’s look at a possibility of the valuation of CMKX. We have already established that they must have the goods, or they wouldn’t have been able to bring a D. Roger Glenn or a Bob Maheu aboard. DeBeers owns approximately 58,000 acres of mineral claims that they have admitted to being worth at least $40-80 Billion dollars. CMKX owns approximately 1.4 million acres of mineral claims surrounding the claims of DeBeers, which is more than twenty times the area mass. CMKX has stated they have “hundreds” of possible diamond or other mineral sites that have been indicated by modern technology. A low valuation for this company looks like it could be in the neighborhood of $800 Billion dollars or $1 per share if there were actually 800 Billion REAL shares in the market, and even if the company was only worth one 10th of that valuation, shares would be worth at least 10 cents each. Yet the company is trading at 100th of a penny per share. Shareholders have held onto shares through thick and thin, with some holding more than two years. If shareholders hear a valuation of $1 per share, they are not going to give them up for 100th of a penny. How is the market going to buy back the other 700 Billion shares from shareholders to clean this problem up so they company can go about everyday business as a company should be allowed to do and investors can make the profits that they have a right to? Well, someone is going to have to shell out Billions of dollars on just this one stock, possibly 100’s of Billions of dollars! How many more companies are there in this same boat? There are other companies with problems from naked short selling like Overstock.com, Eagle Tech Communications and Krispy Kreme.... how big is their problem? This could ruin our markets! This is not conspiracy stuff, the SEC has admitted that naked short selling is real and exists in our markets. Can our markets afford a several Trillion dollar hit to clean up all of this fraud? That’s what is coming if they don’t act on it right away. As far as throwing the market trillions of social security dollars by way of privatized accounts……. NO WAY!!! We cannot allow this to happen until the markets are cleaned up and we can be sure it is a level playing field. America wants to know: Why doesn’t the SEC just stop the nonsense and come clean? Let’s work together to stop this crime and stop the money flow out of our country, our businesses and our individual pockets! Sincerely, The TEAM THANX IHUB
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Mar 25, 2005 20:53:40 GMT -5
Remember, Maheu is 'supposed" to speak in NYC 4/20/05. Could everything be all cleared up by then? Probably not. But, my instincts tell me this whole SEC thing is "smoke and mirrors" to what really is going on. Think about the Nascar billboards for a second. Now, some may say that those were paid for way in advance. Fine. Now comes this litigation, and if CMKX thought they would be in trouble, wouldnt you think the Company would sell that billboard for whatever they could get for it, to help pay toward a contingent liability? Id think so. Like I've said before, this is being way blown out of proportion. Most misleading disclosure cases, like this one, result in fines. Not suspension or revocation! This could be different, but, I doubt it. -
|
|