|
|
Post by portrush on Oct 3, 2005 14:32:42 GMT -6
I just had these pop up in my email box from Etrade...
Mon Oct 3 16:17:31 2005 CMKX traded at your target high of $0.10
Dear Valued Investor,
Your upper price limit alert (price up to 0.10) for CMKM DIAMONDS INC (CMKX Trade) has been triggered.
CMKM DIAMONDS INC CMKX Stock
Mon Oct 3 16:17:31 2005 CMKX traded at your target high of $0.05
Dear Valued Investor,
Your upper price limit alert (price up to 0.05) for CMKM DIAMONDS INC (CMKX Trade) has been triggered.
CMKM DIAMONDS INC CMKX Stock
|
|
|
|
Post by gosh on Oct 3, 2005 14:34:44 GMT -6
maybe they are practising  |
|
|
|
Post by bosnerdley on Oct 3, 2005 14:37:52 GMT -6
PR, Did you see NOS's thread ".10...?  Too bad it wasn't a trade trigger notification for you...or was it? Quick, check your account!!!! J/K Bo  |
|
|
|
Post by crawdadds on Oct 3, 2005 14:39:27 GMT -6
I just had these pop up in my email box from Etrade... Mon Oct 3 16:17:31 2005 CMKX traded at your target high of $0.10 Dear Valued Investor, Your upper price limit alert (price up to 0.10) for CMKM DIAMONDS INC (CMKX Trade) has been triggered. CMKM DIAMONDS INC CMKX Stock Mon Oct 3 16:17:31 2005 CMKX traded at your target high of $0.05 Dear Valued Investor, Your upper price limit alert (price up to 0.05) for CMKM DIAMONDS INC (CMKX Trade) has been triggered. CMKM DIAMO Have you seen this before on any of your GTC orders? If not and it triggered why did it not sell? Probably because the lines were fried from 100,000 investors trying to get in and out at the same time. It is going to be fun to watch how they do this when CMKX runs. What happens if they sell your order at 2.00 per share and then tell you they filled your order at .05 and pocket the rest??? We all will be looking at the exact transaction time to see if that happens. This is going to be great. |
|
|
|
Post by legacy2001 on Oct 3, 2005 14:44:44 GMT -6
lol I hope you were either at home or brought an underwear change to work with you!  |
|
|
|
Post by portrush on Oct 3, 2005 14:46:02 GMT -6
I am stuck on a 4-hour conference call that I am co-leading. These popped in the email box and took my breath away, but I can't get out of the call to invesitgate!
Aaargh!
pr
|
|
|
|
Post by legacy2001 on Oct 3, 2005 14:48:10 GMT -6
I am stuck on a 4-hour conference call that I am co-leading. These popped in the email box and took my breath away, but I can't get out of the call to invesitgate! Aaargh! pr Not to worry, portrush. Apparently just some fat fingers. |
|
|
|
Post by bosnerdley on Oct 3, 2005 14:56:08 GMT -6
Portrush, It was one sale of 1M for $.10, that was quickly reversed. Bo |
|
|
|
Post by tophat on Oct 3, 2005 15:03:29 GMT -6
I am stuck on a 4-hour conference call that I am co-leading. These popped in the email box and took my breath away, but I can't get out of the call to invesitgate! Aaargh! pr Not to worry, portrush. Apparently just some fat fingers. Yup, fat fingers! |
|
|
|
Post by john3339 on Oct 3, 2005 15:38:14 GMT -6
OK, here's the question of the day: the trade at $.10 was for 1,000,000 shares. It was reversed after the bell, however, the trade that was reversed was for 100,000,000 shares.
How'd they do that? and what does that mean? Can they actually cancel more shares traded than they actually traded?
Is this how they're going to cover their naked short position, by cancelling more shares than they purport to buy? Talk about funky math!
Any idea of which MM did this piece of work?
Curious
john
|
|
|
|
Post by golden1101 on Oct 3, 2005 15:40:00 GMT -6
Sounds like a way of doing it, off the record John. Interesting to say the very least.
golden ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by john3339 on Oct 3, 2005 15:48:36 GMT -6
somewhere along the line, they're going to have to come up with real shares to cover the remaining uncovered shares. I don't care how many times you churn fakes, eventually, they'll have to have REAL shares to negate the fakes. And by some estimates, they'll need up to three times the entire authorized shares to do it! That's buying our shares THREE times over, just to break even! Today, they did a 10 to 1 cover for 100,000,000 it seems. That means only (approximately) 2,900,000,000,000 more to cover. Or, in other words, they need to do 29,000 more transactions like today, just to break even. Hmmm...and doing one per day, we're talking approximately 1,000 years (business days excluding holidays). Ya think they can do it? john my math may be off a little...a year or two. |
|
|
|
Post by golden1101 on Oct 3, 2005 15:50:53 GMT -6
somewhere along the line, they're going to have to come up with real shares to cover the remaining uncovered shares. I don't care how many times you churn fakes, eventually, they'll have to have REAL shares to negate the fakes. And by some estimates, they'll need up to three times the entire authorized shares to do it! That's buying our shares THREE times over, just to break even! Today, they did a 10 to 1 cover for 100,000,000 it seems. That means only (approximately) 2,900,000,000,000 more to cover. Or, in other words, they need to do 29,000 more transactions like today, just to break even. Hmmm...and doing one per day, we're talking approximately 1,000 years (business days excluding holidays). Ya think they can do it? john my math may be off a little...a year or two. Ah hell . . . We waited this long, whats another 1,000 years between friends. |
|
|
|
Post by diamonddonna41 on Oct 3, 2005 17:45:16 GMT -6
wouldnt the good till cancels trigger too.?
|
|
|
|
Post by controldenied on Oct 3, 2005 17:56:55 GMT -6
OK, here's the question of the day: the trade at $.10 was for 1,000,000 shares. It was reversed after the bell, however, the trade that was reversed was for 100,000,000 shares. How'd they do that? and what does that mean? Can they actually cancel more shares traded than they actually traded? Is this how they're going to cover their naked short position, by cancelling more shares than they purport to buy? Talk about funky math! Any idea of which MM did this piece of work? Curious john What is .10 divided by 100?? The average share price that we have now I think. Maybe that is what they do. Name a price that is 100 times higher than the actual price, and then cancel 100 times the amount of shares that they traded. And it all averages out to the price we have now. |
|
|
|
Post by john3339 on Oct 3, 2005 19:13:30 GMT -6
OK, here's the question of the day: the trade at $.10 was for 1,000,000 shares. It was reversed after the bell, however, the trade that was reversed was for 100,000,000 shares. How'd they do that? and what does that mean? Can they actually cancel more shares traded than they actually traded? Is this how they're going to cover their naked short position, by cancelling more shares than they purport to buy? Talk about funky math! Any idea of which MM did this piece of work? Curious john What is .10 divided by 100?? The average share price that we have now I think. Maybe that is what they do. Name a price that is 100 times higher than the actual price, and then cancel 100 times the amount of shares that they traded. And it all averages out to the price we have now. NOW we're talking F-U-N-K-Y math! Pretty good for them if they can get it past the EC Enforcement Division. Or wait, aren't they in on this too? ;D |
|
