(Total Views: 275)
Posted On: 07/30/2018 3:48:14 PM
Post# of 43066
Re: Commando911 #40022
you might want to comprehend what exactly you are reading regarding that 450 number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_name_securities
a year or so back i did a quick back of the napkin number hypothetical *potential* avg of what *shares* could be held when divided by the number filed in the K
and one of the crew who trolls my posts .. pointed out that CEDE
(paraphrasing here) as the nominee holder for brokerage firms would be counted as *1* of the above number (ironically indirectly proving my point)
because while many original investors may not have added to their totals .. or reduced their CBs .. many other P2O investors .. in from 2009 - 2012 .. actually did .. which of course is part of the bigger issue .. that has to be *mocked* and *trolled* at every turn
next time a get together is planned @ SS .. consider asking the ? and then if up for it .. discuss CEDE
4kids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_name_securities
a year or so back i did a quick back of the napkin number hypothetical *potential* avg of what *shares* could be held when divided by the number filed in the K
and one of the crew who trolls my posts .. pointed out that CEDE
(paraphrasing here) as the nominee holder for brokerage firms would be counted as *1* of the above number (ironically indirectly proving my point)
because while many original investors may not have added to their totals .. or reduced their CBs .. many other P2O investors .. in from 2009 - 2012 .. actually did .. which of course is part of the bigger issue .. that has to be *mocked* and *trolled* at every turn
next time a get together is planned @ SS .. consider asking the ? and then if up for it .. discuss CEDE
4kids
Quote:
Since I have been advised, like all others, to look at the filings....I’m going with what’s reported and not a number picked out of the air that can’t be verified.
(2)
(0)
