Greetings TopDog I did see the video and I posted
Post# of 300
Posted On: 01/19/2014 4:06:56 PM
Greetings TopDog
I did see the video and I posted it over on the RFMK board.
I happen to think the prototype looks like a decent high quality device so perhaps it will be a good flagship product for the company going forward, we shall see. Many seem to always remind us all that there are plenty of vaporizers already on the market, however, as always I remain curious to know how any investor is supposed to invest in those companies as they are all private incorporated entities. The only ecig companies investors and traders on the market can invest into are public companies with publicly trading shares on the open market, BWDIK, right?
Besides, all of those other devices are just big clumsy generic flashlights from China, none of them have the new and improved subtle features of the new dry herp vaporizer coming out soon by RFMK.
I believe SFIO is dormant right now because of the simple fact that Mr Roth our tireless CEO has zero money to get anything going for the company. Why can he not tap into capital and raise money for an operating budget? Simply because most if not all investors with capital to invest into a development stage company must have liquidity (fungible shares) for their investment so they can have the ability to liquidate at any time. SFIO stock has remained in a global lock by the DTC for many years so it is no surprise that there do not exist any investors of whom would consider investing capital into a public company which has a stock that is NOT fungible (cannot be traded) and has no liquidity. Investors do not like roach motels and that is exactly what one or a few individuals at the DTC decided to turn SFIO stock into with the decision to globally lock the stock.
I imagine it would be very beneficial to contract Mr Wang once again to further his ecig device designs and get a new prototype on the drawing board and/or move once more for a patent of the vaporless design, however any such corporate action would require an operating budget. The DTC has effectively removed SmokeFree Innotec Inc's ability and capacity to operate as a publicly owned company by unilaterally shutting down the stock. Why did they decide to globally lock SFIO? Who really knows, besides probably only a few individuals in high places. Many are of the opinion that it is quite shady and perhaps has something to do with the questionable and "unusual" trading activity in the stock the day before the announcement of the global lock. At the very least one would think Mr Roth (as the "issuer" of the company) would be able to demand a complete and total explanation for the DTC global lock and then explain to shareholders (actually the ones of whom OWN this company) what the reasons are behind the DTC global lock, but alas, after years, nothing at all has happened. The CEO appears to be missing in action and has abandoned shareholders and the company and his fiduciary duty to shareholders. My own opinion is that if he does not have the stomach to take legal action against the DTC and take the complaint up the chain through the SEC then he should resign as CEO of the company and allow someone else to take the reigns and move this company forward.
IMO there is much to be explained about the activities and back office shenanigans at the DTC and manipulation that seemingly occurred in the stock a day before the global lock.
How does Mr Roth explain the one million preferred shares he issued himself for $1,000 on the day of the lock?!
How does the DTC explain the decision of the global lock?!
How does FINRA explain the non-existence of a failure to deliver or short sale metric report for the settlement days of the trading day before the day of the global lock and the trading day on the day of the global lock?!
Can we infer that for any PK stock placed in a global lock it necessarily means that no short sale or failure to deliver metrics which occur thereafter must be made public?!
Can we infer that any firm (perhaps crony hedge funds abroad of whom are not under the SEC jurisdiction) at any time has the ability to throw leveraged phony money at a particular PK stock who they decide to victimize and it necessarily causes the "unusual" trading and "unusual" deposit activity at the DTC which always causes the DTC to "decide" to globally lock the stock for the "protection of investing public"?
If so, then I wonder how any stock in the market is safe from becoming globally locked at any moment simply because criminals at large decide to attack a stock with failure to delivers, naked shorting and IOU electronic markers of over half the float worth of "shares" in a single day of trading "activity".
Perhaps the real lesson for all traders and investors of whom were victimized by this fraud at the highest levels is that the SEC/FINRA and DTC are complicit in financial fraud and are entirely fine and would cheer on victims here going abroad (perhaps to the Caymans or Malta) and starting up a fraudulent hedge fund and in a one day period just naked short sell half the float or more worth of a particular stock and reap the rewards of 100% proceeds from those fraudulent sales, then close down the hedge fund the next day, take all the money and disappear into the sunset?!
It appears the financial regulators and officials actually seem to be supporting this mode of money-making in the market, so perhaps everyone including all retail traders and investors should just make a change and run with the wolf pack. Indeed, they seem rather boisterous about their mode of making money, as on the day before the lock (June 30 2011), there exist posts on a certain message board by the criminal shorty gang to "come over to" the other "side" because apparently there is a "lot of money to be made" [doing what they do, I guess]; go review the boards, it's all there for all to read. There were direct threats of the group "taking the stock down" (back down to trips from $0.035) and then hours later the SEC litigation was announced on Routers and the stock indeed fell to $0.0041 within 15 minutes (on a few tens of millions of shares) Hmmm...
Just some food for thought. It is all quite amusing and interesting for the average retail investor to see how scummy the scum swamp really is.
Most if not all the blame was thrown squarely on the ex-CEO, however IMO there is a lot more questionable activity which occurred than just the ex-CEO's action, which I must say IMO seem to have been a very minute and detailed technicality of SEC regulations which on top of that was orchestrated by an FBI sting operation (what could be construed as entrapment).
Does every single CEO of every single PK company know every last detail of every SEC law and all the proper vs improper ways to fund a start up business with investor capital? Likely not. They did prove that the ex-CEO had forethought and was aware of the wrong-doing as it was being perpetrated, however that is not the point. It seems clear that certain individuals on up high wished to have a few heads on their walls and meanwhile their legal activity was somehow leaked to the scum swamp of criminal MM's and likely hedge fund managers of whom could not resist taking full advantage of a very large pool of retail PK traders and investors by trapping them into a pump and dump operation of their own with the fore-knowledge of the SEC litigation and it's exact timing of becoming public. All the while the DTC appears to be complicit and the SEC has not the wherewithal to step up and charge financial criminals of whom allegedly caused the "unusual" trading activity.
It is a sad state of affairs for the average common retail shareholder who only wished to invest in a development stage company doing business as an ecig manufacturer. One bad apple and shareholders are put in financial jail for years on end with no end in sight. Seems wrong, does it not?
Perhaps one day one of the victims here will finally seek legal retribution and stir up a hornets nest. Who knows, I have seen crazier things happen.
The dark side clouds everything, difficult to see the future is.
TIC TOC
GLTY
$SFIO
I did see the video and I posted it over on the RFMK board.
I happen to think the prototype looks like a decent high quality device so perhaps it will be a good flagship product for the company going forward, we shall see. Many seem to always remind us all that there are plenty of vaporizers already on the market, however, as always I remain curious to know how any investor is supposed to invest in those companies as they are all private incorporated entities. The only ecig companies investors and traders on the market can invest into are public companies with publicly trading shares on the open market, BWDIK, right?
Besides, all of those other devices are just big clumsy generic flashlights from China, none of them have the new and improved subtle features of the new dry herp vaporizer coming out soon by RFMK.
I believe SFIO is dormant right now because of the simple fact that Mr Roth our tireless CEO has zero money to get anything going for the company. Why can he not tap into capital and raise money for an operating budget? Simply because most if not all investors with capital to invest into a development stage company must have liquidity (fungible shares) for their investment so they can have the ability to liquidate at any time. SFIO stock has remained in a global lock by the DTC for many years so it is no surprise that there do not exist any investors of whom would consider investing capital into a public company which has a stock that is NOT fungible (cannot be traded) and has no liquidity. Investors do not like roach motels and that is exactly what one or a few individuals at the DTC decided to turn SFIO stock into with the decision to globally lock the stock.
I imagine it would be very beneficial to contract Mr Wang once again to further his ecig device designs and get a new prototype on the drawing board and/or move once more for a patent of the vaporless design, however any such corporate action would require an operating budget. The DTC has effectively removed SmokeFree Innotec Inc's ability and capacity to operate as a publicly owned company by unilaterally shutting down the stock. Why did they decide to globally lock SFIO? Who really knows, besides probably only a few individuals in high places. Many are of the opinion that it is quite shady and perhaps has something to do with the questionable and "unusual" trading activity in the stock the day before the announcement of the global lock. At the very least one would think Mr Roth (as the "issuer" of the company) would be able to demand a complete and total explanation for the DTC global lock and then explain to shareholders (actually the ones of whom OWN this company) what the reasons are behind the DTC global lock, but alas, after years, nothing at all has happened. The CEO appears to be missing in action and has abandoned shareholders and the company and his fiduciary duty to shareholders. My own opinion is that if he does not have the stomach to take legal action against the DTC and take the complaint up the chain through the SEC then he should resign as CEO of the company and allow someone else to take the reigns and move this company forward.
IMO there is much to be explained about the activities and back office shenanigans at the DTC and manipulation that seemingly occurred in the stock a day before the global lock.
How does Mr Roth explain the one million preferred shares he issued himself for $1,000 on the day of the lock?!
How does the DTC explain the decision of the global lock?!
How does FINRA explain the non-existence of a failure to deliver or short sale metric report for the settlement days of the trading day before the day of the global lock and the trading day on the day of the global lock?!
Can we infer that for any PK stock placed in a global lock it necessarily means that no short sale or failure to deliver metrics which occur thereafter must be made public?!
Can we infer that any firm (perhaps crony hedge funds abroad of whom are not under the SEC jurisdiction) at any time has the ability to throw leveraged phony money at a particular PK stock who they decide to victimize and it necessarily causes the "unusual" trading and "unusual" deposit activity at the DTC which always causes the DTC to "decide" to globally lock the stock for the "protection of investing public"?
If so, then I wonder how any stock in the market is safe from becoming globally locked at any moment simply because criminals at large decide to attack a stock with failure to delivers, naked shorting and IOU electronic markers of over half the float worth of "shares" in a single day of trading "activity".
Perhaps the real lesson for all traders and investors of whom were victimized by this fraud at the highest levels is that the SEC/FINRA and DTC are complicit in financial fraud and are entirely fine and would cheer on victims here going abroad (perhaps to the Caymans or Malta) and starting up a fraudulent hedge fund and in a one day period just naked short sell half the float or more worth of a particular stock and reap the rewards of 100% proceeds from those fraudulent sales, then close down the hedge fund the next day, take all the money and disappear into the sunset?!
It appears the financial regulators and officials actually seem to be supporting this mode of money-making in the market, so perhaps everyone including all retail traders and investors should just make a change and run with the wolf pack. Indeed, they seem rather boisterous about their mode of making money, as on the day before the lock (June 30 2011), there exist posts on a certain message board by the criminal shorty gang to "come over to" the other "side" because apparently there is a "lot of money to be made" [doing what they do, I guess]; go review the boards, it's all there for all to read. There were direct threats of the group "taking the stock down" (back down to trips from $0.035) and then hours later the SEC litigation was announced on Routers and the stock indeed fell to $0.0041 within 15 minutes (on a few tens of millions of shares) Hmmm...
Just some food for thought. It is all quite amusing and interesting for the average retail investor to see how scummy the scum swamp really is.
Most if not all the blame was thrown squarely on the ex-CEO, however IMO there is a lot more questionable activity which occurred than just the ex-CEO's action, which I must say IMO seem to have been a very minute and detailed technicality of SEC regulations which on top of that was orchestrated by an FBI sting operation (what could be construed as entrapment).
Does every single CEO of every single PK company know every last detail of every SEC law and all the proper vs improper ways to fund a start up business with investor capital? Likely not. They did prove that the ex-CEO had forethought and was aware of the wrong-doing as it was being perpetrated, however that is not the point. It seems clear that certain individuals on up high wished to have a few heads on their walls and meanwhile their legal activity was somehow leaked to the scum swamp of criminal MM's and likely hedge fund managers of whom could not resist taking full advantage of a very large pool of retail PK traders and investors by trapping them into a pump and dump operation of their own with the fore-knowledge of the SEC litigation and it's exact timing of becoming public. All the while the DTC appears to be complicit and the SEC has not the wherewithal to step up and charge financial criminals of whom allegedly caused the "unusual" trading activity.
It is a sad state of affairs for the average common retail shareholder who only wished to invest in a development stage company doing business as an ecig manufacturer. One bad apple and shareholders are put in financial jail for years on end with no end in sight. Seems wrong, does it not?
Perhaps one day one of the victims here will finally seek legal retribution and stir up a hornets nest. Who knows, I have seen crazier things happen.
The dark side clouds everything, difficult to see the future is.
TIC TOC
GLTY
$SFIO
(0)
(0)Smokefree Innotec In (SFIO) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼