ok, i'll bite . let's have a closer look Those Re
Post# of 96879
(Total Views: 839)
Posted On: 04/11/2017 3:05:31 PM
Re: rustydog62 #76035
ok, i'll bite . let's have a closer look
in this example. likely from ir. there's no reason to lift the restriction then . the ta should not be reporting increases in unrestricted shares, if the legends aren't being removed . so why are the legends being removed ?
https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=4475238
and the reason for lifting the restrictive legends ?
....do i have to answer that ?
to sell. liquidate . cash-in. get yo money
look who the majority of those shares are going to
is ntek self-sufficient ? no
do they still need funding ? yes
do the people running the business need food, shelter, have car payments, live in a home ? i suspect if they're like anyone else. they need insurance. have bills . want things,...
and the r-shares are discounted . so they're already green
as to holding. for "seven yrs". my mailbox is full
with those who held.....
got no ntgl shares . as promised
watch their $.03 and $.05, $.07 and $.15 cent shares go to $.0015 ( or whtever)
then get cut by 25 in the (25-1 ) rs
some have lost homes . marriages. families . retirements devastated while " holding"
forget the devastation
forget the hypothetical's
since u asked. look at the data....
has the os and unrestricteds gone up since the rs or not ?
what does that tell us ?
are those restricted's being held like u suggest ? the data says u've presented a nice theory . but that's not what's happening. not in reality
maybe that changes . anything's possible. but the conversation was started with people claiming "no dilution". and there isn't evidence of this so i said so . and that's that
Quote:https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=447...z4dy6kEbbf
Those Restricted Shares will also have a clause in them to entitle them to stay off the Common Shares Stock market for another 3, 5, or 7 years time period. In most cases it will also have the option for the buyer to purchase another 1/2 the total amount of shares that he already has purchased for the same price or slightly more than the original within that 3, 5, or 7 years time. That is one of the main reasons why the buyer of them never cashes the RS till the end of the 3, 5, or 7 years
in this example. likely from ir. there's no reason to lift the restriction then . the ta should not be reporting increases in unrestricted shares, if the legends aren't being removed . so why are the legends being removed ?
https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=4475238
and the reason for lifting the restrictive legends ?
....do i have to answer that ?
to sell. liquidate . cash-in. get yo money
look who the majority of those shares are going to
is ntek self-sufficient ? no
do they still need funding ? yes
do the people running the business need food, shelter, have car payments, live in a home ? i suspect if they're like anyone else. they need insurance. have bills . want things,...
and the r-shares are discounted . so they're already green
as to holding. for "seven yrs". my mailbox is full
with those who held.....
got no ntgl shares . as promised
watch their $.03 and $.05, $.07 and $.15 cent shares go to $.0015 ( or whtever)
then get cut by 25 in the (25-1 ) rs
some have lost homes . marriages. families . retirements devastated while " holding"
forget the devastation
forget the hypothetical's
since u asked. look at the data....
has the os and unrestricteds gone up since the rs or not ?
what does that tell us ?
are those restricted's being held like u suggest ? the data says u've presented a nice theory . but that's not what's happening. not in reality
maybe that changes . anything's possible. but the conversation was started with people claiming "no dilution". and there isn't evidence of this so i said so . and that's that
(4)
(11)Nanotech Entertainment Inc. (NTEK) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼