"He said he was worried about the price dropping i
Post# of 36566
(Total Views: 147)
Posted On: 12/04/2019 6:57:12 PM
"He said he was worried about the price dropping in half from the dividend."
Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/newpost/622...z67BWkGGfq
From what I recall, he said the price would be cut in half and there would be 95 million shares outstanding that had to be chewed through. I don't think that's the same thing. The price should not have dropped by half since only about 55% of the shares were being awarded the dividend. If all the restricted shareholder were given dividend shares because of the CMF fiasco, then there would be 20 - 25 million more shares that had to be issued, and then yes, 100% of the outstanding shares would receive a dividend and the pps would be cut in half. I took that to be the meaning of what he was worried about.
"The market cap stays the same so it’s just math and the adverse effect on a hoped for uplisting."
Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/newpost/622...z67BWfnlVO
We have seen the OTC plays fast and loose with the market cap. They just arbitrarily removed $70 million in MC when GNBT retired almost 21 million shares, and then on the two days where 55% of the shares were "supposed" to receive a dividend, they cut the opening price by 1/2 arbitrarily (automated) even though there was not going to be 2 times as many shares available. Yes, the pps went up from that halved opening price, but I would be willing to be there were traders that took advantage of that mistake and forced the price down on both 10/29 and 11/29 because of the way OTC incorrectly handled what was supposed to happen.
So market cap is "flexible" on the OTC - not so much on the NAS or DOW.
Can you imagine the uproar if Apple stated they were giving 25% of their shareholders a 1:1 dividend (for whatever specious reason anyone can come up with) but the day of the dividend, the price went from $200/share to $100 per share? The MMs, the brokerages, the shareholders, the regulators and everybody else associated with financial dealings would be howling. I didn't hear one peep when OTC ignored the retirement impact on GNBT from anybody associated with trading, nor did I hear anybody question why many outlets showed the pps as halved for a dividend that was only going to 55% of the shareholders.
That is what we are facing here in OTC land, and to me, that is why Joe was so concerned. If they have to issue 20 - 25 million more shares, we're screwed because if they hold the market cap, the share price is cut in half. If they only give the dividend to 55% of the shareholders but OTC cuts the share price 50%, the MC takes an undeserved hit. Either way, we see an artificially manipulated share price and MC - NOTHING that resembles fair treatment of the value of the company based on anything they are doing or planning to do.
Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/newpost/622...z67BWkGGfq
From what I recall, he said the price would be cut in half and there would be 95 million shares outstanding that had to be chewed through. I don't think that's the same thing. The price should not have dropped by half since only about 55% of the shares were being awarded the dividend. If all the restricted shareholder were given dividend shares because of the CMF fiasco, then there would be 20 - 25 million more shares that had to be issued, and then yes, 100% of the outstanding shares would receive a dividend and the pps would be cut in half. I took that to be the meaning of what he was worried about.
"The market cap stays the same so it’s just math and the adverse effect on a hoped for uplisting."
Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/newpost/622...z67BWfnlVO
We have seen the OTC plays fast and loose with the market cap. They just arbitrarily removed $70 million in MC when GNBT retired almost 21 million shares, and then on the two days where 55% of the shares were "supposed" to receive a dividend, they cut the opening price by 1/2 arbitrarily (automated) even though there was not going to be 2 times as many shares available. Yes, the pps went up from that halved opening price, but I would be willing to be there were traders that took advantage of that mistake and forced the price down on both 10/29 and 11/29 because of the way OTC incorrectly handled what was supposed to happen.
So market cap is "flexible" on the OTC - not so much on the NAS or DOW.
Can you imagine the uproar if Apple stated they were giving 25% of their shareholders a 1:1 dividend (for whatever specious reason anyone can come up with) but the day of the dividend, the price went from $200/share to $100 per share? The MMs, the brokerages, the shareholders, the regulators and everybody else associated with financial dealings would be howling. I didn't hear one peep when OTC ignored the retirement impact on GNBT from anybody associated with trading, nor did I hear anybody question why many outlets showed the pps as halved for a dividend that was only going to 55% of the shareholders.
That is what we are facing here in OTC land, and to me, that is why Joe was so concerned. If they have to issue 20 - 25 million more shares, we're screwed because if they hold the market cap, the share price is cut in half. If they only give the dividend to 55% of the shareholders but OTC cuts the share price 50%, the MC takes an undeserved hit. Either way, we see an artificially manipulated share price and MC - NOTHING that resembles fair treatment of the value of the company based on anything they are doing or planning to do.
(0)
(0)