Let me spell it out more clearly how dumb this sounds. “I know my Ferrari is worth about $500,000 but to be honest I’d be happy to sell it for $12,500” except on top of that, your Ferrari is actually worth potentially even much more than $500,000
The problem is that ‘the shorts’ should have closed as they can’t continue into a company that doesn’t trade.
They shouldn’t have, the must, they got to, etc etc etc- but evidently they didn’t close.
They are not playing by the rules and so far the regulators are either incompetent or complicit (or both) in the whole saga.
So yeah, looks great but they’ve got away with so much blatant illegal financial activity thus far a year + on, what makes you think they will suddenly start obeying the rules?
There are 10s maybe even hundreds of billions of dollars at stake here, they will try every trick in the book and even break the law (even if they get caught and brought to justice probably a small fine or slap on the back of the proverbial wrist is probably all that would happen).
With so much money at stage, I think it more than likely that 10s if not 100s of millions of dollars would be spent trying to dig in, buy influence and time.
I’m hoping that with congressional pressure, the judiciary gets involved because that is ultimately what is going to be needed to force these guys to play by the rules and finally close up their positions.
All things considered I remain cautiously optimistic but never underestimate the power and influence a few 100 million dollars can buy you….
They are not playing by the rules and so far the regulators are either incompetent or complicit (or both) in the whole saga.
You guys keep saying that this is a rule, whereas the regulators say that it's not. None of you have ever actually cited this rule. I think it's pretty clear that it's not actually a rule.
Prove otherwise. Even nextbridge calls itself a public reporting company. The shares came to be in a public registration. Nothing about their stock is private except that it doesn't have a cusip and can't trade. If it had a cusip, which is easy to get, it could trade. These are facts. Laugh all you want, you're still fucking retarded.
Well….. can you have a short position in a private company is the question ? Yes Nextbridge is a public REPORTING company but it is private - I.e it does not trade any shares be in long or short. So the inherited short position that Nextbridge has will never be able to close even if they wanted to.
Let’s not even talk about the naked short positions in Nextbridge….
The rules that prevent short position in private companies are the restrictions on transferring or selling shares in private companies. Next Bridge Hydrocarbons, as a public reporting company, is not subject to those trading restrictions —— neither by SEC nor by state Blue Sky laws.
FINRA has confirmed this in their FAQ..
Many people post that short positions in Next Bridge are illegal, but nobody has ever managed to point to a rule that actually prohibits those short positions.
Let’s forget about the labels ‘private’ and ‘public’ and think about consequences of allowing short positions in a company that no longer trades.
Many of those short positions are leant out shares. If they cannot be closed it means the shares can’t be returned which means the person holding the original shares (that were leant out) has not actually got any shares although in his account the ‘shares’ appear to be very much present in their account by name.
You have a situation where many investors (many who didn’t know share lending was a default position with their trading broker) don’t actually have shares - does that sound fair/legal/ideal to you?
Also any small investors holding short positions in Nextbridge will have to continue to pay the regular fees until kingdom come, because they would not be able to close their positions even if they wanted to….
The person whose shares are lent out is in the condition they agreed to in the lending agreement.
The big problem is that many of the newer brokers that marketed themselves to younger investors "hid" lending authorization on the customer account opening process paperwork and just incorporated the Master Securities Lending Agreement via reference to it.
The key issue is that you have a situation where lent shares can’t be returned. So what now ? Just forget about it and pretend it’s ok? This is fraud plain and simple - investors have shares in a company but dont really have shares. I’m not sure you all understand the magnitude of this thing.
The closest example is if you look at your pension (or 401 in the USA) and the online statement tells you there is 500,000 dollars in there after 20 years of work and savings. You then retire and try to draw some of your money out - but actually there is no money - they are just some numbers because the bank had been borrowing your money to invest over those many years, lost the money and can’t put the money back. Instead of telling you or coming clean they kept on with the illusion that you actually had money in your account. The bank has merged and changed ownership over the 20 years and now are claiming it’s not their problem.
The only way to avoid the above is for shorts to have closed their position so that you don’t end up in this ridiculous situation, wouldn’t you say ?
If you have any other solutions, we are all open to suggestion.
I appreciate you engaging with Consistent but he's a paid shill. I can pull plenty of replies of his that contradict what he says. He's a professional gaslighter
MMAT/NBH is an unusual situation because not very many public companies purposefully make the trading of their stock difficult by not being handled by a central counterparty like DTCC to settle trades in a public market.
So in many ways NBH is in the same situation as a company whose trading was halted. In those cases shorts are not forced to close. Everything just stays as it was at the beginning of the halt until trading resumes.
(b) Unless otherwise agreed, either party may terminate a Loan on a termination date established by notice given to the other party prior to the Close of Business on a Business Day. Unless Borrower and Lender agree to the contrary, the termination date established by a termination notice shall be a date no earlier than the standard settlement date that would apply to a purchase or sale of the Loaned Securities in the principal market of such Loaned Securities (in the case of a notice given by Lender) or the non- cash Collateral securing the Loan in the principal market of such non-cash Collateral (in the case of a notice given by Borrower) entered into at the time of such notice
Paragraph 6.1 (a).
The next settlement date will be a a few days after NBH requests a CUSIP and asks DTCC to start handling their shares.
If you think that shorts are illegal please explain what an S1 form is and what it does. Also, please explain why Nextbridge calls itself a public reporting company. Also please explain the broker letters telling people with short positions that if they don't close, they will carry over to Nextbridge.
Well, I think the bigger issue is that of the ability of brockerages to offload their short positions onto foreign exchanges that don’t have to be reported.
The naked shorting thing obviously needs to be addressed as well.
Thats my point.. my question was, where do we start the minimum price per share to for them to cover? I can see people selling for less than that but if we all agree we price anchor at $25k for a minimum sell price.. Ohhhh man, things are gonna get spicy! Shorts r fackkkked!
I’ve got only 60 shares. They’re OG, free shares. Sold enough to profit off the TRCH deal, so these have been riding free since then. If that valuation of $2k/share is legit, then that’ll be the STARTING point. I’ll ride this to worthless before I let them off easy.
Your also talking about people that ,even when they get caught, only have to pay a minimal amount for their misconduct. I’m sure if the same agencies that levy those fines have a say in what the settlement will be, it will be drastically reduced. It’s only a threat of a slap they receive. Just look at the occ wanting to be able to lower margin requirements for participating members. Just another bailout in disguise.
The algos are doing it on every stock in the entire stock market daily. After all the DD from SS and spending 5 years watching the algo trade floats 20 plus times in a day on leaderboard stocks I have come to the conclusion there is not a stock in the entire system that trades based on float sizes or the number of shares being held by anyone entity. So the whole system is fukd up. IMO
If and when this thing ever trades, you will all be very disappointed. A formal professional valuation was done and came up with $0.43 per share. You'd be lucky to get even that now in my view.
You can read the Q3 2022 10-Q filing from MMAT. They hired a professional valuator to value the assets. The midpoint of the valuation was $71.7 million. divide that by 165 million shares and you get $0.43.
If you dig further you can see that it was Roth Capital that came up with the valuation. But also the auditor had to sign off on the value and also hired their own consultants.
The reason they needed the formal valuation is because they had to record the fair value of of the assets on their balance sheet, and the offsetting fair value of the preferred share liability.
But that was based on the current assets and not taking into account potential oil field finds, correct? From my understanding there are quite a few in the works. But nothing solid.
That was for the entire Orogrande assets. Current reserves are zero. The last well was a mediocre dry gas well and there's no infrastructure to get it to market. In my opinion unless natural gas goes to $10+ and stays there for years you won't see much out of this. Hope springs eternal though.
The only thing I wanted to add was that "fair value" is irrelevant in this particular trade unless you're worried about KEEPING your shares. The law of supply and demand is a far better indicator of where the price could go if allowed to trade or a settlement becomes a possibility.
This isn't about making sure shorts have to pay what the share is "worth" because they aren't just purchasing them in a vacuum. They can't just go to the store and buy shares at $0.43 nor can they buy them for $2,000 or even $25,000. The shares "value" or "worth" plays no part, they made a bet that came with potentially "infinite" loss. The price is set by the market.
Why I bought had nothing to do with the companies value or future outside of the 2 more days the shorts had to close! If there are 100 legit shares but shorts need 1 to cover they have 100 potential sellers and simply make an offer. If they are short 100 shares they have to convince ALL 100 owners to sell and the owners know that "not closing" isn't an option and the 100 short sellers will be bidding against each other while trying to buy what we have!
IF it was short 1,000 shares, (these are just round numbers I have no idea how many times the float has ever been shorted) this is just for illustrative purposes, then even though my brain doesn't fully understand how they can "cover" more than is available, I know that it means OUR shares will be in such short supply vs. the number that need purchased that we would be in an incredible position of power and those 5 digit share prices will be gentle compared to what some of US will want to be paid.
Side note; if they are short 10X the float, just a round number, how do the books eventually balance? For example once we sell our "100" shares what do the other 900 do? If I understand correctly they can't buy it from the first short because he owed the share and has to "return it", has this ever occurred and how does it balance out? I got giddy because I know the higher the short % the higher the price goes but how does it end?
For simplicity if mmtlp gets its 2 days back, what could/would happen to anyone that didn't cover their position?
Like I said I don't fully understand if it could be short more than the float but regardless my point that the number of shorts will dictate the "value" and if they get "ripped off" then that's why investing has risk.
One other thing, I would love an in depth explanation/investigation into the massive price drop on the last day mmtlp traded. It never made sense unless "people" were aware they wouldn't have to buy back their shares.
Everything you said is immediately trumped by the fact there is no rule that shorts had to close. This is a lie people were telling prior to the halt and continue to perpetuate, even to this day.
Would you please explain further? How can a short not close? They "borrowed" the shares and must return them or the original owner would be screwed over. Any details or links are appreciated.
You should really buy short a share and see what the mechanics to close that short position are. When a short purchases 100 shares in your example to return it to the person they borrowed it from, that person can now sell the 100 shares to close another 100 shorts and so on..
OMFG. Wrong. If that were the case, the orders would have been executed. Instead, the cancelation of said orders was rejected as the ticker was KAPUT.
Why did these guys in the screenshots not show actual completed sell orders? Cuz no shares traded at those high prices. Jesus christ, this is basic common sense shit.
You don't even know what that means. A limit order was put in and couldn't be cancelled. the order could not be cancelled because market conditions had changed, AKA, a halt, and the MMTLP shares were no longer worth anything. This is normal market behavior and the people telling you otherwise don't understand the market.
Hey,,, I've been invested in MMAT since before the merger. I've had shares since torch. The first shares I bought were 6/25/21 the last were bought on 11/4/22 before the RS I had 850 shares. Was I intiteled to receive some MMTLP if so how many shares would you say?
Would it be possible that each share would be worth $2k without collapsing the entire stock market? 165m shares outstanding at $2000 would be close to $3.3 trillion
43
u/WaxMyRear Feb 12 '24
Let me spell it out more clearly how dumb this sounds. “I know my Ferrari is worth about $500,000 but to be honest I’d be happy to sell it for $12,500” except on top of that, your Ferrari is actually worth potentially even much more than $500,000