|
|
Post by loganwolverine on Apr 25, 2010 2:11:14 GMT -5
Well Bhollenegg has told us an avalanche of news coming in hours-days. We are now getting an update finally after about 2 weeks of this posting. If I don't see ER, then I have to question the validity of this statement. Hodges clearly states in his Feb 26 update,
"At that time I advised that I would have a further update when a receipt for Economic Release had been received, or in the alternative I became convinced that such receipt would not be forthcoming in the very near future"
So this is black and white, and no in betweens. I call it like I see it. So good luck to everyone and I anticipate ER Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
Post by NobleForce2 on Apr 25, 2010 2:58:54 GMT -5
Well Bhollenegg has told us an avalanche of news coming in hours-days. We are now getting an update finally after about 2 weeks of this posting. If I don't see ER, then I have to question the validity of this statement. Hodges clearly states in his Feb 26 update, "At that time I advised that I would have a further update when a receipt for Economic Release had been received, or in the alternative I became convinced that such receipt would not be forthcoming in the very near future" So this is black and white, and no in betweens. I call it like I see it. So good luck to everyone and I anticipate ER Tuesday. Surely the man has compassion. He easily could be doing this only because of the public outcry for an update. Some people wouldn't accept otherwise. On the other hand, if it is a casual update, it doesn't jive with what BobH posted. I'm a little confused at this point, but I don't get the feeling that we're gonna get what we've been waiting for on Tuesday. No matter what happens, I have the utmost respect for BobH. I dread the grief some will try to give him about his avalanche post...as if he has anything to do with any twists and/or turns this case takes. |
|
|
|
Post by loganwolverine on Apr 25, 2010 7:39:53 GMT -5
Well, Hollenegg assured us of avalanche news in hours-days. That's the bottom line. If we see a mudslide instead, then nothing new on CMKX. Since 2004, many self proclaimed saviors have come and gone through the years, and ALL have been 100% wrong with their predictions. From Melvin, to Andy, to Mano, Jay Adobe, the other Belgiums, and the infamous ACCA. This will be no different if we are still here in April 2011. The only difference will be the new "CMKX Savior" that knows all the inside information that gets everyone on the boards excited. If I was a plaintiff, and the my name was on the lawsuit, I personally wouldn't be found in a chat room talking about the case. But hey, that's me. So I stand by what I said, "ER" better be in the update or the philisophical statements hinting unfound wealth need to come to an end.
As Bruce Willis said in "Die Hard 2 " "Just the Facts Maam"
|
|
|
|
Post by squeezebox on Apr 25, 2010 7:45:51 GMT -5
That's about where I stand also!
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfbela on Apr 25, 2010 8:02:52 GMT -5
LoganWolverine,
Right on.. We better hear something positive on Tues. or ALL people better put their pontificating to bed..And your comments on Mr. Hodges are correct also..
Time for them to put it on the table for us.. We do have that right as being "similarly situated"
The bottom line for the plaintiffs is, if we don't get ER..KEEP QUIET TILL WE GET THE CASH!!!!
Regards,
WolfBela
|
|
|
|
Post by loganwolverine on Apr 25, 2010 12:08:16 GMT -5
In 2008, The entire US economy was $14 Trillion according to this news clip I found by Glenn Beck. So this $3.87 trillion has been hard to swallow for some time now. Even if 2.5 trillion shares were naked shorted between .0001 and .001, that doesn't come close to $3.87 trillion dollars in damages. That's how I see this whole thing. But I am cautiously optimistic and will see what Hodges comes up with on Tuesday. I don't know the whole behind the scenes events, but very curious. My gut is telling me that this whole lawsuit is BS. But since it hasn't been dismissed at least yet, we still have hope. www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/beck.deficit/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by beavis on Apr 25, 2010 13:03:25 GMT -5
In 2008, The entire US economy was $14 Trillion according to this news clip I found by Glenn Beck. So this $3.87 trillion has been hard to swallow for some time now. Even if 2.5 trillion shares were naked shorted between .0001 and .001, that doesn't come close to $3.87 trillion dollars in damages. That's how I see this whole thing. But I am cautiously optimistic and will see what Hodges comes up with on Tuesday. I don't know the whole behind the scenes events, but very curious. My gut is telling me that this whole lawsuit is BS. But since it hasn't been dismissed at least yet, we still have hope. www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/beck.deficit/index.htmlRe: the 3.87T, yes, this number blows me away, too. Then I remember a post from Dennis, think from beg. of March. Here is part of it: "I, like others, have trouble getting my head and heart (and arms) around the phantasmagoric “numbers” we hear but, on the other hand, the numbers seem to add up. In our lifetimes we have seen a “lot of money” once defined as a hundred bucks, then a thousand, then a million, then a billion, then a trillion, and next people will be talking in quads." camrhon.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=safe&action=display&thread=6325Also, remember who was forced to settle to stay out of prison, etc. From Hodges suit: "34. During the period from March, 2004 through August, 2006, on behalf of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. Robert A. Maheu, with assistance from others, negotiated a settlement with the illegitimate brokers, dealers, market makers, hedge funds, and other persons and entities that had engaged in naked short selling of CMKM Diamonds Inc. stock and cellar boxing the company. In exchange for a U. S. Government promise of no prosecution for such sales, the wrongdoers each promised to pay negotiated amounts to a frozen trust for disbursal at a later time." cmkxunofficial.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=mofo&action=display&thread=4455Catdaddy posted an article a couple of days ago about an ex-SEC attorney getting 8 yrs for his involvement in penny stock scams... CMKX is way bigger, and those "bad guys" would have fallen way harder, imo. So they opted to pay, imo. |
|
|
|
Post by sittingtight on Apr 25, 2010 21:56:22 GMT -5
3.87 Trillion is a speck of the FAILURES... Please keep your eyes on the prize (Financial Reform Apr. 26, 2010 @ 5:15 pm.) $651,661,601,847,341 in Derivatives MUST BE CLEARED... Where is our money you ask? LOOK AS IT GOES UP IN MULTIPLES.. not sure if interest is calculated in this Look under (money creation) www.usdebtclock.org/That is what you get when you sell something that does not exist... EYES ON THE PRIZE PLEASE... or it might be spelled (PRISE) LOL prise, prize [praɪz] 1. to force open by levering 2. to extract or obtain with difficulty TY Al..  |
|
|
|
Post by sittingtight on Apr 25, 2010 22:35:07 GMT -5
Derivatives can serve legitimate economic purposes -- hedging against credit risk or swings in interest rates, for instance. But the reliance on OTC markets created massive exposures in almost complete secrecy. AIG's exposure to credit default swaps exceeded $400 billion. The Obama proposals would force much derivative trading onto clearinghouses and exchanges. This would limit risks, notes Pozen. Clearinghouses would require that derivatives be priced daily and that traders whose positions lose value post extra collateral. That would ensure they could deliver on their obligations. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/25/AR2010042502994.html |
|
|
|
Post by sittingtight on Apr 25, 2010 23:07:46 GMT -5
Dodd prepared to toughen bill on derivatives No Deal Yet on Financial Reform By Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press , 04-25-10 WASHINGTON – With no bipartisan deal on how to rein in Wall Street, Democrats stepped up their efforts Sunday to splinter unified Republican opposition to their sweeping regulatory overhaul. In a move that could attract the support of at least two Republicans, Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, agreed to toughen his sweeping bill with rules on derivatives despite objections from the Obama administration, according to a Democratic official familiar with the negotiations. Derivatives are the complex securities blamed for helping precipitate the 2008 Wall Street crisis. The restrictions adopted by Dodd were written and approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee last week. They include a requirement that banks spin off their derivatives businesses into subsidiaries with separate sources of capital. Banks fiercely opposed the provision. The Obama administration has called for banks to end trading in speculative securities, but not to jettison operations that create derivatives markets for clients. The Agriculture Committee language had the support of Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Olympia Snowe of Maine. It was sponsored by committee chairwoman Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., who pressed Dodd to incorporate it into the broader bill. It was unclear Sunday night whether adding the derivatives restrictions would be enough for Snowe and Grassley to join Democrats and vote to permit the start of debate on the larger Wall Street bill. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on Friday blocked Democrats' efforts to bring the bill up for debate, setting up a vote Monday that will require 60 votes to move ahead. McConnell said Sunday that if Republicans did not strike a deal with Dodd on several aspects of the bill, all 41 Republican senators would vote to delay the start of debate. Dodd and Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the banking committee, professed to be close to a deal Sunday during a joint appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." But, as Shelby said, "inches sometimes are miles." And the two lawmakers did not hold a negotiating session Sunday. The legislation, the most sweeping effort to rein in financial institutions since the Great Depression, is approaching its end game, and Republicans and Democrats alike predict it can ultimately pass with bipartisan support. But for now, Republicans are using what leverage they have in hopes of putting a bigger GOP imprint on the bill or removing Democratic provisions they perceive as government overreach. Democrats said they were out of patience. "Are we going to start the debate or are we going to shut it down and continue negotiating, negotiating, negotiating?" Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said on ABC's "This Week." The new derivatives provisions would require most derivatives to go through a new network of clearinghouses and be traded on regulated exchanges. Lincoln's bill provides some exemptions for firms that use derivatives for commercial purposes to hedge against market fluctuations. It also exempts derivatives linked to foreign exchange rates. Derivatives are financial products such as corn futures or stock options whose worth depends on the values of underlying investments. Companies use them to hedge against risks, but they have also been vehicles for speculation and helped trigger the financial crisis when the underlying investments — mortgage-backed securities, for example — plunged in value. The overarching Senate bill — and a similar bill passed by the House — would create a mechanism for liquidating large firms, set up a council to detect systemwide financial threats, and establish a consumer protection agency to police lending. The legislation also would require derivatives, blamed for helping precipitate the meltdown, to be traded in open exchanges. Even if Democrats are unable to proceed to debate after Monday's vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid intends to keep pressure on Republicans. The political environment favors Democrats. Polls show a public desire to regulate financial institutions, and a recent fraud lawsuit against Goldman Sachs has created a desire by several Republicans not to be seen as obstructing Wall Street legislation. "If you listen carefully to the tone in Washington, just sort of the last couple of days, I think there has been a substantial shift," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" program Sunday. "And I think really on balance there are a very substantial number of Republicans who want to be for a strong set of reforms." Dodd has already incorporated a number of Republican ideas into his version of the bill following negotiations with Shelby and Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee. Democrats, particularly liberals, have become increasingly worried that a compromise with Shelby will limit their ability to amend the bill during floor debate. Dodd offered them reassurances on Sunday. "We can't take care of everything in the bill," he said, referring to his talks with Shelby. "Obviously our colleagues will want to be heard." www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/no_deal_yet_on_financial_reform/17340/Keep up, it's changing fast.. www.google.com/search?q=financial%20reform&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=FYF&tbo=s&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&tbs=nws:1,qdr:h&ei=mAfVS77CAoOB8gbS_sUK&sa=X&oi=tool&resnum=3&ct=tlink&ved=0CCUQpwU |
|
|
|
Post by sittingtight on Apr 25, 2010 23:21:46 GMT -5
You have to ask, Why a SHOWDOWN? Who is fighting against what is fair and transparent? I see an Executive Order coming.. Mark My Words... LOL Monday, Apr. 26, 2010 Financial reform showdown Democrats try to splinter GOP for vote By Jim Kuhnhenn - The Associated Press Bookmark and Share email this story to a friend E-Mail print story Print Comments (0) Recommend (0) Reprint or license Text Size: tool name close tool goes here WASHINGTON -- With no bipartisan deal on how to rein in Wall Street, Democrats stepped up their efforts Sunday to splinter unified Republican opposition to their sweeping regulatory overhaul. In a move that could attract the support of at least two Republicans, Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, agreed to toughen his sweeping bill with rules on derivatives despite objections from the Obama administration, according to a Democratic official familiar with the negotiations. Derivatives are the complex securities blamed for helping precipitate the 2008 Wall Street crisis. TSNcom-OnlineRefers * Talk about this story on Facebook at facebook.com/sunnews. The restrictions adopted by Dodd were written and approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee last week. They include a requirement that banks spin off their derivatives businesses into subsidiaries with separate sources of capital. Banks fiercely opposed the provision. The Obama administration has called for banks to end trading in speculative securities, but not to jettison operations that create derivatives markets for clients. The Agriculture Committee language had the support of Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Olympia Snowe of Maine. It was sponsored by committee chairwoman Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., who pressed Dodd to incorporate it into the broader bill. It was unclear Sunday night whether adding the derivatives restrictions would be enough for Snowe and Grassley to join Democrats and vote to permit the start of debate on the larger Wall Street bill. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on Friday blocked Democrats' efforts to bring the bill up for debate, setting up a vote Monday that will require 60 votes to move ahead. McConnell said Sunday that if Republicans did not strike a deal with Dodd on several aspects of the bill, all 41 Republican senators would vote to delay the start of debate. Dodd and Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the banking committee, professed to be close to a deal Sunday during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." But, as Shelby said, "inches sometimes are miles." And the two lawmakers did not hold a negotiating session Sunday. The legislation, the most sweeping effort to rein in financial institutions since the Great Depression, is approaching its end game, and Republicans and Democrats alike predict it can ultimately pass with bipartisan support. But for now, Republicans are using what leverage they have in hopes of putting a bigger GOP imprint on the bill or removing Democratic provisions they perceive as government overreach. Democrats said they were out of patience. "Are we going to start the debate or are we going to shut it down and continue negotiating, negotiating, negotiating?" Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said on ABC's "This Week." The new derivatives provisions would require most derivatives to go through a new network of clearinghouses and be traded on regulated exchanges. Lincoln's bill provides some exemptions for firms that use derivatives for commercial purposes to hedge against market fluctuations. It also exempts derivatives linked to foreign exchange rates. Derivatives are financial products such as corn futures or stock options whose worth depends on the values of underlying investments. Companies use them to hedge against risks, but they have also been vehicles for speculation and helped trigger the financial crisis when the underlying investments - mortgage-backed securities, for example - plunged in value. The overarching Senate bill - and a similar bill passed by the House - would create a mechanism for liquidating large firms, set up a council to detect systemwide financial threats, and establish a consumer protection agency to police lending. Read more: www.thesunnews.com/2010/04/26/1442098/financial-reform-showdown.html#ixzz0mAzp8VAh |
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Apr 25, 2010 23:28:37 GMT -5
considering the stuff Bhollenegg has been saying the last 2 weeks...anything short of a Hodges update telling us that he has received our money and is withdrawing his lawsuit will be a huge disappointment. After all we have been thru, I'm positive Bhollenegg would not have talked about CKMX avalanches, bolting yourself to the toilet, etc... Unless this next Hodges update was to give confirmation of Receipt of our Money. Thank you Mr. Hodges! and Bhollenegg! I look forward with great excitement and anticipation to Tuesday's update telling us about how much we are getting and when and am also going to start making financial preparations for my great windfall to come. Thanks again for the great news we will get on Tuesday concerning our payout! errrrrr.... wow? Kinda counting your chickens before they hatch... I would say?? As we all know Bob H does not control the happenings nor non happenings regarding the release of funds, to CMKX shareholders. I also suspect that neither does AL Hodges, CMKM Diamonds or anyone else on "this side of the fence". We have read in the lawsuit that "the other side of the fence " has made numerous statements, promises. guarantees & imminent assurances of dates for funds to be released, transferred, and made available for distribution. The suit further states that these assurances & guarantees, by the "other side of the fence", have been continuously reneged on each and every time. What may seem like an actual "done deal", will cause great excitement, that excitement is then passed on to the shareholders, who are craving/begging for any "info of the moment". The problem is , as we have been informed in the suit, is that the information can be changed or reneged on , at any given moment, by the unscrupulous "other side". Seems we are at the mercy of these so called "regulators" and or "agencies". As witnessed in the media, a fair playing field DOES NOT exist ... nor is it even remotely close to a fair playing field. These aiding and abettors of "Financial Terrorists" will do everything & anything in their power to cover their azzes and to sweep their "crimes" under the rug. If the update , on Tuesday, is not the "big one" we are all hoping for, who would you believe to be the blame for yet another delay? I know where my blame/anger would go and it surely would not be geared toward those who are so gallantly fighting for us ( legally under 4 months). We, shareholders, are given what those "in the know" have at the moment... but as discussed above & stated in the law suit we have been WARNED that the "moment" unfortunately changes to the likings of those unsrupulous people who control it. Sooo,,,,For anyone who does not , cannot or refuses to accept, this "info of the moment", for exactly what it is, then maybe by not reading/bypassing the posts, of those, we view as being "in the know", you will avoid setting yourself up for great disappointment, anguish & feelings of anger. My suggestion is to tread cautiously, keep a vigilant eye, stay grounded and take all with a grain of salt. It becomes fact only when/if it comes to fruition. just my 2 cents...... Still hoping & praying SINGLE ps... sweet do I detect a bit of sarcasm in your post? <sigh> |
|
|
|
Post by NobleForce2 on Apr 25, 2010 23:58:46 GMT -5
Hey sittingtight, could you tell me what you're talking about. I'm interested, but just not processing things very well.
|
|
|
|
Post by sittingtight on Apr 26, 2010 0:57:54 GMT -5
Noble, Cox opened the can of worms in 2008 that we have followed .. "The naked shorts are in the Dirivatives"... hidden bets behind the seen which where toxic.. a lot where covered by bankrupting the companies but now the truth is finlay coming out, we have come to find the money of ours in the derivatives bet. CMKX is not bankrupt and they bet it would .................. lol.. Watch the reform happen.. www.youtube.com/watch?v=50dp5YvEbrQwww.cfo.com/article.cfm/12286366Cox: Default Swaps Are Naked Shorts In prepared testimony that he will deliver to the Senate this morning, the SEC chairman will call for Congress to give his agency authority over swaps. Tim Reason - CFO.com | US September 23, 2008 * Email * Print * Reprints * Comments (3) * Share o LinkedIn o Del.icio.us o Digg o Facebook o StumbleUpon o Permalink Credit default swaps, potentially the next domino to fall in the ongoing financial crisis, are the debt equivalent of naked shorts on stocks, according to the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In prepared testimony that he will deliver before the Senate Banking Committee this morning, SEC chairman Christopher Cox equated the sale of the unregulated bond derivatives with naked short selling and called on Congress to give his agency authority to regulate the derivatives. Related Articles * New York: Credit-Default Swaps=Insurance * SEC Calls Halt to Shorting of Financials * Corporate Armor to Fight Hedge Fund Bullies * Systemic Risk Haunts Credit-Default Swaps * Get Ready to Reveal Credit-Swap Risks "Economically, a CDS buyer is tantamount to a short seller of the bond underlying the CDS," said Cox. "Whereas a person who owns a bond profits when its issuer is in a position to repay the bond, a short seller profits when, among other things, the bond goes into default. Importantly, CDS buyers do not have to own the bond or other debt instrument upon which a CDS contract is based. This means CDS buyers can 'naked short' the debt of companies without restriction." Equating credit default swaps on corporate bonds with short selling of corporate stocks will resonate on Capitol Hill, where short selling, particularly naked short selling, has come under fire for purportedly driving down the stocks of financial institutions and undermining public confidence. The SEC has a partial ban in place on naked short selling and also temporarily limited short selling of 799 financial stocks in response to the financial crisis. Credit default swaps — the unregulated derivatives that are supposed to offer their buyers a payout if the company against which they're written defaults or goes bankrupt — were, until recently, hailed by many as a valuable financial innovation. In fact, the notional value of credit-default swaps soared to some $62.2 trillion in 2007 from $34.4 trillion in 2006, according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association. But the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, a major issuer of credit default swaps, combined with the government takeover of AIG, which had covered more than $440 billion in bonds with credit default swaps, has raised serious concerns about the default of the default swaps themselves. The Financial Accounting Standards Board voted last month to push forward with a disclosure requirement aimed at helping investors get a better read on the financial instruments, rejecting recommendations by its own staff and many in the financial industry that the provision be delayed. Under the rule every derivative — or group of similar derivatives — the seller must disclose the nature of the instrument (term, reasons for entering into the contract, and current status of the payment/performance risk); the maximum potential amount of future payments the seller is required to make under the contract terms; the fair value of the derivative; and the nature of any recourse provisions that would allow the seller to recover the amount it pays out — such as collateral pledged or assets held by third parties that the seller has the right to liquidate. The new rule will be effective for fiscal years ending after November 15, 2008. That means that investors may have a much clearer picture of the credit default swap market by February of next year, when calendar-year companies begin releasing their year-end results. But that may not be soon enough. Indeed, during the August meeting in which FASB voted to issue the new disclosure rule, board member Thomas Linsmeier was adamant about acting sooner rather than later. "In this market, with the credit crisis, two or three months may be a big deal" in terms of investor disclosures, he said. video.nytimes.com/video/2008/07/16/business/1194817096639/cox-discusses-ban-on-short-sales.htmlDD Swaps |
|
