What do you guys think?
TWTR Jun 19 2015 40.00 Call Bid: 0.72
TWTR Jun 19 2015 40.00 Call Bid: 0.72
Boiler Room: The Official Stock Market Discussion
I don't trust Twitter to go up to 40.72 within a month
. I'm very hesitant to invest in social media website in general. Some of the other posters may have some feedback about this call but in my opinion I would pass. How many contacts would you do if you decide to proceed?
I don't trust Twitter to go up to 40.72 within a month
How many contacts would you do if you decide to proceed?
Just one. I can't see myself going big on options, just scalping a hundred here and there.
@franknitty711
EPE closes at $12.85
Told ya it'd be back down in the 12s
Probably could travel down a little more before bouncing back up... assuming WTI stays in a tight range where it's at.... I might considering buying when it's low 12s.
Also... I was a little early on my mid week CERE below $2 prediction, but here it sits at $2.07 on Thursday
EPE closes at $12.85
Told ya it'd be back down in the 12s
Probably could travel down a little more before bouncing back up... assuming WTI stays in a tight range where it's at.... I might considering buying when it's low 12s.
Also... I was a little early on my mid week CERE below $2 prediction, but here it sits at $2.07 on Thursday
philmonroe
Superstar
Why one if you think its going to work? That's a waste of money IMO depending on your capital. I try to go for the kill when I think its going to work out right for me.
Bernie Madoff
Banned
Nothing like holding puts and seeing a stock drop 13% in a single day 
I am a newbie to options so am not ready for primetime yet. I have made money so far so its not been a waste.
I bought a hundred shares at 13.90. I will hold on to for a few more days and if I lose a few bucks no big deal. In this case my strategy failed after watching it trade for the last week.
I think long term, no question you'll be fine, but if you're swing trading, be prepared for the L. I been watching EPE like a hawk for 1.5 years now. Shoulda listened, breh.
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Avon Manipulation May Have Been Designed For Algorithms, Not Humans
Comment Now
A filing that hit the Edgar system today purporting to be from an entity called PTG Capital Partners Ltd said it had launched a tender offer for Avon at $18.75 a share. Avon stock leaped more than 20% to $8 a share at 11:35 a.m. on the fake news, before falling just as quickly as Avon said there was no such offer. And anybody who actually read the Edgar filing should have known that, as the price was fanciful and whoever wrote the release forgot to spellcheck it for “TPG,” which was interposed several times in language that was hooked from the multibillion-dollar private equity firm’s website.
“This was a fraud designed for algorithmic traders,” said John Fahy, a former SEC enforcement attorney and member of Whitaker Chalk in Fort Worth, Texas, where “PTG’s” lawyer was supposedly located and where TPG is based. “It was not designed to fool anybody who’d actually read it. It was designed to fool some system that scans SEC filings for certain words but doesn’t actually read them.”
That raises a second question, Fahy said: Since securities fraud laws target information that is “material” to investors and this shouldn’t have fooled any human investors, does it still meet that standard?
“I would not be surprised to see someone argue that no reasonable investor could have possibly relied on the filing due to its absurdity and automatic trades by algorithmic trading programs cannot cause a stupid filing to meet the materiality standard,” he said.
“The Supreme Court standard is to `significantly alter’ the total mix of information available to a reasonable investor. Since the algorithms are unreasoning, don’t actually seek to understand the filing, and are just looking for keywords to get a brief time advantage, how can they be deemed to be a `reasonable’ investor?” he asked.
That doesn’t mean the scammer or scammers can’t be brought to justice. It’s still wire fraud to send the SEC a false takeover statement. It can be securities fraud in the form of a “scheme to defraud” to trade on information intended to change a stock’s price on false premises. And misusing the EDGAR system is a criminal offense.
The scam also highlights a potentially critical weakness in the SEC’s electronic filing system. While Edgar requires electronic filers to submit a notarized Form ID, including a tax ID, to obtain a password for placing notices directly on the website, filers can fake the notarization and put zeros in the field for the tax ID to get a temporary pass, Fahy said. The Internal Revenue Service is taking a month or more to provide tax IDs for private companies, he said, while the SEC deadline for filing a Form D for a newly formed business on the sale of securities is only 15 days.
“EDGAR is a remarkably effective way to potentially disseminate fake information,” he said.
According to my colleague Antoine Gara, PTG listed a Michael Trose, of Trose & Cox PLLC as a contact. The address of Trose & Cox was listed as 777 Main Street, Fort Worth, Texas, and with a phone number: (817) 887-8000. A call to the firm was answered by a representative at Atrium Executive Business Centers, who characterized Trose & Cox as “bogus” and not a tenant.
If the SEC were to investigate the Avon matter, Gara says, it might look to afake 2012 December 18 tender for The Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory.
In that instance, a Kings Cross, London-based firm called PST Capital Group LTD offered to buy the company for $13 a share and listed bogus contacts in the U.K. and California. The ‘About PST Capital’ section of that filing also copied boilerplate language from established PE firm GCTR.
PST Capital is a private equity firm that pioneered “The Leaders Strategy” – finding and partnering with exceptional leaders,” the filing stated, a copy ofGCTR’s website. The fake tender offer from PST, sans typos, caused a spike in the trading volume of Rocky Mountain Chocolate.
Below, the fake EDGAR filing:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...have-been-designed-for-algorithms-not-humans/
so bad
Comment Now
A filing that hit the Edgar system today purporting to be from an entity called PTG Capital Partners Ltd said it had launched a tender offer for Avon at $18.75 a share. Avon stock leaped more than 20% to $8 a share at 11:35 a.m. on the fake news, before falling just as quickly as Avon said there was no such offer. And anybody who actually read the Edgar filing should have known that, as the price was fanciful and whoever wrote the release forgot to spellcheck it for “TPG,” which was interposed several times in language that was hooked from the multibillion-dollar private equity firm’s website.
“This was a fraud designed for algorithmic traders,” said John Fahy, a former SEC enforcement attorney and member of Whitaker Chalk in Fort Worth, Texas, where “PTG’s” lawyer was supposedly located and where TPG is based. “It was not designed to fool anybody who’d actually read it. It was designed to fool some system that scans SEC filings for certain words but doesn’t actually read them.”
That raises a second question, Fahy said: Since securities fraud laws target information that is “material” to investors and this shouldn’t have fooled any human investors, does it still meet that standard?
“I would not be surprised to see someone argue that no reasonable investor could have possibly relied on the filing due to its absurdity and automatic trades by algorithmic trading programs cannot cause a stupid filing to meet the materiality standard,” he said.
“The Supreme Court standard is to `significantly alter’ the total mix of information available to a reasonable investor. Since the algorithms are unreasoning, don’t actually seek to understand the filing, and are just looking for keywords to get a brief time advantage, how can they be deemed to be a `reasonable’ investor?” he asked.
That doesn’t mean the scammer or scammers can’t be brought to justice. It’s still wire fraud to send the SEC a false takeover statement. It can be securities fraud in the form of a “scheme to defraud” to trade on information intended to change a stock’s price on false premises. And misusing the EDGAR system is a criminal offense.
The scam also highlights a potentially critical weakness in the SEC’s electronic filing system. While Edgar requires electronic filers to submit a notarized Form ID, including a tax ID, to obtain a password for placing notices directly on the website, filers can fake the notarization and put zeros in the field for the tax ID to get a temporary pass, Fahy said. The Internal Revenue Service is taking a month or more to provide tax IDs for private companies, he said, while the SEC deadline for filing a Form D for a newly formed business on the sale of securities is only 15 days.
“EDGAR is a remarkably effective way to potentially disseminate fake information,” he said.
According to my colleague Antoine Gara, PTG listed a Michael Trose, of Trose & Cox PLLC as a contact. The address of Trose & Cox was listed as 777 Main Street, Fort Worth, Texas, and with a phone number: (817) 887-8000. A call to the firm was answered by a representative at Atrium Executive Business Centers, who characterized Trose & Cox as “bogus” and not a tenant.
If the SEC were to investigate the Avon matter, Gara says, it might look to afake 2012 December 18 tender for The Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory.
In that instance, a Kings Cross, London-based firm called PST Capital Group LTD offered to buy the company for $13 a share and listed bogus contacts in the U.K. and California. The ‘About PST Capital’ section of that filing also copied boilerplate language from established PE firm GCTR.
PST Capital is a private equity firm that pioneered “The Leaders Strategy” – finding and partnering with exceptional leaders,” the filing stated, a copy ofGCTR’s website. The fake tender offer from PST, sans typos, caused a spike in the trading volume of Rocky Mountain Chocolate.
Below, the fake EDGAR filing:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...have-been-designed-for-algorithms-not-humans/
so bad
Avon Manipulation May Have Been Designed For Algorithms, Not Humans
Comment Now
A filing that hit the Edgar system today purporting to be from an entity called PTG Capital Partners Ltd said it had launched a tender offer for Avon at $18.75 a share. Avon stock leaped more than 20% to $8 a share at 11:35 a.m. on the fake news, before falling just as quickly as Avon said there was no such offer. And anybody who actually read the Edgar filing should have known that, as the price was fanciful and whoever wrote the release forgot to spellcheck it for “TPG,” which was interposed several times in language that was hooked from the multibillion-dollar private equity firm’s website.
“This was a fraud designed for algorithmic traders,” said John Fahy, a former SEC enforcement attorney and member of Whitaker Chalk in Fort Worth, Texas, where “PTG’s” lawyer was supposedly located and where TPG is based. “It was not designed to fool anybody who’d actually read it. It was designed to fool some system that scans SEC filings for certain words but doesn’t actually read them.”
That raises a second question, Fahy said: Since securities fraud laws target information that is “material” to investors and this shouldn’t have fooled any human investors, does it still meet that standard?
“I would not be surprised to see someone argue that no reasonable investor could have possibly relied on the filing due to its absurdity and automatic trades by algorithmic trading programs cannot cause a stupid filing to meet the materiality standard,” he said.
“The Supreme Court standard is to `significantly alter’ the total mix of information available to a reasonable investor. Since the algorithms are unreasoning, don’t actually seek to understand the filing, and are just looking for keywords to get a brief time advantage, how can they be deemed to be a `reasonable’ investor?” he asked.
That doesn’t mean the scammer or scammers can’t be brought to justice. It’s still wire fraud to send the SEC a false takeover statement. It can be securities fraud in the form of a “scheme to defraud” to trade on information intended to change a stock’s price on false premises. And misusing the EDGAR system is a criminal offense.
The scam also highlights a potentially critical weakness in the SEC’s electronic filing system. While Edgar requires electronic filers to submit a notarized Form ID, including a tax ID, to obtain a password for placing notices directly on the website, filers can fake the notarization and put zeros in the field for the tax ID to get a temporary pass, Fahy said. The Internal Revenue Service is taking a month or more to provide tax IDs for private companies, he said, while the SEC deadline for filing a Form D for a newly formed business on the sale of securities is only 15 days.
“EDGAR is a remarkably effective way to potentially disseminate fake information,” he said.
According to my colleague Antoine Gara, PTG listed a Michael Trose, of Trose & Cox PLLC as a contact. The address of Trose & Cox was listed as 777 Main Street, Fort Worth, Texas, and with a phone number: (817) 887-8000. A call to the firm was answered by a representative at Atrium Executive Business Centers, who characterized Trose & Cox as “bogus” and not a tenant.
If the SEC were to investigate the Avon matter, Gara says, it might look to afake 2012 December 18 tender for The Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory.
In that instance, a Kings Cross, London-based firm called PST Capital Group LTD offered to buy the company for $13 a share and listed bogus contacts in the U.K. and California. The ‘About PST Capital’ section of that filing also copied boilerplate language from established PE firm GCTR.
PST Capital is a private equity firm that pioneered “The Leaders Strategy” – finding and partnering with exceptional leaders,” the filing stated, a copy ofGCTR’s website. The fake tender offer from PST, sans typos, caused a spike in the trading volume of Rocky Mountain Chocolate.
Below, the fake EDGAR filing:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...have-been-designed-for-algorithms-not-humans/
so bad
So shameless
