Just Some Clowning Around With Paychest?
The diversity of statements made regarding Paychest is nothing short of amazing. Below are a couple of examples depicting some of Paychest's alleged challenges, evidently provided by those with limited understanding of market principles or investing acumen. Comments to the statements offer a counterpoint view and to provide clarifications as needed.
Statement: Look at the securities that have run hard with an illegal chill on them, I have seen many over the last year and like PYCT the DTCC puts chills on companies someone is massively short on and is making headway in their viable business.
Comment: There is absolutely nothing "illegal" about the DTC "Chill" currently imposed on Paychest. The company/insiders brought this formal action upon themselves as admitted to in their 2Q2012 report.
Statement: Paychest has a variety of evidence of naked shorting and moreover market manipulation, like the 100,000,000 shares/SHORTS they paid CASH FOR and can not retire via their SEC approved transfer agent.
Comment: Paychest continues to be unable to retire the buyback shares due to the on-going DTC "Chill" which, as stated by the company, was due to insider conversions of preferred shares and NOT because of naked shorting. The real question is just how many new converted shares were issued that caused this "Chill" to occur? And, since the efforts to lift the "Chill" are continuing, the 3Q2012 report, which is due in a couple of weeks, may not reflect the real share situation. As such, the full story and impacts to the outstanding share quantity may not be known until the 2012 Annual Report.
From page 6 of the 2Q2012 report: "The Company has been delayed in pursuing this due to a small core team that has been addressing a temporary 'chill' imposed by the Depository Trust Company and the extended absence of the President, for personal reasons. As far as the Company can tell, the temporary chill was triggered as a result of an increase in issued and outstanding shares, caused by preferred shareholders converting."
Statement: Its not illegal to catch the shorts, expose the shorts, sue the shorts or force them to cover.
Comment: Yes, real companies that have proven naked shorts, as reflected in FINRA generated Fails to Deliver (FTD) bi-weekly reports, announce it to the world and do pursue legal remedies. But, then there is Paychest, after all these years not even one peep from the company about any naked shorts, much less a massive one.
Statement: Lets drop the silliness of denying the massive short on PYCT we all know its real its huge and it will be covered.
Comment: Where is any proof of a current existing massive naked short in PYCT to counter the SEC and FINRA FTD reports? After conducting DTCC audits with Paychest's SEC approved transfer agent there remains no confirmation or even a hint of a naked short. The PYCT massive naked short is just alleged and obviously an urban myth. |
