McClatchy slipped out of compliance again with Big Board minimum market cap requirements, after a single session above the $75 million bottom.
.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
McClatchy falls back out of compliance with NYSE listing standards
Despite finally achieving the $75 million market cap requirement on Wednesday, McClatchy found itself unable to maintain that level Thursday.
.
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Wow what a biased headline. No point in saying anything like, despite a loss today still higher then the stock has been for 3 months....
I didn't hear you complain when McClatchy briefly touched the market cap minimum. What's up with that?
In fact as I recall you started trying to pump the stock. Boilerplate Much?
Since when did a headline have anything to do with the actual article? If that is your gripe, you’ll have hundreds of snarks to write today. Hint: Start with every AP story.
@ 10:18
Sorry...that was not me "the pumper". You guys really are not that smart and assume there is only one "troll" on here as you claim.
I know of several honest and hard working individuals that post on here and are accused of being trolls because their opinions differ from yours.
Now on to the real issue at hand. THIS IS NOT NEWS. Had this been Dec 2010 then it would have been news because MNI could have been delisted. Yes, they have that long (1.5 years) to get back into compliance with the Market Cap issue.
As I have stated previously, the Market Cap is a non-issue. They have to have the stock above a rolling 30 day average of $1 by Dec 2009 or they get delisted. Seeing as how they have 83m+ shares outstanding, obviously if they meet the $1 minimum they solve the Market Cap one.
How about you report on this every day for the next year and a half? That will make a lot of sense.
I know of several honest and hard working individuals that post on here and are accused of being trolls because their opinions differ from yours.
I haven't seen a single person be called a troll here because their opinion differed. The only time that they get called a troll is when they start their name calling, posting poetry, making threats, and slinging mud.
Thank you for recognizing that one of your ilk did indeed attempt to pump the stock, but my point still stands. Where was your outrage when the headline purported that McClatchy had touched the minimum market cap for a hot second?
If mentioning that it could not hold the minimum was bias, what was mentioning that it had hit it?
Also, there are several that post here with IQ's that would blow you away. No one assumes that there is only one troll. It is part of the vetting process.
You accused 9:31 of being the same "pumper" as you called me.
However, we are different people (I have no idea who they are).
I am telling you that I posted at 7:37 but did not post at 9:31 and I am the same person that you think is "pumping" the stock.
There have been numerous times when someone has stated their opinion (often dissenting against MW's) and they have been called a troll and told to go elsewhere even though they did not call anyone names, sling mud, or anything else.
And yes...I think it is stupid for MW to report on the compliance stuff as it will change daily/monthly (regardless of whether it goes up or down). There is no value there to report on it (until it comes time to delist).
I personally don't care what your opinion is and you're free to disagree here and no one has stopped you.
What we grow weary of are the stupid comments that present no arguments, refute nothing and just take up space without contributing anything. As they say, "if the shoe fits..."
I also personally wish that the blog would at least demand registration and screen names so we could distinguish between those who are trying to engage in legitimate debate and the pests.
There have been numerous times when someone has stated their opinion (often dissenting against MW's) and they have been called a troll and told to go elsewhere even though they did not call anyone names, sling mud, or anything else.
===========
Sorry, I have to disagree. Any time I have seen someone called a troll there is a good reason for it. I think sometimes a follow up after the fact might get caught up in the mix, but if you go through the thread there is going to be a reason that someone got branded as a troll.
Actually, MW's reporting of hitting the compliance level was a link to another site that reported on it. It is just natural for a non professional without a full grasp of the situation to think that this is big news one way or another. As I recall you were very excited about them having made that mark yourself. (To the point of pumping the stock)
In any event, you seem to have an analytical interest in the markets and how they work. If you're still in the newspaper business, I highly recommend that you consider taking the interest a step further. Get the education and the proper tools that will enable you to actually see what lies beyond Level I quotes. It is a rewarding field and while things are tough for those working at investment banks, by the time you're qualified things will be much brighter.
Lover of wild rebellion, and transgresser of Gods Law;
Why dost thou come to Angels eyes in this terrific form?
The defense rests: Thank you Mr Troll.
I also personally wish that the blog would at least demand registration and screen names so we could distinguish between those who are trying to engage in legitimate debate and the pests.
------------------------------------
I see your point and I hate to plug anything the KC Star does, but James Hart's Crime Scene KC blog is great model. The trolls still drive by, but they never last very long. (even though one or two of the regulars could be termed, "professional trolls"
@9:11
I agree. If they required people to post comments, at least you could more easily attribute comments to the same person across different threads.
@10:12
Thank you for proving my point. Your only statement is calling me a troll. If you don't have anything constructive to say then be gone.
4:57 PM Are you saying that you admit that you are 9:58?
It appears that he was addressing the spamming poet. If you came in here posting nonsensical poetry completely off topic and relevant to nothing...YOU ARE A TROLL!
You proved their point.
Post a Comment