mogami_99's Comments

Clarifying Sirius Ambiguities over Liberty Shares

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:45:00 -0400

Hi, Also I think Liberty's BOD seats are tied to the prefered shares not to common. (But I think 40% of common gives seats on BOD just not the 6 Liberty currently has rights to) And of course 40% of common gives them alot of votes without BOD seats.

It was my impression that SIRIUS could not issue new shares. And then there is the chicken and the egg issue. Liberty is promised 40% of common. If SIRIUS issues 1,000,000,000 new shares 400,000,000 would go to Liberty. Or was Liberty only promised 40% at the time of the deal? And since Liberty is allowed to own 49.9% they could buy half the new shares.

SIRIUS BOD cannot do anything without Liberty because Liberty is ON the SIRIUS BOD (they could fill those 3 unfilled seat and veto any deal)

Clarifying Sirius Ambiguities over Liberty Shares

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:31:05 -0400

Hi, Liberty did not promise to never aquire more then 49.9% of common.
They are not allowed to exceed 49.9% for 3 years.

Sirius: Lessons in Manipulation, Part II

Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:21:52 -0400

The main point about wash sales is you won't get to claim the loss unless the 61 day period is up or the SP goes up to where you sell the replacement shares at a profit. (Then you get the deduction for shares sold at loss)

example
buy 100@1.00
sell 100@.75 (loss=25.00)
buy 150@.50
sell 150@.25 (another loss=37.50)
buy 375@.10
sell 375@.20 (plus 37.50 but it is subtracted from previous wash loss of 52.5 that you could not claim before you sold. Remember you can't claim a loss on stock before you sell it and if you rebuy it is like you never sold it.

Make sense?
It's all legal you gain no benifit from this except YOU CAN INCREASE YOUR POSITION while a SP declines without introducing new money.

Sirius: Lessons in Manipulation, Part II

Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:07:44 -0400

when it dawned on me SIRI was going to continue down I sold my shares at a loss. When I thought the price had hit bottom I rebought them (actually I was able to buy more shares with the same money)
I actually repeated this process several times before the price finally began the .11 to .14 cycles in Dec where I could sell for a gain and buy back in later at the lower price.
Since the SP kept falling even though I was doing wash sales the only change was I was adding shares each time. (I sold the shares I bought at .60 at .28 and bought twice as many at .14)
All this lowered my average per share. When I finally started selling at a postive the old wash loss was subtracted from my profit. (even though I sold shares bought at .10 for .17 the record still knew the .10's were bought after selling at a loss)

Sirius: Lessons in Manipulation, Part II

Sun, 08 Mar 2009 10:56:38 -0400

Hi, A wash sale is when you sell shares at a loss and then turn around and buy them back. You can't claim the loss now.

The wash sale period for any sale at a loss consists of 61 days: the day of the sale, the 30 days before the sale and the 30 days after the sale. (These are calendar days, not trading days. Count carefully!) If you want to claim your loss as a deduction, you need to avoid purchasing the same stock during the wash sale period.

uSirius iPhone Application Is Denied

Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:39:52 -0500

Important message from Seeking Alpha editors to mogami_99: This comment has been deleted because it was not a response to the article, but was general chat about SIRI's stock with a group of others users.

We care about this because a large number of comments below an article slows down the page load time, and it frustrates our other readers because the comments have no relationship to the article.

We've built a forum/message board specifically for this purpose -- it allows instantaneous posting of comments and immediate view of other messages. Please try it and let others know about it: seekingalpha.com/mb/to...

Sirius XM: Looking Ahead to Fourth Quarter Results

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:37:21 -0500

looks like buyers and sellers about even now price at .15

Sirius XM: Looking Ahead to Fourth Quarter Results

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:36:14 -0500

NASDAQ's after hours page is not working. Still saying no trades reported but at least 3 million shares have traded after hours so far.
Around 1 million dumped as soon as price hit .16 dropping it down to .145 (funny how it took 20 million to go up but only 1 million to drop) since then 2 million buys have it back up to .155

Sirius XM: Looking Ahead to Fourth Quarter Results

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:05:50 -0500

22 million shares at .16 right at close. Some kind of news must have came out after 1500.

Sirius XM: Looking Ahead to Fourth Quarter Results

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:01:05 -0500

ok whats up? Closed at .16

Sirius XM: Looking Ahead to Fourth Quarter Results

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:58:09 -0500

there's .15

Sirius XM: Looking Ahead to Fourth Quarter Results

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:56:34 -0500

almost to .15

Sirius XM: Looking Ahead to Fourth Quarter Results

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:48:54 -0500

woohoo we broke .14

Sirius XM: Looking Ahead to Fourth Quarter Results

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:43:53 -0500

well thats how you set your self up to be able to claim your always at least 50% correct. They will bury the wrong article and trumpet the other.
I hate Motley Fool because they never tell me anything I didn't know before I read their crap.

On Feb 27 02:36 PM ZealonsUnited wrote:

> Motley Fool are idiots:
>
> 9:23 - Media Stocks to avoid (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
>
>
> 12:45 - Buy these stocks and make money (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
>
>
> Which is it? Motley Fool is absolutely clueless!

Sirius XM: Looking Ahead to Fourth Quarter Results

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:31:03 -0500

can we get through .14?

Sirius XM: Looking Ahead to Fourth Quarter Results

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:20:57 -0500

Yeah we just about have the Shia and Sunni ready to joins .
Humans will never have just one goverment. (we can't agree if we need govt how much govt what kind of govt.) And to 1.5 billion people their religion is their govt.

On Feb 27 01:02 PM Come on Guys Lets get Sirius! wrote:

> One World Government people... That's the goal of all this.. Its
> been going on for years.. step by step..

Sirius XM: Looking Ahead to Fourth Quarter Results

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:45:23 -0500

Hi, NY has always been a state that elects carpetbaggers.

Sirius XM: Looking Ahead to Fourth Quarter Results

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:34:37 -0500

Hi, Sad to say but when a politican says "I will take from the rich and give to the poor" the poor give him their votes. The last election was not about issues it was about "what can a canidate give to me"
In the words of a pre civil war observer of the madness over taking the nation
"Is the majority always drunk?"

The Sirius Price of Liberty

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:20:32 -0500

1.4 million share block does not even move price.

The Sirius Price of Liberty

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:36:08 -0500

over 180 million shares traded last 5 days and change in SP is +.002 can you say FLAT? does not even do the old dependable up afterhours and premarket and down at open any more.

The Sirius Price of Liberty

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:36:50 -0500

The NASDAQ 1 yr target has changed again. From .20 to .35

The Sirius Price of Liberty

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:48:40 -0500

Hi,Good morning friends. I just noticed quite a few of the shares sold on Feb 23 at .12 were the insiders automatic selling of shares to cover taxes on their holdings (the 8k's are all posted on Sirius site)
Now my question is do other insitutions also sell shares to pay taxes? Could that account for some of these low priced sells?

(seems silly to have held at .18+ only to sell a week or two later at .12 or less)

Are there mechanisms that trigger selling regardless of SP? (other then loss limits that you would think would have been adjusted higher when SP was higher)

Sirius XM: Media's Fear-Mongering Has Gone on Long Enough

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:04:14 -0500

Hi, Its an 8 year commitment. If you do 4 active your inactive for 4. If you do 3 your inactive for 5 and so on. Many inactive reserves have also deployed.

On Feb 25 03:00 PM 163888 wrote:

> mogami_99, If you dont think England didnt wish they had a bigger
> standing military force at the time of the Falklands War . Then you
> should go into how things changed for Englands military after that
> conflict.
>
> Also who are you fooling you had to know I was talking about active
> duty when I said the Marine Corp had just over 200,000 marines, other
> wise I would have said just over 250,000. 40,000 is not just over.
> Next what are you going to include the inactive reserve to (for many
> that dont know you dont just sign up for your normal tour commitment
> (3, 4, or 6 years), you are really signing up for a 20 year commitment.
> They have the right to call you back if they feel they need to.)

Sirius XM: Media's Fear-Mongering Has Gone on Long Enough

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:02:22 -0500

well the UK only has 1/5 the population of USA. During WWII they had all their "client" states to help. Like all democracies of time they were unprepared for war.
India actually fielded the largest all volunteer army of WWII. From 39-42 Allies were pushed around because they were not ready.
Once they got their act together they did rather well. It took the Allies in Europe less time and fewer men to reclaim lost ground and occupy enemy then it took for enemy to expand in early war. (Allies landed in June 44 war ended in May 45)
In Pacific Japan set record for occupying the most area of earths surface in shortest time and then followed it by setting record for losing most surface in shortest time.
Most UK defeats resulted from political causes rather then military. (Defending Singapore, moving troops from N Africa to Greece etc)
With western media everything is terrible right up to moment you win.

On Feb 25 02:43 PM 163888 wrote:

> That war took everything England could muster in a short time, and
> they still almost had their arse kicked.

Sirius XM: Media's Fear-Mongering Has Gone on Long Enough

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:41:25 -0500

Hi, Yes unless you count the reserves. then it is 240,000 marines compared to 386,000 UK troops. And of course Israel depends on their 400,000 reserves in time of war. Don't know why we are debating this. Marine Corps is asking to go to 220,000 actives. There is a plan to remove Corps from Iraq and move to Afganistan.
Because USA carries bulk of burden of defense for NATO many countries do not maintain Armed Forces at levels they would require if they had no alliance.
UK is quite capable of fielding more then that 386,000 if they absolutly had to. (just as USA could approach 3 million if we had to) During WWII I think we had more then 5 million under arms. We just have to lower some of the standards for entry (and then train them up to standard but that could take 2 years)

On Feb 25 02:28 PM 163888 wrote:

> mogami_99,
>
> "The United States Marine Corps, with around 198,000 active duty
> marines as of December 31, 2008 and 40,000 reserve Marines,[10] is
> the smallest of the United States' armed forces in the Department
> of Defense (the United States Coast Guard is smaller, about one fifth
> the size of the Marine Corps, but serves under Homeland Security).
> The Corps is nonetheless larger than the entire armed forces of many
> significant military powers; for example, it is larger than the active
> duty Israel Defense Forces or the whole of the British Army."

>
> Here is the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Sirius XM: Media's Fear-Mongering Has Gone on Long Enough

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:24:12 -0500

Hi, I count reserve troops. I am National Guard and have deployed. Most of the 700,000+ National Giard have made at least one deployment

UK reserves also deploy

Sirius XM: Media's Fear-Mongering Has Gone on Long Enough

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:42:10 -0500

I don't think I have ever seen it be this flat this long before.

Sirius XM: Media's Fear-Mongering Has Gone on Long Enough

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:54:01 -0500

The United Kingdoms military strength was 425,500 in 2006
When I enlisted in USMC it had 180,000 (1973) In 2008 the authorized strength was increased to 189,000

On Feb 25 11:25 AM 163888 wrote:

> mogami_99, Well first of all when I was in the USMC, it was just
> over 200,000 and was bigger then all of Englands armed forces combined
> (the Army was almost a million and the Navy was just under half a
> million the AirForce had I think 300,000). Now I know that number
> is alot less but still please. Take it from a person who was a S-2.
>

Sirius XM: Media's Fear-Mongering Has Gone on Long Enough

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:22:01 -0500

there were more murders in Chicago last year then US military killed in Iraq.
Mexico was off the charts 6000 drug related murders last year.

On Feb 25 11:14 AM Blue23 wrote:

> Relmor - I agree completely. The media talks up Terry Schiavo or
> Elian Gonzalez or what hollywood celeb is in rehab this week. And
> we eat it up. And our pathetic politicians in Washington care about
> being seen and heard, not being statesmen, so they play to stupid
> issues that are really meaningless. Meanwhile, Mexico (that place
> just south of us) is on the verge of revolution/anarchy, we've turned
> the tide in Iraq, our entitlements are at, what $60,000,000,000,000......
> growing? And we could care less. Not only that, we're going to ship
> our alcohol soaked MTV college kids in the middle of the anarchy
> next month! We're pathetic. We deserve what we get. The sad part
> is a lot of decent, hard-working, good Americans are going to go
> down with the ship if we don't patch the holes really fast. And when
> that happens - there is not country left to stand the ground for
> democracy, free markets, Christianity...you know, the basics of all
> that is good in human civilization.

Sirius XM: Media's Fear-Mongering Has Gone on Long Enough

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:13:01 -0500

now I need a beer and it's not even noon yet. (beer thirty is here)