A Small Voice In Cyberspace (VOICE)

[oldblue]

If you are going to post that message put a link with it.

[WhiteNOC]

To this board. I have just learned of the passing of Gary Swancey, AK/A Ga Bard. May you rest in peace My Friend. You will always be in Mine and Grammy's hearts..................

[Georgia Bard]

(Obituary of a Public Company) No News

The obvious sign of inexperienced management that due to lack of exposure or cognitive of being a public company go for weeks even months without any updates to the financial community and shareholders.. Since the last market reset that we are finally recovering from a company’ management team that dares has the AUDACITY AND STUPID ARROGANCE to not inform the public or the financial community of developments for several weeks should be voted out of the position of being TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY INEPT. History has proven those type personalities that hold top management positions are proving they are extremely competent in their industry; however a novice with no training or education realizes without shareholders you have nothing regardless of the management and their abilities.

A novice is far more competent in keeping shareholders and the financial community involved and informed.
One last rule in a public company is shares of any public company will first start moving LACKadaisically, and even if the long and believing shareholder give the benefit of the doubt that things are going forward (Historically this has proven to be TOTAL STUPID OPTIMISM}. However for a short time and I mean weeks shareholders will FAITHFULLY CONTINUE to trade the stock in a sideways channel between a basic high and low but no way does the high go higher but the low goes lower the longer the absence of information is with-held.

Enthusiasm starts diminishing amidst the price sluggishness, and with each dip in the stock trading as once long term and believers decide there are better opportunities to put their monies the volume goes to near zero and the MMs will just walk it down and thus all believers are forced to either sell at a loss or just sit on it and use the certificates as bathroom décor.

Until news starts coming forth regularly and the volume starts picking up because the inept management now can’t financing because they have effectively killed the whole reason for going public. The use of the corporate stock is the primary financial vessel for acquiring financial assistance.

I find it increasingly unbelievable that any new CEO that comes into a public company and goes without any information to the public should be fired without question as being inept.
Further without trading there is not way possible to run a technical analysis on the stock to know whether to average up or dump out. Most of the time it is the wisest move to move your money to a company that will at least keep the financial community informed, thus volume in trading and the company become at least one you can establish and basis for even putting one dime into it.

Of course this is my opinion and for those that have asked me I have put it in writing.

Gary Swancey

Good luck in the market. Especially those that refuse to keep the financial community informed … Makes you wonder if they are doing nothing but play poker all day long.

[thepennyking]

In proposals that would go some way toward leveling the playing field between hedge funds and mutual funds, a senior Securities and Exchange Commission official is suggesting that hedge funds be offered the inducement of going public in return for opening themselves up for, at least, limited inspection. Douglas Scheidt, chief counsel and associate director of the SEC's Division of Investment Management, wants to exact a series of quid pro quos from any hedge funds that want to apply to go public. The growing market power of hedge funds stems ultimately from the secrecy that gives them an edge over mutual funds. Scheidt would have the SEC condition public sales of shares on hedge funds agreeing to have annual audits, get third-party portfolio valuations, have standardized returns and provide a "minimum amount" of disclosure.
Scheidt, speaking at the May 14-15 SEC roundtable on hedge funds, was silent on subjecting hedge funds that get money flows through private placement to further regulation, such as making hedge fund advisors register under the Investment Adviser Act or the funds themselves register under the Investment Company Act. If his proposals were adopted, mutual funds setting up hedge funds would still have the option of being unregulated. But in the competition for investors in the wider market, where hedge funds have been trying for over a year to get the SEC to let them run tombstone ads, the Scheidt approach would exact revelations from hedge funds that it might not be easy for them to make. Said one mutual fund source, "disclosure and hedge funds don't go together."

Scheidt's boss, SEC Chairman William Donaldson, made an appearance on Capitol Hill last Thursday testifying on the same subject. Pressed to say he favored making hedge fund advisors register under the Investment Advisers Act, Donaldson shied away. But he repeatedly asserted that, "We need to know what's going on inside them." Asked what he wanted to know, Donaldson said the contents of their books and records and their valuations. Donaldson emphasized his agency would take a lot more input from various quarters before reaching decisions. It would be sometime in "early fall," he added, before staff recommendations would be made to the Commission. These, he said, would be immediately made public.

At the roundtable, Harvard University law professor and former Fidelity Management & Research vice chairman Robert Pozen said the SEC had two choices, either to regulate hedge funds--in which case, he said, they would go offshore--or "loosen a little [for mutual funds] the regulations on short selling and performance fees." Later, other knowledgeable mutual fund sources were skeptical that the industry could get much loosening out of the SEC.

George Soros shorted the dollar heavily in advance of Bush's Congress increasing the debt limit ceiling to $7.3 trillion, an inflationary move that has sent stock prices soaring 20% over the past several months. Soros will not make his short covering on the dollar as widely public as the reflexive effect of contrarian postulates begin to once again reverse the trend in the value of the dollar and push the DOW to real fair market values. The DOW and all NYSE listed stocks trading above 2x net present tangible book value are highly over priced. Rotation is setting in.

[thepennyking]

Palestinians easily scale Israel's $1.9 billion security fence



SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
TEL AVIV — Palestinian infiltrators have succeeded in breaching Israel's new security fence and barrier system.

Israeli security sources said Palestinian infiltrators have scaled the four-meter high concrete fence by using a simple ladder.

The Israeli project calls for the establishing of a 730-kilometer fence at a cost of $1.9 billion. Most of the project consists of a concrete wall or chain-link fence with sensors, cameras and military patrols.

In one case, the sources said, Arab infiltrators brought a ladder to the fence in the northeastern West Bank. They quickly scaled the fence and entered a waiting car that took them to Israeli Arab villages. The infiltrators were deemed as Palestinians looking for work.

The sources said an Israeli command center spotted the infiltrators but could not respond quickly enough to capture them. They said this constitutes a breach in security that must be resolved.

[gemmerling]

Gary thanks for the response EOM

VirTra Systems - Ticker: VTSI the OTC stock with big board potential!

[Georgia Bard]

nope

:=) Gary Swancey

[gemmerling]

Hi Gary and Bird of Prey - DTC question!

I have heard that this is one way of stopping the DTC and market makers from shorting stock. Let me know if you both heard that this is correct. "The only proven way to hold down the market makers is by taking some shares away from the DTC and market makers to Europe, where shorting a stock is illegal, and where purchasers have a much higher likelihood of being long-term shareholders."

Could a listing on a European stock exchange stop some of the DTC and market maker shorting?


Thanks in advance for the response.

Take Care,

Greg


VirTra Systems - Ticker: VTSI the OTC stock with big board potential!

[Georgia Bard]

Ok Smouch ... Here is my understanding. The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), located in New York, New York, acts as a securities depository for the Stocks. The Stocks will be issued as fully-registered securities registered in the name of Cede & Co. (DTC's partnership nominee) or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. One fully-registered Stock certificate will be issued for each maturity of the Stocks, in the principal amount of such maturity, and will be deposited with DTC.

Thus DTC is a limited-purpose trust company organized under the New York Banking Law, a "banking organization" within the meaning of the New York Banking Law, a member of the Federal Reserve System, a "clearing corporation" within the meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code, and a "clearing agency" registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

DTC holds securities that its participants ("Direct Participants") deposit with DTC. DTC also facilitates the settlement among Direct Participants of securities transactions, such as transfers and pledges, in deposited securities through electronic computerized book-entry changes in Direct Participants' accounts, thereby eliminating the need for physical movement of securities certificates. Direct Participants include securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations, and certain other organizations.

Btw DTC is owned by a number of its Direct Participants and by the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., the American Stock Exchange, LLC., and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as securities brokers and dealers, banks, and trust companies that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a Direct Participant, either directly or indirectly ("Indirect Participants"). The Rules applicable to DTC and its Participants are on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Purchases of Stocks under the DTC system must be made by or through Direct Participants, which will receive a credit for the Stocks on DTC's records. The ownership interest of each actual purchaser of each Stock ("Beneficial Owner") is in turn to be recorded on the Direct and Indirect Participants' records. Beneficial Owners will not receive written confirmation from DTC of their purchase, but Beneficial Owners are expected to receive written confirmations providing details of the transaction, as well as periodic statements of their holdings, from the Direct or Indirect Participant through which the Beneficial Owner entered into the transaction. Transfers of ownership interests in the Stocks are to be accomplished by entries made on the books of Direct and Indirect Participants acting on behalf of Beneficial Owners. Beneficial Owners will not receive certificates representing their ownership interests in Stocks, except in the event that use of the book-entry only system for the Stocks is discontinued.

To facilitate subsequent transfers, all Stocks deposited by Direct Participants with DTC are registered in the name of DTC's partnership nominee, Cede & Co. or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. The deposit of Stocks with DTC and their registration in the name of Cede & Co. or such other nominee do not effect any change in beneficial ownership. DTC has no knowledge of the actual Beneficial Owners of the Stocks; DTC's records reflect only the identity of the Direct Participants to whose accounts such Stocks are credited, which may or may not be the Beneficial Owners. The Direct and Indirect Participants will remain responsible for keeping account of their holdings on behalf of their customers.

Conveyance of notices and other communications by DTC to Direct Participants, by Direct Participants to Indirect Participants, and by Direct Participants and Indirect Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by arrangements among them, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time.

Redemption notices shall be sent to Cede & Co. If less than all of the Stocks within an issue are being redeemed, DTC's practice is to determine by lot the amount of the interest of each Direct Participant in such issue to be redeemed.

Neither DTC nor Cede & Co. (nor such other DTC nominee) will consent or vote with respect to Stocks. Under its usual procedures, DTC mails an Omnibus Proxy to the issuer as soon as possible after the record date. The Omnibus Proxy assigns Cede & Co.'s consenting or voting rights to those Direct Participants to whose accounts the Stocks are credited on the record date (identified in a listing attached to the Omnibus Proxy).

Principal, redemption premium, if any, and interest payments on the Stocks will be made to Cede & Co., or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. DTC's practice is to credit Direct Participants' accounts, upon DTC's receipt of funds and corresponding detail information from the Trust or the Paying Agent on the payable date in accordance with their respective holdings shown on DTC's records. Payments by Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by standing instructions and customary practices, as is the case with securities held for the accounts for customers in bearer form or registered in "street name," and will be the responsibility of such Participant and not of DTC, the Paying Agent, or the Trust, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time. Payment of principal and interest to Cede & Co. (or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC) is the responsibility of the Trust or the Paying Agent, disbursement of such payments to Direct Participants shall be the responsibility of DTC, and disbursement of such payments to the Beneficial Owners shall be the responsibility of Direct and Indirect Participants.

The information in this section concerning DTC, CEDE and DTC's book-entry system has been obtained from sources that I believe to be reliable, but I take no responsibility for the accuracy of this post. This is merely the way I understand the system.

Hope this helps but remember to do your own DD.

Gary going back to work.



:=) Gary Swancey

[Georgia Bard]

Smouch I tried to put it on RB but it would not allow it I guess .... so here is the only source for this information.



:=) Gary Swancey

[Georgia Bard]

Financial Fraud & Money Laundering on Wall Street

The inside story on the
Depository Trust Company
a/k/a CEDE & Co.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the third part of our ongoing investigative reports into the Depository Trust Company (DTC) (Part I) and CEDE & Co (Part II).

A simple scenario takes place each week within the upper echelon of the financial powers that control America - and the world - a/k/a International Organized Crime. In any other form of commercial interaction or business, the sale of non-existant stocks is considered absolute fraud. But, when you have the power to control paper or electronic accounting ledgers, you also have the power to create facsimile assets from nothing but thin air and journal entries. This is where the Depository Trust Company (DTC) and CEDE & Co., the DTC's "street name" or "nominee name", come into play. By holding their stock in the particular name of CEDE & Co., all "DTC Participants" have the means of making fast and immediate illegal profits. Of course, none of this could happen without the full consent of the DTC, et al.

For background reference, the Depository Trust Company (DTC) filed their original Organization Certificate with the New York Superintendent of Banks on March 20, 1973. In July 1999, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) became the name of the new holding company created by the merger of the DTC and the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC). For a list of the DTC Participants and links to their public pages, go to DTC Participants.

Counterfeit Public Stocks

In the past year, we have been shown more than twenty ways to make illegal profits from fraudulent stock shares using the DTC "shield" - CEDE & Co. - to hide the fact that those particular shares are never actually issued by a public company. In simpler terms, these are counterfeit shares of public stock. A couple of "whistle blower" Wall Street brokers, along with a former employee of a major market operator, have shown us how this scam operates. We'll try our best to explain it to you in the simplest terms possible.

DTC Participants are exclusively able to issue and sell non-existent stock to the public. It's that simple. However, the process as to how this actually takes place is usually not quite so simple. This financial scam may seem like a shock to the average American, but it's time for a reality check. We've warned you since 1995 to insist on physically holding your stock certificates in your own name, and now we have more facts to support what Parts I & II of this investigative series were revealing.

When price is restrained below the balance of supply and demand, public buyers predominate and money pours in while more and more bogus receipts flood the market. Eventually, those corporations must be bankrupted as the market operator and his criminal co-conspirators will never buy back their counterfeit receipts. This has been the modus operandi of international organized crime throughout history and should be of no surprise to any of us. We should all read Isaiah, Chapter 10, verses 13-14 over and over until it sinks in that we're the victims of professional financial thieves.

According to the DTC, there are currently 11,000 brokerage firms, dealers, custodian banks, institutional investors, transfer agents, paying agents, and exchange and redemption agents for securities issuers considered as "DTC Participants". There is the possibility that any or all of these DTC Participants could issue counterfeit stocks at any given time. Being extremely conservative, let's imagine if this was done on a weekly basis by only 5% of the DTC Participants. In such a scenario, there would be 550 worthless offerings of counterfeit stock issued each week. If each offering is for 100,000 shares at a buy price of $7 ($700,000 each offering), the total profit to the DTC Participants each week would be $385 Million dollars from nothing more than ledger entries and thin air. That's an annual "profit" of $200,585,000,000 or more than $200 BILLION.

The sale of counterfeit shares of a public corporation is illegal, unlawful, and immoral, yet the purported agencies and departments (i.e. the SEC, FBI, etc.) that are supposed to "police" such illegal organized crime activities do nothing. As the market operators control prices, eventually those corporations will be bankrupted. This is because the market operators are not about to buy back their bogus receipts at higher prices. The entire Wall Street scam operation functions in this manner. Once the market operator sells bogus shares to control and manipulate prices, he puts himself, as well as his co-conspirators profiting from secret omnibus accounts, in a very profitable position.

If anyone believes that the Executive Branch, the Congress, the Justice Department, the FBI, the SEC, et al, are protecting your interests, you had better wake up. For example, why is the U.S. Treasury "borrowing" paper fiat money from the private Federal Reserve Corporation? The fake debt, based on "borrowed" counterfeit paper money, created by accounting notations, and printed by the U.S. Treasury when paper receipts are needed, would not exist if government were not protecting the thieves. Having to pay the private Federal Reserve Bank Corporation a billion dollars a day for bogus interest - the result of mere accounting notations - is blatant thievery from the U.S. Treasury and all Americans.

For more details, see Corruption in Government, Scam #1.

Derivatives & Depositary Receipts

We believe that the controlled media dis-information as to what a financial 'Derivative' actually is has been the greatest factor into the fraud now overpowering our nation's economy. Forget about the drug dealers and their alleged money laundering schemes. This is much larger in terms of monetary value.... and it's highly illegal and far from being lawful or moral.

The DTC allows their Participants (banks and brokerage firms) to issue Derivatives or Derivative Instruments. A derivative is basically defined as something that can be made or derived from another; a spin-off based on an original. As used in the current financial world, a Derivative is a Depositary Receipt (DR). There are two basic forms of Depositary Receipts: an American Depositary Receipt (ADR) and a Global Depositary Receipt (GDR).

In essence, DTC Participants issue derivative stocks - Depositary Receipts (DR's) - based upon previously issued shares of public stock held in the name of CEDE & Co. on behalf of the beneficial owners, the actual purchasers. The DTC Participants don't own the legitimately issued stocks they issue their DR's against. Those stocks are held in trust for the public, the purchasers of the stock, in the name of CEDE & Co.

First, let's assume that a DTC Participant decides to sell one million shares of non-existent stock, or unsecured DR's, in each of the next 100 Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB) companies at an average price of $3 per share [$300 million]. Given the fact that an average 98% of these OTCBB companies fail, they would earn $294 million in sales, plus interest, by selling stock shares that don't exist. This is not gambling. This is a sure bet knowing that the "DTC house rules" are guaranteeing them a fixed return. But.... the game isn't over yet! This still leaves them with 2 OTCBB companies that haven't failed and they can parlay that into even greater profits.

Secondly, let's also assume that the two left-over solvent OTCBB companies have a $10 per share price. Instead of "covering" - guaranteeing - the two successful OTCBB companies and taking a $16 million loss (2% of the original $300 million investment), the DTC Participant does an "Offshore Private Placement Regulation S" underwriting for these two companies. The standard brokerage discount on a Regulation S offering is 60%. This means they will pay the company issuing the stock $8 million. If they simply deduct their $3 million gains from the sale of these stocks several years earlier, the DTC Participant loses $2 million on the books but, in reality, grosses $292 million in profits, plus interest.

For more details, see Wall Street Thievery, Scam #2.

DTC Participant Tax Havens

Why doesn't the DTC Participant show this gain on their books? The DTC Participant creates their own tax haven client that technically sells the non-existent stock, or DR's, and this "tax-free client" makes the profit. Since the profit isn't legally taxable due to their tax haven status, nobody (particularry the IRS) cares who makes the money. However, neither the bank shareholders, nor the brokerage firm shareholders, share in this profit. This is a real fraud scam in the real world.

Now, let us explain how this works using a real scenario. Examine the recent Bear Stearns - a DTC Participant - SEC 10-Q Filing at the end of 1999 [the Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-Q is a report filed quarterly by reporting companies which includes unaudited financial statements and is supposed to provide a view of the company's financial position during the year]. Their 10-Q report showed that Bear Stearns had about $819 million in assets with roughly a $34 Billion (that's BILLION) "short position". [A short position is a situation whereby an investor borrows stock certificates for delivery at the time of the short sale. Should the seller be able to sell the stock at a price lower than the borrowed cost, a profit is made]. So then, where does the profit from the short sales go since it doesn't seem to go to the brokerage firm or Bear Stearns' stockholders? It goes to their created "tax haven client".

The brightest red light concerning this is that these short positions are rarely "covered" nor guaranteed by any real assets. Everything is on paper and nothing of any substance value is backing it up. This is due to the fact that the public company eventually fails as a result of its share price collapse from the nonexistent stock. In layman's terms, this means that the profit from the short sale is NOT subject to taxes because the contract is never completed.

Banks and Organized Crime Syndicates

As previously discussed above, banks and stock brokerage firms use the actual public stock being held by the DTC - in their street name CEDE & Co. - to issue bank Depository Receipts (DR's). The bank does NOT physically, nor electronically, hold the stock for the Depository Receipt, nor do they actually own it. Rather, the bank or brokerage merely issues DR's and the public buys them as if they were actual and legitimate stock certificates. If any questions concerning the actual possession by the bank or brokerage of the stock certificates are asked by an investor-purchaser, they reply that the stock is being held by the DTC. It's very odd that the average investor never asks the bank or their broker to prove this. In essence, the banks and brokerages issue 100% non-secured and worthless paper. The DR's are worthless because they are not secured. The banks, along with the brokerage firms, make 100% PLUS on every sale of these counterfeit stocks. They get the full value for the DR's plus their commission on the sale. This is the scam of all scams.

At any time, anyone can issue an accepted financial instrument giving them the means to launder "money". For example, look at the recent money laundering by Russian organized crime syndicates where the international banks sold DR's representing stocks on the mob's behalf . The banks issued the DR's and the buyers accepted the DR's as equivalent to the stock. The bottom line is that the seller of the stock was the Russian mobs. However, the banks shared the profits with the mob to gain access to the mob's money. The newspapers centered their headlines on the mob's laundering without explaining that this could have never taken place without the involvement of the banks and the DTC. This is the risk behind "Derivatives". You never know if the people holding the stocks used as the basis for the DR's are legitimate.

Let's not forget that we live in an instant society. If the average world citizen can't make money right now, in an instant, few will play the "money game". Money, or rather its ledger created facsimile, has become the god of this world. The stark reality behind the existence of the DTC is that it's nothing less than a protective shield for DTC Participants to create instant paper profits. Otherwise, the DTC and CEDE & Co. would have no practical reason to exist.

Who pays if Derivatives collapse the Markets?

The banks are covered by FDIC insurance. This simply means that the U.S. taxpayer will pay for any losses. Consider the S&L Crisis during the1980's, especially in Texas and California when banks were collapsing left and right. It cost least one Trillion dollars to FDIC insurance, a.k.a. the American taxpayer, to "bail out" the banks. Stock and mutual fund brokers are covered by private SPIC insurance. SPIC isn't taxpayer backed, so a meltdown would mean the bankruptcy of the brokerage industry. Client accounts would be forfeited and there would be no taxpayers to pick up the tab. The alternative would be to have the derivatives covered by FDIC insurance as well. If there's risk in issuing these derivatives - and we know these risks are big - and the same derivative risks are to be covered by both the FDIC & SPIC, what would happen if these derivative scams are exposed to the public and investors opt for a cash market by demanding their physical stock certificates?

The doomsday "Stock Market Program" was put into effect after the October 1987 stock market exchange "correction". This was brought about by the DTC (See Part I). Directly attributable to this is the fact that the privately owned Federal Reserve System now has the "legal" right to buy "blue chip" Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) stocks in a declining market. So far, the public has made money by having the FED support the stock market. The problem with this is that the full faith of the U.S. "dollar" now supports the stock market and that support is the investment made by the average working American. Binding the U.S. Federal Reserve Notes (FRN's), which are not "lawful dollars", to stocks increases the probability that FRN's must fail sooner or later. With each passing day, "sooner" becomes a timely reality.

How to legally launder money...
just like banks and brokerage firms do
As a result of our research, and thanks to a few "insiders" who helped us put this all together over the past year, we have come up with 21 Ways to Legally Launder Money which mirror the actual goings-on in the financial world today.

If you think the movie Wall Street was a shocker, wait to you read this script....

Traditional Short Sale- Borrow the stock against a fifty percent margin. This is the only type of short sale that can be "squeezed" when the share price goes up. That's because the short seller must add money to their margin account. This is the most "legal" way to "legitimately" launder money, but also it's the riskiest for the launderer.

Market-maker Short Sale- U. S. Market-makers are not required to take physical delivery of stock certificates when they sell them. They are assumed to be a repository of the company's shares.

Brokerage House Short Sale- This is a decision by the broker not to execute a "buy order" from a client. The broker merely shows the stock as "owned" by the client on their monthly brokerage firm account statement - a paper transaction without reality - securities fraud. [If you don't think this really happens, they also have some swamp land in Florida for sale to add to your monthly brokerage statement]. This is the first reason to insist on holding your own stock certificates in your own hands and in your own name. Never trust a broker, the DTC, or anyone else to "hold" your certificates. You become the "beneficial owner" when they placed your certificates in the "nominee name" of CEDE & Co.

Clearing House Short Sale- The Clearing House doesn't execute the buy order. Instead, they credit it to the brokerage firm client's account.

Naked Short Sale- This is where two brokerage firms agree to trade stock in a company with neither brokerage firm requesting physical delivery of the share certificates.

Insider Short Sale- This is when insiders, with restricted stocks, use their restricted shares to sell their company "short". It's supposed to be illegal according to the SEC. It was a common practice when the Regulation S Hold Period was 40 days, but a rarer occurance lately.

Dodge Viper Short Sale- This is where a bloc of stock is purchased, then, the same stock is converted to derivatives (DR's) thus multiplying the original stock 100% or more. The short sale doesn't occur in the stock market, but the derivative or Depositary Receit owners are holding a short position. We were told this is the most widely used method.

DTC Short Sale- This is when DTC sells short using the stocks they hold in their "street name", CEDE & Co.

International Short Sale- a/k/a stocks created offshore. The company is listed to trade outside the United States (usually in Canada). However, the company is trading in the United States and the shares are sold within the U.S. The short sale is moved into the primary country where the local brokers can ensure that the short position will be covered by the listed company if there is ever a successful short squeeze.

Judicial Short Sale- a/k/a LTV. Scattered Securities is an example of this short play. The Court in the LTV reorganization determined the exchange rate for new shares for old shares at three cents. The controlled financial media made sure that the Market didn't know about the Court decision. The old shares traded far higher than the Court Ordered exchange rate. The short sale was done by selling old shares and buying new shares before the Court mandated exchange of the share certificates.

Agent 007 Short Sale- Sellers who are insiders, or who allege themselves to be insiders, sell completely counterfeit stock to buyers outside regular or known market channels.

Desert Short Sale- Brokers sell stock at prices well above the actual trading price of the stock. This has been popular with German OTC stocks sold into the Middle East. The gap between the sale price and the trading price is an effective short sale.

DR Short Sale- Using counterfeit stock, the seller deposits it into an overseas bank. They then sell Depositary Receipts against the counterfeit shares held by the bank. This is done alot in Asia.

Rockford Short Sale- An investment firm buys shares and takes physical delivery of the stock certificates. They replace the actual share certificates with counterfeit share certificates. Next, they sell the real shares back into the market and repeat the process. This practice does wonders for their balance sheet! This tactic was popularized by an episode of the Rockford TV Series. It's done a lot in the Asian markets (especially Hong Kong) with NYSE shares.

Tax Haven Bank Short Sale- Small banks, especially Caribbean banks, act as agents for their clients unwilling or unable to reveal their real identity. However, the bank client wants to buy some legitimate stock. The bank never buys the stock on behalf of the client. Instead, they simply show the sale within the bank's accounting system. This practice extends to gold and other precious metals and is the biggest scam used against U.S. investors in offshore banks. Take note that a majority of the Caribbean banks are backed - and owned - by various organized crime syndicates throughout the "new" Europe, especially former Soviet Union provinces that are now independent countries and recognized by the United Nations and EU.

Lost in the Mail Short Sale- The client-purchaser demands their stock or share certificate. The broker sends it via certified or registered mail to the wrong address - deliberately. The actual certificate is eventually returned to the broker. Using the signed return receipt, the broker claims the client has the share certificate. For the investor, perhaps a year or more is spent in proving it never arrived. Meanwhile, the broker has the stock certificate and can use it to cover other short sales. This happens frequently.

Margin Short Sale- The purchaser buys stock on margin. They can't take physical delivery of their share certificates, so the broker sells the margined account a/k/a non-existent stock.

Public Media Takeover Short Sale- Brokers add non-existent stock into a highly publicized company takeover with a legitimate stock transaction. The buyer of the other company pays for the non-existent shares. The short seller gets cash or stock in the buyer's company.

AWOL Short Sale- For many OTC stocks, about 3% of the "beneficial owners" cannot be accounted for each year. Usually, they die or forget they have the stock. Brokers can safely sell short 3% of the "float" each year relying on the fact that these beneficial owners will most likely never claim their stock. Some brokerage firms, relying on retirement age portfolios, sell short 5-10% hoping that the younger relatives never find out. Considering the numerous stock splits over the years, 10 shares in 1965 may well be 1,000 shares in 2000. This gives the broker "safe" odds even if the original certificate shows up and is cashed in at a future date, provided the broker doesn't get too greedy.

Counterfeit Stocks- Professionals regularly send counterfeit share certificates to stock Transfer Agents. Believe it or not, a surprising percentage are accepted as real share certificates. The result is that the professional thief has effectively sold short the shares involved in the certificate.

DR Float- The issuance of Depositary Receipts without ever holding the stock certificates. This goes along with selling the Depositary Receipts at a profit even though they have no "cover" in real assets.

International common Law Copyright 2000
by The Christian Law Institute & Fellowship Assembly

http://web.archive.org/web/20010223224210/64.225.47.117/nbn/weekly10.html

:=) Gary Swancey

[Georgia Bard]

You don't own your Stocks

or Bonds anymore...

The Depository Trust Company does



This is Part II of a three part special research report on the Depository Trust Company. Part I can be accessed here.

In Part I of this series, excerpts of which were first published in November 1995 by the former North Bridge News, we exposed The Depository Trust Company (DTC) as the Unknown $ 9.1 Trillion Company. It appears that our startling discoveries of the inner-workings of the DTC had only scratched the surface. We'd like to add more fuel to this blazing fire by further exposing the DTC and those behind it.

The Depository Trust Company has grown since October 1995. On July 1998, this amount was estimated by a DTC employee at more than $11 Trillion. As of April 19, 1999, the DTC itself has stated in a press release that their asset value is nearly $19 trillion. In 3 1/2 years, their assets increased nearly $ 10 Trillion. That's a lot of stocks and bonds supposedly held in trust. The latest trend over the past ten years is for stock and bond brokers to offer "book-entry ownership" only. Every book-entry stock or bond is literally owned by the DTC. Since 1985, most bond and many stock issuers have converted from the issuance of certificates to book-entry systems administered and controlled by the DTC. As of March 1999, the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) and the Participants Trust Company (PTC) are now merged into the DTC. Practically, there isn't one stock or bond issued that is not controlled by the DTC.

If you purchase any stock or bond through a broker, it is being held for you under a "street name" by the DTC unless you have specifically requested to hold the certificate yourself. If you have a book entry stock or bond, you won't be issued a certificate. It's important to note that you have purchased that particular stock or bond without becoming a registered holder of the actual stock or bond certificate. Instead, you have become a beneficial owner. The difference between the two is like night and day. Take the time to absorb and understand the following definitions:

REGISTERED HOLDER- A Registered Holder literally possesses, owns, and holds, his stock or bond with his name appearing on the face of the certificate. The company that issued the certificate has registered the owner's (holder's) name on their official books. This is the safest way to own a paper asset. You literally possess the fully registered certificate and only you can transfer or sell it. By all Rights and definition of law, you are the owner. You have it, you hold it, you possess it, and you keep it. You have the complete control over it.

BENEFICIAL OWNER- A Beneficial Owner is nothing more than a beneficiary, "One who is entitled to the benefit of a contract"- A Dictionary of Law, 1893. All book-entry stocks and bonds you purchase make you the beneficial owner, not the registered holder. The owner of a book-entry stock or bond is the entity or name that it is registered under.

The DTC owns that bond or stock, not you. Rather than in your name, it's registered (as the legal Registered Owner or agent) in their "street name", Cede & Company. (In the past, it may have been registered in your broker's street name, but this is no longer allowed). The DTC is the Registered Owner - holder - of your stock or bond. The DTC is the legal property-holder, share-holder, stock-holder, owner and purchaser. Your name appears nowhere on the book entry or certificate as the actual owner. Instead, you have been designated by the legal registered owner, the DTC, as the Beneficial Owner. This means that your lawful Rights in that stock or bond are confined to that of a successor or heir.

At the University of Utah College of Law, we found the following examination question about Cede & Co.:

The common stock of LargeCo, Inc. is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Over 2/3rds of the shares are registered on LargeCo's books in the name of Cede & Co. Cede is a depository company which holds the shares as nominee on behalf of brokerage firms, mutual funds and other active traders. The brokerage firms in turn are also nominees with respect to some of the shares, which they hold on behalf of their customers. Nominees, such as Cede and brokerage firms holding for customers, view the customer as the beneficial owner of the shares and consider the customer to be the one with the right to vote the shares; mutual funds, however, view the fund as the owner of the shares it holds and vote the shares themselves.

Most of the remainder of LargeCo's stock (26% of the total) is held by the Large family, which is still actively involved in management. LargeCo is aware that the beneficial owner of about half the stock registered in Cede's name is the Small family, who live next door to the Larges in downtown Rome, and that the remainder of the Cede stock is beneficially owned by several well known mutual funds.

According to the DTC, under the US Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules, you only have the right to "receive proceeds or other advantages as the beneficiary". You are not the owner... you are the consignee, "One who has deposited with a third person an article of property for the benefit of a creditor"- A Dictionary of Law, 1893. In legal terms, you are considered the heir presumptive or heir at law to the stock or bond you paid for. The DTC controls, possesses as creditor, holds and owns your book-entry stock or bond. This is a difficult pill to swallow for those who have placed their assets in stocks and bonds over the past decade. Your broker sends you a fancy accounting every month of your purported holdings, along with dividend and interest payments paid. The fact is, you only receive the benefit of ownership (interest and dividends) without holding title to your property. You are at the mercy of the registered owner, the DTC. If you don't believe this is true, then call your broker right now and ask them who's name is listed as the Registered Holder of your book-entry stocks and bonds. If you're lucky, the broker will tell you "why of course you're the Beneficial Owner", then you'll know the truth. He may emphasize to you that the stocks and bonds are being held in "safe keeping" for your own protection. This is broker language for "your stocks and bonds are held by the DTC in their street name as the creditor".

From J.P. Morgan's internet site:

Registered and beneficial shareholders

There are two types of shareholders: registered, who hold an ADR in physical form, and beneficial, whose ADRs are held by third-parties and are listed under a "nominee" or "street" name (see chart below).

Registered shareholders are listed directly with the issuer or its U.S. transfer agent. The transfer agent handles the record-keeping associated with changes in share ownership, distribution of dividend payments, and investor inquiries; it also facilitates annual meetings. An issuer's depositary bank can provide the identities of registered shareholders on a regular basis. However, this may not provide the level of shareholder identification required for a successful investor relations effort. Registered shareholders are typically individual investors who have physical possession of their share certificates, generally in lots of 100 shares or fewer. The registered list also includes nominee names such as Cede & Co., which represent the aggregate position of the Depository Trust Company (DTC), the primary safekeeping, clearing, and settlement organization for securities traded in the United States. DTC uses electronic book-entry to facilitate settlement and custody rather than the physical delivery of certificates.

Beneficial shareholders, which can include individual as well as institutional investors, do not have physical possession of their certificates; third-party broker-dealers or custodian banks hold their securities on their behalf. These shares are said to be held in street name because they are kept with the DTC in the name of the broker-dealer or the custodian bank - not the underlying shareholder. Lists of beneficial shareholders who do not object to disclosing their holdings are available from banks and broker-dealers. These lists, called NOBO for Non-Objecting Beneficial Owner, typically provide the names of individual investors.

To help identify institutional investors, who do not usually disclose their holdings, issuers use publicly available filings. Large holders, including investment managers, are required to make periodic filings - such as 13-F, 13-G, and 13-D - with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosing the name and value of the positions in their portfolios.

Which brings us to the street name used, registered, and designated by the DTC as the registered owner of over $19 Trillion (USD) of our stocks and bonds... CEDE & Co. Everyone in the brokerage business keeps pronouncing this name as "See Dee" and Company, but it's spelled C-E-D-E and pronounced "Seed". This is where the real irony comes.

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990, the word Cede is defined as "To yield up; to assign; to grant; to surrender; to withdraw. Generally used to designate the transfer of territory from one government to another". In the Black's 1951 Fourth Edition, it lists the following as supportive case law; Goetze v. United States, C.C.N.Y., 103 Fed. 72.

Have you made the connection yet? Your book-entry stocks and bonds and all stock and bond certificates purchased through your broker and held by them under your brokerage account are owned by CEDE & COMPANY (the DTC) as the registered owner. You have surrendered, assigned and granted ownership to someone else other than yourself. Their name says it all.

How ironic and sarcastic can they be?

"CEDE- To surrender possession of, especially by treaty. See Synonyms at 'relinquish'." -American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd Edition of 1992

If Americans had any idea that they have relinquished the lawful ownership of their stocks and bonds to someone or something else, there would be a revolution. In a sense, that's why we are exposing this paper asset scam to you. The point is, now that you know the truth, do something about it and get your assets back into your name.

Our suggestion to you is this: If you don't literally have every stock and bond registered certificate in your possession, then promptly call your broker and tell him you want all your securities transferred and re-registered into your name as the Registered Holder and Owner. If he says he can't do that because your stock or bond is a book-entry transaction only, we strongly suggest, for your own security, that you sell your book-entry assets immediately. Don't let the broker tell you that it's "safer" for you if they keep your certificates. Remember, you know the truth. Even if all your stock and bond certificates were burned in a fire, the process to have them replaced is simple. If someone were to steal your certificates, you simply report them stolen to the company that issued them and they're automatically cancelled, just like a stolen credit card. Replacement certificates are then issued to replace the lost or stolen originals.

Most people don't realize that when they open a brokerage account, they have entered into an contractural agreement allowing the broker to assign the stocks and bonds to an undisclosed creditor, the DTC. (We suggest you read the small print on your brokerage agreement). This gives the broker your express written permission to place all your securities into the ownership of the DTC. Your broker is an agent for the DTC through mandatory Securities and Exchange Commission regulations and mandates by the Federal Reserve System private bank. Your broker represents them, not you. Your brokerage account is nothing more than a ledger of accounting. It reflects no assets held in your name. The assets are registered in a "street name" that is not you or your name. Sure.... you receive the interest and dividends, but you do so as a beneficiary to the real owner. Your brokerage account in no way, shape, or manner reflects who literally owns your securities. What you own is a brokerage account and nothing more.

A greater consideration is just exactly who does the DTC hold these securities for? As the owner, who has the DTC pledged these securities to? Our research points to the Federal Reserve System, an international private banking cartel with major offices found in Moscow, London, Tokyo, and Peking. By treaty with the United Nations and in compliance with the Bretton Woods Agreement, the DTC under regulation of the Federal Reserve System has pledged all those stocks and bonds to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). These are the same paper securities found in your IRA and pension fund accounts, as well as in your brokerage account. Remember, you don't own them.... you're just a beneficiary.

The truth is, the securities you purchased and paid for with your hard earned money is collateral for the United Nations which is backed by the Federal Reserve System and it's associated agencies, such as the International Monetary Fund. Is it any wonder that the UN can operate year after year with increasing budgets, but without sufficient funds? The UN has nearly $11 Trillion of backing and reserves, thanks to millions of duped Americans. We are financing the New World Dis-Order with our stocks and bonds.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010216074034/64.225.47.117/nbn/nbn15.html

:=) Gary Swancey

[Georgia Bard]

For Smooch: The Depository Trust Company

The $19 Trillion Private Bank

This is Part I of III- This exclusive investigative report series is a compilation of interviews and background research from October 1995 through March 2000.

The Depository Trust Company (DTC) is the best kept secret in America. Headquartered at 55 Water Street in New York City, the average American has no clue that this financial institution is the most powerful banking corporation in the world. The general public has no knowledge of what the DTC is or what they do, but a clue can be taken from the sign at the front of the building, which says, "THE TOWER OF POWER". How can a private banking trust company hold assets of over $19 trillion and be unknown? In an official press release dated April 19, 1999, the Depository Trust Company stated:

"The Depository Trust Company (DTC) is the world’s largest securities depository, holding nearly $19 trillion in assets for its Participants and their customers.... Last year, DTC processed over 164 million book-entry deliveries valued at more than $77 trillion."

In dealing with the trust department of Midlantic Bank, N.A. in New Jersey [now PNC Bank, N.A.], this writer was authorized, as trustee and power of attorney, to transfer original trust assets comprising of common stocks and bonds to a new trust set up in another jurisdiction. An Assistant Vice President from the Trust & Financial Management Office of Midlantic Bank said to me "it will take at least 6 weeks to do this as the majority of the stocks and bonds are not held in the name of the trust". This same Midlantic Bank Assistant V.P. also stated in a letter dated November 17, 1995, "Of the 11 municipal bonds, 8 are held in book entry only. This means they cannot be physically re-registered with a certificate sent to the new trustees." (* these are not the actual figures quoted in the letter in order to protect the privacy of the account holder, at their request. Also, we were asked not to name the Midlantic Assistant V.P. in order to protect her privacy Rights. We respect these requests with full moral compliance). In disbelief, I brought this matter to the attention of our research assistants at the Christian Common Law Institute [formerly the North Bridge News] and we began our lengthy investigation into the matter. After 3½ years, the can of worms we've opened up should frighten every American. With the advent of reported Y2K computer glitches and the possible collapse of our 'paper asset' economy, every person who has a stock or bond in their portfolio had better read this report and act on the information we are disclosing here.

In November 1995, after encountering numerous "no comments" and a myriad of "that's not my department" excuses via telephone, I eventually spoke with Mr. Jim McNeff who told me his position was Director of Training for the DTC. He said he'd been employed there for 19 years and was "very proud" of his employer. During my initial telephone interview, either Jim's employer or some other unknown person or persons were illegally listening or taping our telephone conversation according to the electronic eavesdropping equipment we have installed on our end. Why did anyone feel it was necessary to illegally record our conversation without advising us? Was some federal alphabet agency monitoring DTC calls to safeguard National Security? That in itself is suspicious enough to warrant a big red warning flag.

Jim informed me back then (1995) that "the DTC is the largest limited trust company in the world with assets of $ 9.1 trillion". In July 1998, I spoke with Ms. Rose Barnabic of the DTC Finance Department who said that "DTC assets are currently estimated at around $11 trillion". As of April 19, 1999, the DTC itself has stated that their assets total "nearly $19 trillion" (see above). Mr. McNeff had also stated "the DTC is a brokerage clearing firm and transfer center. We're a private bank for securities. We handle the book entry transactions for all banks and brokers. Every bank and brokerage firm must secure their membership with us in case they become insolvent, so your assets are secure with DTC". Yes, you read that correctly. The DTC is a private bank that processes every stock and bond (paper securities) for all U.S. banks and brokerage houses. The big question is this; Just who gave this private bank and trust company such a broad range of financial power and clout?

The reason the public doesn't know about DTC is that they're a privately owned depository bank for institutional and brokerage firms only. They process all of their book entry settlement transactions. Jim McNeff said "There's no need for the public to know about us... it's required by the Federal Reserve that DTC handle all transactions". The Federal Reserve Corporation, a/k/a The Federal Reserve System, is also a private company and is not an agency or department of our federal government, according to the 1998 Federal Registry. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors is listed, but they are not the owners. The Federal Reserve Board, headed by Mr. Alan Greenspan, is nothing more than a liaison advisory panel between the owners and the Federal Government. The FED, as they are more commonly called, mandates that the DTC process every securities transaction in the US. It's no wonder that the DTC (including the Participants Trust Company, now the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division of the DTC) is owned by the same stockholders as the Federal Reserve System. In other words, the Depository Trust Company is really just a 'front' or a division of the Federal Reserve System.

"DTC is 35.1% owned by the New York Stock Exchange on behalf of the Exchange's members. It is operated by a separate management and has an independent board of directors. It is a limited purpose trust company and is a unit of the Federal Reserve." -New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

Now, let's see how this effects the average working American family. If you're not aware how the system works, you should visit or call a stock broker or bank and instruct them you want to purchase some shares of common stock or a small municipal bond, for example. They will set up a brokerage account for you and act as your agent with full durable power of attorney (which you must legally sign over to them) to conduct business on your behalf, upon your buy or sell instructions. The broker will place your stock or bond purchase into their safekeeping under a "street name". According to Mr. McNeff of the DTC, no bank or broker can place any stock or bond into their firm's own name due to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations.

The broker or bank must then send the transaction to the DTC for ledger posting or book entry settlement under mandate by the Federal Reserve System. Remember, since your bank or broker can't use their name on the certificate, they use a fictitious street name. "Since the DTC is a banking trust company, we can't hold the certificates in our name, so the DTC transfers the certificates to our own private holding company or nominee name." states Mr. McNeff. The DTC's private holding company or street name, as shown on certificates we have personally examined from numerous certificate holders, is shown as either "CEDE and Company", "Cede Company" or "Cede & Co". We have searched every source known to learn who CEDE really is, but have been unable to get any background information on them. Is Cede Company fictitious or is their identity perhaps a larger secret than DTC? We must presume that the information Mr. McNeff gave us was correct when he confirmed that Cede Company was a controlled private holding company of the DTC. We have now found the following proof that CEDE is real from the Bear Stearns internet site:

NEW YORK, New York — March 16, 1999 — Bear Stearns Finance LLC today announced that it will redeem all of the 6,000,000 outstanding 8.00% Exchangeable Preferred Income Cumulative Shares, Series A ("EPICS") of Bear Stearns Finance LLC, liquidation preference of $25.00 per Series A Share, CUSIP number G09198105. All of the Series A Shares are held by Cede & Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company, and the payment of the redemption price will be made to Cede & Co. by ChaseMellon Shareholder Services, LLC, as paying agent, whose address is: 85 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660.

The banks and brokers are merely custodians for their clients. By federal law (SEC), they cannot hold any assets in the customer's name. The assets must be held in the name of DTC's holding company, CEDE & Co. That's how DTC has more than $19 trillion dollars of assets in trust... or is it really in "trust" if the private Federal Reserve System is technically holding it in their "unknown" entity's name? Obviously, if stock and bond certificates you've purchased aren't in your name, then the "holder" (the Federal Reserve System) could theoretically refuse to surrender them back to you under a "national emergency" according to the Trading with the Enemy Act (as amended). Is this the collateral being held by the private Federal Reserve System to pay off the national debt owed to them by our federal government, first initiated by Lincoln's debt bonds of 1864?

According to Mr. McNeff, the DTC was a former member of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), and "Our sister company is the National Securities Clearing Corporation... the NSCC" (they have since merged). He was correct since we now know that the NYSE holds 35.1% of the "ownership" of the DTC on behalf of their NYSE members. Simply put, the Depository Trust Company absolutely controls every paper asset transaction in the United States as well as the majority of overseas transactions, and they now physically hold (as of April 1999) 99% of all stock and bond book-entries in their street name, not the actual owner's names. If you have stock or bond certificates in your name buried in your back yard or under your mattress, we suggest you keep them there. If not, it might be very wise to cancel your brokerage account and power of attorney status, re-register the stocks and bonds in your name (if you still can), and keep them hidden where only you know their location. Otherwise, you have absolutely no control over them (see Part II of our exclusive research report on the DTC for more information on beneficial ownership status). However, getting a stock or bond certificate these days is not so easy if possible at all:

"For the most part, issuers know little about the role of the Depository Trust Company (DTC). The DTC was created in 1973 as a user-owned cooperative for post-trade settlement. Our members are banks and broker/dealers, whom we refer to as participants. We handle listed and unlisted equities, including 51,000 equity issues and 170,000 corporate debt issues, equating to more than 78% of shares outstanding on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). We also have more than 95% of all municipals on deposit.

In the 1980s, the "Group of 30" [business leaders] recommended that stock certificates be eliminated, because physical certificates create risk. The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a concept release in 1994 to gradually decrease certificates, providing optional direct registration on the books of the issuer instead of a certificate.... this enhances the portability of shares between transfer agents and brokerage accounts. With the direct registration system, brokers transmit instructions to purchase through DTC, which the issuer or transfer agent then registers, so shares can be delivered electronically." -John D. Faith, Manager, Corporate Trust Services, The Depository Trust Company (1996)

Now we're about to reveal to you the most shocking discovery we came across during our research into this matter. Most of us remember a few years back the purported computerized selling of stocks that resulted in Wall Street's "Black Monday":

Dow Dives 508.32 Points in Panic on Wall Street

"The largest stock-market drop in Wall Street history occurred on "Black Monday" -- October 19, 1987 -- when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 508.32 points, losing 22.6% of its total value. That fall far surpassed the one-day loss of 12.9% that began the great stock market crash of 1929 and foreshadowed the Great Depression. The Dow's 1987 fall also triggered panic selling and similar drops in stock markets worldwide" -Source: Facts on File World News CD ROM

The stock exchanges had dramatic record losses, and a record volume of shares were traded on that infamous Monday in October 1987. We all asked ourselves how computers could have done this by themselves without someone knowing about it. After all, someone has to program a computer to tell it what to do, what not to do, or even when to do or not do it.

During my telephone conversation, Mr. McNeff was trying to assure me that they [the DTC] have "never lost a certificate or made a mistake in a book ledger transaction". In attempting to give me an example of how trustworthy the DTC is when I asked him how he could back up such a statement, he replied "DTC's first controlled test was 4 or 5 years ago. Do you remember Black Monday? There were 535 million transactions on Monday, and 400 million transactions on Tuesday". He was very proud to inform me that "DTC cleared every transaction without a single glitch!". Read these quotes again: He stated that Black Monday was a controlled test. Black Monday was a deliberately manipulated disaster for many Americans at the whim of a controlled test by the DTC.

What was the purpose of this test? Common sense tells you that you test something before you intend to use it. It's quite obvious that the stock markets are going to 'crash and burn' at some future date and for some 'unknown' reason since the controlled test was so successful. Was this just one of the planned tests for a Y2K internationally planned worldwide economic meltdown? The Great Depression is about to be repeated, and it will be as deliberate and manipulated as the first one that began with the stock market crash of 1929. We are, without a doubt, on the brink of the Mother of all economic Depressions. As of May 3, 1999, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) went above a record 11,000 points. Just prior to the 1929 stock market crash, Wall Street was posting record prices, record earnings, and record profits.... just like the scenario we are experiencing today. Will Y2K be a manipulated and deliberate a financial meltdown? Too many facts already support this probability.

On June 7, 1995, the federal government issued a new regulation requiring stock and bond certificate transfers to be cleared in three days instead of the previous five day time period. It coincided with the infamous Regulation CC that purportedly gave us faster three day availability of funds from deposited checks. This means that brokers and banks must get your stock or bond transaction into the street name (Cede & Co.) of the DTC within 3 working days. That's hard to do considering banks claim it takes 3 or more days to clear a check that you've submitted to pay for a stock purchase. But, there's a reason for this new regulation and it coincides with the introduction of the new FRS "dollars".

On February 22, 1996, "the DTC will flip the switch" according to Mr. McNeff. "What switch?", I asked. "This is the day that clearing house funds will no longer be accepted for stock or bond transactions" was my reply from Jim. "Instead, only Fed Funds will be accepted". Fed Funds, or a Fedwire, are electronic computer ledger debit transfers between Federal Reserve System member banks. No checks or drafts have been allowed from that day, just as Mr. McNeff accurately stated. This is more commonly called a 'cashless transaction'. I call it the reality of the mark of the beast. This is the manifestation of the new international god, the New World Order [I prefer the term 'New World DISorder' as a more accurate description].

Consider this my fellow Christian Americans: All pension funds and other institutional 'managed funds' are comprised of paper asset investments such as stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. These certificates are technically in the name of DTC's private holding company, CEDE and Company. The DTC is owned by the private Federal Reserve System owners (Click for a complete list of names). Congress has attempted, on no less than two occasions since 1995, to pass legislation allowing pension funds to be used by the government as purported 'loans'. All the Federal Reserve System has to do is hand it over. But, what happens to the people counting on those pension fund investments in order to feed themselves in their retirement? Too bad for them.... they're out of luck because for the 'good of the nation', they may be forced to share or relinquish their lifetime of hard-earned wealth. This can be done without the consent of Congress under an Executive Order based on the War and Emergency Powers Act and a state of National Emergency, just like we are already under (See further Executive Orders). Since the Federal Reserve System already holds our stocks and bonds in their fictitious DTC "street name", CEDE, then perhaps they'll cash them in for the federal government's failure to repay the loans that have become way overdue. Heck, some of Lincoln's gold backed bonds from 1864 have not been repaid yet.... and for a reason.

On March 6, 1933, all bullion gold and gold coins were forcibly taken from the hands of private citizens (see New York Times). Under the War Powers Act, President Roosevelt declared a national emergency touted as a "Banking Holiday". It was declared due to the deliberately calculated stock market crash that preceded the Great Depression. Where did this gold end up? Into the hands of the Federal Reserve System owners. The majority is stored in the impervious rock vaults they own beneath New York City. Is it any surprise that the DTC physically holds all the remaining non-book entry issued stock and bond certificates in the same place?

Technically, our entire nation is still under the Executive Order declaration of the War Powers Act and in a continual state of national emergency (See Clinton's 1994 Executive Order 12919). The President can enforce any new emergency at any time under Executive Order or Presidential Directive. In 1995, we [the former North Bridge News] published that we expected a new national "dollar" emergency to be declared within a year or two. Just like we thought at the time, they have now blamed it on the purported drug dealers who are allegedly destroying our currency by money laundering schemes.

Since late 1996, old U.S. $100 FRB notes issued by the Federal Reserve Bank are being exchanged for new $100 FRS issued by the Federal Reserve System. These new notes have scanable magnetic platinum encryption on the plastic strips embedded inside the bills. The U.S. Treasury claims this is for "the blind". Now, new $20 and $50 FRS's are replacing the older notes as well. What people don't realize is that very soon, the older FRB notes will no longer be 'legal' and there will be a penalty for hoarding them. This is what happened to those Americans holding gold and gold coins after 1933.

"We are most gratified with the successful introduction of the new $100 and $50 notes and look forward to the same success with the new $20s," Chairman Greenspan said. For the first time, a machine-readable capability has been incorporated for the blind. A new feature in the $20 will facilitate the development of convenient scanning devices that could identify the note as a $20. -U.S. Treasury, Office of Public Affairs, RR-2449 released May 20, 1998.

Why new paper 'money' and for what purpose? Because the new FRS notes in your pocket can be scanned and whoever scans them can know exactly how much money you have on you. The older FRB notes are not encoded to do this. This writer knows firsthand of at least one machine, manufactured by Diebold, Inc. (a/k/a InterBold) that scans the money in your pockets, wallet or purse no different in theory than a credit card scanner, but much more sophisticated. I participated in a 'test' of this machine at a U.S. international airport in 1998. To me, it looks much like the standard metal detector scanners you walk through at all airports. I was asked (by who I believe was a U.S. Treasury Agent, as he introduced himself and flashed his ID quickly in my face so I couldn't read it) if I had any of the new $100 or $50 bills in my pockets. I looked in my wallet and saw I had one new $100 FRS note. I told him "yes", then he said "Good, but don't tell me how much". After saying he would "really appreciate it" if I would help them with a test, he asked me to walk through what looked like a typical airport scanner. No beeps. No noise. No sound at all. He looked at a computer screen and said "Do you have a new $100 bill?". When I confirmed that was true, he thanked me and told me to please move on. I tried to ask him how the machine knew that, but he ignored my question. I took a good look at the scanning system and believe I have now spotted them at Kennedy, Atlanta, Miami and Los Angeles airports.

The odd part about this is that these machines seem to all be located in the customs areas where you enter the U.S. from a foreign country. Obviously, they want to know if someone is carrying more than $10,000 into the U.S. Common sense dictates that they should be more concerned about people leaving with more than $10,000 if they're really trying to thwart the drug dealers.... until you begin to realize that there must be some other hidden agenda: They are apparently going to stop money from entering the U.S. for a reason.

Will the President call for the confiscation of all gold bullion and bullion coins as Roosevelt did? Who will end up with it? The Federal Reserve System owners, just like before. Since June 1998, international gold supplies have been so low that some private Swiss Banks have been paying a premium above the market wholesale value for gold bullion. This was confirmed to us by a gold and diamond mining Chief Executive from Rex Mining in Guinea, West Africa, who supplies raw gold to a major Swiss Banking company smelter and processor. The spot gold market has been manipulated to keep the price low so that the Federal Reserve System owners can purchase all that is available through their various trusts and corporations. World gold availability on the open market is now at a record low and mining production of gold is also at a record low output.

What happened to 'supply and demand' with gold and silver? Normally, when supply is high the price decreases. When supply is low, precious metal prices increase. Perhaps the private FED will peg the new dollar to gold prices, as many experts have already speculated. What will stocks and bonds purchased with old dollars be worth then? Pennies to the dollar, so to speak. Who ends up being the only winner? The Federal Reserve System stockholders. They control the circulation amounts of paper money in the U.S. Combine that with the new scanner to stop large amounts from entering into the U.S., and the scenario amounts to a planned shortage of paper FRS notes, the banning of the older FRB notes, and the soon to be astronomical price of gold which most Americans will be forbidden to have or hoard, once again. The facts we've presented in this report all point to this.

People will be at the mercy of the federal government for daily food and for jobs. Checks are soon to be totally phased out. Banks issue ATM debit cards and tell you they must charge more for your account if you use a real live human teller instead of the machine. The switch is being turned on. This is not speculation. This is the truth of reality. It's already been tested, and their new system works. Just ask Jim McNeff of the DTC.

The day has come when you must decide to accept or reject the beast and the New World Disorder.

http://64.225.47.117/nbn/nbn14.html" target="_new">http://web.archive.org/web/20010216074832/http://64.225.47.117/nbn/nbn14.html

:=) Gary Swancey

[Georgia Bard]

BBX Listing Requirements

Listing Standards
Pending Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approval, the BBX will impose the following qualitative standards for all issuers wishing to list on the BBX:


Public Interest Standard
The BBX would impose public interest standards identical to those that are currently utilized for the Nasdaq National Market ® (NNM®) and the Nasdaq SmallCap Market SM. These rules will provide the BBX with the discretion to deny listing or delist an issuer to protect investors and the integrity of the BBX market in the context of both initial and continued inclusion. Imposition of this standard would consist of, among others, a review of all directors, officers and major shareholders for past regulatory or legal issues.


Public Float/Shareholder Requirement
The BBX listing standards will require issuers to demonstrate the existence of 100 round-lot shareholders and 200,000 shares in the public float, thus assuring that there is a minimum level of public ownership in these companies.


Corporate Governance Standards
The BBX will implement corporate governance standards that are consistent with those imposed by the NNM and SmallCap markets, with an adjustment to the independent director and audit committee requirements, in recognition of the burden on small companies. Through its extensive experience operating a listed market, Nasdaq® recognizes the essential nature of corporate governance in ensuring a minimum level of quality in its issuers. The standards are basic and attainable by all current OTC Bulletin Board ® (OTCBB) issuers. The standards are:


Annual Shareholder Meetings, Proxy Solicitations and Quorum: As a matter of state corporate law and SEC regulations, public companies are generally required to hold annual meetings of shareholders and to solicit proxies for such meetings. Adoption of these requirements would thus not create a significant new burden, and would be consistent with existing regulations for Nasdaq. Further, these requirements would be of great assistance to the staff in conducting their public interest reviews. The BBX will require that the annual meeting be held within 12 months of the end of the first fiscal year after the company becomes listed. It is also proposed that the Nasdaq quorum of at least one-third of all shareholders be adopted.

Independent Director: For NNM and SmallCap issues, Nasdaq requires the appointment of three independent directors for each issuer, or a majority of independent directors for SEC Small Business “SB” filers. In light of the difficulty in securing independent directors and the cost of insuring each director, this requirement might be burdensome for current OTCBB issuers. Accordingly, the BBX will require that companies listing on the BBX appoint at least one independent director. Issuers will also be given a grace period of 12 months upon launch of the new market to retain the independent director.

Audit Committees/Conflicts of Interest: Issuers will also be required to create an audit committee, a majority of which cannot be comprised of non-independent directors. This is a relaxed standard compared to Nasdaq, which requires that all of the members of the audit committee be independent directors, or, for SB filers, that a majority of the members be independent. Issuers will have twelve months to create the audit committee. As with Nasdaq, the issuer would use its audit committee to review related-party transactions. Additionally, the issuer would be required to adopt an audit committee charter.

Voting Rights: Nasdaq rules prohibit the disenfranchisement of the voting rights of existing shareholders. This requirement will be established immediately upon launch of the BBX.
Auditor Peer Review: All issuers must engage auditors that are subject to peer review consistent with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)procedures.

Shareholder Approval: The BBX will adopt the current Nasdaq rules requiring shareholder approval of transactions that involve: the grant of stock options to officers or directors; large, below-market issuances of stock; acquisitions; or changes of control. These rules will be made applicable upon listing.

Distribution of Annual Reports, Availability of Quarterly Reports: The BBX will adopt current Nasdaq rules, that require the issuer to distribute annual reports and make available quarterly reports upon request. The issuer’s 10K filing can be used as the annual report.

The BBX believes that these qualitative requirements will require substantial commitment and expenditures on the part of issuers. This commitment will elevate the quality of issuers attracted to listing on the BBX and provide benefits that will inure to all investors.

http://www.bbxchange.com/Listing_Information/reqs.stm

:=) Gary Swancey

[Georgia Bard]

See that is what does not make sense to me... I figured after the commission restructure and what not the NASD would want another NASDAQ for the OTCs with minimum requirements.

Still looking for more information ... going to search the federal registry.


:=) Gary Swancey

[Georgia Bard]

Real World ... No more cyber cash for cybergroceries.

:=) Gary Swancey

[Mattu]

>>with qualitative listing standards but with no minimum share price, income, or asset requirements therefore allowing entrance to a wide array of listings. <<

How can you have qualitative standards, but with no control over price,income, asset.

Sounds like the new Pink Sheets.

[Mattu]

I did the same as you. Went back to working in the real world.

I'll send you my number.

[Georgia Bard]

Hey Matt your thoughts on this ...

We plan to list our common stock on the new exchange to be sponsored by NASD in 2003. This new exchange will be known as Bulletin Board Exchange(SM) or BBX, a listed market place, with qualitative listing standards but with no minimum share price, income, or asset requirements therefore allowing entrance to a wide array of listings. According to NASD, companies trading on the BBX will be differentiated from those over-the-counter in that their market symbol will begin with a the letters "XB", and unlike the current OTCBB issuers will be allowed to choose their own three-letter market symbol. In addition the BBX will have an electronic trading system to allow order negotiation and automatic execution. The current OTCBB will be phased out in 2003 according to NASD, and in its place will be the BBX.

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/020401/meho.ob.html



:=) Gary Swancey

[Georgia Bard]

Yep went back to programming EMC (Energy Management Control) systems to control refrigeration equipment and RS232 Alarm networks. Tried to call but number disconnected.

Hope all is going great for you.

:=) Gary Swancey

[Mattu]

Programming?

Tell me more. Bard programming. I'd pay to see this. <g>

Doing pretty well actually, my friend.

[Georgia Bard]

Oh I had a few moments that I was not programming and decided to see what the old sites were doing. How you been Matt?

:=) Gary Swancey

[Bernard Ng]

Not suspicious at all, Joe. You get the link from otcbb.com as well... consider the quality of nasdaqtrader.com, they need to hire a design firm to work on their UI.

signed,
Bernard

[CharleyMike]

OK, try this one.

http://www.gopublicotc.com/otcbbnews.html

[Joemoney]

That website looks very suspcious.

It is made of poor quality, and doesn't have much information. However, I looked it up on the WHOIS server, and it does point to a Nasdaq server.

I cannot find any PRs or any type of announcements for this BBX outside of the BBX website. That troubles me. Perhaps NASDAQ hasn't announced it yet. Does anyone know?

EDIT: Here is an interesting link:
http://www.nameprotect.com/cgi-bin/FREESearch/search.cgi?action=SEARCH&db=PTO&ss=BBX

[CharleyMike]

Here ya' go, Joe.

http://www.bbxchange.com/

[Mattu]

Is he back?

[Joemoney]

Where did you read this? I cannot find it anywhere on the Nasdaq or the OTCBB site.

[Georgia Bard]

A MUST READ! FROM THE NASD-

In 2003,(1st quarter) a new market, the Bulletin Board ExchangeSM (BBXSM), will be launched. The BBX will eventually take the place of the OTC Bulletin Board ® (OTCBB), which will be phased out. The BBX will appeal to many of the same companies that are currently quoted on the OTCBB, but will be a higher quality market.

The BBX will offer a significant improvement over the OTCBB for qualifying small companies by increasing liquidity in the market for their securities, augmenting the opportunity to raise equity capital, and conferring the recognition of trading on a listed market.

Other advantages to being a BBX-listed company include access to a Corporate Communications Director, who will be responsible for answering questions and providing information on TRADING ACTIVITY in individual securities and the marketplace as a whole. This individual attention will be supplemented by newsletters, an informational Web site, and periodic informational seminars and other training opportunities.

Three important Nasdaq rules that will apply to the BBX going forward are: 1) market makers will be required to maintain continuous, two-sided markets, with quotes that are reasonably related to the market and that generally do not lock or cross the market, 2) BBX market makers will be REQUIRED TO REPORT THEIR SHORT INTEREST (congrats all that helped to make a difference!) on a monthly basis, as market makers in Nasdaq National Market ® (NNM®) and SmallCap stocks do today, and 3) the BBX proposes to adopt the same trade halt rule that currently applies to NNM and SmallCap issues. This provides BBX with broader authority consistent with its new relationship with BBX issuers.


Nasdaq will provide the same level of intra-day SURVEILLANCE for the BBX as is currently available for Nasdaq issues. Nasdaq MarketWatch, TradeWatch, and NASDR Market Regulation will monitor for the following:
-Issuer news that warrants a news-related Trade Halt;
-Backing away;
-Excused withdrawals from the market, locked/crossed markets and trading during trading halts;
-Best execution obligations;
-MARKING-THE-CLOSE ACTIVITY;
-Anti-competitive practices by market makers;
-Front-running of research;
-Short interest reporting; and
-Insider trading.


Dear OTCBB Market Makers:
As you may be aware, the OTC Bulletin BoardSM (OTCBBSM), which is operated by The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc., will be phased out in 2003 as we launch a new market, the Bulletin Board ExchangeSM (BBXSM). We expect most OTCBB companies will apply to list on the BBX. The BBX will have an electronic trading system with both auto-execution and order-delivery capabilities. These changes are contingent on expected approval by the SEC.

We are sending the enclosed letter to all OTCBB companies to inform them of the upcoming change. We will be sending you more complete information about the new BBX market in the near future, but if you would like more information now, please contact Liz Heese, OTCBB/BBX Product Manager, at [phone], or [e-mail]; or Staci Warden, BBX Director, at [phone], or [e-mail].

Frequently Asked Questions

When will the BBX launch?
The BBX is scheduled to launch in the first quarter on 2003, pending approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

What will happen to the OTC Bulletin Board?

The current OTC Bulletin Board (OTCBB) will eventually be replaced by the BBX. To ensure a smooth transition to a listed-market environment for OTCBB companies, Nasdaq will continue to operate the OTCBB for the first six months after the BBX launches. This will give OTCBB companies ample time to list on the BBX without experiencing a break in OTCBB trading activity.

What will happen to OTCBB issuers that don't list on the BBX?
If an OTCBB issuer elects not to list on either the BBX or a national securities exchange, its shares can still trade through informal, over-the-counter methods. For example, market makers may choose to move their quotes in that security to the PinkSheets.

How does a company list on the BBX?
Listing applications will be available in July 2002. They will be mailed to all OTCBB issuers and posted to this website as soon as they are available.

What are the listing qualifications for BBX?
The BBX listing requirements have been created to provide an opportunity for the largest number of current OTCBB issuers to continue trading in the new listed environment, while at the same time offering a full complement of qualitative standards to provide enhanced protection to investors. Under these listing requirements, companies must meet qualitative standards, but do not have to meet financial or minimum share price standards. Specifically, the BBX will impose:



Public interest standards identical to those currently utilized for Nasdaq National Market (NNM) and SmallCap market, which will provide the BBX with the discretion to deny listing or de-list an issuer for the purpose of protecting investors and the integrity of the market;
A requirement of 100 round-lot shareholders and 200,000 shares in the public float; and
Corporate governance standards consistent with those imposed by the NNM and SmallCap markets, with an adjustment to the independent director and audit committee requirements in recognition of the difficulty small companies may have meeting these requirements.
Click here for a complete list of the proposed BBX listing standards.


What are the BBX listing fees?
All applicants will be required to pay a non-refundable application fee. For a complete list of BBX issuer fees, click the link below.



BBX Issuer Fees

When can I reserve my company's new BBX trading symbol?
Trading symbols may be requested at the time a listing application is submitted to the BBX. Symbols will be assigned on a first-come-first-serve basis. The BBX will not reserve trading symbols except in conjunction with an application. For a description of the BBX trading symbol convention, click here.


Will banks be required to file with the SEC?
Yes. Banks will have to meet the same listing requirements as other issuers


How can I learn more about the BBX?
OTCBB issuers and other interested parties will be invited to attend an information forum to discuss the listing qualifications, the application process, and the BBX marketplace rules. BBX staff will be available to answer questions and provide more information. The forums will be held in the summer of 2002 in several locations around the country. Once it has been finalized, the forum schedule and agenda will be available on this web site.

General BBX questions and information requests can be addressed to:
Liz Heese, BBX Product Manager at [e-mail] or [phone] or
Staci Warden, BBX Director at [e-mail] or [phone].


"NO OWN - NO SELL" Petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/NoShorts/petition.html
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey

[Mattu]

Bard, where at these days, my man? Give me a call sometime.

[Georgia Bard]

Don’t Blame the (Naked Short Sellers) Thieves That Legally Steal America's Markets Blind.

I am getting really sick of all this convenient misguided sense of irrational logic propaganda. Short selling and especially off shore thievery does not require any transparency and thus becomes the catalyst for a group of robbers to organize and plan the perfect heist in America. As far as convoluted, it is really quite simple, they are the ones that support the markets after they rob it relentlessly.

So let me tell you a metaphor story since short sellers are always using banks to justify their theft by borrowing.

THE PERFECT CRIME by Gary Swancey

An unscrupulous group of thieving individuals discovers that arrogant America is the one country that does not require transparency with checks and balances on certain borrowing activities. America’s system is based on the honesty merit system of voluntary reporting and disclosure by its law abiding citizens and professionals. Further, there is absolutely no required transparency in any regard on borrowing from offshore.

That means offshore can withdraw borrowed money from an American bank out the backdoor. Subsequently offshore has an even added advantage of a cloak of invisibility because there are no alarms or cameras on transaction placed in the back of the bank. The only required transparency within America is only by honest and forthright Americans who wish to report withdrawals such as those that are performed at the front of the bank.

Thus this unscrupulous group go offshore, to take full and maximum advantage of the lack of American rules, regulations and transparency. Once they’re offshore they organize and call themselves “SWINDLE” (Stealing, With In No Disclosure Laws, Everything) and go about plotting the perfect crime in America. Researching, SWINDLE focuses on stimulating liberal propaganda “impression management” specialists to spin the media. This allows for justification for the crime in the public eye of Americans when the time is right to cover their paths.

Next SWINDLE picks out an overly cash laden bank as the target. Perfect target, because SWINDLE believes the bank has entirely too much money and thus overvalued. Researching SWINDLE develops negative distractions that will hide the true criminal operation.

Carefully SWINDLE cases the joint and establishes a solid plan with precise teamwork. Quickly, SWINDLE sets up the financial resources that will be needed to implement the perfect crime. Once SWINDLE has all the means in place, SWINDLE begins their horrendous art of corruption.

Boldly SWINDLE proceeds to implementing their diabolical plan by walking arrogantly into the bank through the back door. SWINDLE is pleased to see no security, no guards, no alarms and most of all no cameras. SWINDLE is completely invisible.

Confidently, SWINDLE approaches the teller at the back of the bank. SWINDLE, without a weapon of any kind, provides a withdrawal vouchers for future deposits to the teller. Instantly, the teller cashes the future withdrawals without any checks, balances and records and transfers the money from the front vault of the bank into special vault at the back of the bank. SWINDLE slowly but surely exhausts the bank’s funds from the main vault to the special vault in the back of the bank.

In the mean time while SWINDLE is draining the bank’s funds from the rear, SWINDLE’s entourage enter into the front of the bank. Talking to customers in the bank, exercising “America’s freedom of speech” right, SWINDLE begins a deliberate impression management campaign of negativity. SWINDLE’s negative spin is designed to create and thoroughly causes fear, uncertainty and doubt. Working diligently, SWINDLE slowly but surely convinces customers and potential customers from making deposits.

At the same time, SWINDLE warns customers to take their money before customers lose it all. As the funds are still being drained in the back without warning the front tellers are conveying they are running short on cash. Instantly SWINDLE steps up the impression management and suddenly there is a “Run on the Bank.”

However, it is too late and the bank is forced to issue IOUs and pay pennies on the dollar. Of course the tellers tell the customers to take it or leave it. That is the only option. Thus the loyal customers have pennies and IOUs from the bank for the remainder of their money.

However, the unscrupulous SWINDLE continues relentlessly with their clever negative spin. Like a fox, SWINDLE propaganda takes hold that the bank was overvalued and not worth a tenth of its value, if that much. The economy depending on the bank crashes. Legal transparent loans go into defaulted. Thus the propagandists now go to work justifying and condemning everything from the bank to the government so they can somehow justify this horrible set of events. Of course the propagandist use legal transparent loans and the cover that nothing is wrong nor ever do enough due diligence to discover the back door of the bank as a possibility. Oh that is totally unheard, because there is nothing wrong with borrowing.

Yikes, SWINDLE realizes this might be going from bad to worse because of SWINDLE greed. SWINDLE has to quickly turn this around before it gets too out of control. The public is now screaming for an investigation and justice. SWINDLE can’t afford an investigation.

Just like a cunning fox SWINDLE takes a small amount of money and begins offering to buy the IOUs for pennies on the dollar from the financially strapped customers. The negative spin is still being relentless and eventually coerces the bank’s once loyal customers to sell their IOUs for at least something. Thus SWINDLE begins buying the IOUs.

Immediately SWINDLE takes the IOUs to the back of the bank where SWINDLE cash in the IOUs and are paid the full amount of the IOU from the cash in the special vault. Taking that money SWINDLE continues to buy even more IOUs. Better the loyal customers have some cash that nothing but paper.

Once SWINDLE has exhausted the cash in the special vault at the rear of the bank with IOUs, SWINDLE gleefully congratulates each other for a job well done. The Perfect Crime has been accomplished without a hitch and the books of the bank are balanced. Only a small amount of the outstanding IOUs are left and will not hurt the bank.

Media propagandists begin their spin that the hard times are over. Defending the diligent efforts of the bank to resolve the situation. Headlines such as Bank Borrowers are NOT THE CRIMINALS! Outcry by the public never makes it to the public eye. Legal loan stats are used to make statistical representations to calm the public. Since the bank vault in the back is not monitored and not reported, the propagandist do not even consider those loans in their statistical data because the data does not exist thus there could be no naked loans.

But the propagandist begin their hero spin as they publish articles of how this “SWINDLE ASSOCIATES ARE HEROS FOR SAVING THE BANK!!!” SWINDLE was buying the IOUs and sold them back to the bank squaring up the bank’s horrible obligation. Further, SWINDLE deposited large sums of money into the bank to ease the cash starved facility. HOORAY SWINDLE supported the bank when no one else would. If not for SWINDLE it would have been much worse.

And the public cheers as the bank recovers while money slowly begins to flow back into the bank. Further, for the invisible SWINDLE's resolve the public yells THANKS as SWINDLE silently says NEXT!

Lets see something like this was perfectly legal I believe until 1934 … when the FDIC came to existence.

But what about America’s financial markets?

"NO OWN - NO SELL" Petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/NoShorts/petition.html
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
Gary Swancey

[Georgia Bard]

Get the word out. I have a thread on SI "No Own - No sell" where I am posting my opinions on everything. we need the word to get out.

Thanks for your support ...

"NO OWN - NO SELL" Petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/NoShorts/petition.html
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey

[BELIEVER]

Gary--

Agree 100% with ya! The naked shorting has gotten completely
out of hand. BTW I signed your petition. Anything I can help
with let me know.

Mike

[Georgia Bard]

I am doing all I can but the people have to voice their concerns. Not only the OTCBB but off-shore shorting is just like the naked shorting of market makers.

WE have to voice our concerns.

"NO OWN - NO SELL" Petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/NoShorts/petition.html
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey

[BELIEVER]

Gary-

Good composition.I have sent a letter to the SEC saying
very similar things. I think short-selling on any exchange
or quotation service no longer serves any purpose in the
capital markets of America. It is a license to steal- and
stealing they are doing and have been doing. I firmly believe
though I can not prove it that there are numerous OTCBB stocks
that are right now naked-shorted beyong the company's authorized share limit. We all need to put pressure on the
SEC to stop this legalized thievery.

Best to you,

Mike

[Georgia Bard]

Stop Using Other People’s Property As Collateral for Selling Short
by Gary Swancey and David Weed


First I would like to say, I applaud anyone who stands up for this Nation and its people. Not many men have the courage to speak out about the true evil and wrong that directly affects the people of this country. Calling for the SEC to temporarily halt short selling gets my vote. However, I would like to voice a few concerns even though a temporary halt of short selling will make the market a market of the people, by the people and for the people for at least a little while.

This composition concerns and focuses on Short Selling, the art of borrowing (legally stealing) people's hard-earned property for profit and gain to pre-sell the rightful owners property, thus manipulate a downward market and decline the value of the rightful owner's property.

The basis for this composition is simple; I bought a security and delivered the certificate to a broker. The broker instantly loaned out my property that I bought and paid for with my own money, to a larger brokerage house. Something went wrong and when I called for my certificate I discovered that my broker could not deliver back to me a certificate for the property. After almost a year of trying to get my certificate, I received a "certificate of deposit" because there were no certificates available to be issued by the transfer agent. That meant the short position at the larger brokerage house needed my certificate of ownership as collateral to protect the short position. Thus my property (shares) could only be transferred within the brokerages of my brokerage firm's clearing house.

The bottom line is my brokerage firm's clearing house printed me a nice "certificate of deposit" but it does not bear the corporate seal or any identification from the company except that it shows I do own the property. I just can't get title of ownership. That belongs to the short position, which has my title of ownership for my property as collateral for a loan made by my broker thus selling my property. I can't vote the stock because the certificate of ownership is elsewhere as collateral. I can't get the money that the loaner and borrower made on selling my property nor any interest nor any thing but a deposit acknowledgment of that I do own the property. What it boils down to is a Short Seller has taken control of my property and thus my investment. Without any compensation to the property owner, this short seller has the certificate and the broker can not force the short seller to cover and release the certificate to its rightful owner. Mainly, this is the case because the certificates are locked-up covering short positions.

The Commodities market does not use other people’s property as the collateral. I can not believe that short selling using some one else’s property as collateral is allowed in America. Many reasons or rather excuses are given for allowing short selling. As you will see, none of them make much sense and most are against the law under any other circumstance.

Excuse #1 - Short-selling merely makes the market liquid.

That is true but at what cost. Only because short shares are added to the available outstanding shares, thus massive dilution by the market not the company. Normally the company stock structure is set in the by-laws of the company. The outstanding share count increases with each short selling position that is performed. In some cases, the stock is shorted 100%, doubling the amount of stock available in the market. In other words, the company does not have any control over the amount stock out in the market, the short selling traders/investors do. It makes no difference what the legal corporate document's state. Shorting can easily double whatever figure was given in the Articles of Incorporation. Liquid? Yes. Good for long investors? I don't think so.

Excuse #2 - Short selling balances the inflationary effect of securities margin trading, thus contributing to price stability.

Even if short selling were performed only on marginal securities this statement would still lack merit. But when you consider that on the Margin Buy side, the individual or firm has to put up their own money and or collateral that they rightfully own in order to purchase shares. Whereas on the short sell side, they do not have to put anything that they own, they borrow (steal) from someone else for the upcoming short selling collateral basis to create false premise of a decline market.

Simply, short sellers go out and borrow (steal) from another person's long position to use as collateral to sell the stock value down. Thus making a false market taking out the concept of supply and demand. This false selling drives the market down, which is the exactly opposite of why the long-term investor (the real owner of the collateral) bought the security. The long investor has been robbed in accordance to the "theft by taking" laws. Plus the long investor has no rights or options or choices and gains NOTHING from this strategy (plain and simple thievery).

Example: You go into a casino and buy chips (shares) and take a place at the crap table (market). I walk up and buy chips and place my bets on the pass (call) and then to hedge I place a bet (a buy in the market) on say the 8 (second highest combination of numbers with 7 being the highest combination). I decide to hedge my bet further so I ask the casino guy if I can take some of your money as collateral because I do not want to use my money. He replies, "I do not care." So I very sneakily reach over into your chips without you knowing and take a few or all thus placing them on the "No Pass" (put). I begin making money on my legitimate bets. Finally, a "seven" rolls before the roller makes his mark. I loose all my money in my legitimate bets BUT I have winnings from what I won on my legitimate bets Plus the "No Pass." I collect my winnings from the "No Pass" and then sneakily return your chips to you and pocket the profit. No Harm done!

Immediately, I would be charged with "theft by taking" and I would be instantly arrested and hauled off to jail. My winnings would go back to the house or to you (if you knew about it) because it was your money that I used as collateral to make the gain. I would not have made a gain if I had not borrowed (stolen) your chips as collateral to make the hedge bet for profit and protection of my money.

Now say that the casino guy went over to your position at the table. Sneakily, he took your chips and loaned them to me. Then that is a fraud and a conspiracy to rob you by a couple of con men. The casino guy (broker) and myself (short) would be hauled off to jail. But you would get the winnings just the same. And if the hedge that your chips (stock) were used as collateral happen to have been lost, you could get back your property because one of the con men worked for the casino (market) that committed the crime.

Excuse #3 - No Harm, No Foul. Also known as "the Rightful Owner was not harmed" in any way.

This is very similar to a car thief arguing that since he stole the car and returned it while the owner was away on vacation...he only borrowed it and it wasn't stealing!

As any good prosecutor would have quickly reminded the car thief, even if he didn't damage the car during the "borrowing," the car had more mileage on it that the owner didn't put there. And the resulting "wear and tear" constitutes sufficient "damages".

In the case of our "borrowed" stock, the damages are even more glaring. Especially when our long investor bought his property at $20. Due to massive short selling the stock dropped to $6. There our intrepid short seller covers and "returns" the long investor's property minus $14 in value. Clearly the long investor has $14 per share in damages. The car thief gets 3-5 in state housing and the professional SHORT gets a new Mercedes while the rightful long term owner is out his investment dollars that he had no control over whatsoever?

Excuse #4 - Shorts provide a floor and they support the stock at the lows when they cover.

The whole concept is nonsense and has no merit. Once the Short Sellers have successfully destroyed the value and have capitulation, then they cover. Thus after taking someone else's property to destroy the property's value thus robbing the rightful owner they see it as a good thing because they support the market at the low. One the floor is where the short selling decides to no longer drive the price down. Second after capitulation they are now the good guys. That's like saying that the doctor that sneaks up behind you steals your wallet, beats the starch out of you is really your friend because he is tending to your wounds. (Doctor comparison is Marty Lewis’)

Surrender of right to control over the property owned by the rightful owners.

Obviously, the professionals on Wall Street don't want to go to jail so they invented the following:

When you deposit your property with a brokerage, you have to sign a surrender of right to ownership agreement and thus the broker has the right to loan out your holdings as per his own "Best Interest" not the client.

If a casino made you sign an agreement that your chips could be loaned to someone else before you could gamble then that would make it legal? Even if it did would you ever play there? Yes because if you want to gamble you have to sign. The real point to this is that you have no options, choices or rights on property you own! If you wish to gamble (invest) you have to sign this agreement that basically gives the broker the right to loan (steal) your property to sell and profit from it. Now where does the agreement say you will be informed what is being done with your property or that you will receive anything for the loaning of your property or that the broker will perform their representations in your best interest. Would this agreement be considered a one-sided contract?

Best Interest

The brokers that an investor goes to and places their holdings with, not to mention represents the investor's trades in the market, are supposed to be working in the investor's best interest. Every professional that a fee is paid to in hard-earned money is supposed to do what is in the best interest for the client. However by forcing a client to sign away their rights, the investor is basically paying this professional to rob the client blind and profit from it in all aspects. It is beyond my ability to understand how the following is in the best interest of the rightful owner:

A professional loaning out his clients long position property as collateral to someone else whom has not paid the owner for the property for the purpose of manipulating the short-term, and mostly likely the long-term, value of the property down, which basically hurts the client's investment value.

Is this strategy in the long investor's best interest when the sole point of short selling to manipulate the market down and affect the value of the rightful owner? Especially since the rightful owner of the property gets nothing for his hard-earned money that was paid to own the property.

Rightful Owner Protection

Consider this, under the protection of the FDIC not one depositor has lost a penny since 1934! Since we are forced to deposit into a brokerage house (financial institution) that issues checkbooks and can LOAN out our property to those who would use that property to decline the value without our knowledge, are we protected by the FDIC? Again, especially when the financial institution then loans our property to individuals or firms whose intent is to harm the value of our investment! Does the FDIC cover the loss of my property value when it is loaned because my property was used to harm my investment value? What ever happen to the 5th Amendment in the Bill of Rights that forbids the taking of private property for public use without just compensation?

Full Disclosure and Right to Know.

This applies to both the real owner and the potential buyer of the borrowed (stolen) collateral. The owner of the property has the right to full disclosure. He has a right to know when his property has been loaned. Of course, the person buying the loaned (stolen) property has a right to know also they are not buying the property from the real rightful owner. Since the Broker is basically a "fence", the broker should inform the potential buyer of the property that the seller is offering for sell is not the rightful owner but has borrowed (stolen) the property without the rightful owner's knowledge. Which brings up the point of the legal laws of buying stolen property. At least the buyer would then know the property was stolen and thus could lose all their money because what they are buying will not be rightfully theirs until the real owner decides to sell his ownership.

If someone borrows someone else's property as collateral this is fraud by existing laws of America. No where else does the law allow this to happen. People go to jail for this nonsense or for even trying it.

Short selling is the practice of distorting and creating a false market.

Short selling is an opportunists (criminals) way of manipulating (driving) the market down by the unadulterated weight of long-term holder's positions being sold into the market. For the sole purpose to drive the stock price (property value) on a downward path (false representation) so short sellers can make a turn between the price at which they sold someone's property for and the price which they bought it back to return to the rightful owner, without having to ever physically having to purchase the property or disclose anything to anyone.

Most investors make the assumption the market is one of integrity and that both the buyer and seller own the stock they witness in the trading. If the trading is not the rightful owners trading their position the market is absolutely false. Especially because the trading is represented in such a way to can give the impression there is more issued stock in a company than there really is. That is a total falsehood and thus a fraud or fraudulent market controlled by forces that do not really own anything.

Short sellers relentlessly distort any information so they can to justify the downward pressure they are creating.

There is a point to distorting the market trading and the information on a company, and that is the whole strategy is to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is the point at which short sellers tout themselves for a job well done, while the long term investor loses value through false pretenses. The negative criticism along with the negative movement in the stock price does have a very solid certain logic, capitulation so they can cover because those who sell at this point are really the investors who are the rightful owners of the stock (property) that was put up as collateral to sell the market down and crush property value.

Short Selling Potential Ponzi or Pyramid Scheme

Potential Pyramid Scheme is a fraudulent system of making money, which requires an endless stream of recruits (buyers) for success. Thus a short seller borrows some one's long position and sells it to someone else. That long position of the new buyer is now on the broker’s clearing house books and thus available for another short to borrow that position and sell it to yet another buyer and so forth and so on.

Potential Ponzi Scheme, is a fraudulent system of making money whereas a short seller borrows from one long position and sells it to someone. Then the short seller needs to cover so the short seller merely borrows from another long position to cover the first position the short borrowed against. The Short Seller never really covers or settles and so forth and so on. This is just one account. Imagine several or numerous.

Checks, Balances, & Regulation

Of course, once all this is presented, the short seller quickly change their excuse to the fact that there are no adequate checks and balances. They continue on with this logic that without regulation, short selling can be subject to abuse by market manipulators and detrimental to the market. However, one point the short sellers do not want is reporting because it is strictly voluntary. In other words, short sellers in the market whether regulated or not, listed or not, nobody really knows the extent of short positions in any one stock at any one time, and they do not want it to be known. Total transparency (public paper trail) is not an option for a short seller. But at all costs the short seller does not want to give up the ability to continue borrowing (free-riding or stealing) long-term positions that they can use as collateral to make a profit on. Short sellers do not want to hear anything about having to buy their collateral and then use it to short sell against. That would be absurd because that basically puts the whole concept back to supply and demand and the downward movement could nail them on the long side. This concept to short sellers this is totally unfair and criminal to no longer allows them to leverage against another investor's property.

I guess when the laws were being created that robbing banks, or fraudulently making representations to steal people's money or any of the theft by taking of other's property type tactics could be made acceptable by regulating this thievery. However these tactics are criminal activity by our existing laws in other circumstances.

Not just listed stocks OTCBB Market Maker Manipulation

Market Maker Manipulation is the practices of intentionally short selling a security to suppress the price (Value) of a security driving it downward regardless of increased demand. Should the market maker get caught short, the trading loses it volatility and eventually almost stops trading due to the Market Makers tactics, especially concerning OTCBB such as:

- spreading the gap between the bid and ask (20% or higher)
- locking the bid and ask at the same value
- boxing the bid and ask whereas the same market maker is on both
- not filling or executing orders
- Painting the paint (executing buys and sells to which ever side the Market Maker needs to show weakness)
- Rolling the tape (repeated small trades on the bid tanking the security price value)
- Etc.

However, these tactics are performed to stop buying interest and thus kill the public's confidence. Since Market Makers are suppose to be the only market influence that can short sell unmarginable securities, would not a short seller need a market maker? Short Sellers and the OTCBB Market Makers have no regulations to prevent them from viciously manipulating the trading. It is completely up to the short sellers and the market maker's best interest as to whether the price of a security goes up or go down. However, a declining share price is the preferred because they buy on the "Bid¨ and sell on the "Ask¨ in the OTC negotiated market. Thus the lower the price the market makers make that much more profit from small time investors.

The US market's Listed stocks have been shorted to incredible lows.

However, our off-shore elements (friendly, neutral or terrorist) are using this criminal strategy to crush the very foundation of our financial market. Further, the greedy within this country are right in there with those who would cripple America. This hedging strategy is the very vessel being used by our enemies to destroy the financial strength of America and at the same time finance their agenda's. The time for action is now. How far does out financial backbone get broke? When our market is at ZERO!

Short selling is actually criminal activity and punishable by the existing laws of this great nation

We must eliminate short selling or put into place extreme new restrictions on short sellers. The simplest being to require at least the same amount of collateral value at the time the short seller wishes to short sell some one's property. Disclose to the rightful owner his property is needed for shorting and thus give the owner the right to refuse loaning out his property for someone to sell. If the owner somehow does agree to his property being loaned out then the short seller should have to justly compensate the rightful owner for use of his property as collateral. Short Sellers should have to put up their own proper collateral and not that of someone else as is required when purchasing stocks.

This is America and the existing laws basically state, I have the right to sell what is mine. It states further than I can not sell what is not mine to sell, or use my neighbor's property as collateral. Following the existing laws of America, would requiring notification of the shareholder of his shares being "borrowed" (stolen) and notifying the buyer of the "borrowed" (stolen) nature of the shares he is purchasing would be a logical and just addition. Of course the preference is to put this practice in the category where it belongs...First Degree Felony. And place its practitioners where they belong...PRISON!



Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey

[Georgia Bard]

Market Market Manipulation or Recouping Costs is the question now after reading the wall street journal and Dow write ups. SOme even think some brokers will get around the charge. I doubt that very seriously.

Even CNBC is talking about it and the saviour fee for the Market Makers. http://www.studiedstocks.com/cost_recoup.htm is where I continue study this newest development.



:=) Gary Swancey

[Bird of Prey]

Per Share Fees Vs Payment for Order Flow

By David Weed

Recently a number of Market Makers have announced their intention to move away from payment for order flow to per share fees trading. This article is intended to explore some of the ramifications of that shift.

How will this affect the individual trader?

That depends on what you want to trade. If your investments can generally be found on the NYSE and trade in Dollars or more you most likely won't even notice the difference. But if you love to work the "pennies"… OUCH!
Plain and simple this will add .01 per share to every round trip in a stock… regardless of what that stock is trading for. So now you'll need to double up on a .01 stock before you even cover commission costs!
As the general public starts to figure this out look for trading volume in these low priced issues to dry up. Severely. Only the truly naïve will continue to buy and sell these issues when they can't make any money on them. For example let's say you've got a company with a price of .03 but a rumor of good news round the corner is floating around and you buy in hoping for a quick run. Lucky you, the news is true and the stock jumps to .05. (OK we aren't talking megabucks here but a 66% gain is nothing to sneeze at and is a lot more likely than a 1000% gain!). Under last weeks trading rules you could make that trade for $39.90 round trip on 5000 shares for a nice profit of 31% after accounting for commissions. Now however, you will have to pay an extra $50 for the "per share fee" in addition to the commission you paid before (right, your broker is such a nice guy he'll pass this cost on to you of course). Now your "profit" on this trade is a measly 4%. On a 66% move in the stock price! Only the truly gifted will be making these kinds of trades.

So what will happen to these low priced stocks?

Good question. Many of these issues have huge outstanding share counts and need large trading volumes to get any movement in the stock price. So if this change results in lower trading volumes these stocks will go stagnant. And that is not going to make the current shareholders happy. And we all know what unhappy shareholder's leads to. For those that remember trading in `96 and `97 when per share trading was de riguer, very few traded in the low pennies and even fewer in the sub pennies. There weren't near as many daily newsletters and message board posts screaming XXXX at .02 is a steal! Guaranteed ten bagger! A return to that atmosphere as far as the low priced pennies is virtually assured.
The most likely decision then for the CEO's of these companies is; how do they get back in the limelight. Some will choose to do nothing and will languish for a very long time until they either close their doors or make it really, really big. Others will take a decidedly different approach and will reverse split the stock. A reverse split works exactly backwards from the kind of split we read about most often in the financial papers. Instead of getting more shares of the same stock and the price drops by the stated ratio, we get fewer shares and the price increases by the stated ratio. With their stock back above a dollar they stand a chance of getting the volume and exposure needed. They also won't need as much volume to get price movement since the outstanding share counts will have been lowered significantly. For an Idea of what size RS to expect take $1 and divide it by the current price per share (price of .04 requires a 25 to 1 RS), divide the OS count by that figure to get an idea of the new OS count.
My expectation is that a great many companies whose stock trades at less than 50 cents will be RS'ing late this year (thousands) as they see the money moving to issues priced higher than 50 cents. The ones that aren't merely printing presses will have a chance at holding the post RS figure and may be able to go on as viable operations. Hopefully the public will catch on quickly to the ones that have been using the company as a license to print worthless certificates and exchange them for cash. Because in order for that to work you must have volume in the stock and the only way to do that is not to dilute it or RS frequently to keep the volume up.

So what is the good news?

First, a lot of people who should never have been trading pennies in the first place will stop.
Second, a lot of companies that should never have seen the light of day will finally die.
Third, a lot of financial predators will have a more difficult time fleecing their prey.
Fourth, Rampant shorting will not be such easy money in the low pennies.
Fifth, Some really good companies, currently trading between $2 and $10 will start to get some attention as "investors" that were trading these low penny stocks seek new places to speculate.
Last (and maybe best), Market Makers will no longer be so focused on trying to profit from the spread. Like everyone else they don't want to work any harder than they have to.

What should the individual investor do?

Each should do as his/her heart and talents dictate. I can see great wisdom in closing large positions in low penny stocks. I can see more wisdom in researching and studying the stocks in the $2-$10 range seeking good candidates for the money taken out of the low penny range.

Mr. Weed is currently a researcher and staff member of studiedstocks.com; a website focused on low priced yet profitable companies currently underexposed to investors.


David Weed
aka the Bird of Prey
www.warp-drive.com

[Georgia Bard]

005 Fee released by Dow Jones ...

15:23 08/15 --DJ signaling Industry shift, Knight Unveils Stock-Trade Fees

By Gaston F. Ceron and Lynn Cowan of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--In a move likely to resonate throughout the stock-trading business, Knight Trading Group Inc. (NITE), the biggest stock dealer in the Nasdaq stock Market, has imposed explicit fees on stock transactions.

The new policy was detailed in a July 30 letter sent to select Knight customers by Phil Rapp, a senior vice president at Knight's Knight Securities unit. The letter, a copy of which was obtained by Dow Jones Newswire, said Knight will charge clients a transaction fee of 0.5 cent for each trade execution.

(Note: Verified by phone to some brokers the .005 fee is per share and not for each transaction)

The move aims to shield the Jersey City, N.J., firms bottom line from the switch to trading stocks in one cent increments. The smaller increments, which were recently ushered in along with decimalized stock prices, have cut deeply into the earnings of market-makers: In the second quarter, Knight's net income fell 94%, partly because of the penny increments but also as a result of other factors, such as the weak stock-market conditions.

The decline in profits has led to widespread speculation in the trading community about the need to impose new pricing structures previously, many trading firms profited from the “spread" on stock trades, or the difference between the price bid to buy a stock and the price offered to sell it. Now, the smaller increments are making that much more difficult

"There's no question that there's been a stunning reversal of fortune for people who make markets or specialize in creating liquidity for customers," said ton Gorman, a Charles Schwab Corp. (SCH) vice chairman who runs the San Francisco firm's capital markets business.

Knight's new policy is certain to be closely scrutinized by the firm's competitors, who may decide to follow suit. Jeffrey Meyerson, vice president of trading at X.H. Meyerson & Co. (MHMY), said his firm hasn't yet moved to institute fees, but that he expects it will do so sooner rather than later. Gorman said fees have a "good chance of becoming standard practice" and said that Schwab is studying them, although he cautioned that no final decisions have been made.

A spokesman for Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER) said that the firm is "speaking with many of our institutional buy-side clients as to the possibility of different payment options" on market-making activities.

"Once the biggest players out there begin, we'll be able to step in and figure out what we're going to do," said Meyerson.

Charging fees "would have been unheard of as little as six months ago, when volumes were higher and spreads fatter," said Russell Keene, an analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Inc. who issued a research note' early Wednesday reporting the changes at Knight. He said that the new prices are aimed at "smaller firms that do not supply the high volumes that large online brokers attract."

Knight, meanwhile, simply said through a spokeswoman that "a select group of clients received letters dated July 30 outlining a revised fee and rebate schedule. The changes to the select group of clients are effective Aug, 13. These changes are being made to reflect the value of providing liquidity in a one-cent minimum price variation environment, which has altered the depth of book in the marketplace.

"In the letter, which was not wade available by Knight, Rapp said the fees are 'compensation’ for execution services. Knight shares were recently trading at $11.02, down 70 cents, or 6%. The stock has traded as low as $8.39 and as high as $39.75 over the past 52 weeks.

Thus with the reason for the fees as a cost recoup of costs it is allowed and does not come under the 5% max. commission guideline of the NASD.


:=) Gary Swancey

[Georgia Bard]

Not to mention if NITE was to introduce this type of fee that brokers would have to pay I believe SCHB (Schwab), Herzog Heine Geduld (Merril Lynch) and others would soon follow suit.

Told ya Schwab would be following suit:
http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/010810/n10158764_4.html
"Further restructuring initiatives, including additional work force and technology capacity reductions, are likely to result in additional charges during the second half of 2001,'' Schwab said in a quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Look out for a 12b Fee to hit the commission schedule to recoup costs. if say .005 that would be $50.00 per 10K of shares.



:=) Gary Swancey

[Georgia Bard]

Are we returning to 1997's effective market?

When I first came on line back in 1996-1997, I opened account with PC Finical Network. I was pretty happy with them as I could finally take my investment destiny into my own hands. No longer would I have to watch my newly bought investment decline that was recommended by my financial advisor and vice versa. Seems the market was fraught with professionals that could not pick the right side of the investment if their lives depended on it. Totally incompetent but hey they got that commission buying or selling regardless.

However, the commission schedule for an on line trade with PCF was $24.95 and $0.005 per share. The execution was excellent and almost instantaneous every time. So if I bought 10,000 shares of say a $0.50 security, my cost would be $5,000.00 initial money plus $24.95 for the trade and $50.00 for the volume (10,000 x .005 = $50.00) for a total of $74.95 in commissions or 1.49%. But if you traded 10,000 at say .10 then your commission did not change so your total cost would be $1,074.95 which was 7.49% in commissions. The lower the price the higher the commission %, which was why no one wanted to trade stocks under $0.25. Trading lower priced securities was not advantageous at all considering the commission schedule.

Then along came Farsight that did not charge the per share commission. So I moved my account and the commissions were excellent but the execution was terrible most of the time. I would have to wait for a fill (buy or sell) as I was forced to chase a price to get a fill. Thus I became acquainted with ¡§its an over the counter security¡¨ excuse. But the savings in commissions alone made it somewhat bearable so I remained until Farsight decided they were not making enough money and were going to the per share cost.

By then National Discount Brokers and E-Trade were not charging a per share cost. Moving my account to NDB at first there was good execution for the most part but eventually it got to where some trades took as long as 45 minutes to fill and when they did it was a partial a lot of times and the bid/ask would move. But what became a reality was the minute I pressed the order (buy or sell) the bid or ask, depending on what trade I was trying to execute, would move and sometimes pass me by. I was not alone because it got so bad that the public began screaming.

Then came the MMM (Market Maker Manipulation) screams of unfairness. The more the public screamed the more certain rules and functions were put in place. Of course the public believes the MMs are the truest evil though it is most likely a big money scenario or market influence affecting the market. None the less, NASD and the SEC put into place rules to assist the poor investor from horrible spreads, none fills and so forth.

For example some basic rules to ensure better execution opportunities for investors and some trading functions to increase the efficiency of market participants are:

BEST EXECUTION RULE - Market Makers are required to execute customer retail orders at the best price available in the market, even if the executing dealer is quoting an inferior price.
MANNING RULE - Rules to provide better opportunity for customers¡¦ order execution - when a Market Maker trades for its own account at a price superior to a customer order, the firm must promptly execute the order (- up to the size of its own trade).
ORDER HANDLING RULE - when a firm receives a customer order (in a Hybrid stock) that is priced equal to or better than its own quotes, the MM must display the order in its quote
INTERNAL MATCHING FUNCTION (CROSS TRANSACTION) - Internal Matching allows a Market Maker to proceed the so-called "cross trade" with customers based on the Best Execution rule. ***kkkkbob is going to hate this Cross trading term, so I suggest he go read the NASDAQ press release on May 15, 2001***
NEGOTIATION FUNCTION - Electronic negotiation increases the speed and efficiency of firm-to-firm negotiation for large sized trades.
ROUTING FUNCTION - This function assists Market Makers in gathering order flow from non-Market Makers (broker order entry firms).
AUTO-EXECUTION FUNCTION - This is essentially the same functionality as the current auction book. Market participants can get immediate auto-executions against quotes and orders displayed on the central book (for Hybrid stocks), or against quotes only (Pure- Market Making stocks).

The result of rules and functions such as these was an increase in better execution for the most part and this does not include the market order and limit order scenarios. But has it gone to far helping the investor with decimal pricing, which was adopted in the belief that it would narrow spreads and lead to less costly order execution. As a result, the decision was made for major market centers to reduce their MINIMUM PRICE VARIATION or MPV to a penny ($0.01). In 1997, when the major market centers dropped the MPV from one-eighth of a dollar (12.5 cents) to one-sixteenth of a dollar (6.25 cents), the narrowing of spreads reduced trading costs for many investors, but increased costs for others. This is very important because if the cost was reduced for investors then apparently Market Makers (not the brokers) were the ones with increased cost. So this leads to the NASD Guideline of the maximum 5% commission per trade. This is not a law or rule mind you, only a guideline.

OK fine! What is the point to this composition ...

Market Maker NITE's new release on July 18, 20001, as a follow-up to a horrible SEC filing, states they are losing their royal backsides. In that release are certain statements in response to the information I have provided. Seems Market Makers are (in fact) losing their royal backsides and not covering their costs.

http://www.knight-sec.com/pressroom/index.asp?title=news34

"Knight was fully prepared from a systems and client product position for the impact of decimalization. This regulatory change was fully implemented on April 9th for all NASDAQ securities," stated Kenneth D. Pasternak, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Knight Trading Group. "We knew the operating environment would be challenging under decimalization. However, we could not foresee the full magnitude of a concurrent, but separate, rule -- the implementation of a one-penny minimum price variant (MPV), which allowed for trading in increments as small as one cent."
"To face this challenge, Knight is using the experience gained over the last 14 weeks to fine-tune our trading algorithms. This will ensure that our trading methodologies better reflect the dynamics of a one-penny MPV marketplace,' continued Mr. Pasternak. 'In addition, consolidation in our industry and reduction in the depth of book have resulted in greater demand for Knight as a liquidity provider. THEREFORE, ON JULY 1ST WE REVISED OUR REBATE SCHEDULES (KNOWN AS "PAYMENT FOR ORDER FLOW") TO CLIENTS AND ARE CONSIDERING THE INTRODUCTION OF FEES FOR CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS. These changes reflect better the value that Knight's liquidity provides to the marketplace, and should result in a more acceptable level of profitability to the benefit of the Company and our shareholders."

In other words, it appears NITE has stopped paying for Order Flow. This was received well by the market as NITE¡¦s stock price has improved since this news release. But the key sentence is the "considering the introduction of fees for certain transactions" or do they mean all transactions. Like maybe the $0.005 per share we had back in 1997. But this time it would be different. Much different!

If NITE was to adopt this FEE in order to "recoup costs" this does not affect the 5% maximum commission guideline. Also if NITE changes its commission schedule they do not have to notify the NASD, according to the NASD. All NITE has to do is show they are recouping costs, which most likely they can support just on recouping ticket charges. Now once they do this, if at all, the cost would then come to the brokers that use NITE. This would be a cost that the brokers can either eat or pass on. But remember it would have to be consistent. If NITE goes across the board then so would the cost to the brokers. Of course, they are entitled to recoup their cost too, so the cost would most likely pass on to the investor.

If this were to be done by NITE to recoup costs, the cost of say buying a $0.05 security for say $1,000.00 initial investment would be 20,000 shares at the regular commission of say $19.95 plus $0.005 per share. That would be an addition $100.00 in commissions for the share volume, which would make the cost $1,119.95 or $0.056 and remember when you sell it will cost you another $119.95. Thus for the 20,000 shares the in and out commission would be $239.90 IF you could get the whiole blocked traded at one time whether you make a gain or not. Thus a 23.95% commission would be hard to make a gain and hamper day trading as not being very cost effective on pennies. So you would not make a profit on a $0.05 buy until the stock was over $0.062.

This can be easily supported by looking at the required size lots the market makers have to quote depending on the stock price. Under $0.50 the bid/ask size is 5,000 and since a ticket charge is between $20.00 and $25.00 a .005 fee would be $25.00. Between $0.50 - $1.00 the size is 2,500 and the cost would be $12.50 for a ticket charge and above a dollar it does not matter because the cost has hardly an affect on the commission %. But think of the money the market makers can make from large orders.

Not to mention if NITE was to introduce this type of fee that brokers would have to pay I believe SCHB (Schwab), Herzog Heine Geduld (Merril Lynch) and others would soon follow suit. Market makers could justify this also as merely wanting to be paid for his firm's market-making services on a per share commission basis rather than on spreads, which is how NYSE specialists are compensated. This would go back to 1997 when you made an order and it got filled efficiently and would create a more effective market, because the market maker is then working solely on the clients' behalf, rather than worrying about squeezing out a few "cents" for themselves.

Would the OTC traders scream? Probably especially ones that held say 200,000 shares of a security under $0.05 because not counting the regular commission to sell that 200,000, .005 would be a cool $1,000.00 per share cost.

Just remember you can't ask Market Makers to lose their backsides when they have the right to recoup their costs!

I am not a professional in the market or a financial advisor just someone who was doing due diligence on why NITE¡¦s stock went up after that horrible filing. Hey, I could be wrong.


:=) Gary Swancey

[thepennyking]

Yes Gary, this is a wonderful article. Thanks for your recent efforts. If any of your boys want any blocks from me in the next 12 months the ask is $2.50 per share. Please let them know they should cover their shorts. Just thought I would advise you as a courtesy. Pass it on or not depending upon what you feel they deserve for what they did last week on it. Good luck and keep up all the great articles you write about the penny stock markets.

g!



Penny King Holdings Corporation, a Delaware Investment Holding Company.

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

No it is not Bob and I got calls on this newest CROCK you are trying to convey (Spew).

Fine. You're right and I'm wrong. If it makes you feel better and smarter to believe that, I'll quit trying to relieve you of that illusion. I raised a small technicality and you've blown it all out of proportion. You make a mistake in terminology and get not only defensive about it, but extremely offensive. So, since you're shouting the loudest, you win. No problem.

And I'm not biased against BB stocks. They don't fit my personal risk profile, so I don't play them. Simple as that. Oh, and I'm also not strongly inclined to buy stocks being promoted by people who can't act reasonable and civil and have to resort to vitriol and shouting-down as a means of addressing anything that doesn't fit their view. Even if it's their view of a relatively insignificant technicality.

No one making you look stupid but yourself.

Recite that in front of a mirror a few times. The (hopeful) blinding flash of insight that results is called an epiphany. :)

You're welcome.

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

A quick comprehension lesson, no charge:

I guess you need to just go out and inform all stock reporting sites that the exchange they refer to is NOT NASDAQ

I didn't say the Nasdaq is not the Nasdaq. I said that "Nasdaq" and "OTC" are synonymous. And that OTCBB is another entity entirely.

I was correcting a minor rookie error, but you took it as an opportunity to spout more crap about me. Figures.

We can't all be as smart as you. Fortunately.

[Georgia Bard]

No it is not Bob and I got calls on this newest CROCK you are trying to convey (Spew). You are twisting the information and looking really stupid and that is not me making you look that way. You are a bigot and bias PERIOD of OTC (BB)and most know it by now.

Your character is your own creation. Not mine. I just do NOT like you because of what you have allowed to happen by your bigotry and bias Admin Practices not to mention your witty play on rhetoric. You state OTC is OTC is how you want to defend your bigotry and now you want to clarify it to something totally different. OTC consists of OTC:NASDAQ(NM); OTC:NASDAQ(SC); OTC:BB; OTC:Pink Sheets, But the market professionals consider OTC as BB only and PINKS are not consider OTC.

One broker I talked to could not believe this rhetorical scenario. An OTC is a BB regardless how you want to attempt to change the market and the way stocks are disclosed. There is NYSE, AMEX, NASDAQ, OTC, & Pinksheets (I want even go into GreySheets and Bluesheets) which means two are exchanges, one is a NASD Quotation system and OTC is not a on a quotation system and Pink are not either nor reporting. Quotation is coming for OTC(BB) and Pinks.

Basically when OTC is used it means it is not on an exchange or Quotation System thus OTC means "BB" and every broker on this CROCK you are spewing now are curious how in the world you think you can seperate anything since your big stand is if it has MMs it is an OTC. Fine but now you want to change it even more. You are unvelieveable. Also you are not very good at this game you like to play.

No one making you look stupid but yourself.

:=) Gary Swancey

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

You're reading way too much into it. OTC is not BB. OTC and OTCBB are two separate things. Period.

Not surprising that you use that simple statement as a launchpad to attack my character. It reflects on you far more than it does on me.

And, Joe, I didn't expect it to make any sense to you. It was a clear, concise statements of fact which had but one flaw: It didn't agree with your belief. Therefore I'm either evil or stupid or both. Not a problem.

[Georgia Bard]

Joe, technically Bob is correct. This all started because he is blantantly a BIGOT on OTCS (which means BBs) so he decide to go tit for tat and use the reference that MSFT is an OTC but not a BB. Bottomline is he says he is not a bigot or bias towards OTCs since if the stock has market makers it is an OTC. We all know that OTC refers to BBs and he wants to change the standard rhetoric.

So the proper rhetoric about his bias is he is a bigot and hates BBs. You have to really watch the rhetoric this guy uses. He is just like his cronies.

But they are entertaining sometimes.

:=) Gary Swancey

[Joemoney]

Bob, that made no sense. I've never heard of an OTC. I think your making it all up.

[Georgia Bard]

Oh good grief Bob, I am aware a negotiated market is not an exchange and (NASDAQ)is an Automatic Quotation System, which use MMs is an OTC for the most part vs an auction market with a specialist, which is the NYSE and AMEX. That is the only way I can figure what the devil you are trying to convey. I guess you need to just go out and inform all stock reporting sites that the exchange they refer to is NOT NASDAQ and should be conveyed properly as OTC:NASDAQ(NMS) or OTC:NASDAQ(SC) or OTC:BB. Thus RHAT should be listed as OTC:NASDAQ(SC):RHAT so it is clearly identify with the proper terminology just for you.

Now I figured out the con you tried to convey before when you first used it in this little twist but I was asked to back off you and I did. Your case is misrepresting as the rest of you which is one reason and cannot stand the garbage to con people with and never clarify.

Now do not claim any of the NASDAQ(NMS) are not OTCs or you will be wrongfully be twisting your own BOBOLOGY.

However, the market considers OTCs to be strictly BBs, which do not meet the requirements for (SC) Smallcaps or (NMS) Nation Market System. I guess you could get the market and reproting agenies to change the way they report the exchange but I doubt it.



:=) Gary Swancey

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/FINANCE/NASDAQ.html

You're welcome.