Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Actually, it seems to make more sense if they are leveraging/fractionating the shares issued...although the DTCC/Fed. makes the rules and seems to also be above their own laws...and they are accountable to no one but themselves. So, it's hard to really know what's going on inside the system. That's the way these corrupt and thieving insiders want it. And that's why this must be changed.
I think the DTCC/Fed. Reserve will allow shorting/naked shorting to occur based on the authorized shares. "Unlimited Shares" issuable might be treated differently...but, I still believe the DTCC/Fed treats and uses stock in a fractional reserve method sense...like they do in all of their member banks. Ie. for every $10 held in reserve at the Fed by a member bank...they can lend out $100 or 10x the reserve amount. In my mind and many others minds, this IS FRAUD!!! The entire system and the rotten scum who run them need to be completely undone...destroyed and severely punished IMSO.
Bob
A very serious question to the board
Section 1.04
Registration Rights. The Company is obligated to register the resale of the Conversion Shares under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or provide Holder with an appropriate exemption from registration.
The above paragraph was taken from one of convertable debentures from the last SEC filings.
Now I cannot find any such registration or exemption anywhere (And I've searched through a lot of stuff)
Is it plausible that the 4.4 billion shares that were announced in early June have NEVER been floated?
If this the case then could they have been shortsold on the Authorization alone?
To remind everyone YTD volume 2006 24,375,182,871 (24 billion not including August)
Is this why Pershing LLC are asking $1000 per share, do they know something we do not?
Goldie
UNCN www.uncn.com
FYI. Asked SEC for investigation yet? Well if you feel like I in my opinion UNCN is being abused be three major so called market makers broker dealers ?
You can go to SEC's online form and ask for an nvestigation
http://www.sec.gov/complaint/selectconduct.shtml
I used this one: Manipulation of security price or volume
http://www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm
I reported that I believe it is the following three:
1) UBS Securities LLC "UBSS"
2) Knight Equity Markets, L.P. "NITE"
3) Archipelago Trading Services, Inc. "ARCA"
A fellow investor in Denmark has also reported his suspicions already.
Thanks all longs!
Matt55
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12433156
Seems to be no end to the slime spreading over Wall Street. We are starting to see where all those humongus Christmas bonuses come from.
To 'bartermania' on 'MARKET REFORM MOVEMENT-NSS/FTDS&RELATED ISSUES'
Its a case all for Liberty should study below -
a study of Putins - 666 - totalitarian communism in Russia -
Putin robbed us of Yukos - one of the largest oil companies
in the world - and gave a lot of it away to China -
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=6399
bartemania - do You understand what Bush telling US ? below -
Has not Bush heard anything about how all Western Investors
in Yukos been robbed and plundered by Putin? when he robbed
them of Yukos ??? -
and placing the CEO etc. in prison in Siberia -
Mikehail will never get out of there alive -
it will be another "Raol Wallenberg case" -
for the history to repeat itself -
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12389780
No the 666 has taken the worlds largest Gold Mine from Newmont -
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12421096
666 vs 888 -
http://www.888c.com/
In God We Trust -
(but "NOT IN THE 666 DEVILS!!!")
Nice work NYBob! Thanks!
Report Update
If NITE and UBSS continue like this for the rest of the year and
there is no RS - The 2006 volumes are projected as follows:-
UBSS - 11,239,597,244
NITE - 18,730,017,540
Total - 29,969,614,784
Thats SIX times the issued share capital in one year!!!!
Having Studied a number of Companies listed on the OTC.BB. I have
found some similarities between them, they are as follows:-
1) They are all penny or sub-penny stocks (not surprisingly)
2) NITE (Knight Securities) and UBSS (UBS Securities) are in
position 1 & 2 for the volume of shares traded for both 2005 &
2006 YTD (9 times out of 10). These volumes are remarkably high,
in one case UBSS traded more than three times the issued share
capital of one Company over a twelve month period.
3) All of the Companies studied are being or have been bashed
incessantly on the Raging Bull bulletin boards.
The stock symbols included in my research were:-
HABE
APLL
VICI
CALVF
CFTN
MYNG
SLGLF
AMEP
UNCN
Conclusions
There appear to be two Market Makers (NITE & UBSS) or
individuals within these organizations who are either lending
out or selling shares that quite simply “do not exist”.
They seem to be picking out penny and sub-penny stocks and
gamble on them going out of business (This way they will never
have to cover their short position). Then they employ (or they
could be doing it themselves) a group of people to bad mouth,
slur and generally bash the Company, its management and any
genuine investor who happens to post his/her opinion on the
bulletin board. Now as NITE & UBSS effectively control the
market it would be also very easy for them to lower the share
price by trading shares between each other at “Below Market
Value”.
So in brief, they are trying to kill Companies where they hold a
short or naked short position.
Case Point
AMEP – American Energy Products – Issued Share Capital
456,870,000
Shares Traded by UBSS UBS Securities from 1st Jan 2005 to 31st
Dec 2005 =
1,517,414,006
THIS IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS ADVICE
ALL DATA IS AVAILABLE ON OTC.BB AND MY CONCLUSIONS ARE MY
OPINION ONLY.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12393488
Basher Stats on Raging Bullshit -
Assuming 5 minutes per post Updated 01-Aug-06
Posts Minutes Hours Days
friendlygeo 470 2350 39 5
DERBENSKI 2906 14530 242 30
badjack9999 895 4475 75 9
badjack10000 76 380 6 1
redman84750 800 4000 67 8
csimo 1430 7150 119 15
chaz4320 660 3300 55 7
jjpopeye 107 535 9 1
old104 42 210 4 0
telekinetic3 309 1545 26 3
soupesails 11 55 1 0
Jack9999 148 740 12 2
skyes39 178 890 15 2
Tim Hall 38 190 3 0
Total Bashers Posts 8070 Total Basher Hours 673
Total Basher Days 84
--------------------------------------------------------------
My Post From Another Board
Your posting History(NITE)(UNCN)
No, But I saw your posting History (NITE) (UNCN)
Thats funny you were using that goldmood url 3 years ago.
Do you remember when you were Jack9999
This is interesting
A portion of BadJack's posting history before he became Bad & 10000.
mmmm? - Connect the dots boys
UNICO INC UNCN 148 (last 30)
Knight Trading Group NITE 64 (last 30)
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12410146
Big Brokers Hit By Another Lawsuit
Prime brokers are the targets of another lawsuit filed in recent days by a hedge fund claiming to have been charged excessive fees for stock loan services not provided.
Quark Fund LLC is seeking class action status in the anti-trust lawsuit, which names as defendants Bank of America (nyse: BAC - news - people ), Bear Stearns (nyse: BSC - news - people ), Citigroup (nyse: C - news - people ), Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank (nyse: DB - news - people ), Goldman Sachs (nyse: GS - news - people ), Lehman, Merrill Lynch (nyse: MER - news - people ), Morgan Stanley (nyse: MWD - news - people ), UBS (nyse: UBS - news - people ) and unnamed individuals.
The suit is almost identical to one filed in New York federal court last Thursday by Electronic Trading Group, a brokerage firm, which also says the same 11 Wall Street firms earned "illicit" fees by taking advantage of their prime brokerage clients.
Prime brokers cater to hedge funds, providing basic services like stock lending, margin financing and derivatives transactions. Stock lending alone brings in an estimated $10 billion annually in revenues to the industry, according to Vodia Group, and it is a business that is little understood outside the back offices of the firms that provide the services.
The suits, both filed by law firm Entwistle & Cappucci, raise the issue of naked short selling, which happens when a short seller arranges a stock sale but the shares are not in his possession by the time the transaction is done. This creates a "failure to deliver," basically a broken trade. Stock exchanges keep lists of stocks that regularly fail to deliver, and these are the very same hard-to-locate stocks that are often said to be the victims of naked short-selling.
Hedge funds complain that when their trades fail to deliver because they end up paying a high fee to their prime brokers to locate and deliver shares without actually having those services provided. The lawsuit contends naked short selling wouldn't happen without the consent of the prime brokers, and it says prime brokers collude to maintain this system of phantom trading "to their individual and collective enrichment," shutting out the pension funds and other institutions that lent the shares as well as the traders.
More lawsuits against prime brokers are expected, and many observers who are not connected with the pending litigation say regulators are likely investigate prime brokers' roles in contributing to naked short selling.
"What we are seeing today is the beginning of a seismic change in the securities lending business," says Josh Galper, managing principal of Vodia Group, in a research report.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12412102
allege fraud by the world's largest "prime brokers" in securities lending practices -
San Gabriel Valley Tribune
July 19, 2006
Two class-action lawsuits filed in Manhattan federal court
in April allege fraud by the world's largest "prime brokers"
in securities lending practices.
Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley,
Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Banc of America Securities, Credit
Suisse, Deutsche Bank Securities, UBS Financial and
Bank of New York allegedly charge high fees to lend
securities for short selling, but fail to deliver the securities
sold short by hedge funds.
On June 28, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing in
Washington, D.C., on hedge fund relations with independent
research firms. That hearing's star witness was Gary Aguirre.
Until September 2005, Aguirre was the Securities & Exchange
Commission's senior counsel leading its most important
investigation of illegal trading by a hedge fund.
Aguirre told the Judiciary Committee that SEC's investigation of
Pequot Capital Management (a $7 billion hedge fund) began after
18 reports of suspected insider trading from self regulating
organizations (SROs), such as NASD or NYSE.
After he interviewed dozens of witnesses, Aguirre says,
his SEC superiors allowed him to take the evidence to
the U.S. Attorney for criminal prosecution, and to
subpoena the central target of insider trading cases -
the "tipper."
But Aguirre testified that his attempt to take sworn
testimony of the "tipper" was derailed after he revealed
the primary suspect to be John Mack. At the time, Mack
was being recruited as the CEO of Morgan Stanley.
Aguirre says his SEC superiors told him Mack's political
connections were so powerful he should not be subpoenaed.
When Aguirre persisted in contacting SEC's higher officials,
he was fired. Aguirre's firing occurred within weeks after
he received a two-step pay increase and an award for
excellent performance.
Upon firing Aguirre, the SEC informed Morgan Stanley the
agency had no interest in Mack. Mack was hired as Morgan
Stanley's CEO, and was pictured in a June 28 Wall Street Journal
feature as an icon of the investment world.
Morgan Stanley is a named defendant in the two class-action
suits against prime brokers alleging intentional failure to
deliver shares sold short by its clients.
Aguirre says hedge funds tend to flock, or "swarm," to
profitable trading tactics, including illegal insider
trading and naked short selling.
The SEC warned Aguirre against testifying at the Judiciary
Committee hearing and demanded return of all documents
relating to his work at the agency, threatening civil
suit and criminal prosecution.
Revealing a contest of Senate authority, the Senate Banking
Committee delivered a letter to the Judiciary Committee
asserting exclusive jurisdiction over the SEC.
Charles Schumer, New York's senior senator and a member
of the Banking Committee, appeared at the June 28
Judiciary hearing to deliver the same message.
Judiciary chairman Arlen Specter encouraged witnesses at the
June 28 hearing to bypass the SEC by filing complaints of
illegal trading activities directly with a U.S. Attorney's
Office of the Justice Department. Two witnesses said they
will do so.
Aguirre told Specter that a high-powered attorney for Morgan
Stanley went over his head in seeking SEC clearance of John
Mack. That attorney was Mary Jo White, who served as U.S.
Attorney in the Southern District of New York during the Clinton
administration.
As U.S. Attorney, White was responsible for investigating
Clinton's pardons of felons, including tax evader Marc Rich,
at the end of his second term as president. White closed
those investigations without indictments.
When prime brokers and hedge funds fail to deliver shares
sold short, buyers ordinarily are unaware they receive
only electronic entry of shares for their money paid. Depositary
Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) allows
the funds to be cleared to the seller without actual
delivery of shares.
The suits filed in federal court by Electronic Trading Group
and Quark Fund LLC allege this illegal practice has occurred
widely since at least April 2000.
The SEC has been ineffective in stopping the unlawful
practices, and Aguirre's testimony indicates why that may be the
case. At a public hearing July 12, the SEC voted to consider
minor changes in its Reg SHO,
a regulation adopted in 2004 that has been ineffective in
eliminating or punishing failures-to-deliver shares sold short.
The Senate Banking Committee appears reluctant to remedy risks
to investors arising from millions of "phantom" shares sold
but not delivered. So far, financial press reports of the
June 28 Judiciary Committee hearing have downplayed concerns
that hedge funds are causing investor risks in the markets.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12420134
It's another very fine work on NSS/FTD's by Overstock.com's CEO Patrick Byrne. Good post! I'll put it in the iBox.
Takes 1 hour but every one should listen. A very strong message that has impact on each of us.
To 'bartermania' on 'MARKET REFORM MOVEMENT-NSS/FTDS
&RELATED ISSUES' -
A good presentation of market is explaned -
in below link -
http://www.businessjive.com/nss/darkside.html
Btw. All Investors should listen to it and
see the video above -
bartermania -
your opinion is appreciated -
very much -
also opinions from any Investor -
is welcome -
TIA
Brgds
Bob
Although I strongly favor the Utah law it will be overturned as an enroachment on federal law.
Posted by: PalmBeachAJ In reply to: bartermania who wrote msg# 18535 Date:7/30/2006
7:00:44 PM
Post #of 18551
Hey Barter, what's your take on this?
Industry sues to block Utah securities law
Measure requires brokers to report any illegal naked short selling
By Steven Oberbeck
The Salt Lake Tribune
The Securities Industry Association filed a federal lawsuit Friday to overturn a new Utah law requiring brokers to report any occurrence of an illegal trading practice known as naked short selling.
The association, which represents the nation's stock brokerages, argues the state is placing burdensome record-keeping requirements on brokerages that are different from federal law. And it argues the authority to place such requirements on brokerages rests with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, not the state.
The law was strongly supported by Utah's Overstock.com Inc., a money-losing, Internet-based closeout retailer that has vocally complained that naked short selling has driven down the price of its shares by artificially creating more sellers than buyers.
"This is a sunshine bill that was meant simply to shed light on an abusive market practice," Overstock.com Chief Executive Officer Patrick Byrne said. "The fact that the brokerage industry is freaking out says a lot. Cockroaches are always afraid of the light."
Short selling is a legal practice in which a brokerages allows investors to borrow a company's stock on the hope its price will drop, so they can buy shares back later at a lower price. Once the shares are purchased, they are returned to the brokerage.
Naked short selling, which is illegal, takes place when a brokerage allows a investor to sell stock without first borrowing it. In market parlance the seller is "naked." The outcome of naked short selling is that it creates an artificially high volume of shares that are for sale, and that can drive down a company's share price.
With naked short selling, the transaction is never truly completed because the short seller doesn't really possess the stock that was sold. And that means they cannot deliver the shares to buyers - which in market parlance is called a "failure to deliver," or FTD.
Stock brokers argue that such failures to deliver can occur for a number of reasons and actually represent only a tiny fraction of the trades that take place on any given day in the stock market. And they maintain the problem corrects itself over time.
Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. signed the naked short selling bill into law in May after a special session of the Utah Legislature.
At the time he said it would make Utah a more attractive place for small and midsize companies that could be vulnerable to the predatory trading practice.
"We continue to feel we acted in the best interest of Utah businesses by adopting this law," said Mike Mower, Huntsman's deputy chief of staff. "It helps shine a spotlight on the challenges that companies face with naked short selling."
The lawsuit asks Salt Lake City's U.S. District Court to declare the Utah law invalid. It also is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the law from taking effect on Oct. 1.
---------
My reply:
Yes...Utah is doing the right thing! IMO, the Fed/DTCC runs (because they own it) Wall St., as they run the rest of the national banking system...using fractional reserve banking. $1 is held in reserve for every $10 that are loaned out. This is a fraud. It's the law (their law)...but, it's very wrong. If, one looks at USXP which the CEO and his general counsel both claimed last Dec. that the total naked short position on their stock was 8x their authorized shares (I believe it was the authorized...but, even the O/S at that time was quite high...it still proves my point) then, one should be able to see the connection. IMO, the Fed/DTCC allows a company's shares to be leveraged...another word for manipulated and/or watered down or pumped up to perhaps a 10 to 1 ratio. If, one understands the truth about the Federal Reserve and how they operate and the fact that they claim to own this country via the US's declared bankruptcy in 1933...and their army of lawyers and sycophants...well, it should all make completely disgusting and extraordinarily corrupt sense. They seem to always win...and anyone with an opposing position always seems to lose. They wrote the laws...they stole our gold, they own us, all our assets, and our currency by laws they shoved down our throats. Amazingly, this was done without most folks having any idea of what was really happening...and/or is actually now the case/ie. true.
So, the appeal is just more of the same BS from the world's most corrupt people. IMO, this must change
That's up to you. It's probably a good idea...and it's okay by me if, you post on both.
Well see what happens.
Keep up the good work. Thanks.
Stumbled onto this board today. I'll put my posts relevant to this subject on this page from now on.
Thanks! Maybe this board will start to come back to life. I think it's only been sleeping...for a little while.
lots of stuff here!
Hello...is anyone still following this board? Well, maybe some folks should start posting here again. We'll see what happens. I know...I put all my focus into the original version of this board and all the changes that occurred...are still occurring there. Well, now this board is standing all by itself...with it's NSS/FTD's and shorting issues. Anyone interested?
I'll be watching...and I won't be taking this board down either. 16 boardmarks right now.
Here's a new Bud Burrell mp3 file. Talks about USXP and so on. Sounds very recent. It's very good as always.
http://heavensembrace.org/debibudcfrn.mp3
The Threat of Real Harm, or Why The Bunny Has Remained Anonymous
Location: BlogsBob O'Brien's Sanity Check Blog
Posted by: bobo 2/15/2006 2:11 PM
I was told a story today, of a pretty well established journalist whose credentials are above reproach.
This is a guy who has been in the game for 25 years, and has covered wars, and every type of ugly event that the past few decades have been able to serve up.
This journalist has been doing some digging into the naked short selling issue, in what started off as a highly skeptical treatment, and over time, as developed into a real expose. He is based in New York, and is known and revered by many there – “the real thing,” in a world where there are many pretenders to the throne.
This guy has been asking questions about a network of hedge funds that seem to have an uncanny sway on the market. We’ll just leave it at that. Some are well known, some are relatively obscure, some define the genre, some wield deci-billion dollar clout.
This gentleman went to his local watering hole, as was his habit, to slake his thirst, wash off some of the road dust, grab a bite. It had been a long day, and he was disturbed by the pattern he was seeing develop as he did more research into his latest interest. He had a book under his arm that had one of the hedge fund fellows in it, discussed by the author in some length, which was his evening’s light reading.
When he sat down at his usual spot at the bar, and ordered his drink and his sandwich, three men in Armani suits, slicked back hair, Ferragamo shoes, came in and sat down alongside him, and initiated a conversation. This is unusual in the sense that his neighborhood is not at all upscale, and the bar in question is, shall we say, humble in its appointments. The fellow next to him pointed to the book and said something to the effect of, “I know one of the guys they talk about in that book – what a prick, he’s a real SOB, etc. Has so much money and power, he probably has people killed.” The conversation continued about how this gentleman had worked with, or done some work for, the hedge fund guy in question – that was the story, anyway.
Then the trip down the rabbit hole started. The fellow at the bar told our journalist friend about a story involving the hedge fund guy’s power, ruthlessness, and vicious temper. In this story, the hedge fund guy and his wife had been at an upscale NY department store, and the wife had gone in to try on some dresses in a changing area. Apparently there was a man in one of the adjacent stalls, who peeked over and was caught in some lewd situation, watching the wife undress – presumably caught by the wife, who was horrified.
Anyway, the powerful guy was furious, and had one of his entourage find out who the peeper was (how is unclear), and then, had him killed.
That was the story. It was probably a fiction - the point was to let the journalist know that there are dangerous, powerful guys out there who could "do anything," not to tell an accurate story - their point was clearly let this journalist know that bad things can happen to people that cross the gentleman in question.
There was more banter between the three men about what a crazy town it is, and how dangerous some of the psychos out there were, how one minute you were here, the next you were gone.
At this point the three gentlemen had enjoyed enough of the simple establishment’s charms, and stood up, putting on their overcoats. Our journalist friend asked the fellow who had worked for the hedge fund guy what his name was.
The man replied, “Just call me John - John from Saks on 5th Avenue.”
And the three men left.
I am not making this up.
This journalist is not a gentleman who is given over to an active imagination, nor flights of fancy, nor who scares easily. He isn’t stupid. He has made a career out of being observant, accurate, and correct. The message was very clear, he said, which seemed to him like something out of a movie. He’s covered mob stories, and every kind of corruption and larceny, drug wars, white slavery, you name it, and he said he has never had anything even remotely like the bar incident happen to him before.
He put it in writing, and has it with his attorney, and a few other folks, just in case, along with all the case information he has accumulated.
Just as I have my CV and data and such with several attorneys and trusted friends, just in case.
Because for all the assurances by journalists whose brushes with danger involve hangovers or hangnails, there is a faction of the world that apparently doesn’t play by the king’s rules, and those folks are apparently alive and well and affiliated with some of the truly large money on Wall Street. Go figure. I’ll remind the next flippant reporter or author who glibly says that any sense of danger is all in my head, that if they were me, they would be betting their kids’ lives on it – and I’d ask them how comfortable they would feel making that bet with their kids. Talk is cheap, and the name of the man in the bar is known to every one of these fellows – and he doesn’t tell tall tales, or make things up.
It is an odd world. This is a true story. Some folks are getting very agitated. And they are apparently getting sloppy, or so worried that they are contemplating crossing important lines. And the data is all now in the record, safe, where the outcome would be the same regardless of what action was taken – pretty good insurance, some might think. But one never can be completely sure.
So there is the thought for the day, and an insight into the life of a journalist who is really digging around and stirring up dust. I happen to know there are others, but this is the only story like this I have ever heard.
And Easter is on its way. Just another day in the life of the bunny.
Here is an email he sent when asked to document the outline of the story:
"Friday night, I finish work late and stop in at a nearby dive bar to have a beer, finish a book I've been reading. Three well-dressed guys, Armani-like clothes, lots of hair gel, walk in and sit next to me. "What are you reading?" says one of them. A book about Wall Street, I say. Oh yeah, says Armani, anything about XXXXXXXXXXXXX in there? I say, yeah, he's mentioned. Armani laughs and says he used to work for the guy, and "he's a real prick, thinks he's got so much money he can do anything he wants; hell, he's probably killed people for all I know." Then he tells a bizarre and totally convoluted story about how some guy from Saks 5th Avenue murdered a customer because the customer went into the ladies changing room and tried to watch the guy's wife get undressed and "you know, the guy's pervert, there some things you don't do, some things you keep your nose out of, I would have killed the guy too."
Then they say they have to go. I ask for his name, he says it’s John.
John who?, I ask.
John from Saks, he says, give me a call, Saks on 5th Ave.
And they're out the door."
"Many of the companies purportedly under attack from naked short-sellers are often under either intense regulatory scrutiny or have posted abysmal performance for long periods of time."
Even if that is the case, it does not give anyone the right to manipulate the heck/life/and money out of a stock for profit nor for any other reason.-bartermania-
NAKED SHORTING TARGETED - NY Post re: DTCC subpoenaed
By RODDY BOYD
February 16, 2006 -- Two state securities regulators have issued subpoenas to get at the trading records of Wall Street's largest firms in a quest to stamp out the controversial practice of naked short-selling, sources said.
Naked shorting — the tactic of selling shares short without properly borrowing them first in order to bet on a stock's fall — has been a concern of state securities regulators during the past year.
Utah and Connecticut regulators' first line of attack will be to get Wall Street firms' trading records via the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, which tracks and settles all stock trades. Regulators will be looking for the trading and customer ledgers of Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, which all have large and highly lucrative clearance operations.
Connecticut's subpoena asked for information on four companies "with a strong connection to the state," sources said.
Utah, on the other hand, requested a large amount of market-wide data regarding alleged naked short sales.
A Utah securities spokesman declined comment.
Connecticut's top securities watchdog, Ralph Lambiase, said small companies vulnerable to stock-price manipulation via naked short-selling often lose their ability to get additional financing if their shares fall below $5, he told The Post.
Many of the companies purportedly under attack from naked short-sellers are often under either intense regulatory scrutiny or have posted abysmal performance for long periods of time.
www.nypost.com/business/61958.htm
Now that I think of it, you may want to have one board with the words "Naked Short Selling," somewhere in the subject title. When I renamed my board on SI, I got more boardmarks.
From rrufff's Silicon Investor's board:
From: kknightmcc 2/13/2006 10:32:50 PM
Read Replies (1) of 725
Eagletech's Rodney Young testified before the SEC today. Listen to the Archived Webcast: February 13, 2006 http://www.connectlive.com/events/secopenmeetings/
Link to board: http://www.siliconinvestor.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=55464
ps. -bartermania- I haven't listened yet. More info on this is welcome if, anyone has any. Thanks.
I wonder what happened with Rod Young (the CEO of Eagletech) yesterday? Anyone look into this yet? I haven't looked yet.
Thank you! Excellent post...and very good news. At this time, the choice of which board to post naked shorting info. on is up to the individual. This board has 18 boardmarks...the NO QUARTER...board has 58.
Presently, I see this board as being an overflow board of NO QUARTER..., with the exception being that it is totally focussed on reforming the US stock markets and the NSS issue...whereas, NO QUARTER...is much more focussed on the big picture...which is The Federal Reserve Banking System.
Not sure which board this fits on but thought it was interesting.
Naked Shorting: Majority of Investors Say Penalties Should Be as or More Severe Than for Fraud and Counterfeiting
PR Newswire - February 13, 2006 14:06
Issue Could Have an Impact at the Polls According to New Study by Harris Interactive
http://www.amtdrt.inlumen.com/bin/story?StoryId=Cq_asubWbmdq0CdC2nJu
ROCHESTER, N.Y., Feb 13, 2006 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Three out of four U.S. investors(1) (76%) say someone who naked shorts a stock should face civil (8%) or criminal penalties (9%) or both (59%). By the same margin (76%), investors believe such penalties should be about as (65%) or more (11%) severe than those for fraud and counterfeiting, according to a recent survey commissioned by Working Americans for an Open Economy, conducted online by Harris Interactive(R) among 1,243 investors nationwide.
Investors' support for cracking down on naked shorting could play a role in upcoming congressional elections with 38% of investors saying they would be more inclined to vote for a congressional candidate who addresses the issue of naked shorting. Among investors aged 55 or older, fully one-half (50%) say they would be more inclined to vote for such a candidate.
"This study leaves little doubt as to how seriously investors view the illegal practice of naked shorting," said Mark Wirthlin, senior vice president of the Harris-Wirthlin Brand and Strategy Consulting Practice at Harris Interactive. "If this issue moves front and center, it clearly has the potential to influence both legislation and congressional elections."
The study was designed to understand investor attitudes toward the practice of naked shorting. "Naked shorting has become the game on Wall Street in the past 10 years and its pervasiveness creates serious risks to our system," said Steve Wark, spokesperson for Working Americans for an Open Economy. "These results show that the public is ready for the government to take real and meaningful action against hedge funds, brokerages and individuals breaking the law."
When it comes to specific actions that could be taken against those found guilty of naked shorting, vast majorities of investors are behind every alternative tested:
* Requiring the federal government to publish the identity of brokerages
and individuals found guilty of naked shorting (79%)
* Allowing individuals, investors, pension funds, and small companies
financially damaged by naked shorting to sue to recover their financial
losses (75%)
* Revoking the securities licenses of those found guilty of committing
naked shorting (75%)
Findings for the study were compiled from an online study of 2,486 U.S. adults conducted December 6-8, 2005. These questions were then asked of the 1,243 who currently own stocks, mutual funds or 401(k) funds. The sampling error for the investor results is +/- 4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
QUESTION WORDING AND TOPLINE FINDINGS:
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
QA Thinking about something new ... Which of the following do you own?
48% OWN STOCKS, FUNDS OR MUTUAL FUNDS
29% Stocks
27% Mutual funds
29% 401(k)
43% None of these
9% Decline to answer
BASE: OWN STOCKS, MUTUAL FUNDS OR 401(K)
QB Please read the information below, then answer the questions that follow.
In stock trading, there is a stock purchase called "shorting" or "short selling" and one called "naked shorting."
When someone shorts a stock, he/she borrows shares of that stock from his/her broker, typically for a fee, and sells those borrowed shares on the open market. When the stock goes down, he/she buys shares in the market and returns them to his/her broker who lent them to him/her. Short selling is legal and the borrower pockets the money he/she makes from borrowing low and selling high.
Let's say you noticed the price of moose antlers was soaring -- which in turn would hurt the earnings of Deer Antlers Incorporated. You decide to go short on Deer Antlers Incorporated, so you borrow 100 shares of Deer Antlers Incorporated from your broker and sell them at $30 per share. Two months later, Deer Antlers Incorporated falls to $25 a share. You buy the shares back and pocket the $5 difference per share for a $500 profit. If you do this you are a "short-seller" or "selling-short" Deer Antlers Incorporated.
In naked shorting a short-seller makes a stock trade without ever owning or borrowing the shares he/she sells. Some professional investors and hedge funds take advantage of loopholes in the rules to sell shares without making any attempt to borrow the stock. When a stock is naked shorted, there is no limit on the downward pressure a short-seller can apply to that stock and some companies can be put out of business by this practice. Naked short sellers sell and profit from something they don't own or haven't borrowed. Naked shorting is illegal.
In your opinion, should someone who naked shorts a stock face civil and criminal penalties?
8% Yes, face civil penalties
9% Yes, face criminal penalties
59% Yes, face both civil and criminal penalties
5% No, face no penalties
18% Not sure
BASE: OWN STOCKS, MUTUAL FUNDS OR 401(K)
QC In your opinion, should penalties for someone guilty of naked short selling be more severe, less severe or about the same as penalties from crimes such as fraud and counterfeiting money?
11% More severe
10% Less severe
65% About the same
14% Not sure
BASE: OWN STOCKS, MUTUAL FUNDS OR 401(K)
QD Would you be more inclined / less inclined to vote for a congressional candidate who will address the issue of naked shorting?
38% More inclined to vote
4% Less inclined to vote
36% Makes no difference
21% Not sure
BASE: OWN STOCKS, MUTUAL FUNDS OR 401(K)
QE Do you believe that individuals, investors, pension funds, and small companies financially damaged by naked shorting should be able to sue the guilty parties to recover their financial losses?
75% Should be able to sue
5% Should not be able to sue
21% Not sure
BASE: OWN STOCKS, MUTUAL FUNDS OR 401(K)
QF Do you believe that the federal government should be required to publicly publish the identity of brokerages and individuals found guilty of naked shorting?
79% Should be required to publicly publish
4% Should not be required to publicly publish
17% Not sure
BASE: OWN STOCKS, MUTUAL FUNDS OR 401(K)
QG In your opinion, should individuals and firms licensed by U.S. federal and state governments to buy and sell securities lose their licenses when found guilty of committing naked shorting?
75% Should lose their licenses
6% Should not lose their licenses
19% Not sure
Note: For questions QD and QE, percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Methodology
Harris Interactive(R) conducted the online survey on behalf of Working Americans for an Open Economy between December 6-8, 2005 among 2,486 U.S. adults aged 18 and over, of whom 1,243 currently own stocks, mutual funds or 401(k) funds. Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, education and region were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents' propensity to be online.
In theory, with probability samples of this size, one could say with 95 percent certainty that the overall results have a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points of what they would be if the entire U.S. adult population had been polled with complete accuracy. Sampling error for the sub-samples of investors (1,243) and investors aged 55 and over (497) is higher and varies. This online sample is not a probability sample.
About Working Americans for an Open Economy
Working Americans for an Open Economy is a non profit public interest group that advocates for greater transparency and financial accountability in America's investment, securities, and financial institutions.
About Harris Interactive(R)
Harris Interactive Inc. (www.harrisinteractive.com), based in Rochester, New York, is the 13th largest and the fastest-growing market research firm in the world, most widely known for The Harris Poll(R) and for its pioneering leadership in the online market research industry. Long recognized by its clients for delivering insights that enable confident business decisions, the Company blends the science of innovative research with the art of strategic consulting to deliver knowledge that leads to measurable and enduring value. Harris Interactive serves clients worldwide through its United States, Europe (www.harrisinteractive.com/europe) and Asia offices, its wholly-owned subsidiary Novatris in Paris, France (www.novatris.com), and through an independent global network of affiliate market research companies. EOE M/F/D/V
1. "U.S. investors" refers to U.S. adults aged 18 and over who currently
own stocks, mutual funds or 401(k) funds.
CONTACT: STEVE WARK 702-498-2820
SOURCE Harris Interactive
Steve Wark for Harris Interactive, +1-702-498-2820
http://www.prnewswire.com
Copyright (C) 2006 PR Newswire. All rights reserved.
Posted by: Alex Chory
In reply to: bartermania who wrote msg# 1708 Date:2/7/2006 7:45:54 PM
Post #of 1752
got my february issue of CFO magazine today in the
regular mail, found this article worth the read...fwiw
===================================================================
Meet Your New Bankers
Hedge funds have a pile of cash to lend. Should you take it?
Don Durfee, CFO Magazine
February 01, 2006
Trident Exploration Corp. needed money last year, and lots of it. Based in Calgary, Canada, the privately held company extracts natural gas from coal, but its business is too early-stage for most commercial bankers. So Trident turned to a new breed of lender, a group that includes several hedge funds, for a second-lien loan, an expensive but flexible form of subordinated debt.
"These deals have allowed us to tap a much larger amount of capital from the debt markets than we would have been able to otherwise," says Trident CFO Randy Neely. Trident says it will use the $450 million it borrowed for two huge development projects in western Canada.
As commercial bankers tighten the purse strings, more and more companies are turning to a vast and volatile source of financing: hedge funds. Over the past five years, in fact, hedge funds have become a key player in capital markets, specializing in high-risk loans to the financially distressed. Consider one measure of their power: hedge funds dominated the $15 billion market for second-lien loans in 2005. Standard & Poor's LCD estimates that market has grown more than 10-fold since 2002. Hedge funds also are broadening their portfolios with first-lien loans and revolving lines of credit. Some are even lending to start-ups whose founders don't want to dilute their ownership by seeking money from venture capitalists.
With $1 trillion in assets, hedge funds see high-risk lending as a profitable new line of business. Frustrated by low returns in equity markets and eager for new places to invest their cash, they first began dabbling in distressed debt in the late 1990s and early 2000s. New York hedge-fund giant Cerberus Capital Partners was one of the first to get into banking when it opened a lending unit in 1998. Now, dozens of hedge funds are plying the trade. Among the largest are Silver Point Capital LP, Fortress Investment Group LLC, and Golden Tree Asset Management LP, based in Greenwich, Connecticut, New York, and New York, respectively.
Lightning Speed
Hedge funds have one clear advantage over commercial banks: they process and approve loans with lightning speed. That was an important factor for DMX Music Inc., of Austin, Texas, which recently borrowed $62.5 million from Silver Point. "We had a window of opportunity to buy a key asset," says Paul Stone, CFO of DMX, which provides digital music programming to businesses. "We needed fast and certain execution for the financing." Silver Point agreed to the loan in only two weeks.
Hedge funds may charge borrowers interest rates of 14 percent or more, double the rate banks charge their better corporate customers. But most borrowers don't balk. That's because the lightly regulated hedge funds are more willing to take chances on risky ventures and structure deals creatively. In Texas, for instance, hedge funds are providing millions in loans to the oil and gas industry; the deals typically come with an equity kicker that could pay off big if the company goes public or gets bought. Banks get nervous when borrowers have debt levels that exceed three times cash flow; hedge funds are used to high-risk action. "Banks have grown more risk-averse," says Charles Gradante, managing director of The Hennessee Group in New York, which advises clients on their investments in hedge funds. "Now we're seeing the hedge funds replacing banks" in the high-risk loan market.
For companies shunned by commercial bankers, this is welcome news. Indeed, among the most prominent borrowers have been Krispy Kreme, Calpine, and Goodyear. But borrowers have reason to be wary, too. Unlike banks, which presumably have a vested interest in their clients' financial health, hedge funds may have other motives, such as profiting from a forced restructuring if the borrower falls behind on its loan. In recent months, several funds have been accused of conflicts of interest because they were privy to confidential information about their borrowers yet continued to trade their securities.
Loan-to-Own?
Such trading may be benign — hedging a loan with credit default swaps, for example. But other times, the trading may be more worrisome to a CFO, as in cases in which the hedge fund is shorting its borrower's stock or engaging in convertible-bond arbitrage, a strategy that can push stock prices lower. "I never see a hedge fund simply go into a deal as lender without something else going on behind the scenes," says Steven Adelkoff, a complex finance partner in the New York and Pittsburgh offices of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP, which represents hedge funds and other investment managers. The reason, he says, is that the margins from lending are too slim for hedge funds; thus the funds have great incentives to seek better returns by trading in the company's debt or equity.
In November, the Securities and Exchange Commission said it was investigating possible insider trading by hedge funds in instances in which representatives had secured seats on creditors' committees during bankruptcies. In 2004, the SEC accused Blue River Capital LLC of using confidential information to trade in shares of WorldCom, Adelphia, and Globalstar. The SEC said the hedge fund obtained the information while sitting on the bankrupt companies' creditors' committees. Regulators fined Blue River $150,000 and barred it from trading for six months. The hedge fund, which had been operating out of a basement in Manhattan, is now defunct.
Hedge funds' dual role as lender and trader is also becoming a point of contention among lenders. Last year, Silver Point was accused — and later cleared — of trading on confidential information it had obtained as a member of the creditors' committee of FiberMark, a specialty-materials manufacturer in Brattleboro, Vermont, which had filed for Chapter 11. According to a court-appointed examiner, two other creditors, AIG Global Investment and Post Advisory Group, had made the accusation to gain the upper hand in a scuffle over who would control FiberMark after bankruptcy.
Meet Your New Bankers
(continued)
Loan-to-Own?
Such trading may be benign — hedging a loan with credit default swaps, for example. But other times, the trading may be more worrisome to a CFO, as in cases in which the hedge fund is shorting its borrower's stock or engaging in convertible-bond arbitrage, a strategy that can push stock prices lower. "I never see a hedge fund simply go into a deal as lender without something else going on behind the scenes," says Steven Adelkoff, a complex finance partner in the New York and Pittsburgh offices of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP, which represents hedge funds and other investment managers. The reason, he says, is that the margins from lending are too slim for hedge funds; thus the funds have great incentives to seek better returns by trading in the company's debt or equity.
In November, the Securities and Exchange Commission said it was investigating possible insider trading by hedge funds in instances in which representatives had secured seats on creditors' committees during bankruptcies. In 2004, the SEC accused Blue River Capital LLC of using confidential information to trade in shares of WorldCom, Adelphia, and Globalstar. The SEC said the hedge fund obtained the information while sitting on the bankrupt companies' creditors' committees. Regulators fined Blue River $150,000 and barred it from trading for six months. The hedge fund, which had been operating out of a basement in Manhattan, is now defunct.
Hedge funds' dual role as lender and trader is also becoming a point of contention among lenders. Last year, Silver Point was accused — and later cleared — of trading on confidential information it had obtained as a member of the creditors' committee of FiberMark, a specialty-materials manufacturer in Brattleboro, Vermont, which had filed for Chapter 11. According to a court-appointed examiner, two other creditors, AIG Global Investment and Post Advisory Group, had made the accusation to gain the upper hand in a scuffle over who would control FiberMark after bankruptcy.
There is another risk for companies: that a hedge fund could use a loan as a back door to an eventual takeover, a tactic known as "loan-to-own." During a bankruptcy, a creditor holding a lien can typically negotiate to swap debt for a stake in the company. If the company retires its existing equity — typically worthless by the time of bankruptcy — the creditors become the new owners. "They can basically kick out the shareholders and take over the company," says Bill Lenhart, national director of financial recovery services for BDO Seidman LLP, an accounting and consulting firm based in Chicago.
No Loan Sharks Here
Hedge funds may be more ruthless taskmasters than banks when borrowers run into financial difficulties. That's the case with Calpine, one of the nation's largest power producers, which declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy in late 2005. Earlier that year, Harbert Distressed Investment Master Fund, a New York–based hedge fund, sued Calpine twice for violating its debt covenants.
Some hedge funds are taking steps to reassure potential borrowers that they are not, in fact, loan sharks. Silver Point promises its clients that it does not engage in "loan-to-own" deals, and its policy is not to use loans to benefit a position in a public security. Even so, "you need to have your eyes open" when borrowing from hedge funds, cautions Chuck Bralver, executive director of Mercer Oliver Wyman, a financial consultancy in New York. He suggests CFOs investigate whether a fund has a position in the company's stock before borrowing. He also advises borrowers to investigate funds' lending histories and ask for references from other CFOs.
Tough negotiating may help protect a borrower's interests. Rob Rosenblum, of the Washington, D.C., office of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, says in some cases a borrower can convince a hedge fund not to short its stock during the life of the loan. But many of these borrowers are in no position to be choosy. "Most of the companies turning to hedge funds are starved for cash," says Lenhart. "The problem is, most borrowers don't realize that when things go wrong, it's not going to be like dealing with traditional lenders."
Still, hedge-fund money may fit neatly into a company's capital structure at a crucial moment, providing a bridge to the next stage of development. This is how CFO Neely views Trident's $450 million in second-tier loans from a syndicate of hedge funds and other investment groups. "This allows us to have a floating structure," he says. "Although there are penalties to pay off the debt early, we can do that as things improve."
Don Durfee is research editor of CFO.
Reining In Hedge Funds
The SEC imposes new rules on the booming hedge-fund industry.
Ever since hedge funds first appeared in the 1950s, the business has been the untamed frontier of the financial industry. But as with most frontiers, it was only a matter of time before the federal marshals rode in to impose some order.
February 1 marks the official start of the crackdown. That's when the Securities and Exchange Commission will require hedge funds to register as investment advisers. Under the SEC's new rules, funds will have to establish policies and procedures, hire chief compliance officers, and open their books for inspection by the agency, if asked.
It's not hard to understand why regulators want to pry open this secretive business. With an estimated $1 trillion in assets, hedge funds are a powerful, if lightly regulated, force in financial markets. Recently, they've been jumping into new lines of business such as commercial loans and credit derivatives. A series of scandals last year seemed to confirm the worry that light oversight breeds mischief. "The SEC was embarrassed by the mutual-fund market timing scandal, and can't afford a blowup on this side of the industry," says Michael Caccese, a securities lawyer with Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP in Boston.
Will regulation have an impact on the freewheeling funds? That's debatable. The rules leave at least one yawning loophole: any fund with a two-year lockup period can avoid registering. (A lockup bars investors from withdrawing their money from the fund for two years.) Several of the most prominent firms have said they will take advantage of the loophole, among them Cerberus Capital Management in New York, Citadel Investment Group in Chicago, and SAC Capital in Stamford, Connecticut.
Indeed, critics say the main effect of the rules will be to increase costs for the industry. Those costs are likely to fall mainly on new funds that haven't established a successful track record and thus can't afford to impose a lockup period on investors.
But Janaya Moscony, president of SEC Compliance Consultants in Philadelphia, argues that the new requirements will force hedge-fund managers to get serious about internal controls. "There are clearly advisers out there who just don't know the rules," she says. A former SEC staff accountant, Moscony believes the agency will intensify oversight if it finds that many funds are avoiding registration. — D.D.
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/5435444/1/c_5461573?f=magazine_alsoinside
Fortunes certainly are created/achieved/swiped, when one has the insider advantages of Wall St.
You know, that's probably the biggest thing to throw in the face of those who defend hedgies and want us to leave them alone. Look at the money these manipulators are making.
Posted by: Alex Chory
In reply to: bartermania who wrote msg# 1708 Date:2/5/2006 8:26:22 PM
Post #of 1724
bart. I suppose we'll be seeing a lot of hedge fund news
and I can see the SEC will have their hands full now...]
just fwiw
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pleasantville hedge fund manager challenges new rules
By JAY LOOMIS AND ALLAN DRURY
adrury@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The rules
New U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules that went into effect last week require most hedge fund and fund-of-funds managers not already registered as investment advisers to register. A fund manager with 15 or more investors and $30 million or more in assets must register. Those with $25 million to $30 million in assets are eligible, but not required, to register.
Registered investment advisers must keep extensive records, open those records to inspection by the SEC and have a chief compliance officer.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Phillip Goldstein likes to think of himself as a bulldog willing to wage a fight.
For 13 years, those battles have generally been against corporate America through his $90 million hedge fund company with four employees — named, appropriately enough, Bulldog Investors — that buys stakes in underperforming companies and presses management for changes.
But lately, this bulldog from Pleasantville has generated his share of headlines for a courtroom fight against another powerful foe — Uncle Sam.
Goldstein, 61, has pursued a federal lawsuit in Washington for more than a year challenging the Securities and Exchange Commission over new regulations governing the hedge fund industry. Those new rules, which went into effect Wednesday, require that advisers to hedge funds with assets of more than $30 million register with the SEC, beef up record-keeping and open themselves up to potential SEC inspections.
Being under the close watch of government regulators is an unfamiliar feeling for hedge fund companies that previously operated in virtual secrecy, shunning publicity and offering little information to regulators and investors.
The new rules go into effect at a time when the hedge fund industry, like other pillars of the U.S. financial system, has lost some of the public's trust due to scandals. The behavior of some funds and their managers embarrassed the industry and brought calls for more government scrutiny.
"I am not suggesting that we will catch all hedge fund fraud," SEC Commissioner Roel C. Campos said recently at an industry conference, according to a transcript on the Web site. "I believe, however, that regulation will act as a deterrent to those who currently see no barriers to fraud. It also will sift out the dregs from the industry. ... Investors need a cop on the beat when it comes to hedge funds, and the SEC is here to be that watchdog."
But Goldstein, the Pleasantville hedge fund manager, said the SEC rules will do little to deter those wrongdoers intent on breaking the law, while significantly increasing costs, red tape and intrusive inspections for legitimate hedge funds.
"It is tremendous amount of money that will be spent on lawyers," Goldstein said. "Investors will pay for that indirectly, just like other costs."
In the hedge fund universe, Goldstein is a small player compared to the industry giants with luxurious homes, swimming pools and fancy cars in tony Greenwich, Conn., widely known as the hedge fund capital of the world. His background — he previously worked 25 years as a civil engineer for New York City — is also atypical of Wall Street.
But he has not been shy about taking on the SEC through a lawsuit.
"Why should we be afraid?" he said. "We have done nothing wrong. ... I felt that the SEC did not have the legal authority. They were making a law that only Congress could make. It was basically principle."
Although the court has not ruled on Goldstein's suit, he is optimistic that the decision will go his way.
"Maybe this will be my 15 minutes of fame," he said. "When people graduate from high school, someone makes a speech telling the students to go out and make a difference in the world. Most people don't. But making a difference is what we are trying to do."
In 15 years the number of hedge funds rose from 600 to more than 8,000 as assets soared from $38 billion to more than $1 trillion. Hedge funds account for 10 percent to 20 percent of trading volume in U.S. markets, according to the SEC.
The growth has triggered growing concerns about disclosure and investment practices in a notoriously secretive industry.
A blowup at a hedge fund can have bigger consequences than 15 years ago because the pool of investors has expanded beyond wealthy millionaires to those with as little as $25,000 in "fund of funds," vehicles that invest in multiple hedge funds.
Pension funds, foundations and universities have become big investors in hedge funds, whose strategies range from shorting stocks (a bet that they will go down) to playing the futures markets to taking positions in currencies.
"Nobody — neither regulators, industry groups, competing hedge funds, investment banks, nor investors — has a complete picture of the industry," said Campos of the SEC, according to the transcript. "Quite simply, the gaps in the available data regarding hedge funds as a group or even individual hedge funds provide an inadequate basis upon which an investor may evaluate the risk of an investment in such products."
The SEC has filed 51 cases alleging fraud by hedge fund advisers.
Samuel Israel III, the founder and chief executive of Stamford, Conn.-based Bayou Group hedge funds, became one of the industry's more notorious criminals when he admitted that from 1996 to 2005 he lied to investors in order to get them to put their money in the funds. The funds took in $450 million, much of which Israel and Daniel Marino, the company's chief financial officer, stole or misappropriated. Bayou even came up with a sham accounting firm, called Richmond-Fairfield Associates, and falsely claimed the firm audited the Bayou funds.
Israel, who lived in a Mount Kisco house owned by Donald Trump, pleaded guilty to three felony accounts, including mail fraud, which carries a possible 20-year sentence. He and Marino, who pleaded guilty to the same three counts and an additional count of wire fraud, are due to be sentenced in U.S. District Court in White Plains in April.
The SEC also has a lawsuit pending against Wood River Capital Management LLC, an Idaho-based hedge fund, and manager John Whittier, alleging that Whittier promised investors their money would be invested in a variety of securities but that he then accumulated large amounts of stock in EndWave, a California telecommunications company.
The SEC also said in its October court filing that Whittier started a second hedge fund, Wood River Offshore, in the Cayman Islands and told investors that it would have no more than a 9 percent position in any security. But, according to the SEC, the fund took a 98 percent position in EndWave.
Bloomberg News reported last week that the NASD, a securities regulator, is intensifying its investigation into whether giant brokerages Merrill Lynch & Co., Citigroup Inc. and UBS AG made improper hedge fund sales to individual investors.
Under the new rules, passed by the SEC in 2004, hedge fund advisers must compile information about fund returns, investments and employee backgrounds, according to Eric Rosenberg, president of LitigationProofing LLC, a litigation consultant in Mamaroneck.
"Once you are registered, anything that you have saved, the SEC has the right to review it," Rosenberg said. "It is going to take people who have never had to deal with a SEC regulatory environment and force them to comply with a variety of rules and regulations."
Janaya Moscony, an analyst at SEC Compliance Associates Inc. in Philadelphia, said the regulations are well intentioned.
"From my standpoint, if the rule can encourage the advisers who are out there to tighten their controls ... then I think that it is a good thing," Moscony said. "The majority of managers out there want to do the right thing, but there are some companies that if they are not regulated may be willing to let things slide."
Matt Will, a professor of finance at the University of Indianapolis, said he believes that the fund industry has exaggerated the cost of the rules.
"It will drive up the costs, but nominally," he said.
He said he believes that what hedge fund companies really fear is that the SEC will layer more regulations on top of this one and eventually require them to disclose their managers' compensation, profits and other information they now keep to themselves.
"They're saying, 'Yeah, this is no big deal but we know where this is going,' " Will said. "And where this is going is toward full disclosure to their investors."
Currently, fund companies give their investors the information they want to give them and no more, he said. Investors often don't find out a fund company is misbehaving until a fund become insolvent or criminal charges are filed.
Loopholes may allow some hedge fund advisers to avoid registration. If the fund adviser has fewer than 15 clients, they don't have to register. They also are exempt if they require clients to lock up their money for two years.
"The question is what will the SEC do if they find that there are a lot of managers out there trying to avoid registration," Moscony said. "The SEC has said they will have to wait to see what happens in February. ... There is a possibility that they may institute further regulations if they find (lack of compliance) is widespread."
Barry S. Seeman, the president of MMS Capital in New York, a new company that offers hedge fund advice to institutional investors and manages portfolios of hedge funds, said he does not object to the guidelines.
"If you're managing money for pension plans, if you're managing money for individuals I believe the SEC should at least have the right to have some level of scrutiny of that," he said.
Most hedge fund managers are already doing much of the record-keeping and other work the new regulations require, he said.
"Many of these guidelines are based on prudent business practices anyway," he said. "I think the first fear that managers have is the idea that they don't want another group, namely the SEC, coming into their offices once every several years and asking for a tremendous amount of information and sort of adding turmoil to their lives."
Hedge fund lawyer Irwin Latner said the SEC has pegged the cost of compliance at about $25,000 but that does not take into account the cost of hiring and paying a compliance officer or the cost of new technology systems a company may need. Though the rules do not require fund companies to hire people from outside their organizations to serve as compliance officers, many will have to do that in order to keep up with the work.
These and other expenses will make the rule more costly than the SEC estimates, he said. "It's certainly more but it will vary," he said. "I think it could easily be over six figures ($100,000) for larger firms with a lot of complex structures and technology to install."
Posted by: Alex Chory
In reply to: bartermania who wrote msg# 1708 Date:2/5/2006 9:32:21 AM
Post #of 1718
this weekends Wall Street Journal page B5 ran an
article Dissecting Hedge Fund Secrets, some
links I provided were listed in the article, lifting the veil.
just fwiw....very interesting read, indeed!!!
http://www.adviserinfo.sec.gov/IAPD/Content/IapdMain/iapd_SiteMap.aspx
and here's an example of inputting the search....
you have to type the BOLD name in the firm search
FX Concepts
http://www.adviserinfo.sec.gov/IAPD/Content/Search/iapd_OrgSearch.aspx
and one more, Mellon Financial
http://www.adviserinfo.sec.gov/IAPD/Content/Search/iapd_OrgSearch.aspx
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.hedgefund.net
http://www.hedgeindex.com
http://www.hedgefundresearch.com
http://www.hedgeworld.com/
Posted by: Alex Chory
In reply to: bartermania who wrote msg# 1708 Date:2/5/2006 8:45:40 AM
Post #of 1718
this looks interesting, just a clip of it though,
I am not a subscriber to stockwatch but I peruse
the homepage once in awhile...just fwiw
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEC bans First United's Gremmo
2006-02-03 14:28 ET - Street Wire
by Stockwatch Business Reporter
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has banned John J. Gremmo, former head trader at First United Equities Corp., a defunct mob-connected brokerage. Mr. Gremmo's ban stems from a criminal case that included money apparently laundered through Vancouver's Pacific International Securities Inc.
Criminal charges
The criminal case, filed in New York, identified 20 defendants, including Gambino organized crime associates Hunter Adams and Michael Reiter. Prosecutors say First United had several pump-and-dumps in which the mob would threaten anybody that tried shorting a set of house stocks at First United. Mr. Adams, one of the scheme's masterminds, laundered his profits "by establishing nominee accounts at Pacific International Securities," according to the indictment.
Nobody accused PI of any wrongdoing, and there was no indication it knew it was being used for money laundering.
Prosecutors said the First United brokers had a boiler room between 1995 and 1997 where they sold millions of shares of house stocks to clients. Apparently they verbally abused customers who would not buy the stocks and threatened anybody else that got in the way.
The remainder is available to Stockwatch subscribers.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/33-8657.pdf
http://www.pinksheets.com/quote/quote.jsp?symbol=NMFS
Posted by: Alex Chory
In reply to: bartermania who wrote msg# 1696 Date:2/4/2006 1:05:27 PM
Post #of 1699 (MDGM board)
For $500 million payday, forget Wall St.
By Landon Thomas Jr. The New York Times
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2006
NEW YORK: On Wall Street, where the size of an executive's bonus is often the ultimate measure of success, a new status symbol has emerged: the $500 million cash payout.
While the Securities and Exchange Commission is seeking greater disclosure of soaring executive compensation, top executives at hedge funds and private equity funds are collecting much larger amounts beyond the prying eyes of regulators and shareholders.
Two men in particular personify the contrasting personal styles of those with this new type of superwealth. Steven Cohen, a reclusive hedge fund magnate in Greenwich, Connecticut, who made more than $500 million last year, rarely gives interviews and remains rooted to his trading floor.
By contrast, a prominent person in private equity, Stephen Schwarzman, has become more of a public figure. He still cuts the big deals, but finds time for Davos forums and White House dinners. He is estimated to have earned as much as $300 million.
Wall Street did very well last year, reporting record financial results and doling out $21.5 billion in bonuses to thousands of investment bankers, traders and other professionals.
Cohen and Schwarzman lead an exclusive crop of traders and investors who have become multibillionaires by abandoning traditional Wall Street playing fields for the richer - and riskier - pastures of running their own investment firms. And in doing this, they are being paid amounts that most chief executives only dream about.
Unlike the chiefs of publicly held companies, these men run their own private partnerships and are under no obligation to disclose either their returns or their compensation. There are no pesky shareholders or watchdogs to complain about their pay.
Their sole constituency is a small circle of well-heeled investors and institutions that care little about how much their managers are paid as long as the returns - from trading stocks, currency and commodities, or from buyouts and other investments - are there. If the magic touch suddenly disappears, so will these big investors, with their billions in tow.
Indeed, managers like Cohen and Schwarzman are being rewarded for being owners, putting their own interests ahead of their clients and taking a large cut of the profits before their investors are paid.
Cohen, a former trader at a midtier investment firm who started in 1992, takes home 50 percent of his hedge fund's profits; Schwarzman and his team divide 20 percent of the year's gains before returning the rest to their investors.
In effect, Cohen and Schwarzman have reaped outsize profits by institutionalizing Adam Smith's dictum that self-interest, not benevolence, puts bread on their and their clients' groaning tables.
"These big paydays are based on performance," said Andy Kessler, a hedge fund manager and author of books about Wall Street. "For capitalism, it's great these guys are taking a piece of the upside and saying we took the risk so we get the reward."
For Wall Street, such a risk-reward relationship can be intoxicating. Many of the Street's best bankers and traders have left cushy posts at Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to either join established funds or start up their own.
The rapid accumulation of such wealth has been felt in New York's political, society and charity circles. Cohen, 49, a trustee of the Robin Hood Foundation, has established himself as one of the most aggressive buyers on the art scene. Schwarzman, 58, who is a trustee at the New York Public Library and the Frick Collection, was an early and avid financial backer of President George W. Bush.
Schwarzman and Cohen declined to comment for this article.
The lush payday has always been central to Wall Street's lore. The canon of such deals includes the $500 million that Michael Milken got during his best years as a junk bond executive and the $20 million earned by the takeover lawyer Martin Lipton for two weeks' work advising Kraft in 1988. But, as hedge funds and private equity funds have moved from finance's periphery to becoming critical cogs in the Wall Street money-making machine, such levels of pay are becoming the norm rather than the exception.
Strange as it may seem, Cohen's annual payday of half a billion dollars carries less shock today than it did in an earlier era. When Milken's $500 million was disclosed, the public reaction was one of disbelief, and certainty that such a gain must have been ill-gotten.
The performance of Cohen's and Schwarzman's funds has been stellar, especially in light of the U.S. stock market's pedestrian gains.
Cohen, who manages more than $6.5 billion in assets for a wealthy pool of individual investors and institutions at SAC Capital Advisors, produced a return of 16 percent to 19 percent last year, outpacing the 8 percent average of 1,500 hedge funds, as calculated by the MSCI hedge fund index. Last year, when his funds returned 23 percent, he was paid $450 million, according to a yearly compensation review of hedge fund managers by Institutional Investor magazine.
At Blackstone, Schwarzman's $6.5 billion fund returned 70 percent, driven by $3.4 billion in asset sales last year, the best year the buyout firm has had since Schwarzman and his co-founder, Peter Peterson, left Lehman Brothers in 1985 and hung out their own shingle.
As with Cohen, calculating Schwarzman's compensation is an inexact science. Both SAC and Blackstone are closely held partnerships and little is disclosed. But what is known is that Blackstone takes 20 percent of the $3.4 billion, before investors get their share (the Blackstone partners will also share in $1.8 billion from their real estate investments). That $1 billion is then apportioned among the firm's 48 partners. Blackstone does not disclose how ownership breaks down.
Guessing Schwarzman's stake has been a favorite parlor game on Wall Street, and current and former Blackstone employees say it could be as low as 20 percent and as high as 35 percent. Depending on which figure you use, the return to Schwarzman would range from $210 million to $360 million.
What also distinguishes their pay from chief executives of public companies is that it comes mostly in cash. By comparison, Henry Paulson Jr., chief executive of Goldman Sachs, was paid $38 million last year. But only $600,000 of that sum will hit his bank account this year; the rest as Goldman Sachs stock.
People who invest with Cohen say that at the root of his success is an uncanny ability to pick the perfect time to buy and sell a stock.
Google would seem to be a case in point. He rode the stock up, but bailed out as it hit higher, more volatile levels.
I just sent this message to IHUB ADMIN MATT:
Hello Matt,
Could you change the title of this board ( http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=4887 ) to: "MARKET REFORM MOVEMENT:NSS/FTDS,TRANSPARENCY,HEDGE FUNDS,INSIDER ADVANTAGES,REGS&STOCK MANIPULATION ISSUES"
and without the quotes ""...Thanks.
Hopefully, most will approve of this change. I think it is more accurate.
I plan on organizing this board and this one: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=3319 over the weekend. I may even ask IHUB ADMIN MATT to change this board's title to more accurately and specifically identify the issues (NNS/FTD's) that this board will focus on.
Both boards will be linked and cross-referenced...because, they are related...but, both boards need to have their own space.
I still need to update a few of the sections, but this board should now give us room to work on the NSS/FTD issues without my cluttering it up with my fullblown Fed Bank stuff.
Comments are welcome. Thanks.
HEDGE FUNDS LOSE A ROUND - This is a good first step but I agree with the comment that it is band aid on top of a problem that needs a broader approach that should come from Congress.
The need is to regulate and have effective (and efficient)disclosures, as well as registration, for all these funds, including those that are domiciled overseas but solicit in the US, as well as those that transact business that affects our markets in whatever way. This would require a re-write of the SEC acts, and treaties, that would need negotiation with our "partners."
This would also be positive for those who advocate changes in the scammy nature of penny stocks, including insider dumping, toxic financing, MM manipulation, etc.
==================================================
Government catches up with hedge funds
As of today, hedge funds have to register with the SEC; some say that provides a false sense of security to less sophisticated investors.
By Amanda Cantrell, CNN/Money staff writer
February 1, 2006: 11:39 AM EST
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - After two years of scrutiny, debate and even lawsuits, hedge funds are finally required to register as investment advisers with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of today.
The change marks the first time fund managers in the roughly $1 trillion industry have to register with the SEC as investment advisors, though many managers have already done so voluntarily. Hedge funds will not have to register their individual funds. Rather, they have to provide the SEC with basic information about the firm and also have to hire a chief compliance officer. As part of the rule, hedge fund firms are now subject to random SEC inspections.
The new rule carries some notable exceptions, however: As the rule is written, funds with less than $30 million under management will not have to register, though funds with $25 million or more are eligible for registration.
And funds who "lock up" their investors' money for two or more years or refuse to take new money can also avoid registration. The two-year loophole was meant to protect private equity and venture capital funds from getting caught up in the rule, but some managers invoked the exception to avoid registration.
Harry Davis, a partner with law firm Schulte Roth & Zabel, which represents many large hedge funds, said he doubts that funds would close to new investment just to avoid registration, but it may have been a deciding factor for managers deciding whether to close their funds.
"For funds that were thinking about whether they should close – that might have tipped them in favor," he said of the rule. "But someone who still wants to grow their business isn't going to close just to avoid registration."
SEC spokesman John Nestor said the SEC is not restricting hedge funds from invoking these exceptions, but he feels that some firms who have tried to invoke it have faced resistance from investors.
"What hedge funds are finding is that big, institutional clients don't want to have their money restricted that way, so if a hedge fund says they want to go to a two-year lockup period, some funds are saying 'Not with my money you won't,'" he said.
A maturing industry
The hedge fund industry began as a maverick, entrepreneurial corner of the high-finance world in which managers could place big, unconventional and risky bets on non-traditional strategies. The most successful of these managers made their investors – typically high-net-worth individuals – very rich.
But as the industry has grown up, so has its investor base. Returns have come down from the stratosphere, and managers now heavily emphasize risk management. Those changes have made institutional investors more comfortable – leading institutional investors like university endowments and lately, public and private pension plans to leap aboard. Because these types of investors often take comfort in registration, a number of hedge fund mangers registered voluntarily to attract institutional money.
People opposed to the registration rule say hedge funds are for sophisticated investors who don't need protecting, and that SEC registration status will give less sophisticated investors a false sense of security about funds, leading to sloppy due diligence.
They also say requiring funds to register would make starting a new hedge fund onerously expensive, because of the costs associated with registration – including legal fees, staffing costs and other related expenses. Opponents to the rule argue that it is important to the growth of the hedge fund industry that new, successful funds are allowed to form without being unduly burdened with high costs from the outset.
Opponents also question whether SEC registration will help protect investors against fraudulent managers, especially since some of the SEC's hedge fund enforcement actions were levied at firms that were already registered with the SEC.
Randy Shain, executive vice president of investigative due diligence firm First Advantage CoreFacts, which publishes BackTrack Reports, said that while he doesn't think hedge fund registration is a terrible idea, he doesn't feel it will ferret out fraud.
"When I look at industries that are heavily regulated, I see no correlation between them and the prevention of fraud," he said. "Look at broker/dealers – they're heavily regulated and yet they've given us the biggest boiler rooms. Why would this be different?"
One manager, Phil Goldstein, is so strongly opposed to the rule that he filed a lawsuit against the SEC, charging that the agency exceeded its regulatory authority. Goldstein, a shareholder activist who runs Bulldog Investors, a hedge fund firm that manages about $200 million, through his firm Opportunity Partners L.P.
One of the three judges hearing arguments in the suit, U.S. appeals court judge Harry Edwards, appeared to side with Goldstein, telling an SEC attorney the agency stretched the definition of "hedge fund clients" to make the registration proposal work, according to news reports. The panel is expected to issue a verdict soon.
"What you really have is a rogue agency. So many people give the SEC such wide latitude, but they have exceeded (their) legal authority," Goldstein told CNN/Money last year. He added that he feels a ruling forcing hedge funds to register with regulators should have come from Congress -- not the regulators themselves.
Donaldson's legacy
The SEC began investigating the hedge fund industry under former chairman William Donaldson, who led the charge during his 2-1/2-year tenure to make hedge funds register with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The commission, sharply divided on the issue, voted to approve the controversial rule by a slim 3-2 majority.
Donaldson' cited the industry's spectacular growth – it now stands at an estimated 8,000 funds and has doubled in size in the last four years – as well as a rise in fraud cases in the lightly regulated industry.
Despite published reports of a bottleneck at the agency in processing registration applications, SEC spokesman Nestor said the commission anticipated a last-minute rush to registrations and staffed accordingly, which enabled it to cut the application processing time – typically 45 days – in half. He said the SEC only has 71 outstanding applications left to process.
-------------------------------
Hedge funds post gains in January: Click here.
For more market news, click here.
STOCKGATE TODAY
An online newspaper reporting the issues of Securities Fraud
When it comes to Stock Manipulation, Don’t count on Regulators to Help any Time Soon – February 1, 2006
David Patch
So you think you see a problem in your investment? Do you think it is your responsibility to seek out and identify concerns in the marketplace? If you do, what course of action can you take?
Investors that log on to the NASD or SEC websites are directed to submit formal complaints to the regulatory agencies through on-line or mail filings. The process is made to be easy and efficient process that comes highly recommended by the regulators if the investor feels that they have been cheated.
The SEC and NASD also want investors to feel their comments are highly regarded and thus make such bold statements as:
SEC: We welcome hearing from you because your information may alert us to a bad broker or firm, an unfair practice in the securities industry that needs to be changed, or the latest fraud.
NASD: If you are aware of unfair practices or specific instances of abusive conduct, NASD wants to know about it immediately. Often, violations of our rules and the federal securities regulations come to light through the receipt and investigation of regulatory tips from members of the industry and other industry professionals.
Invitations to participate but do they actually serve and substantive value?
Filing the complaint is great but what happens regarding your complaint after you file it? Is the filing meant to be a placebo, something just to make you feel better or is it really an active means of protecting yourself.
Unfortunately, the former is more the answer than the latter. For those of us who have filed complaints to these regulators our return on time investment has been far from satisfactory. The placebo quickly wearing off as our vision of the fraud simply continued.
In 1995 John Fiero and the Fiero Brothers brokerage firm was engaged in “bear raid” stock manipulation through illegal shorting practices. That illegal shorting practices that has now taken on the title of “naked shorting.” In 1995 Fiero was conducting these “bear raids” on behalf of organized crime and in 2002 the NASD barred John Fiero from the industry and fined him $1 Million.
As a result of the Fiero Brother’s abuse in 1995 one of the larger private clearing firms in the country, Adler Coleman Clearing filed for liquidation due to the magnitude of unsettled trades on record. The clearing firm held insufficient net capital to settle the outstanding failures created by John Fiero.
Fiero Brother’s was not the first known activity of this nature nor has it been the last. But it was the first actual regulatory enforcement case.
Between 1996 and 2000 the SEC was monitoring a Canadian Brokerage firm, Pacific International and that firm’s involvement in money laundering for the US Organized crime families. Naked Shorting was one of the venues used to manipulate the US markets and launder money as identified in a later regulatory hearing against Pacific international by the Canadian Authorities
Since John Fiero, there have been a total of possibly 10 or fewer cases brought by Securities Regulators over the abusive practices of naked shorting “bear raids.” While literally hundreds of billions or more in investor losses were being recorded, the regulators have been slow on the trigger to stop the problem and hold the criminals accountable. Our Nation’s small businesses were being destroyed, our local economies damaged, and while complaints were being filed, nothing was happening.
Does that mean the problem does not exist to any magnitude? No! To the contrary, it simply means the desire to act upon the abuse is limited at best.
As Investors we enter this market with several strikes against us.
Retail investors do not have the working capital to protect our investments from the swings created by Wall Street Institutions. We do not have access to the “inside scoops” that routinely premise a sudden change in market valuations, nor do we have the ability to react to those swings as swiftly as the Industry insiders do. Finally, we do not have access to the trade data that the Institutions have access to. Retail Investors are the pawns and small business enterprises are the tools in the re-direction of financial wealth.
In the case of Regulation SHO, the law passed by the SEC to address naked shorting abuse, the investing public is made aware what stocks have excessive settlement failures as the major markets publish lists daily. But Investors have no idea the magnitude of the abuse.
To the Institution(s) that own those settlement failures, they not only have access to the same list the retail investor sees they know the magnitude and the break-even price of the fails on record. A leveraged game Institutions and Market Makers can play on the investing public with both the monetary clout and the access to move the markets.
The SEC feels that that restricting the public from access to the same information may be used to manipulate markets yet; the SEC does not see that the money and power to manipulate markets is in the hands of those who have access to the information. The Institutions! Ironic isn’t it.
So what then does the investor do when such manipulation is seen through daily trade patterns only Investors appear to monitor? The only thing possible; file a complaint.
Yea right!
And now the finger pointing and misdirection’s come to the retail investor like an Abbott and Costello skit. The daisy chain of double-talk about which regulator is responsible for what. “Who’s on first?”
In the case of Naked Shorting, Regulation SHO is an SEC law so they are responsible for the enforcement of that law except of course until you ask the SEC who claims the individual SRO’s are responsible for the enforcement of the law. And as the investor is kept spinning in circles, the violations continue and the criminal walks away. Who is on first anyway?
The worst of the double talk comes when you are asked to “prove” your claims. The abnormalities of Level II trading snapshots are not enough. The fact that companies are listed on Regulation SHO for months on end is not enough. The dead body is not enough. These regulators want proof first. Proof a murder happened before the state conducts an autopsy telling you it was murder. Knife in the chest doesn’t count. Investors are expected to know more than regulators before regulators will respond and react.
“Subpoena the records” they say.
Silly me, Yea I think I will try that too.
Investor: Hey Judge, can you issue me a subpoena to check into Brokerage Firm XYZ’s trading in this stock? I want to see if their trades are settling.
Judge: Sure Right away. Want a few more while I am in the signing mood?
Today, lawsuits by investors and companies across the country have tried to get State and Federal Judges to issue those subpoenas regulators suggest we use to obtain records. In one case, held up in the US District Court in NY, a Judge has sat on such a request for years. But that case is unique in that the SEC has already confirmed the manipulation occurred.
In the 2003 settlement of the SEC vs. Rhino Advisors the SEC agreed that Sedona Corporation was manipulated and that members of Wall Street were part of the manipulation. Washed trades, brokers selling shares with “unbridled levels of aggression” and illegal shorting and stock settlement were all brought forth by the SEC and DOJ.
Sedona retained legal Counsel as the SEC actions provided literally no restitution to the company or the shareholders. The SEC case was presented to a Judge as part of the claims for damage and yet the Federal Judge still sits on the court ordered subpoena. The members of the Industry Sedona seeks restitution from are now protected not only by regulatory agencies willing to overlook the abuse but also by a Judge unwilling to allow the company to take the fight into their own hands.
Investors and the business are left out of control to their own fate.
The Industry Members owns the data and the Investing public is restricted from gaining access to the data that would be the evidence needed to convict. Regulators are fully aware of this contradiction and use it as a means to scoff at the complaints.
“Complaints are Unjustified” because investors can not provide the data to support your allegations.
Securities Regulators are the only ones with easy access to the data and they too fail to go out and get it. The investing public is supposed to prove the case of manipulation by providing the data.
The data speaks for itself. Hundreds of millions to over one billion shares sit on the books of the DTCC as settlement failures. The DTCC claims that 1% of these failures are in excessive of 200 consecutive trade days as a failure to deliver. The SEC and SRO have the data and yet nothing has happened. Instead of regulatory action they claim they are “making their case.” But which case they are investigating we are not privy to know so proof that an investigation is underway is based on blind faith.
For this investor, putting faith in our securities regulators to aide in the elimination of dangerous stock manipulation is putting faith in the dead coming back to life. Time is only to the advantage of the manipulator and to these securities regulators there is no timetable. If the regulators get their criminal they get them. But unlike a murder, there is a statue of limitations and many pass without the regulators acting upon those investor complaints.
A word to the regulators – Keep it Simple Stupid. Sell a stock, deliver a stock. Pay up the way you expect the buyer to pay up. That is the law the people understand. But then that is only my opinion and who am I? I can’t understand the investing public; I don’t work in the Industry. Oh yea, when it comes to negotiating settlements, give the crooks an offer and if they refuse; take them to court. Cut out the multi-year negotiations that only delay investor restitution and deter you from moving on to the next issue.
To be frank, Smarten-up! Manpower is light, use it wisely.
Just remember, it was the Securities Regulators that watched as Conflicts of Interest in Research resulted in Hundreds of Billions in investor losses. It was Securities regulators that watched as late trading/market timing prospered for the hedge fund industry and ‘preferred clients” of Wall Street. And it was the Securities Regulators that sit back and watch American investors get fleeced as trades are executed and Wall Street takes in the profits, while our communities are being destroyed by fraud and the theft of our financial stability. Who do the regulators ultimately report to, Wall Street?
Former SEC Commissioner Arthur Leavitt put it in perspective in a recent editorial; “the concerns of ordinary investors often were subsumed to the interests of industry lobbyists by Republicans and Democrats alike.” So much for a fair market, if success can be achieved by cheating make sure you pay the ref’s.
Dr. Patrcik Byrne's new presentation on naked shorting. I got this link via an email from a NCANS.net email today...where I was told to show it to everyone I know.
Here's the link: http://www.businessjive.com/nss/darkside.html
Posted by: rrufff
In reply to: bartermania who wrote msg# 571 Date:12/23/2005 8:27:57 AM
Post #of 572
Stockgate Today: Little Honor in Regulation SHO's 'Honor System'
Thursday , December 22, 2005 11:16 ET
Dec 22, 2005 (financialwire.net via COMTEX) -- December 22, 2005 (Financial Wire) (By David Patch) Earlier this week General Electric's (NYSE: GE) affiliate station CNBC held a live interview with Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK) CEO Patrick Byrne to discuss the "Byrne Jihad" against naked shorting abuses. Once again the CEO was left to defend himself to anchors willing to accept the abuse.
CNBC analyst Joe Kernen initially applauded Overstock.com, calling it the envy of many companies due to its growth potential before attacking the efforts of Byrne to fight Wall Street corruption. Kernen challenged Byrne on his fight against short sellers by identifying that short sellers can go after any company they want in the entire country so why not "leave them alone" and focus on the business model. Kernen alludes that eventually the evil that short sellers bring to a company, legal and otherwise, can be exorcised through a solid business model. What happens in between is for the markets to bear and should not be the worry of the CEO.
Kernen's statements are hypocritical in an industry where CEOs are required to continually add to shareholder value. Allowing shareholder value to be manipulated by illegal acts should be the fiduciary responsibility of the CEO, yet Kernen wants the abuses ignored.
As Byrne laid out his evidence of failed trades, Kernen suddenly was left with nothing he could say to rebut the CEO. And when that happens, all CNBC can do is move on to another subject, which is exactly what they did.
According to Byrne, for the second time since August, he had gone into the open market and purchased stock in his own company. The result of his near $4 million in stock purchases since August is an indicator of what is wrong with this marketplace and what is wrong with the SEC's rendition of regulatory Swiss cheese.
For the second time, the seller of Overstock securities failed to meet obligations of delivery on shares sold to the tune of nearly $2 million, this on limited trades that were followed through and audited.
In e-mail exchanges between Byrne and his broker, provided to CNBC prior to the morning interview, his broker said that the trades had failed settlement because there were no shares available in the system to settle with. Some of the e-mail excerpts included;
Byrne's Broker: [Your shares] originally confirmed to have settled on Dec 5th and in the process of being converted from DTC shares to paper, have in actuality not settled and no shares have been received.
Byrne: Can you buy-in the fails?
Broker: Talking with my traders, they feel that we will run into the same problem [settlement failure], no one seems to have enough of the shares to deliver. Since Overstock is a hot stock, they [Wall Street] are finding it just about impossible to find shares to borrow or buy.
While CNBC had access to these transcripts and is aware of the firms involved, Joe Kernen asked Patrick why he didn't just walk away. What is the concern over $1.8 million worth of trades that were recently executed by Wall Street without the shares existing to sell? Who cares that you were notified that a trade settled only to have you conduct your own follow-up and prove that that notification was in fact false? Walk away, leave these guys alone was Kernen's opinion.
Why not ask the shorts and Wall Street to stop abusing companies, Joe?
Patrick Byrne, earlier in the interview said that he is not fighting about Overstock.com but instead is fighting to resolve a systemic economic collapse "of Enron-like proportions" if left unattended. Byrne further identified that the problem exists mainly due to an "intellectually corrupt SEC."
Byrne's allegations regarding the SEC were never challenged by CNBC and here is probably why:
Under the guidelines of Regulation SHO, all trades in a threshold-listed security must settle within a window of trade plus 13 days. If such trades do not settle within the that time, the seller must cease all future short sales without first executing a pre-borrow. The seller must also initiate an immediate closeout of the failed trades. The seller, under these guidelines, refers to the originating broker-dealer, prime broker, or executing broker, depending on the circumstance.
In the case of Market Makers, as was the case here, the Market Maker is required by law to give up the book on the security until the trade has actually met settlement. The SEC identifying in a Securities Industry Association (SIA) forum that a Market Maker cannot fulfill his obligations of bona-fide market making should he be required to pre-borrow prior to making a short sale thus must step aside.
Under both of these guidelines, the enforcement of higher market restrictions falls upon the honor system of the firms, according to a source at the NASD. Imagine that. An honor system among crooks and criminals?
In this case, the honor system failed. The firm responsible for the delivery of shares to Mr. Byrne missed the deadline yet remains dominant as a sell-side Market Maker in the box. The regulators have yet to pick up on this, and most likely by the time they do, the damage will have been done.
Review of Byrne's Form 4, filed with the SEC, the stock purchase of 50,000 shares was executed in a price range of $37.21 to $38.20. The selling Market Maker would only honor those trades with delivery [settlement] when their cover price fell below this pricing window. There has been insufficient activity and shares available below this price, which subsequently led to extended fails. The bona-fide market making of this firm became a trading strategy in the house account, and the house never loses.
With Tuesday's heavy early morning volume and the stock trading with lows at $33.54, the originating seller now has the opportunity to cover for profit. Acquiring shares at $34 to $35.00 a share will yield the firm a hefty $150-$200K profit.
And CNBC analyst Joe Kernen, expert to the industry, wants to know why companies can't leave the shorts alone.
The honor system of Wall Street is a joke. The firms responsible for defrauding the investing public out of hundreds of billions in investments is once again expected to police itself, with the goal evidently being not to get caught right away so their profits can outweigh their penalties when the police catch up with them. The Securities and Exchange Commission set it up this way.
If you ever wondered how Wall Street executives earn their pay, look to this as the perfect example. Patrick Byrne paid $1.8 million for stock that doesn't exist and by the time he receives it, the stock will have de-valued by near $200,000 or more. Byrne's loss will be diverted to the Wall Street firm's bottom-line profit. In this case, the profit came on a mere 50,000 shares traded. With tens of billions of shares trading daily in these markets, imagine the revenue stream created selling what does not exist.
Of record, in the 11 months since Regulation SHO has been in place, not a single enforcement action has come to play regarding illegal shorting or failure to give up the book due to extended fails in threshold securities. The SEC has qualified this a success. The investors see this as more of the same as market raiders continue to manipulate the markets for profit.
SEC Assistant Director of Market Regulation James Brigagliano stated in a recent NASAA Public Forum on Naked Shorting, "Bring us the evidence and we will rigorously enforce the laws." Sorry James, this is yet another example that the SEC is aware but has ignored.
Yes, there is dishonor in this honor system, and it starts at the front door to the SEC. How the SEC can ignore this blatant abuse is reprehensible, "intellectually corrupt," to steal a phrase.
(David Patch, editor of Stockgate Today, an electronic newsletter, and whose Web site is http://www.investigatethesec.com, has been a vocal critic of manipulative naked short sales, and over the past two years has been quoted extensively in several national publications. He has appeared on numerous financial news programs, including with Ron Insana on CNBC. Stockgate Today provides editorial commentary on events surrounding the naked short selling issues and is carried here as a public service and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors at FinancialWire.).
Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
To: inchingup who wrote (147286) 12/22/2005 12:41:55 PM
From: AsturiasPh.D/MBA of 147288
“Strong Sell” recommendation for OVERSTOCK.COM
Investrend Research affiliate ValuEngine has issued a “Strong Sell” recommendation for OVERSTOCK.COM at http://www.vereports.com/servlet/main?pid=42?level=254
The report said the company exhibits “unattracrtive market/book ratio, market valuation and momentum,” and “has the probability to underperform average market performance for the next year.”
ValuEngine said the report is essentially a “shorting” signal, although the company is on the Nasdaq threshold list, meaning there are excessive “fails to deliver.”
I don't think I've seen anyone else post this article yet:
Posted by: Alex Chory
In reply to: bartermania who wrote msg# 1175 Date:12/23/2005 5:38:40 AM
Post #of 1182
not sure if you saw this one, 29 year old wannabee trader,
must have been one of those newbies out of college, I seen that so much in my early years, they just wanted to get their
C's and get on with the entrepreneurial life....oh yeah!!!
tell me about it!
,,,,,$$$$$
Happy Holidays@XMAS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SEC alleges hedge fund was a Ponzi scam
HACKENSACK, N.J. - A Montvale hedge fund that promised "low-risk day trading" was in fact a Ponzi scheme that stole $5.2 million from investors to pay for its executives' lavish lifestyles, authorities said.
The Securities Exchange Commission brought civil fraud charges Wednesday against HMC International, its chief executive and a trader who once boasted of profits that let him take chartered jets, where he feasted on Cookie Crisp cereal.
According to the SEC, Chief Executive Officer Robert M. Massimi, 45, of Saddle River, and trader Bret A. Grebow, 29, of Highland Beach, Fla., raised about $12.9 million from some 80 investors starting in late 2001. They then sent out fake monthly statements showing that the fund was making enormous profits, the SEC said.
In fact, the SEC said, the fund did little trading, and Grebow was "systematically looting the fund's trading account," taking a total of about $2 million. In addition, the SEC said, Massimi took about $2.8 million for himself and Grebow out of fictitious fund "profits" that actually consisted of money from new investor accounts.
"There were no real profits," the SEC complaint said.
Tyrone McDonnell, a Hackensack attorney who is representing Massimi, blamed Grebow for any fraud. He said Massimi was actually a victim in the case, because he also invested in the fund.
"Mr. Massimi denies any wrongdoing, and we look forward to clearing his name," McDonnell said.
Grebow's attorney, Daniel S. Newman of Miami, declined to comment.
Grebow was quoted in The Wall Street Journal in February 2004 in a story about extravagant spending by stock market professionals. In the article, Grebow boasted about his new $160,000 Lamborghini Gallardo, and about taking chartered flights where he was served Jack Daniels and his favorite cereal, Cookie Crisp.
The SEC said Massimi promoted the fund by describing its traders as mathematicians who used "an incredible amount of technical research." In fact, the SEC said, Grebow was the only trader, and he does not have a college degree.
The SEC also alleged that in October, after Massimi discovered the fund was under investigation, he diverted $1.5 million to his wife, Jaime Elliott Massimi, to shield the money from authorities and investors. She is also named in the complaint.
The complaint also said that Massimi transferred his 50 percent ownership of a home in Upper Saddle River to his ex-wife, Jamie Massimi, in August, "as investor concern and demands for redemptions mounted."
The fund collapsed in September when it was unable to meet investors' demands for their money back, the SEC said.
A federal judge in U.S. District Court in New York froze the assets of HMC, Grebow, and Jaime and Robert Massimi Wednesday, at the SEC's request. The SEC is seeking to have the defendants disgorge any ill-gotten gains and pay civil penalties.
The SEC took action in New York because HMC was located in Manhattan before moving to Montvale in 2004.
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/12/23/build/business/54-ponzi....
Posted by: bartermania
In reply to: bartermania who wrote msg# 556 Date:12/18/2005 11:45:26 PM
Post #of 566
For example (an excerpt from that long and dense article post# 547)...
"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."
ps. I may be changing my signature soon.
Here's my impression:
Lots of crazy predictions...but, it's the stuff about the DTCC and it's connections with the Fed. that I found interesting.
Lots of it's way out there and some of the stuff's already been proven wrong (Y2K)...but, some if it appears to be true.
Very few people understand the US Federal Reserve. Same goes for the DTCC. Some of the connections made, seem to make the naked shorting problem more clear. I had a feeling (based on my knowledge and intuition) that they were connected.
It about control and accountability. The DTCC and the Fed. have enormous control over this country's capital. They have governmental powers (supra-governmental powers), are private organizations, and still appear to be accountable to no one.
Ming the Mechanic: The unknown 20 trillion dollar company
The NewsLog of Flemming Funch
The unknown 20 trillion dollar company 2003-10-30 17:37
19 comments
by Flemming Funch.................................................................................................................
There is a busy little private company you probably never have heard about, but which you should. Its name is the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. See their website. Looks pretty boring. Some kind of financial service thing, with a positive slogan and out there to make a little business. You can even get a job there. Now, go and take a look at their annual report. Starts with a nice litte Flash presentation and has a nice message from the CEO. And take a look at the numbers. It turns out that this company holds 23 trillion dollars in assets, and had 917 trillion dollars worth of transactions in 2002. That's trillions, as in thousands of thousands of millions. 23,000,000,000,000 dollars in assets.
As it so turns out, it is not because DTCC has a nice website and says good things about saving their customers money that they are trusted with that kind of resources. Rather it is because they seem to have a monopoly on what they do. In brief, they process the vast majority of all stock transactions in the United States as well as for many other countries. And - and that's the real interesting part - 99% of all stocks in the U.S. appear to be legally owned by them.
In the old days, when you owned stocks you would have the stock certificates lying in your safe. And if you needed to trade them, you needed to get them shipped off to a broker. Nowadays that would be considered very cumbersome, and it would be impractical to invest via computer or over the phone. So the shortcut was invented that the broker would hold your stocks instead of you. And in order for him to legally be able to trade them for you, the stocks were placed under their "street name". I.e. they're in the name of the brokerage, but they're just holding them in trust and trading them for you. And you're in reality the beneficiary rather than the owner. Which is all fine and dandy if everything goes right. Now, it appears the rules were then changed so the brokers are not allowed any longer to put the stocks in their own name. Instead, what they typically do is to put the stocks into the name of "Cede and Company" or "Cede & Co" or some such variation. And the broker might tell you that it is just a fictitious name, and will explain why it is really more practical to do that than to put it in your name.
The problem with that is that it appears that Cede isn't just some dummy name, but an actual corporation that DTCC controls. And, well, if you ask anybody about this, who actually knows about it, they will naturally tell you that it is all a formality. To serve you better, of course. And, well, maybe it is. DTCC seems like a nice and friendly company. It is a private company, owned by the same people (major U.S. banks) who own the Federal Reserve Bank. And if they all stick to their job, and just keep the money and your stocks flowing smoothly, I'm sure that is all well and good. But if somebody at some point should decide otherwise, and there's a national U.S. emergency and/or the U.S. government becomes unable to pay its debts, well, they might just not give you your stocks back. Because legally they own them. Something to think about.
An fascinating article about this whole thing is here. I will include it at the bottom too, in case it should disappear. Not that I can vouch for or agree with everything the guy is saying, and some of it is a little whacko, but obviously he's been researching this quite a bit. You'll find very little about it on the net otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Unknown $19 Trillion Depository Trust Company
by Anthony Wayne
Part I of II
This exclusive report is a compilation of interviews and background research from October 1995 through April 1999.
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. How can a private banking trust company hold assets of over $19 trillion and be unknown? In a recent 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 3 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-entrys 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.
Part II of II-
You don't own your Stocks....or any of your Bonds...The Depository Trust Company does.
by Anthony Wayne
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.
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.
According to 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 $19 Trillion of backing and reserves, thanks to millions of duped Americans. We are financing the New World Dis-Order with our stocks and bonds.
( link to site and article here: http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-000923.htm )
______________________________________________________
ps. Opinions people? Thanks.
A good case to investigate would be PBLS. SCHB seems to have an unending supply of shares. The question is when it will stop.
Followers
|
20
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
170
|
Created
|
12/10/05
|
Type
|
Premium
|
Moderator bartermania | |||
Assistants Telephonics rrufff |
Posts Today
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
170
|
Posters
|
|
Moderator
|
|
Assistants
|
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |