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.
almost a 1000 bucks spent today to bring on more selling.
ask still at .04 and above. Should of saved it for stocking stuffers.
Sorry, wrong board.
>>>>>¶<<<<< VERY LAST POST from me on this Board...
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=188625
Posted by: Francois+Goelo
In reply to: IH Admin (Matt) who wrote msg# 6304 Date: 9/27/2001 2:02:26 AM
Post # of 6305
***¶*** Matt, you haven't got a Clue...
Congratulation for having fallen for it Line, Hook and Sinker... I have the feeling that you won't get too many people to help you from the Grassroots level to build up your business again, when they discover they can be discarded at the first opportunity, even though they built "YOUR" Flagship Stock Thread on iHUB... I know you want to sell out and you'd like to have the Stock Flagship looking Nice and Pretty, money being a strong motivator for you...
SHAME on you, you INGRATE, when you bend to the will of proven LIARS and FRAUDSTERS (with 6 years Probation) and their Supporters...
Sent by PM: Rich McBride Date: 9/21/2001 3:28:04 PM
Frank
I will e-mail it to Huff and he will post over at RB.
I have started to PM it to everybody and Matt will be
back.
Enjoy the little power you have, while you still have
it.
Rich
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=188289
Glad to see Frank controlled.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=187614
A breath of fresh air
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=188300
People lets enforce the rules. It's our job to let Matt
know. If he gets tossed enough he will go through the
suspension process.
Rich McBride
**********************************************************
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=188129
Matt, what's your current Price and how much can you be bought for, not that you're worth anything, in my view??...
I have now terminated all my Boards here and will advise Posters of the NEW Message Board on which they'll be re-started... Matt, Greedy Opportunist, don't ever BEG me again to open a thread here when it was a barely moving (Post #3,200) Message Board because I'll tell you to EFF Yourself...
JMHO, F. Goelo + + +
***¶*** PETITION against Market Makers Manipulating OTC-BB's...
I have recently read and became signatory #1043 of the online petition:
"Boycott the OTC"
hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
service, at:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/mm12/
I personally agree with the intent of this petition and I suggest you spare a moment, take a look and consider signing yourself.
JMHO, F. Goelo + + +
Kiosk Business article link that Gamecom ticker: GAMZ is mentioned in.
http://www.kioskbusiness.com/articles/article3.html
Greg
¶ PittFalls of Shorting from Canada....
BCSC in the matter of National Bank's Pacific Int'l
National Bank of Canada
NA
Shares issued 188,728,712
2001-07-10 close $28.7
Tuesday Jul 10 2001
News Release
See B.C. Securities Commission (BCSEC) News Release
Mr. Steve Wilson reports
In the matter of Pacific International Securities Inc. and in the matter of Max
Meier, Lawrence Hugh Mcquid, Jean-Paul Phillipe Bachellerie, Robert Hebert
Blades, Germain Carriere, John Todd Eymann, Alberto John Quattrociocchi,
Martin J. Reynolds and Theresa Mary Sheenan.
Notice of hearing under Section 161
1. Take notice that a hearing will be held at the 12th floor hearing room, 701 West
Georgia St., Vancouver, B.C., to give the respondents an opportunity to be
heard, before the British Columbia Securities Commission determines whether it is
in the public interest to make the following orders:
1.1 the respondents' respective registrations be restricted, or that conditions be
imposed on the respondents as registrants, pursuant to Section 161(1)(f) of the
Securities Act, RSBC 1996, c. 418;
1.2 the directors resign any position they hold as a director or officer of any issuer,
and that they be prohibited from becoming or acting as a director or officer of any
issuer, pursuant to Section 161(1)(d) of the act;
1.3 the respondents pay an administrative penalty, pursuant to Section 162 of the
act;
1.4 the respondents pay prescribed fees or charges for the costs of or related to
the hearing, pursuant to Section 174 of the act; and
1.5 such further and other orders as the commission may deem appropriate in the
circumstances.
2. And take notice that the executive director will ask the commission to consider
the following facts and allegations in makings its determinations.
The parties
3. Pacific International Securities Inc. is a company incorporated under the laws of
British Columbia, with its head office in Vancouver, B.C. It was incorporated as
D.J. Hall and Company Inc. on June 12, 1981. It changed its name to Pacific
International on Sept. 6, 1983. It was registered under the act as a broker from
Oct. 23, 1981, to Dec. 31, 1999, and has been an investment dealer since Jan. 1,
2000. It has been a member of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, now the
Canadian Venture Exchange, since October, 1981, and a member of the
Investment Dealers Association of Canada (the IDA) since June, 1987.
4. Mr. Meier co-founded Pacific International. He has been a director from
August, 1983, until the present. He was president and chief executive officer from
August, 1983, until in or about May, 2001, and chairman and chief executive
officer from May, 2001. As such, he has overseen Pacific International's overall
management since August, 1983.
5. Mr. McQuid joined Pacific International in October, 1985. From January,
1986, until July, 1997, he was its chief financial officer and was, at all times
material to this notice, the designated compliance officer of Pacific International
under Sections 47 and 65 of the Securities Rules, B.C. Reg. 194/97 and the
predecessor sections. From July, 1997, until in or about May, 2001, he was chief
operating officer. He was senior vice-president from January, 1986, until in or
about May, 2001. He has been senior vice-president, administration, from in or
about May, 2001. He has been a director of Pacific International from January,
1986, until the present.
6. Mr. Bachellerie joined Pacific International in September, 1995. He has been a
director from July, 1997, to the present. He was a vice-president and chief
financial officer from July, 1997, until in or about May, 2001. From in or about
May, 2001, he has been president and chief operating officer of Pacific
International.
7. Mr. Blades joined Pacific International in June, 1987. He has been a
vice-president from October, 1990, until the present, and a director of Pacific
International from April, 1992, until the present.
8. Mr. Carriere has been a director of Pacific International from May, 1998, until
the present. He is the president and chief operating officer of National Bank
Financial Ltd., which holds an equity interest in Pacific International.
9. Mr. Eymann co-founded Pacific International. He has been a director from
April, 1984, until the present. He was the executive vice-president of Pacific
International from April, 1984, until in or about May, 2001. From May, 2001, he
has been vice-chairman of Pacific International.
10. Mr. Quattrociocchi was a vice-president of Pacific International from June,
1991, until September, 1998, a director from April, 1992, until the present and a
senior vice-president from September, 1998, until in or about May, 2001,
overseeing the sales and research portfolios at Pacific International. From in or
about May, 2001, he has been executive vice-president of Pacific International.
11. Mr. Reynolds was the chairman and a director of Pacific International from
June, 1994. He resigned as chairman in October, 1998, and as a director in
March, 1999.
12. Ms. Sheehan was a registered representative since February, 1991, at Pacific
International. She has been a director of Pacific International from August, 1993,
until the present, and a vice-president from August, 1997, until the present.
Pacific International's business
13. In 1993, Pacific International's commissions from accounts trading in securities
listed or quoted in the United States totalled approximately $2.3-million
(approximately 14 per cent of total commission revenue). By Dec. 31, 1999, its
commissions from this activity increased to $19.2-million annually (approximately
67 per cent of its total commission revenue), 82 per cent of which was generated
by only 15 out of Pacific International's 85 registered representatives, and 80 per
cent of which came from non-resident accounts. This increase indicates that the
respondents had a business strategy to encourage the development of this
business.
14. From July 1, 1995, until at least Dec. 31, 1999, certain clients of Pacific
International, most of which were not resident in Canada, operated U.S. dollar
accounts, which traded securities listed or quoted in the U.S.
15. The accounts include accounts mentioned in indictments issued in the United
States, as well as a sample of accounts at Pacific International generating the
largest commission revenue in the period from Jan. 1, 1999, to June 30, 1999.
The sample was chosen from 368 accounts on the basis that accounts generating
the largest revenue are the most active, would have the greatest effect on Pacific
International's revenues and should have attracted the most compliance attention.
Indictments, complaints and investigations
16. On March 28, 1997, May 21, 1998, June 15, 1999, and June 18, 1999, the
United States Department of Justice filed indictments naming clients of Pacific
International, citing their trading through certain of the accounts, and alleging
breaches of American securities laws.
17. During the material time, the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission named accounts or clients of Pacific International in civil complaints.
18. On July 11, 1998, the Vancouver Stock Exchange issued a citation against
J.C. Hauchecorne, a registered representative of Pacific International, involving
activity related to the indictments.
19. Pacific International knew or ought to have known of some or all of the
indictments, the complaints, the citation, and some or all of the behaviour which
led to them. This information ought to have led Pacific International to conduct
internal reviews of the trading in U.S. markets and account opening activities and
to address the compliance deficiencies which those reviews should have revealed.
This did not happen and the compliance deficiencies continued.
Account activity
20. Throughout the material time, certain of the accounts displayed activities and
characteristics that would have caused a reasonable registrant to investigate the
owners and operations of the accounts, because each activity, alone or in
combination, is potentially a symptom of illegal conduct or conduct contrary to the
public interest, including money laundering and share manipulation.
20.1 Some accounts were owned or operated by non-residents and residents of
Canada who were experienced market participants, such as insiders, control
persons, promoters or persons engaged in investor relations activities. Others
were persons registered or formerly registered to trade in securities in the United
States or elsewhere. The trading of foreign stocks in British Columbia by
non-residents should have prompted Pacific International to question the
motivation of those clients.
20.2 Some accounts were owned, operated by or associated with persons with
criminal or regulatory histories. Particulars of certain individuals with criminal or
regulatory histories who owned, operated or were associated with accounts at
Pacific International include the following.
Randolph Beimel
May, 1997: Fined $150,000 and barred from NASD.
Gerald Burns
May, 1988 - December, 1991: In prison on fraud conviction related to sale of
unregistered securities.
September, 1997: SEC complaint (together with Angel Lorie) regarding
defrauding Spanish citizens.
October, 1998: Barred in Florida from acting as officer or director of any public
issuer, a $100,000 civil penalty, and disgorgement of $2.7-million.
June, 1999: SEC barred Mr. Burns from participation in any offering of a penny
stock.
Subsequently implicated in Cambridge International Bank and Trust Company
matter.
Jimmy Ray Carter
August, 1992: Fined $300,000 and barred from NASD for selling shares that
were neither registered or exempt from registration. Also charged unfair prices to
customers.
Anthony Elgindy
1997: NASD suspension for one year and $30,000 fine.
1998: Registration revoked by NASD for failure to pay monies in previously
executed settlement agreement.
Joseph Garofalo
Violations of antifraud provisions of U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.
May, 1993: Permanent injunction resulting from an SEC complaint.
Richard Gladstone
July, 1991: Fined $150,000 by the NASD and barred from any association with
any member of NASD.
Brokerage firm (Morgan Gladstone) expelled from NASD.
Paul Harary
1990: Convicted of criminal fraud.
David Hesterman
May, 1998: Criminal indictment filed for securities fraud.
1984: Conviction for securities fraud.
Steven Keyser
November, 1987: Permanent injunction and disgorgement order pursuant to an
SEC complaint.
Ms. Lorie
September, 1997: SEC action banning Ms. Lorie from participating in penny
stock offerings and from associating with any broker, dealer, investment adviser or
investment company.
Salvatore Mazzeo
October, 1997: Plead guilty to attempted enterprise corruption.
Todd Moore
May, 1997: SEC complaint regarding Members Service Corporation.
Maurice Rind
August, 1990: SEC complaint regarding securities fraud in connection with
collapse of ZZZZ Best Company.
1976: Sentenced to 18 months in prison and fined $10,000 for conspiracy to
violate federal securities laws, mail fraud and other violations.
Shalom Weiss
Indicted in April, 1998, on racketeering and money laundering charges. Convicted
in November, 1999. Sentenced to consecutive prison sentences totalling 845
years and restitution of over $100-million.
20.3 Some accounts were cash accounts and ran significant debit balances.
20.4 Some accounts consistently received in, or transferred out, or both, by
physical or electronic delivery, large blocks of stocks traded on the NASD OTC
Bulletin Board.
20.5 Sale proceeds from some accounts were frequently distributed to third
parties.
20.6 Some clients frequently paid significant fees so that they could receive cash
from sales before the settlement date.
20.7 Cash was transferred in and out of some accounts with little or no intervening
trading activity between the receipt and transfer of cash.
Pacific International's failure to screen its clients
21. Pacific International failed to fulfill the requirements of various rules and
statutes to ensure it had proper client information as follows.
21.1 Client verification procedures in the accounts frequently did not satisfy the
requirements of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, SC 1991, c. 26,
P-24.5, and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Regulations SOR
93-75.
21.2 Some account opening documents lacked certain information, such as proper
client identification or other essential facts.
21.3 Trading and other activity occurred in some accounts before a designated
partner, director or officer approved the opening of the account, as required by
CDNX Rule F.1.01.3 (formerly VSE Rule F.1.01.c) and IDA Regulation 1300.2.
22. Clients received into their accounts securities that were ostensibly issued under
American registration exemptions and then disposed of those securities into U.S.
markets. Pacific International failed to make reasonable inquiries to determine
whether its clients were not illegally distributing those securities.
Demands for production
23. Pacific International received numerous requests during the material time for
production of information from commission staff and the Vancouver Stock
Exchange relating to the accounts.
The respondents' failure to take action
24.1 Pacific International's compliance and operations staff identified and
documented some or all of the activity, the screening deficiencies and the
distributions. In addition, the respondents knew, or ought to have known, of the
indictments, the complaints, the demands and that the Vancouver Stock Exchange
was investigating certain of the accounts and the owners of those accounts.
24.2 Given the increasing financial importance of trading by its clients in securities
listed or quoted in the U.S. to Pacific International's business during the material
time, and the active nature of the accounts, the respondents knew or ought to have
known of the activity and should have taken steps to make inquiries whether the
accounts were being used for illegal or abusive trading.
24.3 Despite this, no or inadequate steps were taken by the respondents or any of
them to make the necessary inquiries.
American registration
25. Given the nature and extent of its U.S. business, Pacific International ought, as
set out in VSE Notice to Members No. 18/94 and IDA Bulletin No. 2537, to
have been registered to trade in the United States as a broker dealer pursuant to
both federal and state law or either of them, and would then have been subject to
the requirements of American law in trading on behalf of its clients, including being
a member of the NASD.
26. By not seeking registration and joining the NASD, Pacific International
avoided the scrutiny of the NASD and avoided complying with the rules and
requirements of the NASD, which could have assisted it in its gatekeeper and
compliance functions.
Breaches of the act and rules
27. The respondents breached the following provisions of the act, the rules and
SRO requirements.
27.1 Pacific International failed to learn and the directors failed to cause it to learn
the essential facts about Pacific International's clients holding accounts, including
especially, but not exclusively, their identity, reputation, and reasons for retaining
Pacific International, when the respondents knew, or ought to have known,
information that caused, or ought to have caused, doubt whether certain of Pacific
International's clients were of good business or financial reputation, contrary to
Section 48 of the rules or Section 43 of B.C. Reg. 270/86, VSE Rules F.1.04,
F.1.01, VSE By-law 5.01(2) and IDA Regulation 1300.1(a).
27.2 The information the respondents knew or ought to have known included:
27.2.1 the activity;
27.2.2 the distributions;
27.2.3 the indictments, the complaints and the demands;
27.2.4 the screening deficiencies;
27.2.5 the issuance of the VSE citation against J.C. Hauchecorne; and,
27.2.6 the reviews conducted by its compliance and operations staff.
27.3 The respondents failed to establish and apply written prudent business
procedures for dealing with clients, particularly those holding accounts, including
supervising the registered representatives or the investment advisers employed by
Pacific International, in compliance with the act and the regulations, contrary to s.
44 of the rules and Section 40 of B.C. Reg. 270/86, VSE Rule F.2.01 and IDA
Regulation 1300.1(b).
Conduct contrary to the public interest
28. The respondents acted contrary to the public interest by:
28.1 failing to establish and apply adequate procedures to identify, investigate, halt
and prevent, where appropriate, the activity, screening deficiencies and the
American dispositions;
28.2 failing to supervise properly or at all the conduct of its investment advisers
and registered representatives;
28.3 failing to ensure that it was not assisting its clients to dispose of restricted
securities into American securities markets; and
28.4 failing to become a member of the NASD for better scrutiny of its U.S.
business.
29. The directors failed to fulfill their obligations under the act and rules or to
exercise the care, diligence and skill of a reasonably prudent person, contrary to
Sections 118 and 135 of the Company Act, RSBC 1996, c. 62.
30. The directors failed to ensure that Pacific International's conduct, business and
affairs complied with all applicable laws, regulations, rules and bylaws.
31. The respondents failed to fulfill their roles as gatekeepers in the securities
industry.
Executive committee and senior officer responsibility
32. All of the individual respondents except for Ms. Sheehan were members of
the executive committee of the board of directors and bore added responsibility
for the conduct of Pacific International's business and its management, including
ensuring that Pacific International's compliance procedures were adequate, were
in place and were followed.
33. Mr. McQuid, as the senior officer most directly responsible for compliance at
Pacific International in the material time, and Mr. Meier, as the senior officer he
reported to, were more particularly responsible for compliance procedures at
Pacific International.
Notice
34. Take notice that the commission will hold a hearing to provide the respondents
with an opportunity to be represented by counsel, lead evidence and submit
representations. The respondents or their counsel are requested to advise the
commission of their intention to answer this notice of hearing before the
commission by contacting the secretary of the commission.
35. And take notice that the respondents or their counsel are required to attend at
the 12th Floor, 701 West Georgia St., Vancouver, B.C., on Sept. 19, 2001, at
10 a.m., if they wish to be heard before the commission fixes a date for the
hearing.
36. And take notice that determinations may be made in this matter if the
respondents or their counsel do not appear at the set date hearing or the hearing.
(c) Copyright 2001 Canjex Publishing Ltd. http://www.canada-stockwatch.com
***¶*** Naked shorting sanctioned, broker fined:
http://www.nasdr.com/pdf-text/0106dis.txt
Firms Expelled, Individual Sanctioned
Falcon Trading Group, Inc. (CRD #30361, Boca Raton, Florida), Sovereign
Equity Management Corp. (CRD #20016, Deerfield Beach, Florida), and Glen
Thomas Vittor (CRD #1565323, Registered Principal, Deerfield Beach, Florida)
were fined $1 million, jointly and severally. In addition, the firms were expelled
from NASD membership and Vittor was barred from association with any NASD
member in any capacity. The sanctions were based on findings that the
respondents effected short sales for the firms' own accounts and failed to make an
affirmative determination that the firms could borrow the securities or otherwise
provide for delivery of the securities by the settlement date. The findings also
stated that the respondents, in cooperation with others, attempted to obtain stock
at below-market prices through the use of threats and coercion, and that, through
naked short sales and extortion, the respondents participated in a manipulation of
the market for those securities. (NASD Case #CAF980002)
¶ Are Stock Bashers really trying to "Save Investors"?....
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15954679
To:Stock Watcher who wrote (45538)
From: Bill Fortune III Saturday, Jun 16, 2001 6:01 PM
Respond to of 45540
Hey Neil and all. On the lighter side:
Some hallmarks of investor rescuers!
1) Did you ever lose time from work or time with the family due to saving investors?
2) Has saving investors ever made your home life unhappy?
3) Did saving investors affect your reputation?
4) Have you ever felt remorse after saving investors?
5) Did you ever save investors in order to get a euphoric high?
6) Did saving investors cause a decrease in your ambition or efficiency?
7) After saving investors, did you feel you must return as soon as possible and to save some more?
8) After a save, did you have a strong urge to return and save some more?
9) Do you often save investors until your last friend is gone?
10) Have you ever sold anything just to be able to save investors?
11) Were you reluctant to use "saving knowledge" for the rich and famous investors?
12) Did saving investors make you careless of the welfare of yourself and your family?
13) Did you ever save investors longer than you had planned?
14) Have you ever saved investors to escape worry or trouble of your own?
15) Have you ever committed, or considered committing, an illegal act just to save investors?
16) Did saving investors cause difficulty in sleeping?
17) Would you rather save investors instead of eating?
18) Do arguments, disappointments or frustrations create within you an urge to save investors?
19) Did you ever have an urge to celebrate your good abilities by a few hours of saving investors?
20) Have you ever considered self destruction or suicide as a result of your saving investors?
Most compulsive rescuers will answer Yes to at least 7 questions!
And
The Stock Basher JIG!..
http://raketik.com/workshop2/workshop.html
Regards,
Bill
¶ Deceptives Practices by Brokerages and Message Boards...
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15844917
What this law means, among other things, is that any licensed brokerage firm engaged in deceptive or manipulative business practices is in violation of the law. Examples of illegal practices might be:
1. engaging in agreements with unlicensed entities such as chat sites which could be construed to have the intent to manipulate traders for benefit of the brokerage firm and the chat site;
2. either directing or persuading chat sites to offer specific recommendations, or to design their "trader education" or "trader training" around the interests of the brokerage and chat site;
3. a licensed firm such as a brokerage extending any undisclosed compensation or kickbacks to a chat site as a reward for cooperation in generating commissions revenues;
4. Encouraging chat sites to manipulate traders, interfering in any way with a chat site in order to further the practice of scalping a high volume of trades, and dividing the proceeds with that chat site;
5. any artifice, scheme or deceit in any forum - and if sent by US Mail then this would constitute mail fraud, a felony - intentionally designed to mislead clients about the true nature of the ownership and direction of a chat site, for the purposes of cloaking the true intent and interests of a chat site from clients who would otherwise believe recommendations were being made in good faith, free from external bias and interference against their own best interests.
These are but a few of the practices specifically prohibited by this Act. I would restate what was published in the headline story of The New York Times Money&Business Section on October 15, after my extensive interviews with Assistant Business and Financial Editor, Gretchen Morgenson:
Payment for customer orders is common among brokerage firms. But the Securities and Exchange Commission requires such deals to be disclosed to customers, and the National Association of Securities Dealers prohibits the payment of such referral fees to unregistered individuals or entities like chat rooms.
To support his assertion, Mr. Asser points to two e-mail messages from [the chat site] Trading-places to brokerage firms discussing the terms of such deals. One message, written last May to an electronic brokerage firm specializing in futures, says that Trading- places will be paid $6 for each round- trip trade - trades getting in and out of a position - by a client referred by the Web site. The other e-mail message, to another futures broker, confirmed discussions with Trading- places about the Web site receiving $5 per round-trip trade by a Trading- places participant...
One of those firms, CyberCorp, a subsidiary of the Charles Schwab Corporation, said late Friday that it was reviewing its relationship with Trading-places.
Bloomberg reported the following October 16:
Asser claims Rea discussed terms with brokerage firms under which Rea would receive a fee for directing his subscribers to them -- a practice that would be illegal without disclosure to subscribers.
These issues are quite clear: any brokerage who has paid a chat site in compensation for generating or :"churning" stock trades has violated the law. Both the brokerage firm and the chat site would be liable for any and all damages which accrued from this activity, including punitive sanctions. For example, any broker and/or chat site operating a business according to the following process would be in clear and blatant violation, under current Federal Securities Law:
Chat Sites and Instant-execution Broker-dealers, and How the Intent to Defraud Day Traders May Be Carried Out in the Modern Era
1. A day trader joins a chat site, where he/she may be asked to provide privileged information about which broker he/she currently uses;
2. The site recommends one or more brokers, with whom the site has made illegal payment-for-order-flow agreements;
3. The trader becomes a client of the recommended broker;
4. The broker reports to the chat site the account has been opened;
5. The brokerage and/or chat site may "train" the trader in the hopes he/she does not go bankrupt too soon;
6. The site issues countless buy and sell advisories, in an effort to rack up as high a trading volume of its members for commissions as possible;
7. For providing this commission revenue stream, the broker pays the chat site a percentage of all commissions (often as high as 30%).
All perfectly despicable.
All absolutely and completely illegal in the United States.
All continuing to take place right now, today, at many well-known chat sites and brokerage firms - all moral concerns, ethical dilemmas and securities laws bedamned.
It is time for this particularly pernicious form of abuse to be halted, immediately. Many of us are working to this end and will continue to keep you informed of our progress.
Sincerely,
Olivier L. F. Asser
¶ LAWS on Transactions by investment advisers....
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15844728
Here is the applicable law concerning actions we have outlined here and elsewhere. You may wish to pay especially close attention to the specific prohibitions specifically outlined by this Act of Congress that I have emphasized in bold type:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/80b-6.html
United States Code
TITLE 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE
CHAPTER 2D - INVESTMENT COMPANIES AND ADVISERS
SUBCHAPTER II - INVESTMENT ADVISERS
Sec. 80b-6. Prohibited transactions by investment advisers
It shall be unlawful for any investment adviser by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly -
(1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or prospective client;
(2) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client;
(3) acting as principal for his own account, knowingly to sell any security to or purchase any security from a client, or acting as broker for a person other than such client, knowingly to effect any sale or purchase of any security for the account of such client, without disclosing to such client in writing before the completion of such transaction the capacity in which he is acting and obtaining the consent of the client to such
transaction. The prohibitions of this paragraph shall not apply to any transaction with a customer of a broker or dealer if such broker or dealer is not acting as an investment adviser in relation to such transaction.
(4) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which is fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative.
The Commission shall,for the purposes of this paragraph (4) by rules and regulations define, and prescribe means reasonably designed to prevent, such acts, practices, and courses of business as are fraudulent,deceptive, or manipulative.
Geezer, if there are NO Shorting RULES for OTCBB,...
as you say, how can there be any misconduct to report?....
The $5.00 minimum price may not be a NASD or SEC Rule, but it's a Rule of Thumb used by a majority of Brokers, as the minimum acceptable for margin trading, which is an integral part of shorting...
JMHO, F. Goelo + + +
Francois, the point is that short selling on the OTCBB is not regulated. Rule 3350 does not apply. You seem to be saying that NASDAQ rules apply to the OTCBB. That is not the case, the OTCBB is separate from the NASDAQ. It is only a quotation medium and does not have the same obligations as the NASDAQ for Market Makers. Also, there are no SEC regulations covering shorting of OTCBB securities.
However, if you have any evidence of misconduct by a market maker you should contact NASD Regulation at:
http://www.nasdr.com/2170.htm
I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the rule or regulation that states that stocks under $5.00 can't be shorted. I have seen this stated quite often but can't find the rule anywhere. It is probably just an urban legend.
Geezer, perhaps you missed the Point...
and I am glad I discussed this matter at length with a NASDAQ Officer... I know that the "uptick" Rule doesn't apply to the OTCBB market and that stocks trading below $5.00 cannot be shorted - in theory - because they're non marginable...
Of course, we both know that the larger shorters use their friendly MM account directly to "naked short" and that few of the Rules are respected by the rogue MM's...
Here is Rule 3350(a)(3), for instance:
Similarly, bona fide market making would exclude activity that is related to speculative selling strategies of the member or investment decisions of the firm and is disproportionate to the usual market making patterns or practices of the member in that security. The Association does not anticipate that a firm could properly take advantage of its market maker exemption to effectuate such speculative or investment short selling decisions. Disproportionate short selling in a market making account to effectuate such strategies will be viewed by the Association as inappropriate activity that does not represent bona fide market making and would therefore be in violation of Rule 3350.
Are you trying to tell me, with regards to OTCBB stocks, that:
bona fide market making would include activity that is related to speculative selling strategies of the member or investment decisions of the firm and is disproportionate to the usual market making patterns or practices of the member in that security.
The Association anticipates that a firm could properly take advantage of its market maker exemption to effectuate such speculative or investment short selling decisions. Disproportionate short selling in a market making account to effectuate such strategies will be viewed by the Association as appropriate activity that represents bona fide market making and would therefore Not be in violation of Rule 3350.
If you really think the foregoing is allowed for OTCBB stocks, I suggest you call NASD/SEC and ask them about the complaints recently made against certain MM's violating such Rules and what is being done about it...
JMHO, F. Goelo + + +
Francois, I clicked on the following link to your post on S.I.;
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15763903
It appears that you do not understand that Rule IM-3350, the Short Sale Rule, applies only to Nasdaq National Market securities and does not apply to OTCBB securities. I am sure that you will want to correct the misleading impression that you have created.
Marty, go ahead, post what you want...
I don't recall deleting a single post here and number gaps are caused by Spam posts that seem to be on an "automatic deletion" Schedule...
FG
GB, coming along nicely and shareholders managed...
to get a couple MM's abusing the trading of SEVU in trouble with SEC and NASDAQ, according to what I heard recently and the change in their trading patterns...
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15763903
I also like this one...
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=110796
JMHO, F. Goelo + + +
¶*** The SEC, the MM's and the Shorting Bashers...
Medinah Minerals (MDMN)
By: jmcjmc $$$$
Reply To: None Saturday, 19 May 2001 at 4:25 PM EDT
Post #34706 of 34762
Per the SEC, changes are coming for the penny market. The following information, if you invest in penny stocks, you will find to be a breathe of fresh air. It's about time.
Around the first week of May, 2001, I read a post from someone who got an email back from a guy at the SEC. I called the guy for questions. It turned out that naked shorting/manipulation wasn't up his alley.
However, we talked for 10-15 minutes about naked shorting/manipulation. He had to ask me exactly what naked shorting meant. I explained the entire situation with information on the companies that are fighting the "short", he was intrigued. He even said "wow, how do they do that" (sell virtual shares). I said I could email you some "stuff". I did. A couple days later I emailed him to ask if he could give me a name and a number of someone closer to the action. He did a little better. I received a call from an SEC official on 5-15, that seemed to me, said maybe more than she should have. I spoke to the same official on 5-18. Here is what she said.
I would like to mention the demeanor of this person I talked to - imo, giddy and excited to be in the middle of this. First, she said she has received 4,000 complaints from investors about shorting/manip in the penny arena. Those 4,000, I'm not sure if that was the total or just what she has seen. Obviousley, tons came from pcbm but the complaints were in general. I did not inquire specifically about pcbm, but as I talked about all the companies that are asking for cert pulls, companies doing dividends etc, I passed the name on of a few companies. She is aware of all of them.
Here is the current situation. She told me to watch the SEC website for proposed rule changes for the penny market. She said she wished they could have gotten them out already, but they should be out this summer. She said they want feedback, (I think that last 90 days) both positive and negative feedback.
I asked a few point blank questions, and to my surprise, they were answered - in flying colors I might add.lol I asked if she thought that naked short selling is happening to the point of manipulation. The answer was yes. She said "We are completely aware of what's going on out there". I asked her to what extent are some issues being shorted. She said "We are seeing indications where the short has gone beyond the entire O/S." Now, if she would have laughed and said "No, there is no way the manipulation goes to that extent." Mine, and all of our hearts would have sunk. What this means is that, we're not nuts to have thought the mm's have been doing this to the extent we thought. We were right all along.
So we started talking about rules. First, for the otcbb market, rule 15c211 really doesn't seem to be effective or enforced. There is a problem with it. MM's are not closing out and going even monthly like they are suppose to. This is about when, w/o me asking, she was giddy and told me she would love to tell me the changes in the proposal are but she can't. In regards to pink sheets, worse yet. She said that the SEC doesn't govern the buyback/go even stuff with the pinks but she said to the best of her knowledge there are no rules pertaining to that with pink sheeters.
She is aware that there is a "movement" from us investors trying to nab the shorts. I asked her if she thought the mm's are aware that "we" are onto them. She laughed and said "I don't know, I would think so."
Asking about the actual process of busting the shorts and creating a buy-in, that was not up her alley. But as we know, pcbm is right on the doorstep along with numerous other companies. She told me I could call anytime, I will see if I could possibly get a name and number of someone at the SEC who can talk about the mechanics of a buy in.
She brought up another rule that isn't being followed. Rule 153c-3. Yes, someone else is being naughty too--your broker. They are required to have you sign a release in order to allow the broker to lend your shares out with your margin accounts. Have you ever signed one of those? She laughed and said "That particular rule isn't being followed."
Now, regarding the proposed changes, I asked how long it can take to make actual changes. She said they are in a tough spot right now because they have no chairman at the SEC at this point. So, who know's. The situation is, those changes when they do happen, won't affect companies that are now battling a short position. Again, many companies are doing what they can legally to get it busted. Along with pcbm, I understand there are others knocking on the door.
The situation as I see it is twofold. One, and this should be foremost, is that change is coming to the penny world that should make this game somewhat fair. THAT is huge. Secondly, as I mentioned, with tons and tons of circumstantial evidence, and now what the SEC confirms, it shows we were on the right track all this time.
Here's a couple of thoughts I have. One is, the mm's have been playing this game a long time. Guess why it's coming to an end? Answer--the net. The forum, unity, gumption lol, brains, have all come together. The rule changes have come too late to save the mm's from themselves. I believe we will go into the next era of investing which we can dub "The big bang theory."
So the mm's know we're onto them. With this issue and others, here's a thought I have as far as there game plan. Are they manipulating these prices so low (in pcbm's situation the price is now at 4 ecnts) that when there is a run to 6 cents, 8, 10, 12 cents, won't there be a ton of sellers? Do you think they think they damn near have a cap on 20 cents? 500% return, damn nice right? Well, there will be sellers, the problem is we own the float as much as 10 times over. We will decide what they should pay us.
Note to bashers: Wake up and die right. The writing is on the wall. No one needs you people, you're completely worthless failures. Information good or bad will be discussed by the longs, sure as #### don't need you to stick your lousy attitude into it. I suggest you think about finding a stock that has a huge short and invest. Quit battling against change in the penny market.
In regards to paid bashers: There is a plan for you guys too. If any investors out there believe that a particular basher is paid who hits it really really hard. Email the board name and one post # to jmcjmc99@yahoo.com. (The pcbm board needs not to do this, you all know I know everyone here)
Feel free to post this on any board where there is beleived to be heavy shorting and manipulation. Good luck all.
Well he is still the chair so I was assume he will be back. No replacement has been sought.
:=) Gary Swancey
I agree but i don't think he's allowed to be here. I am sorry that happened, I think that he makes some really good posts. Oh well, I'll just skip the reposting of the articles, there's a lot of new rules I think, and since I don't understand what the heck is going on anymore, I'll just keep my posting to a minimum.
I read it and most I already from reading them before. The Chair should make the decision on what you wish to do here.
:=) Gary Swancey
okay, I guess this is the right thread, but it seems a shame that Francois isn't here to particpate.
here's a link about short selling and what's legal and illegal, by an ex market maker. He has a lot of articles, I'll try and post them one by one when i get the time. I'll post this one to get some feedback, and if no one objects, I'll start posting others.
http://www.streetsideinvestor.com/getexec.php3?989432319&tott