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.
¶ How to ensure holding Certificates won't stop you from selling...
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=17006
¶ ISP's ordered to reveal customers' identities...
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-3211133.html?tag=st.ne.1002.bgif.ni
By The Associated Press
Special to CNET News.com
October 16, 2000, 3:45 p.m. PT
MIAMI--In a ruling that challenges online anonymity, a Florida appeals court declared Monday that Internet service providers must divulge the identities of people who post defamatory messages on the Internet.
Critics of the ruling say it could have a chilling effect on free expression in Internet chat rooms.
• Get the "Big Picture"
• Related News
• Message Boards
The ruling comes against the efforts of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to protect the identity of eight individuals who posted anonymous missives in a Yahoo financial chat room about Erik Hvide, the former CEO of Hvide Marine.
Hvide alleges that personal attacks against him also caused damage to the company's image. Hvide's attorney Bruce Fischman hailed the ruling, saying it would force Internet users to "think a bit before they speak."
The ACLU had wanted the court first to rule on whether Hvide had actually been defamed before identifying the defendants, named in court papers only as John Doe. If there was no showing of defamation, the ACLU reasoned, the critics should remain anonymous.
However, on Thursday, the court dissolved a stay freezing subpoenas for the records of Yahoo and America Online, whose service was used by one of the defendants in the defamation case.
Lauren Gelman, public policy director with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is concerned that other courts could follow the lead of the 3rd District Court of Appeals in approving subpoenas.
"This kind of speech happens all the time in all kinds of chat rooms," Gelman said. "We don't want to see these subpoenas become regularly used to cause people to self-censor themselves."
Both Internet companies took a back seat in the lawsuit, saying they would do whatever the judges said.
Lyrissa Lidsky, who argued the case on behalf of the ACLU, called the decision a surprise and a setback.
Nevertheless, she said, "It's not a defeat for all the other John Does in the pipeline" fighting Internet-related subpoenas, because the court did not explain its legal reasoning.
An appeal is being explored.
"The court had the potential to set an important precedent about the right to speak anonymously on the Internet," Lidsky said. "The courts are eventually going to have to come to grips with this issue and decide how broad free-speech rights are in cyberspace."
The issue is largely untested in the nation's courts. A Virginia federal judge sided with a government subpoena request in a criminal case, but civil suits in California and Virginia have not settled the subpoena questions involving anonymous Internet users.
¶ OTC-BB Market Makers under MORE CONTROL?....
For Release:
Contact: October 12, 2000
Wayne Lee
(202) 728-8067
NASD Board Approves Creation of New Order Delivery System for OTC Bulletin Board
Washington, DC—The National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD®) today announced that the NASD Board of Governors has approved a proposal to create an automated order delivery system for the OTC Bulletin Board® (OTCBB). The need for an automated system arose because of a significant increase in trading activity in the over-the-counter market. The system-which will promote a more efficient market and enhance investor protection-requires approval from the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The proposed order delivery system will enable market participants to execute directed liability orders (orders that when delivered to a broker/dealer imposes an obligation to respond to the order). In addition, the system will allow users to enter, cancel, correct, accept, decline, or execute full or partial orders.
"This order delivery system will provide a fair and more efficient market for all market participants and all investors, especially during periods of increased market activity," said J. Patrick Campbell, Nasdaq’s Chief Operating Officer. "The OTCBB today is far different than it was at its inception ten years ago because of an explosion in retail participation and rigorous efforts by Nasdaq and the NASD to protect investors and the public interest."
The wealth of information for OTC securities on the Internet and the growth of online trading systems that are accessible to individual investors are primary reasons for the explosion in trading activity in the OTCBB. From 1995 to 1999, average daily share volume rose from 41 million to 323 million-and increase of 282 percent. In the first quarter of this year, an average of more than one billion shares were traded each day.
Presently, all order delivery, communication and negotiation between two firms regarding an OTCBB trade are done manually over the telephone. Among the main objectives of providing an order and delivery and execution system for the OTCBB are:
to increase the execution speed of customer orders, thus providing a better opportunity for best execution;
to enable market participants to contact each other electronically to send and execute orders;
to complement the increase in volume and the change in trading behavior in the OTCBB; and
to provide the infrastructure necessary to enact new rules aimed at investor protection.</n>
The National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., is the largest securities-industry, self-regulatory organization in the United States. It is the parent organization of The Nasdaq Stock Market®, The American Stock Exchange®, NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc., and NASD Regulation, Inc. For more information about the NASD and its subsidiaries, please visit the following Web sites: www.nasd.com; www.nasdaq.com; www.amex.com; www.nasdr.com; or the Nasdaq NewsroomSM at www.nasdaqnews.com.
¶ A Primer on Stock Manipulation....
HOT STOCKS
CONFIDENTIAL ESSAY
By George Chelekis * April 21, 1996
TEL: (813) 251-0030 * FAX: (813) 254-4677
NOTE: I believe this may be one of the most important essays
on the financial markets which you will ever read. This essay will be
the lead article in Hot Stocks Review, Spring 1996 (Part Two). Up
until recently, I knew that I was missing something, but I could not
quite put my finger on it. Now I know what it is. The data which
follows is only as good as you can actually use it. These are the cold,
savage and ruthless facts of market manipulation. I have not made
these up, but have dug them up out of out-dated, generally
unavailable books on Canadian market manipulations, and pieced the
rest together from observations, personal experiences and
conversations with market professionals and insiders. While the
books are out of date, the manipulations have been passed down
from one generation to another. The only thing missing was someone
to supply you with what those tricks were so you can become a more
educated speculator. Many thanks to Robert Shore and Vern
Flannery, of Market News Publishing, for finding and sending me a
copy of the book, "The Story Behind Canadian Mining Speculation" by
T. H. Mitchell, first published in 1957 by George J. McLeod Limited;
also Ivan Shaffer's book, "The Stock Promotion Game." I have been
told that many of these tricks are now illegal. If so, would someone
please tell that to the market manipulators.
THE DEADLY ART OF STOCK MANIPULATION....
In every profession, there are probably a dozen or two major
rules. Knowing them cold is what separates the professional from the
amateur. Not knowing them at all? Well, let's put it this way: How
safe would you feel if you suddenly found yourself piloting (solo) a
Boeing 747 as it were landing on an airstrip? Unless you are a
professional pilot, you would probably be frightened out of your wits
and would soil your underwear. Hold that thought as you read this
essay because I will explain to you how market manipulation works.
In order to successfully speculate, one should presume the
following: THE SMALL CAP STOCK MARKETS PRIMARILY EXIST TO
FLEECE YOU! I'm talking about Vancouver, Alberta, the Canadian
Dealing Network and the US Over-the Counter markets (Pink Sheets,
Bulletin Board, etc.). One could also stretch this, with many stocks, to
include the world's senior stock markets, including Toronto, New
York, NASDAQ, London, etc. The average investor or speculator is not
very likely to have much success in the small cap crapshoots. I guess
that is what attracted ME to these markets. I have been trying, for
quite some time, to answer this question, "How come?" Now, I know.
And you should, too!
By the way, the premise of these books is uniformly: "While
these speculative companies do not actually make any money, one
can profit by speculating in these companies." THAT is the premise
on how these markets are run, by both the stock promoters, insiders,
brokers, analysts and others in this industry. That logic is flawed in
that it presumes "someone else" is going to end up holding the dirty
bag. Follow this premise all the way through and you will realize the
insane conclusion: For these markets to continue along that route,
new suckers have to continue coming into the marketplace. The
conclusion is insane in that such mad activity can only be short-lived.
I disagree with this premise and propose another solution (see my
earlier essay: A Modest Proposal) at the end of this essay.
What the professionals and the securities regulators know and
understand, which the rest of us do not, is this.
"RULE NUMBER ONE: ALL SHARP PRICE MOVEMENTS --
WHETHER UP OR DOWN -- ARE THE RESULT OF ONE OR MORE
(USUALLY A GROUP OF) PROFESSIONALS MANIPULATING THE SHARE
PRICE."
This should explain why a mining company finds something
good and "nothing happens" or the stock goes down. At the same
time, for NO apparent reason, a stock suddenly takes off for the sky!
On little volume! Someone is manipulating that stock, often with an
unfounded rumor.
In order to make these market manipulations work, the
professionals assume: (a) The Public is STUPID and (b) The Public
will mainly buy at the HIGH and (c) The Public will sell at the LOW.
Therefore, as long as the market manipulator can run crowd control,
he can be successful.
Let's face it: The reason you speculate in such markets is that
you are greedy AND optimistic. You believe in a better tomorrow and
NEED to make money quickly. It is this sentiment which is exploited
by the market manipulator. He controls YOUR greed and fear about a
particular stock. If he wants you to buy, the company's prospects
look like the next Microsoft. If the manipulator wants you to desert
the sinking ship, he suddenly becomes very guarded in his remarks
about the company, isn't around to glowingly answer questions about
the company and/or GETS issued very bad news about the company.
Which brings us to the next important rule.
"RULE NUMBER TWO: IF THE MARKET MANIPULATOR WANTS
TO DISTRIBUTE (DUMP) HIS SHARES, HE WILL START A GOOD NEWS
PROMOTIONAL CAMPAIGN."
Ever wonder why a particular company is made to look like the
greatest thing since sliced bread? That sentiment is manufactured.
Newsletter writers are hired -- either secretly or not -- to cheerlead
a stock. PR firms are hired and let loose upon an unsuspecting public.
Contracts to appear on radio talk shows are signed and implemented.
Stockbrokers get "cheap" stock to recommend the company to their
"book" (that means YOU, the client in his book). An advertising
campaign is rolled out (television ads, newspaper ads, card deck
mailings). The company signs up to exhibit at "investment
conferences" and "gold shows" (mainly so they can get a little
"podium time" to hype you on their stock and tell you how "their
company is really different" and "not a stock promotion.") Funny
little "hype" messages are posted on Internet newsgroups by the
same cast of usual suspects. The more, the merrier. And a little
"juice" can go a long way toward running up the stock price.
The HYPE is on. The more clever a stock promoter, the better
his knowledge of the advertising business. Little gimmicks like
"positioning" are used. Example: Make a completely unknown
company look warm and fuzzy and appealing to you by comparing it
to a recent success story, Diamond Fields or Bre-X Minerals. That is
the POSITIONING gospel, authored by Ries and Trout (famous for
"Avis: We Want To Be #1" and "We Try Harder" and other such
slogans). These advertising/PR executives must have stumbled onto
this formula after losing their shirts speculating in a few Canadian
stock promotions! The only reason you have been invited to this
seemingly incredible banquet is that YOU are the main course. After
the market manipulator has suckered you into "his investment,"
exchanging HIS paper for YOUR cash, the walls begin to close in on
you. Why is that?
"RULE NUMBER THREE: AS SOON AS THE MARKET
MANIPULATOR HAS COMPLETED HIS DISTRIBUTION (DUMPING) OF
SHARES, HE WILL START A BAD NEWS OR NO NEWS CAMPAIGN."
Your favorite home-run stock has just stalled or retreated a bit
from its high. Suddenly, there is a news VACUUM. Either NO news or
BAD rumors. I discovered this with quite a few stocks. I would get
LOADS of information and "hot tips." All of a sudden, my pipeline was
shut-off. Some companies would even issue a news release
CONDEMNING me ("We don't need 'that kind of hype' referring to
me!). Cute, huh? When the company wanted fantastic hype circulated
hither and yon, there would be someone there to spoon-feed me. The
second the distribution phase was DONE....ooops! Sorry, no more
news. Or, "I'm sorry. He's not in the office." Or, "He won't be back
until Monday."
The really slick market manipulators would even seed the
Internet news groups or other journalists to plant negative stories
about that company. Or start a propaganda campaign of negative
rumors on all available communication vehicles. Even hiring a
"contrarian" or "special PR firm" to drive down the price. Even hiring
someone to attack the guy who had earlier written glowingly about
the company. (This is not a game for the faint-hearted!)
You'll also see the stock drifting endlessly. You may even
experience a helpless feeling, as if you were floating in outer space
without a lifeline. That is exactly HOW the market manipulator wants
you to feel. See Rule Number Five below. He may also be doing this to
avoid the severe disappointment of a "dry hole" or a "failed deal."
You'll hear that oft-cried refrain, "Oh well, that's the junior minerals
exploration business... very risky!" Or the oft-quoted statistic, "Nine
out of 10 businesses fail each year and this IS a Venture Capital
Startup stock exchange." Don't think it wasn't contrived. If a geologist
at a junior mining company wasn't optimistic and rosy in his promise
of exploration success, he would be replaced by someone who was!
Ditto for the high-tech deal, in a world awash with PhD's.
So, how do you know when you are being taken? Look again at
Rule #1. Inside that rule, a few other rules unfold which explain how
a stock price is manipulated.
"RULE NUMBER FOUR: ANY STOCK THAT TRADES HUGE VOLUME
AT HIGHER PRICES SIGNALS THE DISTRIBUTION PHASE."
When there was less volume, the price was lower. Professionals
were accumulating. After the price runs, the volume increases. The
professionals bought low and sold high. The amateurs bought high
(and will soon enough sell low). In older books about market
manipulation and stock promotion, which I've recently studied, the
markup price referred to THREE times higher than the floor. The
floor is the launchpad for the stock. For example, if one looks at the
stock price and finds a steady flatline on the stock's chart of around
10 cents, then that range is the FLOOR. Basically, the markup phase
can go as high as the market manipulator is capable of taking it.
From my observations, a good markup should be able to run about
five to ten times higher than the floor, with six to seven being
common. The market manipulator will do everything in his power to
keep you OUT OF THE STOCK until the share price has been marked
up by at least two-three times, sometimes resorting to "shaking you
out" until after he has accumulated enough shares. Once the markup
has begun, the stock chart will show you one or more spikes in the
volume -- all at much higher prices (marked up by the manipulator,
of course). That is DISTRIBUTION and nothing else.
Example: Look at Software Control Systems (Alberta:XVN), in
which I purchased shares after it had been marked up five times.
There were eight days of 500,000 (plus) shares trading hands, with
one day of 750,000 shares trading hands. Market manipulator(s)
dumping shares into the volume at higher prices. WHENEVER you see
HUGE volume after the stock has risen on a 75 degree angle, the
distribution phase has started and you are likely to be buying in --
at or near the stock's peak price.
Example: Look at Diamond Fields (TSE:DFR), which never
increased at a 75 degree angle and did not have abnormal volume
spikes, yet in less than two years ran from C$4 to C$160/share.
Example: Look at Bre-X Minerals (Alberta:BXM), which did not
experience its first 75 degree angle, with huge volume until July
14th, 1995. The next two trading days, BXM went down and stayed
around C$12/share for two weeks. The volume had been 60% higher
nearly a month earlier, with only a slight price increase. Each high
volume and spectacular increase in BXM's share price was met with a
price retreat and leveling off. "Suddenly," BXM wasn't trading at
C$2/share; it was at C$170/share.... up 8500% in less than a year!
In both of the above cases, major Canadian newspapers ran
extremely negative stories about both companies, at one time or
another. In each instance, just before another share price run up,
retail investors fled the stock! Just before both began yet another
run up! Successful short-term speculators generally exit any stock run up
when the volume soars; amateurs get greedy and buy at those points.
"RULE NUMBER FIVE: THE MARKET MANIPULATOR WILL
ALWAYS TRY TO GET YOU TO BUY AT THE HIGHEST, AND SELL AT THE LOWEST PRICE
POSSIBLE."
Just as the manipulator will use every available means to
invite you to "the party," he will savagely and brutally drive you
away from "his stock" when he has fleeced you. The first falsehood
you assume is that the stock promoter WANTS you to make a bundle
by investing in his company. So begins a string of lies that run for as
long as your stomach can take it.
You will get the first clue that "you have been had" when the
stock stalls at the higher level. Somehow, it ran out of steam and you
are not sure why. Well, it ran out of steam because the market
manipulator stopped running it up. It's over inflated and he can't
convince more people to buy. The volume dries up while the share
price seems to stall. LOOK AT THE TRADING VOLUME, NOT THE SHARE
PRICE! When earlier, there may have been 500,000 shares trading
each day for eight out of 12 trading days (as in the case of Software
Control Systems), now the volume has slipped to 100,000 shares (or
so) daily. There are some buyers there, enough for the manipulator
to continue dumping his paper, but only so long as he can enlist one
or more individuals/services to bang his drum.
He may continue feeding the promo guys a string of "promises"
and "good news down the road." (Believe me, this HAS happened to
me!) But, when the news finally arrives, the stock price goes THUD!
This is entirely orchestrated by a market manipulator. You'll see it in
the trading volume, most of which is CONTRIVED. A market
manipulator will have various brokers buying and selling the stock
to give the APPEARANCE of increasing volume and price so that YOU
do start chasing it higher.
At some point during the stall stage, investors get fed up with
the non-performance of the stock. It drifts for a while, in a steady
retreat, with perhaps a short-lived spike in price and volume (the
final signal that the manipulator has finally offloaded ALL of his
paper). Then, the stock comes tumbling down -- having lost ALL of
the earlier share appreciation.
Sometimes, with the more cruel manipulators, they will throw
in a little false hope... giving you a little more rope so they can better
hang you. Just after a severe drop, there will be a "bottom fishing"
announcement which sends the share price up a bit on high volume,
rises a little more after that and then continues to drift. Meanwhile,
you keep getting "shaken out" through a cruel drip-drip water
torture of the share price's slow retreat. Again, virtually every
movement is completely orchestrated.
"RULE NUMBER SIX: IF THIS IS A REAL DEAL, THEN YOU ARE
LIKELY TO BE THE LAST PERSON TO BE NOTIFIED OR WILL BE DRIVEN
OUT AT THE LOWER PRICES."
Like Jesse Livermore wrote, "If there's some easy money lying
around, no one is going to force it into your pocket." The same
concept can be more clearly understood by watching the tape. When
a market manipulator wants you into his stock, you will hear LOUD
noises of stock promotion and hype. If you are "in the loop," you will
be bombarded from many directions. Similarly, if he wants you out
of the stock, then there will be orchestrated rumors being circulated,
rapid-fired at you again from many directions. Just as good news
may come to you in waves, so will bad news.
You will see evidence of a VERY sharp drop in the share price
with HUGE volume. That is you and your buddies running for the
exits. If the deal is really for real, the market manipulator wants to
get ALL OF YOUR SHARES or as many as he can... and at the lowest
price he can. Whereas before, he wanted you IN his market, so he
could dump his shares to you at a higher price, NOW when he sees
that this deal IS for real, he wants to pay as little as possible for
those same shares... YOUR shares which he wants to you part with, as
quickly as possible.
The market manipulator will shake you out by DRIVING the
price as low as he can. Just as in the "accumulation" stage, he wants
to keep everything as quiet as possible so he can snap up as many of
the shares for himself, he will NOW turn down, or even turn off, the
volume so he can repeat the accumulation phase.
In the mining business, there seems to always be another "area
play" around the corner. Just as Voisey's Bay drifted into oblivion,
during the fourth quarter of 1995 and early into 1996, the same
Voisey Bay "wannabees" began striking deals in Indonesia. Some
even used new corporate entities. Same crooks, different shingles.
The accumulation phase was TOP SECRET. The noise level was
deadingly silent. As soon as the insiders accumulated all their shares,
they let YOU in on the secret.
"RULE NUMBER SEVEN: CONVERSELY, YOU WILL OFTEN BE THE
LAST TO KNOW WHEN THIS DEAL SHOWS SIGNS OF FAILURE."
Twenty-twenty hindsight will often show you that there was a
"little stumble" in the share price, just as the "assays were delayed"
or the "deal didn't go through." Manipulators were peeling off their
paper to START the downslide. And ACCELERATE it. The quick slide
down makes it improbable for your getting out at more than what
you originally paid for the stock... and gives you a better reason for
holding onto it "a little longer" in case the price rebounds. Then, the
drifting stage begins and fear takes over. And unless you have serves of
steel and can afford to wait out the manipulator, you will more than likely
end up selling out at a cheap price.
For the insider, marketmaker or underwriter is obliged to buy back all of
your paper in order to keep his company alive and maintain control of it.
The less he has to pay for your paper, the lower his cost will be to
commence his stock promotion again... at some future date. Even if his
company has no prospects AT ALL, his "shell" of a company has some value
(only in that others might want to use that structure so they can run their
own stock promotion). So, the manipulator WILL buy back his paper. He just
wants to make sure that he pays as little for those shares as possible.
"RULE NUMBER EIGHT: THE MARKET MANIPULATOR WILL
COMPEL YOU INTO THE STOCK SO THAT YOU DRIVE UP ITS PRICE
SHARES."
Placing a Market Order or Pre-Market Order is an amateur's
mistake, typifying the US investor -- one who assumes that thinly
traded issues are the same as blue chip stocks, to which they are
accustomed. A market manipulator (traders included here) can jack
up the share price during your market order and bring you back a
confirmation at some preposterous level. The Market Manipulator
will use the "tape" against you. He will keep buying up his own paper
to keep you reaching for a higher price. He will get in line ahead of
you to buy all the shares at the current price and force you to pay
MORE for those shares. He will tease you and MAKE you reach for the
higher price so you "won't miss out." Miss out on what? Getting your
head chopped off, that's what!
One can avoid market manipulation by not buying during the
huge price spikes and abnormal trading volumes, also known as
chasing the stock to a higher price.
"RULE NUMBER NINE: THE MARKET MANIPULATOR IS WELL
AWARE OF THE EMOTIONS YOU ARE EXPERIENCING DURING A RUN
UP AND A COLLAPSE AND WILL PLAY YOUR EMOTIONS LIKE A
PIANO."
During the run up, you WILL have a rush of greed which
compels you to run into the stock. During the collapse, you WILL
have a fear that you will lose everything... so you will rush to exit.
See how simple it is and how clear a bell it strikes? Don't think this
formula isn't tattooed inside the mind of every manipulator. The
market manipulator will play you on the way up and play you on the
way down. If he does it very well, he will make it look like someone
else's fault that you lost money! Promise to fill up your wallet? You'll
rush into the stock. Scare you into losing every penny you have in
that stock? You'll run away screaming with horror! And vow to
NEVER, ever speculate in such stocks again. But many of you still
do.... The manipulator even knows how to bring you back for yet
another play.
What actors! No wonder Vancouver is sometimes called
"Hollywood North."
"FINAL RULE: A NEW BATCH OF SUCKERS ARE BORN WITH
EVERY NEW PLAY."
The Financial Markets are a Cruel, Unkind and Dangerous
Playing Field, one place where the newest amateurs are generally
fleeced the most brutally.... usually by those who KNOW the above
rules.
Just as I have a duty to ensure that each of you understand
how this game is played, YOU now have that same duty to guarantee
that your fellow speculator understands these rules. Just as I would
be a criminal for not making this data known to you, YOU would be
just as criminal to keep it a secret. There will always be an
unsuspecting, trusting fool whom the rabid dogs will tear to shreds,
but it does NOT have to be this way.
IF every subscriber made this essay broadly known to his
friends, acquaintances and family, and they passed it on to their
friends, word of mouth could cause many of these market
manipulators to pause. IF this effort were done strenuously by many,
then perhaps the financial markets could weed out the crooked
manipulators and the promoters could bring us more legitimate
plays.
The stock markets are a financing tool. The companies BORROW
money from you, when you invest or speculate in their companies.
They want their share price going higher so they can finance their
deal with less dilution of their shares... if they are good guys. But,
how would you feel about a friend or family member who kept
borrowing money from you and never repaid it? That would be theft,
plain and simple. So, a market manipulator is STEALING your money.
Don't let him do it anymore. Insist that the company in which you
invest be honest or straight... or find another company in which to
speculate. Your money talks in LOUDER volumes than any stock
promotion scheme. ALWAYS refuse any deal which smells wrong.
Refuse to tolerate the scams prevalent in the financial markets.
This can ONLY be accomplished by KNOWING and USING the above
rules. Thoroughly COMPLETE your due diligence on a company before
risking a dime. Dig up the Insider Reports to find out who is blowing
out their paper, how often they are blowing out their paper and
whatever happened to their "last play."
Begin to use this as YOUR rule of thumb: If the insider's paper
is really worthless, then avoid it. Find another's whose paper DOES
hold promise and honest possibilities. In these small cap stock
markets, you are investing more in the INDIVIDUAL behind the play,
than the "possibility" of the play itself. Ask yourself before
speculating: Could I lend this person $5,000 for a year and hope to
get it back? If not, then don't! Do it for your own good and the good
of everyone else who is so foolish as to speculate in these financial
markets!
The truly sane and only somewhat safe solution to all of this:
FIND GOOD COMPANIES IN WHICH TO SPECULATE AND GET INTO
THEM AT THE GROUND FLOOR LEVEL. Anything else is criminal or
stupid. This is a case where there really isn't a gray area. It's either
Black or it's White. The company and its management are scamsters
or they really intend to bring value to their shareholders.
COPYRIGHT (c) 1996 by George Chelekis. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
George Chelekis is not an investment advisor, money manager or
stockbroker (past or present). George Chelekis holds a substantial
position in Software Control Systems, prior to going to press and may
sell part or all of his position without advance notice.
Coach, I just wished they had a better case... FG
Read the sequel....thanks....just like the Company Stance....Coach
---Strange Press Release in OTCBB land
http://www.otcnn.com/comment.html?id=968940180
FAIRFIELD, Iowa--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 13, 2000--Global Online India, trading under the symbol: GOLX on the OTC: BB, who launched its Indian internet portal and started trading on the over-the-counter bulletin board market only weeks ago, today asked the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to immediately start an investigation into the possible market manipulation and potential fraud concerning the trading of the company's stock by OTC: BB market makers.
Although the GOLX stock has been up over 1200% in the last six weeks, following a recent merger and a 200% stock dividend, the company claims that mysterious ``block trades'' have possibly been ``crossed '' or ``washed'' by some of the stocks' market makers with the intent of artificially moving the stock price lower to protect the market maker's position in the stock. ``We have worked very hard to build what we feel is truly the number one global internet portal in all of India and the market capitalization of our company is beginning to reflect this value in a very real and concrete manner. The market makers artificial downward manipulation of this new stock may very well be illegal,'' said Dr. Christopher W. Hartnett, Chairman and founder of Global Online India.
``A thorough and complete investigation into the recent GOLX trading history will most likely yield patterns of manipulation and fraud. Such market activity usually goes unnoticed or unchallenged because of the fear of retribution. We expect the free and fair trading of our company's stock and we respectfully ask the regulatory agencies to fully support this investigation into potentially illegal market manipulation. This inquiry is in no way intended to malign or discredit the many hardworking, fair, and honest professionals trading in the securities industry.'' said Dr. Hartnett.
Global Online India is one of the premier providers of e-commerce services and e-business solutions to the 1.0 million Internet users in India and to the approximate 20.0 million Indian expatriates around the world through its meta-hub ``www.GOLindia.com''. This international meta-hub currently provides a range of business services such as: online forms for Indian taxation, customs, and import/export businesses; a loan finding service; Indian rail, air and movie tickets; online insurance and credit card applications; online medical and legal advice; and web stock trading and advanced technical analysis; among others. General services for end-users and small businesses include: news, chat, Bollywood, e-greetings, sports, stock information, auctions, classifieds, yellow and white pages, and jobs.
Global Online India is affiliated with Global Online, Inc. (GOL), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Global Link, a major pioneer since 1992 in the discount international telecommunication service providing arena. Global Online (GOL), an international meta-hub located at ``www.GlobalOnline.com'', is the world's first global gateway to international life and world trade, providing B2B and B2C e-commerce services through its 5,680 web sites in 18 languages and 29 currencies in over 120 countries worldwide
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/000914/ia_global_.html
A GREAT EXAMPLE OF NAKED SHORT SELLING
(If you can comprehend this in its entirety you can understand Naked Shorting and MMM)In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
No. 94-2015
SULLIVAN & LONG, INCORPORATED, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
SCATTERED CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Nos. 93 C 4069, 93 C 5346,
93 C 5447, 93 C 5740--Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge.
ARGUED NOVEMBER 1, 1994--DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 1995
Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and COFFEY and MANION,
Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the dis-
missal, for failure to state a claim, of a suit that charges
violations of the securities laws growing out of a notori-
ous, or at least newsworthy, episode of short selling of
common stock of LTV Corporation. In re Scattered Cor-
poration Securities Litigation, 844 F. Supp. 416 (N.D. Ill.
1994); see, e.g., Kurt Eichenwald, "Stock Strategy under
Scrutiny," N.Y. Times, Aug. 26, 1993, p. D1; Alexandra
Peers & Jeffrey Taylor, "Chicago Broker Faces Inquiry
over LTV Short Sales," Wall St. J., Aug. 27, 1993, p.
C1. The plaintiffs allege a "market manipulation" on an
awesome scale that jeopardized the solvency of the Chi-
cago (formerly Midwest) Stock Exchange. But like the dis-
trict judge we have difficulty understanding what right
of the plaintiffs the "manipulation" violated or how they
were harmed.
LTV, a large steel producer, entered bankruptcy in 1986.
In February of 1993 it announced a proposed plan of re-
organization under which existing stock in the company
would be replaced by new stock most of which would be
issued to the bondholders and other creditors of LTV. Ex-
isting stockholders would receive warrants entitling them
to purchase some of the new stock. The plan contained
an estimate that the new shares would be worth only 3
or 4 cents. When the plan was announced, the old shares
were trading for more than 30 cents. There were 122 mil-
lion old shares outstanding.
The plan was confirmed by the bankruptcy court on
May 27, 1993, and the court fixed June 29 as the last day
on which the old shares would be tradable. Beginning be-
fore the confirmation date, but greatly accelerating on that
date, the principal defendant, a Chicago Stock Exchange
market maker (a dealer willing both to buy and sell a par-
ticular stock or other security for his account on a regular
basis, 15 U.S.C. sec. 78c(a)(38)) with the alarming name of
Scattered Corporation, sold short huge quantities of the
old LTV shares. It sold short, in fact, tens of millions of
such shares a week, for a total, when trading ended on
June 29, of 170 million shares, far more than the 122 mil-
lion old LTV shares outstanding. The excess of shares sold
short over total shares outstanding is the focus of the
plaintiffs' complaint.
A short sale is a sale at a price fixed now for delivery
later. A trader sells stock short when he thinks the price
of the stock is going to fall, so that when the time for
delivery arrives he can buy it at a lower price and pocket
the difference. If, for example, he sells the stock short
at 50 cents a share, and the price falls to 40 cents before
he delivers the stock, he can buy the stock for 40 cents
a share, deliver it to the buyer, and have made a profit
of 10 cents. Under the rules of the Chicago Stock Ex-
change, the buyer in a short-sale situation is entitled to
delivery within five working days of the sale. If the seller
fails to make delivery (maybe he doesn't have the stock),
the rules entitle the buyer to "buy in" the stock, that
is, to go out and purchase it on the open market and
charge the price to the short seller. See United States
v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768, 771 n. 2 (1979). If in our ex-
ample the price had risen by the end of five working days
to 65 cents and the seller did not deliver, the buyer would
go into the market, buy the stock at 65 cents, and charge
the price back to the short seller. After the completion
of the transaction, the buyer would have stock worth 65
cents that he had obtained at a net cost of 50 cents (50 cents +
65 cents minus 65 cents). Notice that a short seller's potential
loss is unlimited, since it is simply the difference between the
sale price and the market price--which could be anything.
The plaintiffs in this case were buyers on the other side
of Scattered's short sales. They thought the price of the
old shares would rise before plunging to 3 or 4 cents by
June 29. (An old share would be worth that, rather than,
as one might imagine, zero, because the holder of 100
shares was entitled to turn his shares in and receive 1.08
warrants to buy new shares at the rate of one warrant per
share. The warrants, being worth approximately 100 times
the old shares, were selling for between $3.125 and $4.125.)
Why they thought this is a puzzle. Since on May 27 it
was certain, or virtually so (nothing is really certain), that
shares of common stock in LTV would be worth no more
than 4 cents in just a month, it is unclear why the stock
did not plunge immediately to that level. In fact it re-
mained in the two-digit range for quite some time, and
on the very last day of trading was trading at 7.8 cents
even though it was within hours of plunging to half that.
Scattered's counsel told us that the only reason the
stock did not plunge immediately is that many brokers
and investors do not read a plan of reorganization care-
fully--it is a long, complex, and jargon-ridden document--
and hence many of them did not at first, or perhaps even
at last, realize that the old stock in LTV would indeed
be worth only 3 or 4 cents after the reorganization was
completed. The problem may be endemic with reorgan-
izations. Eichenwald's article suggests that many investors
misunderstand the significance of news that a company
is reorganizing. They see that the price of the stock is
"low," and think that they are getting in on the ground
floor rather than climbing aboard a sinking ship. See also
Kurt Eichenwald "Being Nearly Worthless, Wang Shares,
Of Course, Sell Briskly," N.Y. Times, Sept. 16, 1993,
p. D8. Maybe the stock exchanges or the SEC should do
something about these gullibles, since competition, which
usually protects the uninformed purchaser, seems not to
be working. Scattered, however, disclaims any legal re-
sponsibility for educating its buyers, and indeed has none,
not being a fiduciary of the people it trades with. Chia-
rella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222, 233 (1980). Its counsel
acknowledged that his client hoped to take advantage of
these people by selling them stock short. That is what short
sellers do: they bet on a declining market, trusting that
they have better information or better instincts than other
traders, those who will buy from them. There is nothing
unlawful about trading on an information advantage, pro-
vided that it is not based on inside information, id. at 233,
235; Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646, 654-55 (1983); Barker
v. Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, 797 F.2d 490,
495-96 (7th Cir. 1986), which is not alleged. Scattered
merely had a better understanding of the information
about the reorganization than the investors with whom
it traded. It was not even a matter of its having non-
public information, though the cases we have just cited
make clear that trading on nonpublic information is lawful
unless it is inside information. It was a matter of a su-
perior interpretation of public information, the informa-
tion contained in the plan of reorganization.
The effect of trading on an information advantage is to
dispel, by penalizing, ignorance and to bring market values
into closer, quicker conformity with economic reality. The
profit that such trading brings at the expense of less
knowledgeable traders provides the incentive for a pri-
vate, for-profit firm, such as Scattered, to provide this
economic service.
Darwinian this process may appear to be, and yet how
many (if any) of the plaintiffs resemble the proverbial
widow and orphan, or other harmless prey? Sullivan &
Long is the first-listed plaintiff. According to a magazine
article that the plaintiffs cited in their complaint, "Mr.
Sullivan, who is a member of the CSE's [Chicago Stock
Exchange's] board of governors and is an owner of CSE
member firm Sullivan & Long Inc., tried to use an arbi-
tration strategy similar to Scattered's to profit from the
difference in price between LTV's stock and warrants.
But in late June, Mr. Sullivan, who was effectively bet-
ting that LTV's stock price would decline, became con-
cerned that the price might rise when he discovered how
large a short position Scattered had. He bought LTV
shares to cover his own short position, and his firm in-
curred modest losses. In July, Sullivan & Long filed suit
against Scattered . . . ." Peter J.W. Elstrom, "Stock Probe
Target Fights Back," Crain's Chicago Business, Aug. 30,
1993, pp. 3, 25. The article notes an allegation that Sul-
livan learned of Scattered's short position in his capacity
as a governor of the Chicago Stock Exchange.
Scattered had no intention of delivering any of the LTV
stock that it sold short. The last thing in the world that
it wanted to do was to acquire and hold a stock that it
believed certain to lose most of its value within weeks.
Since it had no intention of buying any of the stock, it
had no compunctions about selling short more LTV stock
than existed. It ran the risk that the people on the other
side of the short-sale transactions were right in betting
that the price would rise before its terminal plunge, that
those people would go into the market and buy stock when
the price rose during the five-day period for delivery, and
that they would force Scattered to reimburse them for
these purchases, as in our hypothetical example of the
stock sold short at 50 cents that rises to 65 cents. This
risk--the risk that, if the Crain's article can be believed,
Mr. Sullivan flinched at--did not materialize, because the
price maintained its downward course. There were few
buy-ins, and Scattered ended up making more than $25
million from its campaign of short selling. The plain-
tiffs claim that Scattered ignored such buy-in demands
as were made upon it, but this is imprecise. Scattered
refused to deliver old stock in response to such demands,
but did offer warrants on new stock. The amount of old
stock that it had sold short represented fewer than 2 mil-
lion shares of new stock. This was only a small part of
the total equity capitalization of the reorganized firm. The
vast majority of the new stock was to go to the debt-
holders of the old firm. It would not have been infeasible
for Scattered to buy enough warrants to satisfy all poten-
tial buy-in demands with new stock. It would have been
infeasible for it to obtain enough old stock to satisfy all
such demands in old stock.
We can understand, therefore, Sullivan's flinching. The
risk was enormous, precisely because Scattered had sold
short more old LTV stock than existed. If all the buyers
decided to buy in, and if Scattered were deemed not en-
titled to pay these buyers with warrants rather than with
old stock, the price of the old stock would skyrocket--
unless Scattered sopped up all this demand by continu-
ing to sell short to these buyers. But at some point the
buyers would worry about Scattered's ability to make
good on all its promises to redeem its short sales. They
would demand stock, not further promises to pay a high
price if the stock rose in value. When this happened--
this balking by the buyers--the plaintiffs would, until Scat-
tered did go broke, be able to make money buying in the
stock that Scattered had sold short to them. They say
that Scattered prevented the price from rising (and there-
by discouraged buy-ins by making them unprofitable) by
selling short more and more stock. This is just to say that
Scattered, like a bluffer in a poker game, kept redoubling
its bet until the other players lost heart. But so what?
Scattered's principals may be reckless gamblers, sharpies,
wise guys, exploiters of loopholes, even violators of the
letter or spirit of the rules of the Chicago Stock Exchange.
Cf. United States v. Naftalin, supra, 441 U.S. at 776-77.
We take no position on these questions, except to note
that the Chicago Stock Exchange has forbidden the prac-
tice in which Scattered engaged--that is, selling short
without having borrowed the stock being sold short or
having equivalent guarantees of delivery. But it did this
after the short-sale spree that is the basis of this suit,
and anyway not every stock exchange rule confers a pri-
vate right to sue. Spicer v. Chicago Board of Options Ex-
change, Inc., 977 F.2d 255, 262-66 (7th Cir. 1992).
What troubles us most about this suit is the plaintiffs'
failure to identify any harm to the objectives of the secu-
rities laws under which they have sued; for that matter
they have failed to identify a rule that Scattered violated.
The central objective, we take it, is to prevent practices
that impair the function of stock markets in enabling peo-
ple to buy and sell securities at prices that reflect un-
distorted (though not necessarily accurate) estimates of
the underlying economic value of the securities traded.
An efficient stock market is one in which stock prices re-
flect all potentially available information that is relevant
to the economic value of the stocks. Eugene Fama, "Ef-
ficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empiri-
cal Work," 25 J. Finance 383 (1970). Not every practice
that might reduce the efficiency of a stock market is pro-
hibited; the securities laws compose a patchwork of rules
rather than a seamless standard. But we would think twice
before concluding that these laws prohibit "schemes" that
accelerate rather than retard the convergence between
the price of a stock and its underlying economic value and
therefore promote rather than impair the ultimate goals
of public regulation of the securities markets. Objective-
ly, from May 27 on old shares of LTV stock were worth
only 3 or 4 cents, and the defendant's campaign of short
selling helped move the market price toward that true
value. Had the plaintiffs succeeded in their scheme of re-
selling for, say, 50 cents stock that they had bought for
40 cents but that was worth only 4 cents, they would have
been contributing to an irrational gyration in stock prices.
The plaintiffs call what Scattered did "market manipula-
tion," a term that refers to tactics by which traders, like
monopolists, create artificially high or low prices, prices
that do not reflect the underlying conditions of supply and
demand. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, supra, 425 U.S.
at 199. The only artificial prices, however, were the prices
at which LTV stock sold between the confirmation of the
plan and the expiration of the old stock. They were ar-
tificially high because they so greatly exceeded the stock's
true value, which was only 3 to 4 cents. Far from launch-
ing a balloon, Scattered's short sales punctured a balloon,
bringing prices down to earth where they belonged.
The name for what Scattered did is not market manipula-
tion, but arbitrage. Arbitrageurs are traders who identify
and eliminate disparities between price and value, or as in
this case between today's price and tomorrow's price where
the difference cannot be attributed to any prospective change
in value. See Falco v. Donner Foundation, Inc., 208 F.2d
600 (2d Cir. 1953). By doing this, arbitrageurs promote the
convergence of market and economic values that we suggested was
the central objective of securities regulation. Con-
sider a case in which the identical stock is selling for differ-
ent prices on two exchanges at the same time. Since the
value is the same, the prices should be the same. By buy-
ing stock on the exchange where the price is lower and
reselling it on the other exchange, the arbitrageur brings
about a convergence of price with value. This case is only
a little subtler. The old LTV stock and the new stock that
was to be issued when the plan of reorganization was im-
plemented were not identical, but they were nearly so.
The old stock was the stock until June 29, the new stock
the stock thereafter. The two stocks were so far identi-
cal (putting aside the irrelevant difference in the roughly
100 to 1 rate at which old shares were convertible into
new) that any difference in price between them was more
likely to reflect a failure of the stock market to work
properly than a difference in underlying conditions of de-
mand and supply. Scattered played the arbitrageur's role
in trying to equate the prices of these two nearly iden-
tical goods. Arbitrage is not market manipulation. The op-
posite of a practice that creates artificial prices, it elimi-
nates artificial price differences.
The plaintiffs complain that the defendant prevented
them from profiting from their purchases by flooding the
market with successive waves of short sales, thus keep-
ing the market price from fluctuating upward from time
to time ("capping the price," they call it). Such upturns
would have enabled them either to buy in at a higher
price than the short-sale price and thus make a profit,
if they had bought from Scattered, or to sell at a profit
stock that they already owned. But "flooding" a market
with short sales is not a rational formula for keeping price
falling. On the other side of each such sale is a buyer who
thinks the market price will rise. If he is right, the short
seller will lose money, and the more shares he has sold
short, the more money he will lose. As we have already
intimated, the short seller could sell so many shares short
that his solvency was jeopardized. Suppose price rose and
everyone who bought the shares sold short by Scattered
tried to buy in. Since there would be more stock demanded
than there was stock capable of being supplied, the price
would soar and Scattered, which we are told was capitalized
at only $1.5 million when the short selling began, would,
unless it could redeem with warrants, soon go broke. But
the plaintiffs are not complaining that if Scattered guessed
wrong about the direction of the market, the price of the
stock would rise faster than if Scattered had sold short
fewer shares, for if that had happened the plaintiffs might
have made money. And the threat of insolvency is one rea-
son that buyers would have stopped accepting Scattered's
offers to sell short, would instead have insisted on delivery
or would have bought in and sought reimbursement from
Scattered.
The plaintiffs analogize Scattered's plan to the scam in
the movie The Producers. The "defendants" in that movie
sold shares in a play to investors. They sold more than
100 percent of the shares, confident that the play--"Spring-
time for Hitler"--would be a flop, so that the investors
would not ask for their share of the profits (there would be
no profits). The play was a success, so the scam was exposed
and they were sent to jail. Where the analogy fails is that
while investors reasonably believe that the promoter will
not sell more shares than exist, since he would then be
defrauding the investors, a buyer of stock does not have
a basis for equal confidence that the number of shares
of a stock that is being sold short does not exceed the
total number of shares in existence, since the seller is not
trying to raise money for a venture. If even one share
of a stock is sold short, there will be more shares actual-
ly or potentially for sale than there are shares in exis-
tence--since by definition the short seller does not own
the share or shares that he is selling short--unless the
short seller has borrowed stock in order to be able to
make delivery if the buyer wants delivery. Scattered was
not the only short seller of LTV stock. Apparently the
first-listed plaintiff in this case also sold LTV stock short.
If Scattered had sold only 85 million shares short, and
other arbitrageurs had sold in the aggregate another 85
million, the imbalance between shares for sale and shares
in existence would have been identical, unless the arbi-
trageurs borrowed the stock they sold short.
Granted, it is customary for a short seller to borrow
the stock that he sells short; if he did not, the buyers
would lack confidence that he could deliver, and might
worry that if they tried to buy in, the short seller would
not have the money to reimburse them. But the plaintiffs
do not point us to, and we have not been able on our
own to find, a law that requires arbitrageurs or other
short sellers to borrow the stock that they are selling
short. So the plaintiffs could not count on the volume of
short sales being capped at the total number of shares
outstanding. They were on notice that the sort of thing
that did happen might happen, if there were any trader
as audacious as Scattered. Being on notice, they were not
deceived.
It is true that in 1994--a year after the short selling
of LTV's old shares--the Chicago Stock Exchange adopted
a rule requiring a short seller to borrow the stock sold
short or provide equivalent guarantees of being able to
deliver. Self-Regulatory Organizations: Chicago Stock Ex-
change, Inc., 59 Fed. Reg. 42082 (Aug. 16, 1994). But that
is too late to help these plaintiffs. A further complication
is that, as we have mentioned, Scattered did have, so far
as appears, enough warrants to deliver new stock to cover
any demands for old stock, though we do not know whether
responding to such demands in this way would have sat-
isfied the short-sales rules of the Chicago Stock Exchange
or for that matter the contracts of short sale. Since there
is not as yet any requirement of public disclosure of short
sales (hence the allegation that Mr. Sullivan abused his
position as a governor of the Chicago Stock Exchange),
see Large Trader Reporting System, 59 Fed. Reg. 7917
(Feb. 17, 1994); Self-Regulatory Organizations: Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change by New York Stock Ex-
change, Inc., 60 Fed. Reg. 518 (Jan. 4, 1995), Scattered
itself could not know the precise contribution that its short
selling was making to the imbalance of which the plain-
tiffs complain.
We have thus far assumed that the short seller is not
trying to deceive the market about what he is doing. The
plaintiffs charge deception. They charge first of all that
Scattered did not disclose that it had no intention of de-
livering any of the stock that it sold short. But if it was
selling more shares than were outstanding, it could not
deliver them--the requisite number of shares did not ex-
ist--so the plaintiffs' real complaint must be that Scat-
tered did not disclose how many shares it was selling.
But it was not required to disclose the number and the
plaintiffs were not entitled to assume that Scattered would
not sell more shares than were outstanding. Beginning
on May 27, Scattered bought warrants so that it could
deliver new shares to anyone who demanded delivery. The
plaintiffs argue and we may assume for purposes of our
decision that anyone who demanded delivery before June
29 would have been entitled to old shares. That individ-
ual's remedy, when Scattered refused to deliver old shares,
would have been to buy them in. Apparently no one both-
ered to do that. No one who bought from Scattered is
complaining that it was not able to buy in old shares, so
that the Brennan case on which the plaintiffs rely is in-
apposite. Brennan v. Midwestern United Life Ins. Co.,
286 F. Supp. 702 (N.D. Ind. 1968), aff'd, 417 F.2d 147 (7th
Cir. 1969). No matter how many tens or for that matter
hundreds of millions of shares Scattered sold short, it
could not extinguish any of the outstanding shares and
thus it could not defeat the right of the buyers, including
the plaintiffs in this case, to buy in the old shares and
if the price was higher than the price of the short sales
to charge the price to Scattered and pocket the difference.
And this is on the assumption that rule or contract re-
quired Scattered to deliver old shares, rather than war-
rants for new shares. If the latter form of compliance with
the short-sale contract was permissible, the plaintiffs' case
evaporates completely, since Scattered no longer would
have been selling short more shares than existed.
The plaintiffs also complain that Scattered falsely marked
its trading tickets "short exempt," meaning that Scattered
was authorized to sell on down ticks in the market. (This
means authorized to sell at a price equal to or below the
last sale price, even if that price was equal to or below
the next preceding sale price.) If Scattered was not ex-
empt, it may have to answer to the Chicago Stock Ex-
change or the SEC, see SEC Rule 10a-1, but we do not
see how its claim of exempt status could have deceived
anyone in any respect that bears on this case. Exempt
or not, a short sale is a short sale. If anything, the claim
of exemption would lead investors to believe that Scat-
tered was going to do more short selling than if it were
not exempt, since exemption would free it from restric-
tions on short selling. And the plaintiffs' whole complaint
is that they were fooled by the magnitude of the short
selling that Scattered did.
Our analysis has shown that nothing alleged in the com-
plaint is the kind of conduct that the securities laws are
aimed at combatting. It is therefore not surprising that
none of the plaintiffs' specific legal contentions has merit.
They contend first and foremost that "by unprecedented
massive short selling and by disguising the nature of their
trades, the defendants controlled the price of LTV," in vio-
lation of section 9(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. This section forbids "a series of transactions in any
security registered on a national securities exchange cre-
ating actual or apparent active trading in such security
or raising or depressing the price of such security, for
the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such se-
curity by others." 15 U.S.C. sec. 78i(a)(2). As the plaintiffs
themselves point out, the essence of the offense is creating
"a false impression of supply or demand," for example
through wash sales, where parties fictitiously trade the
same shares back and forth at higher and higher prices
to fool the market into thinking that there is a lot of buy-
ing interest in the stock. Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v.
Green, 430 U.S. 462, 476 (1977). There was nothing like
that here. On the other side of all of Scattered's transac-
tions were real buyers, betting against Scattered, however
foolishly, that the price of LTV stock would rise. And
Scattered made no representations, true or false, actual
or implicit, concerning the number of shares that it would
sell short. Maybe the plaintiffs' theory is that every short
seller implicitly warrants that it won't sell short in such
quantity as to jeopardize its financial solvency. This is an
argument against short selling, or perhaps against short
selling without borrowing the shares to be sold short--
or perhaps against arbitrage. But other than in tender-
offer situations, where short selling is prohibited, SEC
Rule 14e-4 (formerly 10b-4; cf. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fen-
ner & Smith, Inc. v. Bobker, 808 F.2d 930, 934 (2d Cir.
1986)), there is as yet no rule barring persons with a pro-
nounced taste for risk from trading on stock exchanges.
Since there was no deception--no relevant deception, for
as we have said Scattered's claim to be exempt could only
magnify the impression that it was selling short far more
shares than it could deliver, and thus tend to dispel the de-
ception of which the plaintiffs complain--there is also no basis
for a claim under Rule 10b-5, which requires proof of either
deception or manipulation. Central Bank of Denver, N.A.
v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 114 S. Ct. 1439,
1448 (1994); Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 239 n.
17 (1988); Chiarella v. United States, supra, 445 U.S. at
232; Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, supra, 425 U.S. at 199.
Deception there was not; and most forms of "manipula-
tion" involve deception in one form or another. Santa Fe
Industries, Inc. v. Green, supra, 430 U.S. at 476-77. We
have explained why no nondeceptive practice in which
Scattered engaged was manipulative in the sense--the
only possibly relevant legal sense--of bringing about ar-
tificial prices for LTV stock.
As for the claim that Scattered violated section 12(1)
of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. sec. 77l, by becom-
ing an issuer of LTV stock without registering the offer
or sale as required by that Act, this is quite fantastic.
Only LTV could issue LTV stock, although persons con-
trolling LTV, as well as (conventional) underwriters, could
also be liable for selling unregistered stock, see 15 U.S.C.
secs. 77b(11), 77d(1), 77e, 77l(1)--but Scattered was none of
these. The remaining claims--violation of RICO, unjust
enrichment, and violation of an Illinois consumer protec-
tion statute--are either makeweights or depend on con-
tentions that we have already rejected. The complaint fails
to state a claim and the suit was therefore properly dis-
missed.
It was properly dismissed for another reason as well.
The plaintiffs could not prove injury with the degree of
certainty, low that it is, necessary to obtain an award of
damages in a securities case. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor
Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975); Pelletier v. Stuart-James
Co., 863 F.2d 1550, 1557-58 (11th Cir. 1989). (They do not
seek any other form of relief.) They bought stock that
was selling for many times its actual value, hoping against
hope that there were enough foolish investors to push the
price up despite the imminence of its certain plunge. It
is entirely speculative that but for Scattered's short sell-
ing, the plaintiffs would have sold at a profit or at a
reduced loss before the price plunged to its value in
the reorganization. The plaintiffs do not suggest that
short selling in the stock of a firm undergoing reorganiza-
tion is forbidden. Other traders might have seen the op-
portunity Scattered did, and their short selling might have
driven the price sufficiently low to thwart any profit by
these plaintiffs. It was not necessary that short selling
drive the price all the way down to 7.8 cents (where it
was when the music stopped), only that it drive the price
below what it would have been had Scattered not sold
short in such massive quantities. But to recapitulate the
essential point of this opinion, since the conduct in which
Scattered engaged appears to have served rather than dis-
served the fundamental objectives of the securities laws,
we are not inclined to strain to find a violation of a spe-
cific provision.
¶ GREAT POST, HOW to SCREW the MM's: BUY-INS?.... FG
Why we have MMM and What You can do to Stop it.
We used to have a free flow of investor comment on this page – much of it about Market Maker Manipulation. In the beginning the idea that there even was market maker manipulation was shocking. If anything, it could have only occurred in an isolated incident or two. Right? Wrong.
As more and more investors added their experiences to the growing mass of information being sent into OTCNN, we all learned that gross manipulation of OTCBB stocks is a widespread and prevalent disease infecting much of the OTCBB. We also learned that insiders regard it as nothing more than “business as usual.”
We learned much about how the MMs did it, how they sold stock that they didn’t own, and used unreported MM-to-MM trades back and forth, to manipulate stock prices. What we also found out was that the more we learned from our reader-investors about the mechanics of MMM, the less comfortable the MMs were in practicing it.
Now the cat is out of the bag, and nobody’s going to stuff it back it. MMM is still practiced, because there’s no intolerable penalty for it, but even MMs must know, the days of free wheeling stock manipulation are numbered.
Unfortunately, what used to be a constant flow of enlightening investor information and opinion has all but stopped. Since OTC News Network initiated a more stringent policy regarding anonymous letters – for legal and other reasons – fewer people are willing to speak out.
Many times an investor will say, “Please don’t use my name,” and we won’t. But, if we can’t verify the opinion came from you, we can’t publish the message, no matter how informative it is. This is the same reasoning behind the advice we give over and over again on this site – everything you read that directly affects you should be independently verified! And, one of the best ways to get true information is to know the source.
I, unlike many of OTCNN’s readers, am not anonymous, so I qualify to express my knowledge and opinion – not necessarily the opinion of OTCNN News Network, only my own. So if this column seems familiar to you, you’ll know that I still read your letters and try to investigate your claims.
An insight into the mechanics of MMM can be gained by using a made-up example to explain how a typical short begins, why it generally escalates, and why calling your securities doesn't always work. But here’s the good part, how a company can get even.
Say, for example, Burney Corp. reverse-merges into an OTCBB shell, and those in the know start buying the stock in the open market. This causes a chain reaction in a number of ways. First, usually you will see the stock begin to rise, simply because of the laws of supply and demand.
Next, you will see the Market Makers begin to jockey around for "Order Flow," the lifeblood of a Market Maker. Whether it is buy side or sell side, he doesn't care, just try to work out a small spread and he's done his job. This is where OTCBB stocks can start to have a problem.
If an MM starts to receive order flow, and it is coming from a major, such as Merrill, Schwab, or Ameritrade, he will risk filling the order, even if he doesn’t have the stock, and trying to back bid it, rather than just filling a partial order or passing. Order flow is everything, and if he can fill this order, chances are when that firm gets another order, he will too.
So now lets say the MM is “negative” 5,000 shares of Burney Corp. All the MM was doing was trying to honor a buy order, not necessarily hurt the stock. Now, more orders are coming in. Some he sees, some he doesn't, but at the end of the day, he’s now short 30,000 shares. And the stock that started at $1.00 per share, is now at $2.00.
Dilemma! The market maker is now down 30,000 shares, and nobody is selling him any stock. Day two comes and the same thing happens, only this time the stock closes at $3.00, now he is negative 60,000 shares. Now he is really in a jam. What does he do? He's down 2 points on 60,000 shares and still nobody is selling.
Does he (a) try and cover by buying into the open market and take his hit, (b) continue to fill orders with stock he doesn't own, averaging his short price up, or (c) start short selling the stock, knocking the price down and praying he shakes some sellers out? Those are his 3 choices.
Understand, the Market Maker didn't necessarily mean to get in this jam. It just happened as a function of him trying to create a good "First Call" with the street in a security where the shares are very tightly held. Now his back is against the wall, and he has to try and trade his way out.
Unfortunately, if he chooses to try and short the stock down, he may create an even bigger mess. A good offense is usually the first line of defense. The problem with this scenario is that as he pushes the stock down he (a) is now short even more shares, and (b) because the stock is now lower, he may encounter additional buying that he will also have to short to keep pressure on the stock. Now, he is short 120,000 shares, though he has managed to close the stock down to $2.00, but he still hasn't covered. Now, what does he do?
He can continue along his merry way and try to cover this himself, or he can call upon a few other MM friends to lend a hand and have them all short some stock too. Eventually the end is that they either succeed in driving the stock into the ground and people sell their shares back, or the buyers cause the shorts to lose so much money that they give up and go and play elsewhere. The problem is, how do the buyers make this happen?
Many will say to "register and ship" your shares to take them out of the system. Unfortunately, as good as this sounds, it may not work and the reason is one of the biggest kept secrets on Wall Street. Its called Stock Lending, and it is one of the biggest revenue generators firms have. Some make more money in this department than they do from normal trading commissions.
Say you are firm "A" and the original "Shell" shareholders have their shares of Burney Corp. deposited with you. Every single Market Maker that is short these shares can come to you and pay a daily fee, usually about 5% of the market value, and borrow stock from you.
Now lets say that a bunch of buyers of Burney Corp. request for their shares to be registered and shipped. Either they never get them, or they raise a sufficient fuss and they get them eventually. Why is it so difficult? Because both sides have an incentive to slow the process down.
The firm that is long on the stock doesn't want to deliver them because they are making money loaning them to the shorts. And the shorts don't want them delivered because it dries up their supply from which to borrow. The other thing is that firms all tend to stick together and help each other out, because you never know when you may need a favor of your own. So the question remains: How do you break them?
I’ll have the answer tomorrow in Part 2 of “Manipulating the Manipulators.”
Yesterday we imagined a situation in which some MMs were in a long position and some held extreme short positions in the stock of fictitious Burney Corp. We observed that these firms all tend to stick together and help each other out, because they never know when they may need a favor of their own.
And we asked the question: How do you break them?
The answer is, you can’t, at least not under present regulations. You can, however, cause them to just leave, which in reality is all you really want them to do.
How? It's not easy, but I’ll try to explain.
Because firms tend to watch out for one another, it is very difficult to force a "Buy In". It can be done in Canada however, and here are the steps to do it.
1. Open up an account in Canada. This is difficult because most firms there will not open accounts for U.S. residents. You may get lucky enough to find a firm that will open one for you, but you may have to settle for an offshore account instead. For the sake of the discussion, let’s assume you open a Canadian account.
2. Transfer your shares into your newly opened Canadian account.
3. Request that those shares to be registered and shipped. Now odds are the shares won't be delivered and after 5 business days a fail notice will appear. This is where you need someone who knows what they are doing.
4. After the fail notice, your broker gives his Clearing Firm a “'48 Hour” Buy-In Notice. This notice is then electronically disseminated among all of the other Clearing Firms, who then pass it along to the firms they clear for, meaning the market makers.
This notice basically tells the market makers that they have 48 hours to deliver good, fully paid for shares, or they run the risk of being bought in. They do NOT like this! It is at this point that the market makers will try to buy some stock in the open market, to try and fulfill the request, however, if it is for a lot of stock, them may not be able to find it.
When that happens and the 48 hours has passed, then your broker goes to work for you again. This time he is armed with a blank check. For the sake of example, lets say that a group has DTC'ed 400,000 shares into a Canadian account, and they received only 50,000 before the 48 hours was up.
The broker now goes into the market place and tries to buy 350,000 shares "Guaranteed Delivery." This is very important because otherwise the market makers will just short the shares to you, but they can't be delivered, so when the broker is out there buying in, he must request against guaranteed delivery shares.
In this example, the shares started at $2/share. Now, let’s say that the broker is able to find up to 350,000 shares guaranteed delivery, but pays an average price of $6/share. Who gets the bill for $2.1 million and how do they get it?
The bill is sent to the Clearing Firm that the Canadian broker used, which then sends it out to all the other Clearing Firms. Every market maker will receive their portion of the bill, however much they were short, and now bought in, and will have to pay these monies to their clearing firm within 24 hours.
This is where you hurt them most, in the pocket book. Hopefully you can make it meaningful, and it becomes too expensive for them, and they decide to play elsewhere.
Remember that the market makers have two advantages over the public. They are exempt from being short a non-marginable security, and they generally have tens or hundreds of millions of dollars behind them to wait it out.
The one thing they do not have is the stock to deliver, and you just need to know how to force a buy-in.
(Please address your comments, with name, address and phone, to jburney@otcnn.com , or you can send them anonymously, but don’t expect them to be published.)
Disclaimer:
This content is for informational use only and is not a recommendation to open an account in Canada. OTCNN shall not be liable for any errors in the content herein.
http://www.otcnn.com/comment.html?id=969891060
http://www.otcnn.com/comment.html?id=969979500
Vancouver Short Sellers............
http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=MXIP&read=2174
unscrupulous firm in New York ?
http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=MXIP&read=2176
http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=MXIP&read=2185
AWESOME WEBSITE, FG!!!
It proves the old adage about a picture (and sound) being worth a thousand words.
The power of SSBs is no joke. I find it time consuming to fight the bashers on the SEVU board. And, yes, they sometimes do get under my skin. While any attempt to "shut them up" faces SEVERE and quite possibly insurmountable legal and technological problems IMO, I certainly would not miss them. I think we should be encouraged by the fact that the private sector, in the form of IHUB, has come up with a solution that works!!!! I think the most productive use of our time is to PERSIST in spreading the word, as this would make concerns about new laws (not likely to succeed in the US, as already explained in a SEVU IHUB post) and lawsuits largely academic, especually since this PRIVATE sector solution has the potential to work a lot more quickly than any governmental/legal action.
JMHO Bulldop01Toror
¶ Interesting Website for the MM+SSB HATER...
http://showcase.netins.net/web/tnp/special/basher.htm
¶ Claire, INVT did form an OTC-BB group to fight against...
MM's ABUSE and they have Senators on board... It is a verified FACT, that anytime a Company states its intention to list on another Exchange, be it AMEX or NASDAQ, the MM's will COLLECTIVELY SHORT the Crap out of it, so that the share price is PUSHED below the Listing Requirement Threshold: $3.00 for AMEX and $4.00 for NASDAQ... See ZSUN, SCRO, etc...
That would be SO EASY to prove in a COURT of LAW, that I am DROOLING already...
That's why PNDS (AMEX: PNS) said nothing about their listing on AMEX and only announced it when they filed the Registration Statement, a few days before starting to trade... Yes, both INVT and SEVU were/are Badly shorted, except that INVT is no longer going on any higher Exchange, while SEVU was UP 34% yesterday, on the expectation of imminent listing on AMEX...
JMHO, F. Goelo + + +
Bulldop, shares of Private Companies are Not Traded...
on any Exchange and yes, you get shares Certificates, even in Private Companies...
Anybody knows or could find out the DEFINITIVE SEC Rules on the conversion of Street Name shares into Certificates?... I believe the Law gives 3 days to the Brokers/Transfer Agents and they usually take 3 to 6 weeks...
http://sec.gov should have the answer, if anybody has the time to look for it...
JMHo, F. Goelo + + +
K4S and every single MM, as well...
Actually, you could see BILLIONS REFUNDED to CHEATED Investors by the MM's for FRAUD and the Authorities for NEGLIGENCE in discharging their Duties, all of which should be fairly EASY to PROVE with 10 of thousands of WITNESSES available... We could even include the SSB's in it...
JMHO, F. Goelo + + +
Matt, fine... I originally had MM+SSB's...
but it didn't come trough... I wondered if we could make the "Ticker" somewhat clearer, perhaps: MM's & SSB's or MM&SSB... Something easy to remember and that reflects the subject... Thanks....
JMHO, F. Goelo + + +
Wasn't it INVT who was in the kind of a same situation, and they made a complaint, but the stock price didn't move at all since then? I am just wondering about the erosion in price of SEVU and INVT but they don't seem to react the same way...
Brilliant, FG!!!!
You also answered one of my lingering questions that I thought it would seem old-fashioned and unsophisticated to bring up.
I remember seeing stock certificates when I was a child. I hhave also issued stock certificates for my own little company, which is privately held and sells collectibles online.
I wondered why no stock certificates were ever delivered to me or even mentioned. NOW I KNOW. A true stock certificate has to be NEGOTIABLE by the named stockholder, who I imagine would have to be allowed onto the floor of the listing exchange if he wanted to trade his stocks in person--the last thing MMs would want, especially if a guy named BULL showed up.
Again, you have delivered like a champion!!! You have pointed pout how easily we are controlled in some ways by those who REALLY know the game and play it in person every day.
Now, of course, I'm cussing myself for blithly assuming that actual stock certificates are simply outdated....
The rest is likewise first rate.
JMHO Bulldop
Interesting Read
Friday September 15, 12:09 pm Eastern Time
Press Release
Earth Search Announces Certificate Order Out Program
Earth Search Today Announced That It Had Determined That OTCBB Market Makers Were
Abnormally ''Short'' Earth Search Stock
KALISPELL, Mont.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 15, 2000--``There is no reason for such large
short positions to be taken in our stock,'' said Larry Vance, chairman of Earth Search. ``NASD
rule 3370 (b)(2)(B) which allows member firms to make a short sale without having to make a
positive determination that securities are available to borrow for delivery by settlement date,
allows these so called market makers to sell securities they never have to deliver. This has the
effect of creating securities out of thin air because there is no accountability required by the
NASD for OTCBB stocks. Now these very same 'market makers' have a vested interest in
keeping the stock price as low as possible where they can cover their positions if they are
audited.''
The National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) is comprised of brokerage firms ranging
in size from the very largest, who's names are known to all, to unknown local and regional firms
known only to a small cadre of clients and other small firms. The NASD is a self regulating
group designed to enforce the rules in case of violations, such as abuse of rule 3370 (b)(2)(B).
The SEC and state district attorneys are the final stop for regulatory enforcement.
``The stock holders of Earth Search don't deserve to be treated this way by unscrupulous
market makers who short OTCBB stocks for profit in the name of legitimate market making,''
complained Vance. ``But there is a solution -- we have been approached by a senior United
States senator who informed us that there are hundreds of companies like ours who fall prey to
this sort of activity. Currently the senator and his staff are investigating the abuse of rule 3370
(b)(2)(B) as well as our situation in order to determine which federal agency would most
efficiently investigate these issues. By the time the investigation is completed and all of the
bulletin board companies list their complaints, we are optimistic that the rules governing short
positions on the bulletin board will be changed to reflect a more fair and free market rather than
a market controlled by market makers. In the meantime, we suggest that ALL shareholders of
Earth Search immediately order out their stock certificates. This means that you request from
your brokerage house that they immediately deliver to you the stock certificates representing all
of your shares of Earth Search. This will require the market makers to go into the market to
purchase shares to deliver into your hands. Not only will they have to buy one share to give to
you, they will have to buy another share to pay back what they borrowed in order to 'book' your
share to your account when you purchased the stock.''
``If existing shareholders as well as new shareholders order delivery of their certificates, you
can expect activity by not only the market makers but by the brokerage firm through which you
purchased your shares,'' said Vance.
``You can expect your brokerage firm to be very much against this policy. When you request
your shares, your broker must deliver them to you within the guidelines set down by the SEC. If
your broker doesn't have the shares to deliver to you, the brokerage house must go into the
market and purchase the shares for delivery,'' said Vance. ``The whole industry is tied together
in this mess. They are more than willing to sell you stock when they make a commission and a
profit. They scream like wounded animals when they have to make good their mistakes and
abuses at a loss. The only way to take control from these people is to demand that they deliver
your certificates to you.''
For some time Earth Search has met all requirements for listing on the NASDAQ except for the
price per share. Both the NASDAQ and the NYSE have very stringent requirements regarding
the shorting of stock either for profit or for market making. Shares must be daily accounted for
and marked to the market as if delivered.
``The instant we arrive at the per share price required by NASDAQ, we will apply for listing on
that exchange,'' says Vance. ``We are determined to wage war against these people. Anyone
who has been with Earth Search for a while knows we won't quit and we won't go away.''
Earth Search will attempt to contact all of its shareholders to coordinate this program. All
shareholders should contact the main office either individually or collectively as soon as
possible for more information.
For more information call 406/751-5200 or e-mail earthsrch@aol.com or www.earthsearch.com
This news release includes forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and
uncertainties. The information reflects numerous assumptions as to industry performance,
general business and economic conditions, regulatory and legal requirements, taxes and other
matters, many of which are beyond the control of the company. Similarly, this information
assumes certain future business decisions that are subject to change. There can be no
assurance that thee results predicted here will be realized. Actual results may vary from those
represented and those variations may be material.
Should we say if PCBM has a short squeeze, the Earth Science should follow the same route?? If and only if PCBM can set the cornerstone IMHO.. else we can never be sure if the MMs really need to cover the shorts... JMHO
signed,
Bernard
My Thoughts,
I feel the only effect way to bring about CHANGE in the OTCBB
Rules, is a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT Filed by a large number of
Shareholders/Investors and OTCBB Companies AGAINST the SEC & NASD!
Should make for an interesting discussion, Frank.
I did move your board to the Lounge area..notice the new category.
FM
Followers
|
16
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
82
|
Created
|
09/15/00
|
Type
|
Premium
|
Moderator Francois+Goelo | |||
Assistants |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |