No Own - No Sell (NOSHORTS)

[Poet]

Thanks for the update, but please don't include me. I think you are misguided, have seen evidence of no personal threats against you, and, after reading every post on your SI board, see the majority of responses as (often crudely) telling you the same thing as I did: you do not appear to understand how the stock market works.

[Bird of Prey]

I thought I'd comment on recent activities...

Signature count is still growing, now over 670.

The furor from the short camp has subsided somewhat. I believe they finally realized that the continued assaults were actually helping rather than hurting our cause. Even the satirical chat board has been most quiet this afternoon. It does seem though that the satirical petition was pulled by petitononline.com. No complaints from our side that I am aware of, the satire was very well done IMHO and as someone once said even bad publicity is still publicity!

Efforts are contining to get the word out and all assistance is appreciated.

The personal threats have not abated and indeed seem to be escalating. Rest assured Gary and I were and are prepared for this.

Media feelers are starting to come in, this still has a great deal of potential.

For the troops out there...keep the faith and don't stop spreading the word.


The Bird of Prey

[Bird of Prey]

What the petition doesn't do...


1. It does not permanently end short selling.

2. It does not prevent individuals from exposing overvalued, poorly managed or fraudulent stock scams.

3. It will not hinder honest individuals from profiting from their discovery of a company fitting the scenarios described in #2.

4. It does not isolate the American markets.

5. It will not encourage rampant Pump & Dump scams.

6. It will not unbalance the markets.

7. It will not cause the markets to suddenly become bullish.

8. It will not help "unworthy comapanies" to survive.

9. It will not prevent a recession.

10. It won't stop people from making bad investments and losing money in the market.



The Bird of Prey

[Bird of Prey]

I am beginning to wonder


about the cognitive abilities of the opposition. The petition is very clear about the objective...a TEMPORARY ban on short selling while the regulations are reviewed and altered to eliminate a loophole being used to undermine the integrity of the market. The public is becoming aware of the flaw in the system and is demanding the authorities do something about it.
the alternative to fixing the system is not pretty. On the one hand the public remains fooled by the rhetoric and our enemies short the markets into oblivion; on the other, the public, realizing that there is no longer a reasonable chance of success for the average Joe...exits the market altogether. Either way the end result is the same. Capitalism is destroyed. The true goal of our real adversaries.
Think about it...Banks are set up to take in money in the form of deposits and loan it out under strict rules. As long as these rules are followed there is no problem. But if a banker decides to operate outside those rules things get ugly in a hurry. In some cases what we have happening here are "rogue bankers" bending the rules to their own benefit. We need better enforcement and tighter restrictions to hinder those activities. But far more dangerous would be a "hacker" that has found a way to circumvent the rules and do as he pleases with our money. From what the shorts themselves are saying this is a much closer analogy to what they do. They have found a way to circumvent the rules and do as they please. They rail against the petition saying that an "end to short selling" would damage the market, trying to deflect from the real issue which is closing the backdoor they use to steal money from hard working Americans. If you read their comments and posts the pattern repeats over and over:

- You guys are stupid.
- You don't know what you are talking about.
- Look at these "other" evils!
- We do more good than anyone else in the market.
- You need us to do what we do or things will be worse.
- If you don't stop your petition we will get you.

In an effort to prove how bad some other market elements are they have offered examples that in reality support our petition. they have shown how organized groups of individuals and big firms abuse the existing system to the detriment of individual shareholders as proof that we are wrong in presenting this petition. Yet, the examples they cite are using the very loopholes we are asking to be closed!
Let me say that Gary and I recognize that legal short selling is a necessary part of a healthy market. We are not focusing on any single part of the market, our petition addresses the market as a whole. The problem is simple, there is a vehicle through which certain unscrupulous characters can circumvent the regulations put in place to protect American investors and their markets. These characters have banded together in a loosely aligned "cadre" to exploit this vehicle for personal gain at the expense of the American people.
And as certainly as a "cadre" of rogue hackers trying to disable our financial communications network, or our defense network must be shut down and closed out, so must this "cadre" of illegal short sellers be shut down and closed out...before they can finish destroying our markets.

The Bird of Prey

[Capt_Nemo]

It hurts doesn't it????? razor.......

[Bird of Prey]

This from "lion" a signer of the petition.

On or before 9/25, Native Nations brokerage sold Genesis short $60 million backed by stock "borrowed" from MJK Clearing - when Genesis (controlled by the Arab arms dealer Kashoggi)halted trading on its stock on 9/25, its useful value to Native Nations for its net capitalization went to zero, putting Native Nations out of business since it could't do the payback to MJK Clearing. Consequently, MJK shut down, taking down all of the brokerage firms they clear for, freezing the assets of 200,000 accounts around the country. Eventually, like the S&L debacle, people will get their money after the government (us taxpayers) step in to fix it. IF NATIVE NATIONS COULD NOT SELL SHORT ON "BORROWED" STOCK THIS WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED- The traders at Native Nations would have cut a fat hog on the deal if Genesis had continued to trade- but SOMEBODY made $60 million while Native Nations/ MJK lost it- This abuse only comes to surface when occasionally something inadvertently or DELIBERATELY goes wrong.


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

I have been aware of this from the beginning but have refrained from mentioning it specifically. I make no comment of the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the prospects for GENI. Only on the mechanics of how shorting worked to create a very bad situation.

Thanks go out to some of the newsletter folks I see joining our petition. I look forward to it's inclusion in your next issue.

Remember folks, this petition runs until the end of October...the only reason we would cut it short would be if we had already reached a large enough signature base to get Washington's attention.

We can make a difference.


The Bird of Prey

[Bird of Prey]

Well Well Well,

It seems the good ole shorts are at least reading over here. Been following their attempts to discredit over on their home board where Gary has chosen to battle them in their own back yard.
So many slings and arrows. We must have really smacked 'em right between the eyes. The number one point they miss is that the petition does not call for an outright permanent ban on Short selling. It specifically calls for a temporary ban until new regulations can be put in place. It then asks for specific weaknesses in the current short regulations to be addressed. Nothing more and nothing less.
This certainly has raised the ire of short sellers. Particularly those that use off-shore accounts to illegally short here in the United States.
Behind the scenes hundreds of people are sending us information on these shorters. Not surprisingly many have serious criminal backgrounds with real ties to organized crime.
That they claim to benefit the market by exposing poor management and outright fraudulent companies is not the issue. The issue is that regardless of the companies "worthiness" they can short the company into bankruptcy.
Let me give you an example of how (and WHY) this works.
First, you must realize that the shorts need only have 20% of the amount the wish to short collateralized. that means that one individual with $20,000 can short $100,000 of a company. For arguments sake let's say the company trades at $20 a share and has 10 million shares outstanding. In the case of an illegal off-shore short, 5000 shares of dilution have been added to the available trading shares. By itself not a lot and not a big impact on the market. But for a moment, let's presume that the reason this person shorted this particular company was because a private website accessible only by the membership has profiled this company and recommends them as a like short candidate. Further this website has 100 members. All of the members have more money to short with than our example (they spend $7200 a year for membership) but I'll use that number as a base. Because they are paying for the pick and because it has been successful for them in the past we will presume that all participate in the short exercise. Now there are 500,000 shares short, 5% of the outstanding shares. Still this may not be enough to seriously impact the price, but...others see this activity and once the original group has established their positions the bashing campaign begins. The number of individuals joining the short bandwagon can skyrocket. For simplicity we will only presume another 900 shorters join in and at half the original amount each...this adds 2,250,000 share to the short interest.
Sidebar: This does not show up as short sales, only as sales. In a month some of this will show up in a short interest report, but since that information is voluntary and certainly not going to include the illegal off-shore brand of short selling, around the 15th of the following month. By then it will be woefully out of date and under reported.
Now we have a 27.5% short interest, Of which most will never show on anyones short interest report. With this amount of shorting the stock price has likely taken a serious hit. As a result some of our intrepid short sellers now have capital freed to increase their position as the margin requirement is lower. Also it is common practice not to dump the whole wad in at once so they have plenty of capital to continue to short the company.
By now bashing is in full swing, quite likely with the aid of major news sources and analysts on board the short bandwagon. Many small investors will begin selling accelerating the decline. The more it declines the greater the power of the short players (does this sound familiar anyone? does toxic death spirals come to mind?). The company issues positive release after positive release. Company is still profitable and unless something strange happens, like market capitalization being seriously undermined, they should be OK. But the selling continues. Though IBD and WSJ may only be reporting 3% or 4% short interest, we already know that number is much higher. One big clue is that IBD will be showing the company is in serious distribution. Only the short sellers know that it has all been orchestrated and the outcome fait accompli from the moment they started. If the management was smart they saw what was coming and tried to stop the bleeding by buying up company shares. But to do so they have to put up 100% of the money needed to buy the shares. Even if they are able to convince the public to join in the fight the public can only margin at 50% (in some cases higher). the shorts have the advantage in that they can create dilution, easily manipulate sentiment and have at least 2.5 times the buying power of longs. Add the completely unregulated off-shore element and the outcome is the same as if one football team were allowed to have 15 players on the field. Eventually, regardless of the soundness of management or the viability of the company, starved of capital it goes out of business, And the shorts claim another victory. The only ones to benefit were the short sellers, who got rich by usurping the property of others and destroying it's value.
No matter how they try and claim otherwise they have an advantage that they don't want taken away...and that is exactly the purpose of this petition. Join us in the fight for a truly level playing field. Stop this unscrupulous element from destroying the value that made this country great.


The Bird of Prey

[Poet]

I think you should check with Matt about this.

[wasrazor]

For your information I agree with Mr. Booth.

You're saying that Matt doesn't allow post from SI on these boards? Is it just SI or are other sites included in the squash of imformation?

[Mattu]

SI Messages
Inbox (0) / Folders Bookmarks
Subjects / People Hot Subjects
Hot / New Subjects Preferences
Options / Profile
Bob - [New]

I don't play the multiple alias game, bob. Go back to SI.

Consider both your accounts terminated.

MB

[Poet]

My understanding is that Matt has made it very clear that what happens on SI stays there, and vice versa. As far as I know, Mr. Booth is not an IHub member and your posting his reply from SI here for BoP to take pot shots at is really inappropriate.

[Bird of Prey]

Now that is what I call a personal attack.


Not one shred of proof that Gary is in error...just the posters opinion. When you consider it is liberally spiced with invective and inflammatory personal comments, the poster and the person reposting this self-aggrandizing effrontery must certainly fall into the camp of those whose greed has undermined their ethics.
For your information, some of your own ranks are spilling the beans concerning the inner workings of a "cartel". That you vehemently oppose anyone seeking to disrupt your meal ticket is clear. It is also clear that you have no real defense, just threats and empty namecalling and rhetoric.
Attack us personally all you want. It only makes us stronger and reveals you for what you really are.

The Bird of Prey

[wasrazor]

SI Messages
Inbox (0) / Folders Bookmarks
Subjects / People Hot Subjects
Hot / New Subjects Preferences
Options / Profile
Bob - [New]



SI: StockTalk: Market Trends and Strategies : Americans 4 "No Own - No Sell"
View Next 10 Messages / Previous / Next


To:Ga Bard who wrote (51)
From: Dan Booth Cohen Monday, Oct 1, 2001 3:45 PM
Respond to of 112

As I said, there are too many lies for me to list. In the interest of promoting the truth, I will go through the first two substanitive paragraphs of your posting and make specific rebuttals to your lies, distortions and mistruths.
You write: "There are short sell cartels where the leaders charge as much as $600 per month for admission to the cartels private website on the internet."

Rebuttal: Perhaps you should check the dictionary definition of 'cartel,' as you apparently do not know its correct meaning. The private website you refer to is a private research and discussion forum. None of the characteristics that define a 'cartel' are applicable to the function or operation of this website.

You write: "There the collusion is taken to the ultimate degree."

Rebuttal: Since the English language is obviously not your mother tongue, I will refrain from correcting the numerous spelling, grammatical and usage errors in your prose. You might try using a spell-check function in future postings as a way of disguising your lack of education in the English language. I think you meant to say something like, "In these websites, the members collude to manipulate the prices of stock securities." In fact, nothing resembling collusion occurs. The members discuss stock trading in exactly the same manner that goes on daily in tens of thousands of other stock forums and discussion groups around the world.

You write: "The leader essentially teaches people how to short-sell, how to set up offshore accounts for naked shorting, avoid reporting to the IRS, etc. "

Rebuttal: Your first accurate statement is that the leader teaches people how to short sell. However, the next accusations regarding instructions on setting up offshore accounts and avoiding reporting the IRS are blatant lies. You are simply dead wrong on these claims.

You write: "Further how to bully and bashing effectively a message board to fully gain control of a due diligence or stop it completely."

Rebuttal: This sentence, as written, makes no sense. Read it aloud and try to figure out what it means. Perhaps you mean that the leader of the website trains members how to impede or stop open discussion on public message boards. If so, this is a lie.

You write: "Next the Short sellers find someone to author a piece that is bias to short selling same as the boiler rooms do.

Rebuttal: Another false statement. The analogy to boiler room operations is clearly inapplicable. Boiler rooms are phone banks established by unscrupulous broker/dealers that try to entice unwitting members of the public to purchase stocks at highly inflated prices. These broker/dealers profit by selling stock from low-cost inventory and collecting ill-gotten commissions from company insiders. There is no meaningful connection between this type of 'boiler room' activity and a publicly posted report that disputes the intrinsic value of a particular security.

You write: "They needs media to get the opinion that short selling is not bad."

Rebuttal: You are just an idiot. What are you talking about?

You write: "They use the figurews available which are incomplete as facts."

Rebuttal: You make no sense. The figures quoted in the reports are such things as Shares Outstanding, Market Capitalization, Revenues, Earnings, Cash-on-Hand, etc. Of course, these figures do not tell the whole story about a company. What figures should be used? The ones not available?

You write: But why would any American write such a bogus bias article.

Rebuttal: Where did you go to High School, pal? If you are an American, your 10th grade English teacher should be stripped of her pension and put back to work mopping the floor in the cafeteria.

You write: Because MONEY is the underlying basis. Taking and stealing American’s money.

Rebuttal: There are trillions of shares of stock traded every week in US markets. The only reason anyone trades is to make money. Of course, MONEY is the underlying basis. It's not 'taking and stealing,' as you so eloquently put it, it's the Stock Market.

Okay, specific enough? That's only two paragraphs. You are a lying horse's ass.

[Georgia Bard]

Equity Movers put it out ... I have not seen it on any other. That is an interesting scenario and observation.

P2bAAAT & DSAS

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

[Bird of Prey]

A must read from Gary's SI board.


http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=16437605


Is offshore favored over the American Investor and market?


Since the SEc went after TMex and other Pump & Dump scenarios where they were front loading pumping and dumping then short selling and stop pumping. The FEDS have not looked at the other side of the coin. What about the short and distort cartels?

There are short sell cartels where the leaders charge as much as $600 per month for admission to the cartels private website on the internet. There the collusion is taken to the ultimate degree. The leader essentially teaches people how to short-sell, how to set up offshore accounts for naked shorting, avoid reporting to the IRS, etc. Further how to bully and bashing effectively a message board to fully gain control of a due diligence or stop it completely.

Next the Short sellers find someone to author a piece that is bias to short selling same as the boiler rooms do. They needs media to get the opinion that short selling is not bad. They use the figurews available which are incomplete as facts. But why would any American write such a bogus bias article. Because MONEY is the underlying basis. Taking and stealing American’s money.

Further if the news is good coming out of the company this tactic of the real media helps to destroy the news from the company. This is not about facts, due diligence ro anything fundamentally. This si about get capitulation and covering then laughing at the stupidity of the American Investor. It is easy get sells ... Impression management and manipulation of the media thus creating a clear path to manipulate the market.

The bottomline is once they have accomplished total destruction of public opinion they buy into the selling covering and then going long in some cases. They shut up about the security and let the longs bring in buyers so at some point they can sell their long position and then short it back down with bashers killing public opinion confidence again.

The organize short selling boiler rooms are vicious.

These cartels will threaten anyone that dares to exposure them with public intimidation to bodily harm. You name it to keep a voice quite and not bring notice to the feds of their activities. Just like the mafia. But are these short selling cartels controlled by the mafia or maybe other forces that would love to see American investors broke and in food lines like the great depression of 1929?

Do these short selling cartels have fed friends by exposing potential scams and thus the feds look the other way? Kind of like ignoring a pick pocket, scam artist and down right murderer because they carry carte blanche with the feds.

Are these leaders of these Cartels ex cons and merely presenting themselves as advocates of the small American investor or are they conning the American Investor to steal from them with every legal loophole or slack regulation in the book? Would this petition shut them down and thus cripple their thievery of the American Investors? However, they tout it is Wall Street that is crooked element and they are just small fish? They tout the numbers which are incomplete as they are just a small part of the market and can't affect it. But you put enough of these cartels in play and the lack of disclosure and both the American Investors, the IRS and our economy will feel the affects of these cartels..

The fact is these short selling cartels leaders, in my opinion, merely siphon out the money from their followers and turns whatever good they may have in them into greed. Just like Tmex did. Does it matter if it is P&D or If it is S&D? The Feds say this is not a team sport and trading collusion is illegal as short selling, but when will the feds look at these cartels? Wonder if the entire cartel disclose their off shore accounts on their IRS 1040 or do they have the accounts hidden under fictitious corporate names and people or numbered accounts?

But another little tidbit is offshore accounts are NOT subject to the new "daytrading" rules. Seems American Investors are being tagged from all sides.

The Bird of Prey

[Bird of Prey]

Where are all the newsletter editors?

Something curious...when the boycott petition was being circulated, the NL's were stumbling over each other trying to help promote it, Some promoters were even setting up websites to help get the petition off the ground. Yet now they are strangely silent...Why?
I'd be interested to hear from some of them. Let me know why you aren't supporting a petition calling for better regulation of short selling. I can only think of one reason for opposing this petition. And if your not supporting it you're opposing it.

The Bird of Prey

[Bird of Prey]

We need more help in getting the word out. If you have accounts at the other message boards share the information about the petition with everyone you can. Also let them know about contacting their Congressman as well. Recently we came across a link that will allow one to email ALL members of Congress with a single click.

http://www.mailblasterdot.com

Do not be shy about letting congress know about the grass roots movement concerning short selling. feel free to send them the article gary and I wrote and the petition URL. If everyone that signed the boycott petition will sign this one and send these emails to congress we might accomplish what the boycott couldn't.

The Bird of Prey

[Bird of Prey]

Actually there is a great deal that can be done to regulate offshore. The simplest method is to disallow trading priviledges to any offshore firm or individual that breaks the rules. Quite frankly it may be time we started telling other countries that if they don't start playing by the rules they will have to leave the playground! Too many countries are dictating how WE can operate...it is time for that to change.

The Bird of Prey

[Joemoney]

I doubt there is anything America can do to regulate offshore shorting. It can exactly be tracked, and America can't go around just telling what other countries should do with their banking system. But I don't think people should be shorting pennies, UNLESS I am the one doing it, lol!

Joe

[Georgia Bard]

Well if the investors that are sick and tired of bashers and shoters would stand up and be counted maybe we could get the same regulation that Hon Knog has in place.

America needs to look seriously at the lack of transparency with hardly any checks & balances that is ripping off Americans left and right ... especially from offshore naked shorting.

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

[Capt_Nemo]

OHHHHHH if only our gumperment would be so brave.....It is needed....
Rick

[Georgia Bard]

Oh I know ... this has hit the shorters and bashers by storm ... the Boycott turned into a real issue about naked shorting.

Only in America are we the Amaerican investors getting tagged by our slack laws and unjust practices.

As far as the short interest figures those numbers are only based on voluntary brokers reporting and does not represent the naked shorting and off shore naked shorting. Any figures about shorting are incomplete and thus false because full disclosure is not required in America.

Seems like propaganda to me.

We need to be like the Hong Kong market.

P2bAAAT & DSAS



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

[Capt_Nemo]

Gary,This one takes the cake, and its name fits it pretty well....Does make you wonder,,,,,The pot is stirred, lets see what spills out.haa

409. Short To Zero

Now I've heard it all...Broderick blaming the shorts for overvaluation in the markets. If you were wise enough to check the short interest figures when the Nasdaq was rolling from 4000-5000, you would have seen record low short interest...yes, there was some short covering, but it pales in comparison to the amount of schmucks that were busy putting their retirement money in stock such as CMGI and CSCO. This petition is a pure and utter joke, showing a complete lack of understanding for how the market works. If you ban short selling, you will see a dramatic liquidity crisis, along with a collapse in the dollar, and add to that a ton of selling as previously hedged positions become unhedged, forcing the an investor that was neutral to either eat the risk or completely liquidate. Halting short selling would do nothing to stop this market slide, as many on this board seem to believe.

[Bird of Prey]

Matt,

we are threatening the "free ride" that many have been using for years to fleece millions from an unsuspecting public. The number of "scams" perpetrated by short & distort manipulators dwarfs the Pump & Dump campaigns. In fact many alleged P&D's are shorting as they sell their legitimate shares to double the profit. The system allows massive unregulated short selling to occur. No one has been focusing attention on these short sell manipulators and they like it that way. The petition raises unwanted scrutiny.
But you are correct...it does take all kinds.


BTW, I love it when they question my integrity...it just shows how desperate they are.

The Bird of Prey

[Georgia Bard]

I think we hit the nail on the head ... Transparency and other issues is not setting well. The list is growing on the short sellers. Also people are watching the email stock news leeters. If the letter is not in support of this petition one has to think ... wait a minute.

Are they shorting into the buying? WOuld thi spetition affect them directly? There is not anything anyone has to do but sign it.

It is amazing.



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

[Mattu]

Gary, Bird:

I have never seen a Petition with such a reaction to it by those trying to intimidate. This is fascinating to watch.

Have you read some of the comments by people who oppose your comments, but signed it, just so their comments would show up on the petition? Kind of funny.

Also, even funnier, is to see people who signed it pumping their stocks within the comments section.

Takes all kinds I guess. <g>

MB

[Bird of Prey]

Since there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding concerning what we hope to achieve with this petition I offer the following links from the Hong Kong exchange. After the short sale induced crash in the late `90's they revised the short sale rules. The links below explain it pretty clearly. Unless you have backed your short position with cash and/or made arrangements to guarantee the shares shorted are not naked the sale is illegal and the trader is subject to fines and/or imprisonment. Please not the the exchange provides the legal mumbo-jumbo as well as a FAQ and a what if scenario to make sure that any investor can understand the situation.

http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/199809/07/0907071.htm

http://www.hkeirc.org/emain/special_g18.html

http://www.hksfc.org.hk/eng/investor/html/stories/hket%20I/s_sale.htm#2q


Also, I would like to note that as expected our opposition seems able only to attack us on a personal level. Opening their arguments with namecalling and rhetoric. We took our time creating the petition so that it would be carefully worded as to allow for no other response from the short selling crowd and have a reasonable chance of being acted upon by the proper authorities. Based on the volume of shorts responding so vigorously...it appears we succeeded. Keep actively spreading news of this petition as our opponents are trying their best to squash it.
At the very least it will help us develop comprehensive list of serious short sellers and the newsletters they issue. Ask yourself, "If a newsletter publisher is actively against this petition...why wouldn't he be shorting into the buys created by the pump in his newsletter?"


The Bird of Prey

[Georgia Bard]

What is the maximum percentage of shares a private investor can buy off the open market of a otc bb company without having to report or file to SEC when selling?

Anyone holding beneficial ownership of more than five percent (5%) of the class of securities is required to file a SCHEDULE 13G Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Is there a maximimum percentage one can buy of and otc bb company before changing ones status. And is it a percentage of the authorized , outstanding or freetrading float?

Nope just the above is all that is referenced. Say one person holds 2.5M of 5M float of 60M Outstanding. They would not have to file because though they own 50% of the float it is only 4.1% ...

Hope this helps but you can verify this easily on say insidertader.com which is now owned by Edgar. Or the rules of 1934.

Gary



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

[xxrayeyes]

I believe it's 4.9% of the O/S. Not absolutely sure, so you might want to verify.

[Lebaneseproud]

OT: Gary or anybody else. Im not sure if i am phrasing this question correctly so bear with me. What is the maximum percentage of shares a private investor can buy off the open market of a otc bb company without having to report or file to SEC when selling? Is there a maximimum percentage one can buy of and otc bb company before changing ones status. And is it a percentage of the authorized , outstanding or freetrading float?
I hope this makes sense. thanks

[Georgia Bard]

And like you mine mind set is just as strong and I strongly agree about your statement: the reason this diabolical WTC plot succeeded was due to the failures in our system and we both know previous Presidential Admins have contributed to the failures within our system.

As far as smart I think they have showed they may not be too smart but they are resourceful. I think also that they would not have hit the WTC in the places they did just accidentially.

The USA finanical markets is where I believe the terrorist are hitting also ... did you know that the cost of shorting the American market is miniscule in comparison to the USA shorting overseas markets.

Heck offshore naked shorts. They do not have to comoply with the uptick rule, make any disclosure what so ever becuase the trade is a sell, and by the time the trade has gone through 5-6 USA broker dealers the trade is laundried.

However, the cost to short overseas for Americans is expensive but naked shorting here is cheap. Take a large and liquid U.S. stock such as ATT may command a fee of about 10-20 basis points of the value, while a foreign equity may cost 300 or more basis points. See what I mean.

Further, offshore countries can impose dividend withholding taxes, since in those countries the shorts may be responsible for the gross dividend instead of the net dividend. Here I do not believe nor can I confirm this is the case.

What is sad is just as the USA security systems are weak so is our markets. Short Selling ashould be looked at for checks & Balances, Full discloure since everything else has to be disclosed, and the owner should be the lender not the broker.

The flaw in the system is the money to short the stock goes to the Broker NOT the shorter nor the rightful owner. It is not right the that the people who put up the money to buy the property being leverage for the short not to be justly compensated. But naked shorting is another situation.

Anyway ... I am glad you made it back safe with tan in tow. Good to hear from you also.






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

[Binder]

Caution should be exercised by all, but I firmly believe that the reason this diabolical WTC plot succeeded was due to the failures in our system, and NOT due to the superior intelligence of Osama bin Laden's group of terrorists. I am simply not willing to give them that much credit.

He (and the Taliban) survives (for now, anyways) by imposing himself on a nation that is too weak to fight him. If I were one of these suicide bombers and had any intelligence at all, the first thing I would be asking myself is that if "paradise" is a guarantee, why isn't Osama bin Laden willing to go on a suicide mission? That in itself tells me that these people simply are not that smart.

They got in because our system(s) failed. Our friend (not) Mr. Clinton depleted our intelligence and technology (that which he didn't hand over to the terrorists on a silver platter) failed. The way to keep terrorism away from US soil is to repair our own faults, revoke all visas (make them reapply), STOP GIVING THESE NON-AMERICAN VISITORS THE SAME RIGHTS AS AMERICANS, and throw their A**es out if we even suspect they post a threat.

I support our President 100% and have the patience of Job when it comes to dealing with these people. Some people think that if we don't start bombing the crap out of Afghanistan NOW that it will only happen again. Well people, here is a news flash...it is going to happen again anyway, until we secure our own country. Bombing Afghanistan will only be bouncing the rocks. I think our president put it best when he said that "we don't need to fire a two million dollar missle into a twenty dollar tent to hit a camel in the butt" There is a lot to be said for keeping Bin Laden on the run...the longer he stays that way, the weaker he will become and the easier he will be to take out.

As always, I have a strong opinion about this, lol.

Tan is fading, and reality came crashing down on me when I came back from a lovely vacation. But I am alive and healthy and certainly thankful to be here. Any problems in my life are miniscule in comparisson to those of our friends in NYC and DC. Keep them in your prayers, and SHOP TILL YOU DROP FOR THE GOOD OF THE NATION!!


Anna

[Georgia Bard]

Tracking the terror paper trail
Only part of a $1.5 trillion money laundering problem

By Emily Church, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 6:19 PM ET Sept. 28, 2001

LONDON (CBS.MW) - America's war on terrorism took to the front lines of the financial industry this week, as President Bush launched a campaign unprecedented in scope to track down and eliminate the sources of funding for global violence.

But while investigators will scour the world - from notorious offshore centers like the Cayman Islands to the secretive private banks of Switzerland - for hidden accounts, it is the global money-center banks such as Citigroup (C: news, chart, profile), J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM: news, chart, profile) and Barclays Plc that represent the long-term key to success, experts said.

Lack of coordination between the global banks and financial regulators has long been blamed for the growing money laundering problem. Between $800 billion and $1.5 trillion in illicit money is flowing around the world at any one time, according to estimates by the Center for International Financial Crimes Studies at the University of Florida.

Now the money center banks, facing pressure from Western governments and the threat that international assets could be frozen, have their biggest opportunity yet to reverse a trend that goes well beyond terrorism or even drugs into all aspects of global crime.

"It's now or never," said Patrick Moulette, executive director of the Financial Action Task Force, formed by the Group of Seven nations in the late 1980s to combat money laundering. "I don't think we should be skeptical about the possible outcome of this fight."

It won't be easy.

Regulators in the U.S. and Europe have been trying to put the squeeze on bad money flows for years. Indeed, some of the 27 individuals and groups listed by Bush on Monday as targets to have their assets frozen had already had them cut off.

Bank secrecy laws and privacy rules set up by the banks to gain customers will have to be overcome. The banks risk losing business, especially in the offshore centers where clients send money exclusively to avoid income taxes.

"There's little more that can be done in places in the Cayman Islands to make things more transparent," said Paul Harris, an accountant and consultant in the Caymans.

Forty-seven of the world's top 50 banks are operating on the Caymans, according to Harris. With 500 banks in total on the islands, the Caymans are the de facto fifth largest banking center in the world.

Harris said the key to success for regulators is how they share and use information from the banks, both in the offshore centers and in the major financial centers of New York and London.

"It's no good making us submit suspicious transactions reports if no one's looking at them," he said.

The banks clearly need to better understand who their customers and international partners are. A report on money laundering sponsored by U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., published in February, found enormous lapses in controls at some of the biggest U.S. banks, particularly in their relationships with international financial institutions.

The establishment of so-called "correspondent accounts" between banks, in which one bank agrees to move funds for another, has left many big banks vulnerable to providing services for suspicious customers who have accounts at banks and financial shell institutions outside of the U.S. See Levin report

Also, the rise of Internet-only banking and stock trading has ushered in new worries for those on the money trail. Plus, authorities speculate that a lot of the money used to sponsor terror avoids the international banking system altogether, and instead passes through long-running, informal immigrant networks in the Middle East.

The FBI estimates that the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington cost less than $200,000, money that could easily be transferred through small bank accounts, brokerage accounts, or even carried through customs without detection.

Experts believe, however, that for President Bush to be successful in combating terrorism, winning the battle of stopping illicit money flows is as important if not more so than military action.

"It doesn't do any good to send in a bunch of kids into a cave and get them killed," said Fletcher Baldwin, director of the University of Florida's financial crimes center.

Bankers on board, for now

Against the array of hurdles, the effort underway to combat money laundering is unprecedented in scale. And the political will that has been amassed since the attacks to target terrorist funding is clearly being felt in the financial sector.

Banks are being asked to probe more deeply for account activity that is linked to the terror groups. Auditors are looking for names of suspected terrorists or their supporters in places they usually don't, such as on faxes and other supporting documents.

"The pressure has been ratcheted up," said Anthony Benezia, a consulting partner in global banking and capital markets for PricewaterhouseCoopers. "Everybody is going the next layer deeper to try to find something,"

The change had been coming even before the attacks, thanks to a handful of recent scandals that revealed astounding amounts of ill-gotten gains passing through the hearts of London and New York. But the events of Sept. 11 made the threats to the banking industry itself more profoundly clear.

"Bankers are patriotic," said Ed Furash, chairman of Treasury Bank in Washington and a long-time observer of industry trends. "Maybe they should have been more patriotic about drugs and the Mafia, but this is mass murder. You could say that drugs also involve murder, but this is in everyone's house."

Securities regulators in the U.S. and the U.K. have also asked brokerages and investment banks to dig through their records for any names on the U.S. list.

Reports that the terrorists behind the Sept. 11 attacks might have benefited financially by short-selling shares of airline and insurance companies triggered a worldwide probe of suspicious equity and equity derivatives trading following the attacks. For the moment though, nothing concrete has been uncovered to link the terrorists or Osama bin Laden's network to the trading.

"We have looked at a huge number of transactions, and have responded to queries from other agencies and so far we have found absolutely nothing, and there's not a huge amount left to look at," said Carol Sergeant, managing director of regulatory processes and risk at the U.K.'s Financial Services Authority.

European Union officials have made it clear that they're focusing on terror funding. As a result, the 29 countries and territories that are members of the Paris-based FATF are discussing whether to extend their mandate to include financial transfers relating to terrorism.

Industry analysts expect that costs for the banks could rise as the campaign heats up, though few expect they will materially impact earnings at the big money centers. Private banks in Switzerland, which could feel the impact, have not seen declines in their share prices as a result, one London banking strategist noted.

"The ramifications for the U.S. banks as a result of the increased effort to curtail money laundering will not be that visual on the surface because most Americans and most stockholders aren't seeing what goes on behind the scenes," said banking analyst Gerard Cassidy at Tucker Anthony Sutro.

"Internally, the banks will find they'll be under the gun to put more resources behind the money laundering problem to analyse transactions that look suspicious," he said.

Foreign bank control

A key component for the U.S. is the threat to foreign banks. The Treasury Department now has the authority to freeze the U.S. assets and transactions of foreign banks that it deems aren't cooperating in the effort to stop the funds to terror groups.

The ramifications of the policy could be far-reaching for some of those banks that have prospered because of their distance from government intrusion. That could potentially come to include places like Switzerland, the Channel Islands off the French coast, and in all probability some of the more suspicious offshore centers. See FATF list of non-cooperative territories and countries.

"At the end of the day, all of these entities have to operate in the real world and with on-shore institutions that are regulated more strictly. The pressure is clearly going to come," said PricewaterhouseCooper's Benezia.

Technology is making it easier for the banks to monitor business too. U.S. banks, for example, already have systems in place to check their account base off guidelines issued by the Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control, which lists known drug dealers and nation-states like Cuba and Iraq. See the full list.

On an international level, the FATF publishes a list each June of 'uncooperative nations' that has had some influence on offshore banking centers.

One reason the U.S. threat carries considerable weight is simply because of the amount of transactions taking place in the world that are done with the dollar. It links banks everywhere to the U.S. financial system, whether they like it or not.

"A bank needs to able to transact business in the U.S., even if it's just in (foreign exchange) transactions or to invest in U.S. securities," said Ellen Zimiles, an expert on money laundering at consultant KPMG.

A result of the U.S. push to track the terrorist funds could be that smaller, foreign banks will be forced out of the international business if they can't make the investments needed in technology to track customer account activity, she said.

The issue has been rising up the policy priority ladder in recent years, not coincidently at the same time that technology advances like the Internet made it easier to move money around.

"The recent response to the problem of terrorist financing is very impressive, but we must bear in mind that this is a long-term issue," said FATF's Moulette. Looking ahead, he said he expects new counter measures will be needed to refine existing penalties and address customer identification problems.

In the end, few expect the international effort now underway to wipe out money laundering altogether, or even stop terrorists from getting their hands on funds. But they do think it will make it harder to launder money, taking a chunk of much needed funding away from terrorists, drug traffickers, or even white-collar criminals. And it should help the banks and authorities work more closely together by exposing the ones that won't cooperate.

"Certainly, it should put a dent in it," said Tucker Anthony's Cassidy. "The companies that have practiced it in the past now run the risk of being exposed and facing the consequences of playing in that market."

Emily Church is London bureau chief of CBS.MarketWatch.com. Washington bureau chief Rex Nutting contributed to this report.



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

[Georgia Bard]

Hi Anna ... That is a cute game but I am worried about what bin Laden has stated about the money funding his activities.

Seems he has 3 independent sources and 100s of 1000 members working his funding source.

But anyway ... you know me. How is the tan?

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

[Binder]

To lighten your mood a little, go to this site. Pretty funny, but don't spill your slurpee...

http://www.fieler.com/terror/

[Georgia Bard]

Well I got my first threat "Cancel or else"

From: Anthony Pacific
To: [e-mail]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 11:03 AM
Subject: Dork, cancel your petition before I embarras you publicly

Your petition is b******, get over your own idiocy, shorts sold you stock at the prices you wanted ,if we didnt provide the added shares you would have paid much more and you would recieve much less when it came time to sell

Wisen up moron

This shows a few things.

1. Even Anthony knows that shorts add shares to the marketthus diluting shreholder value.

2. Even Anthony knows the market is controlled absolutely by the Shorts.

3. Thus thus also proves about disclosure also because it shorts are selling me stock ... Then I am not buying from the rightful owners. Thus I am buying Phantom shares.

4. Also since Anthony feels he has to call me a "Dork" & "Moron" I have to wonder what about that petition is so nerve rattling to him.

5. The threat to cancel or face public humiliation sounds like I must have really hit a bunch of nerves.

I guess that petition is written well-enough to worry the shorts and the bashers. Hey maybe they will unfocus off their lies on companies and be so busy with me the market will go up and catch all these shorters with their shorts down.

But I am going to cancel ... nothing illegal about it at all. Just an opinion to get investors a chance at a level playing field.


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

[Georgia Bard]

Why can't the SEC follow suit for us here in America.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Colombo Stock Exchange took the first positive steps towards introducing short selling to the Colombo market last week. As an initial step, the CSE and the SEC have formed a joint committee to make recommendations for the lending and borrowing of securities to facilitate short selling.
Short selling gained its notorious fame after Malaysian President Mahathir Mohamad "naked short selling" a criminal offence punishable by death to save the Malaysian Stock Exchange from an agonising death caused by speculatvie naked trading.

Short selling is a speculative practice where market players enter into contracts to buy or sell shares at pre-determined prices, without actually holding the shares.

The type of short selling that is likely to be introduced to Colombo is short selling coupled with lending and borrowing. This will enable long term investors to lend the shares to their brokers, who in return will lend the shares to interested parties to short sell. SEC feels that this is a safer method of introducing short selling, rather than permitting naked short selling.

Brokers will enter into contracts with both the lender and the borrower, to ensure the terms and conditions of repayment and time period. Both the lender and the broker will earn a fee from the transaction and the borrower will provide collateral against the borrowed stock. The contract can also include dividends and bonuses to be held in favour of the actual owner of shares.

Notice this is a 3 way negotiation and not the way our system is set up. Why is it American long term investors always penalized?



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

[Georgia Bard]

Naked shorting is common. Market Makers do it every day. It is not just a theory. Nor is it a term made up by paranoid investors, as you imply.
Here are some links for you to learn about it:

NASD Regulation Bars John Fiero, Expels Fiero Brothers, Inc., and Imposes $1 Million Fine For Illegal Short Sales, Market Manipulation and Extortion
http://www.nasdr.com/news/pr2001/ne_section01_003.html

From yesterday's NBC News: Trail of suspicious trades widens ...
Watchdogs probe unusually high volumes of pre-attack trades on hotel, airlines stocks
http://www.msnbc.com/news/634371.asp

Mobsters Like Shorting Naked, Too. . . [from New York Times]: Penny Stock Fraud Is Billion-Dollar Game The following article is based on reporting by David Barboza, Leslie Eaton and Diana B. Henriques and was written by Ms. Eaton.
http://college1.nytimes.com/guests/articles/1999/11/19/515536.xml

Naked Short-Selling "punishable by death" in Malaysia:
http://www.lacnet.org/suntimes/001210/busm.html

Hong Kong is more tolerable of Naked Shorts, they only punish them by 2 years jail time and HK$100,000:
http://www.hkeirc.org/emain/special_g18.html

Maybe the Regulators need to pay more attention.



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

[Georgia Bard]

Reading research reports on Short Selling. Amazing that no one knows how this has change with the internet and the shorts out of control along with posse' of bashers on securities. SO much flase information to get capitulation it is not even funny.

But the short and bashers are riled to say the least. Funny how some rushed to sign the boycott that was a demostration based on the principals for this the petition. But that would have fueled them to drop prices more and drop in price is a benefit to them.

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

[Capt_Nemo]

Thanks Gary,You're on top of things,,,,,,,,

[Georgia Bard]

Yep the clearing houses. GENI did nothing wrong I see. A broker shorted $60M and can not deliver.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/719689.html

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

[Capt_Nemo]

Hey Gary,,,,,Did you here the stuff on Genesis tonight on cnbc about getting a major margin call and haveing to close their doors??? They were lending their clients shares to second party brokers for shorting.I saw it but cant find a news link yet,,,,,,Thanks

[Georgia Bard]

Bird this is scary ...

Holy War Has Funds, Bin Laden Says

.c The Associated Press


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Osama bin Laden, the top suspect in the Sept. 11 terror attacks, says Washington's move to freeze assets of groups linked to his al-Qaida movement will not curtail his activities, a newspaper reported Friday.

The report appeared in the Urdu-language Ummat, which is published in Karachi. The newspaper said it had submitted questions for bin Laden to Taliban officials and had received written replies. Efforts to contact Taliban officials to confirm were unsuccessful.

``Freezing of the assets or accounts of al-Qaida or any other jihad (holy war) organization won't make any difference,' Ummat quoted bin Laden as saying.

``By the grace of God, al-Qaida has got three alternate financial systems, which are separate and independent. This system is run by people who love jihad, and if the whole world - including the United States - tries to remove them, they won't succeed,' he was quoted as saying. ``These people are not a few hundred. They are in the thousands and hundreds of thousands.

President Bush on Monday ordered a freeze on the assets of 27 people and organizations with suspected links to terrorism, including bin Laden and al-Qaida.

In the interview, bin Laden said his vast network of thousands of sympathizers would not be affected by Bush's move because its members include financial experts who know all the loopholes in the global financial system.

Bin Laden - a millionaire Saudi exile living in Afghanistan since 1996 - repeated denials that he had been behind the Sept. 11 attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The Bush administration has demanded the Taliban hand him over to the United States, or else face retribution.

``I want to clarify that my job is to inspire Muslims and to tell them what is in their interests and what is bad, what Islam says and what anti-Islamic forces say,' bin Laden was also quoted as saying. ``Al-Qaida was established for jihad against those infidel countries that are attacking Muslims. Jihad is the sixth most important principle of Islam. Every enemy of Islam is afraid of jihad.'

Bin Laden claimed the Western media were spreading propaganda against him. ``They are saying such absurd things about us that we wonder (whether) they have become the victim of their own propaganda and began to fear it,' he said.

Islam does not permit the killing of innocent women, children or men, even during war, he said. ``I have said this before - that I have no connection with the Sept. 11 attacks in America ... nor any information about it.'

The newspaper has not been a conduit for bin Laden statements in the past.

AP-NY-09-28-01 1622EDT



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

[Georgia Bard]

MArty the agreement you sign takes your rights away absolute.

here is how it works in the regulated margin (only apllicaible in the USA.

Variables:

"A" is the long term shareholder
"B" is the "A" Brokerage
"C" is the short Seller

"A" puts up money collateral whatever and buys a long term position in a security. The security is marginable. "A" places the property in the hands of "B" the broker of choice and signs the agreement thus "B" has absolute rights and powers over "A" property. However, "A" believes "B" is suppose to work in the best interest of "A" as a financial advisor. "B" decides to lends "A" property to "C" a short seller or hewdge fund whatever so "C" sells short the stock into the market thus causing down pressure on the stock price. Once the sale is made, the short sale proceeds do not go to "C" but rather to "B". Now lets say the actual term of the loan is one day to keep it simple, because the loans can be renewed in subsequent days. ANyway, because "B" is effectively using collateral to borrow, which is "A" property, "B" must pay interest to "C". When the loan is closed or covered, "B" repays cash to "C" and "C" returns the shares, "A" property to "B". Although sometimes various terms of this transaction (such as the amount of collateral provided) are negotiated between the two parties, in most cases the interest rate received by "C" is the only important variable.

Bottomline is no matter what happens "A" get nothing. But the entire scenario could not happen if "A" did not own the property.

This is from a research paper done by qualified individuals on short selling ... Thus "A" gets tags.

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

[Georgia Bard]

I do not have any rights at all. None ... zip ... zero... after a year of effort and they even reversed an ACAT for crying out loud after 6 months in 2000.

I agree. ANd pulling certs like MSTR, GENI & PCBM or other cmpanies does not matter any more ... they just float the short and offshore could care less since they are naked anyway.

Theory is nice and reality is something else.

But hey have less restrictions than long term buyers. It does not make sense to me.

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

[Georgia Bard]

Yep and the bashers and shorters are out of control over this. The more it circulates the more screams will come ... But as we can see from everything happening shorts care not for our markets. They care not for the long term investors.

Just short fail to deliver and wait for the collapse and a halt. They win using long term property as collateral.

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

[Georgia Bard]

XX ray the problem is like GENI when a short gets caught the SEC and regulators halt the stock. By halting the stock the shorts win and no bailout is needed like with LTCM ... example:

Stockwalk's sudden capital shortfall occurred because of a transaction with Native Nations Securities of New York City. Native Nations failed to make a $60 million payment to MJK Clearing for a loan of shares of GenesisIntermedia Inc. (nasdaq:GENI), a Van Nuys, Calif., firm in which Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi is a major investor.

Native Nations suspended trading operations last Friday, and it is unclear whether it will make good on the debt to Stockwalk. Trading in Genesis stock was halted Tuesday, and securities regulators have not indicated when they will allow trading in that company to resume.
Source:http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/719689.html
However, long term shareholders property is locked up and thus shareholders and the company are a victims to the shorts ...

But what about LTCM and its 3.6B Bailout by Greenspan... where LTCM was one of the biggest hedge funds in America. Hedge funds are also great borrowers, leveraging some 20 to 40 times their equity capital. The funds borrow against their equity capital, invest in derivatives, use these financial assets as collateral to borrow, and use the further borrowings to further invest. The Times reported that LTCM's equity capital of USD 4 billion enabled it to borrow some USD 1 trillion. LTCM's bets: some USD 200 billion. All figures are best estimates, as hedge funds are not regulated by the Feds.

About the LCTM Bail out http://www.gata.org/getting_the_word_out_there.html

what about Ellington (Ellington Capital Management is the latest American hedge fun to face financial problems, forcing it to liquidate substantial amounts of its mortgaged-backed securities portfolio to meet demands by its lenders for more collateral. The question being asked is: Will the US Federal Reserves (Feds) also sponsor a concerted bail-out action for Ellington, as it sponsored Long Term Capital Management (LTCM)?

Further there are those who defend the long term investors....

There is myriad evidence that our system is in trouble. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan talks about the possibility of collapse all the time. He calls it "systemic risk."

One of the most telling events in recent times was the aborted collapse of a hedge fund called Long Term Capital Management (LTCM). If our high political and monetary officials are to be understood, there was credible testimony that the world’s financial system might have collapsed as a result of the leveraged positions that LTCM took.

Now, let’s step back for a moment. The world "GDP" is on the order of about $15 trillion or more. How is it possible that a firm like LTCM, with a mere $3 billion of invested capital could wreck so much havoc?

The answer lies in the fact that many of the major banks, through their trading departments, were making the same bets as LTCM. Thus, there was the possibility that if LTCM went bust and had to lay off, or sell, its bets at a great discount, the banks would have lost a lot of money on those same bets, too, and their assets would become impaired. That was the chain of events that the Federal Reserve sought to forestall when it gathered up 13 very prominent financial players and "suggested" that they ante up a $3½ billion infusion into LTCM.

By the way, the reason the Fed did not bail out LTCM directly, and the Fed is empowered to do that, is that the Fed can play the bailout card only a few times before people will very strenuously object. So, the Fed is waiting for when the stakes are much higher, as they most certainly will be.

Today, depending upon whom one listens to, there may be as much as $120 trillion in notional derivative bets. Granted, only a very tiny portion of that is really at risk, but even that tiny portion, if lost, would overwhelm the banking system and result in a complete collapse.

Questions for your readers: Is it fair that ordinary taxpayers be the ultimate counterparty to these bets and be forced by law to pay off if the banks lose? What part of our Constitution authorizes this kind of wealth transfer—in Mr. Greenspan’s words, "without limit"?

Other, and even more compelling evidence that there is a problem is that the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has established a Financial Stability Institute. If financial stability were not a big problem, then why is the BIS so concerned?

Source:http://www.fame.org/HTM/JT_LP_I.htm

My question is from all of this does the bailout of hedge funds amount to double standards? DOes shareholders who actually put up their money to buy the property have to lose because a short decides to destroy their investment using their property as collateral?

GRRRR.




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

[marty_lewis]

What happens if you want to use that certificate for a loan, say from a bank or a friend, and they refuse to loan you money unless you have the actual certificate to give as collateral?

Can't you sue the firm for not delivering the certificate, since you can prove actual damages?

As far as the interest, I think it should be where they ask to borrow your stock, you say either okay or no, and if okay, then you negotiate the interest rate. If they don't want to pay what you want, then they shouldn't be allowed to borrow the stock.

But I would prefer that shorting be much more restricted in how it's done, if they won't stop it altogether.

I think short interest on a stock should be tallied and reported every day.

I think there should be no naked shorting at all, criminal and civil penalties applied liberally if it's found to be done.

I think all trades anywhere should be under U.S. rules, if the trades involve U.S. financial instruments.

I think there should be no margin for a short postion at all.

I think shorting should only be allowed once a day in a given stock per person,(make them take the short position out all at once) or if not that, a minimum short position should be required, IOW..no 100 share short sells, minimum of $10,000 worth of stock must be done.

People who short stocks are creating shares and for that privilige they should be required to operate under much, much stricter rules than anyone else, IMO.

[Bird of Prey]

Correct, we did the right thing then and we need to do the right thing now.

The Bird of Prey

[Georgia Bard]

BOP ... In this case we need to repeat History. We are not repeating history if we were we not have this petition and the lending would have stopped already. Because right after the 1929 fall came the limiting of patroit refusal to short selling to portect our markets.

This is what history did &The following evidence is from the Commercial and Financial Chronicle of October 18, 1930, which quotes the Journal of Commerce for October 16, 1930:
No let-up in the efforts of Stock Exchange houses to discourage short selling
rallies through refusing to lend stocks for the purpose was indicated yesterday…word had
been passed on by the exchange authorities that they desired lending operations to be
curtailed in order to discourage excessive short selling...
Brokers said yesterday that they have little objection from the point of view of
loss of revenue to the calling in of their stocks on loan. With the prevailing low rate for
call money, they find that there is but little incentive to lend stocks for the sake of
securing funds in this way...
A number of investment trusts reported yesterday that they had been approached
by brokers who wished to borrow stocks from them at the quoted premiums. In most
cases, it is understood, the investment trusts approached did not give any consideration to
the request, since they felt that their interests were on the side of rising prices and they
would not do anything which would encourage short selling tactics.



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